NFL Appeal oral arguments thread

[reflexblue]

but there is a huge difference between arguing under oath and not.........yesterday's hearing seems to be more about what **** you can make stick to the walls and not factual truths

These judges are Suppose to be reviewing the merits of bermans decision to find in bradys favour, not analyzing the evidence to whether brady was guilty in the first place. Somethings fishy here.

 

[juny]

makes me sick that the cell phone issue was covered so much as it was not an issue at all in the initial wells report. it was new info in the appeal and brady's team had no chance to counter that info without an additional appeal to the nfl. cant believe the judges fell for the red herring - as another article stated, goodell even misrepresented what was talked about on the phones between phones and ball boy.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

The point is that Goodell shouldn't be judging his own case. He has a history of disparate treatment of the Patriots and their players vs. other teams which shows bias.

Why is Goodell bias? That's speculative and not really a fair question especially in these proceeding.

The question was fair. As to whether Goodell should be judging his own case...take that up with the Players Union. Kessler wanted them to strike over that clause, but was shut down by the Bob Kraft/Jeff Saturday Bear Hug moment.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I thought Daniel Wallach said he would make the transcript available some time today, I'm swamped with work but if someone finds it can you link it?

Me too. Is the full transcript out there? If so, could someone please post a link. Thanks.

 

[Mack Herron]

Experts are split.
Polling the Experts: Who Will Win the Deflategate Appeal?

 

[Gronkowski123]

Experts are split.
Polling the Experts: Who Will Win the Deflategate Appeal?

thewhitebronco website. lol how ironic..

i like ian gunn's explanation..

“If I had to base my prediction based solely off the oral arguments, I would probably say the NFL would win, but the case involves more than that. I still believe that there’s more to the NFLPA’s arguments and that the law and arguments, as explained in the parties’ briefs, favor Brady. Like many legal questions, the question of who wins depends on what you mean by “win.” Understanding that, I think that Brady will win at least one of the issues on appeal, meaning his punishment will not be reinstated by the Second Circuit.”

 

[QuantumMechanic]

A thought that occurred to me.

In general, judges like to rule on as narrow a basis as possible. Perhaps the judges want to completely avoid the "Article 46 makes Roger an evil god who can do whatever he wants, regardless of anything" because saying he can be an evil god is offensive to their sense of justice but explicitly saying that federal law X overturns Article 46 is also something they're not comfortable with.

So perhaps they're trying to develop a "Goodell had a decent enough reason to do what he did" foundation to enable them to say something like "We do not have to address issues A, B, and C because an impartial abitrator could reasonably believe Brady was involved because of P, Q, R. Thus we do not need to determine whether Goodell has the power to do anything he wants because he acted reasonably in this case. Berman decision vacated."

Not good for Brady, obviously.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

A thought that occurred to me.

In general, judges like to rule on as narrow a basis as possible. Perhaps the judges want to completely avoid the "Article 46 makes Roger an evil god who can do whatever he wants, regardless of anything" because saying he can be an evil god is offensive to their sense of justice but explicitly saying that federal law X overturns Article 46 is also something they're not comfortable with.

So perhaps they're trying to develop a "Goodell had a decent enough reason to do what he did" foundation to enable them to say something like "We do not have to address issues A, B, and C because an impartial abitrator could reasonably believe Brady was involved because of P, Q, R. Thus we do not need to determine whether Goodell has the power to do anything he wants because he acted reasonably in this case. Berman decision vacated."

Not good for Brady, obviously.

Possible but they may have just been satisfying their curiosity.

 

[RobertWeathers]

A thought that occurred to me.

In general, judges like to rule on as narrow a basis as possible. Perhaps the judges want to completely avoid the "Article 46 makes Roger an evil god who can do whatever he wants, regardless of anything" because saying he can be an evil god is offensive to their sense of justice but explicitly saying that federal law X overturns Article 46 is also something they're not comfortable with.

So perhaps they're trying to develop a "Goodell had a decent enough reason to do what he did" foundation to enable them to say something like "We do not have to address issues A, B, and C because an impartial abitrator could reasonably believe Brady was involved because of P, Q, R. Thus we do not need to determine whether Goodell has the power to do anything he wants because he acted reasonably in this case. Berman decision vacated."

Not good for Brady, obviously.

I follow you but if you want to get really finite the question is....was Tom Brady provided notice? Yes or no?

If the answer was no, Berman ruling upheld.

If the answer was yes, for what?

The "what" was a ball violation.

The award for a ball violation is $8k.

By that logic - as was Berman's, Brady was provided notice but the notice was not aligned with the award. Ruling upheld.

Seems pretty binary to me.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

The question was fair. As to whether Goodell should be judging his own case...take that up with the Players Union. Kessler wanted them to strike over that clause, but was shut down by the Bob Kraft/Jeff Saturday Bear Hug moment.

Maybe as a rhetorical question it's fair.

I'm pretty confident that Goodell has an anti-Patriots bias based on the way he treats them. WHY does Goodell have a problem with the Patriots? I don't really know, I can only speculate.

The question pretty much calls for Kessler to speculate. That makes it unfair.

 

[ViperGTS]

Maybe as a rhetorical question it's fair.

I'm pretty confident that Goodell has an anti-Patriots bias based on the way he treats them. WHY does Goodell have a problem with the Patriots? I don't really know, I can only speculate.

