quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

When Brady deliberately destroyed his cell phone, then he lost all credibility. He deserves the suspension purely based on his non-cooperation alone. I think the team was also part of the coverup, so the loss of draft picks and the fine were appropriate, especially when considering the history of the team. I would have been even happier if they lowered their cap number to one million. They would have had to cut everyone and field a semi-pro team. I would have been trilled with each loss. Just imagine Belichick throwing his hands up in the air with another 100-0 loss. If I was coaching against that team, I would run up the score to 200-0. Even as the coach, i would walk up to the stands and taunt the fans. I'm fantasizing now. [:D]

What Ricky said.

You can be very cold, man. Well, my words don't have credibility, but I hope that you find warmth in your day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

Thank you 69. Total agreement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Remember when Mike Tice got punished for selling Superbowl tickets and then it came out that every single team did it? Tice sucked it up, took his punishment, never once squealed on the other coaches on other teams who were the designated ticket wranglers - and moved on.

This is a similar case. Maybe other teams deflated balls, maybe they didn't, but that doesn't mean Tom Brady gets a free pass. Be a man, suck it up, take the punishment and move on. Mike Tice is a better man than Tom Brady.

That is an excellent example. The NFL clearly looked the other way on stuff like this.

The Patriots just got stuck with the example that went big time public.

The NFL really had no choice regarding the investigation and subsequent punishment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

That's a joke. I imagine now they if, let's say a drug sample for a player is positive, and it is proven that the sample was mishandled/processed, upon investigation, a finding of more likely than not will be sufficient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

Thank you 69. Total agreement.

Totally ridiculous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

That's a joke. I imagine now they if, let's say a drug sample for a player is positive, and it is proven that the sample was mishandled/processed, upon investigation, a finding of more likely than not will be sufficient.

Now you are talking about the drug program. I don't know what their threshold is.

Brady is alleged to have violated a competitive rule the threshold is only more likely than not.

About the same burden a ref needs to throw a flag.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

The NFL ought to be able to apply something better than a Kangaroo Court to police itself.

The fact that the NFL assigns it's own stooges or the commissioner himself to arbitrate ITS OWN rulings should be indication enough of the fallacy of justice it applies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

The NFL ought to be able to apply something better than a Kangaroo Court to police itself.

The fact that the NFL assigns it's own stooges or the commissioner himself to arbitrate ITS OWN rulings should be indication enough of the fallacy of justice it applies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

That's a joke. I imagine now they if, let's say a drug sample for a player is positive, and it is proven that the sample was mishandled/processed, upon investigation, a finding of more likely than not will be sufficient.

Now you are talking about the drug program. I don't know what their threshold is.

Brady is alleged to have violated a competitive rule the threshold is only more likely than not.

About the same burden a ref needs to throw a flag.

One slight disagreement here. I don't want the ref throwing a flag unless he actually saw an infraction. Pisses me off when they throw a flag because they think an infraction possibly happened. In the deflategate case is there an official threshold of preponderance of the evidence? If the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt I would believe Brady to be guilty, but be forced to declare him not guilty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

The NFL ought to be able to apply something better than a Kangaroo Court to police itself.

The fact that the NFL assigns it's own stooges or the commissioner himself to arbitrate ITS OWN rulings should be indication enough of the fallacy of justice it applies.

So I'm starting to see that you believe all NFL discipline should be held up to criminal justice standings. In that case I can see why you act the way you do. I don't agree though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

The NFL ought to be able to apply something better than a Kangaroo Court to police itself.

The fact that the NFL assigns it's own stooges or the commissioner himself to arbitrate ITS OWN rulings should be indication enough of the fallacy of justice it applies.

So I'm starting to see that you believe all NFL discipline should be held up to criminal justice standings. In that case I can see why you act the way you do. I don't agree though.

Oh please, Mr. Black and White. There's miles between due process and the NFL's Kangaroo Court system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

When Brady deliberately destroyed his cell phone, then he lost all credibility. He deserves the suspension purely based on his non-cooperation alone. I think the team was also part of the coverup, so the loss of draft picks and the fine were appropriate, especially when considering the history of the team. I would have been even happier if they lowered their cap number to one million. They would have had to cut everyone and field a semi-pro team. I would have been trilled with each loss. Just imagine Belichick throwing his hands up in the air with another 100-0 loss. If I was coaching against that team, I would run up the score to 200-0. Even as the coach, i would walk up to the stands and taunt the fans. I'm fantasizing now. [:D]

What Ricky said.

