OT - Multiple sources reporting investigation of Patriots | Page 3 | The Boneyard

OT - Multiple sources reporting investigation of Patriots

Status
Not open for further replies.
You left out the most important part.

After the teams submit the ball for inspection 2 hours earlier, the refs then KEEP the balls until they hand them to the NFL ball assistant right before kickoff.

Indy is not used to playing in that kind of weather. They complained about the ball. If the ball is at the lower limit of 12 pounds, it could easily lose another 10% during the game.

I didn't leave it out, I'm very aware of the procedure, I was simply replying to a post from someone (Palatine?) to point out that each team submits balls to the officials before a game and that the Colts would have been playing offense with the ones they submitted.

The bottom line is 45-7. I truly doubt balls had anything to do with it.
 
Oh God please don't give Upstater a corrupt organization to passionately defend. Now that Penn State is rolling he's got plenty of time.
 
"The Colts used the same balls". But yeah, let's get all up in arms and proclaim the Patriots as cheaters. Again.
They have cheated since they screwed Connecticut with that phony move to Hartford. Can't trust them. Put them in the same group with FSU and BCU. Go Seahawks!
 
"The Colts used the same balls". But yeah, let's get all up in arms and proclaim the Patriots as cheaters. Again.

But knowing it was going to happen that way, did they "practice" with them? This game was not at all decided by deflated balls but if it's found to be true, they will become the biggest cheaters in NFL history under Billy B. Is that a good thing? Of course it is, to Pats fans lol :rolleyes:
 
Two things...

1. As a teacher, if a kid cheats (mine or anyone else's) I hope the penalty is the same for all parties involved.

2. Let's say that the recording in 2007 was cheating, what have they done since then to be "cheaters"?
1. Let's say you pretend to be intellectually honest and admit that pointing out the same poor behavior from other parties is not a defense for your poor behavior regardless of how you perceive punishment should be handed down. If other teams were caught, and not punished, then the pats were treated unfairly, that doesn't mean they aren't cheaters.

2. Let's say you cheat on your wife once. Does that mean you aren't a cheater 7 years later? They have earned their reputation whether you like it or not.
 
.-.
My thing is, this sheet only comes up when they win. Last year when they lost to the Broncos we didn't hear jack sheet. When they lost to the Giants in the super bowl you don't hear sheet. I'm used to it by now. In spy gate, the guy who claimed he had the taped walked through of the Rams practice never produced it, but spygate was involving the jets, I forget. Whatever. If they lose the superbowl you won't hear sheet if they win its cause they cheated.
 
1. Let's say you pretend to be intellectually honest and admit that pointing out the same poor behavior from other parties is not a defense for your poor behavior regardless of how you perceive punishment should be handed down. If other teams were caught, and not punished, then the pats were treated unfairly, that doesn't mean they aren't cheaters.

2. Let's say you cheat on your wife once. Does that mean you aren't a cheater 7 years later? They have earned their reputation whether you like it or not.

1. The Patriots were the first (presumably only) team caught after the league directive to knock it off in early 2007. I'm not saying they weren't wrong but they weren't alone. They were caught. Nothing else has happened since then for them to be considered "cheaters", as in the present, continuing sense.

2. So the Broncos are cheaters, the Cowboys are cheaters, the Redskins (who did spy on practices in the 70's and 80's) are cheaters, the Jets are cheaters, the Steelers are cheaters...why don't I ever hear about them referred to as such?
 
Last edited:
1. The Patriots were the first (presumably only) team caught after the league directive to knock it off in early 2007. I'm not saying they weren't wrong but they weren't alone. They were caught. Nothing else has happened since then for them to be considered "cheaters", as in the present, continuing sense.

2. So the Broncos are cheaters, the Cowboys are cheaters, the Redskins (who did spy on practices in the 70's and 80's) are cheaters, the Jets are cheaters, the Steelers are cheaters...why don't I ever hear about them referred to as such?

1) We don't know, other than the deflated footballs, and last week which while legal, is still behavior that goes against the spirit of the rule. Legal? Sure. But Belichick has a history of questionable behavior, and he's earned the reputation. But that's 1 obvious violation, 1 example of questionable behavior, and 1 pending investigation. There's a lot of smoke, and it's not just victory cigars. But by all means, pretend everything is all good in Foxboro if you want.

2) So when did those teams get fined and punished for cheating? Refresh my memory.
 
My thing is, this sheet only comes up when they win. Last year when they lost to the Broncos we didn't hear jack sheet. When they lost to the Giants in the super bowl you don't hear sheet. I'm used to it by now. In spy gate, the guy who claimed he had the taped walked through of the Rams practice never produced it, but spygate was involving the jets, I forget. Whatever. If they lose the superbowl you won't hear sheet if they win its cause they cheated.

You really don't get that?

They most likely weren't doing anything wrong, but if they were...

If a team cheats and loses anyway, who cares? It's easier to remember the Barry Bonds', Sammy Sosas, and Mark McGuire's because of the records they were setting/chasing. Nobody remembers the AAA guys that got caught.

