What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

WR Calvin Ridley, TEN (1 Viewer)

Insider information isn't a worry the NFL has. Whether he influences his teammates is what they're trying to root out. The integrity of the games aren't moved one iota if he wins or loses his bet. It's if he or others adjust their play so that he can win the bet. 

 
Hot Sauce Guy said:
I actually kind of agree with this. But rules are rules. It’s a stupid rule… But he did break it.

There should probably be a carve-out in the rules for up a player is inactive. But since there isn't…

on the other hand, even inactive players have inside information that the general public does not. Wesley is still friends with players on the team. For example, if he knows that several players are nursing injuries that are otherwise too superficial to show up on this injury report, he could have a advantage in wagering.

there are probably dozens of hypothetical examples where someone who has insider information about a team could benefit from a gambling perspective.
Click to expand...
I agree with this and understand that the rules are the rules.  Defending his gambling isn't exactly a hill I am willing to die on, but the NFL has some pretty backwards punishments

 
Dickies said:
Likely an unpopular opinion in this thread, but I don't really see the big deal in what he did given that he was inactive, away from the team, and had no way to impact what happened in the games.  Seems like a heavy-handed punishment.
Click to expand...
Absolutely entitled to think he didn't deserve this type of punishment and it feels harsh so why do you think the NFL is being so barbaric in their handing this suspension down to Ridley? 

It's not what Ridley did or didn't do, it's the message they want to send loud and clear so this doesn't become the tip of the iceberg. 

Next thing you know Jimmy Conway is hanging around the locker room and they can't risk that. 

Plus they promised when they got the green light to field a team in Vegas that this would not be an issue. 

 
KingPrawn said:
Actually I think its the perception it gives that the results of an NFL game can't be trusted
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what they're concerned about. Actual and perceived influence over the outcome of a game. But not insider trading because one gets over on the rest of the betting public. 

They could give a rat's patootie about that. 

 
KingPrawn said:
Actually I think its the perception it gives that the results of an NFL game can't be trusted
Click to expand...
I’m thinking it’s “D: all of the above”

Making an example

insider info

integrity

potential collusion (e.g. Ridley betting, teammate intentionally throwing a game, etc) 

every reason is valid. 

 
KingPrawn said:
I don't think the impact he had on games is the issue in this case. I think the issue would be the insider information he may have had.
Click to expand...


rockaction said:
It's just the opposite. The NFL doesn't care that he's getting over on the betting public, it's whether he can influence his teammates to adjust their availability or playing competency. 
Click to expand...


rockaction said:
Insider information isn't a worry the NFL has. Whether he influences his teammates is what they're trying to root out. The integrity of the games aren't moved one iota if he wins or loses his bet. It's if he or others adjust their play so that he can win the bet. 
Click to expand...


KingPrawn said:
Actually I think its the perception it gives that the results of an NFL game can't be trusted
Click to expand...
It’s 100% perception. Presuming he bet on his own team there’s no insider information, no risk of them throwing games, etc. just one dude’s opinion, but bet on your own team and I don’t care at all. Bet against your team and you deserve a lifetime suspension. That’s not the Rule of course, just my :2cents:

 
-OZ- said:
It’s 100% perception. Presuming he bet on his own team there’s no insider information, no risk of them throwing games, etc. just one dude’s opinion, but bet on your own team and I don’t care at all. Bet against your team and you deserve a lifetime suspension. That’s not the Rule of course, just my :2cents:
Click to expand...
I don't think it is 100% perception, and I don't see a distinction betting for or against. You don't want anyone associated with the team making any decisions at all which factor in outcome of a personal wager. Do you want a coach leaving in a star RB in a won game just to make sure a spread is covered? There needs to be something that ensures that football decisions are all that matters.

 
BigJim® said:
I don't think it is 100% perception, and I don't see a distinction betting for or against. You don't want anyone associated with the team making any decisions at all which factor in outcome of a personal wager. Do you want a coach leaving in a star RB in a won game just to make sure a spread is covered? There needs to be something that ensures that football decisions are all that matters.
Click to expand...
What if the public sees nothing wrong with that vis a vis the integrity of the game? I mean, of course they'd care. But say it was like wrestling. There are a lot of people that know it's not real and don't mind. Same with Jai Alai. 

