an interesting new thought

[richpats]

What the hell are you talking about? The PATRIOTS had been doing it for years, and it was widely known. That is, in fact, one of the reasons that's been put forth for the issuance of the memo in the first place. Or, to put it more bluntly:

THE VERY TEAM WHO WAS FINED FOR FILMING WAS KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN FILMING IN THE SAME MANNER FOR YEARS. This is, in fact, consistent with Goodell's later comments about what was on the tapes.

So Belichick gambled for YEARS and is supposed to get a pass when his gamble fails when a new commish is in charge?

 

[richpats]

Sort of like how most of us are feeling about you at this time....

I'm actually embarrassed for a lot of fans today. Group-think at its worst.

 

[Deus Irae]

So Belichick gambled for YEARS and is supposed to get a pass when his gamble fails when a new commish is in charge?

Ahhh..... this is what's known as trying to change the argument, also known as moving the goalposts. I talked about estoppel, you realize that your argument is a loser, and now you change your argument.

When there are multiple interpretations possible for a rule, and people use one interpretation without negative result for years, that usage becomes deemed legitimate, or at least immune from punishment. Or, to put it more accurately, the enforcer becomes estopped from punishing actions based upon people's reliance upon the utilized interpretation. In Civil Law, it's known as estoppel. A similar, though not identical, example is the constraints placed upon ex post facto laws.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm actually embarrassed for a lot of fans today. Group-think at its worst.

Disagreeing with some idiotic comments made by a poster who should know better is not group think. I am, however, amused by your categorization, especially considering that PatsFanInVa and I were at odds over this issue when it first broke.

 

[richpats]

In Civil Law, it's known as estoppel. A similar, though not identical, example is the constraints placed upon ex post facto laws.

Talk about "moving the goalposts". This is the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE. It is not Civil Law. Your argument is based on Spygate becoming a civil case. Congrats, you've exposed yourself as the true dumbass here.

Since you and others are so devoted to Belichick, take a cue from him and just say "it is what it is". Quit whining about what should have happened and just accept the reality of the situation. Accept it for what it is and move forward. The only thing that matters now is what's ahead for the Pats.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yah, Rich. Your own contributions seem to extend to:

- knocking other posters' imagined choices of coffee, despite a complete lack of factual knowledge regarding said beverage preferences;
- knocking other posters' income and self-identification, with no knowledge of either; and
- knocking other posters' life, and for that matter, near-death experiences

I'll let Irae do the lawyer bit, since he can. And I really don't give a damn what you think of my contributions.

But in terms of what you've actually brought here? Random knee-jerk jabs at everybody you encounter. The school yard "step up to the plate" to one guy who disagreed with you in passing was hilarlious... as I recall it was followed quickly by some crap about "being schooled."

You do realize that your stay here is primarily characterized by unprovoked personal attack against the remainder of the board's posters, right?

My guess is that this is your basic purpose to being here, and that there's some need being met, if only to have a good laugh at the spun-up Pats fans. If you just like having a bunch of people sick of you, well, that's also been fulfilled.

Your role as a foil to get Irae's knowledge out there is useful in this particular thread, but only from a utilitarian point of view. Your role in pissing off the rest of the board is of much less value.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

LMAO, my bad. Shouldn't have bothered.

Hey mods, ban this clown, won't you?

You funny.

PFnV

 

[Deus Irae]

Talk about "moving the goalposts". This is the NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE. It is not Civil Law. Your argument is based on Spygate becoming a civil case. Congrats, you've exposed yourself as the true dumbass here.

Since you and others are so devoted to Belichick, take a cue from him and just say "it is what it is". Quit whining about what should have happened and just accept the reality of the situation. Accept it for what it is and move forward. The only thing that matters now is what's ahead for the Pats.

Now you're just being a tool. Here's your post I began responding to:

He broke the rule he knew was in place on September 9th. Get over it.

My posts have stayed precisely on that point and the fact that behavior that was not punished under that 'rule' before was later punished, under the same 'rule', except in direct response to your other posts. You, on the other hand, tried wandering to children making beds and insulting PatsFanInVa just for two examples.

 

[richpats]

You do realize that your stay here is primarily characterized by unprovoked personal attack against the remainder of the board's posters, right?

My guess is that this is your basic purpose to being here, and that there's some need being met, if only to have a good laugh at the spun-up Pats fans. If you just like having a bunch of people sick of you, well, that's also been fulfilled.

