syhuang
-
Posts
1,257 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by syhuang
-
-
20 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
yeah anyone can file a suit. At least the Jets guy is claiming damages. The suit will get tossed.
no one can claim Ross’s bribe altered any games so there really wouldn’t be a basis for a suit.
I never disagreed that if Flores claims are true, Ross is exposed to criminal charges. Not sure why you keep repeating that.
So we do agree on the criminal charge lawsuit part and, for whether all civil lawsuit will be 100% tossed out, we will agree to disagree.
-
3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
I'm only asking because you didn't answer the simple question--who will sue and what will thy sue for? What would be a claim or damages?
I answered you that there are people making strange lawsuit for whatever reasons they can find, either they have too much time or they try to make a name of themselves. For example, the 6 billion lawsuit against Jets and Giants for using "New York" or a 5 million lawsuit again NFL from a Saints season ticker holder for “expecting the Saints would be capable of competitively fielding a contending team comprised of the finest athletes, and the best coaches, under contract...or available to them through normal trades and draft choices, without dictatorial, unreasonable, vindictive, and unfounded, interference.”
Someone can easily do similar things to file a lawsuit against Ross like claiming something like the above Saints fan lawsuit or claiming suspicious betting line, etc. I already say this kind of lawsuit has low chance but I wouldn't go ahead to say all of this kind of lawsuits will be 100% dismissed. Hey, there is no 100% guarantee in court even if you're the best of the best.
Anyway, it's good that we finally agree on the criminal charge lawsuit part and for whether all civil lawsuit will be 100% tossed out, we will agree to disagree.
-
1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:
Who would be the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit and what will be their claim?
We already went through this and we're in a loop now. In the end, you said Ross has better lawyers and will get any civil lawsuit dismissed. While I agree the chance of civil lawsuit is low, I wouldn't claim 100% any lawsuit will be tossed out.
No need to repeat the whole thing again, you can go through the posts yesterday. Anyway, glad we agree on the criminal charge lawsuit part and agree to disagree on whether all civil lawsuit will be 100% tossed out.
-
46 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
this discussion wasn't about criminal jeopardy. Poster Rew brought up a civil lawsuit. I said it was baseless--especially because there was no impact on the outcomes of games (his argument). You went off on his tangent.
Okay, but glad we agree on the criminal charge lawsuit part and agree to disagree on whether all civil lawsuit will be 100% tossed out.
-
9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
the other poster brought up a lawsuit, which is a civil legal action.
Glad we iron out the part that there is a ground for a (criminal case) lawsuit against Ross and that's probably the only way to find out the detail of the supposed bribery.
-
1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:
No, there is no grounds for a lawsuit. a plaintiff would have to state a claim. What claim would they make? Ross bribed Flores to tank...but there was no actual bribe and no tank? What damage would a plaintiff claim. What relief would they be seeking?
Filing a lawsuit is just that. Ross would have much better lawyers than Joe Blow plaintiff and would get this dismissed on these grounds.
A criminal charge is still a lawsuit. Basically a criminal case is a lawsuit brought by the state, usually filed by the district attorney, which represents the state.
This is getting into semantics territory. It looks like when you say "lawsuit", you only refer to "civil lawsuit" and exclude criminal charge. Let's just agree there is definitely a ground for criminal charge. We can then agree to disagree whether a criminal charge is a lawsuit.
As for whether civil lawsuits get a chance, I'd say the chance is low, but can't definitely say there is 0 chance. Again, let's just agree to disagree on that.
The point still remains, that there is a ground for a (criminal case) lawsuit against Ross and that's probably the only way to find out the detail of the supposed bribery.
-
49 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
. By “public case” do mean as in The People vs Ross—a criminal case?
if not, and you are talking about a law suit, who is the plaintiff? What damage would they claim?
A criminal case is definitely more likely if that happens. On the other hand, anyone with too much money and/or time can bring up a lawsuit against Ross by whatever reason he can think of like claiming loss from betting lines/odds. These days people can sue others by any kind of reasons if they like. It may not stand after all but doesn't stop those ridiculous suits.
But anyway, the point is that there is a ground for a lawsuit against Ross (and yes, a criminal case is more likely) and that's probably the only way to find out the detail of the supposed bribery.
-
4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:
Since it would be impossible for something that never happened ("games thrown") to impact the outcome of any game, there are no damages. Who would be the plaintiff is such a suit? The "public", which suffered no harm or losses in such an alleged scheme? Your explanation doesn't make sense.
Maybe as a criminal matter (if allegations are true).
