Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Exactly what I was thinking in regards to reasonable doubt, Xenos.

Peregrine, have you ever actually watched an NFL game that had a challenge? They even require the refs use explanations to substantiate that they did or did not have conclusive evidence.

 cincydooley wrote:
Peregrine, have you ever actually watched an NFL game that had a challenge? They even require the refs use explanations to substantiate that they did or did not have conclusive evidence.

That's a limited number of plays, not every penalty flag. Let's say you're out of challenges. Can you demand that the ref pick up their flag because there isn't proof beyond any reasonable doubt that your player committed a penalty? Of course not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Is it possible that the balls boys overheard Brady's ball preference in a conversation and weren't actually ordered to deflate the balls, they just did it because they want their favorite team to go down in history as the greatest dynasty of all time? Uhh...Yeah that's definitely possible even dare I say...plausible?

So this theory is that a low-level employee assumed that the team's future-hall-of-fame quarterback wanted deflated balls and deflated them without asking for confirmation of this assumption, despite knowing that if they were wrong they would be fired AND would have to forever live with the shame of knowing that they sabotaged their favorite player by giving him balls that were deflated below his preference?

If this was a legal case - it would be thrown out instantly.

But it isn't, and that's the point.

There is just as much evidence that the colts were playing with under inflated balls too!!!

There isn't. And there also isn't evidence that any Colts employee took a bag of balls into a bathroom (where they're conveniently out of sight of the cameras) or participated in conversations that reference deflating footballs.

Seriously Peregrine - why so serious outraged?

What exactly is your game, or point?

Just step down off the soapbox, sit back, relax and let it play out - we'll find out soon enough what the results will ultimately be.

I don't think you, or anyone else, knows definitively what will happen - it could go either way.

If this was a legal case - it would be thrown out instantly.


But it isn't, and that's the point.

You disappoint me - normally you are very logical when I see you post - you seem content to ignore logic here. You MUST be a sea-hawks fan.

 Alpharius wrote:
Seriously Peregrine - why so serious outraged?

I could ask you the same question: why are you so outraged about my "outrage" that you feel compelled to tell us all how you don't like it instead of just ignoring it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You disappoint me - normally you are very logical when I see you post - you seem content to ignore logic here.

What "logic" am I ignoring? Your claim that this would be thrown out instantly if it was a legal case is completely irrelevant because this is not a legal case. Your "logic" is about as relevant as claiming that Brady shouldn't be suspended because your forum name starts with 'X'.

I'm just wondering why you're so worked up and full of anger about it - it is...odd.

And really, abandoning logic, and 'answering' a question with a question?

Really?

 Peregrine wrote:

That's a limited number of plays, not every penalty flag. Let's say you're out of challenges. Can you demand that the ref pick up their flag because there isn't proof beyond any reasonable doubt that your player committed a penalty? Of course not.

.

So is that a confirmation that you've never actually watched an NFL game, or at the very least don't know the rules? Do you call it "sportsball?" You can't challenge a penalty as they're considered judgement calls. You can challenge multiple types of plays that deal in facts. Which require conclusive evidence.

You've also completely ignored my urging for you to investigate the Jonathan Vilma case, in which his year long suspension was THROWN OUT BY A COURT.

You really seem to not know what you're talking about, at all, in this instance. Maybe stick to the online dating thread?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

What "logic" am I ignoring? Your claim that this would be thrown out instantly if it was a legal case is completely irrelevant because this is not a legal case. Your "logic" is about as relevant as claiming that Brady shouldn't be suspended because your forum name starts with 'X'.

'

Except it isn't remotely irrelevant, as I've evidenced to you with Vilma MULTIPLE TIMES.

 Xenomancers wrote:

You disappoint me - normally you are very logical when I see you post - you seem content to ignore logic here. You MUST be a sea-hawks fan.

Hey now!!! I'm a Hawks fan, and I resent that remark good sir! In truth he sounds more like a 49ers fan

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You disappoint me - normally you are very logical when I see you post - you seem content to ignore logic here. You MUST be a sea-hawks fan.

Hey now!!! I'm a Hawks fan, and I resent that remark good sir! In truth he sounds more like a 49ers fan

Nah, if he was a 49ers fan, he'd still be so salty about the no penalty call on the 4th and goal play when the Ravens beat the 49ers in the 2012 Harbaugh Bowl that he wouldn't care what Tom Brady did or didn't do.

BTW thank you I mean to say "reasonable doubt" but whoops brain fart.

