Jump to content

Appropriate Punishment?


DoubleDecker
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Rhg1084 said:

Yeah cause the lottery has really ended tanking in the NBA LOL

NBA ≠ NFL

The top 3 picks in the NBA have a far bigger impact than any player on a football field, including QB. I'd only do the lottery for the top 3-5 picks of Round 1, then got back to normal with rounds 2-7

Punishment wise I'd like to see the Dolphins and Browns sold and lose 1 full draft class.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Is it bribery when an owner pays his coach to try and win? 

No. Under the Florida law clearly not, because it specifies that there has to be intent to influence them to lose or reduce the margin of victory or otherwise “fix” the outcome. The federal law is more broad in that it only requires the intent to influence the outcome, so there’s some room in the margins to craft some sort of “aha!” argument that would likely fall on deaf ears.

The main reason being that the coach was presumably already trying to win, and additional incentive to win doesn’t change the fact that your opponent is also trying to win. You could counter that by making an argument like “the bonus money would make him try harder to win, which is influencing!”. But once this ambiguity is introduced, then the next step is to start clearing up the ambiguity, which could include looking at the overall legislative scheme, the intent of the legislature, outside sources, etc. I think you would be hard pressed to find support for an argument that criminal “influence” would encompass bonus money for performing the job you were contracted to do.

On the flip side, which is what I think you might be getting at, that ambiguity is much harder to introduce if you’re trying to make that argument that “any person” in the federal and/or state statutes should actually exempt the owner of the team. You’d have to overcome the plain meaning of the phrase, multiple methods of statutory interpretation, and find support beyond the text, such as in the legislative history. That’s not to say it couldn’t be done, and I have no idea how much if any precedent there is on this particular issue. But if there’s any truth in the allegations I’d imagine Ross’ lawyers are already digging deep into the issue, and would not be surprised if federal/state prosecutors have started researching as well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jvill 51 said:

No. Under the Florida law clearly not, because it specifies that there has to be intent to influence them to lose or reduce the margin of victory or otherwise “fix” the outcome. The federal law is more broad in that it only requires the intent to influence the outcome, so there’s some room in the margins to craft some sort of “aha!” argument that would likely fall on deaf ears.

The main reason being that the coach was presumably already trying to win, and additional incentive to win doesn’t change the fact that your opponent is also trying to win. You could counter that by making an argument like “the bonus money would make him try harder to win, which is influencing!”. But once this ambiguity is introduced, then the next step is to start clearing up the ambiguity, which could include looking at the overall legislative scheme, the intent of the legislature, outside sources, etc. I think you would be hard pressed to find support for an argument that criminal “influence” would encompass bonus money for performing the job you were contracted to do.

On the flip side, which is what I think you might be getting at, that ambiguity is much harder to introduce if you’re trying to make that argument that “any person” in the federal and/or state statutes should actually exempt the owner of the team. You’d have to overcome the plain meaning of the phrase, multiple methods of statutory interpretation, and find support beyond the text, such as in the legislative history. That’s not to say it couldn’t be done, and I have no idea how much if any precedent there is on this particular issue. But if there’s any truth in the allegations I’d imagine Ross’ lawyers are already digging deep into the issue, and would not be surprised if federal/state prosecutors have started researching as well.

 

 

The point I am making is that the owner has more of a big picture, long term perspective on his franchise than the coach. Trying to win means more than trying to win today. Because of the perverted motivations created by rewarding losing with the #1 overall pick, purposefully losing games in the short term can be trying to win in the long term. 

This is not some nefarious thing the owner is doing IMO. It's trying to improve his franchise for the long term.

The problem is the way the NFL rewards losing. Don't hate the player - hate the game.

I don't think anyone is going to pursue criminal charges for this. I would be absolutely shocked. If gambling were involved it would be another story.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

 

The point I am making is that the owner has more of a big picture, long term perspective on his franchise than the coach. Trying to win means more than trying to win today. Because of the perverted motivations created by rewarding losing with the #1 overall pick, purposefully losing games in the short term can be trying to win in the long term. 