Yes, public against Ross is a possiblity. Again, it doesn't need any game outcome was actually affected or any one actually suffered any loss as long as Ross indeed attempted it. Read the following again especially the "attempt" keyword highlighted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
§224. Bribery in sporting contests
(a) Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) This section shall not be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which this section operates to the exclusion of a law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, and no law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, which would be valid in the absence of the section shall be declared invalid, and no local authorities shall be deprived of any jurisdiction over any offense over which they would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(c) As used in this section-
(1) The term "scheme in commerce" means any scheme effectuated in whole or in part through the use in interstate or foreign commerce of any facility for transportation or communication;
(2) The term "sporting contest" means any contest in any sport, between individual contestants or teams of contestants (without regard to the amateur or professional status of the contestants therein), the occurrence of which is publicly announced before its occurrence;
(3) The term "person" means any individual and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:
Ok but none of that answers my question to the poster…The post you questioned says "could come from a public suit that hasn't yet been filed regarding the NFL/Ross's ties to gambling and impacting game outcomes."
You questioned game outcomes aren't impacted since Flores turned down alleged bonuses.
I then replied to you to mention that a public suit doesn't need any game outcome being actually impacted as long as Ross indeed "attempted" to do so.
-
13 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
How would Flores turning down alleged bonuses to "tank" affect any game outcomes?
It doesn't matter whether any game outcome is indeed affected. As long as Ross does "attempt" to do so, he is in trouble.
CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PART I-CRIMES, CHAPTER 11-BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
§224. Bribery in sporting contests
(a) Whoever carries into effect, attempts to carry into effect, or conspires with any other person to carry into effect any scheme in commerce to influence, in any way, by bribery any sporting contest, with knowledge that the purpose of such scheme is to influence by bribery that contest, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) This section shall not be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which this section operates to the exclusion of a law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, and no law of any State, territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the United States, which would be valid in the absence of the section shall be declared invalid, and no local authorities shall be deprived of any jurisdiction over any offense over which they would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(c) As used in this section-
(1) The term "scheme in commerce" means any scheme effectuated in whole or in part through the use in interstate or foreign commerce of any facility for transportation or communication;
(2) The term "sporting contest" means any contest in any sport, between individual contestants or teams of contestants (without regard to the amateur or professional status of the contestants therein), the occurrence of which is publicly announced before its occurrence;
(3) The term "person" means any individual and any partnership, corporation, association, or other entity.
-
-
-
-
1 hour ago, Reed83HOF said:
Does "may be able to back up allegations" depend on how much Ross is willing to pay? 😎
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:
Again........this wasn't the interaction I saw.
McDermott then proceeds to not even watch the punt..........he certainly looked distracted.
I haven't watched the 4th yet..........did Beasley return to action?
I remember he continued to play into 4th quarter, but I could remember it wrong.
Do you mean this is not the play when you saw the incident? If so, do you remember which play or quarter when the interaction happened?
Or do you just mean the broadcast didn't catch the interaction you saw? If so, what I was trying to say is that whatever happened seems to only last few seconds and ended quickly.
-
25 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:
I was livid about that play too. Why throw a 5 yard pass to a guy that’s blanketed when you need so much more? Allen had me baffled at that choice.The throw was to Davis but the defender batted the ball down and makes it looks like it's a short throw to Beasley. It's not a good throw but Allen was trying to throw to Davis for the 1st down.
30 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:That's like 10 seconds or so later. The part that I saw myself happened about 5-6 seconds into the play clock.........this is after........nearly 20 seconds after the play was over. At this point I am watching the punt praying for no f*ckup. I hadn't seen this part until I re-watched it on TV. The first time McDermott didn't acknowledge him.
I'm not saying this is a big deal............they know Beasley is a pain in the ass at this point. He made some good plays in the game. I don't know what happened on that last play but he was ripsh!t at McDermott when he first headed off the field.
It seems like whatever happened, it happened quickly and ended quickly. The following is the whole play in the broadcast.
Beasley was still in the middle of the field at 16th second mark of this video, play clock was at 34 seconds then. When the camera had Allen walking to sideline, McD was in the background at 24th second mark and didn't seem to argue with anyone. The next time we see the sideline is at 32nd second mark as in the first video. Thus, it seems like whatever happened only lasted several seconds and ended quickly.
-
1
-
5
-
-
9 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:
I didn't think I saw it. I did see it. I was just curious if it had been discussed.
Beasley came off the field furious, yelled and and pointed at McDermott and and was grabbed by the shoulder and I assumed that was it. At that point I looked up for the punt. But then on the video feed I now see just prior to the punt (20 seconds after the incomplete pass in his direction) he must have looped back around to get another word in at which point McDermott actually said something back........then Micah Hyde escorted him back to the bench.
