Super Bowl 2008

[Tuckerfan]

I'm just glad that all the rabid pats fans can STFU about the "greatest team ever" arguments.
Dude, this is the intarwebs. The only way people will shut up about their pet ideas is if you shoot them.

[What Exit?]

You'd have to ask him that. The "Belicheat" thing is very childish, by the way. He didn't cheat. Period.
What do you mean he did not cheat? He violated a rule for which every coach was specifically made aware. I think it has been blown out of proportion, but how do you get he did not cheat? He cheated as much as a baseball pitcher using a spitball cheated. Minor but still cheating.

Jim

[marshmallow]

Best SB I've ever seen live. Biggest SB upset evar? The "perfect" Patriots lose to a wildcard team staffed with rookies and a QB who until about a month ago was an easy punchline? I'm dizzy. Brady getting up close and personal with the dirt over and over? How could it have been any better absent a naked pile of cheerleaders or an asteroid destroying Arizona?

The final NY drive where Manning scrambled and lasered it for the helmet catch? Yeah. That's going in the highlight reel.

When Brady got the ball with thirty seconds I was really scared.

Next year expect to see the NFL rig it so it's Manning vs. Manning in the SB.

[dnooman]

The Giants are victorious. They win. Champs. Winners. Deafeaters of the "unbeatable" Patriots.

14-6 trumps 18-1, because the Pats could not find a way to win the game that matters the most.

Brady has said that his favorite superbowl ring is "the next one". So sorry you can't have your cake this year also, too bad your "perfect regular season" is for naught, and good luck trying to make history again....ever.

Belechick is witnessing karma first hand, that jack ass got what he deserved.

Brady mentioned that it was a 3 point win, exactly how many points they beat the Giants last time. Oddly, Moss seemed to have the most objective perspective on the outcome, recognizing the G-men's D, and the G-men's O line as being superior.

The Pats got BEAT. No BS. The Pats lost the only game that matters. They were outplayed.

Too bad Brady doesn't have a hot GF.... damnit. Well, maybe she gives low quality BJ's. He lost, no perfect season.

True, there is some schadenfreude going on, but I've been a Giants fan for a long time, and I'm genuinely happy. I can't stop smiling, and I fucking love it!

I just dread Spagnuolo (or however you spell it) leaving. The guy is clearly a genius.

[BobLibDem]

Couldn't be better. Spartan receiver denies Super Bowl ring to Wolverine quarterback. Gotta love it.

[Count Blucher]

The Giants are victorious. They win. Champs. Winners. Deafeaters of the "unbeatable" Patriots.

14-6 trumps 18-1, because the Pats could not find a way to win the game that matters the most.


Its one small win for Manning, one Giant win for mankind... :D

[Khadaji]

Hooray! Congrats to the Giants and their fans. Alas, as I am getting old and I have to get up early, I missed the most exciting part!

[DianaG]

Congratulations to the Giants and all their fans. Your boys earned it.

And to the non-Giants fans who are simply thrilled that the Pats lost, well, you're still sad, whiny bitches who should perhaps take at least a moment to consider why your reaction to excellence is to cry and stomp your feet and insist that it's not fair.*

*Exceptions will be made for anyone who hated the Pats prior to 2001, but bandwagon haters are even more loathsome than bandwagon fans.

[tnetennba]

Congratulations to the Giants and all their fans. Your boys earned it.

And to the non-Giants fans who are simply thrilled that the Pats lost, well, you're still sad, whiny bitches who should perhaps take at least a moment to consider why your reaction to excellence is to cry and stomp your feet and insist that it's not fair.*

*Exceptions will be made for anyone who hated the Pats prior to 2001, but bandwagon haters are even more loathsome than bandwagon fans.


Anyone calling anyone "sad whiny bitches" or "haters" just because they're rooting for a different team is an immature brat, if you ask me.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Helluva game. One of the top three Super Bowl games I've seen, but Manning wasn't the MVP. It was the Giants defensive line. They were getting pressure, sacking, and hurrying Brady with only rushing 3 or 4 linemen. They played an amazing first half and it looked like they were running on fumes towards the end, but they should get the game ball.


The play of the game was obviously David Tyree's catch, although I thought Eli got sacked for sure on that play. Kudos on him for somehow keeping it alive.

Also, for the record, I still wasn't impressed with Eli. Apparently I didn't watch the same game that the pundits (and I'm sure all the Giants fans here) watched. His first half wasn't very good, his third quarter was okay and his 4th quarter, statistically was rather nice, but almost killed a few drives there with horrible passes. He also got bailed out by David Tyree.

Statistically, Eli had a pretty solid game, but I'm still not seeing it. He still overthrew some of his receivers and flew one over a wide open Plaxico's hands. Seriously, the man is very very tall and Eli still wings it over his outstretched hands.


Oh well, in any case, it was a great game, I didn't mind seeing the Patriots lose, and Diana, you're coming off as very whiny. Almost as whiny as What Exit?! and possibly Ellis Dee when they come to defend Eli. For what it's worth, if they played three games, I think the Patriots would win the next two

[MadTheSwine]

If they had missed the kick, the Giants would have gotten the ball at the spot of the kick (which would have been the 38), so the Giants would have gotten better field position from a missed kick thn a failed conversion attemp. Going for it was actually a lower risk, higher reward play.

Yeah, What's a measly 3 points good for?

[astorian]

Much as I was rooting for the Giants, I had given them almost no chance. Everything had to go exactly the Giant's way for them to win, and it pretty much did.

I was reminded quite a bit of the Pats win over the Rams, actually. A combination of Kurt Warner's thumb (which was injured worse than anyone knew) and a perfectly plotted Patriot defense pretty muich shut down what had been an unstoppable offense.

Similarly, a smart game plan combined with an injured Brady (SOMETHING was definitely wrong- he was missing wide open receivers, and he NEVER does that) shut down the highest scoring offense ever.

*

Did Belichick cheat? Of course he did! I can't get too outraged, since practically every team tries to steal signals or get inside knowledge one way or another. I'd be surprised if my favorite teams haven't "spied" in more low-tech ways.

So, Belichick is both a brilliant strategist AND an arrogant prick who thinks the rules don't apply to him. Most other successful coaches are, too. Everybody happy now.

[Phlosphr]

Sitting in my house in Connecticut, I could hear the wimper of thousands of Pats fans all at once last night. Though I am a New Englander, my allegiance goes with the Bears - Chicago roots I have - I would have liked to see a record year for the Pats, but plain and simple they didn't show up to the Super Bowl this year. Oh Well.

[Hamlet]

One of the best non-Packer Super Bowls I've ever seen. It was a great game and I got such joy out of watching Belichick exposed as a complete dick for leaving before the game was over. Every ounce of scorn that will be heaped on him for that is more than deserved.

But, putting that aside, it was a great football game too. The Giants played a fantastic game, and I was very impressed by their defensive coordinator's plan, and the players' execution. They beat them fair and square and deserve the win.

Congratulations to the Giants.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

One of the best non-Packer Super Bowls I've ever seen. It was a great game and I got such joy out of watching Belichick exposed as a complete dick for leaving before the game was over. Every ounce of scorn that will be heaped on him for that is more than deserved.At least he wore his "special occasion" medium sleeve hoodie.

[Marley23]

I forget the first year I watched the Super Bowl all the way through, but this is the dullest one I've seen in a while.
For everyone who enjoyed the final five minutes.... you're welcome. :D It wasn't a pretty game, but the finish was excellent and the Giants defense was stellar. Brady wasn't 100 percent, but I'm sure he would have been good enough to beat teams that didn't rush him as effectively as the Giants did. The Giants D bent - I couldn't figure out how they were going to win when they seemed to give up 7 yards to Wes Welker on every other play - but except for those first and last drives, they always managed to stop the Patriots just short of scoring range.

As somebody who disliked the Patriots before it was cool, DianaG, thanks for making an exception for me. :rolleyes:

[lieu]

There's something to be said, in addition to the recent medical announcement, for not really having a vested interest in the outcome of a game and just being able to enjoy the competition, regardless of the outcome. All we wanted was to witness some displays of skill and a well-fought battle. We got that.

Our only disappointment, having numbers 3 and 7 in an office pool, was that the Pats didn't score just before 1st quarter's end. Then we could have won 3, not just 2, of the quarters. Hello, 250 :)

Congrats to both teams on a good year. Thanks for some pleasant, low key entertainment. T'was pretty enjoyable, so I'm at a loss as to why Belichick didn't stick around for the whole thing.

So... when's the '08 draft start?

[Trunk]

Can we put Archie Manning out to stud before he gets too old?

Just let him silly-bang as many dizzy hotties as he wants, and maybe like 25 years from now, we'll have a Manning playing on every team.

Just to be on the safe side, if his wife is still fertile, try to squeeze another one or two out of her.

Anyway, good game. Greatly disappointed in the Pats inability to handle the Giants pass rush and Brady's consequent poor showing.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Can we put Archie Manning out to stud before he gets too old?

Just let him silly-bang as many dizzy hotties as he wants, and maybe like 25 years from now, we'll have a Manning playing on every team.

Just to be on the safe side, if his wife is still fertile, try to squeeze another one or two out of her.

Anyway, good game. Greatly disappointed in the Pats inability to handle the Giants pass rush and Brady's consequent poor showing.

I think Brady was a little banged up; worse than we thought, actually (with his shoulder being the culprit; pregame injury logs were all talking about his shoulder and not his ankle) but it goes to show you what an accurate quarterback can do behind a solid offensive line with lots of time versus a quarterback that's got pressure on him constantly (with little to no blitzing, to boot).

[Hentor the Barbarian]

You'd have to ask him that. The "Belicheat" thing is very childish, by the way. He didn't cheat. Period.How about "Bellendchick"? Is that very childish?

I came up with it myself! I'm pretty proud of it. Unfortunately, it hasn't caught on, though. I suppose it doesn't roll off the tongue very well. Perhaps not enough people are familiar with the term "bell end" either. Oh well.

[What Exit?]

Oh well, in any case, it was a great game, I didn't mind seeing the Patriots lose, and Diana, you're coming off as very whiny. Almost as whiny as What Exit?! and possibly Ellis Dee when they come to defend Eli. For what it's worth, if they played three games, I think the Patriots would win the next two
Geez, LOUNE, neither of us have claimed he is an elite QB, we just keep saying to give him a chance and that he is a good QB. So, please give him another 5 years and see how this ends up. He is ahead of Simms for this point in their careers.
*Exceptions will be made for anyone who hated the Pats prior to 2001, but bandwagon haters are even more loathsome than bandwagon fans.
Obviously, I am not a Jet or Dolphin fan, but I think all Jet and Dolphin fans deserve a pass in your book. As to this Giant fan, I never have mustered up a hatred of NE, in fact I actually do think Bill & Tom are the best Coach & QB combo in the game today. They just weren't good enough last night.

Jim

[Sublight]

Anyone calling anyone "sad whiny bitches" or "haters" just because they're rooting for a different team is an immature brat, if you ask me.
Which is why DianaG specifically said she wasn't referring to those people, but to the ones only rooting for a team to lose.

[Hamlet]

T'was pretty enjoyable, so I'm at a loss as to why Belichick didn't stick around for the whole thing.Because he's an unsportsmanlike, egotistical asshole who, deep down inside, is a big crybaby? At least that's my guess.

lieu]So... when's the '08 draft start?82 days, 2 hours 34 minutes and 45 seconds. Or so.

[Barrett Bonden]

I agree- going for it on 4th and 13 on the 31 isn't nuts, it's just a little ballsy and risky for the second quarter. Early in the game, I think a field goal makes more sense. Late in the game and trailing, though, Belichick's decsion would look a lot better. But a 48 yard field goal is quite makable, especially in a dome.

I completely agree. I yelled at the tv when they decided not to kick. But they didn't listen to me. :mad:

[What Exit?]

Because he's an unsportsmanlike, egotistical asshole who, deep down inside, is a big crybaby? At least that's my guess.

82 days, 2 hours 34 minutes and 45 seconds. Or so.
I hate to defend Bill B, but he ran out on the field when the clock read 0 and he congratulation Tom C. Give Bill B. a break, he is not the most pleasant Coach in the world, but in this case, the offense is pretty minor. He was already on the field when the clock was set back to 2 seconds.

[Quercus]

On a technical note, did anybody else notice that the clock didn't stop at least twice after the ball-carrier went out of bounds on the last Patriots scoring drive? Did I miss a rule chance somewhere, or were there serious timekeeping screw-ups?

[tnetennba]

Which is why DianaG specifically said she wasn't referring to those people, but to the ones only rooting for a team to lose.

That's not exactly what she said, but my basic thinking is that a sportsmanlike exchange among fans is never made better with words like "whiny little bitches," and "jealous bitter haters" (to quote Diogenes). YMMV.

[Elenfair]

Its one small win for Manning, one Giant win for mankind... :D

Brilliant. :D This wee scribe thanks you for that.

Me, I'm just happy people will finally stop teasing me for having drafted Eli in my keeper league his first year out. I TOLD them he was on my second tier (what a steal!) for development purposes and that he was, someday, going to amount to something. But nooOOOoooOOo. I got teased when he cried on the sidelines. ;)

I have both Brothers Manning on my bench right now.

I spent all this time telling The Boys in this Fantasy League to shut up and watch, 'cause little Eli would someday win a Superbowl. They laughed at me. And laughed some more. That'll learn 'em. :p

[Hamlet]

I hate to defend Bill B, but he ran out on the field when the clock read 0 and he congratulation Tom C.The clock on my television said 1, and he was told by the Referee that there was time left on the clock. His team had to go out there for the final play while he ran away like a little baby. After watching him calling pass plays with huge leads and making the opponents stay there and take it, I found it the height of hypocrisy that he ran away before the game was over.

