Jump to content

ESPN at war with Pats?


AFJF

Recommended Posts

Punishment for Sal Alosi was swift and pretty permanent in terms of his NFL career.  Are we suggesting that immediate (in all likelihood) lifetime bans from the NFL are appropriate punishments for that level of cheating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 496
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Punishment for Sal Alosi was swift and pretty permanent in terms of his NFL career.  Are we suggesting that immediate (in all likelihood) lifetime bans from the NFL are appropriate punishments for that level of cheating?

 

No. For that type of punishment the offense would have to rise to the level of, say, intentionally deflating footballs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moss fumbled occasionally with the Vikings, not at all with the Raiders, and then back to occasionally with the Patriots.  From this statistical analysis, I conclude that the Raiders were cheating.

 

Moss rarely (if ever) went over the middle and rarely (if ever) was caught from behind and so I think the number of occasions where a fumble was even possible would be close to zero for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Pats fan answered my hypothetical before.

 

If the Pats found a way to fill the balls say with a different kind of gas such that they would pass pre-game inspection but go to much lower pressure during a game, would that be cheating or a creative way to get the outcome they desired within the rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Pats fan answered my hypothetical before.

 

If the Pats found a way to fill the balls say with a different kind of gas such that they would pass pre-game inspection but go to much lower pressure during a game, would that be cheating or a creative way to get the outcome they desired within the rules?

 

Not a Pats fan, but I would like to comment. If the rules are completely silent on this, it may not be cheating. But the gotcha here is the "completely silent" part. I don't know all the rules, but I am sure there is some kind of general rule that says anything that is not specifically permitted within the rules, especially with regard to equipment, is prohibited. If so, your hypothetical would most definitely be cheating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moss rarely (if ever) went over the middle and rarely (if ever) was caught from behind and so I think the number of occasions where a fumble was even possible would be close to zero for him.

 

Yes, so you would expect that shifting from a more run-oriented offense to a more pass-oriented offense in which Moss is the WR1 would have a salutary effect on a team's fumble rates. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt the league takes away even one. But that comes under the heading of business greed, not under rules enforcement or under the punishment of activities that are contrary to fair play.

Fair play?

The NFL is win at all costs.

If you want fair play go watch some Little League or Pop Warner games on Sunday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bet you sleep real well at night knowing the Pats cheated to win 4 Super Bowl championships in the last 15 years and the Jets haven't played in one for 46 years.

 

Only you would assume that anyone here "loses sleep at night" over the football team we root for.  That's demented.  Then again, there's you, who spends the majority of his adult life Jets football message boards.  Not only is that pathetic, it's downright creepy.  ewwwww  make sure not to touch anything around here please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not cheating.

It's called gaining a competitive advantage, something the Pats do better than the other 31 teams in the league.

 

Some infractions deserve to be called "cheating".  Some cheating may or may not lead to a competitive advantage. 

 

If, for example, the Patriots re-signed Revis for $12 million per year, but paid him an additional $6 million per year under the table that would be cheating, plain and simple, right?  And the Patriots would deserve hefty sanctions for that, regardless of whether it led to a competitive advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only you would assume that anyone here "loses sleep at night" over the football team we root for.  That's demented.  Then again, there's you, who spends the majority of his adult life Jets football message boards.  Not only is that pathetic, it's downright creepy.  ewwwww  make sure not to touch anything around here please.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not cheating.

It's called gaining a competitive advantage, something the Pats do better than the other 31 teams in the league.

If the pats let air out of the balls it is cheating. There is nothing else you can call it. The NFLs problem is that they have no records of the balls being checked. The Pats take is that a combination of time,temp, and environment will allow the balls to deflate. The one ball that was 2lbs under is at the max that would you could expect a ball to deflate due to environmental conditions. But since that ball was a "flyer" being the only ball that was 2lbs under and the colts also had possession of that ball, I can't see how that can even be used as evidence as the chain of custody was broken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the pats let air out of the balls it is cheating. There is nothing else you can call it. The NFLs problem is that they have no records of the balls being checked. The Pats take is that a combination of time,temp, and environment will allow the balls to deflate. The one ball that was 2lbs under is at the max that would you could expect a ball to deflate due to environmental conditions. But since that ball was a "flyer" being the only ball that was 2lbs under and the colts also had possession of that ball, I can't see how that can even be used as evidence as the chain of custody was broken. 