Your role as a foil to get Irae's knowledge out there is useful in this particular thread, but only from a utilitarian point of view. Your role in pissing off the rest of the board is of much less value.

PFnV

I've been on this board for years and I've never received as much crap as I've received lately. I point out that Belichick and the coaches need to improve and I get crap for it. I point out that Belichick crossed the line and had no excuse and I get crap for it. So basically, if I point out anything that tarnishes Belichick in any way, then I'm going to get crap for it.

I post opinions and if they don't sound good to Patriot Nation then it's my problem. Ok, gotcha. Please tell me there are more to my fellow Patriot fans than this. I'm truly disappointed.

 

[richpats]

LMAO, my bad. Shouldn't have bothered.

Hey mods, ban this clown, won't you?

You funny.

PFnV

I didn't know one could be banned for stating the obvious.

RPnDH

 

[Deus Irae]

I've been on this board for years and I've never received as much crap as I've received lately. I point out that Belichick and the coaches need to improve and I get crap for it. I point out that Belichick crossed the line and had no excuse and I get crap for it. So basically, if I point out anything that tarnishes Belichick in any way, then I'm going to get crap for it.

I post opinions and if they don't sound good to Patriot Nation then it's my problem. Ok, gotcha. Please tell me there are more to my fellow Patriot fans than this. I'm truly disappointed.

Your first post in this thread:

Guys, quit defending Belichick on this. He screwed up. I don't care if everyone does it. He's embarrassed the team, its fans and the only reason he hasn't been crucified is because he wins. He is an excellent coach who took it one step too far. He'll never live this down and he likely won't go to the Hall of Fame. Let's just enjoy the upcoming seasons, while he's still around.

Things you did here besides "point out that Belichick crossed the line and had no excuse":

- Tell others to quit defending BB
- Claim he embarrassed the team
- Claim he embarrassed the fans
- Claim that he'd be 'crucified' if he wasn't winning
- Claim he went a step too far
- Claim he won't live this down and won't make the Hall

Now, to address them..

Telling others to quit defending BB with the weak line of reasoning you've attempted to use is, naturally, going to draw the ire of those defending BB. Expecting anything else is foolishness on your part.

Claiming he embarrassed the team when nobody from the team has stated that is a presumption. You should expect to get called on it.

Claiming he embarrassed the fans when people here are saying they aren't embarrassed by what he did is just stupid. If you want to say that YOU are embarrassed, you go for it. Lumping 'the fans' into it is just silly since this message board clearly shows that 'the fans' aren't all in agreement on this point.

Claiming that he would be 'crucified' might actually be a valid claim. However, the opposite is also true: if this team wasn't perhaps the greatest team in history despite the choke in the SB, this might never have been any sort of issue.

Claiming that he went a step too far is silly, since he was doing the same thing he'd done for years without any punishment.

Claiming that he won't live it down and won't make the Hall is your opinion, and one that cannot currently be proven or disproven. It's likely wrong, however, at least when it comes to the issue of going into the Hall Of Fame, at least in my opinion.


P.S. I'm greatly amused by the 'group think' notion you put out, given how aggressively I was assaulted for defending Don Shula in the recent past in the "Shula at it again with the "Asterisk" Argument" thread.

 

[richpats]

Telling others to quit defending BB with the weak line of reasoning you've attempted to use is, naturally, going to draw the ire of those defending BB. Expecting anything else is foolishness on your part.

I defend BB when someone says he's only good because he cheats or that he won 3 SB's by cheating. Honestly, all he said was he "misinterpreted" - ok, how did he misinterpret? It is better to defend his case when you know his case, and frankly we don't know a lot about his intentions.

Claiming he embarrassed the team when nobody from the team has stated that is a presumption. You should expect to get called on it.

I'm sure Bob Kraft didn't lose any sleep over Spygate Do you think Mr. Kraft likes having his team booed at the Pro Bowl?

Claiming he embarrassed the fans when people here are saying they aren't embarrassed by what he did is just stupid. If you want to say that YOU are embarrassed, you go for it. Lumping 'the fans' into it is just silly since this message board clearly shows that 'the fans' aren't all in agreement on this point.

I think he embarrassed the fans because we don't deserve to have to defend any accomplishments. I'm not embarrassed to be a Patriots fan, but the situation is very embarrassing.