Give Bill B. a break, he is not the most pleasant Coach in the world, but in this case, the offense is pretty minor. He was already on the field when the clock was set back to 2 seconds.Did he come back on the field? If so, I missed it. I only saw him run over, ignoring the ref and the others, and leave. If he came back on the field for the ending, I'd be more than willing to think it was a mistake, rather than him being a poor loser.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Geez, LOUNE, neither of us have claimed he is an elite QB, we just keep saying to give him a chance and that he is a good QB. So, please give him another 5 years and see how this ends up. He is ahead of Simms for this point in their careers.

Obviously, I am not a Jet or Dolphin fan, but I think all Jet and Dolphin fans deserve a pass in your book. As to this Giant fan, I never have mustered up a hatred of NE, in fact I actually do think Bill & Tom are the best Coach & QB combo in the game today. They just weren't good enough last night.

Jim


The price paid for Eli's drafting rights don't say that he's not at least slated to be an elite quarterback.

Really, though, sorry if I mischaracterized you. My apologies. I'd say he's at Ben Roethlisbergergergergergerger's level right now.

[LilGypsyGirl]

M'eh....

...sooooooo the Giants win the Super Bowl.

Eh.

Frankly, there probably couldn't have been two teams I cared less about playing each other - I dislike them equally and with a passion that burns brighter than a bajillion suns...BUT - since my lame-ass team never EVER makes the Super Bowl EVER, I had to root for the underdogs. I usually do. So, yay, I guess.

*waves Giants flag half-heartedly*

Wow - I don't think I've ever been so neutral about a Super Bowl. What I do know is that Mr. Brady is hurtin' something fierce this morning, and I am sure he is trying to keep Gisele Bundchen from walking out on him - if she didn't already head for the parking lot at 11:05 into the 4th quarter.

So to all the Pats fans, I'm sorry. Seriously. No smart-ass native NYer comments from me, I promise. I feel your pain, I do. :(

To the Giants fans, congrats! But keep the provocation of the Pats fans to a minimum, will ya? There's really nothing worse than sore-winners. Really. It's obnoxious. Cut it out.

There - my Ambassador of Peace mission is over.

So hug it out, bitches! There's always next year. :D

:)

[What Exit?]

The price paid for Eli's drafting rights don't say that he's not at least slated to be an elite quarterback.

Really, though, sorry if I mischaracterized you. My apologies. I'd say he's at Ben Roethlisbergergergergergerger's level right now.
Hey, believe it or not, I know he is clearly not as good as Tom Brady right now and is unlikely to ever be as good. But if you take all the QBs in the league, Eli, Ben & Rivers are all above average and all are well ahead of where fourth year QBs usually are. Eli & Rivers hopefully both turn the corner this year. They both had great post season runs. I expect both to continue improving over the next 2-4 years.

Jim

[Uncommon Sense]

Couple of things. Great Game!
I lost $75 in a confidence pool but the outcome was worth it.
The Giants D seemed like they were playing with an extra 3 men on every play for most of the game. Belichek got out-coached and didn't make the necessary changes at half-time. They also went away from the run like the Pack did two weeks earlier.
In close games you have to keep running the ball, eventually good teams will get the run going even if it's later in the game.
Randy Moss didn't make exceptional attempts at the two balls thrown to him on the last drive of the game. He could have went up to get one or the other and on both throws he played the ball like the shorter defenders did. He waited for the ball to come to him and he was covered.

I don't know why people are calling this "One of the greatest upsets in sports".
The Giants had a superior D line. They had a better running game. Their receivers are on par with any others in the league. And Manning has some talent. It wasn't like the Pats were playing the '08 Dolphins, fer chrissakes.

Was the guy running the clock at the end of the game drunk?

[Borborygmi]

A quick congrats to the Giants fans here on the board... I always enjoy your contributions to the football threads I occassionally lurk in. And while I had to hold my nose to root for your boys (Eagles fan here), it was good to see you knock off the Pats and especially the Cowboys earlier on. And what a great game.

[VarlosZ]

On a technical note, did anybody else notice that the clock didn't stop at least twice after the ball-carrier went out of bounds on the last Patriots scoring drive? Did I miss a rule chance somewhere, or were there serious timekeeping screw-ups?
The rule is that the clock stops on an out of bounds until the ready-to-play (that is, until the refs place the ball on the line of scrimmage, ready to be snapped). The exceptions are within the final two minutes of the first half and the final five minutes of the second half, when the clock is stopped until the snap. I assume what you were noticing occurred before the 5-minute mark of the 4th Quarter.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

On a technical note, did anybody else notice that the clock didn't stop at least twice after the ball-carrier went out of bounds on the last Patriots scoring drive? Did I miss a rule chance somewhere, or were there serious timekeeping screw-ups?You must have missed a rule change, presuming that your observations were at the beginning of the drive.

The clock does not stop for out of bounds plays until the last five minutes of the second half (or last two minutes of the first half). If you saw this happen after the five minute mark, then an error was made. I don't recall seeing it happen, and I didn't hear anyone else commenting on it.

[What Exit?]

M'eh....

...sooooooo the Giants win the Super Bowl.

Eh.

Frankly, there probably couldn't have been two teams I cared less about playing each other - I dislike them equally and with a passion that burns brighter than a bajillion suns...BUT - since my lame-ass team never EVER makes the Super Bowl EVER, I had to root for the underdogs. I usually do. So, yay, I guess.

*waves Giants flag half-heartedly*

Wow - I don't think I've ever been so neutral about a Super Bowl. What I do know is that Mr. Brady is hurtin' something fierce this morning, and I am sure he is trying to keep Gisele Bundchen from walking out on him - if she didn't already head for the parking lot at 11:05 into the 4th quarter.

So to all the Pats fans, I'm sorry. Seriously. No smart-ass native NYer comments from me, I promise. I feel your pain, I do. :(

To the Giants fans, congrats! But keep the provocation of the Pats fans to a minimum, will ya? There's really nothing worse than sore-winners. Really. It's obnoxious. Cut it out.

There - my Ambassador of Peace mission is over.

So hug it out, bitches! There's always next year. :D

:)
Who do you root for that you hate both teams equally, that sounds unusual except for a smallish number of Jet fans? It looks like you might be a Jets fan.

I think it is less Giants fans pushing Pats fans than just generic Pats haters from around the league.

[Marley23]

I don't know why people are calling this "One of the greatest upsets in sports".
Because the Patriots were 18-0, loaded with talent, and were clearly one of the best teams in the history of the league?

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I think it is less Giants fans pushing Pats fans than just generic Pats haters from around the league.Aujourd'hui, nous sommes tous Giants Fans.

[What Exit?]

Aujourd'hui, nous sommes tous Giants Fans.
¿Que?

[Hampshire]

After the Cowboys and my Packers were left scratching their heads in a "What just happened to us?" fashion I had a feeling the Giants were going to be the best chance the NFC had of upsetting the Patriots.
I think either the Cowboys or the Packers would have been clobbered by the Pats.
The Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots had these highly touted pass offenses that won them a lot of games all year. Nobody could frazzle their QBs. The Giants D found a way and took them all down one at a time. Meanwhile Eli just kept a cool head and ran time off the clock while patiently putting points on the board.

Somebody on some network called it before the game "The best team against the hottest team". The Pats were the best all year but the Giants were just on this amazing hot streak.

(And did anyone see Eli and Brady on the field before the game? Talk about karma. Eli jogs past Brady, smiles, and says something to him, probably like 'good luck' or 'how's it goin', and Brady just scowls and frowns and nods his head.)

[Uncommon Sense]

Because the Patriots were 18-0, loaded with talent, and were clearly one of the best teams in the history of the league?
Yikes.
They weren't nearly as good towards the end of the season when they weren't covering and needing last minute heroics to pull out wins. The Giants were very good down the stretch. They won 10 straight road games, marched through the playoffs with defensive authority, and were led by a confident and consistent quarterback. The Giants peaked late and the Pats tailed off towards the end of the season. Anyone who didn't see this as a close game was being misled by emotion.

[Darth Sensitive]

I swear I noticed some plays with ball carriers being dragged down in bounds, and the clock stopping for a while.

I like the college rule for stopping the clock to move the chains, but I was thinking "No, keep running the clock man - you're at University of Phoenix (Online) Stadium, but it's still not a college game."

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I swear I noticed some plays with ball carriers being dragged down in bounds, and the clock stopping for a while.

I like the college rule for stopping the clock to move the chains, but I was thinking "No, keep running the clock man - you're at University of Phoenix (Online) Stadium, but it's still not a college game."The clock will stop momentarily until the ball is signaled ready for play, until the last two minutes of the first half and last five minutes of the second half.

[What Exit?]

(And did anyone see Eli and Brady on the field before the game? Talk about karma. Eli jogs past Brady, smiles, and says something to him, probably like 'good luck' or 'how's it goin', and Brady just scowls and frowns and nods his head.)
I did see that, I thought it could have been framed and titled as "Aw Shucks and the Dick".

I chalked it up to gamesmanship and being Bill Belichick's prize student.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Hey, believe it or not, I know he is clearly not as good as Tom Brady right now and is unlikely to ever be as good. But if you take all the QBs in the league, Eli, Ben & Rivers are all above average and all are well ahead of where fourth year QBs usually are. Eli & Rivers hopefully both turn the corner this year. They both had great post season runs. I expect both to continue improving over the next 2-4 years.

Jim


I dunno. There doesn't seem like any good reason, with all the kids that throw a football or get the chance to play the quarterback position some time in life for the league to only have a half dozen (maybe) good-to-elite quarterbacks. I really do hope that Eli and Rivers make The Jump and I was hoping to see it from Eli starting last night (he was building up to it with the good postseason he was having) but I still wasn't impressed. I dunno, maybe he'll mature, knowing that he beat "the best" in the Super Bowl, maybe that'll do something for his confidence. Eli and Rivers also have a good running game (Ahmad Bradshaw was my choice for MVP until that defensive line rose to the occasion) to fall back on, a solid offensive line, and weapons to throw to. Being in those situations REALLY help.

[LilGypsyGirl]

It looks like you might be a Jets fan. .

Yea - I get that a lot.

But actually, no. I am not a NY football team gal - thanks to my uncle whom I was VERY close to, I am a Minnesota Vikings fan.

I'll wait until you're through choking through your laughter. I get THAT a lot, too.

*ahem*
:D

[PunditLisa]

If Belichick wasn't gaining an advantage by videotaping the other team, in clear opposition of the rules and punishable by a fine and a loss of draft pick, he wouldn't risk doing it. Otherwise we could add "stupid" to his list of failings and I don't believe he's stupid.

Pete Rose cheated. I used to feel sorry for him because I didn't really see why it mattered because he was betting on the Reds to win. I've been since set straight. Aside from dirtying up the game, he knew there was a rule against it and did it anyway. He got caught and now has to live with the consequences and the label he cast upon himself.

Belicheck is a great coach. He's also a jerk and, yes, a cheat. Part of the reason people feel such hostility towards the Patriots lies at his feet.

As far as the game goes, it was a great one. Because I was the hostess with the mostest, I didn't get to see a lot of it, but I did finally sit down in the middle of the third quarter. That over the helmet catch was amazing.

I also thought it was nice to see Peyton Manning rooting so enthusiastically for his brother. Awww.

I've been hosting SuperBowl parties for over 20 years. It was nice to get a nail biter for a change.

[Labrador Deceiver]

I swear I noticed some plays with ball carriers being dragged down in bounds, and the clock stopping for a while.

I like the college rule for stopping the clock to move the chains, but I was thinking "No, keep running the clock man - you're at University of Phoenix (Online) Stadium, but it's still not a college game."

I noticed the same thing, then would notice that the clock was shortly thereafter "corrected". In other words, I don't think the problem was with the game clock, but with the Fox timekeeper.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Just because something is against the rules doesn't mean it's "Cheating." I appear to be the only person on this board who knows anything about the game. It's against the rules to wear black knee-socks on the field too, that doesn't mean wearing black knee-socks is "cheating."

It's a childish, uneducated, sour grapes accusation.

[MadTheSwine]

Belicheck is a great coach. He's also a jerk and, yes, a cheat.

I've been hosting SuperBowl parties for over 20 years. It was nice to get a nail biter for a change.

You don't consider XXXIX,XXXVIII,XXXVI or XXXIV nailbiters?

Thats' IV of the last VIII that were pretty nailbitey...V of IX if ya count this one.

[lieu]

I am curious about one instance during the game and did a brief search here but didn't see mention... I think it was around the second quarter. Giants had the ball, fumbled, and a Patriot defender fell on top of the ball. His knees were down and the play should have ended a second later when a Giant landed on him. Replay showed Pat posession pretty clearly. But in the ensuing free for all in the pile, the ball was stripped from him by a Giant and it was ruled they retained posession. Today's stat sheet shows Giants had 2 fumbles but never lost posession.

The replay was clear, yet Belichick never threw the red. I wonder why?

Not to open a can of worms but I'm surprised no more has been made of this.

[Hamlet]

Just because something is against the rules doesn't mean it's "Cheating." I appear to be the only person on this board who knows anything about the game.DAMMIT! Alright everyone pack it up. It's over. Dio is on to us. He's the ONLY one who knows anything about football. Actually, I'm guessing in his little mind, he's the only one who knows anything about not just football, but anything he talks about.

No other opinions necessary. Don't even bother. Dio's onto us.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If everyone in a thread kept calling field goals "birdies," I would not be wrong in correcting them or assuming they didn't know anything about the game. The continuous equating of Spygate to "cheating" is the same kind of ignorance.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

I appear to be the only person on this board who knows anything about the game.Wow! That is truly impressive, and not at all a childish or uneducated pronouncement.

