Brady suspension reinstated!

[26CornerBlitz]

@BuildingHerd

NEW by @JoshTruelove_ - Tom Brady Won't Be Playing vs #Bills in Week 4, but Does it Matter? http://buildingtheherd.com/commentary/tom-brady-will-not-playing-bills-week-four-matter/

[BaaadThingsMan]

I don't even !@#$ing care if *marsha plays anymore. Someone just needs to put a hurt on him during the course of normal game play. No dirty biz so they can't complain, just a nice hard clean decapitation or something would be fine.

[4merper4mer]

 

 

Pointing out why you are wrong isn't "defending Kraft", nor is pointing out why he felt his team should deserve the same treatment that the Saints got from the NFL. You can't explain why that case ended the way it did--with Tagliabu saying that the league cannot suspend a player for obstructing an investigation into player activities/violations, and why this case ended differently.

 

The Bills were never going to Toronto. Yeah, Bon Jovi was so intent on moving the team that he tried to bail on his "Toronto group" and hook up with "the Jim Kelly group" at the last minute. Yet after repeated assurances that they would move the team the Toronto group was allowed to re-bid. The trust also had a hand, obviously, in playing the rumors of a move in order to keep the bidding up. If they really thought the winnig bidder might move the team, there is no way they would let them continue bidding.

 

You should strive to become and "affable" goofball...

 

 

You are defending Kraft and you continue to do so. It's ok to admit it, he's your favorite team's owner. It is a bit weird to do so on an opposing team's fan board but whatever.

 

The Saints case and the Brady case are two different things. The Pats case, separate from the Brady part, is already a done deal as Kraft relented and forfeited his first round pick. The court battle was all about Brady. Brady lost. He didn't win. It doesn't matter what Tags said in an unrelated case years ago. You know why it doesn't matter? Because the court said Brady lost. You can say Goodell wasn't impartial or he was wrong or mean or whatever you want to say. The court said he was within his rights. End. Of. Story. Even if you want to keep crying about it at least cry about the correct villain, whih in this case would be the court, not Goodell.

 

And you may be right about the Bills trust not allowing the team to move but that does not mean Kraft and Bon Jersey weren't trying to outfox them. They were. Ralph saw in the last CBA that the other owners, drunken Kraft among them, did not pay much attention to detail. He exploited that in his lease of the stadium because he wanted the Bills to stay and there were poison pills in there. Thank you Ralph.

Edited July 18, 2016 by 4merper4mer

[CommonCents]

When Monday sucks and everything is going wrong, come to the Tom Brady suspension thread and shed a little sunshine on your day.

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

You are defending Kraft and you continue to do so. It's ok to admit it, he's your favorite team's owner. It is a bit weird to do so on an opposing team's fan board but whatever.

 

The Saints case and the Brady case are two different things. The Pats case, separate from the Brady part, is already a done deal as Kraft relented and forfeited his first round pick. The court battle was all about Brady. Brady lost. He didn't win. It doesn't matter what Tags said in an unrelated case years ago. You know why it doesn't matter? Because the court said Brady lost. You can say Goodell wasn't impartial or he was wrong or mean or whatever you want to say. The court said he was within his rights. End. Of. Story. Even if you want to keep crying about it at least cry about the correct villain, whih in this case would be the court, not Goodell.

 

And you may be right about the Bills trust not allowing the team to move but that does not mean Kraft and Bon Jersey weren't trying to outfox them. They were. Ralph saw in the last CBA that the other owners, drunken Kraft among them, did not pay much attention to detail. He exploited that in his lease of the stadium because he wanted the Bills to stay and there were poison pills in there. Thank you Ralph.

 

What type of performer did you used to be?

[Tuco]

 

 

 

 

As even 4merper4mer was able to figure out. The whole point of the bounty system was to take out key players to improve odds of winning. You weren't sure about that?

