[QUOTE=PunditLisa]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/quote]
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.
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.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I appear to be the only person on this board who knows anything about the game.
[/QUOTE]
Wow! That is truly impressive, and not at all a childish or uneducated pronouncement.
[QUOTE=Hamlet]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Wow! That is truly impressive, and not at all a childish or uneducated pronouncement.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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
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.
Nah. It’s cheating. It might be one of the milder forms of cheating, but it’s cheating.
[QUOTE=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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
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… 
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=lieu]
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.
[/QUOTE]
The rumor is that Troy plays for the other team, so to speak.
(Deleted.)
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.
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).
[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
Nah. It’s cheating. It might be one of the milder forms of cheating, but it’s cheating.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=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).
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
But he DID run over and congratulate T.C.
[/quote]
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!”
[QUOTE=RickJay]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Seeing as how that’s not what I was saying, I can see why you never heard that one before.