Tuco

Even if he came back in bounds it would not be illegal touching. The "out of bounds and first player to touch the ball" rule only applies to kicking/punting team players and eligible receivers on forward pass plays.

Straight from the rule book- "The ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the player's foot or other body part touched the ground to establish possession." He isn't touching the ground at the 2. He doesn't touch the ground until he's at the 1. And that's where the ball goes.

Yes, that's exactly what it's a case of. This type of call happens fairly often around the league. We've all seen it before, yet I'm always surprised by how many people always think it should be a touchback. SECTION 5 SAFETY ARTICLE 1. SAFETY. It is a Safety: (a) if the offense commits a foul in its own end zone or; (b) when an impetus by a team sends the ball behind its own goal line, and the ball is dead in the end zone in its possession or the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line. Exceptions: It is not a Safety: (1) If a forward pass from behind the line of scrimmage is incomplete in the end zone. (2) If a defensive player, in the field of play, intercepts a pass or catches or recovers a fumble, backward pass, scrimmage kick, free kick, or fair catch kick, and his original momentum carries him into his end zone where the ball is declared dead in his team's possession. The ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the player's foot or other body part touched the ground to establish possession. (a) If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball commits a foul in the end zone, it is a safety. (b) If a player who intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball throws a completed illegal forward pass from the end zone, the ball remains alive. If his opponent intercepts the illegal pass thrown from the end zone, the ball remains alive. If he scores it is a touchdown. © If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or otherwise recovers the ball commits a foul in the field of play, and the ball becomes dead in the end zone, the basic spot is the spot of the change of possession. (d) If the spot where possession changed is inside the one-yard line, the ball is to be spotted at the one-yard line. Notes: (1) A ball in the end zone which is carried toward the field of play is still in the end zone until the entire ball is in the field of play (3-12-4). (2) The impetus is always attributed to the offense, unless the defense creates a new force that sends the ball behinds its own goal line by muffing a ball which is at rest or nearly t rest, or by batting or kicking any loose ball (3-17).

Because the rule says if you gain possession of the ball outside the end zone and your momentum takes you into the end zone, if you don't run it out you get the ball where you gained possession. SECTION 5 SAFETY ARTICLE 1. SAFETY. It is a Safety: (a) if the offense commits a foul in its own endzone or; (b) when an impetus by a team sends the ball behind its own goal line, and the ball is dead in the endzone in its possession or the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line. Exceptions: It is not a Safety: (1) If a forward pass frombehind the line of scrimmage is incomplete in the end zone. (2) If a defensive player, in the field of play, intercepts a pass or catches or recovers a fumble, backward pass, scrimmage kick, free kick, or fair catch kick, and his original momentum carries him into his end zone where the ball is declared dead in his team's possession. The ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the player's foot or other body part touched the ground to establish possession. (a) If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball commits a foul in the end zone, it is a safety. (b) If a player who intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball throws a completed illegal forward pass from the end zone, the ball remains alive. If his opponent intercepts the illegal pass thrown from the end zone, the ball remains alive. If he scores it is a touchdown. © If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or otherwise recovers the ball commits a foul in the field of play, and the ball becomes dead in the end zone, the basic spot is the spot of the change of possession. (d) If the spot where possession changed is inside the one-yard line, the ball is to be spotted at the one-yard line. Notes: (1) A ball in the end zone which is carried toward the field of play is still in the end zone until the entire ball is in the field of play (3-12-4). (2) The impetus is always attributed to the offense, unless the defense creates a new force that sends the ball behinds its own goal line by muffing a ball which is at rest or nearly t rest, or by batting or kicking any loose ball (3-17).

Maybe he's just about to flunk another test and everybody in the league knows it.

There's another silver lining. We will gain about $2.5 mil in cap space, for whatever that's worth.