Is this what you refer to? If so, I'm not surprising no media makes a big deal out of it.
-
4
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, CorkScrewHill said:
In fairness .. if people had stayed on point, "did anyone else see this" .. there would have been no issue .. yes or no.
not sure. People did ask whether anyone else saw it, other posters in the game said not seeing that, and then a mod said replying not seeing it brings absolutely nothing to the discussion.
-
2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:
Regardless of the exact play, the scenario is still feasible.
It's definitely feasible but doesn't fit OP's description of the play. Thus, it'd be great he can clarify it. Maybe he remember some details wrong?
If so, does he remember any other detail wrong as well?
-
7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:
You doubt that Beasley came off the field frustrated after a 3rd and 10 play that went for 5 yards and saw him take a hard shot?
I think some posters dont understand how often "heated" exchanges happen on NFL sidelines during games. Guys pop off in the heat of the moment, and move on.
Maybe it wasnt directed at McD, which even the OP has said could have been the case. I just dont get why people find it so hard to believe. Especially with someone like Bease who wears his emotions on his sleeve.
That's not the play OP described though. The play he described is in the end of this post while the only 3rd down imcompletion (he said it's an imcompletion in his first post) to Beasley is 3rd&4 at BUF 22.
3rd & 4 at BUF 22
(5:42 - 3rd) (Shotgun) J.Allen pass incomplete short middle to C.Beasley.
The only other failed 3rd down conversion related to Beasley is a 3rd&10 play below, this is probably the one you refer to. However, it's not well into Jets territory as OP described and it's not a pass to center of the field. Thus, it'd be great OP can clarify if he remembers some details wrong. If so, any other detail he remembers wrong as well.
3rd & 10 at BUF 34
(3:40 - 2nd) (Shotgun) J.Allen pass short left to C.Beasley to BUF 34 for 9 yards (J.Pinnock). FUMBLES (J.Pinnock), ball out of bounds at BUF 34. Ball placed at point of fumble.
2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:I'll have to re-watch it and isolate the play but it was a failed 3rd down pass in the center of the field, going into the wind, and well into Jets territory. The near event on the sideline probably happened around the 35 yard line.
-
2 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:
Why are people upset at this thread?
not upset, at least for me. Due to the play OP described doesn't seem to match any in play-by-play, want to ask for OP's clarification like here before forming my own opinion.
-
4 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:
LOL we've got the Russian bot (who only shows up in the football side of the forum when certain trigger topics are mentioned) vs. the well-respected football poster.
In the meantime, the well-respected football poster described a play doesn't seem to match any in play-by-play. Thus, asking for his clarification.
The play he described is following while the only 3rd down imcompletion to Beasley was at Bills' 22. Maybe the well-respected football poster remember some of the details wrong? It's not a 3rd down? It's not to Beasley? It's not well into Jets territory? If the well-respected football poster remembers some details wrong, is there any other detail he remembers wrong as well?
Hey, I admit I don't like Beasley's act on his distraction from his vaccine/twitter drama and don't mind he not returning next season, but it doesn't mean I'd jump into something like this before getting more info about it. Maybe it's too much to ask in the internet era, but this is how I prefer to react regarding something like this.
1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:I'll have to re-watch it and isolate the play but it was a failed 3rd down pass in the center of the field, going into the wind, and well into Jets territory. The near event on the sideline probably happened around the 35 yard line.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:
I'll have to re-watch it and isolate the play but it was a failed 3rd down pass in the center of the field, going into the wind, and well into Jets territory. The near event on the sideline probably happened around the 35 yard line.
Do you get a chance to figure out which play and which quarter it is? Since the only 3rd down imcompletion to Beasley in play-by-play is at Bills' 22, it's confusing which play you refer to.
-
Just now, BADOLBILZ said:
I'll have to re-watch it and isolate the play but it was a failed 3rd down pass in the center of the field, going into the wind, and well into Jets territory. The near event on the sideline probably happened around the 35 yard line.
The only 3rd down imcompletion to Beasley in play-by-play is at Bills' 22. Maybe play-by-play is wrong. If you find out which play it is, please post here and I'll try to see if broadcast shows it.
The Price Of Keeping Dawson Knox
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Do you know who also wasn't one of them? Mark Andrews and Travis Kelce.
Or we can manipulate stats further, how many of these TEs over 70% catch/target with more than 20 catches also have higher yard per catch than Know? only 2, Kittle and Goedert.
The point? stats are easy to manipulate to make the point people want to make.