Originally posted by ZeruelSo, now I guess the official amount of games a player can be suspended for deflating the footballs is no games?
If I understand the ruling correctly, the penalty for interfering with game equipment (which deflating balls would fall under) was always just a fine, with no suspension. Goodell decided to change the penalty after (presumably in response to) Brady's infraction, which the judge ruled was unfair.
Originally posted by ZeruelSo, now I guess the official amount of games a player can be suspended for deflating the footballs is no games?
If I understand the ruling correctly, the penalty for interfering with game equipment (which deflating balls would fall under) was always just a fine, with no suspension. Goodell decided to change the penalty after (presumably in response to) Brady's infraction, which the judge ruled was unfair.
A fine against the team, not a player.
Paragraph 111 of the 54-page lawsuit filed Wednesday by the NFLPA elaborates on a point briefly addressed in the ruling from Commissioner Roger Goodell upholding the Brady discipline. In 2009, the NFL suspended a member of the Jets’ equipment for attempting “to use unapproved equipment to prep the K[icking] Balls” before a game against the Patriots.
As the NFLPA points out, the NFL did not investigate or discipline the Jets kicker for “general awareness” or specific involvement, even though the Jets kicker (like Brady in this case) was the player most likely to benefit from the behavior and, in turn, the player most likely to be aware of the conduct.
The NFLPA explains in its lawsuit that the decision not to investigate or discipline the Jets kicker “was perfectly consistent with the Competitive Integrity Policy’s application to Clubs, not players.”
Thread ahead: Spygate scandal was bigger in scope than first realized Next thread: the-W Fantasy Football auction Previous thread: Tebow (and a bunch of others) cut today