Vikings Message Board.Com

It's amazing there is a clearly written rule, they broke it, and people are making excuses for them. This isn't the eligible receiver stuff, where they just found a way around a rule. They blatantly broke a rule that has zero wiggle room.

NFL rules stipulate a game ball must be inflated to 12 ½ to 13 ½ pounds per square inch.

They had footballs under 12 1/2 psi. That were at or above 12 1/2 psi before the game when checked.

Remember all the people making excuses for spy gate? Now a team is busted for breaking a rule again and people are making excuses. Players busted for PEDs? Excuses. Beating your wife? Excuses (until the video comes out). Beating your kid? Excuses.

There are laws and rules. Teams/Players clearly break them. People don't think they should be punished for it?

I watched Belichek's presser and was intrigued by how much emotion he showed. He definitely looked like he was telling the truth as far as he knew, whereas Brady, not so much.

Bill's words that I found to be the central issue in all of this:

"At no time was there any intent whatsoever to try to compromise the integrity of the game or to gain an advantage," he said.

He certainly seems concerned about this with good reason.

I'm sure Goodell and Co. have a handle on it

Demi wrote:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... tion-game/

Dungy: NFL needs to restrict New England’s substitution game]

Guy tried to be all diplomatic early on about it. Until he realizes, hey, they broke the rules!
You saw it in the LT TD pass. What a shady bunch of crap. They can't get a ring anymore playing by the intent of the law, so they decide to play by the letter of it.

Declaring a player eligible or ineligible is within the both the letter and intent of the rules and the Patriots are hardly the first team to take advantage of that possibility, nor will they be the last. If the officials missed a call that's on the officials. It's their job to enforce the rules.

Mothman wrote: Declaring a player eligible or ineligible is within the both the letter and intent of the rules and the Patriots are hardly the first team to take advantage of that possibility, nor will they be the last. If the officials missed a call that's on the officials. It's their job to enforce the rules.

Do you respect Dungy? Do you think he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the rules regarding eligibility and their enforcement?

VikingLord wrote: Do you respect Dungy? Do you think he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the rules regarding eligibility and their enforcement?

I respect him. What does that have to do with the rules or my comment above? Dungy's not saying the tactic is illegal. He may be right that the competition committee will need to look at it to consider if it should remain legal or if a rule change is necessary because of the way the Patriots have successfully used the tactic in combination with a hurry up offense to confuse defenses this postseason. However, right now, during this season, the tactic is legal so what's the problem? The Patriots aren't doing anything wrong in this regard. On the contrary, they've been doing something rather clever and effective. If they make a mistake in their execution of one of these eligible/ineligible plays, the onus is on the officials to penalize them for it. After all, they are there are to maintain control of the game and enforce the rules. If the pace of substitutions and reports moves too fast for them, they have whistles and the authority to slow things down and assert more control.

The bottom line here is that ineligible players are allowed to report as eligible and vice versa. A team must have at least 7 players on the line of scrimmage and the Patriots met that requirement. There's nothing in the rules about which 7 players must be on the line and as long as players report their eligibility to the officials and the official reports that information to the captain of the defense, it's all above board. The idea that it's problematic because it's an attempt to deceive is just silly, since NFL teams are constantly attempting to deceive each other using legal tactics. That's a part of the game.

I was pretty torn about who to root for in the Super Bowl as I don't particularly care for either team, but between all this nonsense and KWill, I'll just go with the Seahawks.

Mothman wrote:
I respect him. What does that have to do with the rules or my comment above? Dungy's not saying the tactic is illegal. He may be right that the competition committee will need to look at it to consider if it should remain legal or if a rule change is necessary because of the way the Patriots have successfully used the tactic in combination with a hurry up offense to confuse defenses this postseason. However, right now, during this season, the tactic is legal so what's the problem? The Patriots aren't doing anything wrong in this regard. On the contrary, they've been doing something rather clever and effective. If they make a mistake in their execution of one of these eligible/ineligible plays, the onus is on the officials to penalize them for it. After all, they are there are to maintain control of the game and enforce the rules. If the pace of substitutions and reports moves too fast for them, they have whistles and the authority to slow things down and assert more control.

The bottom line here is that ineligible players are allowed to report as eligible and vice versa. A team must have at least 7 players on the line of scrimmage and the Patriots met that requirement. There's nothing in the rules about which 7 players must be on the line and as long as players report their eligibility to the officials and the official reports that information to the captain of the defense, it's all above board. The idea that it's problematic because it's an attempt to deceive is just silly, since NFL teams are constantly attempting to deceive each other using legal tactics. That's a part of the game.

I don't get the whining towards NE on this stuff either. The whining should be directed at the officials...which is where Harbaugh seemed to take it the first time. I never really heard definitively if the officials were guilty of not allowing enough time before the snap so the Ravens could line up correctly.

In the Championship game were the penalty was not called, I'm of the opinion there should be some punishment/consequences for the officials. There's players getting fines for simple issues nearly every game but officials seem to escape the consequences for missing blatant things.
Or maybe not and it's just not publicized.

But Dungy blaming the Pats for a missed call is off the mark. Funny that he's an old Colt.

Regardless, Belicheck and his team are confronted with a significant image issue when HoFers are calling him Bellicheat(Shula) and people like Aikman and Brunell are casting doubts on Brady, now Dungy piling on...all during prep time for the Superbowl. Bellichek has spent a lot of energy trying to diffuse this stuff. I wonder what the distractions will cause for his team if anything?

However, right now, during this season, the tactic is legal so what's the problem?

The intent of the rule is to give the defense time to adjust, and to know who is and isn't eligible. Declaring players eligible as close to the snap as possible isn't within the spirit of the rule. Which is why it's going to be changed. If there wasn't a problem the NFL competition committee wouldn't be taking it up, ex-NFL coaches wouldn't be calling them out, and officials wouldn't be "missing" things that apparently aren't there to begin with.

The Breeze wrote:I don't get the whining towards NE on this stuff either. The whining should be directed at the officials...which is where Harbaugh seemed to take it the first time. I never really heard definitively if the officials were guilty of not allowing enough time before the snap so the Ravens could line up correctly.

In the Championship game were the penalty was not called, I'm of the opinion there should be some punishment/consequences for the officials. There's players getting fines for simple issues nearly every game but officials seem to escape the consequences for missing blatant things.
Or maybe not and it's just not publicized.

But Dungy blaming the Pats for a missed call is off the mark. Funny that he's an old Colt.

Regardless, Belicheck and his team are confronted with a significant image issue when HoFers are calling him Bellicheat(Shula) and people like Aikman and Brunell are casting doubts on Brady, now Dungy piling on...all during prep time for the Superbowl. Bellichek has spent a lot of energy trying to diffuse this stuff. I wonder what the distractions will cause for his team if anything?

It's tough to say, It may help them "circle the wagons" and seriously focus.

Belichick and Brady are definitely confronted with a serious image issue. I didn't hear Shula's comment but I suspect that's the pot calling the kettle black. There's no way a guy who coached back when he did, and coached for so long, didn't push the envelope at times and honestly, what bugs me about a lot of the criticism from former players and coaches is just that: the implication that the kind of stuff people are railing against Brady and Belichick for doing isn't positively commonplace in the NFL. A study of NFL history, or just listening to some other ex-players and coaches, reveals the opposite. Heck, that paragon of NFL coaching virtue, Tony Dungy, revealed the NFL coaching mindset in the PFT article at the link above:

Dungy said that, if he were coaching the Seahawks, he’d reluctantly tell the players to fake defensive injuries in the Super Bowl to counter New England’s tactic.

Later, he reconsidered his position and said “I apologize for suggesting an illegal tactic to counteract this. That is not the way to handle it" but his comment shows us the NFL mentality... and Dungy is one of the league's good guys.

Demi wrote: The intent of the rule is to give the defense time to adjust, and to know who is and isn't eligible.

That responsibility falls on the officials, not the offense.

Which is why it's going to be changed. If there wasn't a problem the NFL competition committee wouldn't be taking it up

We don't know that they are taking it up and we also don't know what, if anything, they will do if they decide to take a look at it.

...and officials wouldn't be "missing" things that apparently aren't there to begin with.

What does that even mean?

Mothman wrote: Later, he reconsidered his position and said “I apologize for suggesting an illegal tactic to counteract this. That is not the way to handle it" but his comment show us the NFL mentality... and Dungy is one of the league's good guys.

This has been my axe to grind all along...and I agree with you about history and the pot/kettle....but I would like to see an effort made to shift that mentality. Altruistic, perhaps.....but I was impressed with Belichek's presser given how he usually is in regards to public expression. I think it takes people in leadership positions to make those shifts, not necessarily people granted positions of authority. The difference between Belichek and Goodell IMO, for example.

For me it echoes further into our society as to why we need laws, comandments or rule to know not to do "bad" things and how we define success in our culture.

It's a slippery slope when it come to a competitive sport like football. The conversation is interesting and I've enjoyed reading everyone's takes on it.

The Breeze wrote:This has been my axe to grind all along...and I agree with you about history and the pot/kettle....but I would like to see an effort made to shift that mentality. Altruistic, perhaps.....but I was impressed with Belichek's presser given how he usually is in regards to public expression. I think it takes people in leadership positions to make those shifts, not necessarily people granted positions of authority. The difference between Belichek and Goodell IMO, for example.

Well said and the sentiment may be altruistic but I'd like to see an effort to shift that mentality as well.

For me it echoes further into our society as to why we need laws, comandments or rule to know not to do "bad" things and how we define success in our culture.

It's a slippery slope when it come to a competitive sport like football. The conversation is interesting and I've enjoyed reading everyone's takes on it.

It is interesting and I suspect that's one of many reasons why this affair has gripped the nation's attention for a week. Has anything ever spoken to the popularity of the NFL more effectively than the media tidal wave (and all the accompanying discussion) over under-inflated footballs? When you think about it, it's pretty wacky.

Mothman wrote: It is interesting and I suspect that's one of many reasons why this affair has gripped the nation's attention for a week. Has anything ever spoken to the popularity of the NFL more effectively than the media tidal wave (and all the accompanying discussion) over under-inflated footballs? When you think about it, it's pretty wacky.

Whacky, symbolic and apropos all in one. It's easy to see the Patriots, in their red white and blue, representing our own cultural elite, the people who get slapped on the hands for bending rules the rest of us get busted for. I suppose there are many who would like to see that group have the wind taken out of their sails.....or their balls deflated.

Fate not being without a sense of irony?

Mothman wrote:The idea that it's problematic because it's an attempt to deceive is just silly, since NFL teams are constantly attempting to deceive each other using legal tactics. That's a part of the game.

The line is a fine one to be sure, but I'm not making the argument that the substitution rules are a problem in themselves. I agree that it's the job of the refs to enforce the rules and if a team violates them and the refs miss it, that is on the refs and the NFL itself to ensure officiating is done correctly.

But even staunch admirers of Bill Belichek's acumen have to admit that the spirit of rules can be abused. Loopholes can be found, ways to exploit interpretations to increase the likelihood of a certain outcome, ways to tilt the odds in one's favor despite the intent of most rules which is to neutralize unfair advantage.

We'll see where this ends up, but what is 100% certain is the NFL will get more of what it allows. The only way to stamp out undesirable outcomes is to come down forcefully when teams cross the line. If this is desirable (either the ball treatment or late eligible declarations), then more teams will do it and Belichek and the Pats will have to keep digging through the rule book to figure out more ways to exploit the rules to maintain whatever relative advantage they get from doing that.

VikingLord wrote: The line is a fine one to be sure, but I'm not making the argument that the substitution rules are a problem in themselves. I agree that it's the job of the refs to enforce the rules and if a team violates them and the refs miss it, that is on the refs and the NFL itself to ensure officiating is done correctly.

But even staunch admirers of Bill Belichek's acumen have to admit that the spirit of rules can be abused. Loopholes can be found, ways to exploit interpretations to increase the likelihood of a certain outcome, ways to tilt the odds in one's favor despite the intent of most rules which is to neutralize unfair advantage.

Virtually all deception in the NFL is an attempt to tilt the odds in one's favor within the rules so I don't really see a "spirit of the rule" violation or an unfair advantage in what they did. Teams have been running tackle eligible plays for decades! I think the complaints have a lot more to do with the fact that it's the Patriots who did it and frankly, most of them read like sour grapes. There certainly wasn't a lot of complaining from teams or fans when J. J. Watt was catching TDs this season or when teams began running "no huddle" offenses, which are also designed to put the defense at a disadvantage.

We'll see where this ends up, but what is 100% certain is the NFL will get more of what it allows. The only way to stamp out undesirable outcomes is to come down forcefully when teams cross the line. If this is desirable (either the ball treatment or late eligible declarations), then more teams will do it and Belichek and the Pats will have to keep digging through the rule book to figure out more ways to exploit the rules to maintain whatever relative advantage they get from doing that.

Which is what everybody else in the league does too.