Off Topic - Deflategate

[Crimsoncrew]

I'm thinking R.D. is serious in his post. How does one prove that a player or coach had any knowledge about this? IMO this is really a non-issue. This would be more of a story if had been vs the Ravens. Even if this plays out to be true the Pats still get to the SB. Cheaters win!

By all appearances, it did happen against the Ravens. It looks like it's been happening for some time. And the league doesn't have to prove anything. This isn't a court of law. They can prove that the equipment, which was in the Patriots' control, did not meet league standards. That alone is enough to issue punishments. As Goodell told Payton, ignorance is no defense.

 

[deep9er]

Colts did tell the NFL about flat balls when they played back in November.

ok, then this situation sounds even worse because the NFL should've taken action back in November. Now the NFL is at fault too cause they didn't investigate in earnest back then.

 

[deep9er]

Wow, extremely hateful and just plain absurd. Why don't we just shoot Tom and Bill in the back of the head and piss on them? How far should we take this, sir?

it isn't hateful nor absurd, if they can penalize the Saints, why not a little more on the Patriots? why a little more in this case?

What the Saints did was bad, but they didn't break the rules to gain a competitive advantage. if you don't penalize, then other teams will start to cheat too. Is that what you're encouraging, sending a weak message to other NFL teams?

why have rules in place if you're not going to enforce it?

 

[deep9er]

I'm thinking R.D. is serious in his post. How does one prove that a player or coach had any knowledge about this? IMO this is really a non-issue. This would be more of a story if had been vs the Ravens. Even if this plays out to be true the Pats still get to the SB. Cheaters win!

the story should have the same impact no matter the opponent. It should have the same impact even if New England had lost. The point is they broke NFL rules and this likely wasn't the first time they used deflated footballs.

if a driver is driving drunk, does it matter if its on a rural road, a street, a highway, etc.? breaking the law is breaking the law, and if you don't enforce the rules, then others follow suit.

 

[deep9er]

Patriots’ footballs were inspected, approved before AFC title game - Sports - The Boston Globe


I'm glad the NFL IS investigating in a judicious and thorough manner, we should hear about their findings shortly. Will have to stop ranting on the Patriots till the results are announced, I shouldn't find them guilty already. :-(

also glad Mr. Kraft has the right approach and upmost integrity for the rules. that is the main point of all this.

 

[darken65]

By all appearances, it did happen against the Ravens. It looks like it's been happening for some time. And the league doesn't have to prove anything. This isn't a court of law. They can prove that the equipment, which was in the Patriots' control, did not meet league standards. That alone is enough to issue punishments. As Goodell told Payton, ignorance is no defense.

Possible. It also possible that most teams in the NFL practice this same thing.

 

[darken65]

the story should have the same impact no matter the opponent. It should have the same impact even if New England had lost. The point is they broke NFL rules and this likely wasn't the first time they used deflated footballs.

if a driver is driving drunk, does it matter if its on a rural road, a street, a highway, etc.? breaking the law is breaking the law, and if you don't enforce the rules, then others follow suit.

One point here is that the 9ers have been accused of flooding the 'Stick with water to gain an edge. Not the case now with the shit stadium they built but hard to prove isn't it?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Possible. It also possible that most teams in the NFL practice this same thing.

It may be. But the Pats got caught. It's possible every team - or many - had incentive programs for hurting other players. The Saints were the ones who got caught and they got hammered for it.

 

[MHSL82]

Some people don't understand that it is cheating and punishable even if it didn't have an effect on the game, though it could have. The intent was to gain an advantage and that advantage was illegal (lower range of legal is still an advantage, but legal, below that is not). Cheating doesn't change on the result.

The score was 17-7 at halftime, the balls were changed to the right inflation for the second half. But if one pass that would have been incomplete or intercepted with a real ball was in fact incomplete/intercepted, that could wipe out a TD and give short field for the Colts for a TD/FG. That's 10-10 if it's a FG. Losing 14-10 if it's a TD. Or if a FG instead of a TD resulted by the Pats, then 13-10 or 13-14.

The second half was the correct pressure, but the game's circumstances were different. 28-0 second half might not have happened.

 

[MHSL82]

It may be. But the Pats got caught. It's possible every team - or many - had incentive programs for hurting other players. The Saints were the ones who got caught and they got hammered for it.

I've seen more and more arguments in society talking about how everybody does it, so you can't punish it or have to be lenient. There's no way of dis-incentivizing it other than punishing everyone who is caught and improving your investigation skills (checking elsewhere, too). Or giving alternatives that accomplish the same thing legally.

All this moral equivalency bull-shit bugs me. Yes, it puts more emphasis on not being caught and there's a negative windfall for those who are caught versus those who don't, but too fucking bad, in my book. Don't cheat. I know, if you're not cheating, you're not trying; if you don't cheat and no one else is caught, you're always losing (or at a significant disadvantage). The answer is to improve ways of catching the others. But NFL is entertainment and money, it doesn't bother me as much as "real world" equivalencies.

