Support NeoGAF

[Skiptastic]

I'm a huge Colts fan. This played no factor in the game yesterday.

If they cheated, whatever. But it did not matter.

 

[MechDX]

Always being accused of cheating. Where there is smoke there is usually fire.

 

[KHarvey16]

Announcing the eligibility of the players turns it into a legal formation. The kicker is, when you do announce eligibility/ineligibility the defense is supposed to be notified by the referees and be given time to adjust. Guess what didn't happen?

So illegally actually means nothing, since lining up and announcing the eligibility is the process.

Is this mysterious requirement to allow time to adjust actually in the rules or being conjured up by people who are sad?

 

[DragonSworne]

I think it is pretty clear that the Patriots, with their formations and last second eligibility calls, are playing a similar game that seattle did the other year. They are gaining a competitive advantage through unethical means.

Seattle took advantage of the refs unwillingness to call defensive holding and PI on every play based on historical statistical evidence and exploited that by committing fouls on pretty much every play to disrupt receivers and the QB timing. The result has been a tougher focus on those sorts of penalties(though I'd argue still not enough) which should of been in place all along.

Same thing will happen to NE. They will get to see how far their borderline behavior gets them and then it will be clamped down on in the offseason.

It's just a shame our Super Bowl is between these two.

Yep, it's going to addressed in the offseason but in the meantime Brady and co. will get their ring.

I wish the league was quicker in these matters. -_-

 

[Sanjuro]

Announcing the eligibility of the players turns it into a legal formation. The kicker is, when you do announce eligibility/ineligibility the defense is supposed to be notified by the referees and be given time to adjust. Guess what didn't happen?

...so how is it illegal?

 

[Ikuu]

...so how is it illegal?

because it's not fair!

 

[CitizenCope]

250 teams? You counting other sports teams not winning the Super Bowl?

9 Cleveland Browns teams haven't won since spy gate. That's not just one team. The math works in my favor so of course I'll use it that way.

 

[Bread]

...so how is it illegal?

The Ravens weren't ready!!!!!

 

[Delta Assault]

I had no idea some players weren't eligible to receive the football. Has the NFL always been like this? It's hard to believe. Like saying some basketball players on the court aren't eligible to throw the basketball.

 

[rokkerkory]

Poor Luck.

He'll get more help next year.

 

[shrek]

Tom Brady just laughed the whole thing off. It does seem rather ridiculous, and if you watched the game you'd know NE was lightyears better.

 

[Sanjuro]

I had no idea some players weren't eligible to receive the football. Has the NFL always been like this? It's hard to believe. Like saying some basketball players on the court aren't eligible to throw the basketball.

It's simple to understand. How often do you see offensive linemen run routes?

 

[TheDrizzlerJ11]

I had no idea some players weren't eligible to receive the football. Has the NFL always been like this? It's hard to believe. Like saying some basketball players on the court aren't eligible to throw the basketball.

5 blockers are ineligible every down.

 

[BaltimoreLarry]

...so how is it illegal?

God damn, I didn't want to have comment on this shit but I can't sit here and watch the fanbase whine.

It wasn't illegal. It feels like it should be illegal. Mr. New England Bill Simmons even said it seemed incredibly illegal, which it does. But not illegal. A loophole, maybe, but not illegal. Will the NFL correct it? Probably, and they should. But at this point, it was just.....ugh....genius.

Spoiler

Unethical as a motherfucker though.

 

[Nickle]

So this Super Bowl will involve the two biggest cheaters in the NFL. I'm still baffled that the Seahawks regularly get away with having 12 players. It's a disgrace to the league.

 

[Delta Assault]

It's simple to understand. How often do you see offensive linemen run routes?

I dunno. But you also don't see punters throwing touchdown passes very often, but it happened yesterday. Allowing every player on a team to contribute seems like a good thing.

 

[Sanjuro]

God damn, I didn't want to have comment on this shit but I can't sit here and watch the fanbase whine.

It wasn't illegal. It feels like it should be illegal. Mr. New England Bill Simmons even said it seemed incredibly illegal, which it does. But not illegal. A loophole, maybe, but not illegal. Will the NFL correct it? Probably, and they should. But at this point, it was just.....ugh....genius.

Spoiler

Unethical as a motherfucker though.

My god. The salt is fucking strong today.

I dunno. But you also don't see punters throwing touchdown passes very often, but it happened yesterday. Allowing every player on a team to contribute seems like a good thing.