Anyway, at the end of the day this will result in MAYBE a one game suspension for brady....maybe.

The fact that Brady has already lawyered up means he will be fighting this in court and he will win because theirs no evidence to the contrary.

 cincydooley wrote:
So is that a confirmation that you've never actually watched an NFL game, or at the very least don't know the rules? Do you call it "sportsball?" You can't challenge a penalty as they're considered judgement calls. You can challenge multiple types of plays that deal in facts. Which require conclusive evidence.

I guess you don't even bother to remember your own posts? Here's the conversation:

Me: you can't demand that the ref pick up the penalty flag because they didn't provide proof beyond any reasonable doubt that the player committed a penalty.
You: challenges have that standard of proof.
Me: not every play involves a challenge, so let's consider the ones that aren't challenged.
You: NO CHALLENGES ON PENALTIES.

YOU are the one who brought challenges into a discussion of penalty flags, so I guess that means that you've never watched an NFL game and call it "sportsball"?

 Peregrine wrote:


YOU are the one who brought challenges into a discussion of penalty flags, so I guess that means that you've never watched an NFL game and call it "sportsball"?

In fact, no, I wasn't. Xeno was.

You've constantly questioned where the "burden of proof" figured into the NFL at all. Xeno introduced challenges, which DO require said burden of proof.

Then you followed with some nonsensical comment that linked penalties to challenges, which I refuted, as you can't challenge penalties.

All while continuing to ignore the Vilma case as a precedent for league suspensions getting tossed out by a court of law.

You're really struggling tonight, eh? Pretty disappointing rebuttal. Was your "I know you are but what am I" button broken?

regardless of the who said what nonsense, the fact remains that the "burden of proof" ALWAYS lies on the accuser, and with a precedent of a court of law taking up a case you can bet that the patriots will win in the end and if Goodell is a moron and tries to fight this to the end instead of using arbitration to reduce the fine/suspensions and give back the draft picks then Brady and Kraft will take him and the NFL to court and win. FACT!

 cincydooley wrote:

So is that a confirmation that you've never actually watched an NFL game, or at the very least don't know the rules? Do you call it "sportsball?" You can't challenge a penalty as they're considered judgement calls. You can challenge multiple types of plays that deal in facts. Which require conclusive evidence.

Well, no, that's not true. Ultimately all plays are subject to judgment, the question is really only whether or not a team is allowed to subject that judgment to inquiry. An instructive example is that catches can be challenged, with one of primary standards being whether or not the receiver made a "football move". While not wholly arbitrary this standard is also not purely subject to fact.

 cincydooley wrote:
stuff

Ok, if you're just going to jump into a conversation and ignore previous comments, then try to pretend that comments based on that history are wrong because you took them out of context, there's no point in having a discussion with you.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

So is that a confirmation that you've never actually watched an NFL game, or at the very least don't know the rules? Do you call it "sportsball?" You can't challenge a penalty as they're considered judgement calls. You can challenge multiple types of plays that deal in facts. Which require conclusive evidence.

Well, no, that's not true. Ultimately all plays are subject to judgment, the question is really only whether or not a team is allowed to subject that judgment to inquiry. An instructive example is that catches can be challenged, with one of primary standards being whether or not the receiver made a "football move". While not wholly arbitrary this standard is also not purely subject to fact.

That's a good point. The whole nebulous "football move" thing is certainly still a judgement call. But even in that instance, on a challenge, there's still a considerable burden of proof (conclusive video evidence as they like to say on the TV) in order to overturn the original call on the field.

Regardless, challenges stand as a good exemplar of an area where the NFL does, in fact, deal with a distinct burden of proof.

And then again, there's the whole Vilma court case that I continue to reference that Peregrine continues to ignore as a precedent for penalties moving to a court of law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
stuff

Ok, if you're just going to jump into a conversation and ignore previous comments, then try to pretend that comments based on that history are wrong because you took them out of context, there's no point in having a discussion with you.

I didn't.

You don't have a fething clue what you're talking about. That's the real problem here.

 cincydooley wrote:

Except it isn't remotely irrelevant, as I've evidenced to you with Vilma MULTIPLE TIMES.

It is largely irrelevant. In the Vilma case Vilma was speaking to the court of public opinion while using Federal courts as a forum, it is telling that his defamation suit was eventually dismissed.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Except it isn't remotely irrelevant, as I've evidenced to you with Vilma MULTIPLE TIMES.

It is largely irrelevant. In the Vilma case Vilma was speaking to the court of public opinion while using Federal courts as a forum, it is telling that his defamation suit was eventually dismissed.

