Old Smiley
Footballguy
Glad someone remembers Beakman.
"Doesn’t the most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allow Roger Goodell to be completely unfair, given his role of investigator, judge and appellate judge?When the judge has gone on record OVER and OVER again stating he wants a settlement, it wouldn't be in his best interest to rip the side that is losing the case to encourage one. He's trying to knock the NFL (the actual winning side) down a peg to make them sweat a little to force them into a settlement for fear of losing. Like it or not everything the judge has been shredding is basically trumped by the CBA.Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).
So you don't understand that one gauge was inside Exponents range of what was found explicable by the elements and one was not? And that the ref remembered using the gauge that fit with the weather explanation? And that Wells dismissed that recollection for no reason?So wait a second....a few psi doesn't affect a football or the outcome of a game, but the length of the needle on a psi gage makes all the difference in the world?Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased
http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/
THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.
Thanks, Prof. Beakman.
of course there was reason. Wells/Exponent spelled out why pretty clearly, yet the patsfans.com echo chamber always neglects to mention this. I'm not going to re-hash as it's been discussed a thousand times already.So you don't understand that one gauge was inside Exponents range of what was found explicable by the elements and one was not? And that the ref remembered using the gauge that fit with the weather explanation? And that Wells dismissed that recollection for no reason?But of course, there was reason. Wells was hired to make a case against the Pats.So wait a second....a few psi doesn't affect a football or the outcome of a game, but the length of the needle on a psi gage makes all the difference in the world?Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased
http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/
THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.
Thanks, Prof. Beakman.
Well I've heard no explanation other than the gauges are so danged similar, which if they're so danged similar why did Wells fudge the picture? BTW: not only are the gauges placed differently relative to the rulers, but the pictures are at different scales, as well -- both to minimize the difference.of course there was reason. Wells/Exponent spelled out why pretty clearly, yet the patsfans.com echo chamber always neglects to mention this. I'm not going to re-hash as it's been discussed a thousand times already.So you don't understand that one gauge was inside Exponents range of what was found explicable by the elements and one was not? And that the ref remembered using the gauge that fit with the weather explanation? And that Wells dismissed that recollection for no reason?But of course, there was reason. Wells was hired to make a case against the Pats.So wait a second....a few psi doesn't affect a football or the outcome of a game, but the length of the needle on a psi gage makes all the difference in the world?Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased
http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/
THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.
Thanks, Prof. Beakman.
That's a fantastic read."Doesn’t the most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allow Roger Goodell to be completely unfair, given his role of investigator, judge and appellate judge?When the judge has gone on record OVER and OVER again stating he wants a settlement, it wouldn't be in his best interest to rip the side that is losing the case to encourage one. He's trying to knock the NFL (the actual winning side) down a peg to make them sweat a little to force them into a settlement for fear of losing. Like it or not everything the judge has been shredding is basically trumped by the CBA.Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).
No. No. No. No. Please people stop saying that. It is a commonly held view that is often parroted by people who should know better."
"To simplify, the NFLPA makes the general argument that both the fairness procedures in the CBA and NFL rules and just basic “industrial due process” weren’t followed. That is, the NFLPA didn’t have to build in a lot of detailed technical fairness procedures into the document because all union members receive these protections under CBAs. Industrial due process is that bare minimum standards of due process that are allowed all disciplined employees in arbital proceedings.
As a part of this, the NFLPA argues that the NFL failed to follow “the law of the shop.” That is, that the NFL failed to follow the custom and practice that they’ve used in the past."
http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-questions/
There have been so many rumors as to what the Patriots have alleged to have done over the years that one could argue that BB is brilliant for getting everyone to think that they are under 24/7 surveillance. Bugging the locker room has been one of the rumors that has been swirling behind closed doors for years.Where there is smoke, there is fire...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peyton-manning-takes-extreme-precautions-154328475.html
Where there are haters there are people grasping at straws.. Wonder why manning played so bad in foxboro over the years. He was mentally broken before he stepped on the field..,Where there is smoke, there is fire...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peyton-manning-takes-extreme-precautions-154328475.html
Google "gage R&R" and get back to me with what you learn.So you don't understand that one gauge was inside Exponents range of what was found explicable by the elements and one was not? And that the ref remembered using the gauge that fit with the weather explanation? And that Wells dismissed that recollection for no reason?So wait a second....a few psi doesn't affect a football or the outcome of a game, but the length of the needle on a psi gage makes all the difference in the world?Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased
http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/
THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.