No, actually he always hated the practice. http://www.citylab.com/politics/2016/06/the-ugly-fight-behind-one-of-footballs-first-stadium-naming-rights-deals/482556/

Keep cutting your own throat, eventually you'll run out of blood. -- Fred Smerlas

Wow--where to start? Yes, I said Brady broke a game day rule. Get this. There is a specific section in the game day rule book that prescribes the correct inflation of an NFL football. Breaking this rule, because it's an actual game day rule, led Mr Vincent to write in his letter to Tom Brady, -- "Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football." -- Conversely, while there are rules in the game day rule book regarding cheap shots and intentional injuries (along with prescribed penalties), there are no rules in the actual game day rule book regarding bounties, or beating your wife or your girlfriend. Therefore, there is a different standard of discipline allowed by the CBA for breaking actual game day rules compared to breaking other rules. And doing so falls under the bolded sentence above. That bolded part is important. It only appears once in the CBA - Article 46, Section 1(a) -- we'll simply refer to it as "section 1(a)" henceforth. It's the paragraph that deals with cheating during a game. This is the one section in the CBA that gives Goodell extra authority when it comes to "integrity and public confidence in the game." The reason it's important is because further down, in Section 2(a) it also says, "the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in any appeal under Section 1(a) of this Article at his discretion." -- I freely admit, any other discipline, except for this one specific paragraph, gives the player the right to an arbitrator selected by mutual agreement. This part of the CBA gives Goodell the right. I know you've said we're not arguing that, but it goes further than that. Section 2(a) specifically says when a player is charged under section 1(a) the commissioner also has the right to hear the appeal. And whether you agree with it or not, the appeals court ruled that even if he does a lousy job of it, he still has the authority to do so. Anyway, you say it's only a fine for a football (and judge Berman agreed) and that's the basis for his appeal. Got it, thanks. Actually the NFLPA changed their stance on that halfway through the process. An item the appeals court found interesting. They also ruled on it anyway - "We conclude that the equipment provision does not apply and, in any event, the punishments listed for equipment violations are minimum ones that do not foreclose suspensions. . . . . . Article 46 gives the Commissioner broad authority to deal with conduct he believes might undermine the integrity of the game. The Commissioner properly understood that a series of rules relating to uniforms and equipment does not repeal his authority vested in him by the Association to protect professional football from detrimental conduct. We have little difficulty in concluding that the Commissioner’s decision to discipline Brady pursuant to Article 46 was “plausibly grounded in the parties’ agreement,” -- You and Judge Berman saying so doesn't make it a fact, as the Appeals court judges pointed out. That's the real truth you haven't yet stumble on. The Saints Hargrove and Smith were charged under section 1(a). Quite correct. This gave Goodell the authority to hear their appeal if he chose to. In his letter he did offer to hear appeals where the players could bring up new evidence. However, Scott Fujita was charged with "conduct detrimental to the league." This does not fall under section 1(a) and therefore Goodell did not have the authority to be the arbitrator. Likewise, the letter charging Jonathan Vilma simply stated "conduct detrimental." This of course, since the exact wording is missing, also does not fall under section 1(a). Since we had 2 out of 4 players who's charges did not fall under section 1(a) and therefore allowed to have an independent arbitrator, Goodell decided to allow all 4 players the independent arbitrator. He has that choice. The arbitrator disagreed with him. So be it. Now to your Greg Hardy paragraph. Yes, Hardy's suspension was reduced by an impartial arbitrator. He was given an impartial arbitrator because the CBA says he was allowed one. Why? Because, Greg Hardy was not charged under section 1(a). He was charged under the personal conduct policy and charged with conduct detrimental to the league (remember, that's different, and not covered under section 1(a)). Ray Rice was also allowed an independent arbitrator because he was also not charged under section 1(a). The arbitrator disagreed. So be it. And I'm not saying players aren't entitled to an impartial arbitrator. Clearly they are. Except for players like Brady when charged under section 1(a), who clearly are not. Should he be? Sure. But he's not. And the finding of the appeals court clearly says he's not because the NFLPA bargained that right away. And as for my really bizarre claim that " it doesn't matter if that is considered right, wrong or if the commissioner made mistakes or even if the commissioner wasn't impartial." Again, we're not talking about Ray Rice or any of the other players who's suspensions were reduced by independent arbitrators assigned to them by their rights under the CBA. We're talking about Tom Brady, who doesn't have that right under the same CBA. And it's not really my claim. It's a paraphrasing of the appeals court decision where they say, among other things- --These standards do not require perfection in arbitration awards. Rather, they dictate that even if an arbitrator makes mistakes of fact or law, we may not disturb an award so long as he acted within the bounds of his bargained‐for authority. Here, that authority was especially broad. The Commissioner was authorized to impose discipline for, among other things, “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence, in the game of professional football.” In their collective bargaining agreement, the players and the League mutually decided many years ago that the Commissioner should investigate possible rule violations, should impose appropriate sanctions, and may preside at arbitrations challenging his discipline. Although this tripartite regime may appear somewhat unorthodox, it is the regime bargained for and agreed upon by the parties, which we can only presume they determined was mutually satisfactory. --We are therefore not authorized to review the arbitrator’s decision on the merits despite allegations that the decision rests on factual errors or misinterprets the parties’ agreement, but inquire only as to whether the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority as defined by the collective bargaining agreement. I won't argue that if Mr. Brady was allowed an independent arbitrator he may very well have received a different level of discipline. My initial response was to your response claiming that under the CBA players have the right to an impartial arbitrator. That's true in most cases. But it's not true in the case of Tom Brady. He is not, by virtue of the CBA and held up by the court, entitled to an independent arbitrator since the commissioner's discipline falls under section 1(a) and the hearing under section 2(a). Nor is he allowed any recourse if he feels the commissioner was unfair or just plain wrong. All other players disciplined under different provisions are. You can argue until the cows come home that that's not how it should be, and many people would agree with you. But because the players gave up that right, that's how it is.