The reason I say this is because, when you logically break it down, it's 100% perception because the perception of the sport is what matters to the league heads. The public doesn't see it on the up-and-up, then it's a problem. If they see it on the up-and-up even with malfeasance, still no problem. 

Therefore, it really is 100 percent perception and attitudes of the public. If the public doesn't care, why would the sporting heads care? They care because the public is the check on a lopsided balance. If the public didn't care, we'd have a big market Super Bowl every year, courtesy of the referees. 

This is a nitpicking post, though. I'm just explaining why one begets the other. 

 
BigJim® said:
I don't think it is 100% perception, and I don't see a distinction betting for or against. You don't want anyone associated with the team making any decisions at all which factor in outcome of a personal wager. Do you want a coach leaving in a star RB in a won game just to make sure a spread is covered? There needs to be something that ensures that football decisions are all that matters.
Click to expand...
You’re making fair arguments as to the substance of the bet being what really matters. 
But the rule doesn’t allow for a player to even make a simple wager that they’ll win. That’s perception and simplicity, both good things.  But I wouldn’t have a problem at all with a league allowing players to bet on themselves to straight Up win a game. 

 
Surprised this story isn’t bigger news. If you go to Rotoworld’s home page, it didn’t even make the top stories. It’s all NBA garbage.

 
I refuse to believe this is true 😆

also just to recap:

Nick Looney (@NickLooney901)

Major NFL suspensions: Ray Rice: beating fiancé; 2 games

Adrian Peterson: felony child abuse; 6 games

Greg Hardy: beating gf; 10 games reduced to 4

Ezekiel Elliot: hitting women; 6 games

Calvin Ridley: 17 games MINIMUM for using Hard Rock Sportsbook (lol)

Josh Gordon: 6 seasons for smoking weed

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't care what anybody says, the Ridley thing cannot happen because the public needs to think that the games are on the up-and-up. They simply cannot bet on games. 

Josh Gordon is an embarrassment to the league and never should have been suspended. That should have been between him and the clubs, only the players lost the negotiation and the clubs farmed out their own responsibility to notice whether a player was on drugs to rigid CBA/NFL machinery, who decided whom, when, what, and where to test. 

 
Gordon was a waste of a career because he got caught up in prohibition. No other reason. What a shame to have denied us his talent. 

 
JohnnyU said:
Did Ray Rice ever play again?
Click to expand...
Narrator: He did not. 

True story. There was an elderly woman, about sixty-five/seventy on the train in Boston when the Rice thing hit and was being played everywhere. She came over to a guy that was watching the video on his phone and said something to the effect of "sometimes you just got to hit a #####."

My jaw hit the floor and didn't come back to my TMJ for about a minute on that train. Truly stupefying how we look at life sometimes. 

 
I believe Hardy’s career was effectively over as well. 
 

The NFL can say they care about domestic abuse and violence and their players not committing criminal acts but there is literally nothing more important to them than the integrity of the game. It’s the backbone of the multi-billion dollar business. If they said Ridley got 3 years I wouldn’t have been shocked. 

 
CletiusMaximus said:
wow - not kidding on this.  DUI manslaughter? 8 games.  Beat/kick your girlfriend in hotel hallway? 4 games.  Smack your girl unconscious in a public elevator? 2 games. Place a bet with one of the NFL's flagship marketing partners? You're done son.
Click to expand...
I take no issue with it. The key legal standard for professional sports is unpredictability of the outcome. A professional athlete gambling calls this into question and directly impacts this core element (whereas a DV offense is bad, it doesn’t go to such a core element). There can be no tolerance for gambling by professional athletes and sanctions should be severe to deter such a behavior. 

 
rockaction said:
What if the public sees nothing wrong with that vis a vis the integrity of the game? I mean, of course they'd care. But say it was like wrestling. There are a lot of people that know it's not real and don't mind. Same with Jai Alai. 

