PFT: High-level executive: "IR issue way bigger than taping"

[BSR]

I would have put this in a new topic but my postcount precludes that.

how is this any different than players on IR practicing? Both involve violations of practice rules.

Only difference I see is that one was by the Patriots and the other was by multiple other teams.



http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/05/24/bucs-asking-for-trouble/

Actually, I think Florio brings up an even bigger point, although I don't think he meant to. He pointed out the selective enforcement of some rules by the NFL. If the NFL only selectively enforces rules, how are teams supposed to know which ones they are supposed to follow and which ones they aren't? Wouldn't the fact that the lack of enforcement of certain rules means that the NFL actual condones these acts? An argument can certainly be made for it.

 

[pao]

It shows you're a troll with an agenda. You're "participation" consists of unsubstantiated antagonizing statements and falsehood rumors insinuated as fact.

You couldn't be more wrong, and I'm answering way more politely than you deserve.

I asked you what other teams transgressions besides the Patriots you were commenting on. You have no answer because that is the answer.

And I answered you with "It doesn't matter" because it doesn't. Either argue the points or not. This request for what other team's transgressions I have commented on have nothing to do with the subject of this conversation.

That makes you a troll.

Ok, I guess since you say so.

sdfan

 

[pao]

I find it ironic that anybody in the current climate is suggesting that the solution to some supposed IR infraction is "Just videotape every practice." Even if it IS being done already...

Cue the "Pats stole other peoples practice tapes" story in 3...2...1....

LOL.

sdfan

 

[pao]

Good luck to you all.
Have a GREAT WEEKEND and Remember those that gave their lives for freedom and the USA!

sdfan

 

[pao]

Actually, I think Florio brings up an even bigger point, although I don't think he meant to. He pointed out the selective enforcement of some rules by the NFL. If the NFL only selectively enforces rules, how are teams supposed to know which ones they are supposed to follow and which ones they aren't? Wouldn't the fact that the lack of enforcement of certain rules means that the NFL actual condones these acts? An argument can certainly be made for it.

Great Post.

sdfan
now I'm really gone

 

[DaBruinz]

Dude, you are all over the place! It is tough to talk to you with your shotgun approach.

That's laughable coming from you. I am just replying to your posts.

Dude, you didn't ask ME the questions. I was just pointing out that your questions weren't analoguos. As for being a spin artist? Well we are all spin artists to a certain degree if you get right down to it. I mean, really, another word for spin is opinion.

The fact that you chose to respond to that post, in general, means you avoided the questions asked. And, contrary to YOUR opinion, they are analgous the way they were written.

Come on, lets not get into this. They broke the rule, they don't even argue it. They were punished, they accepted it, it's done.
I never said BB was a hypocrite. You said the other poster was a hypocrite. I just pointed out that your questions were not analoguous to the discussiona and, if answered as written, wouldn't prove the poster hypocritical. AND I said that even if he was a hypocrite his point could still be correct.
Arguing the poster does not change his mind or make your "spin" any more palatable.

The rule they were punished for was for violating a taping procedure. NOT for the IR issue. You really should follow along better.

Also, you said "Even if he is a hypocrite", refering to Belichick. Again, you didn't follow along with the conversation even though you were quoted directly.

And, yes, answering yes to anyone of those and a person complaining about the broken rule would make them a hypocrite. I'm sorry that you think its more complicated than it really is.

Well, within the scope of this arguement you are wrong. By definition breaking the rules is cheating. There are varying degrees of punishment for breaking the rules but it is cheating to break the rules. It's as simple as that.

No. YOU are wrong. In the scope of the argument, breaking the rules is NOT cheating. This is what you refuse comprehend. I have given you a perfect example previously

A player is breaking the rules to wear the wrong color socks or wrong color cleats. How is that cheating? What competitive edge does it give him? The answer is NONE. But its still breaking the rules.

You can break the rules and not be cheating. However, if you are cheating, you definitely are breaking the rules.

If I was to follow YOUR flawed logic, then the following would be true.
All rectangles are squares.

We know that to be false.
The true statement is this:
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

Please show me in any definition of cheating that it requires a "competitive advantage" qualification to be cheating. I'll save you some time, there isn't one. The only thing that changes with the rule being broken. or the cheating, is the punishment.