 

[MHSL82]

I do find it ironic that Da'qwell Jackson (name/sp.?) caught a deflated ball that might have been dropped by him had it not been more catchable or perhaps could have been caught by Gronk with a real ball (where the ball went might have been different with a bigger football). Then, maybe the two INTs Luck threw could have been dropped if it were deflated because all it takes for defensive hands to drop INTs is a little bit of variation (they're not receivers).

 

[darken65]

It may be. But the Pats got caught. It's possible every team - or many - had incentive programs for hurting other players. The Saints were the ones who got caught and they got hammered for it.

True about the Saints. Not sure if the Pats actually will get any punishment for this one. We will see.

 

[darken65]

Some people don't understand that it is cheating and punishable even if it didn't have an effect on the game, though it could have. The intent was to gain an advantage and that advantage was illegal (lower range of legal is still an advantage, but legal, below that is not). Cheating doesn't change on the result.

The score was 17-7 at halftime, the balls were changed to the right inflation for the second half. But if one pass that would have been incomplete or intercepted with a real ball was in fact incomplete/intercepted, that could wipe out a TD and give short field for the Colts for a TD/FG. That's 10-10 if it's a FG. Losing 14-10 if it's a TD. Or if a FG instead of a TD resulted by the Pats, then 13-10 or 13-14.

The second half was the correct pressure, but the game's circumstances were different. 28-0 second half might not have happened.

Are your seriously thinking that ball pressure had an outcome of this game? You are reaching my friend.

 

[purguy12]

Are your seriously thinking that ball pressure had an outcome of this game? You are reaching my friend.

I agree. If you go by Scientific science , its a disadvantage what the Pats did to themselves

 

[Crimsoncrew]

True about the Saints. Not sure if the Pats actually will get any punishment for this one. We will see.

They'd better. Obviously someone on their staff tampered with the balls after the official okayed them.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I agree. If you go by Scientific science , its a disadvantage what the Pats did to themselves

Scientific science is my favorite kind of science.

Are you really this dumb?

 

[darken65]

They'd better. Obviously someone on their staff tampered with the balls after the official okayed them.

Questions: if the difference of the pressure of the ball is that signifigant then why didn't the refs notice this from the very first play? If they can't notice the pressure of a ball then who is to say that many teams have been doing this for a while and the Pats are the only one who got caught? Is is okay as long as a team doesn't get caught then?

 

[darken65]

Scientific science is my favorite kind of science.

Are you really this dumb?

Scientific science is some serious stuff here...pay attention!

 

[MHSL82]

Are your seriously thinking that ball pressure had an outcome of this game? You are reaching my friend.

I didn't say they'd have lost. Outcome isn't just the result of a win or loss. My point was that some say that the punishment is affected by the fact that NE would have won anyway, and I agree they would have won but only because I think NE is better, not because it was a blow-out, and don't think them winning anyway has any relation to whether they should be punished.

I am seriously saying that if the balls were deflated to be more catchable (intent) and there was a catch on 3rd down, maybe he would have dropped it and then punted instead of catching it for a first - extending a TD or FG drive. Without that TD/FG, what happens then? I don't know. It could have been tied at halftime or worse.

I just said that the goal of cheating is to get an unfair advantage and cheating affects the game.

I am also saying that the Colts played differently being down by 10 than they would have being up by 4 or tied. That doesn't explain 28-0 in the second half, but who knows how they adjusted or what their game plan coming out of the half would have been. Were they more aggressive being down by a lot versus not?

Football is a very connected complex game. One thing affects another. If they had tried to connect and players kept dropping the regularly inflated footballs, would the Patriots have run more? Our 2011 NFCC game might have been different without the ST fumbles, would we say, "no way, did you see how close the game winning field goal was?" One play affects another, whether it's at the start or the end of a game.

 

[MHSL82]

Questions: if the difference of the pressure of the ball is that signifigant then why didn't the refs notice this from the very first play? If they can't notice the pressure of a ball then who is to say that many teams have been doing this for a while and the Pats are the only one who got caught? Is is okay as long as a team doesn't get caught then?

Nope, it's wrong either way, but we can only punish who we catch, not be lenient because others might have done it un-caught. Improve how to catch it and punish others the same. Yes, it puts emphasis on not being caught, but isn't that this way any way? I mean, is not punishing it encourage compliance? I mean, there might be a problem with hard handed stubbornness, etc., but the moral equivalency issue is bad as well. What's wrong is wrong, cause is cause, and punishment should be just, punish everyone, improve your ways of enforcing rules, etc. It's not that difficult to know what is right, it's just hard to enforce it. But when you've caught someone, you don't let it go because it's hard to enforce.