AP

On Sunday, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady was unable to defend his home field against the Eagles. On Monday, he tried to defend the federal court ruling that overturned the four-game suspension imposed on him by Commissioner Roger Goodell.

Brady, with the assistance of the NFL Players Association, filed a response to the league’s initial brief on Monday. The 63-page filing from the NFLPA and Brady reiterates many of the arguments previously made on his behalf: (1) that the NFL hadn’t placed players of fair notice of the possibility of being suspended for equipment violations; and (2) that no player ever has been suspended for failing to cooperate with an NFL investigation.

An eight-page introduction summarizes Brady’s case. At page 14, it gets a little more interesting.

That’s where the NFLPA chronicles Goodell’s history of “disregarding players’ rights to notice” of policies and procedures under which they could be punished. From the 2012 Saints bounty case to the 2014 Ray Rice case to the 2015 Adrian Peterson case, to the 2015 Greg Hardy case, Goodell’s punishments were modified or overturned completely because he attempted to impose standards that had not properly been communicated to the players before the relevant conduct occurred.

In this case, the lack of notice primarily comes from the fact that equipment violations will, for a first offense, result in fines. The NFLPA brief points out that the league has argued that Goodell had multiple policies to choose from, and that he opted to select the general power to safeguard the integrity of the game instead of the policy regarding equipment violations. But Goodell, per the NFLPA brief, did so without ever mentioning the policy that calls for a fine in the event of an equipment violation, making no effort to explain why or how a broad concern for the integrity of the game overcomes a specific, bargained policy applicable to alleged equipment violations.

“First offenses will result in fines.” It’s a phrase used no fewer than five times in the brief, and for good reason.

The NFLPA contends that the Commissioner’s otherwise broad discretion to protect the integrity of the game has been limited in cases of equipment violations to, for a first offense, a fine. It’s no different than the limits placed on the Commissioner’s ability to safeguard the integrity of the game in the event that a player is caught using a performance-enhancing drug. The league and the union already have agreed that a first offense under the PED policy results in a four-game suspension, and nothing more.

A player could be caught using a steroid, admit to doing it, claim that he did it in an effort to cheat the game, proclaim that he had every intention to undermine the integrity of the game, and vow to try to do it again — and he’d still be eligible for a suspension of only four games.

Workplaces governed by union agreements entail a system of rules and policies that rely on fair notice being given to players before they engage in conduct that can trigger punishment. In Brady’s case, the only notice he ever received related to the possibility of a fine for a first-offense equipment violation.

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit accepts that argument remains to be seen. It’s nevertheless a very persuasive argument.