Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Bad Morty

Deflategate merge -- pending appeal results

Recommended Posts

Well, that process all blew up when the Pats P.Oed the Ravens and the league with their bush-league "hide the eligible receiver" ploy in the divisional game. That provided enough motivation for the Ravens and Colts (who should have hosted the AFCCG against the Ravens BTW) to finally to call out the Pats for deflating footballs, something that many around the league probably knew was going on for years.

 

The whole thing could've been instigated by Brady's arrogance in the post game press conference when replying to Harbaugh's complaint.  Brady said "Maybe those guys gotta study the rule book and figure it out"...   This whole thing is kind of a reply to Tom... maybe he should study the rule book about required pressure in the football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still a few unanswered questions.

 

One in particular......

 

Why did the Pats Organization refuse to let Wells interview McNally for a second time?

Under conditions agreed to by both sides, individuals would be interviewed by Wells only once, “barring unanticipated circumstances.” Wells wouldn’t disclose why investigators wanted to speak to McNally again, so the Patriots refused another in-person interview but  “suggested that there might be ways other than another in-person interview to get whatever further information was sought.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under conditions agreed to by both sides, individuals would be interviewed by Wells only once, “barring unanticipated circumstances.” Wells wouldn’t disclose why investigators wanted to speak to McNally again, so the Patriots refused another in-person interview but  “suggested that there might be ways other than another in-person interview to get whatever further information was sought.”

McNally was also interviewed three times by the NFL prior to Wells being hired and Wells had access to the notes from those interviews as he included them in the report. So the Pats felt a 5th interview was excessive for an employee that had a full time job in another state and already had to take time off from his job to do the interviews. Wells could have called him but chose not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McNally was also interviewed three times by the NFL prior to Wells being hired and Wells had access to the notes from those interviews as he included them in the report. So the Pats felt a 5th interview was excessive for an employee that had a full time job in another state and already had to take time off from his job to do the interviews. Wells could have called him but chose not to.

I'm still interested in what parts of the Wells report you have a problem with, if you'd like to have that discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under conditions agreed to by both sides, individuals would be interviewed by Wells only once, “barring unanticipated circumstances.” Wells wouldn’t disclose why investigators wanted to speak to McNally again, so the Patriots refused another in-person interview but  “suggested that there might be ways other than another in-person interview to get whatever further information was sought.”

Thanks.  I had not heard that.   Having 3 attorneys in the family, and knowing all to well about how investigations work,  it has been my understanding that someone can be interviewed, and or questioned as many times as needed.

 

What they are leaving out is that Wells wanted to interview McNally a second time because at the time of the first interview, Wells wasn't aware of the Deflator and going to ESPN comments.  
 
Wells offered to go to McNally and meet with him at anytime.  But, the Patriots wanted nothing to do with that.  
 
Kraft said:  “What the report fails to mention is that he had already been interviewed four times and we felt the fifth request for access was excessive for a part-time game day employee who has a full-time job with another employer.”
 
So, here's the thing.  Kraft should have wanted to do anything to prove innocence.  Yet, he refused a second interview with Wells because he was concerned about this part-time game day employee.  So concerned . . .  that he fired him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McNally was also interviewed three times by the NFL prior to Wells being hired and Wells had access to the notes from those interviews as he included them in the report. So the Pats felt a 5th interview was excessive for an employee that had a full time job in another state and already had to take time off from his job to do the interviews. Wells could have called him but chose not to.

How ridiculous.....wether it was "agreed upon" or he had been interviewed 100 times prior, if he's innocent, why not let them interview him again unless they have something to hide? New information can present itself after interviews happen, necessitating follow up interviews. Sorry not buying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still interested in what parts of the Wells report you have a problem with, if you'd like to have that discussion

Yes, I was not ignoring you. I would but I don't want to hijack the thread. I have had this discussion with others on previous threads and it is exhausting without both parties having read it. If you do end up reading the report, please PM with your thoughts. I believe it you read the report you will have a more comprehensive viewpoint that we can then discuss. Otherwise it is a lot of back and forth and mis-information as so much has been editorialized incorrectly by the media and fan forums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really does not matter if McNally called himself Santa Claus in a text. There is no proof at all of tampering.