The reason I say this is because, when you logically break it down, it's 100% perception because the perception of the sport is what matters to the league heads. The public doesn't see it on the up-and-up, then it's a problem. If they see it on the up-and-up even with malfeasance, still no problem. 

Therefore, it really is 100 percent perception and attitudes of the public. If the public doesn't care, why would the sporting heads care? They care because the public is the check on a lopsided balance. If the public didn't care, we'd have a big market Super Bowl every year, courtesy of the referees. 

This is a nitpicking post, though. I'm just explaining why one begets the other. 
Click to expand...
I sad it was not perception because there is real chance outcomes are affected, potentially. I sure hope the NFL doesn't consider having perception of WWE an acceptable outcome. I think I'll bow out here. I'm with the poster who commented that some things are not debatable. This is one. 

 
BigJim® said:
I sad it was not perception because there is real chance outcomes are affected, potentially. I sure hope the NFL doesn't consider having perception of WWE an acceptable outcome. I think I'll bow out here. I'm with the poster who commented that some things are not debatable. This is one. 
Click to expand...
Right. I don't think we disagree that it can have a real effect on the outcome of games. I was just arguing an abstraction that said if the the public didn't care (perception), then the league wouldn't care. 

That's really just an abstract point. 

 
kutta said:
This is pretty weird. Sure looks fishy.
 

https://mobile.twitter.com/BEEHIGHB/status/1500936048683200517
Click to expand...
You know, I watched every one of those plays live, while in close FF games.

And every time I was yelling at my television. 

In particular the deep shot where he has both defenders beat to the end zone, and inexplicably attempts to unnecessarily cut back across them. I was like “HOW COULD YOU NOT SCORE THERE?!”

Definitrly sus. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
he had a temporary football version of the gymnastics ”twisties” when it came to gambling...good thing is....apparently he should be ok in about three days or so....

 
The premise that NFL has "integrity" is the thing that's hilarious. Dan Snyder fostered an NFL culture of harassing women in the workplace and still has his team and was lightly fined I'm not going to go into the numerous self-inflicted black eyes and conflict of interests the NFL has had the last 10 years because I'll get off-track. I get that Ridley gotta get hit hard to show zero tolerance; it was a dumb thing to do. But according to the NFL investigation, it was proven he had no insider information, he doesn't have a network a.k.a Pookie the local bookie running numbers for Pym Schlomo, the small-time Italian gambling boss who does illegal casinos. The man literally bet on an new Sportsbook app away from the team for what amounts to chump change for an NFL player... and he even bet on his team to win (THE 2021 ATLANTA FALCONS! I mean Good Lord, Arthur blank should shake his hand for showing belief that his team ain't #####). This isn't remotely a Pete Rose situation where he was an active participant as games were being played, and he's getting a year suspension?

 
wlwiles said:
The Yahoo article says it happened during a 5 day period in November 2021, while he was already away from the Falcons.  
Click to expand...
If that's the case, then it's almost certainly the 5 day stretch in Nov when the Falcons played against the Cowboys and Patriots and lost both games a combined 68-3. Things that make you go hmm....

 
Capella said:
I believe Hardy’s career was effectively over as well. 
 

The NFL can say they care about domestic abuse and violence and their players not committing criminal acts but there is literally nothing more important to them than the integrity of the game. It’s the backbone of the multi-billion dollar business. If they said Ridley got 3 years I wouldn’t have been shocked. 
Click to expand...
This is quite a hot take, StuGotz

 
The Frankman said:
I refuse to believe this is true 😆

also just to recap:

Nick Looney (@NickLooney901)

Major NFL suspensions: Ray Rice: beating fiancé; 2 games

Adrian Peterson: felony child abuse; 6 games

Greg Hardy: beating gf; 10 games reduced to 4

Ezekiel Elliot: hitting women; 6 games

Calvin Ridley: 17 games MINIMUM for using Hard Rock Sportsbook (lol)

Josh Gordon: 6 seasons for smoking weed
Click to expand...
We should put Ricky Williams on this list, another absurd suspension more than once IIRC.  

