ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Old, washed-up coach.
That must be what it says because that's what Patriots linebacker Mike Vrabel called Shula the other day. Shula drew Vrabel's ire after the former Colts and Dolphins coach had the audacity to say what many NFL coaches and players think:
That whatever this year's Patriots accomplish -- a perfect season, a Super Bowl, whatever -- it will be accompanied by an asterisk because they stole opponents' signals.
Maybe not an actual asterisk, as in "*hey, they cheated,'' but a mental asterisk, an implied asterisk, one that you know belongs there without actually being there.
Vrabel, when asked about Shula's opinion, could have shown a modicum of respect and simply said he disagreed with Shula. Instead, he dismissed the former coach's views and called Shula an "old, washed-up coach.''
_______________
Vrabel never called him that. Kravitz is putting it in quotes that Vrabel used those words on Shula.
__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Old, washed-up coach.
That must be what it says because that's what Patriots linebacker Mike Vrabel called Shula the other day. Shula drew Vrabel's ire after the former Colts and Dolphins coach had the audacity to say what many NFL coaches and players think:
That whatever this year's Patriots accomplish -- a perfect season, a Super Bowl, whatever -- it will be accompanied by an asterisk because they stole opponents' signals.
Maybe not an actual asterisk, as in "*hey, they cheated,'' but a mental asterisk, an implied asterisk, one that you know belongs there without actually being there.
Vrabel, when asked about Shula's opinion, could have shown a modicum of respect and simply said he disagreed with Shula. Instead, he dismissed the former coach's views and called Shula an "old, washed-up coach.''
_______________
Vrabel never called him that. Kravitz is putting it in quotes that Vrabel used those words on Shula.
You cannot base a libel suit on an opinion - simple as that. Libel suits can only be based on false statements of fact.
Glad to see the media can misquote as always. He called him an old coach. He said the players were washed up. But who cares, another day another dig. What else is new? Lots and lots of jealousy because by the time this season's over the Patriots will have re-written most of the record books.
You cannot base a libel suit on an opinion - simple as that. Libel suits can only be based on false statements of fact.
Exactly. Kravitz wasn't stating an opinion. (read the column)
He stated that Vrabel called Shula "a washed up old coach". He put it in quotations. Vrabel never said such a thing. He called the PLAYERS "washed up old players".
Black and white libel.
__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com
Old, washed-up coach.
That must be what it says because that's what Patriots linebacker Mike Vrabel called Shula the other day. Shula drew Vrabel's ire after the former Colts and Dolphins coach had the audacity to say what many NFL coaches and players think:
That whatever this year's Patriots accomplish -- a perfect season, a Super Bowl, whatever -- it will be accompanied by an asterisk because they stole opponents' signals.
Maybe not an actual asterisk, as in "*hey, they cheated,'' but a mental asterisk, an implied asterisk, one that you know belongs there without actually being there.
Vrabel, when asked about Shula's opinion, could have shown a modicum of respect and simply said he disagreed with Shula. Instead, he dismissed the former coach's views and called Shula an "old, washed-up coach.''
_______________
Vrabel never called him that. Kravitz is putting it in quotes that Vrabel used those words on Shula.
Vrabel was misquoted, he called the Dolphins players old and washed up, not Shula. To claim libel he'd have to build a case for being deliberately misquoted ("malice of forethought"). Kravitz can, and should, absolve himself by having a correction printed.
Exactly. Kravitz wasn't stating an opinion. (read the column) He put it in quotations.
If you put it in quotes, you are, by definition, attributing those words to that person. At that point, it's a matter of fact.
__________________
"Momentum was quickly snatched away by New England, who once again proved that any Patriot, at any moment, can make a play." —Inside the NFL, Packers v. Patriots
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Exactly. Kravitz wasn't stating an opinion. (read the column)
He stated that Vrabel called Shula "a washed up old coach". He put it in quotations. Vrabel never said such a thing. He called the PLAYERS "washed up old players".
Black and white libel.
Naw, just a misquote. Libel has some seriously stringent requirements. The statements have to destroy the person's good standing in the community. I don't think that particular misquote comes even close.
A libelous statment would be something along the lines of "So and so cheats on his taxes and stole money from charity." And it has to do damage to the person's reputation in the community.
What Easterbroo did with Belichick was way closer, except it was fuzzy whether or not it was his "opinion" and Belichick is a pretty well known public figure. Both of those things weaken a case for libel.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Naw, just a misquote. Libel has some seriously stringent requirements. The statements have to destroy the person's good standing in the community. I don't think that particular misquote comes even close.
A libelous statment would be something along the lines of "So and so cheats on his taxes and stole money from charity." And it has to do damage to the person's reputation in the community.
What Easterbroo did with Belichick was way closer, except it was fuzzy whether or not it was his "opinion" and Belichick is a pretty well known public figure. Both of those things weaken a case for libel.
If the misquote is not corrected by Kravitz or his newspaper after it has been pointed out to them, it is considered a deliberate falsification. That IS a basis for a libel suit.
Further, the misquote was used as the BASIS for the Kravitz column. It was the central point of it. If it's a mistake, then they have to correct it. If it is deliberate and they don't issue a correction, then Vrabel has them dead to right.
__________________
"They (Patriots) may be the greatest team ever" - Chris Mortenson, January 18, 2005 on espn.com
What Are the Libel Laws in Indiana?
Linear Mode