 

It's own summation on page 228 says so, "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain."

 

its still not innocent until proven guilty, stone cold proof will never be found showing one way or the other.  all it comes down to is if the league thinks they are guilty or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks.  I had not heard that.   Having 3 attorneys in the family, and knowing all to well about how investigations work,  it has been my understanding that someone can be interviewed, and or questioned as many times as needed.

 

What they are leaving out is that Wells wanted to interview McNally a second time because at the time of the first interview, Wells wasn't aware of the Deflator and going to ESPN comments.  
 
Wells offered to go to McNally and meet with him at anytime.  But, the Patriots wanted nothing to do with that.  
 
Kraft said:  “What the report fails to mention is that he had already been interviewed four times and we felt the fifth request for access was excessive for a part-time game day employee who has a full-time job with another employer.”
 
So, here's the thing.  Kraft should have wanted to do anything to prove innocence.  Yet, he refused a second interview with Wells because he was concerned about this part-time game day employee.  So concerned . . .  that he fired him.

 

Noncooperation looks bad and is bad. The Patriots are paying a big price for it. If Kraft had a do over I bet he would allow the second interview.

 

McNally wasn't fired but suspended without pay. He cannot be reinstated without the prior approval of NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations Troy Vincent.

 

I cannot blame Brady for not allowing them a peek at his phone though because the NFL leaks like a sieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noncooperation looks bad and is bad. The Patriots are paying a big price for it. If Kraft had a do over I bet he would allow the second interview.

 

McNally wasn't fired but suspended without pay. He cannot be reinstated without the prior approval of NFL Executive Vice President of Football Operations Troy Vincent.

 

I cannot blame Brady for not allowing them a peek at his phone though because the NFL leaks like a sieve.

Like i said...if anything leaked that was not part of the investigation, He'd have such a large lawsuit against them that he could just buy the Pats from Kraft.....in small unmarked bills...lol.  That's really not an excuse at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody who isn't a complete kook takes anything that the American Enterprise Institute comes out with seriously... They are a fake science corporate lobby machine. A complete joke that disagrees with real research institutes on any issue that their corporate handlers think will cost or make them money.

The AEI stands alone in opposition to every reputable scientific opinion on everything else, so why would I take their deflategate study seriously?

The worst part is that their studies only exist to cloud the issue and confuse the public, so they don't care at all when real scientists debunk all of their findings. The worst news outlets report their findings, then never report any retraction...

As you can see with this story, the original splash makes more interesting news than the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was not ignoring you. I would but I don't want to hijack the thread. I have had this discussion with others on previous threads and it is exhausting without both parties having read it. If you do end up reading the report, please PM with your thoughts. I believe it you read the report you will have a more comprehensive viewpoint that we can then discuss. Otherwise it is a lot of back and forth and mis-information as so much has been editorialized incorrectly by the media and fan forums. 

I read parts of it.  I think I have a good idea of the general report.  I agree the topic can be exhausting if one doesn't read the information, so I can appreciate your perspective on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing could've been instigated by Brady's arrogance in the post game press conference when replying to Harbaugh's complaint.  Brady said "Maybe those guys gotta study the rule book and figure it out"...   This whole thing is kind of a reply to Tom... maybe he should study the rule book about required pressure in the football.

The notion that some people are spreading that deflation happened in just one game is nonsense. And players move from team to team and talk to others, old college chums tell secrets to each other etc. The process we witnessed is about gathering just enough evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt what happened. The evidence is for the presentation to the public. Players and coaches don't look to the Wells report, they already know the situation.

