Frank D'Amico files lawsuit against Goodell

01-23-2019, 09:08 AM

Winning the lawsuit is not important. Getting any positive results from the lawsuit is not important. What is important is that lawsuits are literally the only language you can speak, that a big corporation like the NFL will actually understand. Our society is so messed up these days, this is how you actually communicate with a large corporation. Through a lawsuit. I'm so glad this guy is suing, because it is allowing people to SPEAK, it is opening up the communication, from voices that otherwise the league would ignore and sweep under the rug and NEVER hear from. I say, let the lawsuit move forward, let it speak its piece, let the courts or the judge decide, let's see where it all goes. This is the only way the NFL will ever understand anything. And in theory the discovery portion of this lawsuit could potentially eventually reveal information to the world, about the NFL that otherwise would be buried and hidden from the light. So I think it's great that no matter what happens, in some fashion the league will be forced to respond to it. But again, this is the only language that a business like the NFL will actually understand.

Rell&Gold · 01-23-2019, 09:44 AM

What I don't like is the people who say, 'regardless of the call Saints had early opportunities to capitalize on and they didn't blah blah blah" ANYTHING that happened prior to that non-call DOESN'T MATTER the team shooting itself in the foot has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the NFL missing a game changing call. Correction* Not calling a game changing call, there's a difference

burningmetal · 01-23-2019, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by TheOak

There isn't any low road here unless someone wants money lol. Filing suit isn't dirty, and the same people calling this suit dirty wanted Vilma and all of those caught up in bounty-gate to take legal action. This is no loop hole (which do not exist by the way, only poor law/rule writing), or something underhanded...

Low road might even be asking for a win.. Nope. Put both teams at the spot of the foul, 1 and 10, 1:45 on the clock... Let the game play out as it should have.

Taking the high road is not turning ones eye at a wrong doing (there is another word for that), it is making a wrong right. Maybe it is because I am a combat vet and have zero qualms what so ever taking righteous action.

Furthermore, if there is a chance that this action will leave the league with such a bloody nose that they will endeavor to allow professional football to be played without any sort of manipulation then that is a virtuous action which will help restore the purity of the game.

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” ~ John Stuart Mill

I'm not sure how being a combat vet would cause anyone to have no qualms about righteous action. If you're fighting an enemy of your country, there isn't anything unrighteous about that, no matter what snow flakes out there might think.

But I agree, the right thing to do here is to go back to the point of the foul (or would-be foul), and pick it up from there. I don't know what makes anyone think that would be a low road.

There are low roads, for sure. Threatening people, for instance. You don't want to stoop to that level to get what you want. But, in this case, it's just a matter of exercising a rule that is already in existence (though, never used), and righting a wrong. It wasn't a close play. It wasn't "human error". It was so obvious that it HAD to be deliberate. If it wasn't, then that ref is completely incompetent. In either case, this is an extenuating circumstance that should call for the commissioner to finally exercise his
ability to make something right. If this isn't the right time for it, then the rule shouldn't even exist.

Rell&Gold · 01-23-2019, 09:52 AM

WOW he told him in "anger" almost "HEY,..I said no penalty" SMH it's sad I will ALWAYS be a Saints fan, BUT never could I support the NFL and it's manipulation of the game and their poor accountability

Rell&Gold · 01-23-2019, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by burningmetal

I'm not sure how being a combat vet would cause anyone to have no qualms about righteous action. If you're fighting an enemy of your country, there isn't anything unrighteous about that, no matter what snow flakes out there might think.

But I agree, the right thing to do here is to go back to the point of the foul (or would-be foul), and pick it up from there. I don't know what makes anyone think that would be a low road.

There are low roads, for sure. Threatening people, for instance. You don't want to stoop to that level to get what you want. But, in this case, it's just a matter of exercising a rule that is already in existence (though, never used), and righting a wrong. It wasn't a close play. It wasn't "human error". It was so obvious that it HAD to be deliberate. If it wasn't, then that ref is completely incompetent. In either case, this is an extenuating circumstance that should call for the commissioner to finally exercise his
ability to make something right. If this isn't the right time for it, then the rule shouldn't even exist.

