Spygate did not meet any of those definitions.
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.
Funny, I never saw anyone lose draft picks for a sharpie. Apparently the NFL strongly disagrees with your definition.
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.
From Dictionary.com, Cheating:
–verb (used with object)
-
to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
-
to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
-
to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
–verb (used without object) -
to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
-
to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
-
to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
-
Informal. to be sexually unfaithful (often fol. by on): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
–noun
- a person who acts dishonestly, deceives, or defrauds: He is a cheat and a liar.
- a fraud; swindle; deception: The game was a cheat.
- Law. the fraudulent obtaining of another’s property by a pretense or trick.
- 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.
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.”
Still a strikeout except for maybe an overly literal interporetation of definition 5 which can lend itself jjust as easily to uniform violations.
The NFL was trying to show dominance with an arrogant and intractable coach.
It’s not cheating just because it’s against the rules.
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.
Nothing like repeated denial of the most basic A=A arguments to show that you haven’t the slightest fucking idea what “empirical” means.
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.
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.
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.
I didn’t “decide” it. I DEMONSTRATED it.
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.
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.
I’ll take my advice on true and effective arguments from someone who shows an interest in either, but thanks.
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.
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.
“My” definition? Unfortuately, my god-like achievements do not yet include writing the dictionary anymore than yours include invalidating one.
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.
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 it a shot. He might actually give us a real answer).
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.