The question pretty much calls for Kessler to speculate. That makes it unfair.

Goodell doesn't have an an actual beef with the Pats. The other owners do. Lost revenue due to the Pats. It's always about money. Always in every aspect of life. The way these supposed respected high level judges comported themselves is disturbing. From what I've hear it's something I'd expect a first time judge to be doing. Even then I would expect something more.

It's almost like someone with some.....money....got into their ears. No other explantion for an appellate judge(s) to appear so clueless.

 

[ViperGTS]

A thought that occurred to me.

In general, judges like to rule on as narrow a basis as possible. Perhaps the judges want to completely avoid the "Article 46 makes Roger an evil god who can do whatever he wants, regardless of anything" because saying he can be an evil god is offensive to their sense of justice but explicitly saying that federal law X overturns Article 46 is also something they're not comfortable with.

So perhaps they're trying to develop a "Goodell had a decent enough reason to do what he did" foundation to enable them to say something like "We do not have to address issues A, B, and C because an impartial abitrator could reasonably believe Brady was involved because of P, Q, R. Thus we do not need to determine whether Goodell has the power to do anything he wants because he acted reasonably in this case. Berman decision vacated."

Not good for Brady, obviously.

Wrong is wrong and I don't think comfort should play into any judges ruling on any case. If the law says this it says this. If precedent says this, then precedent says this. It's up to the law to protect the individual and in this case to shirk responsibility to protect and individual is irresponsible.

If that doesn't occur, what do we truly have?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Maybe as a rhetorical question it's fair.

I'm pretty confident that Goodell has an anti-Patriots bias based on the way he treats them. WHY does Goodell have a problem with the Patriots? I don't really know, I can only speculate.

The question pretty much calls for Kessler to speculate. That makes it unfair.

I still want to see the whole transcript.
I also agree with the poster who observed that the issue is with the Owners. Goodell is only the hired help, doing their bidding.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Goodell doesn't have an an actual beef with the Pats. The other owners do. Lost revenue due to the Pats. It's always about money. Always in every aspect of life. The way these supposed respected high level judges comported themselves is disturbing. From what I've hear it's something I'd expect a first time judge to be doing. Even then I would expect something more.

It's almost like someone with some.....money....got into their ears. No other explantion for an appellate judge(s) to appear so clueless.

I wish this was just an aberration but it isn't. It's typical behavior for most NY judges. It's a little surprising only because it's a case with major publicity and usually judges on on their best behavior when everyone is watching.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

Maybe as a rhetorical question it's fair.

I'm pretty confident that Goodell has an anti-Patriots bias based on the way he treats them. WHY does Goodell have a problem with the Patriots? I don't really know, I can only speculate.

The question pretty much calls for Kessler to speculate. That makes it unfair.

It's the other owners who have a problem with the pats. Their teams have been sorry for the most part for the past 15 years so they have to come up with some reason for why the pats were successful and their teams weren't - the pats cheated. Plus they felt goodell went easy on them during spygate. This whole thing is owner-driven.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

I still want to see the whole transcript.
I also agree with the poster who observed that the issue is with the Owners. Goodell is only the hired help, doing their bidding.

OK but we don't really know that. Humans being the complicated creatures they are often motivated by several different things. Maybe Goodell is just a glorified fan of another team, maybe it's league politics, maybe he has a personal problem with one or more members of the Patriots organization, maybe it's a combination of all these things.

The point is (1.) for whatever reason, he's bias and that bias is evident from the inconsistent treatment this team receives compared with other teams; and (2.) the reason for the bias really doesn't matter, if he bias he has no business deciding the facts of the case.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

It's the other owners who have a problem with the pats. Their teams have been sorry for the most part for the past 15 years so they have to come up with some reason for why the pats were successful and their teams weren't - the pats cheated. Plus they felt goodell went easy on them during spygate. This whole thing is owner-driven.

You may be 100% correct but, absent someone in the know admitting this, it can't be really be proven.

 

[reflexblue]

makes me sick that the cell phone issue was covered so much as it was not an issue at all in the initial wells report. it was new info in the appeal and brady's team had no chance to counter that info without an additional appeal to the nfl. cant believe the judges fell for the red herring - as another article stated, goodell even misrepresented what was talked about on the phones between phones and ball boy.

In the end last august the nfls lawyers essentially dropped the whole charade of brady deflating balls and desroying his phone, they dropped any pretense that the wells report was objective and told berman it didn't matter. all that mattered is goodell is the commissioner and he can do anything he wants because of the cba.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

I'm sure it's been touched on but what confuses me is why any of the "facts" or non-facts about the investigation and its conclusion matter at all. Aren't we operating on the presumption that "Brady cheated" anyway? Why does proving whether he did or didn't matter, and why are people already claiming the NFL will probably win based on the judges' opinion of this? Brady is not on trial for deflating footballs. The NFL is on trial. Not sure why there is widespread panic quite honestly.

 

[moejr]

I'm sure it's been touched on but what confuses me is why any of the "facts" or non-facts about the investigation and its conclusion matter at all. Aren't we operating on the presumption that "Brady cheated" anyway? Why does proving whether he did or didn't matter, and why are people already claiming the NFL will probably win based on the judges' opinion of this? Brady is not on trial for deflating footballs. The NFL is on trial. Not sure why there is widespread panic quite honestly.

Because somehow the Pats will get screwed here