And you know this how?dsheinem wrote:
They also didn't know that they'd be blowing them out...
edit*Noise beat me to it.
And you know this how?dsheinem wrote:
They also didn't know that they'd be blowing them out...
The "yet" qualifier is because this is exactly what is being investigated at this point. We don't know if there is any proof of deliberate tampering, because we haven't yet been told what the investigation uncovered. So there might be proof, but we just don't know yet.noiseredux wrote:
EDIT: Also, you should note that "we just don't know yet" is the same thing as saying "no. At this time there is not proof."
so you admit that there's no proof and yet posted:dsheinem wrote: The "yet" qualifier is because this is exactly what is being investigated at this point. We don't know if there is any proof of deliberate tampering, because we haven't yet been told what the investigation uncovered. So there might be proof, but we just don't know yet.
?dsheinem wrote:Seriously, fuck the entire Patriots run under Belichick.
Fuck Belichick. Kick him out of the league.
Yes, because I believe they should have done this after Spygate. I'll still think this regardless of whatever they find with this case...but if they find he did this on purpose it should be curtains for sure.noiseredux wrote:so you admit that there's no proof and yet posted:dsheinem wrote: The "yet" qualifier is because this is exactly what is being investigated at this point. We don't know if there is any proof of deliberate tampering, because we haven't yet been told what the investigation uncovered. So there might be proof, but we just don't know yet.
?dsheinem wrote:Seriously, fuck the entire Patriots run under Belichick.
Fuck Belichick. Kick him out of the league.
Virtually no one who cares about this thinks that it has any bearing on who won the game last week. That's not the point.Luke wrote:
This is all so dumb.
But it kind of is... If no real competitive advantage was gained then while it still broke a rule, it was minor or ineffectual. There will be some kind of punishment, but the severity of punishment usually hinges on how egregious or beneficial for the rule breaker that the act was.dsheinem wrote:Virtually no one who cares about this thinks that it has any bearing on who won the game last week. That's not the point.Luke wrote:
This is all so dumb.
For me, and much of what I've read/seen from various commentators, the point is just simply that Belichick, again, seems to have deliberately violated rules meant to ensure fairness. For that, there must be consequences that are relative to the act, not to the significance of the act vis a vis the scoreboard.Jmustang1968 wrote:But it kind of is... If no real competitive advantage was gained then while it still broke a rule, it was minor or ineffectual. There will be some kind of punishment, but the severity of punishment usually hinges on how egregious or beneficial for the rule breaker that the act was.dsheinem wrote:Virtually no one who cares about this thinks that it has any bearing on who won the game last week. That's not the point.Luke wrote:
This is all so dumb.
BUT JOHN I KNOW IN MY HEART OF HEARTS IT WAS BELICHEATJmustang1968 wrote:Theres no telling it was even Belicheck. Equipment guy, ball boy, or even a player like what Brad Johnson did, could've done it on their own.