Quote:
Originally Posted by ska///235i
The balls were under inflated in the first half. Then was changed back to specs after half. Refs should check all balls before game time and during game time.
Brady is not 100% guilty as there is no evidence and have not been proven in court. Is all he said-she said.
Im not saying He did or didnt do it or known about it but you're innocent until proven guilty.
NFL fines are average in tens of thousands so a million dollar is a big fine regardless what the franchise is worth. They dont fine a penalty base off the net worth of a team.
Two first round draft is like taking your best player away from the team. I dont recall another team with the same punishment
4 game suspension.
Well do you think cheating by deflating a ball is equal to or worst than beating a child or wife or doing drugs and drug enhancements? Well those offense will only get two games most. Also Ray Lewis was accuse of murder... He's doing well now
Its all first world problems and god bless Merica!
|
Red:
And in which half of the game do the rules allow for willfully under inflated balls? I guess from your comment it must be the first half?
Blue:
I think it safe to say that Mr. Brady noticed the under inflation, even if he wasn't party to it. Insofar as the Mr. Brady held those under inflated balls many times in the game's first half, and not once even so much as said, "Hey, I think this/these balls may be under inflated. Can we at least check, please?", we can all say that Mr. Brady is 100% guilty of not reporting an infraction that was known to him.
Again, my issue with the "deflategate" matter is the ethics of it, not whether it had an impact. If/when it's at least as empirically evident that other teams' QBs have done the same thing as Mr. Brady failed to do, I'll have exactly the same comments, perhaps more scathing.
As far as I'm concerned, the fact that any player is aware of an infraction and doesn't report it ASAP, as per the agreement they made with the NFL in accepting their job offer, an agreement which is on the WWW for all to see (
https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domai...liancePlan.pdf), is a breach of the trust fans place in sports teams and their personnel to play by the rules.
Green:
Is the matter not one of employer and employee? What does a court of law have to do with what is or isn't proven in this case? Is there really any doubt that Mr. Brady didn't follow the NFL's code of conduct guidelines?
I ask you, what would your employer do if you were found to have clearly breached its code of conduct? I can tell you in my industry, most people would lose their jobs for violations of the codes of conduct set forth by management consulting and public accounting firms. And though they are well paid, they are nowhere near as well paid as Mr. Brady.
But pay isn't even relevant since we are talking about Mr. Brady. The fact is the man was raised Catholic and interned at Merril Lynch. There's no way you can tell me Mr. Brady wasn't taught and doesn't understand the principle of avoiding all appearances of impropriety, even when there may be none intended or in play. In light of that, I haven't and don't expect any different behavior from Mr. Brady than what I know he's been aware of as 'the right thing' for years on end.
Orange:
Best player on the team? Really? You honestly believe a novice player from college is a better player than a veteran? I suppose that's somewhat possible given the vigor of youth and so on, but I have a hard time thinking that new draftees on the whole are so good that they make or break team winnings on a consistent and recurring basis. (
http://www.cleveland.com/pluto/index...erans_are.html) That said, if you show me some evidence that rookies are that good in comparison to veterans, I'd be willing to accept your assertion to that effect and reconsider whether I think the impact of the penalty is meaningfully greater by dint of the Pats' having lost those first round picks.
Purple:
I'm not going to answer the question of whether deflating a ball is worse than beating a child. I'm not because I asked you one simple question and you have yet to answer it. For your reference, the question I asked you can be found at the end of this post:
http://www.e90post.com/forums/showpo...3&postcount=71 .
I'm also not going to respond because no matter what answer I give, there will unavoidably follow a lengthy debate on the philosophy of punishment, particularly Utilitarian vs. Retributivist vs. Compromise (Hart --
http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu...1&context=mulr) thinking on the matter. That you even posed the question you did suggests you either are bucking for that debate, or you aren't aware there is even a debate among those three positions. Not that it matters what philosophical tack I take for I suspect you'll but offer the classic objections to whichever one I pose, and that will just bore me.
Either way I haven't right now got the energy for that discussion; moreover, this isn't the place for it. Much as I like philosophy, I think one one actually has found there own dicta that work for oneself, it's best to express it via the positions they take on various matters than to layout the cognitive rationale for their specific thinking that led to their position(s) on those matters. I've done the former quite clearing in this thread. Accordingly, it should be quite clear to you and others that what I think be the lesser act between ball deflation and abuse/battery has absolutely nothing to do with why I think the penalties levied in the "deflategate" matter are insufficient. I bid you show me any rigorous thinker (and their rigorous, related thoughts) who disagrees.
All the best.