Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

NFL Thread

TheGongOfDoom

By TheGongOfDoom
in Sports

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • mojoween

    3150

  • Carey

    2315

  • merylinkid

    1593

  • twoods

    976

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

mojoween
mojoween

Cancelling Directv, throwing out season tickets and burning jerseys because of ANTHEM PROTESTS and yet supporting teams with domestic abusers, murderers/accidental killers and drug abusers is the DUMB

DrSpaceman73
DrSpaceman73

I believe it was a surface pro he threw, not an iPad.  Surface pros don't weigh as much.  And probably his best throw all night.  ...........             T

twoods
twoods

Why don't they close down the concession stands and bathrooms during the anthem so everyone is forced to stand up? Better yet, why doesn't every armchair asshole stand up at home during the anthem ins

Posted Images

Danny Franks

Danny Franks

What do you mean by "college style" offenses? College teams run many many different offenses. Teams run the spread, pro-style, the triple option. It's why I often prefer watching college football to the NFL and why I love bowl season. Fun to watch all those different offenses on display.

 

I'm talking about any offense that uses formations and philosophies that are not used by the pro-style, NFL offenses. So that includes QB options and spread offenses. Granted, those both feature in the NFL, but not as the basis of an offense. They're wrinkles and gimmicks used by NFL offensive coordinators, to keep defenses off-kilter.

 

In most colleges, the spread or option is their bread and butter. They have run first QBs and guys who have never taken snaps under center (I think Mariota took about three there last season). These kids have not been coached to play as NFL quarterbacks.

 

And my personal preferences are that I don't care for run first QBs, because a lot of the time their passing is terrible, and they're little more than glorified RBs. These guys fail in the NFL, because they've been made into QBs to suit these colleges, with no care for their future in the game afterwards. College coaches talk about developing players and looking after their interests, but in reality they couldn't give a damn about some poor kid who they've rendered undraftable because they've never taught him how to play the game like a professional needs to play it.

Minneapple

Minneapple

These kids have not been coached to play as NFL quarterbacks.

 

And why should they be coached to play as NFL quarterbacks? College football is not a minor league for the NFL, even though everyone seems to think it is.

 

I would say at least some of the responsibility falls to the athlete. They know about the offensive schemes when they choose a college (hell, if pro style is so important, then please, quarterbacks, come to Wisconsin, which other than Russell Wilson seems COMPLETELY UNABLE TO RECRUIT A DECENT QUARTERBACK despite being firmly entrenched in the pro-style offense).

 

(Also...you could argue that the spread has been really beneficial to the wide receiver position -- look at how many wideouts were taken in the first round this year.)

Danny Franks

Danny Franks

(edited)

And why should they be coached to play as NFL quarterbacks? College football is not a minor league for the NFL, even though everyone seems to think it is.

 

 

A lot of the players in college think it is. Ask any kid who gets a scholarship to play football at college what their ultimate goal is. For the vast majority, it will be to play in the NFL. Not to play for LSU while they get a degree in Sports Management or something.

 

They should be the most important part of this equation, and their interests should be put ahead of the NCAA and its obsession with making as much money off these kids as possible (while not allowing them to make a single dime themselves).

 

Playing pro-style in college is important. Though to put it another way, not playing it is important, as the likes of Tebow, Manziel, RGIII, Geno Smith, EJ Manuel and probably Marcus Mariota will testify. It puts you at a huge disadvantage, right out of the gate because you're having to learn an entire new philosophy of football, even after spending half your life playing the game.

 

I'm not letting NFL coaches off scot free either, because they often put guys in, or ask them to do too much, before they're ready. Pete Carroll got it spot on with Russell Wilson, by keeping things simple and managing to blend the read option in with a more NFL-friendly RB based offense. They've let Wilson develop without putting games on his shoulders. Most coaches don't do that, or aren't able to do that. So their QBs bust.

Edited by Danny Franks
  • Love 1
Minneapple

Minneapple

Ask any kid who gets a scholarship to play football at college what their ultimate goal is. For the vast majority, it will be to play in the NFL

Then why don't they all choose programs with pro style offenses?

Also the vast majority of college players know they will never come close to the NFL.

Playing pro-style in college is important.

And what about for the wide receivers that the spread benefits? Are they important too or are we just counting quarterbacks as college athletes?