I disagree.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
regardless of the who said what nonsense, the fact remains that the "burden of proof" ALWAYS lies on the accuser

In a CRIMINAL TRIAL. This is not a criminal trial.

In a civil case (which this will be, if it does go to court) the issue will be interpretation of contracts and rules. The court can decide if the NFL followed its own rules and contract obligations correctly, and throw out or modify the punishment if they feel that the NFL did not, but they're not determining guilt or innocence. If the NFL's policies and contracts with the players (and the players' union) says "guilty until proven innocent" then that's the standard that will be used.

 cincydooley wrote:

Regardless, challenges stand as a good exemplar of an area where the NFL does, in fact, deal with a distinct burden of proof.

Sure, but the same is not true of off-field disciplinary action. In such a scenario the NFL has much more leeway, and the overall process is far different.

In fact, given that Brady and/or the Patriots would be the plaintiff in any hypothetical court case THEY would have the burden of proof. They would have to prove, by the standards of proof of civil court, that the NFL somehow violated its own rules and contracts or violated labor laws.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Regardless, challenges stand as a good exemplar of an area where the NFL does, in fact, deal with a distinct burden of proof.

Sure, but the same is not true of off-field disciplinary action. In such a scenario the NFL has much more leeway, and the overall process is far different.

In my opinion, when this goes to appeals the court will find that Goddell violated his the agreement with the NFLPA in hiring Wells, who has proven himself twice now to be of questionably impartiality, something required by the agreement. Its why the statements from the former Fins coaches are going to be so damning. I don't think it'll even get to the absurd severity of the penalties themselves.

 cincydooley wrote:

I disagree.

Even if you disagree with my conclusion, you cannot deny that Vilma's suit was based on the fact Goodell singled him out, and that it was eventually thrown out.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

I disagree.

Even if you disagree with my conclusion, you cannot deny that Vilma's suit was based on the fact Goodell singled him out, and that it was eventually thrown out.

True. His was tossed based on the bias.

I believe they're going to be able to prove that same bias with Ted Wells which, again, violates the labor agreement for an "impartial third party."

 cincydooley wrote:

In my opinion, when this goes to appeals the court will find that Goddell violated his the agreement with the NFLPA in hiring Wells, who has proven himself twice now to be of questionably impartiality, something required by the agreement. Its why the statements from the former Fins coaches are going to be so damning. I don't think it'll even get to the absurd severity of the penalties themselves.

I don't believe that's sufficient to nullify the suspension and the the lost draft picks, nor do I believe that it should be. Those are internal league matters and nullifying that sort of thing by legal action sets a dangerous precedent. The fine against the Patriots themselves is different.

 cincydooley wrote:

True. His was tossed based on the bias.

Vilma's suit was tossed because he had no case.

 Alpharius wrote:
I'm just wondering why you're so worked up and full of anger about it - it is...odd.

And really, abandoning logic, and 'answering' a question with a question?

Really?

Actually, while I disagree with Peregrine tone on these forums most of the time, it's Ghazkuul and Xenomancers that seem to be working themselves into a frenzy in this case.

Peregrine is the level headed one, here.

We must be reading different posts then, as I'm not seeing a lot of 'logic' there - just a strange one-sided application of...something.

Makes me think he's a Rams/Eagles/Panthers/Seahawks fan - if I actually thought he liked football, that is.

You're just jealous because you don't have JJ Watt, super stud.

Texans! feth yeah!

Well, yes, who wouldn't want him on their team!

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

You disappoint me - normally you are very logical when I see you post - you seem content to ignore logic here. You MUST be a sea-hawks fan.

Hey now!!! I'm a Hawks fan, and I resent that remark good sir! In truth he sounds more like a 49ers fan

HAHA, I just figure the seahawks have the most to gain from this and therefore most reason to support these penalties. This Rivalry is new to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
I'm just wondering why you're so worked up and full of anger about it - it is...odd.

And really, abandoning logic, and 'answering' a question with a question?

Really?

Actually, while I disagree with Peregrine tone on these forums most of the time, it's Ghazkuul and Xenomancers that seem to be working themselves into a frenzy in this case.

Peregrine is the level headed one, here.

To be fair - I'm a patriots fan and my team is getting smeared by BS allegations...again...it puts a sour taste in my mouth. If there was conclusive evidence I wouldn't dispute it. Also I'm not in a frenzy - though I am passionate about Bradys legacy being tarnished for the NFL to get good ratings in the off season.