NFL Week 17 -- Are We There Yet?

[tapintoamerica]

Having McAfee under the same corporate tent should make it easier for Kimmel to get what he's after, which I suspect is a retraction.

 

[outofplace]

Having McAfee under the same corporate tent should make it easier for Kimmel to get what he's after, which I suspect is a retraction.

I wonder how much freedom they had to promise McAfee. The guy prides himself on being an unpredictable loudmouth.

 

[JC]

One thing I bet comes out of all this is, they just go ahead and ban the tackle eligible play, as is the rule in high school: if you wear 50-79, you're ineligible -- case closed.

Or the refs can do their job properly.

 

[tapintoamerica]

I wonder how much freedom they had to promise McAfee. The guy prides himself on being an unpredictable loudmouth.

True. But at some point, the corporate attorneys are going to have tell McAfee about limits.
I'm curious about libel law here. I have no idea what case law says about the liability of broadcast networks and the live, impossible-to-censor comments of the people they have on as guests.

 

[Spartan Squad]

True. But at some point, the corporate attorneys are going to have tell McAfee about limits.
I'm curious about libel law here. I have no idea what case law says about the liability of broadcast networks and the live, impossible-to-censor comments of the people they have on as guests.

I think they have a lot of protection because of the high standard of public figures and because you are afforded extra protections for inaccuracies you can't fix in real time. The tricky thing occurs if Rodgers repeats this and ESPN doesn't offer a retraction or a real-time challenge. It's also tricky because Kimmel has to equivocally prove it's false and the false statement was intended to do harm. The Network may just do a round of CYA to avoid legal costs but I suspect they would be fine. Rodgers needs someone to tell him to shut his yap. Especially since he is appearing in his role as the Jets QB.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

I'm sure Kimmel has never joked about someone possibly being on that list.

 

[da man]

You mean like at every other level of football except the NFL? What a concept!

Is that true? They can't run a tackle-eligible in high school or college football?

And here I thought the NFL was the No Fun League.

 

[Tighthead]

Is that true? They can't run a tackle-eligible in high school or college football?

And here I thought the NFL was the No Fun League.

When I was in (Canadian) University, they would put on a cheap pinnie with an eligible number.

 

[Starman]

Is that true? They can't run a tackle-eligible in high school or college football?

And here I thought the NFL was the No Fun League.

MileHigh can confirm but I believe according to NFHSA football rules ineligible players must report in to the crew chief plus ALSO physically change uniform numbers in order to become eligible receivers.

 

[Starman]

I got a huge laugh from the post-Lions game brouhaha over the tackle eligible play, when one of the more common arguments was whether the Lions had "an intent to deceive" by running the play.
Well of course there was intent to deceive, that's the whole forkin point of the tackle eligible play.

 

[Songbird]

You'd think the most profitable sports league in America ($20 billion with a B in 2022) can afford the best officiating possible.

 

[Webster]

I got a huge laugh from the post-Lions game brouhaha over the tackle eligible play, when one of the more common arguments was whether the Lions had "an intent to deceive" by running the play.
Well of course there was intent to deceive, that's the whole forkin point of the tackle eligible play.

Assuming what the Lions say is true, having multiple OLs running up to the ref like you are going to report then one not doing so in order to fool the other team is technically within the rules but gets no sympathy of me if the refs get it wrong.