April 25, 2016

If Brady misses the games against Arizona, Miami, Houston and Buffalo, I think the Patriots go 3-1 or 2-2. Arizona and Buffalo are the toughest opponents, but they get Buffalo at home.

posted by rcade at 11:58 AM on April 25, 2016

When the court overruled Goodell, I was surprised. I did not expect a judge to deny a league commissioner's authority to decide a player disciplinary matter covered by the collective bargaining agreement. This appeals ruling makes more sense to me. Courts like to avoid getting involved in situations that were decided through an arbitration process agreed to by both parties.

Now that a court has affirmed the NFL commissioner's authority, it would be a good idea for Goodell to offer to cut the suspension in half in exchange for Brady and Kraft's agreement to support that suspension and let the court fight end.

posted by rcade at 12:29 PM on April 25, 2016

it would be a good idea for Goodell to offer to cut the suspension in half in exchange for Brady and Kraft's agreement to support that suspension and let the court fight end

Amen.

posted by cixelsyd at 01:13 PM on April 25, 2016

Calling it a "good idea" was my way of saying Goodell would never do it. He is a blight on all Rogers.

posted by rcade at 02:08 PM on April 25, 2016

I thought the team already lost draft picks from this? In any case, that was never on the table regarding the suspension. This stopped being about Tom Brady, or those footballs, ages ago; the NFLPA can't be happy with this, which means either they keep fighting it, or maybe we have a strike at the next negotiation.

This seems like a pants-on-head retarded ruling (to me, the most pre-eminent labor law expert in all the land! :) ), since the presumption here seems to be that unless a CBA covers in chapter and verse every possible permutation of words and language and explicitly limits the commissioner in extreme detail in all possible ways, that the NFLPA and its members are basically exposed to any action on the part of the commissioner he may dream up. So basically, if Goodell wakes up tomorrow with a bad hair day, he can choose to suspend Tony Romo of the Cowboys for an entire year, and fine him 3x his annual salary, just because. And it will stand, because per the 2nd court, the CBA gives the commissioner "especially broad" powers.

The original appeal that overturned the suspension made a compelling case that the commissioner can't just invent new rules from whole cloth- 4 games for something that's explicitly in the rules as a $25K fine!- or based on rules that aren't part of the players agreement/rulebook. This new ruling seems to say "Even if you thought you'd agreed that the punishment for violation 'x' is detailed, you're fucked". That makes for shitty precedent, and to me means a strike/lockout at the next negotiation. The NFLPA will be forced to go hardcore next time, and basically say "We will not agree to any CBA that doesn't limit the commissioner to only fines, never to exceed $50K per player per game, and reviewable by an arbitrator hired by the NFLPA". The 2nd Circuit has just made it clear that the NFLPA would be crazy to not hold the line; if they do anything less, they have failed as a union.

Also, this from the article really pisses me off:

It is also likely to fuel a fresh round of debate over what role, if any, the quarterback and top NFL star played in using underinflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game in January 2015

Sorry, no. The case has never been made that there was any underinflation, intentional or otherwise; in fact, all the science has pointed at the opposite, that all measured 'deflation' was a result of the ideal gas law and nothing more. Granted, this is in a country where a significant percentage of the population denies evolution, climate change, and science in general, so I'm not that surprised. Still, that some deflation occurred continues to just be presumed in the face of all evidence is distressing in a "we've always been at war with Eastasia" kind of way. All I can hope is that Goodell goes completely nuts and starts over-penalizing players from many teams, so NFL fans can realize what was lost by the NFLPA in this ruling.

posted by hincandenza at 03:18 PM on April 25, 2016

As I understand it, there is supposed to be labor law that governs fairness- the arbitrator must be fair, and there is a "law of the shop" such that past penalties/allowed behavior bears weight on future punishments, etc. For example, if player X, Y, and Z all got a $25K fine for excess stickum, you can't suddenly give someone 3 games for the same infraction without due warning.

Consider that in recent years other incidences of ball tampering/pressure adjustment got a modest fine, that that penalty for such behavior is explicitly stated in the CBA. Yet Goodell is now acting as his own arbitrator, and made up a new penalty in contrast with an explicitly stated one, just for shits and giggles. With this successful appeal, so long as he doesn't violate the law/constitutional rights- Goodell can't now murder someone under the CBA, as an extreme example- there are no more limits on Goodell's rights to punishment. You're just hoping he won't go nuts on your team/favorite player with some "conduct detrimental" nonsense. Since he is his own appeals process, there is no chance he'll overrule his own initial ruling. If he nails a player on your favorite team, that player is toast: "extremely broad" means untouchable in this case.

And let's be clear: the CBA didn't give him this power, he took it. By pushing the envelope on what he could get away with, including becoming his own "impartial arbitrator", he eventually clawed out this new authority. I believe in 2020, the NFLPA sure as heck will die on that hill. They negotiated the last CBA without caring too much about this, because past and present commissioners didn't abuse their power like Goodell has done. Now, they know that not only will Goodell just make shit up- the science is unambiguous that no deflation occurred beyond exactly that defined by the ideal gas law- he will then be his own arbitrator where he can say to a player "I will be fair and impartial, provided you admit your guilt in everything I've accused you of, and accept your punishment", but that the circuit courts will uphold this based on the current CBA language. The union members can't be walking around with arbitrary punishments dangling over their head every time Goodell feels people need to respect his authori-tay.