The thing about rules is, you can never write enough of them to cover every situation. The spirit behind the ineligible receiver reporting rules is to not allow the offense any surprises based upon player numbering and alignment. Bellichick saw a loophole in the PROCESS of how eligibility is reported and drove a truck through it. And fans claim its within the rules. No, it isn't. Surprising the defense with an eligible player is against the rules. This is just a case where the specific situation used by the Pats wasn't written into the rule book...because you can't reduce every possible situation to writing.

And some people seem to excuse low integrity by comparing it with high intelligence. Saying that only BB could have done it because he is so smart. Uhhhhh no. The fact is, most any NFL, college, or high school coach could have figured out the ploy that Bellichick used. Its just that most of them have enough integrity and class not to go there, not wanting to embarrass the sport in the process of winning a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in: the Pats just received their SB rings.  (Brady complaining that his ring came to him at a size of 12.5). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The notion that some people are spreading that deflation happened in just one game is nonsense. And players move from team to team and talk to others, old college chums tell secrets to each other etc. The process we witnessed is about gathering just enough evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt what happened. The evidence is for the presentation to the public. Players and coaches don't look to the Wells report, they already know the situation.

The thing about rules is, you can never write enough of them to cover every situation. The spirit behind the ineligible receiver reporting rules is to not allow the offense any surprises based upon player numbering and alignment. Bellichick saw a loophole in the PROCESS of how eligibility is reported and drove a truck through it. And fans claim its within the rules. No, it isn't. Surprising the defense with an eligible player is against the rules. This is just a case where the specific situation used by the Pats wasn't written into the rule book...because you can't reduce every possible situation to writing.

And some people seem to excuse low integrity by comparing it with high intelligence. Saying that only BB could have done it because he is so smart. Uhhhhh no. The fact is, most any NFL, college, or high school coach could have figured out the ploy that Bellichick used. Its just that most of them have enough integrity and class not to go there, not wanting to embarrass the sport in the process of winning a game.

 

So Belichick embarrassed the sport by doing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly unrelated but those Super Bowl rings are horribly gaudy looking things. Do people actually wear them?

The ones that Pats got are supposedly the most expensive and league history. I can't imagine anyone would wear them outside of a football event related even. Brady had his other three on display last night (see my avatar) as did Bill with his six.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly unrelated but those Super Bowl rings are horribly gaudy looking things. Do people actually wear them?

 

Nobody wears these things unless its at an event or they are on TV during Superbowl week. Every year they get bigger and bigger...the days of the 2002 Bucs' ring style are long gone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bf08a6051037ee3232578bc8bca6ff59.jpg

haha. I was wondering, just how does one hijack a thread discussing the Wells report, when the Wells Report is already the subject of the thread. :scratch:

But I agree, it's been discussed ad nauseum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha. I was wondering, just how does one hijack a thread discussing the Wells report, when the Wells Report is already the subject of the thread. :scratch:

But I agree, it's been discussed ad nauseum.

By hijack I meant a lot of back and forth posts. I don't want to get into that on one of these threads again so that is why I suggested PM. And technically this isn't about the Wells report but AEI's report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each superbowl ring is roughly $5000 a piece depending on the fluctuating price of gold and diamond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Belichick embarrassed the sport by doing that?

Absolutely! What was worse, and what caused the calling out of his QB for chronic ball deflation, is that he embarrassed the people who wrote the rules....which are his business partners and colleagues, the other 31 teams.

Its not like Congress or the cops write the rules and its gamesmanship on the part of the 32 teams to try to get away with something. All 32 teams agree to the written rules and understand the spirit they are supposed to convey, then one guy, who believes all the nonsense written about him that he is smarter than everyone else, goes rogue and takes advantage of the wording of the rule.