Thanks, Prof. Beakman.
But of course, there was reason. Wells was hired to make a case against the Pats.
She's been great. I'd like to hear a back and forth between her and Andrew Brandt.That's a fantastic read."Doesn’t the most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allow Roger Goodell to be completely unfair, given his role of investigator, judge and appellate judge?When the judge has gone on record OVER and OVER again stating he wants a settlement, it wouldn't be in his best interest to rip the side that is losing the case to encourage one. He's trying to knock the NFL (the actual winning side) down a peg to make them sweat a little to force them into a settlement for fear of losing. Like it or not everything the judge has been shredding is basically trumped by the CBA.Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).
No. No. No. No. Please people stop saying that. It is a commonly held view that is often parroted by people who should know better."
"To simplify, the NFLPA makes the general argument that both the fairness procedures in the CBA and NFL rules and just basic “industrial due process” weren’t followed. That is, the NFLPA didn’t have to build in a lot of detailed technical fairness procedures into the document because all union members receive these protections under CBAs. Industrial due process is that bare minimum standards of due process that are allowed all disciplined employees in arbital proceedings.
As a part of this, the NFLPA argues that the NFL failed to follow “the law of the shop.” That is, that the NFL failed to follow the custom and practice that they’ve used in the past."
http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-questions/
sigh.Well I've heard no explanation other than the gauges are so danged similar, which if they're so danged similar why did Wells fudge the picture? BTW: not only are the gauges placed differently relative to the rulers, but the pictures are at different scales, as well -- both to minimize the difference.
My experience would be otherwise, though that is, I grant you, counterintuitive at first.Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).
I have no expectation that the judge has made up his mind, but I believe that he is inclined to rule for Brady. The judge has to overturn an existing arbitration, and he has to have a legal reason to do so. Especially in such a high-profile case where any ruling is almost certain to be appealed and scrutinized. The judge is doing everything he can to avoid having to make a ruling either way. It's a lot easier on him to get the parties to an agreement. There's just no scrutiny down the line that way.My experience would be otherwise, though that is, I grant you, counterintuitive at first.Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).
Here is a thought for those who presume the Judge has made up his mind in favor of Brady. Why would a Judge, who believes that he is overseeing a faulty investigation as you presume he is signaling, and who believes the process falls short of the fundamental fairness required by due process encourage the victim of those flaws to settle, to agree to adverse consequences when none are coming, nor should come, based on your beliefs and reasoning. he would basically be saying lets punish the righteous, the innocent, you know, at least a bit. Don't you think it possible that were he as solidly in your camp's line of thinking he would be avoiding what would clearly be an unjust outcome by settlement?
These are all good points. I imagine that the judge would prefer a settlement in part because it makes his life much easier--this will be a controversial decision either way.My experience would be otherwise, though that is, I grant you, counterintuitive at first.Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).
Here is a thought for those who presume the Judge has made up his mind in favor of Brady. Why would a Judge, who believes that he is overseeing a faulty investigation as you presume he is signaling, and who believes the process falls short of the fundamental fairness required by due process encourage the victim of those flaws to settle, to agree to adverse consequences when none are coming, nor should come, based on your beliefs and reasoning. he would basically be saying lets punish the righteous, the innocent, you know, at least a bit. Don't you think it possible that were he as solidly in your camp's line of thinking he would be avoiding what would clearly be an unjust outcome by settlement?
Maybe it's all those precautions that cause him to choke everytime he plays NE.Where there is smoke, there is fire...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peyton-manning-takes-extreme-precautions-154328475.html
They don't account for time and this is revealed in the appeal testimony.sigh.When checked vs a highly accurate and calibrated master gauge, the non-logo gauge was found to be within 0.1PSI of dead-nuts accurate. The logo gauge was consistently 0.3-0.4 higher.Well I've heard no explanation other than the gauges are so danged similar, which if they're so danged similar why did Wells fudge the picture? BTW: not only are the gauges placed differently relative to the rulers, but the pictures are at different scales, as well -- both to minimize the difference.