Fukui San

Fukui San

Not sure how you could or would enforce a pro-style mindset to college football.There are 127 Div 1A college teams with rosters with 85 scholarships each. That's 10,795 college football players and 256 draftees a year.  The vast majority of college football players will not sniff the NFL, so a mandate to play NFL style football wouldn't benefit them. If there are only maybe 15 college aged kids capable of playing NFL style QB at any one time (there seem to be only 20ish or so adults in the NFL capable of playing QB well at any time), why should the other college teams be forced to try a style that doesn't befit their talent?  And why is it set in stone that the "Pro Style" should be the be all and end all at the professional level?  Shouldn't they try to innovate, especially as there are only so many Bradys and Mannings and Rodgers' and Brees's to go around. The NFL and College constantly steal from one another.  So let the colleges run two dozen different systems. Maybe one of those will become the standard in 30 years in the pros.

Danny Franks

Danny Franks

And what about for the wide receivers that the spread benefits? Are they important too or are we just counting quarterbacks as college athletes?

 

Well, given that most scouting reports of even the top college WRs include the phrase, 'raw in his route running', I don't know that the spread offense helps them quite as much as some might think. Last year was an amazing year for rookie WRs, but I don't think it was all down to them having played in the spread offense in college.

 

Every player is important, and in my view, any college scheme that isn't devised with the intent to make each player the best he can be, and to develop him to the best of his potential, is detrimental to the sport as a whole. But then, I don't really care about college sports in America.

 

All this college level 'innovation' of the game has tended to amount to little more than a brief fad in the NFL. You had the wildcat, the option, the spread, the pistol, and none of them have ever worked for more than a season or two, on the professional level. They pop up, now and again, and some teams run them more than others, but no one tries to live by them (especially not the plays that ask the QB to run past the LoS, because in the NFL, that's recipe for disaster). The innovations that have worked and become the staple of NFL offenses have been those innovated in the professional game. West Coast Offense and Air Coryell are still the mainstays of any passing offense in the NFL, with some shotgun plays thrown in.

Minneapple

Minneapple

All this college level 'innovation' of the game has tended to amount to little more than a brief fad in the NFL. You had the wildcat, the option, the spread, the pistol, and none of them have ever worked for more than a season or two, on the professional level.

Yeah but elements of all these offenses have been incorporated into NFL offenses. Pro style only refers to a formation. You can still run spread style plays out of a pro set. See how many plays in the NFL are run out of the shotgun these days (I would guess it's more than the plays run from under center). The fullback position is nearly extinct. And so on.

So. Anyway. I don't think spread offenses are going away in college ball and I don't think college ball is there as a minor league for the NFL. If the NFL wants more pro style qbs then it can start a minor league with all pro style offenses.

Meanwhile I'm dying with laughter reading the texts from the Patriots equipment guys about Deflategate. Sometimes life is good.

FuriousStyles

FuriousStyles

I am shocked the NFL actually released their findings regarding deflategate...and *gasp* point the finger at Brady and a couple of the Pats equipment personnel.  I have some mixed feelings about this.  I mean on the one hand, I'm glad Brady and whoever else is involved is being called out and hopefully will be punished, but on the other hand, does it really matter?  They just won the Superbowl, so short of rescinding said Superbowl, any punishment that would be doled out won't sway the risk/reward ratio negatively.   Its just a little too late IMO.

  • Love 1
DrSpaceman

DrSpaceman

Brady obviously knew and it obvioulsy happened based on the texts. Its more than just "probable" as the NFL states in the report.

You can say you don't care or it doesn't matter. Most certainly would not have I would say for the AFC championship, and I am a Colts fan still pissed at the way the coaches and players phoned in that game almost 4 months ago.

But they obvioulsy did it, so Kraft and BB and brady and the fans and everyone can stop with the denials and righteous indignation about demending apologies and "how dare you accuse of" and "you don't have enough proof", etc. No, they don't have a secret video of the guy actually doing it. But they do have a text where EIGHT MONTHS BEFORE THIS WAS REPORTED the equipment guy was casually referred to as the "delfator". What more do you need?

Danny Franks

Danny Franks

(edited)

The fact that the Patriots cheated probably actually wouldn't bother me as much if it was a game that they were likely to struggle in. If they had come up against opposition that scared them, that had a tough history with them and that they knew were a matchup nightmare (sounds a lot like the Ravens, honestly), then I could understand it more.

