OT: Meaning of...Cheating

[JR4]

so if my 7 year old niece blatantly copies off someone sitting next to her during a test - and doesn't try to hide what she is doing, she isn't cheating?

ok.

A poor example. Cheating implies a person is trying to get away with
breaking the rules by somehow being deceptive.
A person trying to cheat is never Blatant about it. Which supports
the notion Belichick was not trying to cheat because the camera was
blatantly out in the open for all to see.
Thank you for this supporting angle.

 

[JR4]

Well lets look at the dictionary definition: the first definition concurs with what you argue, the second states clearly enough:

v. intr.

To act dishonestly; practice fraud.
To violate rules deliberately, as in a game: was accused of cheating at c

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cheating

So the Patriots, by this definition, did cheat. It was deliberate, it was against the rules

I hate it when smart rear ends try to make a point by taking things out
of context.
try the other meaning
"To deceive by trickery; swindle"
which is what most people think of when they think cheat.
You've lost some credibility with that one, madinsomniac.

edited:
also ...you left out the last word in your definition. .... CARDS.
people who cheat at cards are being deceptive as well as deliberate.

 

[madinsomniac]

1. It makes little sense that someone could coordinate the tape with the other views that would be needed to coordinate.

2. I have seen no allegation that this was ever done.

3. If Mangini or any other coach thought the Pats were doing this, wouldn't the smart thing to do would be to deke the other side with false signals? Would that not be much MORE effective than repoting them?

4. Sign stealing is not and never has been illegal.

5. Directing a camera on then other sideline is not illegal, unless it is in one of certain locations.

6. I would most expect a Steeler fan to most want to find solace after losing twice at home in AFC Championship games in the last 6 years.

Point 1, it is doable. NFL players arent brilliant, for the most part, so signals are simpler than you think. I read a piece about ten years ago about it.
A team doing this looks for two common signals associated with the Coverage and pressure alignmets, that is to say the common zone assignment and the common blitz assignment. Knowing this they assign excess coverage responsibilities against blitzes, knowing that with a bit of time the QB can find the open reciever (max protect schemes) or in the case of overloaded zones, excess downfield recievers which permits QB's to locate the one in the uncovered hole.
2 there have been lots of things said about it, but national coverage is mostly done by reporters who are mostly following the same ques and the same rhetoric, or have their hands tied. Gregg Easterbrook got called on the carpet by ESPN when he started to report stuff that was hearsay that the league wasnt happy about. The NFL is really hardhanded with this stuff you know.
3 Its been done, but its hard because it mostly confuses your own guys. these guys arent all, rocket scientists. when that question was posed to one of the front office guys when this thing broke he said that it was hard enough to get some guys on the same page with weeks of work with the signals, chnaging them game to game or mid game is difficult to say the least. beyond that coaches with the brains to do it often can recognize when it's been done and discard the tactic. I mean ultimatly is a huge advantage, but he did it in cleveland too and didnt win squt there because the players werent as talented.

4. true but the methods used here were, and radio decryption / wiretapping devices are very illegal not just in NFL standards either

5. Again, because if you read all the rules through on this, it is not allowed anywhere there is game time access to those tapes, for just this reason. If that was not the intention of what the Pats were using it for, then they would have just taped it from an acceptable location with no problem

6. It doesnt matter if the other team knows your plays or not, it simply matters that you can outplay them regardless. These accusations and more have been around BB and other coaches longer than just the Pats run, and we have beaten teams like that in the past, so blaming it on this fact is simply making excuses. I dont care that it was done or when it was done, i just think its really indicative of how little people realize what is common knowledge in most league locker rooms, and I mean much more than cheating

 

[madinsomniac]

I hate it when smart rear ends try to make a point by taking things out
of context.
try the other meaning
"To deceive by trickery; swindle"
which is what most people think of when they think cheat.
You've lost some credibility with that one, madinsomniac.

edited:
also ...you left out the last word in your definition. .... CARDS.
people who cheat at cards are being deceptive as well as deliberate.

In all due respect, I do not think you understand the multiple definition of the word. Cheating at cards and cheating at football are the same, it was an example not part of the definition.

Ill tell you what, submit your arguement to one of the college english departments and post what they advise you about it.

I say if your arguement is that they didnt think it was cheating, than it was a rule misinterpretation, then it might hold some water, though there is a term "inadvertent cheating"
If you say because they brazenly did it it isnt cheating, than you are wrong, it's called "Blatent Cheating"