If you actually look at the definition of cheat it mentioned card playing. You cheat in cards to win. Its not that much of a leap to say that you cheat in cards to gain an competitive advantage at that moment. How does wearing the wrong color socks or wrong color cleats provide an advantage to the player?

You are rationalising again. It's against the rules, don't do it. Or if your team does, don't get upset when there are consequences.

Sorry Charlie. I am not the one "rationalizing". That is your specialty as you've shown through-out this thread. And you ignored the question asked of you. How does it give someone a competitive advantage? Because that was the claim by the "High-Level Executive".

You are right they ARE both cheating and my answer doesn't really matter but I'll give it to you in a bit. It doesn't matter because even if I'm a hypocrite, if a team gets caught cheating and gets disciplined for it, they deserve it. To answer your question I only get in an uproar when players commit holding or pass interference against my team if it doesn't get called or, if it is against my team and gets called, I am pissed at the player...not the ref that called it nor do I begrudge the penalty assessed.

sdfan

The Pats weren't caught cheating. They were caught violating a video taping procedure. One that provided them no competitive advantage at the time it was being done.

 

[DaBruinz]

First, I apologise. By "Dolts" I though you meant "Bolts". Second, none of those allegations have been proven as the IR violation was.

sdfan

The I violation has not been proven. Its heresay at this point. That is what you fail to understand.

 

[DaBruinz]

Who cares? They broke the rule, were punished for it, it's over. You said it was Tucker, it wasn't.

sdfan

They have not been punished for it as its not been verified for either the 2001 incident mentioned by Matt Walsh or the 2005 incident mentioned by Ross Tucker.

Goodell said it would be investigate. He also said that its typically handled internally with the punishment being a fine that is not announced to the public. He also said that if it was found true, there were be no further punishments as the Patriots had already paid a fine for past indiscretions.

 

[DaBruinz]

Actually, I think Florio brings up an even bigger point, although I don't think he meant to. He pointed out the selective enforcement of some rules by the NFL. If the NFL only selectively enforces rules, how are teams supposed to know which ones they are supposed to follow and which ones they aren't? Wouldn't the fact that the lack of enforcement of certain rules means that the NFL actual condones these acts? An argument can certainly be made for it.

Exactly. And a perfect example of this is the Jets taping the AFC Wild Card game in 2006. Mike Tannenbaum (Jets GM) emphatically denied that it happened. Mangini (Jets Coach) ADMITTED to it and lied about "having permission" and yet they were not punished. And that was only 4 months after the memo came out.

Yet, the Patriots get lambasted because the NFL didn't update its Game Manual, Bylaws and Consitution the way its supposed to when a memo of this nature comes out.

 

[flasox27]

It never hurts to have friends and former employees in high places.

 

[OhExaulted1]

You couldn't be more wrong, and I'm answering way more politely than you deserve.
sdfan

Well, thank you from sparing me your wrath. Apparently it doesn't matter that the ONLY team you are focused on is also the same team that eliminated your favorite team from the playoffs.

There are no other transgressions from other teams that you comment on. There is only one team your capable of focusing your troll hate. Good for you.

Go back to your SD board and focus your brow-beating holier-than-thou attitude towards them. Your a hypocrite with an agenda. That is obvious.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, thank you from sparing me your wrath. Apparently it doesn't matter that the ONLY team you are focused on is also the same team that eliminated your favorite team from the playoffs.

There are no other transgressions from other teams that you comment on. There is only one team your capable of focusing your troll hate. Good for you.

Go back to your SD board and focus your brow-beating holier-than-thou attitude towards them. Your a hypocrite with an agenda. That is obvious.

Pao's join date is January, 2007, which means he began coming here well before Spygate broke. He's a Chargers fan on a Patriots board. Do you expect him to be here so he can discuss the steroid problems of the Carolina Panthers, when the entire U.S. sporting media is awash in Spygate and the IR issues?

Use some common sense, for crying out loud.

 

[Zeke_Mowatt]

Pao's join date is January, 2007, which means he began coming here well before Spygate broke. He's a Chargers fan on a Patriots board. Do you expect him to be here so he can discuss the steroid problems of the Carolina Panthers, when the entire U.S. sporting media is awash in Spygate and the IR issues?

