Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    Peter King ... says that the NFL is sweeping it under the rug because it goes back years and the league doesn't want a scandal fallout.
    Still looking for anything at all by King (or anyone else reputable?) accusing the NFL of doing anything remotely like "sweeping it under the rug" to avoid a larger scandal

    I'm just not seeing it, but rather I see praise for Goodall for delivering a "stern warning to all teams"

    OK I see where you think it's the one taken down-- my bad. The NFL must have hovered over Kings house with their black helicopters and erased that column. Or maybe King decided he hadn't gotten it right?
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-17-2007, 05:33 PM.
    The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

    Comment


    • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

      I haven't got time to read it (and probably won't since I imagine I already did a long time ago, and also the fact that this thread has gone to Hell), but here's the cached version of that article: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

      You should be able to read it now.
      You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

      Comment


      • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

        Interesting article,

        I remember reading that. Nowhere in the article does he say anything to the effect that "the NFL is sweeping it under the rug because it goes back years and the league doesn't want a scandal fallout."

        It merely says BB should have been suspended along with the fine and draft pick. Nothing at all anywhere remotely implying that the NFL sweeping anything under the rug.

        I think the Patriots and Bill Belichick got off lucky.

        What Roger Goodell did in penalizing Belichick was significant, but he did not ban Belichick from coaching for even a week for repeatedly cheating -- after being warned 12 months ago to not videotape other teams' coaches signaling in plays from the sidelines.

        When Dallas assistant coach Wade Wilson got suspended five games and fined $100,000 this month for using the banned substance HGH to treat impotency, Goodell told him coaches have to be held to a higher standard.

        Belichick was found guilty by Judge Goodell of "a calculated and deliberate attempt'' to evade the spirit and letter of the NFL rules. You tell me: Finding one of the coaching giants of the game guilty of cheating, then fining him 12.5 percent of his salary, taking away one of his five first-day draft choices next April (assuming New England makes the playoffs) and not suspending him ... is that holding this coach to a higher standard?

        Now, about Belichick's reaction. An odd mix of mea culpa with too much justification for the cheating, I thought. To me, there's something almost 1972-Nixonian about what Belichick did; and just before midnight Thursday, a longtime NFL employee echoed that to me. "Most of the people I've talked to this week have been mystified by this, like I am,'' this club official said. "It's like, Why did Nixon need Watergate? He was going to win the '72 election in a landslide anyway. And why does this guy with such a great team need to be doing penny-ante stuff against the rules anyway?''

        Particularly in New York. How brazen, how cocky, how untouchable, how arrogant must he have thought of himself. Coaching against a man who knew all his tricks -- former Pats aide Eric Mangini -- who KNEW to be looking for the video spy, Belichick was almost asking to get caught.

        As for Belichick's teflon reaction, remember the very well-publicized warning all teams got last September from the league. "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game," said the warning from league vice president Ray Anderson. In the league's rule book, on page 105, the video ban is as clear as day. "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game,'' the rules state.

        Belichick said in his Thursday night statement: "Part of my job as head coach is to ensure that our football operations are conducted in compliance of the league rules and all accepted interpretations of them. My interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect.''

        You know what that is? It's a classic deflection by Belichick. Instead of simply admitting he broke the rules and saying he deserves to be censured, he throws the changeup and tries to smokescreen us. The "interpretation'' of the rule was in error. That's an insult to Goodell, and to every fan who loves either the Patriots, this game or both.

        Goodell slapped Belichick hard, but not hard enough. A suspension should have accompanied the loss of the top draft choice.


        Come on, Peter King is an important writer, covering the country's most popular sport for CNN, the #1 media group in the world. When he breaks a story or offers an opinion, it is big news. He wrote the relatively tame quote
        from Wade Phillips:

        He said the league’s sanctioning the Patriots for cheating “was a black mark on their success … not that I bet they gained much from it.” He praised the Patriots and thought they deserved all the credit for winning the three Super Bowls.
        Of course this story was picked by by ESPN, Fox News, ABC News, even the NFL network. It was a big story.

