TSOL Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 How would that be! Federal Judge rules it has to be four PLAYOFF game!! In yo face Tommy Boy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 2 games. The judge will rule that the NFL can not penalize Brady for "noncooperation" without prior warning taht this in and of itself was a suspendible offence. Tags did essentially the same thing when he vacated Hargroves entire 8 game suspension for lying/being uncooperative to the Commsioner during an investigation of Bountygate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 2 games. The judge will rule that the NFL can not penalize Brady for "noncooperation" without prior warning taht this in and of itself was a suspendible offence. Tags did essentially the same thing when he vacated Hargroves entire 8 game suspension for lying/being uncooperative to the Commsioner during an investigation of Bountygate. Not close to the same thing or why he vacated it. Here's an excerpt of Tagliabue's decision on Hargrove: "It is unclear exactly what NFL investigators asked Hargrove regarding the Program or any other alleged program and, thus, unclear whether he lied about the Program or the fact that it included cart-offs and knockouts. There is evidence in the appeals record that NFL investigators may not have asked Hargrove whether the Saints employed any particular program. The investigators focused on the alleged bounty placed on Brett Favre prior to the NFC Championship game in January 2010, which was the impetus for questioning Hargrove, who allegedly told a Vikings player of the Favre bounty. "If Hargrove denied only the existence of the alleged bounty on Favre, he is no more guilty of conduct detrimental than the numerous Saints' defensive team members from the 2009-2010 season who have provided sworn statements or testimony to the same effect and who have not been suspended or otherwise disciplined. "Finally, given the comprehensive, overt and ongoing nature of the obstruction by coaches and their direct instructions to Hargrove to lie, combined with their control over his football career, it is clear that Hargrove was under tremendous pressure to follow the chain of command in order to keep his job. "I have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate in these unique circumstances that Anthony Hargrove's alleged misconduct is deserving of a suspension. I therefore vacate the suspension imposed on Hargrove." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Not close to the same thing or why he vacated it. Here's an excerpt of Tagliabue's decision on Hargrove: "It is unclear exactly what NFL investigators asked Hargrove regarding the Program or any other alleged program and, thus, unclear whether he lied about the Program or the fact that it included cart-offs and knockouts. There is evidence in the appeals record that NFL investigators may not have asked Hargrove whether the Saints employed any particular program. The investigators focused on the alleged bounty placed on Brett Favre prior to the NFC Championship game in January 2010, which was the impetus for questioning Hargrove, who allegedly told a Vikings player of the Favre bounty. "If Hargrove denied only the existence of the alleged bounty on Favre, he is no more guilty of conduct detrimental than the numerous Saints' defensive team members from the 2009-2010 season who have provided sworn statements or testimony to the same effect and who have not been suspended or otherwise disciplined. "Finally, given the comprehensive, overt and ongoing nature of the obstruction by coaches and their direct instructions to Hargrove to lie, combined with their control over his football career, it is clear that Hargrove was under tremendous pressure to follow the chain of command in order to keep his job. "I have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate in these unique circumstances that Anthony Hargrove's alleged misconduct is deserving of a suspension. I therefore vacate the suspension imposed on Hargrove." Non-cooperation is just one of the two issues cited by the league in its summary of the award; the other being the involvement in a scheme to undermine the duty of game officials to ensure compliance with league rules. Both issues are related to integrity of the game principals and thus fall under conduct detrimental. There is ample notice of punishment for conduct detrimemtal in the standard player's contract signed by every player in the league. As you pointed out, the Hargrove case doesn't seem to apply. And Brady's actions weren't coerced by the coaching staff, either. At least so far as we know. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Non-cooperation is just one of the two issues cited by the league in its summary of the award; the other being the involvement in a scheme to undermine the duty of game officials to ensure compliance with league rules. Both issues are related to integrity of the game principals and thus fall under conduct detrimental. There is ample notice of punishment for conduct detrimemtal in the standard player's contract signed by every player in the league. As you pointed out, the Hargrove case doesn't seem to apply. And Brady's actions weren't coerced by the coaching staff, either. At least so far as we know. GO BILLS!!! Yep. Plus the "non-cooperation" encompassed numerous different things. Only part of it was the cell phones and not releasing the texts and calls. Another part was blatant lying, saying he didn't even know who McNally was and never met him (and no, Dave, it came out that it wasn't just a name thing), the implausible answers he gave to numerous questions like he had no idea about the balls being handled this way (in direct contradiction to other testimony), the reasons for the phone calls to Jastremski, the impossible to believe answers of how the balls were prepared (he never squeezed them), etc. They knew he was lying to them about a bunch of different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) Not close to the same thing or why he vacated it. Here's an excerpt of Tagliabue's decision on Hargrove: "It is unclear exactly what NFL investigators asked Hargrove regarding the Program or any other alleged program and, thus, unclear whether he lied about the Program or the fact that it included cart-offs and knockouts. There is evidence in the appeals record that NFL investigators may not have asked Hargrove whether the Saints employed any particular program. The investigators focused on the alleged bounty placed on Brett Favre prior to the NFC Championship game in January 2010, which was the impetus for questioning Hargrove, who allegedly told a Vikings player of the Favre bounty. "If Hargrove denied only the