Use some common sense, for crying out loud.

Sorry Deus, but his join date is irrelevant. Whether he came here to discuss the state of the union, steroids in pro football, or just to get a gauge on other teams wants prior to the draft, he is, as you stated, a Chargers fan on a Pats board. If he wants to talk football (in much the same vein as Fanetic postured as a Bills/Football fan as an excuse to be here), that's fine by most involved. But he isn't. Just as Fanetic was, he's here to root against us and pile on. And he's proven that time after time. While DaBruinz may have a less than conventional and certainly less than tactful way of evincing that, he has effectively called out Pao in much the same way that Schmessy and others have called out Fanetic as being a "fan" in profession and a troll in action repeatedly. Just because Pao washes your balls every time he posts in the hopes of garnering favor among what appears to be a stalwart on the board, all he's doing is deferring respect to one member here while using it to forward his agenda of hating on the Pats while claiming "fanhood" as a reason. The only difference, in my opinion, is that Fanetic had the ******ed excuse of being a Lawyer who could maybe have used "practicing" his trial and debate skills as an excuse to be here. But Pao, in the midst of professing his innocence at being a troll, proves himself to be nothing but. He continues to claim his love of football and debate as a reason, and he concedes moot points to try and make himself look fair and balanced, but the points which he feels are most damning he stands behind (much as Fanetic did) in the face of evidence to the contrary. He answers questions which he can, ignores those which undermine his point, and stands on the soapbox of "football rooter" to support his claims in the face of all of the above. You fall for it because he worships at the alter of your argumentative Socratic method, but you're missing the big picture. He is a troll. He disguises it well, and has sought out a few people to agree with who argue along the demarcation line of "neutral football fan", but at the end of the day, he's only here to stir the sh!t.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sorry Deus, but his join date is irrelevant. Whether he came here to discuss the state of the union, steroids in pro football, or just to get a gauge on other teams wants prior to the draft, he is, as you stated, a Chargers fan on a Pats board. If he wants to talk football (in much the same vein as Fanetic postured as a Bills/Football fan as an excuse to be here), that's fine by most involved. But he isn't. Just as Fanetic was, he's here to root against us and pile on. And he's proven that time after time. While DaBruinz may have a less than conventional and certainly less than tactful way of evincing that, he has effectively called out Pao in much the same way that Schmessy and others have called out Fanetic as being a "fan" in profession and a troll in action repeatedly. Just because Pao washes your balls every time he posts in the hopes of garnering favor among what appears to be a stalwart on the board, all he's doing is deferring respect to one member here while using it to forward his agenda of hating on the Pats while claiming "fanhood" as a reason. The only difference, in my opinion, is that Fanetic had the ******ed excuse of being a Lawyer who could maybe have used "practicing" his trial and debate skills as an excuse to be here. But Pao, in the midst of professing his innocence at being a troll, proves himself to be nothing but. He continues to claim his love of football and debate as a reason, and he concedes moot points to try and make himself look fair and balanced, but the points which he feels are most damning he stands behind (much as Fanetic did) in the face of evidence to the contrary. He answers questions which he can, ignores those which undermine his point, and stands on the soapbox of "football rooter" to support his claims in the face of all of the above. You fall for it because he worships at the alter of your argumentative Socratic method, but you're missing the big picture. He is a troll. He disguises it well, and has sought out a few people to agree with who argue along the demarcation line of "neutral football fan", but at the end of the day, he's only here to stir the sh!t.

Only in Fantasy Land should Pao be discussing "other teams infractions" when the Patriots ARE the NFL news right now. Yes, Pao is a Chargers fan, which means that he's got Thomlinson's heart (or lack thereof), Merriman's steroids, and the issues of Shaun Phillips, Steve Foley, Terrence Kiel, Markus Curry, Ryan Krause in the recent past. There's no question that Chargers fans have plenty of issues of their own to deal with. However, as the front page of this very message board shows all too well, it is spygate and the IR issue that is dominant news today, and most of those threads were started by Patriots fans. If you don't like his arguments, that's one thing, but attacking Pao just for talking about it is moronic. It's just about the only thing anyone's talking about here.