You can be very cold, man. Well, my words don't have credibility, but I hope that you find warmth in your day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

The NFL ought to be able to apply something better than a Kangaroo Court to police itself.

The fact that the NFL assigns it's own stooges or the commissioner himself to arbitrate ITS OWN rulings should be indication enough of the fallacy of justice it applies.

So I'm starting to see that you believe all NFL discipline should be held up to criminal justice standings. In that case I can see why you act the way you do. I don't agree though.

Oh please, Mr. Black and White. There's miles between due process and the NFL's Kangaroo Court system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

That's a joke. I imagine now they if, let's say a drug sample for a player is positive, and it is proven that the sample was mishandled/processed, upon investigation, a finding of more likely than not will be sufficient.

Now you are talking about the drug program. I don't know what their threshold is.

Brady is alleged to have violated a competitive rule the threshold is only more likely than not.

About the same burden a ref needs to throw a flag.

One slight disagreement here. I don't want the ref throwing a flag unless he actually saw an infraction. Pisses me off when they throw a flag because they think an infraction possibly happened. In the deflategate case is there an official threshold of preponderance of the evidence? If the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt I would believe Brady to be guilty, but be forced to declare him not guilty.

The hand is quicker than the eye. It always will be.

The speed of the game is such that the refs have to make calls with anticipation.

A missed call is almost as bad as a bad call.

The refs don't have the benefit of instant replay or slow motion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

That's a joke. I imagine now they if, let's say a drug sample for a player is positive, and it is proven that the sample was mishandled/processed, upon investigation, a finding of more likely than not will be sufficient.

Now you are talking about the drug program. I don't know what their threshold is.

Brady is alleged to have violated a competitive rule the threshold is only more likely than not.

About the same burden a ref needs to throw a flag.

One slight disagreement here. I don't want the ref throwing a flag unless he actually saw an infraction. Pisses me off when they throw a flag because they think an infraction possibly happened. In the deflategate case is there an official threshold of preponderance of the evidence? If the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt I would believe Brady to be guilty, but be forced to declare him not guilty.

The hand is quicker than the eye. It always will be.

The speed of the game is such that the refs have to make calls with anticipation.

A missed call is almost as bad as a bad call.

The refs don't have the benefit of instant replay or slow motion.

No absolute right or wrong answer, but to me I would much rather have a ref miss a call he didn't see than make a bad call on something he didn't see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricky J

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

That's a joke. I imagine now they if, let's say a drug sample for a player is positive, and it is proven that the sample was mishandled/processed, upon investigation, a finding of more likely than not will be sufficient.

Now you are talking about the drug program. I don't know what their threshold is.

Brady is alleged to have violated a competitive rule the threshold is only more likely than not.

About the same burden a ref needs to throw a flag.

One slight disagreement here. I don't want the ref throwing a flag unless he actually saw an infraction. Pisses me off when they throw a flag because they think an infraction possibly happened. In the deflategate case is there an official threshold of preponderance of the evidence? If the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt I would believe Brady to be guilty, but be forced to declare him not guilty.

The hand is quicker than the eye. It always will be.

The speed of the game is such that the refs have to make calls with anticipation.

A missed call is almost as bad as a bad call.

The refs don't have the benefit of instant replay or slow motion.

No absolute right or wrong answer, but to me I would much rather have a ref miss a call he didn't see than make a bad call on something he didn't see.

re: have to make calls with anticipation

I just can't get on board with that at all. I'll bet a dollar you can't find a manual in any sport, most specifically football, that says you should make calls with anticipation - and I can show you in a high school manual where you must know 100% before making a call.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: 69in09

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: kgdabom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

Tires lose pressure sometimes and not just because of lower temps. Regardless, if the Patriots balls were underinflated, but not the Colts, then it wasn't the temperature.