Even worse is fact that the refs try to keep the game moving by limiting the amount of time dedicated to calling out eligible players. That quick process allows the game to move along, which benefits TV and the NFL as a whole. Then some arrogant crooked coach decides to give his colleagues in business the finger and takes advantage of that PROCESS, which results in stealing millions of dollars from the Baltimore Ravens and the City of Indy, which would have hosted the AFCCG.

Yeah, when you have a group of businessmen who are all on the same page as to what the rules mean, and one ignores it in order to channel more profits to him and away from his partners, yeah, that's embarrassing. In fact, guys like Vito Corleone used to have a solution for guys like BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely! What was worse, and what caused the calling out of his QB for chronic ball deflation, is that he embarrassed the people who wrote the rules....which are his business partners and colleagues, the other 31 teams.

Its not like Congress or the cops write the rules and its gamesmanship on the part of the 32 teams to try to get away with something. All 32 teams agree to the written rules and understand the spirit they are supposed to convey, then one guy, who believes all the nonsense written about him that he is smarter than everyone else, goes rogue and takes advantage of the wording of the rule.

Even worse is fact that the refs try to keep the game moving by limiting the amount of time dedicated to calling out eligible players. That quick process allows the game to move along, which benefits TV and the NFL as a whole. Then some arrogant crooked coach decides to give his colleagues in business the finger and takes advantage of that PROCESS, which results in stealing millions of dollars from the Baltimore Ravens and the City of Indy, which would have hosted the AFCCG.

Yeah, when you have a group of businessmen who are all on the same page as to what the rules mean, and one ignores it in order to channel more profits to him and away from his partners, yeah, that's embarrassing. In fact, guys like Vito Corleone used to have a solution for guys like BB.

Yet many here back in Jan. said they had wished their HC had thought of those plays ...  and those formations had been run by other NFL and college teams previously (where do you think Bill got the idea) but because he did it and did it with success in a big game, he violated some spirit rule.  Good heavens ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just in: the Pats just received their SB rings.  (Brady complaining that his ring came to him at a size of 12.5). 

 

now that is funny . . . . :thmup:  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Nadine. I'm sure you're right about that.

Seems as though this has provided more intense live entertainment than Colts v. Patriots on the actual field of play. However, the rest of the country trends to believe the truth of it. They did it. They got caught. They paid for it. The rest is smoke & mirrors from certain members of a fan base that _refuse_ to accept facts pointed directly at guilt, no matter what the consequences or cost.

Since when did the NY Times and ARI count as Patriot fans ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet many here back in Jan. said they had wished their HC had thought of those plays ...  and those formations had been run by other NFL and college teams previously (where do you think Bill got the idea) but because he did it and did it with success in a big game, he violated some spirit rule.  Good heavens ....

They said that because they weren't yet smart enough to see the ramifications of what BB did. They are now.

Imagine a group of business colleagues sitting in their annual meeting adjusting the rules of how they are going to conduct their business, trying to solve an issue with positioning of employees in certain spots, then one of the 32 owners is sitting in a corner taking notes and, after reducing what they all agreed to writing, noticed the admin assistant put a comma where a period should have been, and thereby unknowingly changing the "legal" written rule away from what everybody agreed it would say. Then, ignoring the incompleteness of the written rule all business season, that one colleague uses it during the most critical point of the season to advance his business ahead of the businesses who were all in the same room discussing and approving with how the rule was written to convey their agreement.

Its a "gotcha" tactic. Not an outplaying and outcoaching the opponent tactic. Its more than "violating the spirit of the rule". Its nearly a flat out double cross. Yeah, lucky for BB that someone like Vito Corleone doesn't own the Ravens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said that because they weren't yet smart enough to see the ramifications of what BB did. They are now.

Imagine a group of business colleagues sitting in their annual meeting adjusting the rules of how they are going to conduct their business, trying to solve an issue with positioning of employees in certain spots, then one of the 32 owners is sitting in a corner taking notes and, after reducing what they all agreed to writing, noticed the admin assistant put a comma where a period should have been, and thereby unknowingly changing the "legal" written rule away from what everybody agreed it would say. Then, ignoring the incompleteness of the written rule all business season, that one colleague uses it during the most critical point of the season to advance his business ahead of the businesses who were all in the same room discussing and agreeing what the rule says.