 

It's still wrong, and still something that should be punished as harshly as possible, but at least it's relatable. As it is, the Patriots just cheated in a game everyone knew they had won without breaking a sweat. They cheated against a team that couldn't stop a runny nose, a team they beat by 38 points. It's the fact that they just cheated because they didn't resist not cheating, that really gets me.

 

Just like with Spygate, when there are, to this day, arguments over how much the Pats ever benefited from it. It didn't matter. They still cheated when they probably didn't need to. I wouldn't be surprised if Bill palms money from the bank when playing Monopoly with his kids and/or grandkids.

 

They're just the consummate villains. As Mick Foley once said, to be an effective bad guy, "you don't cheat because you have to, you cheat because you want to". And the Patriots always seem to want to.

Edited by Danny Franks
  • Love 2
hendersonrocks

hendersonrocks

(edited)

I think the Chip Kelly/Shady McCoy story--McCoy putting it out there that Kelly seems to be getting rid of a lot of good, black players--is a hot effing mess for the NFL. Especially on the heels of this deflate bomb with Brady. Are they going to actually punish the golden white boy QB? That's the (multi)million dollar question.

 

And then there's Gronkowski's (hilarious) suggestion about what precisely can be deflated...is the NFL going to do anything about that? Because if it were someone other than this "oh-he's-crazy-and-funny-in-a-CUTE-way" white player, I can imagine a radically different response from the public and perhaps the league office. Swap out Grownkowski for Lynch; Goodell's head would explode.

Edited by hendersonrocks
  • Love 2
Danny Franks

Danny Franks

And then there's Gronkowski's (hilarious) suggestion about what precisely can be deflated...is the NFL going to do anything about that? Because if it were someone other than this "oh-he's's-crazy-and-funny-in-a-CUTE-way" white player, I can imagine a radically different response from the public and perhaps the league office. Swap out Grownkowski for Lynch; Goodell's head would explode.

 

Gronkowski is a dumb fratboy who gets a pass for all his doofus behaviour because he's a good player. I hate that meatheads like him are put up on pedestals, that he can drunkenly re-injure himself and sleep with pornstars, and everyone just says, 'oh, that Gronk. He's so crazy!'

  • Love 1
merylinkid

merylinkid

Goodell will impose a harsh suspension to look tough on cheating and that he is not favoring his buddy Robert Kraft.   Brady will sue.   An "independent" arbitrator will cut the suspension in half.   Brady plays, the Pats go back to the playoffs.   Goodell still gets to say he tried to be tough but the arbitrator chose to go lighter.    Everyone wins.   

 

(and no one asks too many questions about why if the balls went missing for 8 minutes, nobody at least rechecked them let alone just use the alternate balls, or worse why if they knew the Pats were underflating balls before, they didn't stop it step up before the game)

  • Love 2
DrSpaceman

DrSpaceman

That seems likely, but the outrage is going to be huge. If they suspend him for 4 games, you're telling me that the balls are twice as worse as literally beating a woman? If it's 2 games it's the same. One game, half as bad? Is he going to sit out a series?

I don't think you can compare the two, its different situations.

One is for on the field cheating that affects the game directly, the other for off the field issues.

Plus you can argue the Pats, though not brady, are repeat offenders, and continue to deny any wrongdoing and blame the league for a witchhunt when its obvious they cheated, whether Brady knew or not (he did). They took balls into a separate room after checked by officials without permission before going onto the field. They know that much, whether they deflated the balls or not (they did), and that in itself I would think is a violation.

He will end up getting 2-4 game suspension

DrSpaceman

DrSpaceman

I don't think you can compared the two either, but that argument is going to be made. Which is that the NFL policy is completely arbitrary and all over the place. Brady shouldn't be penalized for being a repeat offender though. You don't get more fined for getting a second speeding ticket.

 

I don't think he'll actually end up serving a suspension.

Most punishments in sports for these type of things add extra time for repeat offense.