There is still a difference. While there are playing rules regarding intentionally injuring players, there are no rules stated in the rule book about bounties. That means technically, the bounties themselves, while wrong, were not, by themselves, breaking the specific rules of the game. Yes it's breaking rules of behavior and conduct. But the bounty, by itself, does not break a game day playing rule. We all know it's wrong but the technical distinction makes it different in the eyes of the CBA. That distinction is why the Saints were given an outside arbitrator and Brady was not. And I do know what the appeals were about. I was pointing out to you, and your comment about the player being entitled to an appeal by an impartial arbitrator, that there is a difference in those cases. And that difference is clearly stated in the CBA. I was further pointing out, as did the court, that in the case of breaking actual game day playing rules, the player is not entitled to an impartial arbitrator. He's entitled to an appeal to the very same commissioner who disciplined him the first time. And, as the court also pointed out, it doesn't matter if that is considered right, wrong or if the commissioner made mistakes or even if the commissioner wasn't impartial, because that power given to him via the CBA is very broad - and agreed to by the NFLPA. Therefore, no, when it comes to breaking the rules that are defined in the Playing Rules of The National Football League (different from bounties, not in any moral sense but legally), players do not have that right. They bargained it away. And that's exactly what the court decision says.

What the Saints did went against player safety and was immoral. But it was not cheating. What Favre did was reprehensible, but it was not cheating. Both of these act are considered detrimental to integrity of the league. Brady cheated. His act was one of conspiracy to undermine the rules of the game in order to gain an advantage in the game. His act was determined to be detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football. The CBA clearly states that in matters of discipline regarding integrity of, or confidence in, the game of professional football, the commissioner may serve as the hearing officer in any appeal under said section at his discretion. The NFLPA agreed to it, and the court has ruled it as valid.

