A few years back, NFL quarterbacks were unhappy with the condition of game footballs. With Brady and Manning as their leaders, they got the NFL to agree to certain standards, which included an air pressure of from 12.5 psi to 13.5 psi.
Some time later, Brady noticed that the balls seemed harder than he liked, or more than 13.5 psi. So he instructed his ball boys to make sure the game balls were within the legal limit and preferably near 12.5. Later, the ball boys told him that the best time to do that was after the officials had OK’d the balls. Do it, Brady said, thinking that otherwise the balls were illegal, and so he felt he was not cheating.
When the Jet balls were found to be about 16 psi, Brady blew his top. This justified his instructions even more; and it reflected incompetence or carelessness by the officials, or even a deliberate action by the NFL (the Jets game!).
Certain NFL league and team executives, however, envious of the Pats, angry at the Pats continual stretching of the rules, and resentful ever since Spygate, sought to catch the Pats out. Evidence? Shortly after the interception in the AFC championship game, an NFL executive (Kensel, a former Jet employee?) ran toward the Pats bench, yelling, in effect, “Watch out! We’ve got you now!”
After a tight first half with supposedly illegal footballs, the Pats ran away in the second half with supposedly legal footballs, and won easily. The next morning, Brady was asked in a radio interview if he had heard of the accusations about illegal, underinflated footballs. He laughed, and said, in effect, “What will they think of next?” In fact, in his later press conference, he said, “I do not believe so [that he was a cheater],” because he did not believe he was, since he only asked that the balls be made legal in terms of their psi.
Then came Mortensen’s leak, and the news exploded on CBS, NBC, etc. world news. Which became a discussion about the atmospheric conditions and whether that could account for Mortensen’s reported figures. The NFL, in effect, said, no; while Brady’s side (including Belichick, a mysterious non-presence in the rest of this affair) said the drop in temperature could certainly account for the drop in psi.
Then came the Wells investigation and report. With the side issue of Brady’s destroyed phone. And Goodell’s decision. But with lawyers involved on both sides, the issue was no longer the psi status of the footballs and how it happened, but whether or not Goodell had the right to impose on Brady the penalty of a four-game suspension. Talk about justice being blind!
So a judge must now, some say, decide only on Goodell’s power to punish Brady as he did, while others say: what about the reason he suspended him and the justice of that?
Based on this scenario, I find I hard to believe Brady will accept any suspension. In the interest of getting back onto the field, he might accept a fine, as long as it is clearly stated that the fine is not for cheating but rather is for not cooperating with the NFL’s investigation. Meanwhile, the NFL will insist on some penalty for cheating, and that it is under Goodell’s prerogative to preserve the integrity of the game. If the suspension is to be negated, therefore, it will have to be imposed by the judge. Prior to today’s hearing, the consensus was that the judge would not go that far, that he will stick to the issue of Goodell’s ability to impose the penalty based on the collective bargaining agreement with the union. Now, after the hearing, that is not clear, which leans in Brady’s favor.
And so, we await the judge’s finding. And the odds seem to have shifted toward Brady’s side. But…will we have to wait two years, as the judge suggested today? Will Brady appeal, get an injunction, and the Pats’ season be saved?
I understand that my own prejudices show through in this scenario. My basic question is: is it right, is it just, to break the (NFL) law in order to correct the illegal status of the NFL footballs?
It makes me recall an old grammar school teacher, who instilled her discipline throughout the year by saying, “Two wrongs do not make a right.” Back then, I often found that saying difficult to accept, and I still do.
Some time later, Brady noticed that the balls seemed harder than he liked, or more than 13.5 psi. So he instructed his ball boys to make sure the game balls were within the legal limit and preferably near 12.5. Later, the ball boys told him that the best time to do that was after the officials had OK’d the balls. Do it, Brady said, thinking that otherwise the balls were illegal, and so he felt he was not cheating.
When the Jet balls were found to be about 16 psi, Brady blew his top. This justified his instructions even more; and it reflected incompetence or carelessness by the officials, or even a deliberate action by the NFL (the Jets game!).
Certain NFL league and team executives, however, envious of the Pats, angry at the Pats continual stretching of the rules, and resentful ever since Spygate, sought to catch the Pats out. Evidence? Shortly after the interception in the AFC championship game, an NFL executive (Kensel, a former Jet employee?) ran toward the Pats bench, yelling, in effect, “Watch out! We’ve got you now!”
After a tight first half with supposedly illegal footballs, the Pats ran away in the second half with supposedly legal footballs, and won easily. The next morning, Brady was asked in a radio interview if he had heard of the accusations about illegal, underinflated footballs. He laughed, and said, in effect, “What will they think of next?” In fact, in his later press conference, he said, “I do not believe so [that he was a cheater],” because he did not believe he was, since he only asked that the balls be made legal in terms of their psi.
Then came Mortensen’s leak, and the news exploded on CBS, NBC, etc. world news. Which became a discussion about the atmospheric conditions and whether that could account for Mortensen’s reported figures. The NFL, in effect, said, no; while Brady’s side (including Belichick, a mysterious non-presence in the rest of this affair) said the drop in temperature could certainly account for the drop in psi.
Then came the Wells investigation and report. With the side issue of Brady’s destroyed phone. And Goodell’s decision. But with lawyers involved on both sides, the issue was no longer the psi status of the footballs and how it happened, but whether or not Goodell had the right to impose on Brady the penalty of a four-game suspension. Talk about justice being blind!
So a judge must now, some say, decide only on Goodell’s power to punish Brady as he did, while others say: what about the reason he suspended him and the justice of that?
Based on this scenario, I find I hard to believe Brady will accept any suspension. In the interest of getting back onto the field, he might accept a fine, as long as it is clearly stated that the fine is not for cheating but rather is for not cooperating with the NFL’s investigation. Meanwhile, the NFL will insist on some penalty for cheating, and that it is under Goodell’s prerogative to preserve the integrity of the game. If the suspension is to be negated, therefore, it will have to be imposed by the judge. Prior to today’s hearing, the consensus was that the judge would not go that far, that he will stick to the issue of Goodell’s ability to impose the penalty based on the collective bargaining agreement with the union. Now, after the hearing, that is not clear, which leans in Brady’s favor.
And so, we await the judge’s finding. And the odds seem to have shifted toward Brady’s side. But…will we have to wait two years, as the judge suggested today? Will Brady appeal, get an injunction, and the Pats’ season be saved?
I understand that my own prejudices show through in this scenario. My basic question is: is it right, is it just, to break the (NFL) law in order to correct the illegal status of the NFL footballs?
It makes me recall an old grammar school teacher, who instilled her discipline throughout the year by saying, “Two wrongs do not make a right.” Back then, I often found that saying difficult to accept, and I still do.