[RickJay]

Did he come back on the field? If so, I missed it. I only saw him run over, ignoring the ref and the others, and leave. If he came back on the field for the ending, I'd be more than willing to think it was a mistake, rather than him being a poor loser.
But he DID run over and congratulate T.C. That the timekeeper was on drugs (which NFL timekeepers seemingly always are; I could keep better care of the game clock on my sports watch while watching the broadcast) is irrelevant. Why would he be a sore loser for not doing it twice? I mean, you're really digging for reasons to criticize someone when you have to say that congratulating the other coach isn't enough, that he must be congratulated twice. I've never heard that one before.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Wow! That is truly impressive, and not at all a childish or uneducated pronouncement.
It was an irritated and sarcastic pronouncement. If anyone disagrees, I would love to hear an explanation of how taping signals from the sidelines instead of the stands gives a team any significant or "unfair" advantage. It's not illegal to steal signals. It's not illegal to videotape signals. It's only illegal to videotape signals from the sideline. Whoop-de-doo.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I am curious about one instance during the game and did a brief search here but didn't see mention... I think it was around the second quarter. Giants had the ball, fumbled, and a Patriot defender fell on top of the ball. His knees were down and the play should have ended a second later when a Giant landed on him. Replay showed Pat posession pretty clearly. But in the ensuing free for all in the pile, the ball was stripped from him by a Giant and it was ruled they retained posession. Today's stat sheet shows Giants had 2 fumbles but never lost posession.

The replay was clear, yet Belichick never threw the red. I wonder why?

Not to open a can of worms but I'm surprised no more has been made of this.

Possession is 9/10ths the law. Seriously, though, he came up with the ball even though he didn't have possession inside it. Nasty things go on inside those piles, my man.

[What Exit?]

Just because something is against the rules doesn't mean it's "Cheating." I appear to be the only person on this board who knows anything about the game. It's against the rules to wear black knee-socks on the field too, that doesn't mean wearing black knee-socks is "cheating."

It's a childish, uneducated, sour grapes accusation.
Would you like to cite how it is not cheating then? Perhaps in your superior knowledge, you can define cheating. You can then expound on how Bill's filming on the sly that the league specifically warned against was not covered by your definition.

In the meantime, reread your post and tell us what you think it makes the rest of the football fans think about you.

Jim

[ShadowFacts]

I have not read through this thread yet, but as a Patriots fan, I just wanted to come in and congratulate the Giants (and their fans) for their win. You played a solid game, beat us fair and square, and should be very proud of this Championship. You did to the Pats what we have done to so many others in the past. Well done!



I'll be over here crying in the corner.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Nah. It's cheating. It might be one of the milder forms of cheating, but it's cheating.

[flickster]

I am curious about one instance during the game and did a brief search here but didn't see mention... I think it was around the second quarter. Giants had the ball, fumbled, and a Patriot defender fell on top of the ball. His knees were down and the play should have ended a second later when a Giant landed on him. Replay showed Pat posession pretty clearly. But in the ensuing free for all in the pile, the ball was stripped from him by a Giant and it was ruled they retained posession. Today's stat sheet shows Giants had 2 fumbles but never lost posession.

The replay was clear, yet Belichick never threw the red. I wonder why?

Not to open a can of worms but I'm surprised no more has been made of this.
I think the official ruling was probably that although he was laying on top of the ball he did not have actual possession. We were wondering the same thing but I think one of the replays clearly showed that the ball was loose underneath him.

[lieu]

And is it just me or this like the third or fourth game that Buck has made some comment about getting woman to Troy- either he doesn't know the rumors or he likes to make Troy squirm... :)Can you clarify what he said? Also, what rumor? I'd be happy to fill you in on what Barry Switzer started and why, but will wait until I'm sure that's what you're referring to.

Dio, if a team or coach breaks rules that have been clearly stated in order to gain an advantage, how is that not cheating? If they do so AGAIN after having been EXPLICITLY warned not to, how is that not blatant cheating?

... and LOUNE, I've been in the pile, man. Yeah, they do. Still, Belichick's rare to miss anything at all. This was one he should and would have won, this coming from an impartial observer.

ETA... okay, thanks flickster. We had scads of company and I may have been distracted during some parts.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Can you clarify what he said? Also, what rumor? I'd be happy to fill you in on what Barry Switzer started and why, but will wait until I'm sure that's what you're referring to.

The rumor is that Troy plays for the other team, so to speak.

[Borborygmi]

(Deleted.)

[lieu]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Troy did not welcome Barry Switzer's arrival as coach, this coming from someone who'd played for Switzer before transferring to UCLA. It pissed Switzer off so he had an assistant spread the rumor about Troy out of spite to get back at him. This show's Switzer's position on homosexuality but little else. Troy's married, quite happily, and is father to (I believe) two little girls.

Fine to dislike the guy, Wee, but let's separate truth from rumor.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Cheating is something which gives you an unfair advantage that the other team doesn't have. Not every rule violation confers an advantage (I mentioned dress code violations, for instance). Asking for proof that it's notcheating is silly. It is those who make the accusation who have the burden to prove that it gives a team an advantage (and saying he wouldn't do it if it gave no advantage will not be accepted as an answer. If you can't show an advantage then the accusation is unwarranted. It's a losers' lament).

[borschevsky]

Nah. It's cheating. It might be one of the milder forms of cheating, but it's cheating.I don't see how you can call it cheating without having to call a bunch of other things cheating which obviously aren't. Since taping is legal, and stealing signals is legal, this seems like a minor technical infraction at most. If I called this cheating, I think I would have to call T.O. bringing a sharpie on the field cheating as well.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Cheating is something which gives you an unfair advantage that the other team doesn't have. Not every rule violation confers an advantage (I mentioned dress code violations, for instance). Asking for proof that it's notcheating is silly. It is those who make the accusation who have the burden to prove that it gives a team an advantage (and saying he wouldn't do it if it gave no advantage will not be accepted as an answer. If you can't show an advantage then the accusation is unwarranted. It's a losers' lament).

So three Super Bowl wins, an 18-0 season, and a virtual dynasty isn't proof enough? Hell, we have more on Bellichick's cheating than we do on Barry Bonds' alleged steroid usage.

[Hamlet]

But he DID run over and congratulate T.C.So, he wasn't as big a dick as he could have been. Color me impressed.

The problem is that I don't see it as a mistake, where he didn't know the game wasn't over. I saw it as "Fuck, I lost, now, instead of waiting for the end of the game, I need to get out of here, NOW!"

That the timekeeper was on drugs (which NFL timekeepers seemingly always are; I could keep better care of the game clock on my sports watch while watching the broadcast) is irrelevant. Why would he be a sore loser for not doing it twice? I mean, you're really digging for reasons to criticize someone when you have to say that congratulating the other coach isn't enough, that he must be congratulated twice. I've never heard that one before.Seeing as how that's not what I was saying, I can see why you never heard that one before.

[Cheesesteak]

Cheating is something which gives you an unfair advantage that the other team doesn't have.

(and saying he wouldn't do it if it gave no advantage will not be accepted as an answer. If you can't show an advantage then the accusation is unwarranted. It's a losers' lament).The problem with your definition is that cheating is defined by whether or not the act in fact confers an unfair advantage, rather than whether or not the actor is attempting to get an unfair advantage.

When Sammy Sosa corked his bat, he was cheating, even if the bat wasn't actually any better than a normal one. When George Brett pine tarred his bat, he was not attempting to gain an advantage, so his rules violation was not cheating. T.O.s sharpie is not an attempt to gain an advantage, so it's not cheating. Belichick illegal taping was clearly an attempt to get an advantage, that is cheating.

[borschevsky]

Belichick illegal taping was clearly an attempt to get an advantageI don't agree.

[Uncommon Sense]

Cheating is something which gives you an unfair advantage that the other team doesn't have. Not every rule violation confers an advantage (I mentioned dress code violations, for instance). Asking for proof that it's notcheating is silly. It is those who make the accusation who have the burden to prove that it gives a team an advantage (and saying he wouldn't do it if it gave no advantage will not be accepted as an answer. If you can't show an advantage then the accusation is unwarranted. It's a losers' lament).

You have to go with intent on this one. Why would they continue to violate an NFL rule if they didn't think there was any benefit in doing so?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You have to go with intent on this one. Why would they continue to violate an NFL rule if they didn't think there was any benefit in doing so?
There was no intent to cheat since there isn't even a theoretical way to gain an unfair advantage by taping signals from the sideline.

[RickJay]

There was no intent to cheat since there isn't even a theoretical way to gain an unfair advantage by taping signals from the sideline.
Oh, come on. This is getting ridiculous. You're parsing the definition of the word "cheat" into something nobody else believes it to be.

They broke the rules, they cheated. It's not unusual or exceptional, but it is what it is.

[Cheesesteak]

I don't agree. He was already told once that the taping was against the rules. If he wasn't trying to get an advantage for his team, why would he knowingly violate league rules and put a cameraman over there?

Tuck the tape away and look back on it fondly 20 years from now, a little remembrance from his season opening game against the Jets? "Look here grandkids, this is what the Jets were doing on their sideline while Grampa was on the other side of the field.... ahh the memories."

Teams study tapes all the time to learn more about the competition. If you believe there was no intent to study this tape, come up with a believable reason to be taping there.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So three Super Bowl wins, an 18-0 season, and a virtual dynasty isn't proof enough? Hell, we have more on Bellichick's cheating than we do on Barry Bonds' alleged steroid usage.
Winning is proof of cheating? I thought I was cynical.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

He was already told once that the taping was against the rules. If he wasn't trying to get an advantage for his team, why would he knowingly violate league rules and put a cameraman over there?

Tuck the tape away and look back on it fondly 20 years from now, a little remembrance from his season opening game against the Jets? "Look here grandkids, this is what the Jets were doing on their sideline while Grampa was on the other side of the field.... ahh the memories."

Teams study tapes all the time to learn more about the competition. If you believe there was no intent to study this tape, come up with a believable reason to be taping there.
I think there was intent to study the tape, but the information on the tape did not and could not give him any unfair advantage over the other team. The tapes contained no information which he could not get legally through other means an dhe had no info about other teams that they didn't have about his own team.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Oh, come on. This is getting ridiculous. You're parsing the definition of the word "cheat" into something nobody else believes it to be.

They broke the rules, they cheated. It's not unusual or exceptional, but it is what it is.
Funny. The way I see it, other people are trying to stretch the word cheating into something it doesn't really mean. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how he could have gained any specific advantage from it.

[lieu]

Does "other people" include the NFL Commissioner? From his office a statement was issued saying the Patriots' actions constituted a "calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition."

It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of Walsh and Spygate II but I hope for everybody involved, as well as the NFL's good name that it's all just a rumor and comes to nothing.

What's too bad is that after 18-0 they might be known more for failing to win than any previous SuperBowl loser. The infamy over not clenching at the end might eclipse what was an absolutely brilliant season. No matter where your loyalties lie, that's a shame.

[borschevsky]

Teams study tapes all the time to learn more about the competition. If you believe there was no intent to study this tape, come up with a believable reason to be taping there.I believe there was intent to study the tape. I believe stealing other teams' signals can be helpful, which is why it is so widespread in the NFL. I don't believe there is any particular difference between such a tape obtained illegally, and a tape filmed from a legal position.

I can't say for sure why Belichek thought it a good idea to tape in the Jets game this year. As has been mentioned, he was warned not to by the league. I find this warning interesting; if this kind of taping is terrible cheating and an affront to fair play, I would think the league would have done more than send warning letters. To go from that to taking away high draft picks and $750K fines gives me the impression that the new commissioner was trying to assert himself, rather than trying to give a reasonable penalty.

[tnetennba]

When you play any game, you agree to play by the rules established at the beginning of the game.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

When you play any game, you agree to play by the rules established at the beginning of the game.
Of course you do. That's why you try not get caught when you break them. But if you're not cheating at all, you're not really trying. Every defensive back grabs arms and jerseys. Every receiver pushes off. Every O-Lineman holds. The rumors about what goes on in dogpiles are hair-raising. The key is to cheat subtly, not to be Boy Scouts. Belichick gave a middle finger to the League by ignoring their warnings about a trivial videtaping violation. They had to show him who wears the pants.

[tnetennba]

Of course you do. That's why you try not get caught when you break them. But if you're not cheating at all, you're not really trying. Every defensive back grabs arms and jerseys. Every receiver pushes off. Every O-Lineman holds. The rumors about what goes on in dogpiles are hair-raising. The key is to cheat subtly, not to be Boy Scouts. Belichick gave a middle finger to the League by ignoring their warnings about a trivial videtaping violation. They had to show him who wears the pants.

So now you admit it IS cheating, just that everyone does it. So if everyone cheats, than everyone sucks it up and takes their punishment when they get caught. In any case, it's off topic, because there's no f'in' way that it had anything to do with the Pats losing. Your ref conspiracy is the weakest I've ever seen mounted in sports.

You should just be grateful that it wasn't the Packers who made it to the Superbowl and beat them. Can you imagine the Favrewning then?

[Robot Arm]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how he could have gained any specific advantage from it.We've all seen the ways coaches try to hide their communications, like holding paper or a towel in front of their mouths while they talk on the headset, so the other team can't read their lips. If there is a legal place from which to videotape the other team, they can try to disguise or hide their signals from the observers in that place. Put the observers someplace else, and they could, potentially, gain an advantage.But if you're not cheating at all, you're not really trying.I've heard that argument before, and I couldn't disagree more. Steroids, blood doping, leg whips and corked bats don't make you a spirited competitor, they make you a cheater.