Yeah, but that play was ILLEGAL.

 

[DragonSworne]

So illegally actually means nothing, since lining up and announcing the eligibility is the process.

Is this mysterious requirement to allow time to adjust actually in the rules or being conjured up by people who are sad?

Yes, it's in the rulebook but broken out in two parts.

First part regarding eligibility

Changes in Position
REPORTING CHANGE OF POSITION
Article 1 An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50–79 and 90–99) is permitted to line up in
the position of an eligible pass receiver (1–49 and 80–89), and an offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass
receiver is permitted to line up in the position of an ineligible pass receiver, provided that he immediately reports the
change in his eligibility status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team.
He must participate in such eligible or ineligible position as long as he is continuously in the game, but prior to each play he
must again report his status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team. The game clock shall not be stopped, and
the ball shall not be put in play until the Referee takes his normal position.

Now this doesn't say anything about giving the defense time to react, but since this is considered a type of substitution, the substitution rule explicitly says the defense is given time to perform their own substitution.

DEFENSIVE MATCHUPS FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTIONS
Article 10 If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has
been permitted to respond with its substitutions. While in the process of a substitution (or simulated substitution), the
offense is prohibited from rushing quickly to the line of scrimmage and snapping the ball in an obvious attempt to cause a
defensive foul

So given these two rules, it can be argued that they are violating the rulebook. But regardless, it's unethical and will be addressed in the offseason.

 

[Sanjuro]

So given these two rules, it can be argued that they are violating the rulebook.

No. It can't.

 

[Bread]

There wasnt a substitution though?

 

[BaltimoreLarry]

My god. The salt is fucking strong today.
.

Explain how that is salt, or did I just sucked into one of your many trolls?

 

[jblank83]

Cheatriots cheating.

Shocking.

 

[Sanjuro]

Explain how that is salt, or did I just sucked into one of your many trolls?

You illegally substituted your venting tears for accusations of me trolling. You have to notify me first.

 

[BaltimoreLarry]

You illegally substituted your venting tears for accusations of me trolling. You have to notify me first.

I announced your trolling clearly, and then rushed to post before you could adequately prepare for the truth bombs.

 

[DragonSworne]

There wasnt a substitution though?

Changing eligibility status is a substitution. In the rulebook the penalty for not announcing eligibility to a referee:

Penalty: If a player fails to notify the Referee of a change in his status when required: Loss of five yards for illegal
substitution

Loss of 5 yards for illegal SUBSITUTION.

 

[KHarvey16]

Yes, it's in the rulebook but broken out in two parts.

First part regarding eligibility



Now this doesn't say anything about giving the defense time to react, but since this is considered a type of substitution, the substitution rule explicitly says the defense is given time to perform their own substitution.




So given these two rules, it can be argued that they are violating the rulebook. But regardless, it's unethical and will be addressed in the offseason.

It can't be argued since the defense was always given sufficient time after the ref announced the ineligibility over the PA. I get the feeling you're judging whether sufficient time was given based on whether or not the defense covered the correct player. It isn't the patriot's job to make them not be confused, they just can't hurry up and try to rush them. Which they obviously didn't do.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Even still, it would be easier to intercept.

OK? You're not throwing balls to the defense so that's a moot point. Easier to intercept won't outweigh the benefit to receivers.

This sounds like nonsense though.

 

[Sanjuro]

I announced your trolling clearly, and then rushed to post before you could adequately prepare for the truth bombs.

You failed to weight my truth properly before the play. Instead you switched it with a bag of salt.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

There was nothing illegal about the formation the patriots ran against the ravens. The referee was alerted to and announced who was ineligible and the defense just didn't know who to cover.

 

[BaltimoreLarry]

You failed to weight my truth properly before the play. Instead you switched it with a bag of salt.

And you videotaped all that. Then, burned the tape and doused the ashes in salt.

 

[DragonSworne]

It can't be argued since the defense was always given sufficient time after the ref announced the ineligibility over the PA. I get the feeling you're judging whether sufficient time was given based on whether or not the defense covered the correct player. It isn't the patriot's job to make them not be confused, they just can't hurry up and try to rush them. Which they obviously didn't do.

According to substitution rules the defense is given enough time to make their own substitution.

Why shouldn't the defense be given enough time to cover eligible receivers in these situations if they are given the time in player substitutions?