 
The Frankman said:
The premise that NFL has "integrity" is the thing that's hilarious. Dan Snyder fostered an NFL culture of harassing women in the workplace and still has his team and was lightly fined I'm not going to go into the numerous self-inflicted black eyes and conflict of interests the NFL has had the last 10 years because I'll get off-track. I get that Ridley gotta get hit hard to show zero tolerance; it was a dumb thing to do. But according to the NFL investigation, it was proven he had no insider information, he doesn't have a network a.k.a Pookie the local bookie running numbers for Pym Schlomo, the small-time Italian gambling boss who does illegal casinos. The man literally bet on an new Sportsbook app away from the team for what amounts to chump change for an NFL player... and he even bet on his team to win (THE 2021 ATLANTA FALCONS! I mean Good Lord, Arthur blank should shake his hand for showing belief that his team ain't #####). This isn't remotely a Pete Rose situation where he was an active participant as games were being played, and he's getting a year suspension?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter if he had insider info or not.  It’s bad optics.  

 
rockaction said:
Right. I don't think we disagree that it can have a real effect on the outcome of games. I was just arguing an abstraction that said if the the public didn't care (perception), then the league wouldn't care. 

That's really just an abstract point. 
Click to expand...
Yep

 I do disagree with the idea that betting ON your team has a real effect on the games. But yeah, I get that the blanket rule is the right one. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
https://twitter.com/football_guys/status/1501019685365633024?s=21
Click to expand...
Domestic violence doesn't cut at the integrity of a business where a team and stadium can be valued at eight billion dollars a pop. 

Domestic violence sufferers get way less than that in damages. We've decided that as a society, domestic violence is less important than throwing eight billion dollars up for grabs because a sport's participants want to gamble. 

Before people confuse this, let me state this: We assign a dollar value to everything. Whether or not we like that is up for debate. What is not up for debate is that we value one life less than eight billion dollars. You'll never see that in damages. The city of St. Louis just raked in around 875,000 million dollars from the L.A. Rams for malfeasance. The Rams could have killed somebody deliberately and paid less in civil damages. As soon as somebody puts eight billion in jeopardy, you can bet they're unleashing hounds. 

 
-OZ- said:
Yep

 I do disagree with the idea that betting ON your team has a real effect on the games. But yeah, I get that the blanket rule is the right one. 
Click to expand...
Let’s say a player has a bookie ( not alL of these players are flush with money).  He either bets on his team or passes.  What does that say about the times he passes?  

 
Casino workers cannot play progressive payout games - it’s a bad look if they were to win, and it questions the integrity of the business.  

 
Many in here seem shocked by the punishment. 

Was the punishment for gambling on football known by the players?

If so, well, what exactly is there to complain about?  Should they cut Ridley a ton of slack for some reason?

Also, comparing this to the other punishment for players for DV or whatever is silly.  One could ruin the league, the others cant.  Horrible argument.

It doesnt mean they think gambling is worse than DV, it means they think gambling is worse for their business than DV

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FairWarning said:
Let’s say a player has a bookie ( not alL of these players are flush with money).  He either bets on his team or passes.  What does that say about the times he passes?  
Click to expand...
it could say something, it might not. It could just mean he isn’t confident that they’ll beat whomever. I’d assume the real issue is that simple rules are generally better than more complicated rules, and as stated before, perception. 

 
Let’s be real, it’s not that the punishment for Ridley is too harsh.  It’s not.  You absolutely can not have players, coaches, etc betting on NFL games.  But the punishment for domestic abuse, if we’re calling that 2-6 games, is insanely light.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Faust
College WR Ryan Williams, Alabama
Replies
2
Views
287
Faust
Faust
BobbyLayne
Mid Rnd WRs: Godwin, Johnson, Kirk, McLaurin, Ridley
Replies
20
Views
2K
massraider
massraider
B
Bryce Oliver Titans WR
Replies
28
Views
1K
Bri
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top