Claiming that he would be 'crucified' might actually be a valid claim. However, the opposite is also true: if this team wasn't perhaps the greatest team in history despite the choke in the SB, this might never have been any sort of issue.

I assume you are talking about "Spygate II" - I think it would have come up eventually. The Pats are too good to stay far from the limelight. Just think, that was an incident that allegedly happened SIX years ago.

Claiming that he went a step too far is silly, since he was doing the same thing he's done for years without any punishment.

At some point he decided to gamble with the rules and incorporate this into his game operation. Just because he got away with it doesn't make it any less of an offense.

Claiming that he won't live it down and won't make the Hall is your opinion, and one that cannot currently be proven or disproven. It's likely wrong, however, at least when it comes to the issue of going into the Hall Of Fame, at least in my opinion.

I wish I was wrong but the HOF voters are all human and if the media/players/coaches can make such a big issue out of Spygate, unfortunately I see the voters can do the same.

 

[richpats]

P.S. I'm greatly amused by the 'group think' notion you put out, given how aggressively I was assaulted for defending Don Shula in the recent past in the "Shula at it again with the "Asterisk" Argument" thread.

I don't know if that comment was a shot at me or just a random observation. I don't read every thread on the board and I certainly don't remember every poster's stance on every single issue, or whether one person was villified by the masses for defending Don Shula.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Finger pointing is for the weak. If a cop pulled me over for going 56 in a 55, I could complain that "everyone does it", "I'm being singled out" and "it's not a big advantage" - but when it comes down to it, did I break the rules or not?

Tell me about Dungy's "grey area".

I actually like this analogy. If I got pulled over going 56 in a 55, I'd grudgingly accept the ticket that came my way (much like Belichick took the $500k fine). If they then went to haul me off to jail, I would raise holy hell about it, because, while technically breaking the letter of the law, going 56 in a 55 is so irrelevant that it merits nothing more than a small monetary fine or a slap on the wrist.

By your analogy, what Specter and other people like him are currently trying to do is portray Belichick as a convicted felon, so to speak, for going 56 in a 55. It's stupid, and, from your unwarranted attacks on PatriotsReigh (which show some pretty obvious insecurity on your part, btw, since every negative quality that you attribute to him is far more evident in your writing), I'd have to conclude that you are as well.


To get back to your original question: Belichick has my permanent support. I don't care if it comes out tomorrow that he sacrificed hobos in satanic rituals at the beginning of every game day to grant his team strength. He's the Pats' coach, he's the best at what he does, and he's won Super Bowls for our team. He's the best coach in the history of the NFL, and I'm proud to be able to say that he's the Pats' coach. Anyone who has a negative opinion of him can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[patpatriot]

My original intent was not to start a pissing contest between 2 intelligent and passionate Pats fans but that was fun anyway. What I wanted to explore was whether or not it would have been a good idea to say:

"no Mr New Sheriff. We do not agree with your punishment over the misinterpretation of a rule and we want to contest that decision before either binding arbitration or in Civil Court"

rather than meekly submitting to an unprecedented whacking over the head that led to the belief that the Pats were "cheating".

 

[BradyFTW!]

I think he embarrassed the fans because we don't deserve to have to defend any accomplishments. I'm not embarrassed to be a Patriots fan, but the situation is very embarrassing.

I'd rather be defending his accomplishments than have no accomplishments to defend (which is where all Pats fans were in the pre-Belichick era. If you'd been a fan at any point in the 20th century, you might actually understand that).

 

[Deus Irae]

I defend BB when someone says he's only good because he cheats or that he won 3 SB's by cheating. Honestly, all he said was he "misinterpreted" - ok, how did he misinterpret? It is better to defend his case when you know his case, and frankly we don't know a lot about his intentions.

Actually, we know everything about his intentions. He intended to film the opponents' sidelines to get their signals. That's not in question, and never has been. The only question has been whether or not that was against the rules. According to one interpretation, the one which the Commissioner chose, it was. According to another interpretation, the one which BB chose, it wasn't. The Commissioner swings the bigger stick, so his won out. You're still foolish to expect everyone to bow to Goodell on this and stop defending BB.

I'm sure Bob Kraft didn't lose any sleep over Spygate Do you think Mr. Kraft likes having his team booed at the Pro Bowl?

The team being booed doesn't mean that BB embarrassed the team.

