Officiating

[upstater1]

How does it change for many teams? If the Jete loses that game, Seahawks get the 6th wild card, no?

People play the season differently. If different teams are up for the final spots at the end of the year, they approach the games differntly.

 

[captain stone]

The problem with even saying this is that the Testaverde tuck rule was the 2nd game of the season, so the entire season changes for many teams. It's an impossible argument really but worth remembering.

Was the Testaverde tuck game in Foxborough, or at Exit-16W?

 

[upstater1]

Was the Testaverde tuck game in Foxborough, or at Exit-16W?

At Foxborough

 

[1960Pats]

Was the Testaverde tuck game in Foxborough, or at Exit-16W?

That really doesn't matter. The NYFL is being run from Exit-16W.

The NFL did do that but when pressed on it, they claimed that they did it for internal reasons and that they didn't keep the records. So basically, the checks showed that they were the buffoons we all knew they were, so they didn't feel like saying it out loud.

All in their efforts to smear the New England Patriots.

Sometimes I wonder if this will change when Belichick retires but I'm guessing that it won't. The only way the biased replay officiating goes away is if the NFL moves that replay office out of Jets/Giants territory. There is no way the Patriots are going to get a fair review from any Jets fan.

BTW - Google images of "low tire pressure cold temps" and you'll get hits like this:

Crygate was another "violation" with video evidence that magically disappeared after Goodell's wife leaked some of it. The useful idiots (thanks @Jlaff ) use that disappearance as proof that the Pats must have cheated.

During the deflation scam the only person who did anything wrong with footballs that day was some NYFL employee (most likely a former Jet) who was taking footballs that were meant for charity.

And that's kind of in the same category as Eli giving charity what were supposed to be game-worn helmets but instead were going to the highest bidding collectors.

Then there's the blatant tampering that occurred when the Jets tried to get Revis back.

All of those things have disappeared without even a whisper but the bs Pats/Brady cheating angle is being repeated over and over. Just the other day I'm in a diner and a guy sitting a little down from me is wearing a Dolphins jacket. When I mentioned that Brady had just retired he went on a rant about Brady being a cheater and how great Marino and Shula were.

As for why the NYFL had it against the Pats I think they caught everyone by surprise with the quick 3 of 4 titles out of nowhere. I think the NYFL expected that they were greasing the skids for PEDton but the Pats threw a monkey wrench into their plans. My biggest disappointment of all about this though is the way Bob Kraft capitulated and allowed his coach, team and best player to be labeled as cheaters without any fight at all. Ironically, that roll over by Kraft weakened his own team's legacy.

 

[archstanton543]

As for why the NYFL had it against the Pats I think they caught everyone by surprise with the quick 3 of 4 titles out of nowhere. I think the NYFL expected that they were greasing the skids for PEDton but the Pats threw a monkey wrench into their plans. My biggest disappointment of all about this though is the way Bob Kraft capitulated and allowed his coach, team and best player to be labeled as cheaters without any fight at all. Ironically, that roll over by Kraft weakened his own team's I legacy.

I was with you up until this. The only way Kraft could have fought back was by suing the league which would have nullified the CBA. There's no way he was going to do that. No owner would. You can "yeah, but" it to death but those are the facts.

 

[Jlaff]

I was with you up until this. The only way Kraft could have fought back was by suing the league which would have nullified the CBA. There's no way he was going to do that. No owner would. You can "yeah, but" it to death but those are the facts.

I don't think that's what motivated Kraft not to sue. He did it for what he thought was the good of the league. And I don't understand how it would have nullified the CBA. The cause of action Kraft would advance is between an owner and the league. A player is part of the story but the damage from Kraft's perspective was to his team.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

I don't think that's what motivated Kraft not to sue. He did it for what he thought was the good of the league. And I don't understand how it would have nullified the CBA. The cause of action Kraft would advance is between an owner and the league. A player is part of the story but the damage from Kraft's perspective was to his team.