[BwanaBob]

We've all seen the ways coaches try to hide their communications, like holding paper or a towel in front of their mouths while they talk on the headset, so the other team can't read their lips. If there is a legal place from which to videotape the other team, they can try to disguise or hide their signals from the observers in that place. Put the observers someplace else, and they could, potentially, gain an advantage.I've heard that argument before, and I couldn't disagree more. Steroids, blood doping, leg whips and corked bats don't make you a spirited competitor, they make you a cheater.

Exactly; they're rules, not suggestions.

[saoirse]

It's weird, I wasn't that surprised Belichick went for the 4th and 13. I thought the 48 yard field goal was high risk and a punt was only likely to net an extra 25 yards. The Pats are suppose to have the best offense ever, why not go for it.

It was especially upsetting to me, as I had NY3, NE0 in the office pool. I got the first qurter, but if they had put up a field goal in the third, I'd have doubled my winnings.

By the way, who would have guessed a scoreless third quarter?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

So now you admit it IS cheating,
In the case of Spygate, no it wasn't cheating, just a rule violation.
Your ref conspiracy is the weakest I've ever seen mounted in sports.
Really? You need to get out on the internets (http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2005/02/28/Sports/Conspiracy.Abounds.In.Pro.Sports-1363675.shtml) more.
You should just be grateful that it wasn't the Packers who made it to the Superbowl and beat them. Can you imagine the Favrewning then?
I am grateful, believe me. I don't begrudge the Giants anything and I'm impressed at how well Eli performed in the post season. I'm also eternally grateful that he knocked the fucking Packers out of the playoffs. The media cock-slobbing for Favre would have reached truly horrific proportions. I believe there would have been seripus consideration given to literal deification in the style of ancient Roman emperors, complete with temples and statues.

[JohnnieEnigma]

Anyway, I have these little superstitions regarding sports, whether I'm playing or watching... and as far as I'm concerned the patriots lost because of this one hokey wench on another messageboard who currently lives in Boston, although she's from the midwest. So she's not a New Englander and never will be - She's just one of those bandwagon fans that claims to like the team to please her boyfriend.

Puke.

And in her location of her profile she had this:

Location: Home of the next Superbowl Champions

Right there, I knew she'd jinx the team. I knew it and I was right! She was a freaking jinx! I hope she's friggen happy now. To add insult to injury, she still has it on her profile.

:mad:

[Cheesesteak]

Assuming for the moment that all the taped information was available by legal means, what is left is either stupidity, laziness, or lack of discipline.

If he was doing this to give the league the middle finger, then he's stupid. You don't break a rule in a way that gives you zero competitive advantage, simply to break it.

If he was doing this to make it easier to get the tape, then he's lazy.

If the cameraman went over there on his own, then there's no discipline in his staff.

I'm having a hard time buying any of these explanations.

[jsc1953]

I'm stunned that the NFL allows a review on 12-men-on-the-field. Why not a review looking for holding? Or PI?

If the Giants hadn't mounted their last minute drive, the game would've ended as the lowest scoring Super Bowl ever (or at least in the bottom 2...can't be bothered to look it up), and the highlight, game-winning TD would've been a 5 yard pass where the defender fell down. Yawn.

And weighing in on the controversies...Bellichick's a dick for his last-second behavior. Stand on the sidelines and take it like a man -- watch the kneel-down and the clock tick down, then go shake hands. Just like every opponent did for you.

But as to TapeGate...as they say in card games, if you hold your cards where I can see 'em, it ain't peeking.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Assuming for the moment that all the taped information was available by legal means, what is left is either stupidity, laziness, or lack of discipline.

If he was doing this to give the league the middle finger, then he's stupid. You don't break a rule in a way that gives you zero competitive advantage, simply to break it.

If he was doing this to make it easier to get the tape, then he's lazy.

If the cameraman went over there on his own, then there's no discipline in his staff.

I'm having a hard time buying any of these explanations.
Lazy, stupid and arrogant, I have no argument with.

[MonkeyMensch]

Great game!

Every year I wish for a fourth quarter lead change; this year I got three!

And I agree with the poster upthread that the Giant d-line should have got the communal MVP. Outstanding pressure all day.

Good stuff from both teams.

[tnetennba]

I'm stunned that the NFL allows a review on 12-men-on-the-field. Why not a review looking for holding? Or PI?

Because those other things are so subjective. Counting can be verified without question.

But as to TapeGate...as they say in card games, if you hold your cards where I can see 'em, it ain't peeking.

And if they have a confederate with a secret camera over your shoulder... what then?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Because those other things are so subjective. Counting can be verified without question.



And if they have a confederate with a secret camera over your shoulder... what then?
Videotaping from the sidelines does not involve photographing anything that can't already be seen with the naked eye. The camera is not being snuck over anyone's shoulder. It's perfectly legal to look across the field without a camera, so in the poker analogy, it's like videotaping cards that they're already showing you anyway.

[Raygun99]

This isn't the first time I've seen a challenge on '12 men on the field', for what it's worth. It's not even the first time I've seen that challenged this season.

[tnetennba]

Videotaping from the sidelines does not involve photographing anything that can't already be seen with the naked eye. The camera is not being snuck over anyone's shoulder. It's perfectly legal to look across the field without a camera, so in the poker analogy, it's like videotaping cards that they're already showing you anyway.

If it doesn't give you a competitive advantage, then why did Bellicheck bother to do it?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

If it doesn't give you a competitive advantage, then why did Bellicheck bother to do it?
You're only like the 50th person to ask that. I don't know why he did it. I guess he was just lazy and arrogant and thought he could get away with it. What I do know is that it does not confer any competitive advantage. He was only videotaping things which everybody could plainly see anyway and which was legal to tape from other locations. So you tell me what advantage he could have possibly obtained.

[tnetennba]

I imagine it has to do with being able to zoom in and get information you wouldn't have had from the stands. Obviously the league thought that it did, or they wouldn't have made it against the rules. I'm not sure by what legal loophole I, as someone who's not involved in sports to any degree, should need it to explain to you, another someone who's not involved in sports to any degree, for it to be "cheating." If it pisses you off that much, write a letter to the commissioner.

[tnetennba]

What I do know is that it does not confer any competitive advantage.

You "know" based on what epistemological methodology?

[garygnu]

The rule is that the clock stops on an out of bounds until the ready-to-play (that is, until the refs place the ball on the line of scrimmage, ready to be snapped). The exceptions are within the final two minutes of the first half and the final five minutes of the second half, when the clock is stopped until the snap. I assume what you were noticing occurred before the 5-minute mark of the 4th Quarter.
This is wrong. The clock stops on out-of-bounds and stays stopped until the next snap throughout the game. If an official judges that the runner's momentum was stopped in the field of play and was driven backwards out of bounds, the clock keeps running.

[Marley23]

I imagine it has to do with being able to zoom in and get information you wouldn't have had from the stands. Obviously the league thought that it did, or they wouldn't have made it against the rules.
I believe teams are allowed to tape each other from on the field and from within their own coaching boxes. I'm not really sure why it's against the rules to tape from somewhere else, and it could be an "NFL owns all game footage" thing instead of a competitive thing. If videotaping from some places is legal, I'm not exactly why it's not legal other ways.

The intent to cheat seems to be there. Did it help them? Who knows. If it's true they taped the Rams' walkthrough before their first Super Bowl win, that's a bigger deal. And for right now, that's totally unconfirmed.

[jaydotbeedot]

You videotape the signals in the first half because it gives you a far better record of them to analyze and decode at halftime, as compared to doing it from notes (which is legal). Decoding the signals gives you a competitive advantage in the second half. This is why "everybody does it," or tries to, as best they can under the rules. Unless they ignore those rules -- in which case they are cheating. To gain a competitive advantage. It's not that complicated.

I'd compare it to steroids. You can train all you want to add size and strength. You can hire trainers, specialists, dieticians. You can even try to enhance performance medically during games, with painkillers and by administering IV to offset dehydration. You can do all kinds of things, but the league decided (rightly or wrongly) to draw the line somewhere, in this case at steroids and various other substances. That's the line. Cross it, get caught on steroids, and you've cheated. Pay the price, just like the Patriots did. Because they were cheating. And no whining about how it isn't really cheating to use steroids because gosh, everybody's so strong out there that it didn't really provide an advantage.

With signal-stealing, the league decided to draw the line at videotaping. There was no ambiguity about what is allowed and what's not. Use binoculars, use a notepad. Hire a troupe of interpretive dancers to re-enact the signals in your locker room at halftime. Enlist a team of MIT professors or CIA codebreakers if you like, but don't use videotape. Because that's cheating.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

This isn't the first time I've seen a challenge on '12 men on the field', for what it's worth. It's not even the first time I've seen that challenged this season.I wouldn't have had a problem if 12 guys participated in the play, and the review demonstrated that. I just didn't like that the question hinged on whether some part of one player was over the sideline or not in his attempt to clear the field at the start of the snap. He was clearly not a factor in the play one way or the other.

[borschevsky]

Use binoculars, use a notepad. Hire a troupe of interpretive dancers to re-enact the signals in your locker room at halftime. Enlist a team of MIT professors or CIA codebreakers if you like, but don't use videotape. Because that's cheating.That's not the rule. Videotaping signals is not against the rules in the NFL.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You "know" based on what epistemological methodology?
Empiricism.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I have not read through this thread yet, but as a Patriots fan, I just wanted to come in and congratulate the Giants (and their fans) for their win. You played a solid game, beat us fair and square, and should be very proud of this Championship. You did to the Pats what we have done to so many others in the past. Well done!



I'll be over here crying in the corner.


Suck it up, cupcake. You won 3 in the past 10 years (and was there for another).


Signed,

A Lions Fan.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

You videotape the signals in the first half because it gives you a far better record of them to analyze and decode at halftime, as compared to doing it from notes (which is legal). Decoding the signals gives you a competitive advantage in the second half. This is why "everybody does it," or tries to, as best they can under the rules. Unless they ignore those rules -- in which case they are cheating. To gain a competitive advantage. It's not that complicated.

I'd compare it to steroids. You can train all you want to add size and strength. You can hire trainers, specialists, dieticians. You can even try to enhance performance medically during games, with painkillers and by administering IV to offset dehydration. You can do all kinds of things, but the league decided (rightly or wrongly) to draw the line somewhere, in this case at steroids and various other substances. That's the line. Cross it, get caught on steroids, and you've cheated. Pay the price, just like the Patriots did. Because they were cheating. And no whining about how it isn't really cheating to use steroids because gosh, everybody's so strong out there that it didn't really provide an advantage.

With signal-stealing, the league decided to draw the line at videotaping. There was no ambiguity about what is allowed and what's not. Use binoculars, use a notepad. Hire a troupe of interpretive dancers to re-enact the signals in your locker room at halftime. Enlist a team of MIT professors or CIA codebreakers if you like, but don't use videotape. Because that's cheating.
But you CAN videotape from other locations, just not the sidelines, and to adress Cricetus' speculation as to being able to zoom in for tighter shots, I'm pretty sure you can zoom in just as easily from a coaching box. 100% of th information which can be gotten from sideline taping can also be (and is) gathered by other means.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

This is wrong. The clock stops on out-of-bounds and stays stopped until the next snap throughout the game. If an official judges that the runner's momentum was stopped in the field of play and was driven backwards out of bounds, the clock keeps running.I'm not sure why this is novel or controversial to anyone, because the rule change has been around several years now, but you are incorrect, as far as the issue of the clock. The clock does not stop for out of bounds plays one way or the other (except for getting the ball ready for play) until the last two minutes of the first half and the last five minutes of the second. (You are correct that the ref will determine whether a tackle was in-bounds or not.)

Don't believe me? Just ask the ref (Jerry Markbreit)!

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/askthereferee/cs-071017askjerrymarkbreit,1,7011321.story

With the exception of the last two minutes of the first half and the last five minutes of the second half, am I correct in understanding that, in the NFL, if a ballcarrier goes out of bounds and the clock is stopped, the clock will start on the ready-for-play signal? Maybe you can help me on when the clock stops and starts in the NFL. --Donald, Waycross, Ga.

You are correct. The clock will start whenever the ballcarrier goes out of bounds, but will be re-started when the officials place the ball at the hash mark. The exception to this rule is the last two minutes of the first half and the last five minutes of the second half. If you get confused, merely watch the officials for their arm signals, which will tell you exactly when the clock is stopped and when it is started.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I don't see how you can call it cheating without having to call a bunch of other things cheating which obviously aren't. Since taping is legal, and stealing signals is legal, this seems like a minor technical infraction at most. If I called this cheating, I think I would have to call T.O. bringing a sharpie on the field cheating as well.


Well, why stop there? Every player has drank a liquid of some kind on game day. They should obviously be excoriated for cheating as well.

[jaydotbeedot]

But you CAN videotape from other locations, just not the sidelines, and to adress Cricetus' speculation as to being able to zoom in for tighter shots, I'm pretty sure you can zoom in just as easily from a coaching box. 100% of th information which can be gotten from sideline taping can also be (and is) gathered by other means.

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."

Source: AP story on NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80251b7e&template=with-video&confirm=true)

Does that clear things up a little?

[ShadowFacts]

Suck it up, cupcake. You won 3 in the past 10 years (and was there for another).


Signed,

A Lions Fan.

I said I was crying, not complaining. ;)

[Diogenes the Cynic]

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."

Source: AP story on NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80251b7e&template=with-video&confirm=true)

Does that clear things up a little?
So they can still tape from the stands.

[tnetennba]

Empiricism.

I would wager that you have never participated in legitimate OR illegitimate taping of any kind in a football stadium, so... nope. Not empiricism.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I would wager that you have never participated in legitimate OR illegitimate taping of any kind in a football stadium, so... nope. Not empiricism.
The only empirical observations that need to be made to form my conclusions are that no information is conferred by videotaping from the sidelines which is not already freely available by other means.