 

You are aonther one who is clueless about what the federal appeals were about. No one was arguing whether Goodell has the right to serve as the hearing officer in an appeal. Obviously they were arguing that he did not act as a nonbiased arbitrator and that the penalty was not consistent with other such penalties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

 

 

 

As even 4merper4mer was able to figure out. The whole point of the bounty system was to take out key players to improve odds of winning. You weren't sure about that?

 

You are aonther one who is clueless about what the federal appeals were about. No one was arguing whether Goodell has the right to serve as the hearing officer in an appeal. Obviously they were arguing that he did not act as a nonbiased arbitrator and that the penalty was not consistent with other such penalties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Wow--where to start.

 

First you said that Brady was suspended for conduct detrimental to the " integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football". Now you are saying he was suspended for breaking a game day playing rule.

 

The irony of your confusion is that if Brady was only busted for altering the game ball (a game day playing rule), he wouldn't have been suspended...because this is punished only by fine. Also ironic is that this is exactly what was the basis of his appeal. You have stumbled onto the truth finally.

 

 

Also, the impartial arbitrator Brady's appeal is the Commissioner, who is supposed to be impartial. But saying that players are not entitled to an impartial arbitrator is wrong--Greg Hardy had his suspension significantly reduced by one (who was not Goodell). The NFLPA requested an impartial arbitrator for Brady and Goodell said "no", claiming he would be impartial.

 

Also, you are wrong about what the Saints Bounty Boys were found guilty of--and that is, per Tagliabu (and Goodell, of course): "engaged in 'conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football". Yet, despite a CBA that gave every authority to suspend these guys, Tagliabu reversed the suspensions.

 

As for your 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", you must not have had internet access during the Ray Rice story. I will help you....Rice was suspended for 2 games, as per the NFL precedent. When the crap hit the fan, he suspended him for a longer period, arbitrarily and with no precedent. No problem, he can do what he wants per the CBA, right?

 

Wrong. Rice appealed and won. The Judge had this to say:

 

"In this arbitration, the NFL argues that Commissioner Goodell was misled when he disciplined Rice the first time. Because, after careful consideration of all of the evidence, I am not persuaded that Rice lied to, or misled, the NFL at his June interview, I find that the indefinite suspension was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated," Jones' decision stated.

"I find that the NFLPA carried its burden of showing that Rice did not mislead the Commissioner at the June 16th meeting, and therefore, that the imposition of a second suspension based on the same incident and the same known facts about the incident, was arbitrary," Jones also wrote.

"The Commissioner needed to be fair and consistent in his imposition of discipline."

 

Brady and the NFLPA argued he wasn't. Whether the rest of us agree doesn't matter. This was their case. The Judge was saying Goodell lied.

 

Perhaps somewhat predictably, Rice's lawyer had this to say:

 

""Hopefully, the NFL will use this incident to learn and to improve. On the heels of Bountygate, Commissioner Roger Goodell has shown once again that he does not follow the rules in his treatment of players and that his judgment cannot be trusted."

 

Get back to work.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Mr. WEO

[papazoid]

Report: Brady grants NFLPA permission to continue Deflategate appeal

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-brady-grants-nflpa-permission-to-continue-deflategate-appeal/ar-BBusCN5?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

 

i don't believe it.

 

no way the NFLPA gives up an opportunity to erode the commisioners powers

Edited July 18, 2016 by papazoid

[Doc]

Go for it. He'll still sit.

[Tuco]

 

 

Wow--where to start.

 

First you said that Brady was suspended for conduct detrimental to the " integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football". Now you are saying he was suspended for breaking a game day playing rule.

 

The irony of your confusion is that if Brady was only busted for altering the game ball (a game day playing rule), he wouldn't have been suspended...because this is punished only by fine. Also ironic is that this is exactly what was the basis of his appeal. You have stumbled onto the truth finally.

 

 

Also, the impartial arbitrator Brady's appeal is the Commissioner, who is supposed to be impartial. But saying that players are not entitled to an impartial arbitrator is wrong--Greg Hardy had his suspension significantly reduced by one (who was not Goodell). The NFLPA requested an impartial arbitrator for Brady and Goodell said "no", claiming he would be impartial.