Now I could argue that this is Brady whereas before it was BB and they two are sepate. I would buy that if not for the fact that after the initial reports came out, the Pats and Kraft in particular went into complete damage control mode, "demanded" an apology if no evidence was found and generally from the beginning acted as if the NFL was out of line for even daring to suggest that this happened. And now that its pretty clear exactly what was suspected did indeed happen, they STILL are denying it all and are stating its just the evil NFL out to get them, the poor picked on and hated Pats.

If the pats had just shut up from the beginning and let it play out and basically put it all on Brady, I don't think the prior offense would have mattered. As it is now they basically have taken all this on as an organization and in the end they are going to be punished as such I believe as well.

I will be shocked if Brady does not end up serving some type of suspension for this.

DrSpaceman

DrSpaceman

(edited)

This may be going to arbitration but I can't see Brady suing anyone.

If Brady himself decides to sue anyone, outside of arbitration, he then has to testify again, this time in a legal proceeding. and his phone records and texts most certainly will likely have to be turned over as well. He won't be able to simply say no to that this time, it would at least go before a judge and he can longer pick and choose what he wants to allow into evidence, what he will and won't answer.

There is no way he takes that chance and open himself up to even more damaging information coming out. The last place he wants to go is in front of a court of law to testify with this stuff. At worst this goes to arbitration.

Edited by DrSpaceman
  • Love 1
ganesh

ganesh

^ That's what I've been saying.  A fine, yes, but if he's suspended for any length of time, this is exactly the counterargument. Or AP beating his son. 

 

I meant the Player's Union would sue, not Brady, if his punishment was based on "past transgressions." That's literally illegal. He wasn't found directly culpable for the "spying". The union can't allow Brady's potential suspension include anything other than the footballs. They can't have that precedent.  

 

The "league discipline policy" or whatever you call it is a joke. There's no consistency whatsoever. This is ridiculous. People are acting like he ran some crime ring. Even then, all you miss is about a year or so. 

FuriousStyles

FuriousStyles

An NFL season is only 16 games long. There is not alot of wiggle room to put distance between this transgression vs. that transgression. If this were baseball where the powers that be have 162 games to play with or even the nba with 82 then I could understand the argument of comparing punishments but thats not the case.

The NFL is not saying beating a woman is the same as cheating on the field, nor is it better than failing drugs tests. But like I said there is only so much they can do. Not to mention I think the second offense of domestic violence is a lifetime ban. But you'd have to fail like 3 or 4 drug tests just to be suspended for 1 year. So its clear the NFL has some understanding of what's appropriate with regards to different types of offenses.

I am no fan of Roger Goddell but it seems like he's in a no win situation (mostly due to his own ignorance and hubris over the last couple of years) but if he comes down hard (see Bountygate) then he's being a jackass who is overstepping, if he goes easy (see Ray Rice) then he's a jackass who somehow is condoning domestic violence? Its going to be the same thing with Brady. If he only makes Brady pay a fine, the implication is that cheating is not that big a deal and its ok if the Golden boy does it. Its going to be seen by some as him showing favoritism to Robert Kraft. If he comes down hard then we'll have the suggestion as people have said, the cheating on the field is on the same level as beating a woman to a pulp, which it isn't. But cheating is still a big deal, regardless of whether Brady didnt need to do it, or that the outcome would have been the same. Cheating is cheating and Brady deserves to be punished. I would say Goddell gives him a 4 game suspension and it gets dropped to 2. And a fine for the Pats/BB because as Goddell said during Bountygate (but conveniently forgot during the Ray Rice debacle)...ignorance is not an excuse. As the coach, you're supposed to know whats going on in you house.

  • Love 2
DrSpaceman

DrSpaceman

(edited)

^ That's what I've been saying. A fine, yes, but if he's suspended for any length of time, this is exactly the counterargument. Or AP beating his son.

I meant the Player's Union would sue, not Brady, if his punishment was based on "past transgressions." That's literally illegal. He wasn't found directly culpable for the "spying". The union can't allow Brady's potential suspension include anything other than the footballs. They can't have that precedent.

The "league discipline policy" or whatever you call it is a joke. There's no consistency whatsoever. This is ridiculous. People are acting like he ran some crime ring. Even then, all you miss is about a year or so.

You seem to be going back and forth Ganesh, so I am not really sure where you stand. As I already stated, the off field issue punishment and on field issue punishments can't be compared. Saying the punishment for deflating footballs and the punishments for hitting a woman need to be comparable is not legitimate. One is off the field issues that has nothing to do with the game of play, one is during the game and how it affects the outcome.

