View Single Post
  #28 (permalink)  
Old -28-04-2008
RamOfDenmark's Avatar
RamOfDenmark
Status: Online
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Denmark
Age: 24
Posts: 749
Rep Power: 8
RamOfDenmark is a glorious beacon of lightRamOfDenmark is a glorious beacon of lightRamOfDenmark is a glorious beacon of lightRamOfDenmark is a glorious beacon of lightRamOfDenmark is a glorious beacon of lightRamOfDenmark is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Matt Walsh will meet with the NFL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pape View Post
Illegal? how was it illegal? Doing something illegal implies that the laws governing society have been broken. So by saying its illegal, you imply that there is a law on the books which say taping a walk thru is prohibited. If thats the case, why wouldn't a high flying prosecutor with greater ambitions just subpeona Matt Walsh and then move forward with a prosecution of the Patriots? Hmmmm... I suspect that the answer lies with the fact that it wasnt "illegal". If they did film the walk thru, i is just another violation of NFL rules.
I think it's pretty well understood that in this context 'illegal' means 'against NFL rules' and not 'we'll haul your ass to jail'-illegal. When the refs call 'illegal contact' I don't think they're saying that it's against the law and the player will be put in front of a jury or anything. Might as well quit obsessing over the exact way it was worded - we all know what he meant and it's a common use of the word 'illegal' that the NFL itself uses too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pape View Post
It will be interesting to see what Matt Walsh has to say. The agreement allows him to keep a copy of the materials turned over the the league. In the agreement, its called a "counsel copy". So whatever he says, the league will not be able to "sweep it under the rug". It will be interesting to see what he actually has to say. What we dont eed is more rhetoric and hyperbole splashed around about the Patriots past filming practices.
I agree it will be very interesting to see what he has to say, a lot of people will be listening closely. I am surprised to hear that he will be allowed to keep a copy of the materials - that has not been my understanding up until now. But it sounds like you've either read the agreement itself or a more in-depth analysis than I've been able to see (got a link?) so I'm going to assume that you are right on that. That's a very positive thing because as you say that means it will be much harder for the NFL to let the tapes disappear as they did the first time around. Seems like we may get to hear the full story of what happened after all - I'm much more inclined to believe in the investigation now that Walsh is (apparently) allowed to keep copies.
Reply With Quote