The Patriots claimed they submit balls at 12.5 PSI, and the Colts claim they submit the balls at 13.0PSI. The referee recalled when interviewed that when he gauged the patriots balls pre-game, they were all at or near 12.5 psi; as he had to adjust the pressure up on a couple because they were slightly low. Likewise, the Colts balls were all at or around 13.0 psi.
There are two possibilities:
do you think it's likely that both teams gauges would be out of calibration by the same amount as the referees gauge?
- the referee used the non-logo gauge pre-game as his readings corresponded with both the Patriots and Colts stated inflation levels.
- the referee used the logo gauge, and both the Patriots AND Colts gauges measured almost exactly 0.4 psi high.
These last two items seem to get into the area of "Law of the Shop" which, if I understand it, is how previous precedent is used to define actions under a collectively bargained agreement.ChromeWeasel said:I already posted this in the thread. Berman has specifically said that he sees legal ground to vacate the arbitration.Bayhawks said:OK-I get what the NFLPA is arguing, and I understand their points. I haven't read/seen anything where the judge has given the impression that the CBA was violated. The NFLPA saying "he violated the CBA," and the judge saying "you violated the CBA" are 2 different things. I was just wondering if there was something from the hearing today (or last week) where the judge gave the impression that the CBA had been violated. That's why I asked about the Pash thing, b/c while he said that might be cause to have an arbitration hearing decision over-turned, my understanding is because that would be a violation of federal law, not the CBA. I can't find any indication that the judge has indicated the CBA has been violated, although he has questioned the NFL's findings.
From Stephens Twitter:
- My impression: Berman tipped his hand a bit to NFL in an effort to make the sides settle.
- Berman: "There are some basic procedures of fairness that have to be followed.... You got to let someone make their case."
- He grilled Nash on why the Brady team wasn't able to call Jeff Pash (need to doublecheck that name) wasn't allowed to be called as witness.
- Berman: "I don't understand the thinking to not allow Mr. Pash as a witness. Who else but Pash had the opportunity to edit the Wells Report?
- Berman: "I believe some arbitration awards have been vacated" because a witness was not allowed to be called without explanation. (ChromeWeasel edit: this seems like a HUGE statement from the judge)
- Berman: "The next time someone tampers with a ball but cooperates, what suspension would he get?"
- Nash again deferred to Goodell's judgement on that.
- To which Berman said "I have a little trouble with that."
- Berman then grilled Nash on Goodell's comparison of ball tampering/deflation to steroid use. Berman very skeptical of that point.
- Berman: How did he pick steroid use to explain he suspended Mr. Brady four games?"
I don't think anyone underestimates BB's cheating brilliance!Anarchy99 said:There have been so many rumors as to what the Patriots have alleged to have done over the years that one could argue that BB is brilliant for getting everyone to think that they are under 24/7 surveillance. Bugging the locker room has been one of the rumors that has been swirling behind closed doors for years.Burl said:Where there is smoke, there is fire...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peyton-manning-takes-extreme-precautions-154328475.html
Though the stick'um example and the ball tampering example would both be considered an on field advantage around equipment, the two situations could be viewed as being different. A wide receiver isn't touching the ball nearly as many times in a game as the QB. In 2014, the WR with the most catches in the year averaged 8 catches a game (with averaging just over 11 targets a game). The QB on the other hand, touches the ball pretty much every single offensive play (the median offensive plays per game in 2014 was about 63 (NE's average was just over 67 offensive plays per game)).These last two items seem to get into the area of "Law of the Shop" which, if I understand it, is how previous precedent is used to define actions under a collectively bargained agreement.ChromeWeasel said:I already posted this in the thread. Berman has specifically said that he sees legal ground to vacate the arbitration.Bayhawks said:OK-I get what the NFLPA is arguing, and I understand their points. I haven't read/seen anything where the judge has given the impression that the CBA was violated. The NFLPA saying "he violated the CBA," and the judge saying "you violated the CBA" are 2 different things. I was just wondering if there was something from the hearing today (or last week) where the judge gave the impression that the CBA had been violated. That's why I asked about the Pash thing, b/c while he said that might be cause to have an arbitration hearing decision over-turned, my understanding is because that would be a violation of federal law, not the CBA. I can't find any indication that the judge has indicated the CBA has been violated, although he has questioned the NFL's findings.
From Stephens Twitter:
- My impression: Berman tipped his hand a bit to NFL in an effort to make the sides settle.