Its a "gotcha" tactic. Not an outplaying and outcoaching the opponent tactic. Its more than "violating the spirit of the rule". Its nearly a flat out double cross. Yeah, lucky for BB that someone like Vito Corleone doesn't own the Ravens.

 

LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said that because they weren't yet smart enough to see the ramifications of what BB did. They are now.

Imagine a group of business colleagues sitting in their annual meeting adjusting the rules of how they are going to conduct their business, trying to solve an issue with positioning of employees in certain spots, then one of the 32 owners is sitting in a corner taking notes and, after reducing what they all agreed to writing, noticed the admin assistant put a comma where a period should have been, and thereby unknowingly changing the "legal" written rule away from what everybody agreed it would say. Then, ignoring the incompleteness of the written rule all business season, that one colleague uses it during the most critical point of the season to advance his business ahead of the businesses who were all in the same room discussing and approving with how the rule was written to convey their agreement.

Its a "gotcha" tactic. Not an outplaying and outcoaching the opponent tactic. Its more than "violating the spirit of the rule". Its nearly a flat out double cross. Yeah, lucky for BB that someone like Vito Corleone doesn't own the Ravens.

Wow. I have no idea what you are talking about with this. But please carry on ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said that because they weren't yet smart enough to see the ramifications of what BB did. They are now.

Imagine a group of business colleagues sitting in their annual meeting adjusting the rules of how they are going to conduct their business, trying to solve an issue with positioning of employees in certain spots, then one of the 32 owners is sitting in a corner taking notes and, after reducing what they all agreed to writing, noticed the admin assistant put a comma where a period should have been, and thereby unknowingly changing the "legal" written rule away from what everybody agreed it would say. Then, ignoring the incompleteness of the written rule all business season, that one colleague uses it during the most critical point of the season to advance his business ahead of the businesses who were all in the same room discussing and approving with how the rule was written to convey their agreement.

Its a "gotcha" tactic. Not an outplaying and outcoaching the opponent tactic. Its more than "violating the spirit of the rule". Its nearly a flat out double cross. Yeah, lucky for BB that someone like Vito Corleone doesn't own the Ravens.

 

Sounds like you are describing the play action pass?   Everybody in the spirit of the run play hands the ball off to the running back, but you, based on technically in the rule, tell your QB not the hand off the ball to the RB in the spirit of the run play, pull it back and roll out a pass the ball, thereby changing the play without allowing the defense to figure out what was going on.

 

Or are you talking about the wildcat formation where in the spirit of having a QB play at QB, have your QB play one play then without a change of personnel, so the D can not do either, you substitute the RB in the QB position and send the QB split out wide, thereby causing the D to cover all 11 offensive players as now a direct snap to the RB makes him a threat to both run with the quality of a RB or choose to pass.

 

Or are you describing the tackle eligible play where a tackle lines up in the traditional area of eligible players and the D can not figure out if he is eligible or not.

 

Or are you talking about a fake punt play whereby under the rule you line up in punt formation and without letting the opponent know run a pass or run play out of that formation.

 

I am just a tad confused as to what you are describing.  Perhaps indeed you are describing all of them without really realizing that you just did.   Just saying . . .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. I have no idea what you are talking about with this. But please carry on ...

I try to avoid long posts but sometimes.....

There is an inherent problem in football where if every player was eligible, the defense may have to cover a center and leave a WR open. To compensate, the owners agree to a numbering system that implies eligible and ineligible positions but adjusts that for certain alignments. In writing the rule to balance play between the O and the D, the owners realize that there is a large combinations of numbers and alignments that could change after each play. They can't possibly write every conceivable combination an offense might run into a written rule, so they simplify how the rule is written, but all know full well the problem the rule is trying to prevent. Its trying to prevent offenses from surprising defenses about who is eligible.