Precisely

vpheughan · 01-23-2019, 10:58 AM

DO A UCF AND DECLARE THE SAINTS CHAMPIONS, HAVE RINGS MADE AND HOLD A PARADE! F_ _ _ THE NFL!!!

73Saint · 01-23-2019, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by vpheughan

DO A UCF AND DECLARE THE SAINTS CHAMPIONS, HAVE RINGS MADE AND HOLD A PARADE! F_ _ _ THE NFL!!!

No thanks.

blackangold · 01-23-2019, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by TheOak

Not a bad/missed call at all. Its an intentional manipulation of the outcome of the game for entertainment/marketing purposes.
https://youtu.be/mXL494exnoc

Hadn't seen this before, but it deserves more attention. I was never on the bandwagon of the game being 'fixed'... but I am not sure how much more evidence you would need. The official is telling his colleague (who saw it as PI) to not throw the flag.

TheOak · 01-23-2019, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by burningmetal

I'm not sure how being a combat vet would cause anyone to have no qualms about righteous action. If you're fighting an enemy of your country, there isn't anything unrighteous about that, no matter what snow flakes out there might think.

To civilians it can be just that clear. To the combatant it can be anything but... and that has absolutely nothing to do with snow flakes or anyone else's opinion. It has everything to do with the face in the mirror, the realization in the dead silence of night that comes to a 19 year old that there are mothers, wives and children that will forever have their lives changed by one action.

PTSD doesn't just come from things done to a person, it also comes from things a person has done as well.

Civilization subjectively rationalizes reasons and circumstances that make killing and stealing okay to do... doesn't make it so.

burningmetal · 01-23-2019, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by TheOak

To civilians it can be just that clear. To the combatant it can be anything but... and that has absolutely nothing to do with snow flakes or anyone else's opinion. It has everything to do with the face in the mirror, the realization in the dead silence of night that comes to a 19 year old that there are mothers, wives and children that will forever have their lives changed by one action.

PTSD doesn't just come from things done to a person, it also comes from things a person has done as well.

Civilization subjectively rationalizes reasons and circumstances that make killing and stealing okay to do... doesn't make it so.

Listen, buddy, I'm on your side on this one. And this might shock you, but one doesn't necessarily have to be a combat veteran to understand the implications of taking another's life. Sometimes I think non "civilians" can be just as ignorant of other people's comprehension of battle as they assume we are of theirs.

I'm not attempting, in any way, to marginalize or over simplify the fallout of war on a veterans life. What I am saying is simply that if you are fighting for the freedom of your country, that is a righteous cause. Sometimes, tragic things happen in the process. I get that. I said it was a righteous cause, not a glamorous and perfect one. Because on the flip side of those wives, mothers and children of your enemies being effected, is that if you don't eliminate the enemy, it will be your family who will suffer.

I realize that criminals can rationalize things in their own minds to make themselves think it's ok. But those kinds of people aren't actually rational, are they? When someone is threatening your citizens, there is nothing to rationalize. It's very simple: You take them out. There is no fine line there.

And those who say otherwise are snowflakes. They concern themselves with the ugliness of war, without bothering to think about the consequences of leaving our enemies unchecked. They live in a fantasy world, where they believe that you can just go in and neatly pluck out the bad guys, and poof, everything is fine. If a soldier takes a life of a non combatant civilian, intentionally, then that is murder. But that's not the righteous cause I'm speaking of, obviously.