- Berman: "There are some basic procedures of fairness that have to be followed.... You got to let someone make their case."
- He grilled Nash on why the Brady team wasn't able to call Jeff Pash (need to doublecheck that name) wasn't allowed to be called as witness.
- Berman: "I don't understand the thinking to not allow Mr. Pash as a witness. Who else but Pash had the opportunity to edit the Wells Report?
- Berman: "I believe some arbitration awards have been vacated" because a witness was not allowed to be called without explanation. (ChromeWeasel edit: this seems like a HUGE statement from the judge)
- Berman: "The next time someone tampers with a ball but cooperates, what suspension would he get?"
- Nash again deferred to Goodell's judgement on that.
- To which Berman said "I have a little trouble with that."
- Berman then grilled Nash on Goodell's comparison of ball tampering/deflation to steroid use. Berman very skeptical of that point.
- Berman: How did he pick steroid use to explain he suspended Mr. Brady four games?"
It seems to me that the judge here compared the ball tampering to stick'um, an on field advantage around equipment, which has previously been handled with a small to moderate fine for a first offense.
The NFL position of this being more similar to steroid use is their attempt to use the substance policy as precedent for the scope of the 4-game suspension. I think this is a very difficult position to defend.
I think this is where the NFL case has it's biggest problem.
Mathematicians deal with numbers. Economists deal with the economy. Not even close to the same thing.Old Smiley said:The economist questioned the way Exponent handled their numbers. That's what economists do. The lawyer called Wells/Exponent on what looks like a lawyerly dirty trick. That's the kind of thing lawyers are supposed to be able to spot.
Nothing to do with chemistry. No one is out of their lane.
Cool. Ever heard of anyone being suspended for someone else taking steroids?Though the stick'um example and the ball tampering example would both be considered an on field advantage around equipment, the two situations could be viewed as being different. A wide receiver isn't touching the ball nearly as many times in a game as the QB. In 2014, the WR with the most catches in the year averaged 8 catches a game (with averaging just over 11 targets a game). The QB on the other hand, touches the ball pretty much every single offensive play (the median offensive plays per game in 2014 was about 63 (NE's average was just over 67 offensive plays per game)).These last two items seem to get into the area of "Law of the Shop" which, if I understand it, is how previous precedent is used to define actions under a collectively bargained agreement.ChromeWeasel said:I already posted this in the thread. Berman has specifically said that he sees legal ground to vacate the arbitration.Bayhawks said:OK-I get what the NFLPA is arguing, and I understand their points. I haven't read/seen anything where the judge has given the impression that the CBA was violated. The NFLPA saying "he violated the CBA," and the judge saying "you violated the CBA" are 2 different things. I was just wondering if there was something from the hearing today (or last week) where the judge gave the impression that the CBA had been violated. That's why I asked about the Pash thing, b/c while he said that might be cause to have an arbitration hearing decision over-turned, my understanding is because that would be a violation of federal law, not the CBA. I can't find any indication that the judge has indicated the CBA has been violated, although he has questioned the NFL's findings.
From Stephens Twitter:
- My impression: Berman tipped his hand a bit to NFL in an effort to make the sides settle.
- Berman: "There are some basic procedures of fairness that have to be followed.... You got to let someone make their case."
- He grilled Nash on why the Brady team wasn't able to call Jeff Pash (need to doublecheck that name) wasn't allowed to be called as witness.
- Berman: "I don't understand the thinking to not allow Mr. Pash as a witness. Who else but Pash had the opportunity to edit the Wells Report?
- Berman: "I believe some arbitration awards have been vacated" because a witness was not allowed to be called without explanation. (ChromeWeasel edit: this seems like a HUGE statement from the judge)
- Berman: "The next time someone tampers with a ball but cooperates, what suspension would he get?"
- Nash again deferred to Goodell's judgement on that.
- To which Berman said "I have a little trouble with that."
- Berman then grilled Nash on Goodell's comparison of ball tampering/deflation to steroid use. Berman very skeptical of that point.
- Berman: How did he pick steroid use to explain he suspended Mr. Brady four games?"
It seems to me that the judge here compared the ball tampering to stick'um, an on field advantage around equipment, which has previously been handled with a small to moderate fine for a first offense.
The NFL position of this being more similar to steroid use is their attempt to use the substance policy as precedent for the scope of the 4-game suspension. I think this is a very difficult position to defend.
