Controversy closed in the court, instead of the field
Deflategate refers to the 2014 AFC championship allegation of tampering the footballs. The controversy is over right now, of course. A federal judge vacated the four-game suspension of New England Patriots quarterback, ruling that it exceeded the penalty allowed by the collective bargaining agreement. The National Football League commissioner decided to appeal the decision in order to’’ defend the integrity of the game’’. The deflategate is it a criminal affair or an ethics matter? That’s the question.
The NFL commissioner decision to suspend the Patriots quarterback was justified by the respect of the sportive ethics. It concerns the loyalty in win and the fair-play in defeat. The quarterback has the entire rights to defend himself if he didn’t break the ethics rules of the game. But it’s no room for a federal judge to rule in the sportive disciplinary matters. Nobody can logically deny the NFL commissioner the authority to take disciplinary actions. The deliberate deflation of the balls is an attack on the loyalty of the game. The controversy should be ended in the Red zone in the football field, but not in the court with the federal judge decision.
Indeed, this is a problem of honesty and integrity in the field, no way in the federal court where the federal judge ruling is binding as a favorable precedent for the players to challenge next NFL’s disciplinary actions. Right now, pending the judgment of appeal within one or two years, the NFL commissioner’s authority on the discipline is cut out.