In a tangential matter, I saw this amusing comment in the Reddit thread on this story:

strongscience62 Brady should get to serve his suspension in the preseason since, according to NFL ticket prices, those are real games too.

Well played, sir. :)

posted by hincandenza at 03:56 PM on April 25, 2016

cixelsyd: Not true.

If you had stated "The Patriot's presentation of their interpretation of science convinced some of us the opposite was true", then yes.

Yeah, no... I'm not going to rehash this argument in depth yet again, anymore than I'm going to argue with someone who denies evolution as science instead of simply a personal interpretation of faith. The impartial evidence and arguments are out there a mere google search away, and the Wells Report itself shows the numbers, which match the exact prediction of the ideal gas law to within a tenth of a PSI. That's not the Patriots, that's the NFL's own personalized, paid for report!

The point is, per this ruling, Goodell could unilaterally declare that throwing 50+TDs, going 19-0, or going to the conference finals too many times in a decade is "conduct detrimental" to the league. And he'd be within his rights to do so in the CBA, as well as issue any punishment he deems fit. He'd also be within his rights to run his own appeals process, as his own arbitrator, and declare his punishment fair and just.

Even if legally supported under the premise "Well, you should have negotiated a better CBA, it's not our job to fix that as an appeals court", as a practice that's fucking insane and tyrannical. Fans are simply hoping he won't do that to your team- which is what the NFLPA did, because they incorrectly assumed Goodell wouldn't overreach this grossly, in a way no past commissioner did. The Patriots and Saints are among the teams whose fanbase have woken up to the horrible flaw in that assumption.

posted by hincandenza at 04:38 PM on April 25, 2016

The Patriots were punished for SpyGate. The Saints were punished for BountyGate. The Falcons were punished for CrowdNoiseGate. The Patriots were punished for DeflateGate.

Goodell is a hack, but there's nothing unprecedented about a team being punished with the NFL Commissioner acting as the ultimate authority. That is how a sports league is supposed to work, not endless court cases.

A sports league is still governed by labor law, and labor law does lay out some rules as to what can be considered acceptable elements or interpretations of a CBA. Hence the court cases, whether you like them or not; that is how the system is supposed to work. If Goodell didn't want to be in court, he shouldn't craft new punishments out of whole cloth that test the limits of the existing CBA.

As to your examples of precedent: The Patriot team- not players- were punished for SpyGate; likewise with the lost draft picks for DeflateGate. Same as with the Falcons; the penalty was financial, against the team. League to team penalties are not governed by the CBA, so that's irrelevant.

And when it came to BountyGate, all four affected players successfully appealed their suspensions. Same for Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson. In every single one of those cases, the appeal was either heard by a different party, such as former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, or an external judge.

So, "nothing unprecedented" isn't exactly true, when most every high-profile Goodell punishment going beyond the letter of the CBA has been later vacated by the league's own appeal process or a court. The difference here? In the Brady case Goodell acted as his own arbitrator in the appeal. This current ruling isn't about the facts of deflation, but whether Goodell, as the acting arbitrator, implicitly has that broad authority per the current CBA. The decision was 2-1 that the NFLPA didn't prove some overwhelming/extreme unfairness in Goodell's handling of the arbitration.

So if we're going to talk precedent, it's worth noting that those previous cases in which Goodell ruled for some extended suspension regarding "conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game" were later overturned as him having overstepped the bounds of his authority. In addition, of the four competent, experienced judges that have heard the Brady case- Berman back in September, and this 2-1 ruling- we've got half believing Goodell overstepped his bounds, and half believing that Goodell, per the CBA, does implicitly possess this kind of extremely broad authority as commissioner and/or self-appointed arbitrator.

That's hardly a ringing endorsement for how the league should be run, or whether Goodell was fair and just in his penalty in this case. The decision may stand for a number of reasons- not the least of which is the idea that the courts do not wish to be in the business of renegotiating CBAs, or hamstringing arbitrators decision-making powers, and thus punt this question back to the NFLPA/NFL to resolve in their next CBA. But let's not kid ourselves that this is just, or fair, or desirable, or even "precedented", when it's none of these things.

posted by hincandenza at 09:49 PM on April 25, 2016

I'm not going to rehash this argument in depth yet again, anymore than I'm going to argue with someone who denies evolution as science instead of simply a personal interpretation of faith.

I understand that you are a true believer, and appreciate the loyalty as a fan. I also agree that the NFL did not make a strong enough case against Brady or the Pats to warrant a 4-game suspension. I only dispute the characterization of the "noble gas law" explanation that you forward. The noble gas law does not disprove the NFL's case; it makes it possible that the NFL's explanation is wrong, thereby leading to the conclusion that the NFL failed to adequately make its case against Brady and the Pats.

The noble gas law makes it possible that there was no tampering; it is one possible explanation for the discrepancy between footballs. Very well explained here. There are other explanations, one of which remains tampering and/or intentional underinflation. You are forwarding that the noble gas law leads to only one possible conclusion: that there was no underinflation. That's not true.

posted by tahoemoj at 12:22 PM on April 26, 2016

You are forwarding that the noble gas law leads to only one possible conclusion: that there was no underinflation. That's not true.

.

posted by cixelsyd at 09:36 PM on April 26, 2016