As far as being a "repeat offender", you are right, Brady is not, but its obvious the Patriots are involved in the cover up of this and they ARE indeed repeat offenders. And not only that but they are blaming the league for even looking into this, bringing it up. If this was Brady on his own doing all this without the help of the Pats organization it would be different, but when its obvious that the team decided from the beginning they were going to do all they could deny, deny, deny, and they are still doing it, they are just making it worse for everyone. No Brady was not responsible for Spygate but he may indeed a beneficiary of any information they may have obtained from those tapes if it helped him on offense know what a defense was planning on doing. Plus specifically in the report there is mention of an illegal ball entering the game in 2004 and the Pats never really gave an explanation as to why it happened, they just stated it was a simple mix up, someone got confused about which balls to use. At the time they were just given a warning. Now that was 11 years ago, but now its the same coach, QB and equiment managers involved now as then. I think it was specifically mentioned because it sets the precedent for this not being a first time offense.

There is a repeated pattern here of the Patriots as an organization cheating, purposely deceiving the league and then denying it when they are caught. Someone is going to be given a severe punishment in this case for that very reason and in this case it may come down on Brady, right or wrong. Maybe not, maybe they will be harder on the ogranization and easier on Brady. We will find out this week. If the NFLPA wants to come out and try to defend Brady, fine, but Goodell I don't see just sitting back and allow a team to flaunt the rules and act as if they don't apply to them, which is the way most NFL fans view the Pats right now.

And the more Brady fights this and tries to drag it into any other legal forum the more he takes the chance his phone records and texts will be asked for as evidence. I don't think he wants that in the least. Its the first thing I would think any judge or arbitrater is going to ask for if involved in the case.

Edited by DrSpaceman
Danny Franks

Danny Franks

The Patriots will go as far as they possibly can, to gain an advantage (even if they already have one), and they've been proven to break rules to do it.

 

Even when they aren't breaking rules, they're exploiting little known regulations like they did against the Ravens in the playoffs last year. Regulations that, when the Patriots bring them to national attention, are changed because they're not seen as being in the spirit of the game. And yes, Tom Brady sneered that the Ravens should "read the rule book" if they wanted to avoid being caught out by such tricks. Interesting that he can hold the rule book up as something to be studied and respected with one hand, while he knowingly casts it aside with the other.

 

I'm not saying there should be honour in football, and there is a great deal of deception and trickery on the field that is accepted and has even become a standard part of the game, but the Patriots appear to be an organisation that will devote great time and energy to finding every little opportunity to tip the tables further in their favour. If it's not "reading the rule book", it's skirting around the rules completely.

  • Love 3
ganesh

ganesh

Saying the issues can't be compared doesn't simply make it so. Of course they can be compared. Does the CBA have a clause for criminal issues versus game-related issues? I don't think so. That's the problem, whose ever fault it is, is that the league disciplinary policy is massively arbitrary and wildly inconsistent. That's what's going to be criticized if a suspension is issued. 

 

If Brady gets a suspension of any sort, then that will almost certainly be compared to other suspensions in the media. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the Pats got caught cheating 500 times. You can't punish Brady for anything other than the football issue that was investigated. It's illegal, and the union will have to take action. 

 

It's patently ridiculous to think this warrants anything more than a fine. I don't recall reading/watching anyone say that the outcome of that particular game was affected by this. Which isn't the point, but the fact that the game was so lopsided has been brought up. 

FuriousStyles

FuriousStyles

(edited)

The fact that the deflated balls didn't affect the outcome of this game is absolutely irrelevant.  The fact of the matter is Brady intended for it to have an affect, otherwise why even bother?  And there's no doubt that this wasn't the first time they've done it, so who knows how many games were affected over the years.  

 

Brady blatantly cheated and then lied about it afterward.  That deserves more than just a slap on the wrist.  The Cleveland GM got 4 games just for sending text messages, and I don't recall the media making any comparisons to Ray Rice, domestic violence, or anything like that.  So why, if Tom Brady got 4 games, would there be all this hysteria when what he did was worse than the Cleveland GM?