I think this is where the NFL case has it's biggest problem.
Who really knows what the NFL's rationale was in comparing the deflating of footballs to steriods, but the one argument that could be made was that an individual utilizing steriods benefits from this by being in on every play (whether from a defensive or offensive perspective) similar to the advantage Brady could have had by playing with the deflated balls.
Yeah, Economists deal mostly with verbs.Mathematicians deal with numbers. Economists deal with the economy. Not even close to the same thing.Old Smiley said:The economist questioned the way Exponent handled their numbers. That's what economists do. The lawyer called Wells/Exponent on what looks like a lawyerly dirty trick. That's the kind of thing lawyers are supposed to be able to spot.
Nothing to do with chemistry. No one is out of their lane.
So what, you think a mathematician should have been the expert witness? Maybe a number theorist or an expert on abstract algebra? Why not an accountant or a vegas card dealer? They deal with numbers too.Mathematicians deal with numbers. Economists deal with the economy. Not even close to the same thing.Old Smiley said:The economist questioned the way Exponent handled their numbers. That's what economists do. The lawyer called Wells/Exponent on what looks like a lawyerly dirty trick. That's the kind of thing lawyers are supposed to be able to spot.
Nothing to do with chemistry. No one is out of their lane.
Not that I disagree with you but I'll play devil's advocate for a moment.moleculo said:wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?GreekFreak said:Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased
http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/
THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.
Economists deal with complex mathematical models. I don't think the analysis here was anything special but let's stop dissing economists. Some of my best friends are economists.Mathematicians deal with numbers. Economists deal with the economy. Not even close to the same thing.Old Smiley said:The economist questioned the way Exponent handled their numbers. That's what economists do. The lawyer called Wells/Exponent on what looks like a lawyerly dirty trick. That's the kind of thing lawyers are supposed to be able to spot.
Nothing to do with chemistry. No one is out of their lane.
Not even worth it.Cool. Ever heard of anyone being suspended for someone else taking steroids?Though the stick'um example and the ball tampering example would both be considered an on field advantage around equipment, the two situations could be viewed as being different. A wide receiver isn't touching the ball nearly as many times in a game as the QB. In 2014, the WR with the most catches in the year averaged 8 catches a game (with averaging just over 11 targets a game). The QB on the other hand, touches the ball pretty much every single offensive play (the median offensive plays per game in 2014 was about 63 (NE's average was just over 67 offensive plays per game)).These last two items seem to get into the area of "Law of the Shop" which, if I understand it, is how previous precedent is used to define actions under a collectively bargained agreement.ChromeWeasel said:I already posted this in the thread. Berman has specifically said that he sees legal ground to vacate the arbitration.Bayhawks said:OK-I get what the NFLPA is arguing, and I understand their points. I haven't read/seen anything where the judge has given the impression that the CBA was violated. The NFLPA saying "he violated the CBA," and the judge saying "you violated the CBA" are 2 different things. I was just wondering if there was something from the hearing today (or last week) where the judge gave the impression that the CBA had been violated. That's why I asked about the Pash thing, b/c while he said that might be cause to have an arbitration hearing decision over-turned, my understanding is because that would be a violation of federal law, not the CBA. I can't find any indication that the judge has indicated the CBA has been violated, although he has questioned the NFL's findings.
From Stephens Twitter:
- My impression: Berman tipped his hand a bit to NFL in an effort to make the sides settle.
- Berman: "There are some basic procedures of fairness that have to be followed.... You got to let someone make their case."
- He grilled Nash on why the Brady team wasn't able to call Jeff Pash (need to doublecheck that name) wasn't allowed to be called as witness.
- Berman: "I don't understand the thinking to not allow Mr. Pash as a witness. Who else but Pash had the opportunity to edit the Wells Report?
- Berman: "I believe some arbitration awards have been vacated" because a witness was not allowed to be called without explanation. (ChromeWeasel edit: this seems like a HUGE statement from the judge)
- Berman: "The next time someone tampers with a ball but cooperates, what suspension would he get?"
- Nash again deferred to Goodell's judgement on that.
- To which Berman said "I have a little trouble with that."
- Berman then grilled Nash on Goodell's comparison of ball tampering/deflation to steroid use. Berman very skeptical of that point.
- Berman: How did he pick steroid use to explain he suspended Mr. Brady four games?"