Exactly

Really? Can't imagine any variables that might come into play here? Maybe the Patriots like a less inflated ball, so just left them out in the cold, and maybe the Colts protected theirs, maybe left them by a heater?

Tunnel vision rules.

The most reasonable and simple explanation for the disparity was that the Patriots tampered with the balls. Other explanations are certainly possible. I don't get where you think the NFL would be biased against the poor misunderstood, mistreated Patriots. It is possible, but it seems really unlikely.

That's about as convincing as the NFL's investigation conclusion "More likely than not"

Really?

What's wrong with their conclusion. If they were biased they would be saying absolute and irrefutable. They aren't biased so after evaluating the facts they came up with more likely than not. Seems like a fair conclusion to me. I agree with that conclusion. I'm not absolutely certain but seems more likely than not.

It's not a criminal trial, demanding beyond reasonable doubt.

"More Likely than not" was the threshold they needed and easily achieved.

That's a joke. I imagine now they if, let's say a drug sample for a player is positive, and it is proven that the sample was mishandled/processed, upon investigation, a finding of more likely than not will be sufficient.

Now you are talking about the drug program. I don't know what their threshold is.

Brady is alleged to have violated a competitive rule the threshold is only more likely than not.

About the same burden a ref needs to throw a flag.

One slight disagreement here. I don't want the ref throwing a flag unless he actually saw an infraction. Pisses me off when they throw a flag because they think an infraction possibly happened. In the deflategate case is there an official threshold of preponderance of the evidence? If the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt I would believe Brady to be guilty, but be forced to declare him not guilty.

The hand is quicker than the eye. It always will be.

The speed of the game is such that the refs have to make calls with anticipation.

A missed call is almost as bad as a bad call.

The refs don't have the benefit of instant replay or slow motion.

No absolute right or wrong answer, but to me I would much rather have a ref miss a call he didn't see than make a bad call on something he didn't see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricky J

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

When Brady deliberately destroyed his cell phone, then he lost all credibility. He deserves the suspension purely based on his non-cooperation alone. I think the team was also part of the coverup, so the loss of draft picks and the fine were appropriate, especially when considering the history of the team. I would have been even happier if they lowered their cap number to one million. They would have had to cut everyone and field a semi-pro team. I would have been trilled with each loss. Just imagine Belichick throwing his hands up in the air with another 100-0 loss. If I was coaching against that team, I would run up the score to 200-0. Even as the coach, i would walk up to the stands and taunt the fans. I'm fantasizing now. [:D]

What Ricky said.

You can be very cold, man. Well, my words don't have credibility, but I hope that you find warmth in your day.

I guess you're right that it isn't very diplomatic to suggest it is anything other than very cold to suggest your documented hate for the team, the history of the team and QB, being as great as it is, really carries no weight other than being a biased opinion?

Kinda of snarky there and I don't mean to be hurtful but it is kind of how I feel - if I could only keep my mouth shut more I'd probably get along with more people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricky J

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

quote:

ORIGINAL: thebigo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bruce Johnson

When Brady deliberately destroyed his cell phone, then he lost all credibility. He deserves the suspension purely based on his non-cooperation alone. I think the team was also part of the coverup, so the loss of draft picks and the fine were appropriate, especially when considering the history of the team. I would have been even happier if they lowered their cap number to one million. They would have had to cut everyone and field a semi-pro team. I would have been trilled with each loss. Just imagine Belichick throwing his hands up in the air with another 100-0 loss. If I was coaching against that team, I would run up the score to 200-0. Even as the coach, i would walk up to the stands and taunt the fans. I'm fantasizing now. [:D]

What Ricky said.

You can be very cold, man. Well, my words don't have credibility, but I hope that you find warmth in your day.

I guess you're right that it isn't very diplomatic to suggest it is anything other than very cold to suggest your documented hate for the team, the history of the team and QB, being as great as it is, really carries no weight other than being a biased opinion?

Kinda of snarky there and I don't mean to be hurtful but it is kind of how I feel - if I could only keep my mouth shut more I'd probably get along with more people.

I'm going to let this slide. Have a nice day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ricky J

Bob Ryan ‏@GlobeBobRyan 7m7 minutes ago Hingham, MA
The two most relevant words to come out of Deflategate: "Billable Hours."