Championship Game, 1988 season against the Bengals. Bruce Smith grabbed Boomer Esiason by the front of his jersey and yanked him down so hard the ref imagined Bruce grabbed him by the face mask. Fifteen yards kept the drive alive in a game we could have won. And of course the "just give it to them" game.

Went to my first game at Rich in 1973. Lots of tailgating. I also remember the Knox years and $8 end zone seats too. There was plenty of tailgating going on.

Is Ricky Williams there on the beach with him? That would explain a lot. Oh well, maybe he's invested well and doesn't need to play football. Good for him if that's what he wants.

Thanks for the laugh!

I wouldn't be so sure. The issue has always been hugely important to the league, and they will press vary hard to keep commissioner authority just like they always have. That means it's up to the players to push back. And while the Brady's of the league will be upset, the fact is the NFLPA is made up of about 1,800 players. About 900 of those players make a little over $500,000 per year, and many of those know they may only play a couple years at most, quite possibly even less. When push comes to shove, the union will complain about the commissioner authority just like they always do. They may even talk it up right to the bitter end. But in the end the majority of the players (by far) who don't have a problem with the commissioner's authority every year will far outnumber the very few players who do. Threatening a work stoppage or getting locked out (missing games) is not something the majority of fringe, lucky to be in the league for a short time players, is interested in doing just to protect the Tom Brady's of the world. Winning this battle in court would be great for the NFLPA. Losing it will make it even harder for them to convince the league or the majority of their own members to fight tooth and nail. Not when there's over $5 billion to be shared among them if they play nice.

If we look at it as just the average, his $21 mil deal averaged 3.5 mil per year. During that contract was the first salary cap of $34.6 mil. So (on average) JK's salary was $10.1% of the salary cap. So if he played this year and was in the middle if his contract and he took up 10.1% of the cap, his salary (average, of course) would be $15.68 mil. Or put another way, he would have signed a 6 year, $94 million dollar contract in around 2012 - roughly.

So the contract looks like this- * ---- Base salaries in 2016 and 2017 Fully guaranteed along with $16M signing bonus ** --- $8M of 2018 base salary guaranteed against injury but not for skill 2016 ----- $3M(BS*) + 3.2M(SB) = $6.2M Cap Hit 2017 ----- $9M(BS*) + 3.2M(SB) + 2M(RB) = $14.2M Cap Hit -- Dead Cap If Cut = $21.8M / If Traded = $12.8M 2018 - $9.25M(BS**) + 3.2M(SB) + 2M(RB) = $14.45M Cap Hit -- Dead Cap If Cut/Traded = $9.6M 2019 - $7.25M(BS) + 3.2M(SB) + 2M(RB) = $12.45M Cap Hit -- Dead Cap If Cut/Traded = $6.4M 2020 --- $7.5M(BS) + 3.2M(SB) + 2M(RB) = $12.7M Cap Hit -- Dead Cap If Cut/Traded = $3.2M Additional $5M available in incentives/performance bonuses.

Doesn't mean much. Players have been known to unretire. Which is fine. We're all worried he'll only play 5-6 games so let's just wait until week 9 and sign him then. It's all good.

Sure but just like in 2013 when there was $800 million in loans, add the $200 mil from Buffalo to the $200 mil for Los Angeles (which will be $400 million if they put 2 teams there, even if they use the same stadium) plus whatever other improvements teams make and maybe another stadium or two, and you're looking at another $800 mil or so. That's over $10 mil per team that they have a choice of giving it to the players and it's gone or loaning it out for stadiums that increase revenue and they get their money back eventually. As I said, there's only so many stadiums to be built and the time limit for this program is getting short fast. There's 5 years left and it's not happening this year so there's really 4 at the most. Yes the program could extend to the next CBA but these big businessmen would rather deal with the sure thing here and now. I believe that's the real reason some owners want a new stadium soon. But that's just me.