 

Ah. So now it seems you are accepting the latest leak, rather than the earlier leak that had 11 of 12 balls 2 psi under/ Any good reason for the change of heart?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Pats fan answered my hypothetical before.

 

If the Pats found a way to fill the balls say with a different kind of gas such that they would pass pre-game inspection but go to much lower pressure during a game, would that be cheating or a creative way to get the outcome they desired within the rules?

You would not need a different gas, all you would need is to heat the air that is going into the ball. Take for instance one of those $10 air compressors at Harbor freight. You let that run for 5 min the thing will overheat, the air that is pumped out would be warm and then subject to a greater loss of pressure during the game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. So now it seems you are accepting the latest leak, rather than the earlier leak that had 11 of 12 balls 2 psi under/ Any good reason for the change of heart?

Well to be accurate, PFT had only one ball at 2lbs under, the day after Mort's report.  If you go on the assumption that since the NFL cuts the check that Rappaport signs and he agrees with the PFT report, my assumption that he has an "in" is reasonable.

 

As I said previously since it was found out that the colts asked the refs pregame to be aware of the colt's concern regarding under inflated balls my led me to think that this was an effort to embarrass the pats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well to be accurate, PFT had only one ball at 2lbs under, the day after Mort's report.  If you go on the assumption that since the NFL cuts the check that Rappaport signs and he agrees with the PFT report, my assumption that he has an "in" is reasonable.

 

As I said previously since it was found out that the colts asked the refs pregame to be aware of the colt's concern regarding under inflated balls my led me to think that this was an effort to embarrass the pats.

 

Well personally, rather than picking a leak to support, I'll await the official report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some infractions deserve to be called "cheating".  Some cheating may or may not lead to a competitive advantage. 

 

If, for example, the Patriots re-signed Revis for $12 million per year, but paid him an additional $6 million per year under the table that would be cheating, plain and simple, right?  And the Patriots would deserve hefty sanctions for that, regardless of whether it led to a competitive advantage.

Well having Revis is certainly an advantage anyway. But yes, the Broncos and 49ers both lost 3rd rd picks for infractions due to the salary cap. 

 

IMO below

 

Some cheating is to be expected, running backs being down and then stretching the ball out an extra yard, The refs move the ball in those case 10 times a game but once or twice the RB gets away with it. 

 

Any  rules violation during a game that has a penalty associated with it is not cheating. Holding a DE so he doesn't crush your QB can not ever be considered cheating, even thought it was done knowingly and with forethought.

 

Cheating is rules violations that do not involve the rules used in the way the game is played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then what will we have to talk about while waiting for the new walking dead?

 

Well, for example, one can lie in wait for someone to claim only 1 ball was 2 psi deflated, then point out we should be waiting for the official report. And BTW, the official report may not be the last word. Reading it may give some indication the league exerted improper influence on the investigators. But before we even have the report there is just too much opportunity for empty speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey I'm a Yankees fan I'm going to go waste my time making 900,000 posts on a Toronto blue jays message board talking about how I'm such a superior sports fan

Fun fun fun

whatever floats your boat, who am I to tell you how you should spend your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for example, one can lie in wait for someone to claim only 1 ball was 2 psi deflated, then point out we should be waiting for the official report. And BTW, the official report may not be the last word. Reading it may give some indication the league exerted improper influence on the investigators. But before we even have the report there is just too much opportunity for empty speculation.

Well I never said we should wait for a official report before discussing it. I however am put off by the total lack of the environmental hypothesis in the ESPN newscasts. I understand that their job is to sell airtime, but you would think that Murdoch owned them in their presentation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...