As for Pao, or anyone else, ballwashing me to butter me up, that doesn't work, as my past history here shows pretty clearly. If someone's wrong, they're wrong. Whether or not I like them doesn't factor into the equation. I like PatsFanInVa, as I consider him of the very best posters on this site, but I went back and forth with him over spygate from, basically, day one.

 

[pao]

Sorry, I missed this yesterday. Great post.

They are accused of breaking the rule. Doesn't mean they didn't do it, right? In my opinion, based on two eyewitnesses, is they did. In fact you have posted in the past that you think so too.
They haven't commented on it.I didn't say they did.
They haven't been punished for breaking that rule.I thought I read somewhere that Goodell said that the fine for Spygate was harsh enough to include this violation and they would not fine them further. If I am wrong, I apologise.
They certainly haven't accepted it.I assume they accepted it because they have not commented on it. Either way it does not prove me wrong.
It is still being investigated.If it is still being investigated it's a waste. Time to move on.

You made 5 points and got every single one wrong. Congrats.

See my comments in red. I'm not so wrong as you believe. Regardless, right or wrong, it's time to move on from this thing. My whole point is if caught allowing IR players to practice a team should expect consequenses if caught.

As to your original point that the Pats have practiced players on IR "continuously", please see my earlier post about the statements made in this case and why doing this "continuously" would be nearly impossible to pull off without being caught.

I didn't say that the Patriots have done this "continuously" in the sense that he has done it continuously without stop. I meant that the poster would have to make a decsion to continuously break the rule that every time that he did it, not one instance frozen in time. You must have got that from a post I made responding to someone relating running a red light as analoguous to allowing an IR player to practice with the team. If you don't like the "continuously" just ignore it. Here is my point; if you get caught breaking a rule you should be punished and move on.

As for Tucker's "revelations", lets look at the IR list for 2005:
Ryan Claridge: Everyone complained how he was never seen around Foxborough during his rehab
Randall Gay: placed on IR on 11/15 so doubtful he was back practicing
Gus Scott: placed on IR on 10/18 with knee injury, possible he could have returned late in the year
Mike Wright: placed on IR on 1/6/06, so doubtful he was back practicing
Michael McGrew: placed on IR 9/15 but not worth a roster spot anyway

So who did Tucker witness practicing while on IR? Ignoring McGrew (who had already been waived once), the only real possibility was Gus Scott. Given his injury history with his knee, I don't think he would be a real practice difference maker late in the year. While Tucker may technically be telling the truth and Scott worked out a little during a practice late in 2005, his article leaves a much different impression that your "continously" comment takes to a whole new level.

First I would note that I would not ignore anyone, including McGrew. Either they broke the rule or they didn't. Second, it doesn't matter the degree in which a player practicing while on IR is a "difference maker", the rule doesn't say only "difference makers" on IR can't practice. Third, you are too hung up on the "continuously". It doesn't matter within the context of this discussion. Either it is right to allow players to practice on IR or not. One day, continuously, whatever. I believe the Patriots have been caught doing it, I believe that they have accepted that they have been caught, and I THOUGHT they had already been penalised for it. If I am wrong about anything I am not wrong that it is against the rules to do it. That if a team does it and is caught they should be punished, and once punished that's it, move on. You apparently agree because you posted this...

I'm not naive enough to think that the Pats don't "redshirt" rooks to keep them off the waiver wire...or later in the year don't have them run around a little or attend meetings or whatever. If caught, the Pats or any other team should be fined. Case closed. There is a rule, enforcement procedures and associated penalties. Move along...nothing to see here.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

sdfan

 

[DaBruinz]

Sorry, I missed this yesterday. Great post.

Originally Posted by Metaphors
They are accused of breaking the rule. Doesn't mean they didn't do it, right? In my opinion, based on two eyewitnesses, is they did. In fact you have posted in the past that you think so too.

No, they don't, in fact, have two eye witnesses. They have two unsubstantiated reports of a player on the IR practicing. One from 2001 and one from 2005. Two different instances. Neither one has been corroburated.

They haven't commented on it.I didn't say they did.

Yes, you DID say that the NFL had commented on it. You said that they had fined the Patriots. That is FALSE.


They haven't been punished for breaking that rule.I thought I read somewhere that Goodell said that the fine for Spygate was harsh enough to include this violation and they would not fine them further. If I am wrong, I apologise.

