What to do about underinflated footballs?

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
Should they punished? Yes, a heavy fine should be levied, only to reinforce intolerance of rule violations.
With regard to NFL, what's a "heavy fine"? Because the Pats--as an organization--don't seem to bat an eye over dollar signs or even a draft pick, when it comes to punishment.
Is it relative to the result, especially in that game. No.
Sure, one can reasonably say it had no impact. But if the game hinged on a miraculous last second throw and catch by the Pats, might it have an impact? Who can say.

But imo, that doesn't matter. The rules either mean something or they don't.
 

Jcomp

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
5,352
Reaction score
1,422
With regard to NFL, what's a "heavy fine"? Because the Pats--as an organization--don't seem to bat an eye over dollar signs or even a draft pick, when it comes to punishment.

Sure, one can reasonably say it had no impact. But if the game hinged on a miraculous last second throw and catch by the Pats, might it have an impact? Who can say.

But imo, that doesn't matter. The rules either mean something or they don't.

Well, the rules mean something, and the punishment reflects what the league thinks of the rule. Just like any other penalty. The league thinks a blow to the head is worth a 15-yard flag, while a false start is just 5-yards. Either one, if not flagged or caught, can give the offending team an advantage. In this case, they think under-inflated footballs warrant a fine and maybe lost draft picks. That's how much the rule means to them. The rulebook starts off with a $25,000 fine for altered or non-reg footballs. That's what the NFL thinks of the situation.

I also think it plays into the general nature of most organized, professional sports. Everybody's looking to get away with something. If one player fouls another in a basketball game and the ref doesn't call it, he don't go to the ref and say "hey, I got him on that last one, give him his free throws." If a lineman in football gets away with holding, he doesn't tell the ref, "move us back ten yards; you didn't see it, but I held the sh*t out of that guy." When Gretzky got away with high-sticking Gilmour in the Finals, he didn't go ahead and put himself in the penalty box anway, even though none the refs claimed to see it. So on and so forth. Golf is the one sport where players are expected to police themselves honestly, and sometimes in soccer when it comes to handballs, it seems. Everything else, we seem to be pretty complacent with players getting an illegal edge here and there in game. So at the team level, to me, again it's kind of "meh." Punish the Pats and then keep it moving.

Ultimately, I think the NFL's punishment system isn't really all that severe for this sort of thing, or any other on-field cheating / gamesmanship really. Take, for example, PED's. You get 4 games or so, then you're back on the field. The team doesn't forfeit any games you played and you can be back in time for the playoffs, as was the case with the Ravens' Ngata this season. Compare that to college, where you can get entire championships voided if it's proven you had ineligible players on the team during your season. Not apples to apples, but it illustrates a bit of a point. The NFL has had this sort of activity going on for years. The late great George Allen used to talk about spies being in the trees during NFL Films specials and it was treated as a joke. Granted, times change, but the whole "cheating" thing just doesn't appear to be that big of a priority, regardless of whatever statements they may make claiming otherwise.

I think the NFL sort of likes this kind of thing--anything on-field related that keeps people talking about the sport. And they can get away with it. If nothing else this whole year has pretty much proven to them that their league is virtually scandal-proof. The masses will watch, regardless. The Super Bowl will do its usual ridiculous numbers. The advertisers will pay out their usual riduculous checks for a minute of airtime. Short of a revelation that the Super Bowl is completely fixed or something, there's apparently very little that can dent the popularity of the game.
 
Last edited:

Jcomp

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2006
Messages
5,352
Reaction score
1,422
But imo, that doesn't matter. The rules either mean something or they don't.

Also, according to the NFL's rules (which, I know, don't have to match anyone's opinion in this discussion anyway), apparently it does matter

(Just for the rec, I'm bored, that's why I'm talking about this so much, plus there aren't too many other internet safe havens where you can talk about sports in anything approaching a reasonable fashion).

From the ESPN article on the discovery of the violation:

Rule 17, Section 2 of the NFL rule book gives Goodell "the sole authority to investigate and take appropriate disciplinary and/or corrective measures if any club action, non-participant interference, or calamity occurs in an NFL game which he deems so extraordinarily unfair or outside the accepted tactics encountered in professional football that such action has a major effect on the result of the game."

Bolding mine. But basically, according the NFL's rule book, the level of impact on the game totally matters when it comes to whether or not the commish should make the offendng team forfeit the victory.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
That's in there for stuff not covered by the rules. Did it get added because of the snow-plow incident in 1982? Something in my mind says "yes," but I can't find any cites in that regard. And hey, that was the stinkin' Pats too!



Regardless, I'm given to understand Harvard Law School has now suspended classes temporarily because of the angst over this incident and its long-term legal ramifications.
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
8,433
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
The press conferences today were GOLD. And in front of the Gillette Trackball banner, no less.

Belichick: "Tom Brady has preferences for his balls...er...his footballs..."

And then Brady: "After I pick the balls out, I don't want anyone touching them, rubbing them..." *shifty little grin* "...the footballs..."

Andrew Luck got his digs in, too. "The loss was deflating...oh shit..." *sly grin*

I'm actually getting kind of nervous this is going to keep the Pats so loose with laughter they'll be all freewheelin' on SB Sunday. :-/
 

poetinahat

say it loud
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
21,851
Reaction score
10,441
I don't think shame factors into it at all - it's not the first (or second or third, or...) time they've been accused of cheating. It wouldn't be the first time they were caught cheating. I don't think some of the people we're talking about have the basic capacity for shame, heh.

That's my feeling too - they just do shit because they can.
 

Snowstorm

Baby plot bunneh sniffs out a clue
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Messages
13,722
Reaction score
1,121
Location
Wyoming mountain cabin
That's my feeling too - they just do shit because they can.

That's my feeling too. But that begs the question, if the Patriots are that good (and I do believe they are an incredible team), WHY do they try to cheat!? I can't help but wonder if the culture of that team is "win at all costs."
 

mirandashell

Banned
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
16,197
Reaction score
1,889
Location
England
Just what I expected. The big boys get away with it and the small fry get tossed in the fire.

But
An investigation into the so-called Deflategate scandal concluded it is more likely than not that New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady "was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities"
is a long way from saying he's culpable, IMO.
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
8,433
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
Well, actually, it's pretty damning, the language. They have specific evidence standards in the NFL policies, and "more likely than not" means they've met the standard for a circumstantial case. It's about the best the investigator can do.

There is definitely an expectation of some punishment. After all Sean Payton got suspended a year and the league found he knew nothing about the "pay for hits" hullabaloo. It's going to be fascinating to see how the league deals with one of its poster boys.

Personally, I think it's a lot of fuss for not much. The only reason I really care is the history of Belichick putting his toe--well half his foot--over the line. Not that any punishment's gonna matter to him.