Of course, the only one setting up the strawman crediting their wins to their cheating is you. The people criticizing them have all said the win yesterday had nothing to do with it.
 
1) We don't know, other than the deflated footballs, and last week which while legal, is still behavior that goes against the spirit of the rule. Legal? Sure. But Belichick has a history of questionable behavior, and he's earned the reputation. But that's 1 obvious violation, 1 example of questionable behavior, and 1 pending investigation. There's a lot of smoke, and it's not just victory cigars. But by all means, pretend everything is all good in Foxboro if you want.

2) So when did those teams get fined and punished for cheating? Refresh my memory.

1. How does using a legal formation go against the spirit of the rule? I supposed the tackle catching a td pass goes against the spirit of the rule. So does the Seahawks' fake field goal? And when the Titans and Lions both used similar formations this past season? How about when Alabama used those formations in the game vs LSU?

Former coaches and scouts, among others, admitted to filming after the pats were caught, which were all before the directive to stop (which included a reminder that this was a long standing rule that wasn't being followed). The Broncos WERE punished for manipulating the salary cap.
 
2. So the Broncos are cheaters

Broncos fans will gladly admit to cheating. You know, when the team and the head coach got fined 50k for filming a 49ers walkthrough in London back in 2010? Josh McDaniels was the head coach at the time. He hired the same video guy from the Patriots scandal. Damn rogue video guys! :)
 
.-.
You really don't get that?

They most likely weren't doing anything wrong, but if they were...

If a team cheats and loses anyway, who cares? It's easier to remember the Barry Bonds', Sammy Sosas, and Mark McGuire's because of the records they were setting/chasing. Nobody remembers the AAA guys that got caught.

Of course, the only one setting up the strawman crediting their wins to their cheating is you. The people criticizing them have all said the win yesterday had nothing to do with it.
That is not what I said, but whatever. What I said is the cheating/controversy is only brought up IF they win, your saying if they lose no one cares their cheating. That doesn't make any sense. They're either cheating or they're not.
 
Broncos fans will gladly admit to cheating. You know, when the team and the head coach got fined 50k for filming a 49ers walkthrough in London back in 2010? Josh McDaniels was the head coach at the time. He hired the same video guy from the Patriots scandal. Damn rogue video guys! :)

I have a love/hate relationship with McDaniels. Him as the OC in the super bowl scares the hell out of me.:(

However, about that salary cap infraction...
 
However, about that salary cap infraction...

Never really understood how this one seemed to escape the PR wrath that the Pats got for spygate. Maybe it was worse a decade ago.
 
Never really understood how this one seemed to escape the wrath that the Pats got for spygate. Maybe it was worse a decade ago.

Me as well. The taping may have had some impact, it may not have. However you can't tell me that circumventing the salary cap didn't help the Bronco's two Super Bowl championship teams.
 
That is not what I said, but whatever. What I said is the cheating/controversy is only brought up IF they win, your saying if they lose no one cares their cheating. That doesn't make any sense. They're either cheating or they're not.

It's possible to cheat 1 game and not another. So your comment that they're either cheating or not is entirely false. Maybe they're not cheating when they lose, and that's why it never comes up. Maybe they cheat all the time, but only get caught occasionally.

You just keep building one silly strawman after another.

I happen to think it only gets brought up when they get caught. Which happens to be when they've won. I don't know why that would cause some incredible confusion or outrage on your part.
 
1. How does using a legal formation go against the spirit of the rule? I supposed the tackle catching a td pass goes against the spirit of the rule. So does the Seahawks' fake field goal? And when the Titans and Lions both used similar formations this past season? How about when Alabama used those formations in the game vs LSU?

Former coaches and scouts, among others, admitted to filming after the pats were caught, which were all before the directive to stop (which included a reminder that this was a long standing rule that wasn't being followed). The Broncos WERE punished for manipulating the salary cap.

Your argument is essentially that if one of your students gets caught cheating, and his defense is "3 other guys cheated too before you told us not to" then you won't punish him. I sincerely hope you don't actually treat your students that way. All you're doing is justifying their behavior by deflecting to the fact other teams admitted to similar behavior in the past. As if that makes it okay.

Okay, the Broncos AND the Pats are cheaters. Happy? (more deflection)
 
.-.
They didn't. Belichik was fined half a million for shytz and giggles.

So, you've got nothing.

You seem to be clueless and totally unaware that filming signals was NEVER against the rules in the NFL.

And UConn was banned by the way because the academics there are a joke and the athletes never study.
 
Oh God please don't give Upstater a corrupt organization to passionately defend. Now that Penn State is rolling he's got plenty of time.

And UConn, don't forget UConn. Super corrupt.
 
So, you've got nothing.

You seem to be clueless and totally unaware that filming signals was NEVER against the rules in the NFL.

And UConn was banned by the way because the academics there are a joke and the athletes never study.

And Joe Paterno died protecting a child molester. Oh wait, only one of us is being sarcastic.

You're right, guys get fined $500k for not breaking the rules all the time. Just ask.... um... wait... um... hmmm....
 