Davis sued the league like 14 times.

Our legal argument is, and was accepted by Berman in our appeal, that although the CBA gives Goddell total authority to do whatever he wants, any binding contract does not give a party the right to violate a person's civil rights by prejudicially just making sh*t up, contradicting reality and science solely to cause injury and damage to a subject; in this case imposing an unfair competitive disadvantage upon the Patriots, along with denying Brady his right to employment solely based on discrimination.

 

[patfanken]

Davis sued the league like 14 times.

Our legal argument is, and was accepted by Berman in our appeal, that although the CBA gives Goddell total authority to do whatever he wants, any binding contract does not give a party the right to violate a person's civil rights by prejudicially just making sh*t up, contradicting reality and science solely to cause injury and damage to a subject; in this case imposing an unfair competitive disadvantage upon the Patriots, along with denying Brady his right to employment solely based on discrimination.

That was the thing that finally made me understand exactly WHY Goodell could suspend Brady and cost the Pats draft picks DESPITE the complete lack of evidence that anything unfair had happened. Based ON that lack of evidence a Federal Appeals Court Judge voided the suspension. HOWEVER, when that decision was appealed they sided with the NYFL. What is often lost to many haters was the reason they gave.

It WASN'T about the evidence. In a 2-1 vote that 3 judge panel basically said that according to the CBA, Goodell doesn't need any evidence. The CBA allows him to do whatever the **** he wants and what he says is the final word, period. Most haters will use that ruling as proof of the Pats/Brady's guilt.

In that sense there really wasn't much Kraft could have done to change the outcome. Making a bigger public stink about it might have made Pats fans happier, but it wouldn't have changed anything and might have made it worse outside of Pats Nation.

Spygate, btw, was even worse

 

[Plunkett2Vataha]

That was the thing that finally made me understand exactly WHY Goodell could suspend Brady and cost the Pats draft picks DESPITE the complete lack of evidence that anything unfair had happened. Based ON that lack of evidence a Federal Appeals Court Judge voided the suspension. HOWEVER, when that decision was appealed they sided with the NYFL. What is often lost to many haters was the reason they gave.

It WASN'T about the evidence. In a 2-1 vote that 3 judge panel basically said that according to the CBA, Goodell doesn't need any evidence. The CBA allows him to do whatever the **** he wants and what he says is the final word, period. Most haters will use that ruling as proof of the Pats/Brady's guilt.

In that sense there really wasn't much Kraft could have done to change the outcome. Making a bigger public stink about it might have made Pats fans happier, but it wouldn't have changed anything and might have made it worse outside of Pats Nation.

Spygate, btw, was even worse

My memory isn't what it used to be, but I was pretty sure after the Berman ruling was overturned by that 2-1 vote that the NFL front office quietly dropped the farce of saying the Patriots were deflating footballs to get a competitive edge. Because the NFL lawyers admitted in Federal Court that they had zero evidence on their bogus claims of Brady and the Patriots deflating footballs, they knew they had to still justify the punishment they were hell-bent on giving the Patriots. So they made a very low-key statement saying the suspension for Brady and the loss of the first round pick were because Brady and the team were not as forthcoming and cooperative as the NFL front office wanted them to be. Of course they didn't overly publicize it as it appeared they were quite content to let most of the country believe that the Brady suspension and loss of a first round pick WERE because of deflating footballs. I've lost count (as I'm sure the vast majority of this board have also done) of how many times I've had to point this out to my non-Patriots friends.

 

[Jlaff]

That was the thing that finally made me understand exactly WHY Goodell could suspend Brady and cost the Pats draft picks DESPITE the complete lack of evidence that anything unfair had happened. Based ON that lack of evidence a Federal Appeals Court Judge voided the suspension. HOWEVER, when that decision was appealed they sided with the NYFL. What is often lost to many haters was the reason they gave.