 

Also, you are wrong about what the Saints Bounty Boys were found guilty of--and that is, per Tagliabu (and Goodell, of course): "engaged in 'conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football". Yet, despite a CBA that gave every authority to suspend these guys, Tagliabu reversed the suspensions.

 

As for your 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", you must not have had internet access during the Ray Rice story. I will help you....Rice was suspended for 2 games, as per the NFL precedent. When the crap hit the fan, he suspended him for a longer period, arbitrarily and with no precedent. No problem, he can do what he wants per the CBA, right?

 

Wrong. Rice appealed and won. The Judge had this to say:

 

"In this arbitration, the NFL argues that Commissioner Goodell was misled when he disciplined Rice the first time. Because, after careful consideration of all of the evidence, I am not persuaded that Rice lied to, or misled, the NFL at his June interview, I find that the indefinite suspension was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated," Jones' decision stated.

"I find that the NFLPA carried its burden of showing that Rice did not mislead the Commissioner at the June 16th meeting, and therefore, that the imposition of a second suspension based on the same incident and the same known facts about the incident, was arbitrary," Jones also wrote.

"The Commissioner needed to be fair and consistent in his imposition of discipline."

 

Brady and the NFLPA argued he wasn't. Whether the rest of us agree doesn't matter. This was their case. The Judge was saying Goodell lied.

 

Perhaps somewhat predictably, Rice's lawyer had this to say:

 

""Hopefully, the NFL will use this incident to learn and to improve. On the heels of Bountygate, Commissioner Roger Goodell has shown once again that he does not follow the rules in his treatment of players and that his judgment cannot be trusted."

 

Get back to work.

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.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Tuco

[3rdand12]

 

As even 4merper4mer was able to figure out. The whole point of the bounty system was to take out key players to improve odds of winning. You weren't sure about that?

 

You are aonther one who is clueless about what the federal appeals were about. No one was arguing whether Goodell has the right to serve as the hearing officer in an appeal. Obviously they were arguing that he did not act as a nonbiased arbitrator and that the penalty was not consistent with other such penalties.

 

 

 

 

Pointing out why you are wrong isn't "defending Kraft", nor is pointing out why he felt his team should deserve the same treatment that the Saints got from the NFL. You can't explain why that case ended the way it did--with Tagliabu saying that the league cannot suspend a player for obstructing an investigation into player activities/violations, and why this case ended differently.

 

The Bills were never going to Toronto. Yeah, Bon Jovi was so intent on moving the team that he tried to bail on his "Toronto group" and hook up with "the Jim Kelly group" at the last minute. Yet after repeated assurances that they would move the team the Toronto group was allowed to re-bid. The trust also had a hand, obviously, in playing the rumors of a move in order to keep the bidding up. If they really thought the winnig bidder might move the team, there is no way they would let them continue bidding.

 

You should strive to become and "affable" goofball...

Its "an" affable goofball.

and yes i agree. We each and all could enrich our affabilties.

[3rdand12]

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.

I rarely takes sides. And i am not inclined to do so now.

 

But regardless whom is dialoguing and democratically debating , I do so enjoy a well thought out retort.

 

I can well imagine you have made our Mr Weos day actually.

 

 

 

I am a simple man and a simple mind, Barely educated even.

 

To me the simple answer is to light Kraft on fire with Bacardi 151. That would be fun.

And there would be much rejoicing.

Methinks i have made my points.

 

allow me to now step aside and let you folks have at it.

 

Please carry on if need be. to both of you.

[Mr. WEO]

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.

 

Breaking the rule regarding the inflation of a football ("game day rule"), per the NFL rulebook, is a finable offense only--as per a negotiated (by the NFL and the NFLPA) list of specific punishments for specific infractions. The fine for tampering with footballs per the NFL is $25,000. No one has ever been suspended for it, because it's been negotiated as a fineable infraction. Brady's argument was that he should have been fined, not suspended, per the NFL rulebook. There is a long history of gameday ball manipulation in the NFL. No one ever has been suspended for it.