I think he embarrassed the fans because we don't deserve to have to defend any accomplishments. I'm not embarrassed to be a Patriots fan, but the situation is very embarrassing.

First, nobody of consequence is asking 'the fans' to defend the team. Second, if you choose to be embarrassed, you are doing so from choice, not because of anything BB did. If reading a rule differently than a higher power eventually determines the rule to mean was an embarrassment, every single person in history would likely have caused that on numerous occasions.

I assume you are talking about "Spygate II" - I think it would have come up eventually. The Pats are too good to stay far from the limelight. Just think, that was an incident that allegedly happened SIX years ago.

Spygate II means nothing to me in regards to this thread.

At some point he decided to gamble with the rules and incorporate this into his game operation. Just because he got away with it doesn't make it any less of an offense.

Your word choice is nothing but INTERPRETATION. Irony = comedy in this case.

I wish I was wrong but the HOF voters are all human and if the media/players/coaches can make such a big issue out of Spygate, unfortunately I see the voters can do the same.

Ty Cobb, among so many others, says "hello". Players are almost never kept out of the Hall(s) when they are deserving because of possible 'character issues', and that's more true in football than in baseball because of the requirements to get in.

 

[BradyFTW!]

My original intent was not to start a pissing contest between 2 intelligent and passionate Pats fans but that was fun anyway. What I wanted to explore was whether or not it would have been a good idea to say:

"no Mr New Sheriff. We do not agree with your punishment over the misinterpretation of a rule and we want to contest that decision before either binding arbitration or in Civil Court"

rather than meekly submitting to an unprecedented whacking over the head that led to the belief that the Pats were "cheating".

I more or less agree with you on this one, in hindsight. At the time, though, I don't see how the Pats could have anticipated it all blowing up like this, for the very same reason that it doesn't bother a lot of us fans very much: public perception aside, it really isn't a big deal. The organization simply underestimated how much resentment there was for its success. The action that they took was based on the assumption of generally rational response from the league and media, and probably was designed to avoid undermining the authority of a new commissioner (who Kraft backed in the first place).

Knowing what it knows know, I'm sure the Patriots organization would go back and do things your way, if it could. Instead, it's still getting dragged through the mud for trying to play good soldier

 

[Deus Irae]

My original intent was not to start a pissing contest between 2 intelligent and passionate Pats fans but that was fun anyway. What I wanted to explore was whether or not it would have been a good idea to say:

"no Mr New Sheriff. We do not agree with your punishment over the misinterpretation of a rule and we want to contest that decision before either binding arbitration or in Civil Court"

rather than meekly submitting to an unprecedented whacking over the head that led to the belief that the Pats were "cheating".

I said at the time that they should have fought this. I still believe it to be true. Goodell was out of control on discipline issues and needed to be reigned in. Players were getting completely hosed by a man who felt the need to prove he was the boss, and this decision moved it from just the realm of players into the realm of the teams themselves. Sadly, the Patriots silent acquiescence has allowed a molehill to be converted into Everest (Ok, maybe K-2).

Oh, well, at least he's not so ridiculous as to be passing rules about the cheerleaders, right? Oops! Nevermind....

 

[richpats]

By your analogy, what Specter and other people like him are currently trying to do is portray Belichick as a convicted felon, so to speak, for going 56 in a 55. It's stupid, and, from your unwarranted attacks on PatriotsReigh (which show some pretty obvious insecurity on your part, btw, since every negative quality that you attribute to him is far more evident in your writing), I'd have to conclude that you are as well.


To get back to your original question: Belichick has my permanent support. I don't care if it comes out tomorrow that he sacrificed hobos in satanic rituals at the beginning of every game day to grant his team strength. He's the Pats' coach, he's the best at what he does, and he's won Super Bowls for our team. He's the best coach in the history of the NFL, and I'm proud to be able to say that he's the Pats' coach. Anyone who has a negative opinion of him can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.

Tell me who attacks who first on this thread:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=801245&postcount=12

I have no bone to pick with any particular poster, but the last couple days this "classy" poster is making a habit of calling people "paper fans", "phonies" and yes, he SHOULD be called out for that.

And for the umpteenth time, I don't have a personal grudge with Belichick. But you assume since I say that he should have been punished that I'm trying to crucify him like Specter. He should have been punished, but until anything concrete comes out, this is a dead issue. I will always support Belichick as long as he is coaching here.