 

[Sanjuro]

And you videotaped all that. Then, burned the tape and doused the ashes in salt.

Sure. Right next to the bodies!

 

[Bread]

Changing eligibility status is a substitution. In the rulebook the penalty for not announcing eligibility to a referee:




Loss of 5 yards for illegal SUBSITUTION.

How much time should the defense be given to cover this eligible receiver? 10 seconds should be sufficient, no?
http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=nflnation&id=158381&src=desktop

It can't be argued since the defense was always given sufficient time after the ref announced the ineligibility over the PA. I get the feeling you're judging whether sufficient time was given based on whether or not the defense covered the correct player. It isn't the patriot's job to make them not be confused, they just can't hurry up and try to rush them. Which they obviously didn't do.

This is exactly it. It's not the Ravens fault for not adjusting, it's the Pats fault for cheating.

 

[KHarvey16]

According to substitution rules the defense is given enough time to make their own substitution.

Why shouldn't the defense be given enough time to cover eligible receivers in these situations if they are given the time in player substitutions?

They were given enough time and that they didn't cover the receiver isn't proof they weren't.

 

[DopeToast]

Given their history it really doesn't surprise me. Did it have any effect on the game? No. They were dominant. But if this is found to be true then they should be punished accordingly with loss of draft picks or whathaveyou.

 

[BaltimoreLarry]

Sure. Right next to the bodies!

Whose bodies, though?

 

[Nakazato]

Congrats to the colts

 

[Futureman]

""I think I've heard it all at this point ... it's ridiculous," Brady said Monday morning during his weekly interview with Boston radio station WEEI. "I don't even respond to stuff like this."

this would be a reasonable response if your team wasn't caught cheating in the past Tommy.

 

[Sanjuro]

Whose bodies, though?

The ones at the bottom of the elevator.

 

[BaltimoreLarry]

This article is relevant:

Patriots Scandals Through the Years: From Spies to Snowplows

The ones at the bottom of the elevator.

Meh, I'd have gone with something bleach related here.

 

[JABEE]

Cheating organization. It's expected from an organization that cheated their way to three Super Bowls.

 

[Mdot]

The Pats are 84-28 since "spygate" and people still think they just cheated their way to all those victories. They've been a good team for years. Stop grasping at straws.

I'm a Giant fan btw, so I couldn't give two shits about who wins at this point.

 

[TheSinkingKnight]

Don't the refs touch the football in between every play? So you mean to tell me that at least one ref wouldn't have noticed?

 

[Alligatorjandro]

Cheating organization. It's expected from an organization that cheated their way to three Super Bowls.

Hello friend, have the patriots wronged you

 

[The Last Emperor]

Whose bodies, though?

Freakin Aaronthal

 

[TemplaerDude]

Hello friend, have the patriots wronged you

Brady deflated my balls.

 

[Sanjuro]

Meh, I'd have gone with something bleach related here.

I was thinking that too. I'm sorry. #nomore

 

[Ninja Scooter]

If you ain't cheatin' you ain't trying.

The true greats are willing to go that extra mile.

 

[BaltimoreLarry]

I was thinking that too. I'm sorry. #nomore

It was a good run.

 

[JABEE]

Sure. Right next to the bodies!

Specter, from Pennsylvania, wants to talk to other league officials about what exactly was taped and which games may have been compromised.

"We have a right to have honest football games," he said.

Goodell noted that "we were the ones that disclosed" the Patriots' illegal taping of the New York Jets' defensive signals in Week 1 of last season. Further, Goodell said, they had an admission by Belichick.

"I have nothing to hide," Goodell said.

Goodell also told Specter that that he doesn't regret destroying the Spygate tapes or the notes.

"I think it was the right thing to do," Goodell said.

Still, Specter wants to know why penalties were imposed on Belichick before the full extent of the wrongdoing was known and the tapes destroyed in a two-week span. Asked if he thinks there was a coverup, Specter demurred.

"There was an enormous amount of haste," Specter said.

He scoffed at the reasons Goodell gave for destroying the tapes and notes, particularly about trying to keep them out of competitors' hands and because Belichick had admitted to the taping.

"What's that got to do with it? There's an admission of guilt, you preserve the evidence," Specter said. As for keeping the tapes out of the hands of others: "All you have to do is lock up the tapes."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3244687

He admitted to burning the tapes before Congress.