No, what Goodell said was that if the Walsh allegation was TRUE, then the penalty, which had been assessed for past transgressions, not just the breaking of the video taping procedures rule, would cover this.

They certainly haven't accepted it.I assume they accepted it because they have not commented on it. Either way it does not prove me wrong.

Why should they comment on it? And yes, it does prove you wrong because your claim was that the Patriots had accepted the new allegations.

It is still being investigated.If it is still being investigated it's a waste. Time to move on.

Its probably not being investigated. You're right. Its time to move on. Just admit you were wrong already.

You made 5 points and got every single one wrong. Congrats.

See my comments in red. I'm not so wrong as you believe. Regardless, right or wrong, it's time to move on from this thing. My whole point is if caught allowing IR players to practice a team should expect consequenses if caught.

Pao - My comments are in BLUE

I didn't say that the Patriots have done this "continuously" in the sense that he has done it continuously without stop. I meant that the poster would have to make a decsion to continuously break the rule that every time that he did it, not one instance frozen in time. You must have got that from a post I made responding to someone relating running a red light as analoguous to allowing an IR player to practice with the team. If you don't like the "continuously" just ignore it. Here is my point; if you get caught breaking a rule you should be punished and move on.

Unfortunately, what you said and what you meant are two different things. Also, none of the examples I mentioned were about running a single red light. In fact, none of them were about running a red light. You really need to go back and read the examples I gave because I worded them specifically in the fashion I did because that is how they were meant. They were not meant for you to distort them with your flawed opinion of how they would be applied or not.

First I would note that I would not ignore anyone, including McGrew. Either they broke the rule or they didn't. Second, it doesn't matter the degree in which a player practicing while on IR is a "difference maker", the rule doesn't say only "difference makers" on IR can't practice. Third, you are too hung up on the "continuously". It doesn't matter within the context of this discussion. Either it is right to allow players to practice on IR or not. One day, continuously, whatever. I believe the Patriots have been caught doing it, I believe that they have accepted that they have been caught, and I THOUGHT they had already been penalised for it. If I am wrong about anything I am not wrong that it is against the rules to do it. That if a team does it and is caught they should be punished, and once punished that's it, move on.

sdfan

Not one single person has been able to show me what how a player who is on IR would actually benefit the team by participating in practice. If anything, it benefits the player.

 

[pao]

That's laughable coming from you. I am just replying to your posts.

Whatever. Believe what you will on that score.

The fact that you chose to respond to that post, in general, means you avoided the questions asked.

Nonsensical.

And, contrary to YOUR opinion, they are analgous the way they were written.

You say it is, I say it isn't, neither of us is going to change. Whatever, I'm through arguing this. My other point was that even if the guy that you proposed those questions to WAS a hypocrite it doesn't make what he said WRONG. You can be a hypocrite and STILL be right. Additionally, because a guy runs a red light or breaks any of the other rules you mention, does not mean he can't offer an opinion on someone else that broke a rule. If that were the case not a single one of us would ever be able to comment on anyone breaking a rule, including you. Maybe Jesus could, not you or me or anyone else. How silly is that?

The rule they were punished for was for violating a taping procedure. NOT for the IR issue. You really should follow along better.

Well apparently you agreed with me at one time since you wrote this...

And what he said was an IR violation typically resulted in a fine and that if, in fact, that violation in 2001 turned out to be true, then he felt that the Patriots had already been fined for past transgressions and no new fine would be issued.

I had the same impression and so believe the Patrtiots have already been punished for their IR transgressions.

Also, you said "Even if he is a hypocrite", refering to Belichick. Again, you didn't follow along with the conversation even though you were quoted directly.

Apparently it was you that wan't following along because I was clearly referring to the poster that you claimed was a hypocrite, NOT Bill B.

And, yes, answering yes to anyone of those and a person complaining about the broken rule would make them a hypocrite. I'm sorry that you think its more complicated than it really is.

Even if you are right (I don't think you are), it shouldn't keep him from giving his opinion OR that his opinion is wrong. Pretty simple.