existence of the alleged bounty on Favre, he is no more guilty of conduct detrimental than the numerous Saints' defensive team members from the 2009-2010 season who have provided sworn statements or testimony to the same effect and who have not been suspended or otherwise disciplined. "Finally, given the comprehensive, overt and ongoing nature of the obstruction by coaches and their direct instructions to Hargrove to lie, combined with their control over his football career, it is clear that Hargrove was under tremendous pressure to follow the chain of command in order to keep his job. "I have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate in these unique circumstances that Anthony Hargrove's alleged misconduct is deserving of a suspension. I therefore vacate the suspension imposed on Hargrove." Someone else brought up the "the coaches made him lie". But no matter what, he lied and Goodell wanted him punished. Tags said Goodell did not have the authority to do this and vacated the suspension in full. In essence, he said there are circumstances where a player can viloate "conduct" rules and suffer no suspension. Tags reason for vacating was BS and he used it to do what he was called in to do---unwind Goodell's mess. Brady was punished for not cooperating with the request for his phone info. An argument could be made that he cna't be made to incriminate himself. The NFL could have easily told him that not handing over his private data, he would be open to additional suspension. They chose not to do that. "lying" to the NFL for any reason during an investigation is not automatically punishable by suspension and Tags clearly set that precedent, against the clear intent and wishes of Goodell and the NFL. Edited August 31, 2015 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Someone else brought up the "the coaches made him lie". But no matter what, he lied and Goodell wanted him punished. Tags said Goodell did not have the authority to do this and vacated the suspension in full. In essence, he said there are circumstances where a player can viloate "conduct" rules and suffer no suspension. Tags reason for vacating was BS and he used it to do what he was called in to do---unwind Goodell's mess. Brady was punished for not cooperating with the request for his phone info. An argument could be made that he cna't be made to incriminate himself. The NFL could have easily told him that not handing over his private data, he would be open to additional suspension. They chose not to do that. "lying" to the NFL for any reason during an investigation is not automatically punishable by suspension and Tags clearly set that precedent, against the clear intent and wishes of Goodell and the NFL. Brady was suspended for the act plus several different instances of non cooperation. The phone thing was one of many. And Tagliabue said above three different reasons in his own words why he vacated it. Nothing like the Brady case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Brady was suspended for the act plus several different instances of non cooperation. The phone thing was one of many. And Tagliabue said above three different reasons in his own words why he vacated it. Nothing like the Brady case. Have it your way then...Tags said everyone lied: coaches, former players, Hargroeve--and since no one else was punished for lying, Hargrove shouldn't be either. So lying is also not a punishable offence per Tags. He is saying there is no precedent. And what are the "many" other instances of noncooperation that the NFL is specifically suspending Brady for (other than lying)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Tags also thought the 2006 CBA was a good one. So, there's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Tags also thought the 2006 CBA was a good one. So, there's that. apropos of nothing.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 @AdamSchefter: Tom Brady Week begins. Unless there's a settlement - and many think that unlikely - suspension will be upheld or overturned. 4 games or none Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 @AdamSchefter: Tom Brady Week begins. Unless there's a settlement - and many think that unlikely - suspension will be upheld or overturned. 4 games or none More #SchefterBreakingNews I see...either something will happen, or it won't. Story at 11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 More #SchefterBreakingNews I see...either something will happen, or it won't. Story at 11. i mean, im fine with mocking schefter, but the unless there is a settlement this week the decision is anticipated and it will be 1 of 2 things. so it seems like exactly the type of info ive seen requested several times here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 i mean, im fine with mocking schefter, but the unless there is a settlement this week the decision is anticipated and it will be 1 of 2 things. so it seems like exactly the type of info ive seen requested several times here... It's just Schefter keeping his tweet count up. Everyone knows the decision has to come down before the preseason officially ends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 It's just Schefter keeping his tweet count up. Everyone knows the decision has to come down before the preseason officially ends. we have seen several ask about it in the last week. everyone that is in this thread regularly knows it, but i think most average fans probably arent that sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 @MikeGarafolo: Brady hearing over. No settlement. Decision expected today or tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishDave Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 @MikeGarafolo: Brady hearing over. No settlement. Decision expected today or tomorrow. The suspense is eating away at my soul. I want Brady flogged in public. Was that an option in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Hope it gets tossed back to another appeal by someone other than Rodger Goodell or Gisele Bündchen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 The suspense is eating away at my soul. I want Brady flogged in public. Was that an option in this case? Same here....I want so badly for him to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 U.S. District Court Judge Richard M. Berman announced Monday that the sides will not settle the case, saying he will announce a ruling as early as Tuesday and no later than Friday. The sides will not settle (as expected). Ruling soon, but not today. http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13550206/judge-announces-no-settlement-tom-brady-hearing-deflategate-expects-ruling-soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts