NFL News & Notes

[incognito_man]

2 hours ago, Mazrimiv said:

Exactly.  The fact that this is true doesn't really sync with a 6 game suspension for a first time violation.  Jameson literally could have walked 500 yards in any direction, placed the exact same bet, and the league would have no issue with it.   He didn't walk those 500 yards, and now he's serving a 6 game suspension. The entire thing sounds like nonsense to me.

It is total nonsense. Nanny state rules from the league. And it's ridiculously hypocritical. It's both a dumb rule and a dumb by the players to break it.

[incognito_man]

1 hour ago, ThatJerkDave said:

Things like this are just an idiot test.  Much like getting busted for weed when you are told when the test is going to be.  Is it a dumb rule? Yes.  Is it difficult not to follow this rule? Not in the least bit.

 

It is like I hire you to your dream job, give you twice your asking pay, and one of the caveats is don't wear a yellow hat to work on Wednesdays.  Yet you choose to wear a yellow hat next Wednesday.

While this is all true and I agree, nobody's truly "dream" job would implement such stupid rules and hypocrisy.

[HokieHigh]

Just now, incognito_man said:

While this is all true and I agree, nobody's truly "dream" job would implement such stupid rules and hypocrisy.

lots of jobs have this rule.

[squire12]

9 minutes ago, HokieHigh said:

i think in nearly any professional setting you would be reprimanded/fired for betting on site network

if I am on the wifi system at work, there are sites I cannot access from my phone.  If I am not, I can access them.  If you are using your workplace wifi, they can restrict what sites you can access.  

[HokieHigh]

1 minute ago, squire12 said:

if I am on the wifi system at work, there are sites I cannot access from my phone.  If I am not, I can access them.  If you are using your workplace wifi, they can restrict what sites you can access.  

yea but sometimes you can access sites that are against the terms of agreement.

 

even still, there are websites that i am prohibited from accessing while on site by the letter of the law but not by technical restriction.

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, HokieHigh said:

lots of jobs have this rule.

Show me one other job that says you can't do something legal on your phone while geographically on their property that doesn't also extend away from their property.

Name one job where doing the same exact thing, legally, on your own phone, is against the rules if you move 1cm away.

[incognito_man]

7 minutes ago, squire12 said:

if I am on the wifi system at work, there are sites I cannot access from my phone.  If I am not, I can access them.  If you are using your workplace wifi, they can restrict what sites you can access.  

That's not what is being reported. It's not a "their wifi" rule, it's an "on their property" rule. Unless the reports are mistaken, there's an enormous difference.

[squire12]

1 minute ago, incognito_man said:

That's not what is being reported. It's not a "their wifi" rule, it's an "on their property" rule. Unless the reports are mistaken, there's an enormous difference.

I am not sure if the on property vs on their wifi is the distinction.  I am just relaying what my work situation is... and have other friends and family that can access sites differently when using wifi vs not.  

[incognito_man]

24 minutes ago, squire12 said:

I am not sure if the on property vs on their wifi is the distinction.  I am just relaying what my work situation is... and have other friends and family that can access sites differently when using wifi vs not.  

If it was their network they could just block all gambling sites and prevent this from happening. So it's either a huge oversight by the Detroit Lions network administrator or some weird spying going on

[HokieHigh]

seems like appeal should get it lowered to a game or 2

[squire12]

8 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

If it was their network they could just block all gambling sites and prevent this from happening. So it's either a huge oversight by the Detroit Lions network administrator or some weird spying going on

what I heard on NFL radio yesterday, the gambling sites have some obligation to report if any players are placing bets on NFL games.   not sure how they would be noting if any bets on non-NFL games would be placed from within or outside of an NFL facility.   I know tracking data from phones via cell towers is an option, but not sure how precise that gets.   I guess if location is active on the phone, then the location would be pretty precise

[squire12]

1 minute ago, HokieHigh said:

seems like appeal should get it lowered to a game or 2

possible.  seems like a pretty straight forward rule.  whether it is a good rule or not is another matter.

IF the argument is 6 games being too harsh, that may be a route to reduction in games.  

[Mazrimiv]

41 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

If it was their network they could just block all gambling sites and prevent this from happening. So it's either a huge oversight by the Detroit Lions network administrator or some weird spying going on

Yep.  The "on their network" thing doesn't even make sense.  I have to assume the in-house networks already block the betting sites.  If they don't block the sites on their own networks, and that is how Jameson placed the bet, this is even dumber than I already thought it was.  My assumption was Jameson used his personal phone to place the bet using his mobile carrier, while on league property.  Now I wonder if that is true.

[incognito_man]

15 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

Yep.  The "on their network" thing doesn't even make sense.  I have to assume the in-house networks already block the betting sites.  If they don't block the sites on their own networks, and that is how Jameson placed the bet, this is even dumber than I already thought it was.  My assumption was Jameson used his personal phone to place the bet using his mobile carrier, while on league property.  Now I wonder if that is true.

This was my assumption as well. And if that's true, it's pretty gross.

Either that or Detroit is hiring new network admins immediately and this was an enormous miss by them.

[Packer_ESP]

54 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said:

Yep.  The "on their network" thing doesn't even make sense.  I have to assume the in-house networks already block the betting sites.  If they don't block the sites on their own networks, and that is how Jameson placed the bet, this is even dumber than I already thought it was.  My assumption was Jameson used his personal phone to place the bet using his mobile carrier, while on league property.  Now I wonder if that is true.

That was my assumption too, but I do wonder how they would know that. I guess they don't need geo location or anything if they just compare the time the bet was placed with the times the player was at the facilities, which they probably have a register for, but it's still kinda sketchy. If that's the case, I also fail to see how this rule makes any sense like Incog said. What a player does on their phone over their own data connection shouldn't have anything to do with where they do it, just whether it's legal or not.