Edited by FuriousStyles
  • Love 1
magdalene

magdalene

(edited)

According to Google - if I am getting it wrong somebody correct me - Rice got suspended for two games for battering his girlfriend to unconsciousness. She could have very easily been dead from those injuries.( I wonder what he would have gotten then - a four game suspension?) 

 

Meanwhile, Brady is rumored to be getting between a four to eight game suspension for supposedly (unlike in Rice' case there is no proof) having some footballs deflated. 

 

Maybe my moral code is out of whack but to me this is utterly disgusting. And I am not a Patriots fan.

Edited by magdalene
  • Love 2
ganesh

ganesh

Because it's about the "integrity of the game". *eyeroll* Don't forget you can drive drunk and kill someone too. Run a criminal ring even. But that's off the field, where you can do as much drugs and commit violence as you want. Once it's about on the field the gloves come off. 

 

I don't think there's anyone who doubts that Brady had a hand with the footballs, but from what I've read/heard on the news, the report upon which this investigation is based, produced largely circumstantial results. You can't suspend him just because the Pats cheat all the time, which I wouldn't dispute. There's no way the union is going to let Brady take half a season off based on heresay. 

ganesh

ganesh

(edited)

Shouldn't there be some standard to draw on for issues like this though? Similarly, whose common sense do we use? This just seems arbitrary to me.

I'm not trying to be overly much, but it seems like Brady is being held up for all the Pats transgressions, real or imagined.

It's a speeding ticket. Pay the fine and it's over with. I'm more interested in potential implications.

Edited by ganesh
  • Love 1
merylinkid

merylinkid

Except no reasonable doubt means yeah we all know this happened, it wasn't aliens.    Beyond a reasonable doubt is the sun will come up tomorrow.  

 

The Wells report used a lower standard "preponderance of the evidence."    Which means, more likely than not.   And even that got weasel worded into "had general knowledge."   I have general knowledge of how drug deals work, doesn't mean I have actually done a deal.

 

Then there was some twisting of Walt Anderson's recollection of taking the PSI at half time.   There were two gauges, one with a longer needle and the Wilson logo, one without a logo and shorter needle.   The Wilson logo one was supposed to give a more accurate reading.   His readings at halftime were no underinflation.  Walt said his best recollection that he used the Wilson logo gauge.   He was asked if it was possible he used the other one.   He siad yeah it was possible.   That became in the report, that he must have used the other gauge  and his best recollection was wrong.    That's just taking a possibility and making it what actually happened.   INstead of leaving it a possibility.    

 

Then there is the matter of the reading on the balls after again.   Again 2 different readings of each ball -- with really different readings for each ball.   Which leads to the conclusion that the mere act of testing the balls might have changed the PSI.   Which means its a possibility that the balls were properly inflated but all the testing caused them to be underinflated.

 

A lawyer would have a field day with this report if there are too severe consequences for Brady.

  • Love 1
DrSpaceman

DrSpaceman

This is and was not a court of law and Brady and the players, plus the Pats, cannot have the best of both worlds. 

 

What I mean by that is, they want Brady to be able to refuse to turn over evidence (his phone a text messages) and they want to refuse further interviews (as they did with one of the witnesses when requested), basically they wanted to be able to pick and choose what evidence was allowed into the report.  OK, that is perfectly fine.  But you can't then turn around and state where there is not enough evidence and they want the same sort of standard you would get in a court of law to hand down any punihsment. 

 

You can't have that both ways.  If you want a high standard of evidence for punishment, then you do everything they ask and you turn over all evidence requested.  If you are going to start refusing such requests, which is you right, then you have to understand the consequence is they are going to make some assumptions about what happened when the blanks cannot be filled in by refused evidence.  I heard his lawyer say this.  Well we weren't given a chance to ask questions or given evidence ahead of time.  OK, then if it becomes a huge completely legal process, then Brady turns over all the evidence asked for.

 

And Brady has a lawyer, he can feel free to try whatever he would like once the punishment is handed down.  But again, what Brady has to remember is if another venue and more lawyers become involved in this, and if more legal proceedings are needed, he may need to testify under oath (this time he did not) and he may be asked to turn over more evidence, such as his phone records and his texts. 

 

You can't play the game of wanting a completely legal standard for being punished and at the same time want a less than legal standard for what is admitted as evidence.  You play follow all the legal standard rules or its out the window

  • Love 3

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.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...