 

The Bountygate boys were, as per Tagliabu's finding, guilty of exactly what you are stuck splitting hairs overas Brady was: "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football" (1A) and had all of their suspensions lifted anyway--even though at least one of them was found to have obstructed the investigation.

[4merper4mer]

 

Breaking the rule regarding the inflation of a football ("game day rule"), per the NFL rulebook, is a finable offense only--as per a negotiated (by the NFL and the NFLPA) list of specific punishments for specific infractions. The fine for tampering with footballs per the NFL is $25,000. No one has ever been suspended for it, because it's been negotiated as a fineable infraction. Brady's argument was that he should have been fined, not suspended, per the NFL rulebook. There is a long history of gameday ball manipulation in the NFL. No one ever has been suspended for it.

 

The Bountygate boys were, as per Tagliabu's finding, guilty of exactly what you are stuck splitting hairs overas Brady was: "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football" (1A) and had all of their suspensions lifted anyway--even though at least one of them was found to have obstructed the investigation.

 

 

Translation: Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

 

Complain to the US court system, not about Goodell or Tuco. The courts say you're wrong. Goodall and Tuco are simply agreeing with them.

 

Did Goodell give in to the temptation to suspend Bray because he was a known serial cheater while the NO guys were first time offenders? Doesn't matter. The court backed the drunkenly negotiated CBA which says he can do whatever he wants.

Edited July 19, 2016 by 4merper4mer

[chris heff]

Breaking the rule regarding the inflation of a football ("game day rule"), per the NFL rulebook, is a finable offense only--as per a negotiated (by the NFL and the NFLPA) list of specific punishments for specific infractions. The fine for tampering with footballs per the NFL is $25,000. No one has ever been suspended for it, because it's been negotiated as a fineable infraction. Brady's argument was that he should have been fined, not suspended, per the NFL rulebook. There is a long history of gameday ball manipulation in the NFL. No one ever has been suspended for it.

 

The Bountygate boys were, as per Tagliabu's finding, guilty of exactly what you are stuck splitting hairs overas Brady was: "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football" (1A) and had all of their suspensions lifted anyway--even though at least one of them was found to have obstructed the investigation.

I thought the suspension was base on Article 46 powers regarding the integrity of the game.

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

Translation: Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh

 

Complain to the US court system, not about Goodell or Tuco. The courts say you're wrong. Goodall and Tuco are simply agreeing with them.

 

Did Goodell give in to the temptation to suspend Bray because he was a known serial cheater while the NO guys were first time offenders? Doesn't matter. The court backed the drunkenly negotiated CBA which says he can do whatever he wants.

 

What are you doing here? Have you caught all the Pokémon yet?

 

I thought the suspension was base on Article 46 powers regarding the integrity of the game.

 

Yes.

[4merper4mer]

 

What are you doing here? Have you caught all the Pokémon yet?

 

 

 

 

Good one. When the facts aren't in your favor, mock the poster.

 

Don't worry though, you have a long time to defend the Barry Bonds of football because discussion of his cheating will go on for decades. This will allow you to recycle some of your defeated arguments because people will have forgotten them.

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

Good one. When the facts aren't in your favor, mock the poster.

 

Don't worry though, you have a long time to defend the Barry Bonds of football because discussion of his cheating will go on for decades. This will allow you to recycle some of your defeated arguments because people will have forgotten them.

 

 

Oh relax. I'm just having a good time at your expense.

 

 

Stop making it so easy or I will lose interest.

[4merper4mer]

Oh relax. I'm just having a good time at your expense.

 

 

Stop making it so easy or I will lose interest.

It'll always be easy if Pokemon jokes are the best you've got. What's next? I am rubber you are glue? Edited July 20, 2016 by 4merper4mer

[Rocky Landing]

 

 

Good one. When the facts aren't in your favor, mock the poster.

 

Don't worry though, you have a long time to defend the Barry Bonds of football because discussion of his cheating will go on for decades. This will allow you to recycle some of your defeated arguments because people will have forgotten them.

Oh, god... please, no...