Kraft participates in the rulemaking. He is one of 32 owners. Both he and BB know full well the purpose of the rule. In rulemaking discussions, they agree with the other 31 owners that surprising a defense is wrong. They APPROVE OF THE WAY THE RULE WAS WRITTEN and that its intent is to prevent offenses from surprising defenses about who is eligible. But then, at the most critical time of the most critical game to date, they exploit the simplicity of the agreed upon written rule to have their offense surprise the defense about who is eligible.

See the double-cross? It doesn't really take an intelligent person to do that ploy. It takes a person of extremely low integrity to do it. Double-crossers are what they are, and most business groups don't tolerate one in their ranks and usually kick them out in short order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Sounds like you are describing the play action pass?   Everybody in the spirit of the run play hands the ball off to the running back, but you, based on technically in the rule, tell your QB not the hand off the ball to the RB in the spirit of the run play, pull it back and roll out a pass the ball, thereby changing the play without allowing the defense to figure out what was going on.

 

Or are you talking about the wildcat formation where in the spirit of having a QB play at QB, have your QB play one play then without a change of personnel, so the D can not do either, you substitute the RB in the QB position and send the QB split out wide, thereby causing the D to cover all 11 offensive players as now a direct snap to the RB makes him a threat to both run with the quality of a RB or choose to pass.

 

Or are you describing the tackle eligible play where a tackle lines up in the traditional area of eligible players and the D can not figure out if he is eligible or not.

 

Or are you talking about a fake punt play whereby under the rule you line up in punt formation and without letting the opponent know run a pass or run play out of that formation.

 

I am just a tad confused as to what you are describing.  Perhaps indeed you are describing all of them without really realizing that you just did.   Just saying . . .

No. All of those plays are not problems as they enhance the game. For example, the WC formation merely shifts eligible players around, or the play action fakes the ball between players who are already eligible. They don't make an eligible player ineligible, or the other way around, 2 seconds before a snap..

They also agree that offenses surprising defenses over who is eligible is a problem because it would make every game 117-110. So they all approve of how rules are written to prevent that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They said that because they weren't yet smart enough to see the ramifications of what BB did. They are now.

Imagine a group of business colleagues sitting in their annual meeting adjusting the rules of how they are going to conduct their business, trying to solve an issue with positioning of employees in certain spots, then one of the 32 owners is sitting in a corner taking notes and, after reducing what they all agreed to writing, noticed the admin assistant put a comma where a period should have been, and thereby unknowingly changing the "legal" written rule away from what everybody agreed it would say. Then, ignoring the incompleteness of the written rule all business season, that one colleague uses it during the most critical point of the season to advance his business ahead of the businesses who were all in the same room discussing and approving with how the rule was written to convey their agreement.

Its a "gotcha" tactic. Not an outplaying and outcoaching the opponent tactic. Its more than "violating the spirit of the rule". Its nearly a flat out double cross. Yeah, lucky for BB that someone like Vito Corleone doesn't own the Ravens.

This here is a LOT of sour grapes. There is no such "code of honor" among coaches...that is pure and utter nonsense. These guys would all cut each others' throats to win. There is nothing worse than sanctimony when preached by those who lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha can hardly wait until week the matchup this year.

:nutz::hairout:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This here is a LOT of sour grapes. There is no such "code of honor" among coaches...that is pure and utter nonsense. These guys would all cut each others' throats to win. There is nothing worse than sanctimony when preached by those who lost.

The league doesn't make rules to enhance winning. The league makes rules to create a watchable product. Violating the rules detracts from the watchability of the product, and eventually lowers revenue for all. Coaches need to know their place and be taught that violating the rules is worse than losing, and need to be run out of the league immediately for doing it. Especially those that do it multiple times and rather smuggly when they do.

And I didn't lose anything. The Ravens and Colts lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The league doesn't make rules to enhance winning. The league makes rules to create a watchable product. Violating the rules detracts from the watchability of the product, and eventually lowers revenue for all. Coaches need to know their place and be taught that violating the rules is worse than losing, and need to be run out of the league immediately for doing it. Especially those that do it multiple times and rather smuggly when they do.

And I didn't lose anything. The Ravens and Colts lost.

yeah...except nobody violated any rules, and that pretty much nullifies the point you are trying to make. Instead, you are creating a fictitious narrative that there is some sort of "code of honor" among the NFL coaching fraternity that Belichick violated. That is nonsense. Harbaugh would have done the exact same thing...had he thought of it. If you think otherwise, then you are hopelessly naïve. The play was legal. You can cry all you like that it wasn't, but that doesn't change the fact that it was. Now, it's illegal, and you can rest comfortably knowing that the Patriots won't ever run plays out of that formation again. The league rulebook is FILLED with rules that were put in place to counteract tactics that teams employed prior the rule being enacted. That is exactly how a rulebook evolves in any sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah...except nobody violated any rules, and that pretty much nullifies the point you are trying to make. Instead, you are creating a fictitious narrative that there is some sort of "code of honor" among the NFL coaching fraternity that Belichick violated. That is nonsense. Harbaugh would have done the exact same thing...had he thought of it. If you think otherwise, then you are hopelessly naïve. The play was legal. You can cry all you like that it wasn't, but that doesn't change the fact that it was. Now, it's illegal, and you can rest comfortably knowing that the Patriots won't ever run plays out of that formation again. The league rulebook is FILLED with rules that were put in place to counteract tactics that teams employed prior the rule being enacted. That is exactly how a rulebook evolves in any sport.

You're assuming other coaches would do it. Why do you assume they didn't think of it..because you believe that nonsnense about BB being a genius? c'mon.

If you follow, I did not suggest anybody violated a code of honor. They violated the rules. They understood the inherent problem, helped to create the rule to prevent the problem, approved of how it was written. The only thing they did not violate was the simplistic interpretation of how it was written. That's still a violation.

Look at it this way, if you and me were in a position to create hiway speed limits, understand the problem speeding causes, decide to erect signs to communicate the law, and decide that the speed limit is 55, but when we get to the posted sign, the sign says 65, ..did we violate the law if we travel 63?

Yes, we did..because we decided what the law was and knew what it was despite what the sign says.

And, lets say we create a contest by which we get to a point faster than another, but the rule is we must travel no more than the speed limit. You go 63 and I go 55. Since we both helped to write the speed limit, know that it is 55, but you get to the point before I do because you traveled 63, you just stole the trophy despite pointing to the sign that says "speed limit 65". Get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you are describing the play action pass? Everybody in the spirit of the run play hands the ball off to the running back, but you, based on technically in the rule, tell your QB not the hand off the ball to the RB in the spirit of the run play, pull it back and roll out a pass the ball, thereby changing the play without allowing the defense to figure out what was going on.

Or are you talking about the wildcat formation where in the spirit of having a QB play at QB, have your QB play one play then without a change of personnel, so the D can not do either, you substitute the RB in the QB position and send the QB split out wide, thereby causing the D to cover all 11 offensive players as now a direct snap to the RB makes him a threat to both run with the quality of a RB or choose to pass.

Or are you describing the tackle eligible play where a tackle lines up in the traditional area of eligible players and the D can not figure out if he is eligible or not.

Or are you talking about a fake punt play whereby under the rule you line up in punt formation and without letting the opponent know run a pass or run play out of that formation.

I am just a tad confused as to what you are describing. Perhaps indeed you are describing all of them without really realizing that you just did. Just saying . . .

I believe he's describing the ineligible receiver play, you know, the one that all the NFL owners voted to ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...