[Cheesesteak]

I don't know why he did it. I guess he was just lazy and arrogant and thought he could get away with it.
The question goes to motive, your honor....


Maybe the motive is laziness, but that's not normally what we think of when we think Bill Belichick. Devious, clever, ruthless? Yes... Lazy? No.

Maybe he's a victim of his own press, but he breaks the rules, and everyone is looking for the edge he's given his team, because that's what we think he eats, drinks and breathes. If a really lousy/inexperienced coach was caught doing it, we'd chalk it up to lazy or dumb, but he's neither.

[MonkeyMensch]

So they can still tape from the stands.

As long as the camera position is enclosed on all sides and has a roof overhead, yeah.

"Hey! Down in front!" :)

[tnetennba]

The only empirical observations that need to be made to form my conclusions are that no information is conferred by videotaping from the sidelines which is not already freely available by other means.

Which conclusion you have absolutely no experience or qualification to make. You just can't figure out what that the advantage might be, while obviously expending no energy considering what it might be. Even the fact that people obviously far more knowledgable and experienced on the matter felt it was necessary to pass and enforce the rule does not compel you to seriously explore what you might not have gathered from a faraway glance and a steadfast lack of wonder.

You, like so many ID proponents, are arguing from a lack of imagination and curiosity. That is not empiricism, and it's not epistemology.

[tnetennba]

The fact about the stands is that most teams know they can be seen from them. They take precautions accordingly. That's why the non-example of the tipped poker hand is exactly wrong. This IS creeping in with a camera from where it's not expected. Hence the name "spygate."

But it's nice to know there are folks out there ready to go to battle on behalf of the cheaters. Barry Bonds can be your poster boy.

[jaydotbeedot]

So they can still tape from the stands.

If the stands are considered "accessible to club staff members during the game" -- that is, if you could pass the tapes to staff for analysis during the game -- then obviously no, they cannot do that.

What's next? Do you see a loophole wherein they can shoot from the stands, transmit video wirelessly to the locker room, claim that it isn't a location physically accessible to staff, and be OK? The rules are clear: don't use videotape during games, for any reason. Twitch if you must, but there's no wiggle room here.

[QUOTE=...no information is conferred by videotaping from the sidelines which is not already freely available by other means.[/QUOTE]

"OK, maybe I rode a bicycle for a few miles of the marathon, but I didn't travel any distance that I couldn't have by running."

[tnetennba]

"OK, maybe I rode a bicycle for a few miles of the marathon, but I didn't travel any distance that I couldn't have by running."

Brilliant!

[The Scrivener]

Boy, talk about thread hijackings. For me, the redirection of this to a belabored debate over Spygate and what exactly constitutes cheating is regrettable for three reasons:

1) Dio's making a monumental ass of himself
2) taking the spotlight off of one of the greatest sports upsets/choke jobs [and the fodder for endless debate over that judgement] in modern times; and
3) making it seem as if the Patriots' cheating is a modern, Belichick-era phenomenon, whereas the truth is:

the Patriots franchise has a long, storied history of cheating and acting like asshats generally, and as far as I'm concerned they're basically one more big cheating scandal short of a RICO prosecution. It is this history of bad behavior, along with the ugly behavior of many of their fans, that has earned this franchise so much ill-will everywhere, and certainly in the AFC East. From Miami to New York, most football fans loathe the Patriots. Dolfans, Jets fans... this is one thing we all stand united on! And you can't chalk it up to just divisional rivalries, to a clutch of bad calls or close games narrowly lost... all rivalries and divisional histories have these, in abundance. No, what you have in New England is a franchise that has made it a point of pride to flaunt the rules, play ugly, throw snowballs from the stands*, and boast about it afterwards.

Seriously, the only other team that comes close to this disgraceful legacy is the Philadelphia Eagles. But not even the Eagles have the 1982 Snowplow Incident (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/12/25/181756.php) skeleton hanging in their locker. (Ask any Dolfan of a pre-Marino vintage, who remembers the David Woodley/Don Strock years, about that one.) Nope, the 'Pats have been flagrant bad sports and rule-benders, if not breakers, for decades.

As I mentioned much, much earlier in this thread, I grew up a Dolfan during the glory years of their early '70's dynasty. Larry Csonka was my early childhood hero. I was imprinted from an early age to revere Shula, Griese, Little, Kiick, etc. etc. -- and I'll always be, in my heart of hearts, a Dolfan. (I still remember the team's theme song, too!) When I was about nine, I briefly nursed the dream of growing up to be the first female punter in the NFL. (My dad, bless his heart, put in his time teaching me the fundamentals, chasing down my kicks and telling me to practice hard and who knows what can happen?)

Sure, I transferred my day-to-day fandom to the NFC's Giants after I moved up here, and why not? I'm too big a football fan not to root for somebody, and televised Dolphins games up here are almost as rare as hen's teeth. The Jets [key AFC East rivals of the 'Fins] were out of the question. OTOH, the Giants are a respectable, storied franchise with their own legendary history (and even one great novel, Frederick Exley's A Fan's Notes), and they have a generally upstanding and clean reputation.

But as much as I now love the Giants (and I do, sincerely, from Michael Strahan's gap-toothed grin, to Jeremy Shockey's broken leg and tattoed arm), last night I was rooting more for the Patriots to lose than for the Giants to win. It matters to me, more than I can say, that my beloved '72 Dolphins remain on that mountaintop alone... but I was becoming reconciled to the statistical inevitability of some team, some year pulling it off. I just didn't want that team to be the New England Patriots, and especially not this 2007 team. It cheers me to know that Don Shula's greatest achievement is not eclipsed by the loathsome Bill Belichick. It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, as if there's some cosmic justice in the world, or at least the NFL, after all!

The Pats can have their slightly-tainted 18-0 pre-SB stats; I don't care. It's all ashes in their mouths now, and I know, as a Miami Hurricanes fan, how bitter it is to follow a fantastic season full of great performances and close escapes, only to lose the big game at the end, especially if it's a close game. The 2007 Pats will be remembered as the greatest team to lose the Super Bowl, period.



* I know, some Giants fans have done that too, and shame on them for doing it. What can I say? New Yorkers and New Jerseyans, grumble grumble...

[Loach]

Sorry if I missed a few posts here and there. It's a long thread. Someone upthread mentioned something about Brady's shoulder being a problem because of the pregame injury report? Brady has been listed as possible due to a shoulder injury for something like four years. Its a Belichik tradition. I guess it's supposed to be clever or something.

Watching the game (or most of it to be honest, had to listen on the radio for most of the first half) I was thinking that at least this was a clean Superbowl and there wouldn't be a lot of whining about calls. Guess I was wrong. I'm a Giants fan so until this game I was just watching the Pats games I caught as a football fan not a Pats hater. In every game I saw this year it seemed like the refs were giving every call to the Pats. Sorta like the boxing champ getting the benefit of the doubt over the contender. One of the worst noncalls I have ever seen was Phillip Rivers taking a roundhouse kick to the leg when he was going to pass. Seems to me that if the league wanted to skew the game one way or the other they would want 19-0. It would be a story that lives forever. The 72 Phins are still mentioned every year. So unless Mercury Morris paid off every official I don't see the game being called in the Giants favor. It seemed like a clean game to me.

You are right Dio, they can film from the stands. It's just not legal. So I'm sure the Pats are doing it. Any taping of the other team is to study formations. Filming of the signals is not. Until you get to be commisioner you don't get to be the one who determines what an unfair advantage is. Maybe next year.

[Marley23]

Dolfans, Jets fans... this is one thing we all stand united on!
Go ahead, omit the Bills like everyone else in this thread has. ;)

According to Wikipedia, which I use because I feel like this story has changed so many times, the Pats were actually filming the Jets from "an on field location." Unless this is a very funny use of "on field" that includes the stands, that may be a different kettle of fish - although filming on the field is also allowed with permission, since the Jets did it to the Patriots and were open about it.

[The Scrivener]

Go ahead, omit the Bills like everyone else in this thread has. ;)


BION, I thought about rattling off a more comprehensive roll call of every team in the NFL whose fans hate the Patriots, but that would have just derailed my post. :D Also, I honestly don't know any Bills fans personally, unless they're deeply closeted...

[Mister Rik]

"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."
(bolding mine)
It appears to me that the section I've bolded is the important part. I read this as meaning that a club is free to make videotape for the purpose of post-game analysis and future reference. What's being disallowed is shooting video during a game to be analyzed and used later in the same game.

In theory, it would be a simple matter for a plainclothes "spy" with a video camera to insert himself into the multitude of people milling about on the sidelines, obtain the desired video, and then immediately return to his own sideline and hand it over to his own team's coach without anybody noticing. But if such taping is done from the sidelines, it's going to be much more difficult to get the video to the coach during the same game. There are too many people who would see and question why some guy in the stands is handing a videotape or camera to an on-the-field team staff member.

That's my guess, anyway.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

"OK, maybe I rode a bicycle for a few miles of the marathon, but I didn't travel any distance that I couldn't have by running."
I fail to understand the analogy. Decoding signals is not the goal of a football game.

[DigitalC]

Cheating is something which gives you an unfair advantage that the other team doesn't have. Not every rule violation confers an advantage (I mentioned dress code violations, for instance). Asking for proof that it's notcheating is silly. It is those who make the accusation who have the burden to prove that it gives a team an advantage (and saying he wouldn't do it if it gave no advantage will not be accepted as an answer. If you can't show an advantage then the accusation is unwarranted. It's a losers' lament).

v. tr.

To deceive by trickery; swindle: cheated customers by overcharging them for purchases.
To deprive by trickery; defraud: cheated them of their land.
To mislead; fool: illusions that cheat the eye.
To elude; escape: cheat death.

v. intr.

To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at cards.
Informal To be sexually unfaithful: cheat on a spouse.
Baseball To position oneself closer to a certain area than is normal or expected: The shortstop cheated toward second base

Trying to argue that breaking the rules is not cheating is about the stupidest thing i've read in a very long time. Having Tom Brady is an unfair advantage the other team doesn't have, yet its not cheating. We don't have to prove its cheating going by your idiotic definition, simply pointing to EVERY SINGLE DICTIONARY quite clearly proves its cheating.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Was Terrell Owens "cheating" when he carried a sharpie in his sock? Was Jim McMahon "cheating" when he wore a headband on the field. There are rules of the game and there are bullshit NFL regulations. Spygate was the latter.

[borschevsky]

Well, why stop there? Every player has drank a liquid of some kind on game day. They should obviously be excoriated for cheating as well.My point, which I doubt you really missed, was that I don't agree with terming every violation of league rules to be cheating. Things like T.O.'s sharpie, or a player badmouthing refs after a game, or someone rebroadcasting a game with implied oral consent rather than express written consent are all against league rules, but I would call none of them cheating. The argument is whether or not the NE taping fits in this category. I admit it is debatable.

I also agree with The Scrivener's post; I am no fan of the Patriots. It's just seemed to me that the spygate stuff has been enormously overblown for the whole season. Also, being a Chargers fan, I have found I need to be very careful that any whining I do against other teams is well-founded. I can only take so many "Complainian Complainian lolz" comments, you know. (not here, other places :))

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Trying to argue that breaking the rules is not cheating is about the stupidest thing i've read in a very long time. Having Tom Brady is an unfair advantage the other team doesn't have, yet its not cheating. We don't have to prove its cheating going by your idiotic definition, simply pointing to EVERY SINGLE DICTIONARY quite clearly proves its cheating.
Spygate did not meet any of those definitions.

[Jodi]

You're only like the 50th person to ask that. I don't know why he did it. I guess he was just lazy and arrogant and thought he could get away with it. What I do know is that it does not confer any competitive advantage. He was only videotaping things which everybody could plainly see anyway and which was legal to tape from other locations. So you tell me what advantage he could have possibly obtained.

The ability to see it not once but several times, repeatedly and at his leisure. Christ, this isn't that hard. Cheating is defined as "to violate rules and regulations" -- all of them, not just the ones that are IYO important. There's no need to analyze whether he was trying to gain some advantage, there's no need to ask if he actually succeeded in gaining some advantage. All you need to know is: (1) Was it done intentionally? And I don't mean "with intent to gain advantage" I mean "with intent to stand in that place and point the camera in that direction and turn it on." (2) Was it against the rules? and (3) Did he know it was against the rules? Since the answer to all three of those questions is inarguably YES, what we have here is an instance of cheating.

Taping against the rules is not cheating the same way that getting a blowjob isn't having sexual relations.

Oh, and good on ya, Giants. Best SuperBowl in my memory.

[What Exit?]

Spygate did not meet any of those definitions.
Funny, I never saw anyone lose draft picks for a sharpie. Apparently the NFL strongly disagrees with your definition.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

My point, which I doubt you really missed, was that I don't agree with terming every violation of league rules to be cheating. Things like T.O.'s sharpie, or a player badmouthing refs after a game, or someone rebroadcasting a game with implied oral consent rather than express written consent are all against league rules, but I would call none of them cheating. The argument is whether or not the NE taping fits in this category. I admit it is debatable.

I also agree with The Scrivener's post; I am no fan of the Patriots. It's just seemed to me that the spygate stuff has been enormously overblown for the whole season. Also, being a Chargers fan, I have found I need to be very careful that any whining I do against other teams is well-founded. I can only take so many "Complainian Complainian lolz" comments, you know. (not here, other places :))


I think it's been blown up too, but if it's cheating and against the rules, then it's cheating and against the rules. If you don't like them, make your own league.



I'm surprised we're all wasting this much time and energy on this.

[Jodi]

Spygate did not meet any of those definitions.

From Dictionary.com, Cheating (http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/GWS/Educational+Info/GW+Regs.htm):

–verb (used with object)

1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)

4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.

–noun

8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law. the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.

