blueinbeantown

July 13th, 2016 at 11:20 AM ^

I hope the Maine lobsterman who were on WEEI and know where that POS Goodell's summer house is, do as stated and turn that area into a 'dumping ground".  I highly recommend betting the over in game 5 against Cleveland. 

ElBictors

July 13th, 2016 at 11:29 AM ^

hopefully this is the last we ever hear of it.

 

of course that is impossible.  ESPN will spend a good amount of its pre-season and early-season coverage talking about it to death.

 

ScruffyTheJanitor

July 13th, 2016 at 11:37 AM ^

Even as a colts fan, I think the extent of the punishment was way out of bounds. Should have just been the standard equipment-rules violation punnishement (wasn't it l$50,000?) and MAYBE a 7th round pick (just to placate the owners that were out for blood). 

Still, the players should have never, ever, ever agreed to let Goodell be the Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Just because its a bad deal doesn't mean the players don't have to follow it. 

cletus318

July 13th, 2016 at 12:21 PM ^

This case was lost a decade ago when the NFLPA foolishly awarded the commissioner unprecedented authority in the matters of player discipline in response to the exploits of a few knuckleheads. The facts, whatever you believe them to be, have never mattered.

NRK

July 13th, 2016 at 12:35 PM ^

I'd actually say it was lost when they granted the ability to hear an appeal under that policy to the commissioner. 

The commissioner having first ability to discipline is not unheard of. Many employers do it. However, once it is appealed the idea that it would then be appealed back to the same person that made the decision (without an additional allowance for an appeal to a neutral arbitrator) was a really poor decision.

NRK

July 13th, 2016 at 7:18 PM ^

I read your statement to be discussing the Commissioner's power to discipline as a whole, rather than about arbitral power being granted to the commissioner to hear his own appeal. If you were referencing that when referring to it as "in the matters of player discpline" then yes, what you said.

To me,  one component of "player discipline" is completely in line with regular employers (and other sports leagues) grant their commissioner/employer - the right to discipline - and that really wasn't the issue that burned Brady here. In fact last time there was a discipline and it went to a non-Goodell arbitrator (Tagliabue) the NFL lost.

Really though, just sharing my viewpoint for discussion. You're not wrong, I'm just being a little more specific. 

Michigan Made

July 13th, 2016 at 12:32 PM ^

Biast much? comparing a multimillion dollar situation to the parenting of your children is not what I would expect from a law professor. What has happened to professional journalism?

CoverZero

July 13th, 2016 at 3:54 PM ^

Roger Goodell gets away with a total abuse of power.

I would wish ill on that guy...but that would not be a nice thing to do even though he deserves it (not just for this move).  Also Karma.  So live a long life Goodell, you asshole.

Kevin13

July 13th, 2016 at 5:17 PM ^

to the Supreme Court. Time to just let it go. I believe the Supreme Court has more important cases to hear then if footballs were deflated for a game.......

03 Blue 07

July 13th, 2016 at 8:22 PM ^

That is for the SCOTUS to decide. They hear less than 1% of cases which are petitioned to them, so they only take a case if it is important to an area of law that is in dispute, if they need to reconcile conflicting lower courts, or if it is something only the SCOTUS can rule on. Or, put differently: if the SCOTUS is accepting a case, that case is by definition very "important" from a legal sense. Which means there's about a 1 out of 1,000 chance they hear the Brady appeal, I'd say. It doesn't really raise any new issues of law and therefore wouldn't be worth the court's time, but not for the reason you suggested (football deflation). If they DID accept the case, they would be doing so likely because they want to make new law on one of the labor law issues present in the case. But, again, I highly doubt they do so, as those labor law issues present in this case are more or less settled/properly governed by already-existing legal authority.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad