Joe cheated

[Gramz]

I don't agree with that...losing a first round pick is obviously difficult, but the Pats first round pick from last year (Dominique Easley) was little more than a spare part this year who went on IR halfway through the year. I'll take a lost first rounder any day over losing a QB of Brady's caliber for 25% of a full season. That is a crippling punishment...or, from the sounds of it, "would have been" a crippling punishment.

And that's a reasonable assumption on your part. I just remember when Tom was out before, due to injury, the team still did okay.

In any event, I guess one of us will find out soon enough if we're correct or not.

[ColtRider]

Oh...I see. So the Patriots cheated because Walt Coleman made what many perceive to be a bad call in the game...

 

Got it.

Walt Coleman? You mean the guy who inspired two rule changes to the NFL, Walt Coleman? The "Tuck Rule" negation, and the "Chuck Rule or Ty Law Rule". That Walt Coleman? Oh, I see. Both incidents taking place at Gillette Stadium, Walt Coleman? Yeah, it was just two "perceived" bad calls. The Head Official Colts v. Patriots 2003 AFCCG, Walt Coleman? The non-calls regarding extensive jamming, illegal contact, pass interference, and defensive holding, in Foxborough again, Walt Coleman? Or, the throwing Marvin Harrison out of bounds (chuck rule), and jamming of Marcus Pollard on the last drive, Walt Coleman?

Oh, _that_ Walt Coleman!

Got it.

[BloodyChamp]

How hilarious would it be if he traded Brady away for draft picks

[Bad Morty]

And that's a reasonable assumption on your part. I just remember when Tom was out before, due to injury, the team still did okay.

In any event, I guess one of us will find out soon enough if we're correct or not.

it turned out ok, and I don't think it would be a fiasco if Garapolo had to play a few games...but I think the surer bet is that they'd feel less impact from the first rounder than 4 games without Brady.

[Gramz]

it turned out ok, and I don't think it would be a fiasco if Garapolo had to play a few games...but I think the surer bet is that they'd feel less impact from the first rounder than 4 games without Brady.

Fair enough. You know, I really don't like to argue. Sometimes I can't help but join in these conversations tho.

[dynasty13]

Walt Coleman? You mean the guy who inspired two rule changes to the NFL, Walt Coleman? The "Tuck Rule" negation, and the "Chuck Rule or Ty Law Rule". That Walt Coleman? Oh, I see. Both incidents taking place at Gillette Stadium, Walt Coleman? Yeah, it was just two "perceived" bad calls. The Head Official Colts v. Patriots 2003 AFCCG, Walt Coleman? The non-calls regarding extensive jamming, illegal contact, pass interference, and defensive holding, in Foxborough again, Walt Coleman? Or, the throwing Marvin Harrison out of bounds (chuck rule), and jamming of Marcus Pollard on the last drive, Walt Coleman?

Oh, _that_ Walt Coleman!

Got it.

 

Yeah. Him.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how you can make the claim that the Patriots cheated because the Tuck Rule was called. Not to mention, the rule wasn't overturned until, what...12 years later? The same call even went AGAINST the Patriots earlier that season.

[Bad Morty]

Fair enough. You know, I really don't like to argue. Sometimes I can't help but join in these conversations tho.

ha! Yeah I haven't often felt a sense of great accomplishment after an internet argument...but it beats being bored at work I guess.

[MTC]

I'm probably blind, but where does it say that Joe Montana cheated? Why would a QB use stickum anyway?

[Shane Bond]

Walt Coleman? You mean the guy who inspired two rule changes to the NFL, Walt Coleman? The "Tuck Rule" negation, and the "Chuck Rule or Ty Law Rule". That Walt Coleman? Oh, I see. Both incidents taking place at Gillette Stadium, Walt Coleman? Yeah, it was just two "perceived" bad calls. The Head Official Colts v. Patriots 2003 AFCCG, Walt Coleman? The non-calls regarding extensive jamming, illegal contact, pass interference, and defensive holding, in Foxborough again, Walt Coleman? Or, the throwing Marvin Harrison out of bounds (chuck rule), and jamming of Marcus Pollard on the last drive, Walt Coleman?

Oh, _that_ Walt Coleman!

Got it.

Owned

[Bad Morty]

Owned

 

Nice! I haven't seen anyone type "owned" in a thread since like 2003...

[dynasty13]

Owned

 

Really, Shane? Did he 'own' me by summarizing his wikipedia page for me?

 

I know what Walt Coleman's resume looks like, thanks for playing. But what does any of that have to do with the claim that the Patriots somehow cheated by having the Tuck Rule called in their favor? 

[Shane Bond]

Nice! I haven't seen anyone type "owned" in a thread since like 2003...

Oh welcome back !

 

I saw you disappear after you got owned

[Yehoodi]

While I don't doubt for a minute that there have been multiple infractions over the years, it is still no reason to excuse someone for breaking the rules.

Times have changed, rules have changed, in every aspect of our lives ~ a lot of things have changed. Some call it progress.

Bottom line, when you get CAUGHT, you pay the price. Don't wanna get caught~then don't do it.

 

I hear what you are saying . . . and agree with you.  And yes there are other folks who violate rules and violate rules just what the patriots were found by the league to have violated, specifically, an adjustment of tools of the game.  In hockey its a 2 minute minor penalty.

 

Most pats fans here that are still involved with this discussion really don't care about the underlying conviction by the NFL (which may be subject to Brady's appeal) but what is an appropriate remedy for such infraction.   

 

And when we sit back and see all of the other violations coming out of the wood work month by month, day by day that have essentially gone unpunished it can get frustrating. 

 

Indeed, I heard today that Phil Jackson and the Knicks in the earlier 70s used to deflate basketballs so that they would be softer and not be as bouncy so the rebounds would not bounce as far so their shorter players could get the rebounds and would hinder the fast break of other teams, the 70s Knicks were a passing half court team so did not use the fast break much.  Someone dug it out of an old mid 80s article in the Chicago Tribune.  And yes . . . wait for it . . . they used to carry ball pins with them to deflate the balls . . . sounds familiar doesn't it.  but yet, nothing. silence by the NBA, its fans, and the media.  Nothing but empty air.   Nothing.  Funny how we get from empty air to a 1st round draft pick.   Funny how no one cared, then guys like Gregg Doyle try to shoe horn what the pats did as among the worst things since the 1919 White Sox scandal. 

 

It gets tiring Granz, just tiring.

 

For example too in the article in the OP talks about how the 49ers were caught and were told to stop.  The NFL could of very easily taken that same approach with the pats, caught them at halftime, told them to stop and that be the end of it, just like the 49ers, but it chose not to do that coarse.   That is the sticking point.  Going from merely stopping the 49ers with a please do not do it again warning to taking away a 1st round pick with the pats.  And yes again was the approach to the Vikings too.

 

So its get tiring.   very tiring.  It one thing to get fined say 300K and/or lose a 5th rounder or something, but what the NFL did to the pats does not jive with anything and no one can explain it logically.  

 

Note: sorry for long post. 

[dw49]

I don't agree with that...losing a first round pick is obviously difficult, but the Pats first round pick from last year (Dominique Easley) was little more than a spare part this year who went on IR halfway through the year. I'll take a lost first rounder any day over losing a QB of Brady's caliber for 25% of a full season. That is a crippling punishment...or, from the sounds of it, "would have been" a crippling punishment.

 

Amazing . You think because that blow hard "hopes" Brady will play week 1 , that it's an indication that they will throw the whole suspension out. Good luck with that . The only way it's thrown out is if somehow Brady provides something proving his non involvement or they tie the appeal up in court and it's not settled by week one. 

[amfootball]

Amazing . You think because that blow hard "hopes" Brady will play week 1 , that it's an indication that they will throw the whole suspension out. Good luck with that . The only way it's thrown out is if somehow Brady provides something proving his non involvement or they tie the appeal up in court and it's not settled by week one. 

I think if Goodell throws it out it will not be because of Kraft or any new evidence from Brady. It will be because of one of the following two reasons:

 

1) The networks have gotten to him about the money they will lose by not having Brady on the field as the best player in the sport and defending champion.

 

2) He knows he will lose in court and potentially have his authority within the CBA overturned as the PA is going full board on this to get his power over turned.

 

Honestly, I do not see him taking one game off. Not sure how he can really given he endorsed the Wells report and Vincent's punishment. I do not see Brady giving him his phone either so I think court is looming ...

[Yehoodi]

I have some questions for you then...

Do you believe in an even playing field? Should the cheating be allowed? Should teams that are caught cheating, sometimes more then once, be slapped with small fines or slaps on the hand? Warnings?

I believe that if you are caught cheating, you should receive a stiff penalty not only as punishment but to dissuade other teams/players from cheating as well. If caught twice, bigger punishment.

 

I hear what you are saying and would kindly ask you to read my last post to Granz as it says mostly what I want to say here, but I will add a few more points.

 

I do believe in an even playing field and also appropriate remedies against those who violate this principle.  However when one does violate any rules that might effect a tip in the playing field, one must look to a number of things to fashion an appropriate remedy including but not limited to how much was the playing field tilted?, Is this the first offense?  Were they warned? and so on. 

 

It is never an exact science but there is a sliding scale of how much the field might be tipped for a given infraction; for example spy cameras and microphones in opponents locker rooms combined with footage of a walkthrough would likely tip the field more so than a backup LB with an illegal half cast under his forearm to deliver a harder blow to the opponent.  As the former will tip the scales more than the latter it will carry a stiffer fine. 

 

Furthermore, when one endeavors to come to grips with how much a field is tipped one can look to how serious do the league, teams and players take the issue.   For if an item tips the field more it will be taken more seriously.  Likewise, if the tip is negligible then it will be take less seriously.  When we look at how serious the NFL takes ball inflation and ball alternation of said rules in question, we see a warning only going to the Vikings, gauges that read 0.40 psig different (40% of the this "Holy" range) and refs pumping balls up to 16 psig gauge in the pats-jets game, a full 2.5 psig over the top and nothing was said or no one reprimanded for doing so.   And on top of this refs handling the pats balls for 50-70 times a game for the last 14 years and nothing was said to the pats.   Had it been anymore than a negligible issue surely one of those refs would of pull the pats aside and told them cut it out.  but nothing but silence, indicating to me that its well a non issue.

 

So when I look at the above history, I do find any tip of the field to be negligible at best for the instant infraction.  And when one fashions a remedy for an infraction that only has a negligible impact on the field, the fine metered out should be reflective of this negligible impact.  You know kind of like maybe a warning like the Vikings game.  

 

I do agree with making an example out of folks to deter others; and as such, those folks will sometimes receive a harsher fine than that otherwise might receive given the notice that wants to be sent to the rest of the teams.   However, interestingly enough the NFL had that opportunity earlier in the year with said rule and the Vikings' violation of the same and chose not to make them an example and basically punted and just gave them a warning.  Funny how that works. 

 

I do agree with stiffer fines for repeat offenders, but only for the same infraction.  The pats have never violated this rule and never even been warned.  So its a first offense for me.  Had the pats been caught video taping signals now that is a second offense in my book.   I do not view the instant crime anymore a second offense as I would a PED violation next year to be a third cheating offense.

[dw49]

I think if Goodell throws it out it will not be because of Kraft or any new evidence from Brady. It will be because of one of the following two reasons:

 

1) The networks have gotten to him about the money they will lose by not having Brady on the field as the best player in the sport and defending champion.

 

2) He knows he will lose in court and potentially have his authority within the CBA overturned as the PA is going full board on this to get his power over turned.

 

Honestly, I do not see him taking one game off. Not sure how he can really given he endorsed the Wells report and Vincent's punishment. I do not see Brady giving him his phone either so I think court is looming ...

 

 

I think it's reduced by a game or two and that will be the end of it.

[The Old Crow]

Good, this makes Johnny U the sure fire # 1 of all time !

[BOTT]

Meh, I'm sure their opponents were far more concerned about the dirty tactics they used to protect Joe.

[ColtRider]

Yeah. Him.

I'm still trying to figure out how you can make the claim that the Patriots cheated because the Tuck Rule was called. Not to mention, the rule wasn't overturned until, what...12 years later? The same call even went AGAINST the Patriots earlier that season.

"I'm still trying to figure out ...cheated... Tuck Rule was called"

Therein lies the problem, dynasty13. Things that are blatantly obvious to most, can be curtailed by Rose-Colored-Glasses by others. As far as calls against earlier, comparing that to _2_ AFCCGs that catapult to Super Bowls is ludicrous and totally (in my best Patriots 3 year old stomping-the floor-high-pitched-scream voice) "Not Fair!"

In my best Forrest Gump voice - "Have a nice day!"