Kindly direct your attention to definitions 4, 5, 6, and 8, paying special attention to 5.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The ability to see it not once but several times, repeatedly and at his leisure. Christ, this isn't that hard. Cheating is defined as "to violate rules and regulations" -- all of them, not just the ones that are IYO important. There's no need to analyze whether he was trying to gain some advantage, there's no need to ask if he actually succeeded in gaining some advantage. All you need to know is: (1) Was it done intentionally? And I don't mean "with intent to gain advantage" I mean "with intent to stand in that place and point the camera in that direction and turn it on." (2) Was it against the rules? and (3) Did he know it was against the rules? Since the answer to all three of those questions is inarguably YES, what we have here is an instance of cheating.
You can answer yes to all the same questions about Jim McMahon wearing an Adidas headband after he was told not to. Those are not legitimate criteria for whether an action constitutes "cheating."

[Diogenes the Cynic]

From Dictionary.com, Cheating (http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/GWS/Educational+Info/GW+Regs.htm):

–verb (used with object)

1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object)

4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.

–noun

8. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
9. a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
10. Law. the fraudulent obtaining of another's property by a pretense or trick.
11. an impostor: The man who passed as an earl was a cheat.

Kindly direct your attention to definitions 4, 5, 6, and 8, paying special attention to 5.
Still a strikeout except for maybe an overly literal interporetation of definition 5 which can lend itself jjust as easily to uniform violations.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Funny, I never saw anyone lose draft picks for a sharpie. Apparently the NFL strongly disagrees with your definition.
The NFL was trying to show dominance with an arrogant and intractable coach.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I think it's been blown up too, but if it's cheating and against the rules, then it's cheating and against the rules. If you don't like them, make your own league.
It's not cheating just because it's against the rules.

[lieu]

I read this as meaning that a club is free to make videotape for the purpose of post-game analysis and future reference. What's being disallowed is shooting video during a game to be analyzed and used later in the same game.That's exactly how I interpreted it and am thankful for the link as the rule now makes sense, what it's intended to prevent is now apparent. There are differences in where you shoot from, namely in the timeliness with which you could then interpret and implement the results into a strategy. Shooting from an illegal location IS NOT the same as doing so from a sanctioned one.

[tnetennba]

Nothing like repeated denial of the most basic A=A arguments to show that you haven't the slightest fucking idea what "empirical" means.

[Jodi]

Still a strikeout except for maybe an overly literal interporetation of definition 5 which can lend itself jjust as easily to uniform violations.

It is not one of your assigned functions in life to decide when an "interpretation" is "overly literal" or not when we are talking about definitions -- not interpretations -- given in a generally accepted reference source. The definition of cheating defines it as "violation of rules or regulations." This was a violation of rules and regulations and, thus, by very definition, was cheating. That's really the end of the discussion.

Now, you want to have another discussion about whether uniform violations are or are not ALSO cheating, fine with me. But that is not relevent to THIS question, which is whether THIS action was cheating. For that question, the only admissible answer under this definition is YES.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Nothing like repeated denial of the most basic A=A arguments to show that you haven't the slightest fucking idea what "empirical" means.
Not a single "A=A " argument has been shown. People just keep trying to jam the sam triangle into the same round hole and trying to claim it fits perfectly.

And claiming that I don't know what "empirical" means is neither true nor effective as an argument. No special qualifications or experience are required in order to make the simple observation that defensive signals are plainly visible without a video camera.

[Jodi]

Not a sing A=A argument has been shown and claiming that I don't know what "empirical" means is neither true nor effective as an argument. No special qualifications or experience are required in order to make the simple observation that defensive signals are plainly visible without a video camera.

The fact that they are plainly visible without a video camara does not have anything to do with whether they should be videotaped. As I already said, videotaping gives the coach the ability to study the footage repeatedly and at his leisure and to share it with others. Your response to this was some irrelvancy about Jim McMahon's headband.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

It is not one of your assigned functions in life to decide when an "interpretation" is "overly literal" or not when we are talking about definitions -- not interpretations -- given in a generally accepted reference source.
I didn't "decide" it. I DEMONSTRATED it.
Now, you want to have another discussion about whether uniform violations are or are not ALSO cheating, fine with me. But that is not relevent to THIS question, which is whether THIS action was cheating. For that question, the only admissible answer under this definition is YES.
If uniform violations are not cheating (and no reasonable person would argue that they are), then your highly selective, tendentiously narrow definition of "cheating" has been dispositively demonstrated to be bogus.

[tnetennba]

Not a single "A=A " argument has been shown. People just keep trying to jam the sam triangle into the same round hole and trying to claim it fits perfectly.

No. If I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, I would just say you're being pigheaded for mysterious reasons of your own. The other possibility is that you really are so delusional that you think that despite your complete lack of ever having remotely participated in football at any level, you have some special insight into deciding what rules ought and ought not to be followed and which ones affect the game -- this despite having already been corrected on the rule actually is.

And claiming that I don't know what "empirical" means is neither true nor effective as an argument. No special qualifications or experience are required in order to make the simple observation that defensive signals are plainly visible without a video camera.

I'll take my advice on true and effective arguments from someone who shows an interest in either, but thanks.

[Jodi]

I didn't "decide" it. I DEMONSTRATED it.

No, you didn't. The definition is "violation of rules = cheating." You have no way to DEMONSTRATE that is not the definition, because it is the definition. (Because see? There it is. Right up there.) YOU don't get to decide -- or to DEMONSTRATE -- whether it is a valid definition or not, because you are not the authority as to what the word means. At least ONE definition makes this cheating. Therefore, under that definition, it is cheating. QED. Your blathering on that "no it's not, no it's not, no it's not" just makes it appear that you cannot (1) read or (2) reason or (3) both.

If uniform violations are not cheating (and no reasonable person would argue that they are) . . .

To the contrary, under the definition given, they apparently ARE cheating. You will not be surprised to hear that I don't look to you to decide what constitutes a "reasonable" person.

. . . then your highly selective, tendentiously narrow definition of "cheating" has been dispositively demonstrated to be bogus.

"My" definition? Unfortuately, my god-like achievements do not yet include writing the dictionary anymore than yours include invalidating one.

[Sarahfeena]

The way I see it, all of these rules have a reason for existing, and likewise, a reason someone would want to violate them.

In McMahon's headband case, the reason the rule exists is to protect the NFL's relationship with its sponsors, and the reason McMahon violated it was to support his relationship with a company he had a deal with. That's not cheating, because it has to do with business deals, not the actual playing of the game.

The videotaping rule in this case exists for a different reason, and the reason someone would want to violate it is different, too. Because no one has offered up any other plausible reason, I have to assume that the reason rules like that exist is to try to ensure a level playng field. Likewise, then, the reason someone would violate it would be because they believed it was going to give them some kind of an advantage, especially if they still did it after being warned. I would say that if a rule exists to keep one team from having an advantage over the other, and the default assumption, then, is that other teams are not doing this type of videotaping, then doing it is cheating.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

It's not cheating just because it's against the rules.


What, did you have a heaping cup of stupid this morning, or are you trying to be as obtuse as possible?


Sorry, I shouldn't have called you stupid. I know you're a smart guy, so I hope you understand why everyone is wondering why you're making yourself out to be the complete retard that you aren't .

Yes, if it's against the rules, it gives you an advantage. Therefore, it's cheating. If you want to know what advantage that videotaping signals can give to you, shoot an email over to Roger Goodell (no, I'm not kidding. Give (http://www.emqb.com/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-answers-spygate-questions-in-annual-address/http://) it a shot. He might actually give us a real answer).

[jaydotbeedot]

Was Terrell Owens "cheating" when he carried a sharpie in his sock? Was Jim McMahon "cheating" when he wore a headband on the field. There are rules of the game and there are bullshit NFL regulations. Spygate was the latter.

No. Spygate was the former, since it related directly to the way a team competes.

McMahon's headband was about "bullshit NFL regulations" and marketing. Banning black footwear is too -- remember when they wouldn't let Manning wear them once in honor of Unitas?

But if I devise a kicking shoe that adds 5 yards to kickoffs or FG tries, it's not just a shoe. It affects the game. The NFL can allow them, or ban them, and it won't just be because they have a certain logo on them.

If you intercept the opposing team's audio communication system between the field and the coaching box, it's cheating. It doesn't matter whether it violates an on-field "rule of the game" such as illegal forward passes. It doesn't matter that you could have put lip-readers on the sideline with binoculars to get the same "freely available" information. If you can do that, go for it (though you might notice this is why coaches often hold something in front of their faces when they're talking).

If you can steal signals (legal) using coaches dedicated to that task with binoculars and notepads (legal), go for it. It will give you a competitive advantage. That's why it's done. That's why teams try to disguise their signals. If you attempt to get that same advantage more effectively by using video during the game (unambiguously illegal), it's cheating.

If there's any question about whether the Pats were videotaping in order to influence the game being played at the time, consider that they were also caught previously doing it at a Green Bay game. (That incident wasn't referred to the league.) Unless they meet in a SB, those teams only play each other once every four years.

[Cheesesteak]

The definition of cheating defines it as "violation of rules or regulations." This was a violation of rules and regulations and, thus, by very definition, was cheating. That's really the end of the discussion. The problem with being this strict on the definition is that every single player in the league can be labeled a cheater. That's not to say it isn't an accurate label, but it's surely not an interesting label.

There are times when people take liberties with the rules, or push to the very edge of the rules, and sometimes they go over. They're not all cheaters. Or, if they are all cheaters, we need a new word that distinguishes the serious offenses from the normal game offenses.

[Jodi]

And, Dio, as to your "where's the theoretical competitive advantage?" question, you have not responded at all to the obvious higher value of having something on videotape as opposed to having the chance to see it only once live.

[Labrador Deceiver]

(bolding mine)
It appears to me that the section I've bolded is the important part. I read this as meaning that a club is free to make videotape for the purpose of post-game analysis and future reference. What's being disallowed is shooting video during a game to be analyzed and used later in the same game.


It might just be more productive to provide a link to this post until certain posters choose to actually acknowledge it. It is a very clear and concise refutation of the idea that the Patriots "were not cheating". They were.

[DianaG]

Holy shit, y'all, did you know that the Giants won the Super Bowl? :eek:

And if I were a fan, I'd be mightily annoyed that this thread has devolved into yet another silly pissing match about the Patriots suxxors and the definition of cheating. Especially when there's an entire other thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=454071) devoted to exactly that subject.

[SkipMagic]

What, did you have a heaping cup of stupid this morning, or are you trying to be as obtuse as possible?


Sorry, I shouldn't have called you stupid. I know you're a smart guy, so I hope you understand why everyone is wondering why you're making yourself out to be the complete retard that you aren't .

Speaking of "against the rules"...

Least Original User Name Ever, this is Cafe Society and not the Pit. Personal insults are not allowed here. If you want to vent, take it to the Pit.

[DSYoungEsq]

Just because something is against the rules doesn't mean it's "Cheating." I appear to be the only person on this board who knows anything about the game. It's against the rules to wear black knee-socks on the field too, that doesn't mean wearing black knee-socks is "cheating."

It's a childish, uneducated, sour grapes accusation.
Wearing black socks that violate the rules isn't being done to gain a competitive advantage.

If you think the Patriots weren't engaged in the illegal filming for the purpose of gaining some competitive advantage, no matter how seemingly minor, you are simply being intentionally obtuse. Which, I think, is what everyone else here understands. While I'm not one to suggest that it's the best strategy to follow the herd, sometimes when everyone has a contrary opinion, it might be a good idea to check the fundamental underpinnings of your own. :dubious:

[DSYoungEsq]

There was no intent to cheat since there isn't even a theoretical way to gain an unfair advantage by taping signals from the sideline.
IF this was true, why would they continue to do what they had been told specifically to cease doing? So that they could get fined and lose draft picks for no good reason? Get real...

Ok, I'm gonna stop commenting on thread comments from hours ago. Probably not fair. :p

[Frosted Glass]

Wow, talk about missing out on an "interesting" discussion. I went down to D.C. to watch the game with some of my favorite Giants fans from back home. It was incredible. That game was the best Super Bowl finish in my memory (mainly because all the Giants fans in the room were concerned that Brady could pull off the 4th quarter finish).

To the Pats fans crying about poor officiating and an injured Brady, you should be ashamed. How many rings do you really need right now? The officiating was solid and injured QB's cannot throw 60+ yds down the field with that level of accuracy. That pass to Moss at the end of the 4th was a laser to his hands. He got rattled by the MVP Giants D. Its just that simple.

Speaking of the defense, they really should have given the MVP to the entire Giants-D. They earned it.

I thought it was curious to see the Pats ignore the run completely. I thought Belichick would understand the value of pounding the ball at the D-line and wearing them out but he stuck with the passing game that earned me so many wonderful fantasy points throughout the season.

At the party we had a few Pats fans in attendance. They only yelled at their own team and when Brady got sacked, they looked shocked every time. At the end of the game they just congratulated us and admitted that it was an impressive game.

All in all, it was a great game.

[DSYoungEsq]

This is wrong. The clock stops on out-of-bounds and stays stopped until the next snap throughout the game. If an official judges that the runner's momentum was stopped in the field of play and was driven backwards out of bounds, the clock keeps running.
Wrong, that was changed a few years back. You should read up on the new rules. ;)

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Speaking of "against the rules"...

Least Original User Name Ever, this is Cafe Society and not the Pit. Personal insults are not allowed here. If you want to vent, take it to the Pit.


I know. I apologized for it after I said it, but it really probably shouldn't even have been said in the first place.

[Loach]

Speaking of "against the rules"...

Least Original User Name Ever, this is Cafe Society and not the Pit. Personal insults are not allowed here. If you want to vent, take it to the Pit.