It seems to me that the judge here compared the ball tampering to stick'um, an on field advantage around equipment, which has previously been handled with a small to moderate fine for a first offense.
The NFL position of this being more similar to steroid use is their attempt to use the substance policy as precedent for the scope of the 4-game suspension. I think this is a very difficult position to defend.
I think this is where the NFL case has it's biggest problem.
Who really knows what the NFL's rationale was in comparing the deflating of footballs to steriods, but the one argument that could be made was that an individual utilizing steriods benefits from this by being in on every play (whether from a defensive or offensive perspective) similar to the advantage Brady could have had by playing with the deflated balls.
I say they did it on purpose. That pair of pictures appears as they do in the report. You are meant to compare them. They are meant to mislead. Not sloppy; sneaky.ETA: You commented on the relative length of the needles but more important to me is how sloppy the measurement is... they couldn't even position the ruler in the same relative location. This speaks volumes about the integrity of the process.
Such withering sarcasm from a man who's spent countless hours trying to convince us an entire football organization's accomplishments are null because of fractions of psis that were maybe removed from their footballs.moleculo said:OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!Old Smiley said:Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?moleculo said:wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?GreekFreak said:Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased
http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/
THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.
correctThe NFL looks awful, no matter how this finishes.
.
I did no such thing.Such withering sarcasm from a man who's spent countless hours trying to convince us an entire football organization's accomplishments are null because of fractions of psis that were maybe removed from their footballs.moleculo said:OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!Old Smiley said:Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?moleculo said:wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.GreekFreak said:Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased
http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/
That's the argument you economist made, and he is wrong.Exponent first ran a statistical study to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the colts and Patriots balls. They found there was. They next developed a transient heat transfer model to examine the effect of time and temperature, and were able to very closely simulate the Colts readings....however they were unable to simulate the Pats readings with natural causes alone. Time was a significant factor here.Run It Up said:They don't account for time and this is revealed in the appeal testimony.moleculo said:sigh.When checked vs a highly accurate and calibrated master gauge, the non-logo gauge was found to be within 0.1PSI of dead-nuts accurate. The logo gauge was consistently 0.3-0.4 higher.Old Smiley said:Well I've heard no explanation other than the gauges are so danged similar, which if they're so danged similar why did Wells fudge the picture? BTW: not only are the gauges placed differently relative to the rulers, but the pictures are at different scales, as well -- both to minimize the difference.
The Patriots claimed they submit balls at 12.5 PSI, and the Colts claim they submit the balls at 13.0PSI. The referee recalled when interviewed that when he gauged the patriots balls pre-game, they were all at or near 12.5 psi; as he had to adjust the pressure up on a couple because they were slightly low. Likewise, the Colts balls were all at or around 13.0 psi.
There are two possibilities:
do you think it's likely that both teams gauges would be out of calibration by the same amount as the referees gauge?
- the referee used the non-logo gauge pre-game as his readings corresponded with both the Patriots and Colts stated inflation levels.
- the referee used the logo gauge, and both the Patriots AND Colts gauges measured almost exactly 0.4 psi high.
But the ruler makes it look all official and scientific.moleculo said:lol. If I was them, and wanted to "cheat it", I simply wouldn't have included a close-up of the needle, and I certainly wouldn't have included a ruler. No one would have even noticed that there was no ruler in the pic.Old Smiley said:Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.moleculo said:OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!Old Smiley said:Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?moleculo said:wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?GreekFreak said:Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased
http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/
THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.
I have no idea on their intent (and neither do you), but maybe they just wanted to include a picture showing the length of the thread on the needle? I haven't read the verbiage in the report, just going off the pictures posted earlier.But the ruler makes it look all official and scientific.moleculo said:lol. If I was them, and wanted to "cheat it", I simply wouldn't have included a close-up of the needle, and I certainly wouldn't have included a ruler. No one would have even noticed that there was no ruler in the pic.Old Smiley said:Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.moleculo said:OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!Old Smiley said:Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?moleculo said:wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?GreekFreak said:Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased
http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/
THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.
In two hearings, Berman has questioned numerous aspects of the 20-page page decision that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell issued on July 28 that led to Brady's four-game suspension. Berman suggested, for example, that Goodell made a "quantum leap" from Brady being "generally aware" of the deflation of game balls suggested in the Wells Report to Goodell's conclusion that Brady "knew about, approved of, consented to and provided inducements in support" of the deflation.