[ColtRider]

I think if Goodell throws it out it will not be because of Kraft or any new evidence from Brady. It will be because of one of the following two reasons:

 

1) The networks have gotten to him about the money they will lose by not having Brady on the field as the best player in the sport and defending champion.

 

2) He knows he will lose in court and potentially have his authority within the CBA overturned as the PA is going full board on this to get his power over turned.

 

Honestly, I do not see him taking one game off. Not sure how he can really given he endorsed the Wells report and Vincent's punishment. I do not see Brady giving him his phone either so I think court is looming ...

Do I read this correctly, am? Tom Brady is the best player in the (sport) NFL?

[dynasty13]

"I'm still trying to figure out ...cheating... Tuck Rule was called"

Therein lies the problem, dynasty13. Things that are blatantly obvious to most, can be curtailed by Rose-Colored-Glasses by others. As far as calls against earlier, comparing that to _2_ AFCCGs that catapult to Super Bowls is ludicrous and totally (in my best Patriots 3 year old stomping-the floor-high-pitched-scream voice) "Not Fair!"

In my best Forrest Gump voice - "Have a nice day!"

Snarky response aside, you're actually saying that the Patriots cheated because the Tuck Rule went in their favor. Like really though...you think the Patriots are somehow responsible for what an official calls? That when they get a questionable call in their favor...they are cheating?

If that's honestly what you believe and that it's 'blatantly obvious' to others then that's fine...but wow...if you're taking the stance that if players or teams get a call in their favor are cheating...there really will be no one left to root for.

[ColtRider]

Snarky response aside...really though...you think the Patriots are somehow responsible for what an official calls? That when they get a questionable call in their favor...they are cheating?

If that's honestly what you believe and that it's 'blatantly obvious' to others then that's fine...but wow...if you're taking the stance that if players or teams get a call in their favor are cheating...there really will be no one left to root for.

What I'm saying dynasty13 is, not one, not two, but several calls by one official at Gillette, in 2 Championship Games over virtually the same span, advanced the Patriots to those Super Bowls, while creating 2 rule changes in the interim is/was/still very suspect to me.

[dynasty13]

What I'm saying dynasty13 is, not one, not two, but several calls by one official at Gillette, in 2 Championship Games over virtually the same span, advanced the Patriots to those Super Bowls, while creating 2 rule changes in the interim is/was/still very suspect to me.

Well then it sounds like your issue should be more with that official himself, or even the NFL for allowing him to be head official in that situation if there was any perceived issue. But to say the Patriots cheated and then reference the Tuck Rule as your proof? Bad, dude. Just awful...and a real credibility killer, too.

[ColtRider]

Credibility killer? Coming from a do-no-wrong Patriot fan? That's rich. Btw ... It was _Your_ Patriot players in the 2003 game that resorted to "cheating" on plays when the officials continued with the non-calls.

[NewColtsFan]

I think if Goodell throws it out it will not be because of Kraft or any new evidence from Brady. It will be because of one of the following two reasons:

 

1) The networks have gotten to him about the money they will lose by not having Brady on the field as the best player in the sport and defending champion.

 

2) He knows he will lose in court and potentially have his authority within the CBA overturned as the PA is going full board on this to get his power over turned.

 

Honestly, I do not see him taking one game off. Not sure how he can really given he endorsed the Wells report and Vincent's punishment. I do not see Brady giving him his phone either so I think court is looming ...

 

You've been shoveling this falsehood for months, and for months I've been telling you the NFL or Wells NEVER ASKED for Brady's phone.    They asked for the relevant information on the phone.    But, you refuse to believe me and you've posted this falsehood over and over and over and over again.

 

Well....   I went and looked it up and I'm cutting and pasting it.   Right from Wells when he responded to Brady's agent Don Yee.

 

 

"At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence in this case, as in most cases, come from people's cell phones. I want to be crystal clear -- I told Mr. Brady and his agents I was willing to not take possession of the phone. I said 'I don't want to see any private information. You keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you have given me what's responsive.' And they still refused."

[amfootball]

I think it's reduced by a game or two and that will be the end of it.

 

I don't think Brady accepts any games. I think if it is at 3 or 2 he still goes to court. It is interesting here, people's different schools of thoughts. Some here in the media think he should just accept whatever Goodell does, assuming it does get reduced which I don't think happens. Others think he should go to wall if he is totally innocent. 

 

But here is the rub IMO. Brady's guilt or innocence is irrelevant in this. The punishment handed down for his potential knowledge of deflating footballs is over the top ridiculous when you look at the history of the league and how it has handled ball tampering. And also failure to cooperate with an investigation which yielded Brett Favre a $50k fine and his phone was the most important piece of evidence given he was texting sexual images to a woman. Not to mention Brady spent an entire day answering Wells questions which Wells notes in his report. This seems to be the approach, the punishment itself for the potential violation, his legal team will use both in the appeal and in fed court if necessary. And this is the sticking point about the CBA and Roger's abuse of his power and why the PA is salivating to get this to court so it can turn over the discipline process.

 

Now of course becomes the question does Brady want to be the front guy for an ugly dispute between the union and the league? He did put his name on the lawsuit vs the NFL back in 2011 so I think this is fascinating on many levels. We have never seen Brady pushed like his, with the league smearing him with a report full of holes. My feeling is he should push this is far as he can go as he really has nothing to lose. He is a 4 time champ. 38 years old. Has oodles of money to fight this thing. These next few months should be very interesting ...

[amfootball]

What I'm saying dynasty13 is, not one, not two, but several calls by one official at Gillette, in 2 Championship Games over virtually the same span, advanced the Patriots to those Super Bowls, while creating 2 rule changes in the interim is/was/still very suspect to me.

Gosh, if you really believe all you have posted here on this thread than I am not sure why you watch the NFL at all ...

[Bad Morty]

Credibility killer? Coming from a do-no-wrong Patriot fan? That's rich. Btw ... It was _Your_ Patriot players in the 2003 game that resorted to "cheating" on plays when the officials continued with the non-calls.

You root for a team that pulled the dirtiest, scummiest move in the history of sports when they backed the trucks up and skulked out of Baltimore under the cover of darkness because the billionaire Irsay family wanted a free handout. So please - spare us the "it's a conspiracy" nonsense.

[Gramz]

You've been shoveling this falsehood for months, and for months I've been telling you the NFL or Wells NEVER ASKED for Brady's phone.    They asked for the relevant information on the phone.    But, you refuse to believe me and you've posted this falsehood over and over and over and over again.

 

Well....   I went and looked it up and I'm cutting and pasting it.   Right from Wells when he responded to Brady's agent Don Yee.

 

 

"At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence in this case, as in most cases, come from people's cell phones. I want to be crystal clear -- I told Mr. Brady and his agents I was willing to not take possession of the phone. I said 'I don't want to see any private information. You keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you have given me what's responsive.' And they still refused."

And as I've said all along. I believe the above is the reason for the 4 game suspension, as well as WHY it's become a much bigger deal.  This is all 100% on Brady.

 

Might.as.well.quit.trying.to.convince.others.   Some.feel.Brady's.innocence.or.guilt.is.irrelevant.  

[amfootball]

Delete, double post.

[amfootball]

And as I've said all along. I believe the above is the reason for the 4 game suspension, as well as WHY it's become a much bigger deal.  This is all 100% on Brady.

 

Might.as.well.quit.trying.to.convince.others.   Some.feel.Brady's.innocence.or.guilt.is.irrelevant.  

Per Vincent's letter to Brady, the suspension was for the potential violation. BUT I do hope in a way that you are right as this will get tossed in a nanosecond if the NFL says any part of the suspension was based on a union player not handing over his private phone ...

[Gramz]

Per Vincent's letter to Brady, the suspension was for the potential violation. BUT I do hope in a way that you are right as this will get tossed in a nanosecond if the NFL says any part of the suspension was based on a union player not handing over his private phone ...

STOP with the handing over his private phone.  Do you even read anything?  

[amfootball]

STOP with the handing over his private phone.  Do you even read anything?  

Phone or info phone is the same thing. They wanted his info from his private phone is the point here. As a union player, he is under no obligation to hand over any info whatsoever ...

[Gramz]

Phone or info phone is the same thing. They wanted his info from his private phone is the point here. As a union player, he is under no obligation to hand over any info whatsoever ...

An innocent person would not have an issue with it, and now I'm going to take the same advice I gave to NCF.

[amfootball]

An innocent person would not have an issue with it.

Sure they would. He has every right to protect his privacy as an NFL player. And again they had the phones from the ball boys which would contain all messages from Brady and the only ones that had from him was the ones about the refs over inflating the balls from the Jets game which Wells conveniently never explained nor included testimony from that game day ref.

[Yehoodi]

"I'm still trying to figure out ...cheated... Tuck Rule was called"

Therein lies the problem, dynasty13. Things that are blatantly obvious to most, can be curtailed by Rose-Colored-Glasses by others. As far as calls against earlier, comparing that to _2_ AFCCGs that catapult to Super Bowls is ludicrous and totally (in my best Patriots 3 year old stomping-the floor-high-pitched-scream voice) "Not Fair!"

In my best Forrest Gump voice - "Have a nice day!"

 

I have a few points.

 

First, the "tuck rule" is really the forward pass rule.  Well specifically the end point of the forward pass where the NFL set its delineation line between when the QB is a still a passer (lost ball = incompletion) and when he returns to being a runner (lost ball = fumble).    The Rule in question read in pertinent part as follows:

 

NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

 

The start and end points of the forward pass are respectively bolded.   The forward pass starts with any intentional forward movement of the arm and does not end until he has tucked the ball into his body.  The forward pass is still active "even if he loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back towards his body"  So the act of bringing it back towards your body the QB is still considered in the passing mode.  Bottom line this covers a pump fake.  The QB at a minimum needs to start the act of bringing it back towards this body before we even get close to the line between pass/runner; incompletion/fumble.

 

One may think the rule is overly broad, but is another issue. 

 

This never happened with Brady, the ball was still out in front of him, he was basically doing a pump fake as he saw a DL drop back in coverage and the ball was dislodged.  It is clear as day for those who actually want to read the rule and understand the sequence of events from starting a forward pass to ended the pass. 

 

A good illustration of the end point was the Broncos-Ravens playoff game a few years ago when Manning fumbled the ball.  He started his forward pass, did not pass, pocket closed, and he brought the ball down, it came at rest in his crotch area, he got his second hand on the ball (well fingers), and then it was dislodged.  So it was tucked (ball in crotch area against body, two hands) momentarily before it was dislodged, even though it was a slight moment it was still a moment and thus enough to be deemed tucked and pass is over, he is a runner and any dislodge subsequent to that is a fumble.  

 

Like with most NFL rules it is rule that follow a sequence, and we need to follow it to see where we are in the field and how it jives with the rule.  Brady was essentially pump faking the ball which is never a fumble, ever to that point in time in the NFL.  

 

Now the timing of play was not great as a fumble essentially ended the game, so the impact and spotlight of what might seem to be an overly broad rule was not great, as opposed it happening in the 2nd qtr.  So the disappointment of the effect of the rule is understandable, but again that is a separate issue from what is the correct call based on the rule.

 

And in the end, the trump card for me is from a fairness-karma-what is right-follow the rules standpoint, the dislodging of the ball came as a result to a blow the head by Woodsen, so what "really" should of happened was a 15 yard penalty and the dislodging of the ball is moot as the personal foul wipes out any effect of a subsequent fumble or incomplete pass. 

 

So in the end ColtSense, fans who look at things with a disinterested view point the correct call was made under review.

 

Second, sometimes in life a sport is officiated in a certain way and at certain times in the season.  That is not the fault of the either team.  You just play to how the game is officiated.  Sometimes it might help aggressive teams, sometimes finesse teams, sometimes passive teams, and so on.  And furthermore, if you watch the 2003 AFCCG again you will find that the colts DBs were grabbing too.  So it was an even playing field and both teams played under the same rules and both teams were grabby.  So your points are really moot.

[dynasty13]

Credibility killer? Coming from a do-no-wrong Patriot fan? That's rich. Btw ... It was _Your_ Patriot players in the 2003 game that resorted to "cheating" on plays when the officials continued with the non-calls.

 

 

Again...I can't even begin to understand how you think it is the team cheating when an official simply doesn't call something. Is it cheating when a lineman gets away with a hold? Is it cheating when your boy Peyton Manning runs pick plays and they aren't called? No...You see how a game is being called and you adapt your play as a result. It's been that way in every sport for as long as they've been played. In basketball, if the refs are letting you get away with a little contact, then you play more physical. In baseball, if the umpire is calling a high outside strike, the pitcher continues to go there. As long as it is consistently called, fans never have a problem with it. For some reason this understanding has managed to elude Colts fans for the past 12 years. Think about that for a second...over a decade later you are STILL sitting here whining about the big bad Patriots being too physical with your poor little receivers. 

 

But I still go back to your point about the Tuck Rule. To say that the Patriots themselves cheated by having a call in a game go in their favor...i mean...that may be one of the most perplexing things ever written on this board.

[ColtRider]

Again...I can't even begin to understand how you think it is the team cheating when an official simply doesn't call something. Is it cheating when a lineman gets away with a hold? Is it cheating when your boy Peyton Manning runs pick plays and they aren't called? No...You see how a game is being called and you adapt your play as a result. It's been that way in every sport for as long as they've been played. In basketball, if the refs are letting you get away with a little contact, then you play more physical. In baseball, if the umpire is calling a high outside strike, the pitcher continues to go there. As long as it is consistently called, fans never have a problem with it. For some reason this understanding has managed to elude Colts fans for the past 12 years. Think about that for a second...over a decade later you are STILL sitting here whining about the big bad Patriots being too physical with your poor little receivers. 

 

But I still go back to your point about the Tuck Rule. To say that the Patriots themselves cheated by having a call in a game go in their favor...i mean...that may be one of the most perplexing things ever written on this board.

How is it that you mostly start off with many on this forum with, "I can't even begin to understand", or "I really don't understand", or "I do not understand where you're going"?

Correlation problem, "dude"! Couple together and _try_ to figure it out. Or, do I have to spell it out for you? (which I already have done)

[ColtRider]

I have a few points.

First, the "tuck rule" is really the forward pass rule. Well specifically the end point of the forward pass where the NFL set its delineation line between when the QB is a still a passer (lost ball = incompletion) and when he returns to being a runner (lost ball = fumble). The Rule in question read in pertinent part as follows:

NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

The start and end points of the forward pass are respectively bolded. The forward pass starts with any intentional forward movement of the arm and does not end until he has tucked the ball into his body. The forward pass is still active "even if he loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back towards his body" So the act of bringing it back towards your body the QB is still considered in the passing mode. Bottom line this covers a pump fake. The QB at a minimum needs to start the act of bringing it back towards this body before we even get close to the line between pass/runner; incompletion/fumble.

One may think the rule is overly broad, but is another issue.

This never happened with Brady, the ball was still out in front of him, he was basically doing a pump fake as he saw a DL drop back in coverage and the ball was dislodged. It is clear as day for those who actually want to read the rule and understand the sequence of events from starting a forward pass to ended the pass.

A good illustration of the end point was the Broncos-Ravens playoff game a few years ago when Manning fumbled the ball. He started his forward pass, did not pass, pocket closed, and he brought the ball down, it came at rest in his crotch area, he got his second hand on the ball (well fingers), and then it was dislodged. So it was tucked (ball in crotch area against body, two hands) momentarily before it was dislodged, even though it was a slight moment it was still a moment and thus enough to be deemed tucked and pass is over, he is a runner and any dislodge subsequent to that is a fumble.

Like with most NFL rules it is rule that follow a sequence, and we need to follow it to see where we are in the field and how it jives with the rule. Brady was essentially pump faking the ball which is never a fumble, ever to that point in time in the NFL.

Now the timing of play was not great as a fumble essentially ended the game, so the impact and spotlight of what might seem to be an overly broad rule was not great, as opposed it happening in the 2nd qtr. So the disappointment of the effect of the rule is understandable, but again that is a separate issue from what is the correct call based on the rule.

And in the end, the trump card for me is from a fairness-karma-what is right-follow the rules standpoint, the dislodging of the ball came as a result to a blow the head by Woodsen, so what "really" should of happened was a 15 yard penalty and the dislodging of the ball is moot as the personal foul wipes out any effect of a subsequent fumble or incomplete pass.

So in the end ColtSense, fans who look at things with a disinterested view point the correct call was made under review.

Second, sometimes in life a sport is officiated in a certain way and at certain times in the season. That is not the fault of the either team. You just play to how the game is officiated. Sometimes it might help aggressive teams, sometimes finesse teams, sometimes passive teams, and so on. And furthermore, if you watch the 2003 AFCCG again you will find that the colts DBs were grabbing too. So it was an even playing field and both teams played under the same rules and both teams were grabby. So your points are really moot.

Here's my moot point, Yehoodi -- IT WAS A FUMBLE!