Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Court re-instates Brady suspension

The power and the way Roger uses it just seems werid to me. The let guys bash their wives and girl friends and get slapped on the wrists. They left AP whip his kid and he only gets a year when he should have been been banned for life. The let guys fail drug test after drug test before suspensied them for good. The NFL knew about concussions and did nothing until challenged. This is just a stuipid power play by the league and 20 Million dollars later it still is stupid that we are talking about deflated footballs and Brady. I hope Brady appeals. I hope unless the Lions win the Super Bowl I hope New England does and when they hand the Mvp trophy to Brady he says
"Fuck off Roger on national tv. Just give it to my line men who protected me this year,"
Now that would be great. The NFL Monopoly is one of the biggest cheaters out there as an organization.

The NFL and Goodell have done more to punish wife beaters and AP than law enforcement. As far as failed drug tests and length of suspensions...blame the players union for that...it's part of the CBA
 
Who gave Goodell the Power? Players association did. They shouldn't complain now.
 
Ink, I agree with stark cheating like fixing a match, but so much else is shades of gray. Heck, some things we would consider cheating in one Era are simply part of the game in another. In baseball, how many times has the mound been changed? In basketball more points are now awarded for longer jumpers and several defensive practices have been banned. In football, rules are constantly tweaked that make games from even 10 years ago look like a totally different league.

Further, we can't escape that sports are products of their times. There are supplements that can be bought over the counter today that would been considered cheating in the past. The improvements in training and food Science means today's athletes would look like raided out freaks in 1950.

My point isn't that cheating doesn't happen or matter, more that it is subjective. Barry hitting 73 Homer's was amazing to see, no matter what he was on. Certainly no one else could do it even though they all had access to the same enhancers. Was he cheating? It depends on how you view the rest of the league. Did he really have an unfair advantage, or was everyone on the same level?

Is deflating balls cheating? Yeah, probably. But did it have any real impact on the game? Probably not. I can't pretend to watch football caring about the little things. If I did, I wouldn't be able to watch it. Every single game I watch I suspend disbelief, I pretend it doesn't matter that I'm contributing to immoral and exploitative owners, that at least one guy on the field is an abuser or criminal, that the game itself ruins brains, that the game desensitized us to violence and misogyny in our culture, and that nothing I say or do has any bearing on the outcome. Decrying cheating is fine and well, but we only know in our own heads how much cheating really matters. If deflating footballs won the Lions a championship, would all of us still condemn it? Would we even consider it wrong?

I would have to argue with two of your points bud.

#1 The rules changing is not cheating. I agree that it means we can't always compare players from one era to players from another, but cheating is playing outside the rules. The rules changing is one thing, but players still have to play within those rules.. thats why we have rules.

#2 I hear people saying that the deflated balls didn't affect the game. My question then is... why did he do it? Why would someone break the rules if it had no affect. He had secret text messages about the subject. He had people sneaking into equipment rooms after balls had been inspected to change the air pressure. Why?

I think it's wrong to assume it had no affect on the game. It's kind of like when Pudge Rodriguez was called out for using 'roids. He got off them. He lost a lot of muscle. He had some of the best seasons of his career.

People will argue they had no affect on him. They did have an affect. He didn't need them to be a great player, but they still had an affect.

Brady may not have needed deflated balls to win a Superbowl, but he obviously went through all that trouble for a reason.... because it had an impact.
 
I would have to argue with two of your points bud.

#1 The rules changing is not cheating. I agree that it means we can't always compare players from one era to players from another, but cheating is playing outside the rules. The rules changing is one thing, but players still have to play within those rules.. thats why we have rules.

#2 I hear people saying that the deflated balls didn't affect the game. My question then is... why did he do it? Why would someone break the rules if it had no affect. He had secret text messages about the subject. He had people sneaking into equipment rooms after balls had been inspected to change the air pressure. Why?

I think it's wrong to assume it had no affect on the game. It's kind of like when Pudge Rodriguez was called out for using 'roids. He got off them. He lost a lot of muscle. He had some of the best seasons of his career.

People will argue they had no affect on him. They did have an affect. He didn't need them to be a great player, but they still had an affect.

Brady may not have needed deflated balls to win a Superbowl, but he obviously went through all that trouble for a reason.... because it had an impact.

Fair points. That said:

1) Rules are not black and white, that's exactly why we have refs and replays to figure them out (and why we can still say they got it wrong). Rules are subjective themselves.

Further, rules are simply what is agree upon in public. Everybody knows that each down played has a hold or two going on in the trenches. By the letter of the rule, we should be seeing constant penalties. But nobody wants to see that or play that way. The refs, the players, and the league have all agreed in private to simply not be that strict. This basically requires players to cheat (by the letter of the rule) to play effectively - but no one considers it cheating because they accept it's good for the game.