01-23-2019, 09:08 AM	#41
Threaded by SaintsBro Site Donor Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG Posts: 3,650 Blog Entries: 3 Rating: (0 votes - average) Winning the lawsuit is not important. Getting any positive results from the lawsuit is not important. What is important is that lawsuits are literally the only language you can speak, that a big corporation like the NFL will actually understand. Our society is so messed up these days, this is how you actually communicate with a large corporation. Through a lawsuit. I'm so glad this guy is suing, because it is allowing people to SPEAK, it is opening up the communication, from voices that otherwise the league would ignore and sweep under the rug and NEVER hear from. I say, let the lawsuit move forward, let it speak its piece, let the courts or the judge decide, let's see where it all goes. This is the only way the NFL will ever understand anything. And in theory the discovery portion of this lawsuit could potentially eventually reveal information to the world, about the NFL that otherwise would be buried and hidden from the light. So I think it's great that no matter what happens, in some fashion the league will be forced to respond to it. But again, this is the only language that a business like the NFL will actually understand. Rell&Gold and WHODATINCA like this.
Views: 7054

01-23-2019, 09:44 AM	#42
Rell&Gold 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Washington, D.C Posts: 2,887	Re: Frank D'Amico files lawsuit against Goodell What I don't like is the people who say, 'regardless of the call Saints had early opportunities to capitalize on and they didn't blah blah blah" ANYTHING that happened prior to that non-call DOESN'T MATTER the team shooting itself in the foot has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the NFL missing a game changing call. Correction* Not calling a game changing call, there's a difference

01-23-2019, 09:51 AM	#43
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Frank D'Amico files lawsuit against Goodell Originally Posted by TheOak There isn't any low road here unless someone wants money lol. Filing suit isn't dirty, and the same people calling this suit dirty wanted Vilma and all of those caught up in bounty-gate to take legal action. This is no loop hole (which do not exist by the way, only poor law/rule writing), or something underhanded... Low road might even be asking for a win.. Nope. Put both teams at the spot of the foul, 1 and 10, 1:45 on the clock... Let the game play out as it should have. Taking the high road is not turning ones eye at a wrong doing (there is another word for that), it is making a wrong right. Maybe it is because I am a combat vet and have zero qualms what so ever taking righteous action. Furthermore, if there is a chance that this action will leave the league with such a bloody nose that they will endeavor to allow professional football to be played without any sort of manipulation then that is a virtuous action which will help restore the purity of the game. “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” ~ John Stuart Mill I'm not sure how being a combat vet would cause anyone to have no qualms about righteous action. If you're fighting an enemy of your country, there isn't anything unrighteous about that, no matter what snow flakes out there might think. But I agree, the right thing to do here is to go back to the point of the foul (or would-be foul), and pick it up from there. I don't know what makes anyone think that would be a low road. There are low roads, for sure. Threatening people, for instance. You don't want to stoop to that level to get what you want. But, in this case, it's just a matter of exercising a rule that is already in existence (though, never used), and righting a wrong. It wasn't a close play. It wasn't "human error". It was so obvious that it HAD to be deliberate. If it wasn't, then that ref is completely incompetent. In either case, this is an extenuating circumstance that should call for the commissioner to finally exercise his ability to make something right. If this isn't the right time for it, then the rule shouldn't even exist. Rell&Gold likes this.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.

01-23-2019, 09:52 AM	#44
Rell&Gold 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Washington, D.C Posts: 2,887	Re: Frank D'Amico files lawsuit against Goodell WOW he told him in "anger" almost "HEY,..I said no penalty" SMH it's sad I will ALWAYS be a Saints fan, BUT never could I support the NFL and it's manipulation of the game and their poor accountability

01-23-2019, 09:53 AM	#45
Rell&Gold 1000 Posts + Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Washington, D.C Posts: 2,887	Re: Frank D'Amico files lawsuit against Goodell Originally Posted by burningmetal I'm not sure how being a combat vet would cause anyone to have no qualms about righteous action. If you're fighting an enemy of your country, there isn't anything unrighteous about that, no matter what snow flakes out there might think. But I agree, the right thing to do here is to go back to the point of the foul (or would-be foul), and pick it up from there. I don't know what makes anyone think that would be a low road. There are low roads, for sure. Threatening people, for instance. You don't want to stoop to that level to get what you want. But, in this case, it's just a matter of exercising a rule that is already in existence (though, never used), and righting a wrong. It wasn't a close play. It wasn't "human error". It was so obvious that it HAD to be deliberate. If it wasn't, then that ref is completely incompetent. In either case, this is an extenuating circumstance that should call for the commissioner to finally exercise his ability to make something right. If this isn't the right time for it, then the rule shouldn't even exist. Precisely

