# Super Bowl 2008 **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [February 3, 2008, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129 "2008-02-03T20:23:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/381 "2008-02-04T20:33:37Z")
[QUOTE=DigitalC] 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. [/QUOTE] Spygate did not meet any of those definitions. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/382 "2008-02-04T20:37:15Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/383 "2008-02-04T20:38:48Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Spygate did not meet any of those definitions. [/QUOTE] Funny, I never saw anyone lose draft picks for a sharpie. Apparently the NFL strongly disagrees with your definition. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/384 "2008-02-04T20:40:56Z")
[QUOTE=borschevsky] 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 :)) [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/385 "2008-02-04T20:40:59Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Spygate did not meet any of those definitions. [/QUOTE] From [Dictionary.com](http://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 1. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: _He is a cheat and a liar._ 2. a fraud; swindle; deception: _The game was a cheat._ 3. Law. the fraudulent obtaining of another’s property by a pretense or trick. 4. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/386 "2008-02-04T20:41:51Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] 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. [/quote] 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/387 "2008-02-04T20:43:22Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] From [Dictionary.com](http://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 1. a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: _He is a cheat and a liar._ 2. a fraud; swindle; deception: _The game was a cheat._ 3. Law. the fraudulent obtaining of another’s property by a pretense or trick. 4. 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. [/QUOTE] Still a strikeout except for maybe an overly literal interporetation of definition 5 which can lend itself jjust as easily to uniform violations. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/388 "2008-02-04T20:44:33Z")
[QUOTE=What Exit?] Funny, I never saw anyone lose draft picks for a sharpie. Apparently the NFL strongly disagrees with your definition. [/QUOTE] The NFL was trying to show dominance with an arrogant and intractable coach. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/389 "2008-02-04T20:45:37Z")
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever] 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. [/QUOTE] It’s not cheating just because it’s against the rules. ---
**Author:** ![lieu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c2a13f/32.png) [@lieu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lieu)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/390 "2008-02-04T20:45:57Z")
[QUOTE=Phase42] 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_. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/391 "2008-02-04T20:46:08Z")
Nothing like repeated denial of the most basic A=A arguments to show that you haven’t the slightest fucking idea what “empirical” means. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/392 "2008-02-04T20:52:45Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] Still a strikeout except for maybe an overly literal interporetation of definition 5 which can lend itself jjust as easily to uniform violations. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/393 "2008-02-04T20:53:51Z")
[QUOTE=cricetus] Nothing like repeated denial of the most basic A=A arguments to show that you haven’t the slightest fucking idea what “empirical” means. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/394 "2008-02-04T20:57:05Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/395 "2008-02-04T20:58:46Z")
[QUOTE=Jodi] 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. [/quote] 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. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/396 "2008-02-04T21:04:59Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] 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. [/quote] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/397 "2008-02-04T21:09:22Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] I didn’t “decide” it. I DEMONSTRATED it. [/quote] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/398 "2008-02-04T21:19:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/399 "2008-02-04T21:19:17Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] It’s not cheating just because it’s against the rules. [/QUOTE] 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). ---
**Author:** ![jaydotbeedot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/54ee81/32.png) [@jaydotbeedot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jaydotbeedot)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2008, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129/400 "2008-02-04T21:21:25Z")
[QUOTE=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. [/QUOTE] 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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/super-bowl-2008/436129.md?page=21)