While Brady and his supporters no doubt find some comfort in Berman's attack on Goodell's reasoning, they shouldn't try to read into Berman's statements and questions from the bench. Why? Because the judge is not leaning in Brady's direction. He has been, instead, doing what hundreds of judges do in American courtrooms each day: trying to push the side with the stronger legal position into consideration of a settlement.
There is nothing subtle or particularly sophisticated about what Berman is doing. Most judges prefer settlements over trials. A trial consumes days and weeks of judicial time, and the judge could face an embarrassing reversal by a higher court on any decision the jurist makes in a trial. To save time and to avoid reversals, judges like Berman use their leverage to try to push litigants into settlements, something Berman has been doing for more than three weeks.
In this case, recognizing that the NFL has convincing evidence and significant legal precedents on its side, Berman knows the only way he can produce a settlement is to show the league that there is a possibility it could lose a case that it should win. That is why he devoted most of a hearing Wednesday to picking apart the Goodell opinion and the league's legal position.
The strength of the NFL position in the litigation is indisputable. It is based on powerful legal precedents that severely limit a federal judge's review of an arbitration decision and on the convincing evidence gathered for the Wells report and described in surprisingly powerful terms in Goodell's decision.
The limits on a federal judge's authority over an arbitration decision are well established. Brady and the union lawyers want Berman to reconsider everything in Goodell's 20-page opinion. The legal term for the Brady demand is a hearing "de novo." It means a do-over, and a do-over is exactly what Berman is not permitted to do under American law.
NFL attorneys needed only nine pages in a brief they filed this past Friday to describe the unquestioned legal doctrine that limits what Berman can do. It may be the shortest brief the NFL has filed in its massive history of litigation.
The rule that judges should not tamper with an arbitrator's decision is so well recognized and obvious that a U.S. Supreme Court opinion involving Steve Garvey was issued in 2001 as a per curiam decision. That means the ruling was not only unanimous, it should have been clear to all concerned that there was no reason for the case to be considered at the high court level.
Garvey had gone to federal court to challenge an arbitrator's adverse ruling in his claim for $3 million in damages he thought he suffered during the MLB collusion conspiracy of 1985-87. He wanted the federal courts to reconsider the arbitrator's ruling.
Sound familiar?
The nation's highest court ruled that even when an arbitrator's decision was "improvident or even silly," it does "not provide a basis for a court to refuse to enforce the award." Even when the federal judge considering the arbitration award is "convinced that the arbitrator committed serious error, it does not suffice to overturn [the arbitrator's] decision," the court ruled.
To make sure everyone understood its ruling, the Supreme Court went so far as to say in the Garvey decision that even when the arbitrator's "procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct," a federal judge may not "interfere with an arbitrator's decision that the parties [players and owners] bargained for."
Garvey walked away with nothing.
In the current NFL case, other legal precedents indicate that Goodell, as the arbitrator established in the NFL collective bargaining agreement, has the power to determine what constitutes conduct detrimental to the league, whether there was a violation, and what the appropriate punishment is. It's obvious, and it's simple. Goodell has the authority to answer all of the questions in the dispute, and a federal judge has no authority to reconsider his answers.
The weakness of Brady's legal position is clear in any consideration of the arguments offered by Brady, the union, and the union lawyers. Jeffrey Kessler and his team of lawyers from the firm of Winston and Strawn are the most resourceful advocates I have seen in 25 years of reporting on legal issues in sports. The best they have come up with in their briefs and arguments in support of Brady are vague assertions of "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality" of Goodell as the arbitrator.
The problem with these assertions is that the NFLPA agreed in collective bargaining that Goodell would be the final authority in conduct detrimental cases, and, as the arbitrator, Goodell decides on all issues of fairness. They agreed to a partial arbitrator, and they agreed to his notions of fairness.
The Brady legal team also claims that Brady had no "notice" that deflating game balls or that lying about it would be subject to punishment. The now-famous provisions of Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement give the commissioner authority to impose discipline for any conduct that is "detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football." It is difficult, if not impossible, to think that Brady could not have known that deflating game balls below the minimum required pressure did not affect the integrity of the competition. His awkward and unsuccessful attempt to cover up what happened show that he had "notice" that there would be a problem.