No. YOU are wrong. In the scope of the argument, breaking the rules is NOT cheating. This is what you refuse comprehend. I have given you a perfect example previously. A player is breaking the rules to wear the wrong color socks or wrong color cleats. How is that cheating? What competitive edge does it give him? The answer is NONE. But its still breaking the rules. You can break the rules and not be cheating. However, if you are cheating, you definitely are breaking the rules. If I was to follow YOUR flawed logic, then the following would be true.
All rectangles are squares.

We know that to be false.
The true statement is this:
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
If you actually look at the definition of cheat it mentioned card playing. You cheat in cards to win. Its not that much of a leap to say that you cheat in cards to gain an competitive advantage at that moment. How does wearing the wrong color socks or wrong color cleats provide an advantage to the player?

This is an example of you being all over the place. Who cares if wearing socks agains the rules is cheating? Let's stick to this one rule. We are talking about a player who is on IR practicing, which is clearly against the rules and, whether you like it or not, gives a team that allows it an advantage over teams that don't. That is breaking a rule, that is cheating. It's done and over, imo.

Sorry Charlie. I am not the one "rationalizing". That is your specialty as you've shown through-out this thread.

Any objective reader would disagree with you I'm sure.

And you ignored the question asked of you. How does it give someone a competitive advantage? Because that was the claim by the "High-Level Executive".

I've answered before. I also said it wasn't in the best interests of ALL players to be put on IR if they were allowed to practice.

The Pats weren't caught cheating. They were caught violating a video taping procedure. One that provided them no competitive advantage at the time it was being done.

Let's not get into THAT again. It's done and over. Let's move on. Besides, using your own test, you aren't qualified to comment on breaking rules and such, unless you want to be labeled a hypocrite. I mean you have broken the speed limit before or not stopped at a stop sign, right?

sdfan

 

[pao]

The I violation has not been proven. Its heresay at this point. That is what you fail to understand.

And what he said was an IR violation typically resulted in a fine and that if, in fact, that violation in 2001 turned out to be true, then he felt that the Patriots had already been fined for past transgressions and no new fine would be issued. Your words. That's good enough for me.

sdfan

 

[pao]

They have not been punished for it as its not been verified for either the 2001 incident mentioned by Matt Walsh or the 2005 incident mentioned by Ross Tucker.

Goodell said it would be investigate. He also said that its typically handled internally with the punishment being a fine that is not announced to the public. He also said that if it was found true, there were be no further punishments as the Patriots had already paid a fine for past indiscretions.

LOL. EXACTLY.

sdfan

 

[pao]

Well, thank you from sparing me your wrath. Apparently it doesn't matter that the ONLY team you are focused on is also the same team that eliminated your favorite team from the playoffs.

LOL. Come on. I'm not even giving the Patriots a hard time. My point is if you break a rule you should accept the consequences. I am not picking on the Patriots because they beat the Chargers in the AFCCG! Man, I guess if you look hard enough you can find anything.

There are no other transgressions from other teams that you comment on. There is only one team your capable of focusing your troll hate. Good for you.

How do you get hate from my posts? Where's the hate? I'm just saying, if they broke a rule they should be punished, as should ANY team that breaks a rule. SD, NE, hell, Miami. Break a rule expect punishment, if it's given to you, accept it and move on.

Go back to your SD board and focus your brow-beating holier-than-thou attitude towards them. Your a hypocrite with an agenda. That is obvious.

Whatever. Do you agree with these statements....
1. A team allowing a player to practice while that player is on IR is against the rules.
2. It doesn't matter what team is doing it, it is against the rules.
3. If a team breaks a rule they should be punished.

If you agree with these statements you agree with me, hypocrite or not.

To clarify something that I feel you should have understood when I posted it, but you obviously didn't, I will edit my example that showed a hypocrite could still be right. Here is how it appeared earlier...

1) I post this statement here..."The Patriots are a very good team".
2) I post on the Chargers board or on many boards... "The Patriots suck".

Post #1 is still correct, right?

I didn't mean that I had posted those. I meant if a hypocrite had posted those. Here is a clearer example....

1) A hypocrite posted this statement here..."The Patriots are a very good team".
2) A hypocrite posted on the Chargers board or on many boards... "The Patriots suck".

Post #1 is still correct, right?

Understand now? The Patriots arre still very good even though a hypocrite posted it, right?

sdfan