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

01-23-2019, 10:58 AM	#46
vpheughan 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,515	Re: Frank D'Amico files lawsuit against Goodell DO A UCF AND DECLARE THE SAINTS CHAMPIONS, HAVE RINGS MADE AND HOLD A PARADE! F_ _ _ THE NFL!!!
vpheughan 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 4,515

01-23-2019, 11:13 AM	#47
73Saint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: NOLA Posts: 2,336	Re: Frank D'Amico files lawsuit against Goodell Originally Posted by vpheughan DO A UCF AND DECLARE THE SAINTS CHAMPIONS, HAVE RINGS MADE AND HOLD A PARADE! F_ _ _ THE NFL!!! No thanks. K Major likes this.

01-23-2019, 11:33 AM	#48
blackangold 1000 Posts + Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,422	Re: Frank D'Amico files lawsuit against Goodell Originally Posted by TheOak Not a bad/missed call at all. Its an intentional manipulation of the outcome of the game for entertainment/marketing purposes. https://youtu.be/mXL494exnoc Hadn't seen this before, but it deserves more attention. I was never on the bandwagon of the game being 'fixed'... but I am not sure how much more evidence you would need. The official is telling his colleague (who saw it as PI) to not throw the flag.

01-23-2019, 12:06 PM	#49
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,019	Re: Frank D'Amico files lawsuit against Goodell Originally Posted by burningmetal I'm not sure how being a combat vet would cause anyone to have no qualms about righteous action. If you're fighting an enemy of your country, there isn't anything unrighteous about that, no matter what snow flakes out there might think. To civilians it can be just that clear. To the combatant it can be anything but... and that has absolutely nothing to do with snow flakes or anyone else's opinion. It has everything to do with the face in the mirror, the realization in the dead silence of night that comes to a 19 year old that there are mothers, wives and children that will forever have their lives changed by one action. PTSD doesn't just come from things done to a person, it also comes from things a person has done as well. Civilization subjectively rationalizes reasons and circumstances that make killing and stealing okay to do... doesn't make it so.
	It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see. ~ Henry David Thoreau

01-23-2019, 06:49 PM	#50
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Frank D'Amico files lawsuit against Goodell Originally Posted by TheOak To civilians it can be just that clear. To the combatant it can be anything but... and that has absolutely nothing to do with snow flakes or anyone else's opinion. It has everything to do with the face in the mirror, the realization in the dead silence of night that comes to a 19 year old that there are mothers, wives and children that will forever have their lives changed by one action. PTSD doesn't just come from things done to a person, it also comes from things a person has done as well. Civilization subjectively rationalizes reasons and circumstances that make killing and stealing okay to do... doesn't make it so. Listen, buddy, I'm on your side on this one. And this might shock you, but one doesn't necessarily have to be a combat veteran to understand the implications of taking another's life. Sometimes I think non "civilians" can be just as ignorant of other people's comprehension of battle as they assume we are of theirs. I'm not attempting, in any way, to marginalize or over simplify the fallout of war on a veterans life. What I am saying is simply that if you are fighting for the freedom of your country, that is a righteous cause. Sometimes, tragic things happen in the process. I get that. I said it was a righteous cause, not a glamorous and perfect one. Because on the flip side of those wives, mothers and children of your enemies being effected, is that if you don't eliminate the enemy, it will be your family who will suffer. I realize that criminals can rationalize things in their own minds to make themselves think it's ok. But those kinds of people aren't actually rational, are they? When someone is threatening your citizens, there is nothing to rationalize. It's very simple: You take them out. There is no fine line there. And those who say otherwise are snowflakes. They concern themselves with the ugliness of war, without bothering to think about the consequences of leaving our enemies unchecked. They live in a fantasy world, where they believe that you can just go in and neatly pluck out the bad guys, and poof, everything is fine. If a soldier takes a life of a non combatant civilian, intentionally, then that is murder. But that's not the righteous cause I'm speaking of, obviously.
	If I had a nickel for every time I heard that, the NFL would fine and suspend me.