This is not some nefarious thing the owner is doing IMO. It's trying to improve his franchise for the long term.

The problem is the way the NFL rewards losing. Don't hate the player - hate the game.

I don't think anyone is going to pursue criminal charges for this. I would be absolutely shocked. If gambling were involved it would be another story.

If the owner wants to think long term for his vision without regard for their employees situations then they should have fully guaranteed contracts, nothing with incentives. How much money in career earning were lost because of the 2 years the Browns tanked? I'd imagine guys that could have been put in better positions to win could have had extended careers. NFLPA is going to be all over this.

If you are selling me a game of skill or chance then I expect to get a game of skill or chance. You want to sell me a rigged performance then tell me so expectations are set accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

If the owner wants to think long term for his vision without regard for their employees situations then they should have fully guaranteed contracts, nothing with incentives. How much money in career earning were lost because of the 2 years the Browns tanked? I'd imagine guys that could have been put in better positions to win could have had extended careers. NFLPA is going to be all over this.

If you are selling me a game of skill or chance then I expect to get a game of skill or chance. You want to sell me a rigged performance then tell me so expectations are set accordingly.

I for one was taken completely by surprise that a team tried to tank for the #1 overall pick. Never even considered it a possibility. That was sarcasm in case you missed it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

 

The point I am making is that the owner has more of a big picture, long term perspective on his franchise than the coach. Trying to win means more than trying to win today. Because of the perverted motivations created by rewarding losing with the #1 overall pick, purposefully losing games in the short term can be trying to win in the long term. 

This is not some nefarious thing the owner is doing IMO. It's trying to improve his franchise for the long term.

The problem is the way the NFL rewards losing. Don't hate the player - hate the game.

 

Sure, I agree with that. The NFL’s structure incentivizes losing in certain cases for sure. That doesn’t insulate him from the law though. And I think when you potentially run afoul of criminal laws in pursuing what’s best for your franchise the NFL is justified in punishing you for it, regardless of whether they have a specific rule in the books prohibiting it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, jvill 51 said:

Sure, I agree with that. The NFL’s structure incentivizes losing in certain cases for sure. That doesn’t insulate him from the law though. And I think when you potentially run afoul of criminal laws in pursuing what’s best for your franchise the NFL is justified in punishing you for it, regardless of whether they have a specific rule in the books prohibiting it or not.

I'm still not convinced any law has been broken. I could definitely be wrong about that, just not convinced on it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

I for one was taken completely by surprise that a team tried to tank for the #1 overall pick. Never even considered it a possibility. That was sarcasm in case you missed it.

 

If there was sarcasm in your previous post I responded to I missed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Barry McCockinner said:

I'm still not convinced any law has been broken. I could definitely be wrong about that, just not convinced on it.

Fair enough. Looking into it some more the federal case would be tougher to bring I think. More ambiguity both in terms of what constitutes influencing and bribe, and very little case law to help clear that up.

The Florida statute, if the allegations are true, is a pretty clear cut violation of the law as written. No idea if there’s caselaw to the contrary but I’d guess not. Whether they’d ever charge him would probably come down to prosecutor discretion (aka how much pull does Ross have locally)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jvill 51 said:

No. Under the Florida law clearly not, because it specifies that there has to be intent to influence them to lose or reduce the margin of victory or otherwise “fix” the outcome. The federal law is more broad in that it only requires the intent to influence the outcome, so there’s some room in the margins to craft some sort of “aha!” argument that would likely fall on deaf ears.

The main reason being that the coach was presumably already trying to win, and additional incentive to win doesn’t change the fact that your opponent is also trying to win. You could counter that by making an argument like “the bonus money would make him try harder to win, which is influencing!”. But once this ambiguity is introduced, then the next step is to start clearing up the ambiguity, which could include looking at the overall legislative scheme, the intent of the legislature, outside sources, etc. I think you would be hard pressed to find support for an argument that criminal “influence” would encompass bonus money for performing the job you were contracted to do.