But was it cheating?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

I thought it was curious to see the Pats ignore the run completely. I thought Belichick would understand the value of pounding the ball at the D-line and wearing them out but he stuck with the passing game that earned me so many wonderful fantasy points throughout the season.
As I recall it, the Patriots did go to Maroney several times in the first quarter and he couldn't get much yardage. Nobody on the Pats' offense got much yardage. It was the Giants' defense that won the game.

[nivlac]

Looks like Eli has one thing Tom Brady lacks: a true signature play, on par with Montana's "the catch" and Elway's helicopter.

Or Steve Young's "The Run" .... about 1:12 into this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlAU0HrdQu4).

[Thing Fish]

Wow, what a great game! Definitely one of the greatest SBs ever. Miscellaneous points:

1) Only 2 teams have ever won after having to play 3 playoff games on the road, and both of them had.. Plaxico Burress?! Good for him making the clinching catch yesterday after his completely ridiculous roasting by the media all week.

2) How lame was the postgame interview not calling Belichick out on what certainly appeared to be him fleeing the field before the game was over? I like to call him the Nixon of football; although the local columnist who calls him "Dr. Evil" has a nice ring, too.

3) Any Patriots fans into Jewish mysticism can console themselves by pondering the numerologic implications of their 18-1 record; 18 is the value of "chai", which means "life" and is considered a very auspicious number, and 1 of course reminds of the Unity of God. So really, your record is very holy and you should be grateful to the Giants for helping you to acheive it. Hope this helps the healing process.

4) I can't stand the whole "choking" meme; it disrespects not only the team who lost, but also devalues the accomplishment of the team who won. Fans who talk about "choking" reveal themselves to be bitter cynics looking to feel better about themselves by putting down people who in most cases have accomplished far more in their lives than said whiny fans ever will. I think real "choking" is virtually unknown at the professional level; athletes who consistently underperform under pressure simply don't make it that far. So, congratulations to the Patriots for their incredible undefeated run, and to the Giants for stepping up huge when it counted.

5) Tom Petty?

6) Really, I mean... Tom Petty?

7) Not touching the whole spygate thing with a 10 foot pole, but the Patriots really didn't lose this game because of those 36 yards of penalties.

8) Looking forward to discussing the Bears win next year.

[Thing Fish]

Or Steve Young's "The Run" .... about 1:12 into this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlAU0HrdQu4).

Oh, wow... I can't view it from work. Is that the run against the Vikings in 1988? I have always thought of that as the greatest play that nobody ever seems to mention in discussions of all-time great plays.

[tnetennba]

Yeah, that was '88.

[tnetennba]

5) Tom Petty?

6) Really, I mean... Tom Petty?



I don't understand your disbelief. Paul McCartney and U2 have done the 'Bowl, so it must not be disbelief they got someone "that good." But they've also had much worse. Tom Petty is exactly what I'd expect.

[tnetennba]

Not touching the whole spygate thing with a 10 foot pole, but the Patriots really didn't lose this game because of those 36 yards of penalties

Brady was sacked five times, which had nothing to do with the refs. If you want to blame someone for the Patriots loss, blame the Giants defense!

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Oh, wow... I can't view it from work. Is that the run against the Vikings in 1988? I have always thought of that as the greatest play that nobody ever seems to mention in discussions of all-time great plays.
I still think that was the single greatest play I've ever seen, but it was a slow motion nightmare for Vikings fans at the time.

[Thing Fish]

I don't understand your disbelief. Paul McCartney and U2 have done the 'Bowl, so it must not be disbelief they got someone "that good." But they've also had much worse. Tom Petty is exactly what I'd expect.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I was being snarky. I've never seen the appeal of Mr. Petty, but I was surprised by how dull and listless his set was...only the last song seemed to even be attempting to be uptempo. Anyway, I guess there's another thread for that.

[rocking chair]

well, red sox nation has finally put to rest the whole "curse of the bambino" bruhaha.

what will the new curse be called for the patriot's nation?

curse of the trunicatus? curse of the don?

[Rysto]

curse of the trunicatus? curse of the don?
The Manning Curse?

[SenorBeef]

Boston fans would indeed feel as though they were cursed as a sports town because their team didn't win the superbowl.

Boston seems to self-identify as a cursed sports town where only their magnificent dedication as fans gets them through all the rough times. It's bizarre. I guess that attitude probably changed somewhat after the world series wins - but even before that, they had the Pats and in fairly recent history one of the most dominant basketball dynasties.

[Ellis Dee]

Manning wasn't the MVP. It was the Giants defensive line.If you could only give it to one person, who would you have given it to? My list was Tuck, Eli, Tyree, in that order.Also, for the record, I still wasn't impressed with Eli. Apparently I didn't watch the same game that the pundits (and I'm sure all the Giants fans here) watched. His first half wasn't very good, his third quarter was okay and his 4th quarter, statistically was rather nice, but almost killed a few drives there with horrible passes. He also got bailed out by David Tyree.You're absolutely right: you didn't watch the same game. His first half wasn't very good? Maybe you tuned in late and missed the 10:00 opening drive that included three passing third down conversions. They had that one pathetic 3 & out, but aside from that he played his position quite well.

As for the one he "flew over a wide open Plaxico's hands", he threw it to where Plax was supposed to run; Plax either let up or was confused. Aikman explained this on the broadcast that everyone but you saw.I think Brady was a little banged up; worse than we thought, actually (with his shoulder being the culprit; pregame injury logs were all talking about his shoulder and not his ankle) but it goes to show you what an accurate quarterback can do behind a solid offensive line with lots of time versus a quarterback that's got pressure on him constantly (with little to no blitzing, to boot).The prize for "least knowledgeable NFL fan" goes to...YOU! Or maybe it's like this Superbowl, where everyone in the world sees one NFL and you see your own special one.

Just so you know, Tom Brady's shoulder has been listed on every single injury report for 80 straight weeks. Yep, that's right. Every single week since 2002 he's been listed as "Probable - right shoulder". It's a running joke in the NFL at this point. Kenny Mayne based one of his skits on it. Chris Berman and Tom Jackson laugh about it. Mike & Mike laughed all Thursday morning about it after the injury report came out.

And again, not sure what game you were watching, but the rest of us saw a game where the Giants blitzed a fair amount at least, if not quite a bit. "Little to no blitzing"? Really?

Maybe you listened on the radio instead of watching it on tv... I'd say he's at Ben Roethlisbergergergergergerger's level right now.Let's not get crazy quite yet. Big Ben is a rate-stat machine, though on the plus side Eli didn't stink up the joint in the Superbowl like Ben did. At least he didn't in the game everyone but you saw.

[Ellis Dee]

I forget the first year I watched the Super Bowl all the way through, but this is the dullest one I've seen in a while.For everyone who enjoyed the final five minutes.... you're welcome. :D It wasn't a pretty game, but the finish was excellent and the Giants defense was stellar.To quote Mike Greenberg from this morning: "If you were bored in the middle part of this game, then I respectfully submit that you do not like the game of football." And he's absolutely right.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

1) Only 2 teams have ever won after having to play 3 playoff games on the road, and both of them had.. Plaxico Burress?! Good for him making the clinching catch yesterday after his completely ridiculous roasting by the media all week.Well, the Steelers had Burress at one time, but he was already with the Giants when we won the Superbowl two years ago.

[Cervaise]

Boston fans would indeed feel as though they were cursed as a sports town because their team didn't win the superbowl.

Boston seems to self-identify as a cursed sports town where only their magnificent dedication as fans gets them through all the rough times. It's bizarre.It's almost like they're turning into Yankees fans. :D

[Ellis Dee]

I wouldn't have had a problem if 12 guys participated in the play, and the review demonstrated that. I just didn't like that the question hinged on whether some part of one player was over the sideline or not in his attempt to clear the field at the start of the snap. He was clearly not a factor in the play one way or the other.This was my initial thought as well, but now I think it was a good call as opposed to ticky-tack bullshit.

When they came out of replay, they went to the "behind the punter" camera. For a split second, everyone was lined up and waiting. Then all of a sudden Blackburn -- who was lined up across from the OL -- hauled ass to the sideline, not quite making it before the snap.

That means the Giants had 12 guys on the field, lined up and waiting for the snap. This, IMO, is the defensive equivalent of "12 men in the huddle", since it would be silly to ask offenses to try and deal with reading that.

Sure, on a punt it doesn't much matter, but even then the backs have to identify who their responsibility is in blocking, so in the end I'd say that penalty was a good call.

[astorian]

Just because something is against the rules doesn't mean it's "Cheating." I appear to be the only person on this board who knows anything about the game. It's against the rules to wear black knee-socks on the field too, that doesn't mean wearing black knee-socks is "cheating."

It's a childish, uneducated, sour grapes accusation.


You know, it's funny you should say that: I was just saying to myself, "Diogenes is the only smart person here, the ONLY person who knows anything about football, the ONLY one on this entire post who isn't a childish putz."

Gosh, it must be swell to be as mature and intelligent as you, Di.

I don't know about everybody else, but I'm going to work real hard, so that maybe, just maybe, I can be half as brilliant and non-childish as Diogenes.

[What Exit?]

You know, it's funny you should say that: I was just saying to myself, "Diogenes is the only smart person here, the ONLY person who knows anything about football, the ONLY one on this entire post who isn't a childish putz."

Gosh, it must be swell to be as mature and intelligent as you, Di.

I don't know about everybody else, but I'm going to work real hard, so that maybe, just maybe, I can be half as brilliant and non-childish as Diogenes.
You know, that is a pledge we should all make. Perhaps you could start a newsletter for this new group. The "We Should all Work Hard to be Half as Brilliant and non-childish as Diogenes" newsletter or WSAWHTBHABANCAD for short.

[What Exit?]

Hey, was this mentioned (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2008/02/04/2008-02-04_giants_win_over_patriots_mostwatched_sup.html) ...

Giants win most-watched Super Bowl ever
The Giants' thrilling win over the Patriots was the most-watched Super Bowl ever, with 97.5 million viewers, Nielsen Media Research said Monday. The game eclipsed the previous Super Bowl record of 94.08 million.

[Ellis Dee]

After the Cowboys and my Packers were left scratching their heads in a "What just happened to us?" fashion I had a feeling the Giants were going to be the best chance the NFC had of upsetting the Patriots.
I think either the Cowboys or the Packers would have been clobbered by the Pats.
The Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots had these highly touted pass offenses that won them a lot of games all year. Nobody could frazzle their QBs. The Giants D found a way and took them all down one at a time. Meanwhile Eli just kept a cool head and ran time off the clock while patiently putting points on the board.I think this was a very important game for the future of the NFL, and I'd say the same thing if it were the Bucs or the Packers instead of the Giants.

In the copycat league of the NFL, whatever wins propagates. Last year we saw the high-flying Colts offense beat the Patriots, so the Patriots immediately responded by bringing in a stable of big-play receivers, thinking that this would win them a championship.

Guys like Ron Jaworski will prattle on and on endlessly about how the passing game wins. If enough people buy into it, that paradigm will proliferate enough so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. And that would be a tremendous shame, since that's counter to what makes the NFL so great. If you think high-flying offense is what makes the NFL great, I'd suggest you switch your fandom to the Arena Football League where they cater to that taste.

With this win, hopefully the pass-happy days that have tainted the league since Peyton Manning opened his whiny yap will start to be put behind us. At least until the next set of rule changes to prop up the passing game is enacted.

[VarlosZ]

I think this was a very important game for the future of the NFL, and I'd say the same thing if it were the Bucs or the Packers instead of the Giants.

In the copycat league of the NFL, whatever wins propagates. Last year we saw the high-flying Colts offense beat the Patriots, so the Patriots immediately responded by bringing in a stable of big-play receivers, thinking that this would win them a championship.

Guys like Ron Jaworski will prattle on and on endlessly about how the passing game wins. If enough people buy into it, that paradigm will proliferate enough so that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. And that would be a tremendous shame, since that's counter to what makes the NFL so great. If you think high-flying offense is what makes the NFL great, I'd suggest you switch your fandom to the Arena Football League where they cater to that taste.

With this win, hopefully the pass-happy days that have tainted the league since Peyton Manning opened his whiny yap will start to be put behind us. At least until the next set of rule changes to prop up the passing game is enacted.
I think I have to disagree. The argument from Jaworski and others is that you win more (though not exclusively, of course) with the passing game than the running game, and I think that's true. The part of that philosophy that is often overlooked, however, is that pass defense is every bit as important as pass offense, and undoubtedly the single biggest factor in the Giants' Super Bowl win was their pass defense (specifically their pass rush). In my opinion, the second biggest factor was the Giants' ability to have a good (not great) passing offense themselves, considering the caliber of opponent.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate old-school Giants football as much as the next guy, and I absolutely loved that opening drive when they ran on 1st & 2nd Downs, what, four times? Objectively speaking, however, the Giants' running game was merely adequate, even on that opening drive. If the Giants' passing attack had been even slightly less proficient at converting all those 3rd & 5's and 3rd & 7's that the running game handed them, the story would be the terrible failure of the Giants offense to capitalize on a heroic performance by the defense.

[VarlosZ]

Also, dude: :D :D :D :D :D :D

I mean, damn! :)

[Jman]

Great game....I loved seeing the Patriots go down!

And Dio, it's been mentioned before, but the reason taping on the sidelines is illegal and taping from the box isn't is not because it's arbitrary. Taping from the box and taping signals is completely legal for POST game analysis. Taping from the sidelines is done, and I'm sure was done by Belicheck (because otherwise, why put your self at risk) for IN game analysis. So, the Patriots were taping signals for use in the same game they were playing in, which is a clear violation of league rules, and for good reason.

So:
Legal: taping signals for post game analysis.
Illegal: taping signals on the sideline for use in the game you are currently playing.

