Uh-oh.....Tim Brown & Jerry Rice got some explaining to do

[Scotty Piffin']

So basically the biggest argument they have for him throwing it is him changing the gameplan? Okay I can understand being thrown off by that, but it's not like they weren't playing one of the best defenses ever seen in the NFL up to that point.

 

[Eza]

Tirico came out the womb swagless.

 

[protestor]

I dont know who to believe on this, I tend to go on the players side.
that raider team was Vet team with enough leaders, it ran on auto pilot.
For callaham to change things, is so stupid that sabotage seems reasonable.

I compare that raider team to the 95 cowboys. Callahan should just stayed the hell out of the way like switzer did

 

[yseJ]

I dont know who to believe on this, I tend to go on the players side.
that raider team was Vet team with enough leaders, it ran on auto pilot.
For callaham to change things, is so stupid that sabotage seems reasonable.

that team was built on pass game, so deciding to run it 35+ times a game was actually changing things in the first place.

the gameplan isnt an actual set of plays too...its just a general tactics of how you feel you should attack/defend. that shyt changes all the time.

the same players would whine that the gameplan was shyt all along and they needed the ball fed to them, if raiders ran it 40 times and got blown out.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Tim Brown has been saying it for years.


Seriously tho, to say dude threw the super bowl is ridiculous. You can state other stuff he was an idiot and Barrett Robbins pre game bender may have been a direct cause to the change in gameplan, etc. But to say he threw the super bowl is idiotic and they deserve to face a lawsuit over this.

No they don't and there is no legal basis for a lawsuit over this.

 

[yseJ]

No they don't and there is no legal basis for a lawsuit over this.

you can sue for defamation, although the biggest challenge is to prove that the statement is false.

not like one can tap in the mind and know the peoples intentions with these things so youre prolly right on that front

 

[mastermind]

No they don't and there is no legal basis for a lawsuit over this.

just because Callahan probably wont win doesnt mean he doesnt have a case.

This is an example of defamation.

 

[Goatpoacher]

you can sue for defamation, although the biggest challenge is to prove that the statement is false.

Here's the full California Jury Instruction on Defamation for a limited Public FIgure (which is probably the applicable standard for an NFL coach)

1700 Defamation per se--Essential Factual Elements (Public Officer/Figure and Limited Public Figure)

________________________________________________________________________

[ Name of plaintiff ] claims that [ name of defendant ] harmed [him/her] by making [one or more of] the following statement(s): [ list all claimed per se defamatory statements ]. To establish this claim, [ name of plaintiff ] must prove that all of the following are more likely true than not true:

Liability

1. That [ name of defendant ] made [one or more of] the statement(s) to [a person/persons] other than [ name of plaintiff ];

2. That [this person/these people] reasonably understood that the statement(s) [was/were] about [ name of plaintiff ];

3. [That [this person/these people] reasonably understood the statement(s) to mean that [ insert ground(s) for defamation per se, e.g., "[name of plaintiff] had committed a crime" ]]; and

4. That the statement(s) [was/were] false.



In addition, [ name of plaintiff ] must prove by clear and convincing evidence that [ name of defendant ] knew the statement(s) [was/were] false or had serious doubts about the truth of the statement(s).

Actual Damages

If [ name of plaintiff ] has proved all of the above, then [he/she] is entitled to recover [his/her] actual damages if [he/she] proves that [ name of defendant ]'s wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing any of the following:

a. Harm to [ name of plaintiff ]'s property, business, trade, profession, or occupation;

b. Expenses [ name of plaintiff ] had to pay as a result of the defamatory statements;

c. Harm to [ name of plaintiff ]'s reputation; or

d. Shame, mortification, or hurt feelings.


Assumed Damages

Even if [ name of plaintiff ] has not proved any actual damages for harm to reputation or shame, mortification or hurt feelings, the law nonetheless assumes that [he/she] has suffered this harm. Without presenting evidence of damage, [ name of plaintiff ] is entitled to receive compensation for this assumed harm in whatever sum you believe is reasonable. You must award at least a nominal sum, such as one dollar.

Punitive Damages

[ Name of plaintiff ] may also recover damages to punish [ name of defendant ] if [he/she] proves by clear and convincing evidence that [ name of defendant ] acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.

There's a reason these types of suits are thrown out all the time. Note the bold language.

 

[Goatpoacher]

just because Callahan probably wont win doesnt mean he doesnt have a case.

This is an example of defamation.

Please see above.

 

[Jax]

Cacs can say nikkas and fukk blacks as freedom of speech but a brotha can't say the truth? BS

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

you can sue for defamation, although the biggest challenge is to prove that the statement is false.

not like one can tap in the mind and know the peoples intentions with these things so youre prolly right on that front

just because Callahan probably wont win doesnt mean he doesnt have a case.

This is an example of defamation.

It is not defamation. That's just ridiculous. He would have to prove that they're lying and that they know they're lying. Even if it's not true, Callahan can't prove it nor can he prove they're purposely saying something they know to be false. They believe Callahan sabotaged the game. And they said it's just their opinion and don't know for sure. It's not defamation to say what you honestly think someone's intentions were.

 

[yseJ]

It is not defamation. That's just ridiculous. He would have to prove that they're lying and that they know they're lying. Even if it's not true, Callahan can't prove it nor can he prove they're purposely saying something they know to be false. They believe Callahan sabotaged the game. And they said it's just their opinion and don't know for sure. It's not defamation to say what you honestly think someone's intentions were.

hence me saying

"although the biggest challenge is to prove that the statement is false.

not like one can tap in the mind and know the peoples intentions with these things so youre prolly right on that front"

 

[yseJ]

Here's the full California Jury Instruction on Defamation for a limited Public FIgure (which is probably the applicable standard for an NFL coach)



There's a reason these types of suits are thrown out all the time. Note the bold language.

Im not sure why you posted this if I already pointed it out in the previous post.

he can try to sue but he cant prove that statement is false because you cant prove what the intentions were.

 

[mastermind]

It is not defamation. That's just ridiculous. He would have to prove that they're lying and that they know they're lying. Even if it's not true, Callahan can't prove it nor can he prove they're purposely saying something they know to be false. They believe Callahan sabotaged the game. And they said it's just their opinion and don't know for sure. It's not defamation to say what you honestly think someone's intentions were.

why do you think I said he probably wouldnt win?

 

[jadillac]

lol @ being such a bad coach that players think you sabotaged the SB