It WASN'T about the evidence. In a 2-1 vote that 3 judge panel basically said that according to the CBA, Goodell doesn't need any evidence. The CBA allows him to do whatever the **** he wants and what he says is the final word, period. Most haters will use that ruling as proof of the Pats/Brady's guilt.

In that sense there really wasn't much Kraft could have done to change the outcome. Making a bigger public stink about it might have made Pats fans happier, but it wouldn't have changed anything and might have made it worse outside of Pats Nation.

Spygate, btw, was even worse

I believe that Stephanie Stradley (or whatever her name was) set it out. No contract permits outright fraud and bad faith. IIRC they didn't play that angle on appeal and it was ultimately determined that Goodell was the final arbiter on the adequacy of evidence. No one challenged Goodell's bad faith and they should have. Administrative law is a ******** practice area, but there are still some rules to follow.

I'm also drinking right now, but I know your post is way off.

 

[Jlaff]

My memory isn't what it used to be, but I was pretty sure after the Berman ruling was overturned by that 2-1 vote that the NFL front office quietly dropped the farce of saying the Patriots were deflating footballs to get a competitive edge. Because the NFL lawyers admitted in Federal Court that they had zero evidence on their bogus claims of Brady and the Patriots deflating footballs, they knew they had to still justify the punishment they were hell-bent on giving the Patriots. So they made a very low-key statement saying the suspension for Brady and the loss of the first round pick were because Brady and the team were not as forthcoming and cooperative as the NFL front office wanted them to be. Of course they didn't overly publicize it as it appeared they were quite content to let most of the country believe that the Brady suspension and loss of a first round pick WERE because of deflating footballs. I've lost count (as I'm sure the vast majority of this board have also done) of how many times I've had to point this out to my non-Patriots friends.

I need to watch that Netflix documentary.

 

[Gumby]

According to that photo, it looks like O'Hara had his arm around Seymour's collarbone, not even neck. So it can't be "choking." I made a mistake in call it "choking."



I'm not the one who brought this up. Blame @Palm Beach Pats Fan for posting the pictures.

It wasn’t a mistake to call ut choking

it was holding AND unsportsmanlike conduct

if it wasn’t choking why did Sey go to the ref after the play to show him thhe fingerprint gouges in his throat to try and get the call?????

to no avail. The fix was in.

 

[Actual Pats Fan]

That was the thing that finally made me understand exactly WHY Goodell could suspend Brady and cost the Pats draft picks DESPITE the complete lack of evidence that anything unfair had happened. Based ON that lack of evidence a Federal Appeals Court Judge voided the suspension. HOWEVER, when that decision was appealed they sided with the NYFL. What is often lost to many haters was the reason they gave.

It WASN'T about the evidence. In a 2-1 vote that 3 judge panel basically said that according to the CBA, Goodell doesn't need any evidence. The CBA allows him to do whatever the **** he wants and what he says is the final word, period. Most haters will use that ruling as proof of the Pats/Brady's guilt.

In that sense there really wasn't much Kraft could have done to change the outcome. Making a bigger public stink about it might have made Pats fans happier, but it wouldn't have changed anything and might have made it worse outside of Pats Nation.

Spygate, btw, was even worse

IDK what you mean; but at least there actually WERE Pats staff there at Giants Stadium, albeit doing nothing wrong.

In DefameGate the Patriots did nothing, and were treated as 'repeat offenders '.

Ultimately, as you point out, it was, "Well, even if they didn't do what we made up to accuse them with, they didn't properly cooperate, B.S.B.S.B.S..."

 

[1960Pats]

I was with you up until this. The only way Kraft could have fought back was by suing the league which would have nullified the CBA. There's no way he was going to do that. No owner would. You can "yeah, but" it to death but those are the facts.

That was the rumor at the time but that didn't add up when the league capitulated to the new Rams owner because they were worried that he might "sue the league." If he could sue the league so could Kraft.