And Joe Paterno died protecting a child molester. Oh wait, only one of us is being sarcastic.

You're right, guys get fined $500k for not breaking the rules all the time. Just ask.... um... wait... um... hmmm....

It was BS, it was always BS, just like the APR UConn ban was BS. Syracuse can break every rue and get lovetapped, while UConn gets banned. Why? Optics.

And you can't even answer this simple question: is filming defensive signals illegal in the NFL? Answer that.
 
Your argument is essentially that if one of your students gets caught cheating, and his defense is "3 other guys cheated too before you told us not to" then you won't punish him. I sincerely hope you don't actually treat your students that way. All you're doing is justifying their behavior by deflecting to the fact other teams admitted to similar behavior in the past. As if that makes it okay.

Okay, the Broncos AND the Pats are cheaters. Happy? (more deflection)


I believe I said I would expect equal punishment for all involved in a previous post.

I'm not deflecting anything, I'm wondering why the difference in how the two (and others) are treated.
 
.-.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3018338

"This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell said in a letter to the Patriots."

NFL rules state "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." They also say all video for coaching purposes must be shot from locations "enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."
That was re-emphasized in a memo sent Sept. 6 to NFL head coaches and general managers. In it, Ray Anderson, the league's executive vice president of football operations, wrote:"Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."


I can't believe someone is really stupid enough to keep claiming that Belichick didn't break any rules.
 
The Pats cheat, they may not be the only team cheating, but they continue to be the only team getting caught. And using the fact other teams admitted to cheating as a defense is morally bankrupt. If your kid comes home with an F because he/she got caught cheating are you going to accept the excuse that 3 other kids in the class cheated too? "It's okay, just don't get caught next time." The Pats have a history of breaking the rules, whether or not it impacted the win last night doesn't matter. Nobody is suggesting they forfeit, but they are cheaters. And if you're going to be a fan of the Pats, just admit that they are cheaters and stop trying to rationalize their behavior as if fans of other teams should just accept their cheating.

So, to you, Jim Calhoun is a cheater.
 
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3400028

"clueless"

Belichick acknowledged that he violated NFL rules prohibiting filming opponents signals but insisted there was no intent to hide what he was doing.

"I made a mistake," he said in the interview. "I was wrong. I was wrong."

Belichick's quote has nothing to do with the characterization by the writer.

There is no rule against filming signals. There's a rule against filming from the sideline. You can film signals to your hearts content from the room where they are allowed to do gametape. Costas put Goodell on the spot with this question after the penalty as laid down, and Goodell acknowledged it while noting that the Patriots were filming from the sidelines.

You seem totally unaware of the actual rule.

AHA, I just read your last post and now realize that you can't understand what happened. I didn't say the Patriots didn't break a rule. I said they didn't break a rule against filming signals. They broke the rule against filming from the sidelines.

Here's the actual rule: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

Anderson clarified that filming had to come from an enclosed room with a roof overhead.

Belichick maybe is too much of a school marm and he inferred from the rule's syntax that you're not allowed to use the gamefilm during the game. After all, there's no meaning at all to the final clause in the rule if Belichick's interpretation isn't correct.

And John Fox recently confirmed that the rule about using ANY video still exists today. Which is why you see printouts coming down to the sideline by fax (Peyton Manning mostly reads these) but never anything moving.
 
Last edited:
So, to you, Jim Calhoun is a cheater.
Yup. And I'm okay with it, because if you think every team that is competitive at our level isn't doing something against the rules you live in fantasy land.
 
Yup. And I'm okay with it, because if you think every team that is competitive at our level isn't doing something against the rules you live in fantasy land.

Holy cow, what a hypocrite you are. After making the exact opposite argument when it comes to the Patriots, you actually typed that!!!
 
Belichick's quote has nothing to do with the characterization by the writer.

There is no rule against filming signals. There's a rule against filming from the sideline. You can film signals to your hearts content from the room where they are allowed to do gametape. Costas put Goodell on the spot with this question after the penalty as laid down, and Goodell acknowledged it while noting that the Patriots were filming from the sidelines.

You seem totally unaware of the actual rule.

AHA, I just read your last post and now realize that you can't understand what happened. I didn't say the Patriots didn't break a rule. I said they didn't break a rule against filming signals. They broke the rule against filming from the sidelines.

Here's the actual rule: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

Anderson clarified that filming had to come from an enclosed room with a roof overhead.

Belichick maybe is too much of a school marm and he inferred from the rule's syntax that you're not allowed to use the gamefilm during the game. After all, there's no meaning at all to the final clause in the rule if Belichick's interpretation isn't correct.

And John Fox recently confirmed that the rule about using ANY video still exists today. Which is why you see printouts coming down to the sideline by fax (Peyton Manning mostly reads these) but never anything moving.

Despite the quote I posted directly from the Exec. VP of Football Operations that reiterates the rule and completely refutes your claims about what is and isn't legal, you want to argue about which rule they broke? And you're wrong about it anyway? Wow. Just. Wow.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,190
Messages
4,556,246
Members
10,441
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom