One rule the NFL takes action on.....

[southwest1]

SW...you and I are usually in the same corner about a lot of things...but I dont understand this comment. New England has never shied away from anything and have taken responsibility for everything that they were accused of and proven to have done. Spygate? Belichick admitted that he did it, took the punishment, and moved on. The Tuck Rule? Since it somehow entered this conversation of things the Patriots have done...no, there is nothing to take responsibility for. What else is there....illegal contact? They played physical and never once avoided that fact and deflected discussion on it. That became a point of emphasis the following year but in no way is that an example of cheating and refusing to take responsibility for it. 

 

I dont really know what else you are referring to...but I'm happy to have a discussion about it because it's clear that a lot of opposing fans have some master list of tall the times that the Patriots have cheated the system...

I respect you too D13 & I am not attempting to trash your organization completely to taters today. For me, if my Colts did this ineligibility tactic during a crucial playoffs game this past season, I'd be livid & extremely disappointed in my team for doing it. Like I said before football is all about beating the guy across from you through blocking & route running. I just believe that to my core. This act of deception is not a legitimate decoy move with muti-WR sets or TE comeback route receptions. It just feels wrong violating a loophole nobody tried before. Is it innovative? No. Is it illegal? No. Just line up, dominate the defender across from you, & out execute him fair & square. Then, I have no problems even if your club kicks my team's caboose on the field.

 

How would you feel if you were watching a relative play basketball & they made a critical basket winning the game without telling the referee on the court that they were eligible to play. You can't just unleash that move on a court or a field without prior knowledge. Jim Harbaurgh looked shocked to me when he 1st saw it been implemented live. 

 

I'm not blaming you D13 at all. I just find it offputting to see some NE fans bragging over how they won the game that's all. Has Bill said anything publicly about this loophole being closed? 

[amfootball]

My point was a more collective retrospective. When you look back in time at other successful teams, the 50''s through 71 Colts, the 60's Packers, the 70's Steelers, or the 49ers, you just don't see the same perception as the Patriots. No one was jealous of those teams, so I totally reject that argument. The difference is a collection of questionable issues with this team, versus other successful teams of the past.

Huh? The Steelers were hated in the 70s and thought to be a dirty team with Mean Joe Green and his antics and of course all the roids. The Niners were also hated given their Yankee like payroll pre-cap/FA and owner who had to cede control of the team due to his legal issues.. And the Cowboys? Geesh, most hated team bar none whether they are winning or losing.

[amfootball]

Believing an NFL spokesman who may be a hack of Pats friendly Goodell, hardly fills us all with confidence .

Whatever ... the story is everywhere that the ref did his job 100 percent correct during that game. All you have to do is watch the game and see for yourself. The ref was never confused at any point. The Pats reported corrected and he notified the Ravens correctly.

[The Old Crow]

Huh? The Steelers were hated in the 70s and thought to be a dirty team with Mean Joe Green and his antics and of course all the roids. The Niners were also hated given their Yankee like payroll pre-cap/FA and owner who had to cede control of the team due to his legal issues.. And the Cowboys? Geesh, most hated team bar none whether they are winning or losing.

You really can't count the roids, they are everywhere. I hate the 70's Steelers, but only because I'm a Baltimore guy. I think that team

though, is fairly well respected.

[The Old Crow]

Whatever ... the story is everywhere that the ref did his job 100 percent correct during that game. All you have to do is watch the game and see for yourself. The ref was never confused at any point. The Pats reported corrected and he notified the Ravens correctly.

The refs seemed pretty confused to me. I don't think they expected it anymore than Harbaugh, because most teams play within the letter of the rules, because they don't want dirty tricks pulled on them. I guess this gentleman's agreement is up in smoke.

[amfootball]

The refs seemed pretty confused to me. I don't think they expected it anymore than Harbaugh, because most teams play within the letter of the rules, because they don't want dirty tricks pulled on them. I guess this gentleman's agreement is up in smoke.

When did the refs seemed confused to you? I have watched the games several times and the only person who had no idea what was going on was Harbaugh ...

[southwest1]

What? The refs did not have to inform the Ravens of anything. It was a legal formation! Should they have also told Harbaugh about the Edelman WR pass that tied the game?

 

In terms of your link, here it is. Vinovich was told by the Pats about the players and did his job 100 percent on each of the three plays going so far as to say "don't cover #34" on one of the plays ...

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/13/patriots-coach-bill-belichick-has-response-john-harbaugh-charge-deception/8GyQYOd2zXXaYbQr2k2ugK/story.html

An NFL spokesman told the Globe that both in formation and in reporting ineligible players, everything was done by the book.

On three plays during the Patriots’ second possession of the third quarter, guard Josh Kline left the field, a skill player told lead official Bill Vinovich that he was ineligible on the play, and Vinovich announced to the Baltimore defense and the entire stadium that the player was ineligible, going so far as to say “do not cover No. 34 [Shane Vereen]” in at least one instance.

1 question: How is an article written by the Boston Globe impartial exactly in reference to the New England Patriots? Let's try something in say the New York Times or USA Today shall we...

 

Next, you're gonna tell me "Undisclosed sources say..." Put a name to the statement directly or forget about it. I want a source outside NE & Baltimore to tell me What the refs knew & when they knew it? 

 

If Baltimore won the divisional round using this ineligibility tactic, would you be pleased AMF? I highly doubt that. 

[amfootball]

1 question: How is an article written by the Boston Globe impartial exactly in reference to the New England Patriots? Let's try something in say the New York Times or USA Today shall we...

SW, the story is everywhere, go search the NY papers if you want to try to find some validation for your straw man or better yet just watch the game. At no point is the ref confused or asking the Pats for any clarification. Only Harbaugh is the one confused ...

[The Old Crow]

When did the refs seemed confused to you? I have watched the games several times and the only person who had no idea what was going on was Harbaugh ...

To me, they didn't really answer Harbaugh's concerns , during, or after the game. The fact that the rule changed so fast, with Steelers owner Rooney at the top of the list, shows it was on the far edge of the rules . Rooney is certainly no friend of the Ravens, and he thought it was ridiculous.

[jvan1973]

When did the refs seemed confused to you? I have watched the games several times and the only person who had no idea what was going on was Harbaugh ...

They looked pretty confused on the pass play from Edelman to amendola. They didn't throw the flag for illegal man downfield

[The Old Crow]

1 question: How is an article written by the Boston Globe impartial exactly in reference to the New England Patriots? Let's try something in say the New York Times or USA Today shall we...

Most of their facts come from the Boston Globe, ESPN Boston, NESN, or fine New England Universities that dabble in air pressure , and its effects on the forward pass.

[amfootball]

To me, they didn't really answer Harbaugh's concerns , during, or after the game. The fact that the rule changed so fast, with Steelers owner Rooney at the top of the list, shows it was on the far edge of the rules . Rooney is certainly no friend of the Ravens, and he thought it was ridiculous.

Harbaugh had no clue what was going on. What were the refs supposed to do? Put pinwheels on the helmets of the ineligible players? Honestly, the plays were not all that tricky if the Ravens were just paying attention. And the Colts were not fooled by it the following week. 

[amfootball]

They looked pretty confused on the pass play from Edelman to amendola. They didn't throw the flag for illegal man downfield

They weren't confused they just missed it. But that is a separate discussion about officiating ineptitude.

[The Old Crow]

Harbaugh had no clue what was going on. What were the refs supposed to do? Put pinwheels on the helmets of the ineligible players? Honestly, the plays were not all that tricky if the Ravens were just paying attention. And the Colts were not fooled by it the following week.

Of course the Colts weren't fooled after the dirty trick had been sprung unexpectedly on the Ravens the week before.

[The Old Crow]

They weren't confused they just missed it. But that is a separate discussion about officiating ineptitude.

They missed a lot, like they missed the Tuck Rule.

[southwest1]

In terms of spygate - Bill took full responsibility for spygate. He accepted the penalty and never appealed it either. His reason for doing the taping was a mis-interpretation of Roger's memo as he thought he could do it as long as the footage was not used in game. That is why he did it, he never said he should not have been punished for it.

 

Deflate gate has yet to be proven and he and Kraft have vehemently denied it. So we will see if the league is able to prove anything.

 

What else is there? Like you said, Tuck rule was a rule. The formations were legal ...

You really think Robert Kraft was gonna let Bill, the man who works cuts his check, appeal the decision? Seriously? LOL!  No, Bill never owned his role in SpyGate not in terms of taking full blame on his shoulders. The appeal wasn't his decision to make regarding the fate of the Foxboro Organization. Therefore, Belichick cannot be given credit for something he had no authority to do. 

 

He said his interpretation of videotaping was found incorrect & how those tapes could be used at a later date for film study purposes AMF. 

[southwest1]

Of course the Colts weren't fooled after the dirty trick had been sprung unexpectedly on the Ravens the week before.

Bingo! 

[southwest1]

You really think Robert Kraft was gonna let Bill, the man who works cuts his check, appeal the decision? Seriously? LOL!  No, Bill never owned his role in SpyGate not in terms of taking full blame on his shoulders. The appeal wasn't his decision to make regarding the fate of the Foxboro Organization. Therefore, Belichick cannot be given credit for something he had no authority to do. 

 

He said his interpretation of videotaping was found incorrect & how those tapes could be used at a later date for film study purposes AMF. 

I also seem to recall Robert Kraft giving Bill a salary bonus/bump to pay off his NFL imposed fine for SpyGate too. So, Bill didn't exactly take a bullet for his boss on the personal income front either. He really didn't suffer that much on an individual level here. 

[Superman]

Should have tried looking that up before the competition committee news came out, because now the search results are just saturated with this new ruling

 

This was straight from Blandino though, the head of officiating, who saw nothing wrong at all with the plays;

 

So you don't have a link?

[ÅÐØNϧ 1]

The only people whining are all the teams getting beat by them.

They ran this play 3 times against the Ravens and once against the Colts.. and the Colts after seeing it on film took advantage and it was a huge negative play that killed the Pats drive.

This doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things, something like this could really only be used a handful of times and then teams would know how to stop it..

This is literally used in high school and college.. a head coach in high school I know had game tape on 5 different teams that used this type of play last season and they taught 14-18 year olds how to defend against it.. and that was without the refs announcing the it over the loud speaker..

There's a reason Harbaugh has backed off his comments and hasn't championed this since the post game presser.. because he would come across as a whiney little baby more than he already has, which is a characteristic of both Harbaugh brothers when they lose a playoff game.

it's incredible how much in the head of the league Belichick is at this point. I'm sure next year in a critical situation he'll pull another play from his box of tricks and everyone will be freaking out all over again. Of course, nobody said a word about this when the Lions did the same thing earlier in the year, but that's the way it is when you're on top.. everyone will act like little children and try to knock you off the top of the mountain.

This will have zero affect on the Patriots going forward, so it's amusing that so much time and energy is being spent on a play/formation that the Pats used a whopping 4 times in the teams history

Keep on hating though, other than #cameraplacementgate, there are no examples of the Patriots cheating or breaking any rules.. its just the same drivel that is regurgitated going on 8 years now by the same people to try and feel better about losing to the Pats.

 

According to Roger Goodell  Bill Belichick has since day one as coach of the Patriots broke the rules new year new drama same old poor Patriots somehow a victim that is hilarious .. A sleazy decade IMO . 

[amfootball]

You really think Robert Kraft was gonna let Bill, the man who works cuts his check, appeal the decision? Seriously? LOL!  No, Bill never owned his role in SpyGate not in terms of taking full blame on his shoulders. The appeal wasn't his decision to make regarding the fate of the Foxboro Organization. Therefore, Belichick cannot be given credit for something he had no authority to do. 

 

He said his interpretation of videotaping was found incorrect & how those tapes could be used at a later date for film study purposes AMF. 

This does not sound like you at all SW. You are usually so complimentary toward the Pats often talking about your respect for the org. Has this ruling about formations really swayed you that much?

 

Bill most certainly took the blame for spygate. Complete blame. Said it was his fault alone. He gave his reason for why he did it after the memo and you can choose to not believe him if you want but it was his reason but he never said it was an excuse.

[Vance]

This is where they got the idea..

 

Look at that.. an NFL team.. in 2014.. Week 6..

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4776177/another-nfl-team-used-four-offensive-linemen-set

 

According to SW1, it was fine when the Lions used it, because it wasn't in a playoff game.

[dw49]

This does not sound like you at all SW. You are usually so complimentary toward the Pats often talking about your respect for the org. Has this ruling about formations really swayed you that much?

 

Bill most certainly took the blame for spygate. Complete blame. Said it was his fault alone. He gave his reason for why he did it after the memo and you can choose to not believe him if you want but it was his reason but he never said it was an excuse.

 

Maybe he took the blame on one side of his mouth but from the other side of his mouth he says there was nothing wrong with what they did. When asked about spy gate he replies in that condescending way of his "yeah we taped something that 70,000 people could see with their two eyes." 

[dw49]

So you don't have a link?

 

Well at least we now have a link in case someone actually claims the plays were illegal. 

[amfootball]

Maybe he took the blame on one side of his mouth but from the other side of his mouth he says there was nothing wrong with what they did. When asked about spy gate he replies in that condescending way of his "yeah we taped something that 70,000 people could see with their two eyes." 

I think that is two different arguments though. Bill understood that he violated Roger's memo and his infraction was due to camera location not the taping of the signals. And THAT point is key. I think Bill came out so strongly about the taping because the league had no issue with them taping the signals as the footage was not used in game. That is why Roger asked for the tapes and when he had viewed them said they were consistent with what the Patriots had told them. But because Roger handed down such a ridiculously heavy punishment it made it look like it was the taping of the signals that the Pats were being punished for and not the location of the camera. Rodger said as much when he handed down the punishment saying that the league understands signal stealing has always gone on in football.

 

So I think Bill's ire is more about what he was being punished for and trying to clarify that. As if the league believed the Pats taping of signals was illegal or that the footage was used in game then I believe they would have had to have looked at altering the history books in terms of their wins from 2000-2006 as Bill admitted he has been taping signals since 2000 as it was always legal to do but then Roger's memo about the location of the camera ...

[dynasty13]

My point was a more collective retrospective. When you look back in time at other successful teams, the 50''s through 71 Colts, the 60's Packers, the 70's Steelers, or the 49ers, you just don't see the same perception as the Patriots. No one was jealous of those teams, so I totally reject that argument. The difference is a collection of questionable issues with this team, versus other successful teams of the past.

 

It's impossible to look back at the different eras to compare the 'hate' towards the dominant teams. The Patriots success coincided directly with the rise of message boards and the TMZ-like nature of reporting sporting news. Interaction among fan bases was never this easy, and because winning breeds arrogance, it was much more 'in your face' towards opposing fans and in turn that bred contempt. Stories get blown up as they never had before, and judgment of teams and issues that normally would not be made public forms the perception that fans have towards teams. There are no more issues surrounding this Patriots franchise than there were in Dallas or Pittsburgh, we just hear about it because of the 24 hour news cycle and the 24/7 discussions and conversations that fans can have about it.

 

Honestly, do you really think that Dallas fans in the 90s weren't as arrogant as the 2000s Patriots fans? Do you really think the Pittsburgh fans in the 70s weren't as obnoxious as Patriots fans today? The big difference is that you see it first hand because of the ease of fan interaction today. Message boards are great, but I'm willing to bet that a vast majority of you started hating Patriots fans not because the team was good, but because of how they acted on the old IndyStar boards while we were winning Superbowls. Every fanbase is the same...they have good fans, bad fans, loud fans, quiet fans....when you win they tend to be louder, and that rubs people the wrong way.

 

But to make a statement like nobody hated those great teams of the past...that's blatantly false...and if the world back then was the way it is now in terms of how things are reported and the interaction of opposing fans...I guarantee you that we would all hate Dallas and Pittsburgh just as much as many of you hate the Patriots.

[lollygagger8]

He denied that he got it from them. He said he got it from the NFL and punt formations ...

 

[Superman]

SW, what game were you watching? The refs were told about the Pats plays before the game prior which is why they did their job 100 percent correct announcing the ineligible players and also telling the Ravens not to cover #34 which was Vereen. The refs were never confused in that game. My gosh, these plays have been run before in the NFL, college and high school ...

 

Do you have a link to verify this? No one else seems to have one, yet this is being repeated here as if it's well-established. Somebody has to be able to verify this angle...

[amfootball]

Do you have a link to verify this? No one else seems to have one, yet this is being repeated here as if it's well-established. Somebody has to be able to verify this angle...

I already provide one from the Globe earlier in the thread ...

[Superman]

I already provide one from the Globe earlier in the thread ...

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/13/patriots-coach-bill-belichick-has-response-john-harbaugh-charge-deception/8GyQYOd2zXXaYbQr2k2ugK/story.html

 

You don't mean that one, do you? That's the only link to the Globe in this thread, but that article says nothing about the Pats showing these formations to the refs before the game, telling the refs before the game that they planned to do this, etc.

 

So there's still no link supporting this claim that both you and JM have made in this thread.

[amfootball]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/13/patriots-coach-bill-belichick-has-response-john-harbaugh-charge-deception/8GyQYOd2zXXaYbQr2k2ugK/story.html

 

You don't mean that one, do you? That's the only link to the Globe in this thread, but that article says nothing about the Pats showing these formations to the refs before the game, telling the refs before the game that they planned to do this, etc.

 

So there's still no link supporting this claim that both you and JM have made in this thread.

The refs were notified prior to the game itself by the Pats prior to kickoff I believe which is why the ref knew what to do in terms of making the announcements and saying not to cover Vereen. Like I said, if you watch the game, at no point was the ref confused as to what the Pats were doing. When Harbaugh went into his histrionics and got penalized, the ref calmly explained to him what the Pats were doing. It is not like the refs have not seen these plays before as they have been run in the NFL and really their job is not that hard. Just announce who is eligible vs ineligible.

[Superman]

The refs were notified prior to the game itself by the Pats prior to kickoff 

 

You have to prove that. Link or it didn't happen.

[amfootball]

You have to prove that. Link or it didn't happen.

Huh? That is what the Globe article was saying. The refs knew what was going on.

[Superman]

Huh? That is what the Globe article was saying. 

 

No it does not.

 

You said: The refs were told about the Pats plays before the game http://forums.colts.com/topic/37218-one-rule-the-nfl-takes-action-on/?p=1074807

 

JM said: The Patriots literally, before the game, went to the officials and explained to them those plays that they planned on using at some point in the game.  They discussed these with the officials, they were LEGAL plays and the refs were fine with it.

...

they showed the plays to the NFL OFFICIALS... before the game http://forums.colts.com/topic/37218-one-rule-the-nfl-takes-action-on/?p=1074852

 

Your Globe article link does not say that the Pats showed these plays to the refs before the game. 

[amfootball]

No it does not.

 

You said: The refs were told about the Pats plays before the game http://forums.colts.com/topic/37218-one-rule-the-nfl-takes-action-on/?p=1074807

 

JM said: The Patriots literally, before the game, went to the officials and explained to them those plays that they planned on using at some point in the game.  They discussed these with the officials, they were LEGAL plays and the refs were fine with it.

...

they showed the plays to the NFL OFFICIALS... before the game http://forums.colts.com/topic/37218-one-rule-the-nfl-takes-action-on/?p=1074852

 

Your Globe article link does not say that the Pats showed these plays to the refs before the game. 

I think that is implied in the Globe article but honestly the point is moot. As if the Pats did NOT tell them prior than that only further proves that the refs were not confused by the formations as they handled the calls 100 percent correct. Like I said, this is not brain surgery for them. Just announce who is eligible vs ineligible and then check formation for proper alignment.

[Gramz]

Some people just throw poop out there hoping some will stick.

[Superman]

I think that is implied in the Globe article 

 

How so? There isn't even the hint of a suggestion that they did.

 

Really, if the Pats showed the refs what they were planning before the game (and I'm not sure how that would work, but whatever), there should be some kind of report, comment from the team, from the league, something, that says they did so. The two of you haven't suggested that it was implied that that happened; you've stated it as fact. Is there any proof of that? 

 

but honestly the point is moot. As if the Pats did NOT tell them prior than that only further proves that the refs were not confused by the formations as they handled the calls 100 percent correct. Like I said, this is not brain surgery for them. Just announce who is eligible vs ineligible and then check formation for proper alignment.

 

 

No, all that is moot. I've never suggested the Pats did anything wrong. I certainly never suggested that they should have previewed their gameplan for the refs to get approval. 

 

Still, if you're going to state matter of factly that they did this, I'm going to ask for proof. 

[amfootball]

How so? There isn't even the hint of a suggestion that they did.

 

Really, if the Pats showed the refs what they were planning before the game (and I'm not sure how that would work, but whatever), there should be some kind of report, comment from the team, from the league, something, that says they did so. The two of you haven't suggested that it was implied that that happened; you've stated it as fact. Is there any proof of that? 

 

 

No, all that is moot. I've never suggested the Pats did anything wrong. I certainly never suggested that they should have previewed their gameplan for the refs to get approval. 

 

Still, if you're going to state matter of factly that they did this, I'm going to ask for proof. 

Yeah, I remember reading it but have not found a link besides the Globe but I have not scoured the Internet either. It also may have been something Bill said during his weekly radio interview as I do remember it being discussed here on our stations quite a bit that the refs knew beforehand which is why the ref said not to cover Vereen on one of the plays. I am not sure why he would go to that extent if he was not tipped off by the Pats prior. Seems like a logical conclusion to make ...

[SteelCityColt]

Yeah, I remember reading it but have not found a link besides the Globe but I have not scoured the Internet either. It also may have been something Bill said during his weekly radio interview as I do remember it being discussed here on our stations quite a bit that the refs knew beforehand which is why the ref said not to cover Vereen on one of the plays. I am not sure why he would go to that extent if he was not tipped off by the Pats prior. Seems like a logical conclusion to make ...

Do I hear the pitter patter of back peddling feet?

[amfootball]

Do I hear the pitter patter of back peddling feet?

lol. It really that big of a deal? Maybe for the link police I guess. Not everything that is said appears in print. As I said, it is possible it was said by Bill on the radio but it  is not a coincidence that Jerod and I posted the same thing as like I said it was talked about a lot here the week after the game ...