Isn't the real benefit to the other owners in the G4 program? Unless I'm mistaken, G4 money is "loaned" by the league to teams building or improving stadiums via matching the team contribution up to $200 million as long as the project also has public money included. This money is then "repaid" through certain ticket revenue the team is obligated to share with the league anyway. That money is then deducted, by agreement with the NFLPA in the CBA, from the "all revenue" figure used to compute the salary cap each year. If my figures are correct, in 2013 there were almost $800 million in G4 loans given to different teams for stadiums. After deducting that from "all revenue," that makes almost $400 million the league was not required to pay in the form of player salaries (over $10 million per team) in that season alone. Even if this money is given interest free and not recouped for 10-15 years, and even if it counts as "all revenue" in those subsequent years, from a business stand point, isn't that better than just paying it out as salary in one season where it's gone forever? And since there are a limited number of stadiums that can be built in a certain span, and since the whole program is tied to the CBA which only runs for 5 more years, isn't the real reason the other owners want the Bills to build a new stadium fairly soon more about them wanting the Bills to "take their turn" in taking advantage of this program before the opportunity possibly runs out, with the added income of a new stadium being a secondary asset?

Oldie but a goodie.

They can discuss all the details they want now but still only with the agent. New this year. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/03/06/league-softens-its-stance-on-the-legal-tampering-period/

You're saying Richie Incognito can't walk into OBD on Monday and sign a contract for 2016 and beyond? That he has to wait until Wednesday? That's totally wrong. He can't sign a contract that has anything to do with adding or adjusting his 2015 contract. Once the season is over the league adjusts all contracts for incentives, etc. And once it's finalized and teams declare they're rolling it over then they can't do anything that would change the 2015 cap. I get all that. Any new contract obviously won't go into effect until March 9th since it will be a 2016 contract. But he most certainly does not have to wait until Wednesday to sign a new contract with the Bills. That date is only for players signing with a new club. Richie Incognito is a member of the Buffalo Bills until 4:00 PM March 9th and can sign a new contract extension any time. A few examples from last year when the first day of the year was March 10th- http://www.jaguars.com/news/article-JaguarsNews/%E2%80%9915-free-agency-Alualu-re-signs/bdfa56c2-29b2-4705-a5da-39c8209d2605 Defensive end Tyson Alualu, a fifth-year veteran who never has missed a game in five NFL seasons, re-signed with the Jaguars Sunday, a move that came two days before the start of the 2015 NFL league year Tuesday afternoon at 4 p.m. Alualu would have become an unrestricted free agent at that time, but finalized the terms of the contract and signed it Sunday morning. Reports were that the deal is for two years. http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2015/03/detroit_lions_sign_k_matt_prat.html Detroit announced Friday (March 6) it has signed Prater, a pending free agent, to a three-year contract. The deal is worth $9 million, according to NFL Network. He is the fourth pending free agent to re-up with Detroit, following quarterback Dan Orlovsky, defensive end Darryl Tapp and long-snapper Don Muhlbach. Teams can begin negotiating with the rest of Detroit's free agents Saturday, and begin signing them at 4 p.m. Tuesday. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/blogs/2015/03/08/report-bengals-re-sign-mike-nugent/24626477/ (Article dated March 9th) On a wild day of action across the NFL on Sunday, the Bengals quietly kept putting away their own players. Cincinnati re-signed kicker Mike Nugent to a two-year contract, first reported by NFL Network. The agreement keeps Nugent from hitting the free agent market when the new league year starts on Tuesday. http://www.hogshaven.com/2015/3/6/8161915/redskins-re-sign-te-niles-paul-to-a-3-year-deal (Also dated March 6) Multiple sources are reporting that the Washington Redskins have re-signed TE Niles Paul to a 3 year deal that can earn him almost $10 million. Paul was going to be a free agent next week, and was expected to get some interest from multiple teams. The list goes on and on. Again, I'm not saying they can do any kind of deal that gives Incognito a signing bonus or any money before March 9th. But nothing is stopping him from signing a new contract with the Bills before then.