Earlier in the litigation, Brady's union attorneys filed more than 4,000 pages of exhibits, documents and transcripts in an effort to show some strength in their position. This kind of document dump is never a sign of strength. It is an admission that there is nothing conclusive or dispositive in their material, no smoking gun that supports their position.
In their final brief for Berman, the union lawyers resorted to overstatement and hyperbole in their effort to conceal a weak position. The Goodell opinion, they said, is nothing but a "propaganda piece" and part of a "smear campaign" directed at Brady. It is not a sign of strength when union lawyers try to convince a federal judge that the commissioner of the most successful sports league in the world would deliberately slander and smear one of its most recognizable and greatest players.
It all seems very desperate, but Brady and Pats fans shouldn't entirely lose hope. Berman has not ruled yet, has called Brady and Goodell back to court on Aug. 31 and could find a way to rule for Brady. It has happened previously in litigation involving celebrity athletes.
But even if that happens, it's unlikely Berman's decision would stand.
Shira Scheindlin, another federal judge in the same building where Berman is considering the Brady dispute, ruled in favor of Maurice Clarett in 2004, allowing him to enter the NFL draft even though legal precedents supported the collective bargaining position that a player was not eligible for the draft until his college class has completed its third year.
Relying on the negotiated provisions for the draft in the union agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit quickly reversed Scheindlin's ruling. The opinion upholding the NFL's position was written by Sonia Sotomayor, who is now a U.S. Supreme Court member.
Berman's varied tactics may yet get Brady and the league to a settlement. But if not, whether it's a decision by Berman in the next few weeks or a decision in the higher court in the next few months, the NFL is going to end up the winner in the Brady dispute.
Same with Andrew Brandt. The lock-step is starting to look weird.What I find interesting is that article is from ESPN, and across the board their legal experts seemingly all got the same script to announce that Brady has no chance of winning. I have heard three or four of them parrot the same think almost verbatim on this case. I think these folks were told what to say. Elsewhere, there may be some media outlets with legal people saying the NFL could still win, but there are a ton of people suggesting Brady has a great case.
Agreed. I, personally, think he either was involved or found out about it after the fact, then tried to "cover it up." That being said, using the fact that I believe he did it or covered it up as some kind of proof that he did it or covered it up seems illogical. It seems like that is what the author of the article is doing there.It is difficult, if not impossible, to think that Brady could not have known that deflating game balls below the minimum required pressure did not affect the integrity of the competition. His awkward and unsuccessful attempt to cover up what happened show that he had "notice" that there would be a problem.
I find these two sentences odd. He's assumming that Brady is guilty. I know a lot of people agree with this view but it does not seem unbiased.
Yeah, I've noticed the same thing. Between this, and the whole Simmons mess, at some point something will come out about the business side controlling "journalism" at ESPN. They are basically Fox News for sports at this point.What I find interesting is that article is from ESPN, and across the board their legal experts seemingly all got the same script to announce that Brady has no chance of winning. I have heard three or four of them parrot the same think almost verbatim on this case. I think these folks were told what to say. Elsewhere, there may be some media outlets with legal people saying the NFL could still win, but there are a ton of people suggesting Brady has a great case.
I can't find the quote now, but one lawyer who handles cases related to arbitration said that in his career (100s of cases), he'd had something like five overturned -- and they were all public sector.With regards to the judge not wanting his decision over-turned, is what the ESPN article says true? That the US Court of Appeals and Supreme Court have ruled for arbitrators (NFL) in these types of situations?
The author of that article is saying the NFL can hang its hat on the CBA that gives the commissioner the right to discipline players as he sees fit and the right to hear appeals and uphold his own decision. That's it. According to Munson, the rest is noise and legally irrelevant.Agreed. I, personally, think he either was involved or found out about it after the fact, then tried to "cover it up." That being said, using the fact that I believe he did it or covered it up as some kind of proof that he did it or covered it up seems illogical. It seems like that is what the author of the article is doing there.It is difficult, if not impossible, to think that Brady could not have known that deflating game balls below the minimum required pressure did not affect the integrity of the competition. His awkward and unsuccessful attempt to cover up what happened show that he had "notice" that there would be a problem.
I find these two sentences odd. He's assumming that Brady is guilty. I know a lot of people agree with this view but it does not seem unbiased.