Taking that one further to Barry, what seems to have been agreed upon in private is that steroids and HGH were ok to use. The league actively looked the other way, use was prevalent all over, and the public loved seeing those dingers (our revisionist history of this era is actually kind of sad to me). Now, did Barry break the rules? Absolutely, no one should argue otherwise. But did he have an unfair advantage (the basic premise for having rules)? Hard to say. Like Pudge, Barry was great either way. Could he have hit 73 homers without juice? I don't know. But he would have been just as much better than his peers in an unjuiced world.

2) Playoff football has a binary outcome: win or lose. We can talk about how well a team played or didn't, but those two conditions are the only ones that matter at the end of the day. When I say the deflated balls didn't affect the game, I mean that New England was too much better than the Colts to lose regardless.

As for why he did it, because he wanted every advantage. He's human, he's not walking into the game thinking, "Well, obviously we are going to smoke them, so I don't need to try very hard." Brady and the team are giving maximum effort because the playoffs demand as much. And maximum effort includes taking chances to improve the odds.

Consider sign-stealing in the NFL. It is against the rules, certainly. But if a coach notices the same signs across the field leading to the same plays, we would consider them stupid if they didn't adjust. Indeed, there's a reason coaches cover their mouths when calling a play, and why three different players are throwing fake signs every time a they read the play from the sidelines. And again, if our team isn't at least trying to crack the code during the game, we would consider them remiss in their duties. Why is that, when we know it's cheating?

Deflating footballs FEELS more like cheating than stealing signs during the game. That's why we care more. We ignore the fact that teams have people on staff that do nothing during the game but watch opponents' signals because it doesn't feel so bad. Then we are up in arms when even close to the same effort is put towards cheating in another way. But in a black and white world, where cheating is cheating, they are both the same. That Brady deflated balls is against the rules, but that he tried to give his team (or even just himself) an extra edge is basic football.
 
1) Rules of the game are clearly different than penalties during a game. Holding is a penalty. Icing is a penalty. A Technical Foul is a penalty. Steroids is cheating. Altering the equipment is cheating.

2) You just made my exact point for me. He wanted every advantage. People are saying it provided no advantage and didn't matter. Really? Because one of the best QB's ever to play the game seems to disagree.

I love the analogy to sign stealing, but I have to disagree. To me, if it's something you can do thats based on skill... stealing signs or picking up on call signals.. that's not cheating. In fact, if you read the MLB rule book, there is no rule against the guy at 2nd stealing signs and giving them back to the batter.

However, if you need to add equipment or alter equipment, we've hit cheating. If you install a camera in centerfield to pick up signs at the plate (I think it was Cleveland that did that one) that's cheating. You have to be able to do it with your own skill.

So, in that regard I would say that deflating footballs is the altering of approved equipment, and in that regard it's much closer to corking a bat or loading a pitch than it is to stealing a sign. Now you're playing the game with MORE than just your own human skill, and that's where we cross the line.
 
Ink, we obviously don't see eye to eye, though I enjoy the debate. I do think holding and penalties count as cheating. Indeed, that's why they are penalties in the first place. Just because they are known occurrences doesn't mean they aren't equally against the rules.

Also, Brady was throwing the same deflated balls as Luck. He didn't have a lopsided inhuman advantage. His advantage was entirely human (familiarity with lower pressure balls). It is not the same as one guy hitting with a corked bat. More similarly, it would be like a pitcher replacing everyone's bats with corked ones. Maybe he pitches differently because he knows they are corked, but he still has to go out and face the same obstacle as his opponent.
 
Ink, we obviously don't see eye to eye, though I enjoy the debate. I do think holding and penalties count as cheating. Indeed, that's why they are penalties in the first place. Just because they are known occurrences doesn't mean they aren't equally against the rules.

Also, Brady was throwing the same deflated balls as Luck. He didn't have a lopsided inhuman advantage. His advantage was entirely human (familiarity with lower pressure balls). It is not the same as one guy hitting with a corked bat. More similarly, it would be like a pitcher replacing everyone's bats with corked ones. Maybe he pitches differently because he knows they are corked, but he still has to go out and face the same obstacle as his opponent.

Maybe we should just call it "breaking the rules". Just like in life...breaking some rules will bring light penalties and breaking other rules will bring harsh penalties.
 
Ink, we obviously don't see eye to eye, though I enjoy the debate. I do think holding and penalties count as cheating. Indeed, that's why they are penalties in the first place. Just because they are known occurrences doesn't mean they aren't equally against the rules.

Also, Brady was throwing the same deflated balls as Luck. He didn't have a lopsided inhuman advantage. His advantage was entirely human (familiarity with lower pressure balls). It is not the same as one guy hitting with a corked bat. More similarly, it would be like a pitcher replacing everyone's bats with corked ones. Maybe he pitches differently because he knows they are corked, but he still has to go out and face the same obstacle as his opponent.

No, that is not accurate.

Each team brings it's own balls to the game. (Yes, I laugh when I type it too).

Luck has different balls than Brady, and only Brady was using those.

In fact, the kicker has a different set of balls than the QB as well.

(Still giggling. I'm so damned childish)
 
Back
Top