On the flip side, which is what I think you might be getting at, that ambiguity is much harder to introduce if you’re trying to make that argument that “any person” in the federal and/or state statutes should actually exempt the owner of the team. You’d have to overcome the plain meaning of the phrase, multiple methods of statutory interpretation, and find support beyond the text, such as in the legislative history. That’s not to say it couldn’t be done, and I have no idea how much if any precedent there is on this particular issue. But if there’s any truth in the allegations I’d imagine Ross’ lawyers are already digging deep into the issue, and would not be surprised if federal/state prosecutors have started researching as well.

It's clear the federal and many state laws on the subject all arose as a way to prevent corruption in sports gambling which wasn't the case here. This situation might fall within the plain meaning of the federal and state statutes but so far away from the unambiguous legislative intent that a court would likely find a reason to uphold a conviction in the highly improbable likelihood a grand jury would indict and a jury would convict. 

The primary legal issue here is whether the statute implicates Ross at all. There are several legal constructs under agency and employment law that make Flores's acts as a coach the acts of Ross. Under those constructs Flores's acts are imputed directly upon Ross and that would mean Ross attempted to influence himself to cause the team to lose a game. It doesn't seem from the language of the statute that a person can be guilty of bribery by bribing oneself. Typically laws involving employer-employee relationships carve out specifically when an employee can be independently or jointly liable for their own acts in addition to the acts of the employer. (This is an extremely rough explanation of complicated and lengthy legal concepts because they are simply too boring to discuss in detail.) 

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, rex-n-effect said:

It's clear the federal and many state laws on the subject all arose as a way to prevent corruption in sports gambling which wasn't the case here. This situation might fall within the plain meaning of the federal and state statutes but so far away from the unambiguous legislative intent that a court would likely find a reason to uphold a conviction in the highly improbable likelihood a grand jury would indict and a jury would convict. 

The primary legal issue here is whether the statute implicates Ross at all. There are several legal constructs under agency and employment law that make Flores's acts as a coach the acts of Ross. Under those constructs Flores's acts are imputed directly upon Ross and that would mean Ross attempted to influence himself to cause the team to lose a game. It doesn't seem from the language of the statute that a person can be guilty of bribery by bribing oneself. Typically laws involving employer-employee relationships carve out specifically when an employee can be independently or jointly liable for their own acts in addition to the acts of the employer. (This is an extremely rough explanation of complicated and lengthy legal concepts because they are simply too boring to discuss in detail.) 

Do you practice criminal law? I don’t so not trying to be an a$$hole, genuinely curious. If so I’ll defer to your judgement here, but have a few questions probably better handled via PM so we don’t wind up boring everyone to tears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jvill 51 said:

Do you practice criminal law? I don’t so not trying to be an a$$hole, genuinely curious. If so I’ll defer to your judgement here, but have a few questions probably better handled via PM so we don’t wind up boring everyone to tears.

No--representing criminals in civil matters is as close to criminal law as I need to get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is about gambling. so far as I know nothing about what has been accused has anything to do with gambling.
if anything - the fact that they specified "for a gambling-related purpose" makes it seem that other purposes could be OK.
 
... ... is that what u really think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dunnie said:
21 hours ago, Barry McCockinner said:
this is about gambling. so far as I know nothing about what has been accused has anything to do with gambling.
if anything - the fact that they specified "for a gambling-related purpose" makes it seem that other purposes could be OK.
 

... ... is that what u really think?

Do you really think that rule about gambling relates to what the Dolphins owner has been accused of? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2022 at 5:38 PM, Untouchable said:

I don’t know but perusing over at Finheaven has been hilarious.

Within a span of 48 hours they went from thinking they were going to land Harbaugh to having a giant sh*t sandwich forced down their throats.

Its comedy gold on fin heaven right now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, jvill 51 said:

Sure, I agree with that. The NFL’s structure incentivizes losing in certain cases for sure. That doesn’t insulate him from the law though. And I think when you potentially run afoul of criminal laws in pursuing what’s best for your franchise the NFL is justified in punishing you for it, regardless of whether they have a specific rule in the books prohibiting it or not.

Isn’t it his team? If he wants the team to lose is that not his right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...