Pretty big distinction there, since people change signals from week to week, so the taping of signals in game that can be analyzed at halftime can confer a huge advantage in that game. Saying it's semantics between the stands and the sidelines is showing complete ignorance of the reason for the rule, and reason the Pats taped on the sidelines.

Trying to say that "you can't prove they were doing it to analyze for that game" is ridiculous, since there are legal means to tape, Belicheck was warned, and yet he still sneaked a camera on the sidelines. Are you seriously saying that he just decided to do that for fun, in clear violation of league rules?

Comparing this to the headband of Jim McMahon is just silly....if the league didn't think this was a serious violation they wouldn't have stripped a first round draft pick and levied $750,000 in fines.

[Ellis Dee]

Comparing this to the headband of Jim McMahon is just silly....He isn't; he made that point to debunk the ludicrous idea -- asserted by a shameful number of people in this thread -- that cheating is synonymous with breaking the rules.I think I have to disagree. The argument from Jaworski and others is that you win more (though not exclusively, of course) with the passing game than the running game, and I think that's true. The part of that philosophy that is often overlooked, however, is that pass defense is every bit as important as pass offense, and undoubtedly the single biggest factor in the Giants' Super Bowl win was their pass defense (specifically their pass rush). In my opinion, the second biggest factor was the Giants' ability to have a good (not great) passing offense themselves, considering the caliber of opponent.While I have heard the theory of "quarterbacks and cornerbacks", that's not what Jaws preaches. He is steadfast in what he believes are the fundamentals of winning football: balance in the offense, and points come out of the passing game. He never advocates defense as a winning philosophy, but then again he's a QB so it's not that surprising.

Your idea that pass defense is integral to winning is something I simply haven't heard espoused by really anybody*, though I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it as of right now.

To all the Giants fans: It looks like Spags will stick with the G-Men for another year. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

* I don't read much FO.

[What Exit?]

To all the Giants fans: It looks like Spags will stick with the G-Men for another year. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!
What changed? Where did you hear or read this? Did the Redskins hire someone else?

This is great news, I hope it is true. Go Giants!

[Ellis Dee]

What changed? Where did you hear or read this? Did the Redskins hire someone else?

This is great news, I hope it is true. Go Giants!John Clayton on Mike & Mike this morning. Basically, the Redskins job is now a shitty job because they already hired the whole staff. Since they did this with the input of Jim Fassel, it's almost certainly going to be Fassel's job this coming season.

Also, Spags was a position coach until this year, so one more year of seasoning is a reasonable career path. Next year will almost certainly be his last in NY -- unless Coughlin retires* -- after which he'll no doubt be at the top of the list for several franchises. Plus he'll be able to bring in his own staff.

That was Clayton's take. I would toss in that in addition to being able to bring in his own staff, with another team Spags would actually have a couple draft picks to work with. Didn't Washington trade away all their picks again this year?

* Clayton didn't say this; just tossed it in myself.

[tnetennba]

He isn't; he made that point to debunk the ludicrous idea -- asserted by a shameful number of people in this thread -- that cheating is synonymous with breaking the rules.

Yeah, because there's such a chasm of difference between "breaking rules to help your side win" and "cheating." :rolleyes:

[Least Original User Name Ever]

If you could only give it to one person, who would you have given it to? My list was Tuck, Eli, Tyree, in that order.You're absolutely right: you didn't watch the same game. His first half wasn't very good? Maybe you tuned in late and missed the 10:00 opening drive that included three passing third down conversions. They had that one pathetic 3 & out, but aside from that he played his position quite well.

As for the one he "flew over a wide open Plaxico's hands", he threw it to where Plax was supposed to run; Plax either let up or was confused. Aikman explained this on the broadcast that everyone but you saw.The prize for "least knowledgeable NFL fan" goes to...YOU! Or maybe it's like this Superbowl, where everyone in the world sees one NFL and you see your own special one.

Just so you know, Tom Brady's shoulder has been listed on every single injury report for 80 straight weeks. Yep, that's right. Every single week since 2002 he's been listed as "Probable - right shoulder". It's a running joke in the NFL at this point. Kenny Mayne based one of his skits on it. Chris Berman and Tom Jackson laugh about it. Mike & Mike laughed all Thursday morning about it after the injury report came out.

And again, not sure what game you were watching, but the rest of us saw a game where the Giants blitzed a fair amount at least, if not quite a bit. "Little to no blitzing"? Really?

Maybe you listened on the radio instead of watching it on tv...Let's not get crazy quite yet. Big Ben is a rate-stat machine, though on the plus side Eli didn't stink up the joint in the Superbowl like Ben did. At least he didn't in the game everyone but you saw.


The MVP was Tuck, if I were pressed to pick one. After that, possibly Strahan. I don't want to diminish what Osi did, though.

Yeah, Eli came out throwing darts and looked real good. Everything was right on the numbers. I thought he'd have made the leap, but then he slid back.

Honestly, I didn't know that about Brady's phantom shoulder.

Yes, the pressure they were getting without blitzing was incredible.

Ben didn't get asked to carry the offense in the Super Bowl either. Ben has good games. He also has some bad ones. He's inconsistent, just like Eli.

Also, with the overthrow, quarterbacks always blame the receivers. Dan Marino's commentary is great for that. That still doesn't change the other overthrows in the rest of the game either.


Christ, for a fan of the team that just won the Super Bowl, you're awfully defensive.

[lieu]

Ellis, Washington picks 21st. They traded their 4th rounder.

ETA: Dear God, I hope we're not bombarded with the irony of that number again.

[Death of Rats]

...
And weighing in on the controversies...Bellichick's a dick for his last-second behavior. Stand on the sidelines and take it like a man -- watch the kneel-down and the clock tick down, then go shake hands. Just like every opponent did for you.

But as to TapeGate...as they say in card games, if you hold your cards where I can see 'em, it ain't peeking.

Bellicheck did go and congratulate Coughlin the first time the clock wound down, but yeah, he was a dick for leaving the field before the final kneeldown. Worse it was also dickish to his team since they did have to go out there for it.

As for the rest, if you are showing, it ain't peeking, but if i send someone else to look over your shoulder and tell me what you have, it's being Bill Bellicheck. :)

[aliquot]

Bellicheck did go and congratulate Coughlin the first time the clock wound down, but yeah, he was a dick for leaving the field before the final kneeldown. Worse it was also dickish to his team since they did have to go out there for it.
Not to mention, the guy couldn't class up for 10 seconds to congratulate some of the Giants players? Those guys played their asses off, flat out BEAT the Patriots, and all Bellicheck can say is, "What do you want, I shook the coach's hand?" What a sore loser. Hell, what a loser, period.

[VarlosZ]

While I have heard the theory of "quarterbacks and cornerbacks", that's not what Jaws preaches. He is steadfast in what he believes are the fundamentals of winning football: balance in the offense, and points come out of the passing game. He never advocates defense as a winning philosophy, but then again he's a QB so it's not that surprising.
While I agree that he should say it more explicitly, I don't doubt that he understands the importance of pass defense. It's a necessary logical corallary: if you win by scoring points and preventing the other team from scoring, and if teams mostly score points by having a good passing offense, then teams mostly prevent the other team from scoring by having a good passing defense, and pass defense is just as important as passing offense.

Your idea that pass defense is integral to winning is something I simply haven't heard espoused by really anybody*, though I'm not saying I agree or disagree with it as of right now. . .

* I don't read much FO.
FO has run the numbers on this, and they found that the quality of a team's passing offense or defense has a higher correlation with success or failure than the quality of a team's rushing offense or defense.

[Frosted Glass]

If you could only give it to one person, who would you have given it to? My list was Tuck, Eli, Tyree, in that order.


I would lean towards Tuck because I feel that the Giants D deserves significant credit for the win. Of course, Eli executed the wining drive in a way that shows his growth as a QB.

One person that seems to be getting left off of everyones list of recognition is rookie Steve Smith. He played very well for a rookie. Especially considering the fact that most people that do not follow the Giants had no clue who he was.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Not to mention, the guy couldn't class up for 10 seconds to congratulate some of the Giants players? Those guys played their asses off, flat out BEAT the Patriots, and all Bellicheck can say is, "What do you want, I shook the coach's hand?" What a sore loser. Hell, what a loser, period.
Since when do losing coaches go around shaking hands with winning players? I've never seen that. People are just making up things to attack Belly for.

[tnetennba]

People are also making up things to defend him for.

[storyteller0910]

People are also making up things to defend him for.

Is it your impression that losing coaches routinely congratulate winning players in the aftermath of a game (leaving aside instances where the coach and player in question have a strong personal relationship)?

[JCorre]

They may not congratulate every player. Good coaches will stay on the field with their team until the final play is over. Abandoning his people there while they had to run another play was really unprofessional.

[Cheesesteak]

People are just making up things to attack Belly for.He does bring some of this on himself. Part of being a head coach is interfacing with the media and being the "face" of the franchise*. When he does this, he tends to come across as a surly jerk, so things like not shaking Mangini's hand or leaving with 1 second left feeds into that image.



*You can claim that this part of the job is bullshit, but it clearly is part of the job. Head coaches are required to have press conferences, and do other tasks unrelated to the X's and O's. It's an entertainment industry, the leader has to interface with the customers. If all he wants to do is run practice and call plays, he can take a pay cut and be a coordinator.

[aliquot]

Since when do losing coaches go around shaking hands with winning players? I've never seen that. People are just making up things to attack Belly for.
It happens, particularly in big games. Not every player, but certainly the opposing QB and maybe a standout or two, or especially a former player. I'm not quite sure how to demonstrate it (Youtube wouldn't have end of game highlights unless something momentous happens), but look for it, and you'll see it. I know you're a football fan, and I'm not going to call you a liar, but I'm thinking if you haven't seen it, it's because you either immediately switch channels after the game is over, or it's just so unnoteworthy when it happens because it's so common.

[The Scrivener]

I have a feeling that children in Africa will soon be receiving shipments of over-sized "Patriots Perfect Season" t-shirts.

This just in: lots of Patriot loot is being sorted now, to be shipped to the poor in Nicaragua. :)

[Ellis Dee]

It happens, particularly in big games. Not every player, but certainly the opposing QB and maybe a standout or two, or especially a former player. I'm not quite sure how to demonstrate it (Youtube wouldn't have end of game highlights unless something momentous happens), but look for it, and you'll see it. I know you're a football fan, and I'm not going to call you a liar, but I'm thinking if you haven't seen it, it's because you either immediately switch channels after the game is over, or it's just so unnoteworthy when it happens because it's so common.I've never seen it either, but then again I compulsively switch channels the moment the action is done. I'm either looking for another game, or switching to SNY / ESPNews looking for Giants postgame. The end of game ritual (to me) is like watching commercials.

[Ellis Dee]

While I agree that he should say it more explicitly, I don't doubt that he understands the importance of pass defense. It's a necessary logical corallary: if you win by scoring points and preventing the other team from scoring, and if teams mostly score points by having a good passing offense, then teams mostly prevent the other team from scoring by having a good passing defense, and pass defense is just as important as passing offense.


FO has run the numbers on this, and they found that the quality of a team's passing offense or defense has a higher correlation with success or failure than the quality of a team's rushing offense or defense.I dunno. Based on his two-pronged philosophy, you can upset the cart by stopping either the run or the pass, thereby removing the balance. Once the balance is gone, the theory goes that you aren't getting points regardless.

I'm not sure I see the correlation between winning championships and pass defense. Remember that the copycat league really only copycats champions; the Colts had a fantastic winning percentage, but until they won it all the Patriots weren't looking to imitate their strategy. Here's the rushing, passing, and total defensive ranks of the last 10 Superbowl winners:Year Team Rush Pass Rank
---- -------- ---- ---- ----
2007 Giants 8th 15th 7th
2006 Colts 32nd 2nd 21st
2005 Steelers 3rd 16th 4th
2004 Patriots 6th 17th 9th
2003 Patriots 4th 15th 7th
2002 Bucs 5th 1st 1st
2001 Patriots 19th 24th 24th
2000 Ravens 1st 8th 2nd
1999 Rams 1st 20th 6th
1998 Broncos 3rd 26th 11th
---- -------- ---- ---- ----
Average: 8th 14th 9thIf you chalk the Colts up to an anomaly, the remaining nine champions average 5th against the run and 15th against the pass.

Apart from championships, just looking at the top 10 rankings from this year seems to correlate winning with rush defense, and losing with pass defense.

Top 10 Rushing Defenses, 2007
1 Vikings
2 Ravens
3 Steelers
4 Redskins
5 Titans
6 Cowboys
7 Eagles
8 Giants
9 Cardinals
10 Patriots

Top 10 Passing Defenses, 2007
1 Buccaneers
2 Colts
3 Steelers
4 Dolphins
5 Chiefs
6 Patriots
7 Broncos
8 Raiders
9 Jets
10 Titans

There are noticeably more scrub teams in the top 10 passing defense list than in the top 10 rushing defense.

[Ellis Dee]

It looks like Spags will stick with the G-Men for another year. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!Spags is indeed staying in Jersey (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8068dfba&template=without-video&confirm=true):Steve Spagnuolo has decided to remain with the New York Giants as defensive coordinator and will not leave to become the head coach of the Washington Redskins, NFL Network's Adam Schefter is reporting.

Schefter also is reporting that the Giants are expected to make Spagnuolo the highest-paid defensive coordinator in the NFL.

[What Exit?]

Spags is indeed staying in Jersey (http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8068dfba&template=without-video&confirm=true):
Great news. I understand that he did not want to go into the Snyder zone where despite being well payed, he would have a not great team and choose none of his coaches. He thinks he will probably get another chance next year and will then have a better owner even if the team is worse.

Jim