All Kraft had to do was fight back as hard as he did for himself and maybe the Pats legacy wouldn't be one of cheating now.

 

[1960Pats]

My memory isn't what it used to be, but I was pretty sure after the Berman ruling was overturned by that 2-1 vote that the NFL front office quietly dropped the farce of saying the Patriots were deflating footballs to get a competitive edge. Because the NFL lawyers admitted in Federal Court that they had zero evidence on their bogus claims of Brady and the Patriots deflating footballs, they knew they had to still justify the punishment they were hell-bent on giving the Patriots. So they made a very low-key statement saying the suspension for Brady and the loss of the first round pick were because Brady and the team were not as forthcoming and cooperative as the NFL front office wanted them to be. Of course they didn't overly publicize it as it appeared they were quite content to let most of the country believe that the Brady suspension and loss of a first round pick WERE because of deflating footballs. I've lost count (as I'm sure the vast majority of this board have also done) of how many times I've had to point this out to my non-Patriots friends.

Exactly my point. The stain remains on the Pats and Brady. That might not be the case if Kraft had stood up for his team and player, but he didn't.

My memory is also a bit foggy. Did Fraudger tell a lie on the stand?

We also need to keep in mind that Brady may have stopped fighting because he was dealing with his mom's cancer at the time.

This pic says it all...

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Exactly my point. The stain remains on the Pats and Brady. That might not be the case if Kraft had stood up for his team and player, but he didn't.

My memory is also a bit foggy. Did Fraudger tell a lie on the stand?

We also need to keep in mind that Brady may have stopped fighting because he was dealing with his mom's cancer at the time.

This pic says it all...

Did his lips move?

 

[archstanton543]

Exactly my point. The stain remains on the Pats and Brady. That might not be the case if Kraft had stood up for his team and player, but he didn't.

My memory is also a bit foggy. Did Fraudger tell a lie on the stand?

He never took the stand. By the time the case got to court it became a matter of "does the employer have the right to punish an employee even if under false pretenses" and "does the CBA allow for the Commissioner to appoint himself as arbiter". The answer to both those questions was yes because the Players Assoc. is crap and agreed to a crap CBA.

 

[upstater1]

Exactly my point. The stain remains on the Pats and Brady. That might not be the case if Kraft had stood up for his team and player, but he didn't.

My memory is also a bit foggy. Did Fraudger tell a lie on the stand?

We also need to keep in mind that Brady may have stopped fighting because he was dealing with his mom's cancer at the time.

This pic says it all...

Whether the stain is on the Patriots rarely ever comes to my consciousness or experience. When someone brings it up to me, I just say the balls weren't deflated. And they say, "but the texts." And I say, maybe look into that yourself, because the PSI was not low. And I've yet to meet someone who argues that, though some might say "I still believe they did it..." I just say, did what? Basically, it ends conversations to say the balls weren't deflated.

 

[Guts]

Whether the stain is on the Patriots rarely ever comes to my consciousness or experience. When someone brings it up to me, I just say the balls weren't deflated. And they say, "but the texts." And I say, maybe look into that yourself, because the PSI was not low. And I've yet to meet someone who argues that, though some might say "I still believe they did it..." I just say, did what? Basically, it ends conversations to say the balls weren't deflated.

After Deflategate the Patriots achieved this
SB 49
AFCCG Loss
SB 51
SB 52 Loss
Sb 53

So the league did us a favor lmao

 

[The Brandon Five]

He never took the stand. By the time the case got to court it became a matter of "does the employer have the right to punish an employee even if under false pretenses" and "does the CBA allow for the Commissioner to appoint himself as arbiter". The answer to both those questions was yes because the Players Assoc. is crap and agreed to a crap CBA.

Goondell didn't, but his lawyer did.

NFL Lawyer Reportedly Lied To Judges About Tom Brady's Honesty In Appeal