        Now we are to believe that Peter King also wrote in some mystery article that the NFL is sweeping the Patriots taping scandal under the rug because it goes back years and the league doesn't want a scandal fallout.

        Amazingly, nobody picked up on that story, which I would think would be a whole lot bigger story than the Wade Phillips comments. CNN's main football writer charges the NFL is sweeping a scanal under the rug. That would have gotten about as much airplay as Don Imus's remarks about the Rutger's women's team.

        The inevitable conclusion is that somebody is either making stuff up or grossly exaggerating and hearing words that he wants to hear or read, when no such words are on the page anywhere.

        Sorry to belabor this point, but I don't think it unfair of me to ask for documentation for such a serious charge as attributing a comment to Peter King that "the NFL is sweeping it under the rug because it goes back years and the league doesn't want a scandal fallout"

        I've looked for evidence of Peter King writing that and it is not there, but of course we all know that.

        Originally posted by Google
        Your search for Peter King "under a rug" Bill Belichick returned no results.
        Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 10-17-2007, 10:46 PM.
        The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

        Comment


        • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

          Like I said earlier, I don't blame you guys for your irrational hatred of the Patriots, just be willing to admit it.

          For instance, if I was standing on a corner with Al Davis, would I push him in front of a bus? There's a chance I would. That's irrational hatred for a man I don't even know, but there it is, and I own it. :P

          I completely understand where you guys are coming from, too! Colts fans in regards to the Patriots have been a lot like Pacers fans in regard to the Pistons (no rivalry till you win something). I think Colts fans felt like they finally got over the hump, got the monkey off their back, slayed the dragon, whatever. And then New England just reloads and comes back stronger than ever. I get it, I really do. Just make an attempt to see it for what it is, that's all I ask.

          Comment


          • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

            I know I said I'm done w/ this thread, but I just want to say this to Eindar: I, personally, do not hate the Pats, let alone irrationally hate them. I don't think most Colts fans irrationally hate them, either. We enjoy the rivalry, sure, but when it comes to looking at the Pats team, I'm not all of sudden flooded with some weird surge of hate. They're just another team, in that sense. Why would Colts fan hate them? We've got our SB. Don't know about anyone else, but I'm pretty damn content.

            I'm not ready to say that the Pat's prior accomplishments are tainted, but I'm also not ready to think that the Pats are as squeaky-clean as the Pats fans here would like you to think. I think this is pretty reasonable. I mean, the team got caught cheating, and it was made clear to us that they were repeat offender. To me, the ones being irrational are the guys that don't expect anyone to be suspicious of the Pats' integrity. IMHO, if you get caught cheating, you earn the whole * rip. I'd except the same stuff if the Colts got caught cheating--I'd feel like I really wouldn't have a leg to stand on if people wanted to say stuff like Colts*.

            In a way, this stuff is like the situation with the brawl: us Pacer fans (for a while) wanted the rest of the league to not pidgeon-hole us as some kind of evil, despicable team (since for a long time we were known as a really classy club), but the fact remained that our players knocked out a ton of spectators--that earns you a certain amount of derision, and there's a point where you just gotta accept it and try to move on... although I know this comparison doesn't hold up completely, so don't waste your time tearing it to shreds or something. I was just looking for some common ground.

            Anyway, that's my official Peace Out post. I hope we kill the Jaggies.
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


            • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

              Point taken, SIG.

              I've heard several times that this isn't really contained to the Patriots, that teams often bend/break rules to try to get an advantage, including videotaping signals. Perhaps the NFL office didn't do anything severe because if they did anything severe to the Patriots, they'd have to do something severe to other teams. I have no concrete evidence that wrongdoing has been done by other teams, just suggestions in articles.

              Having said that, I do know that cheating isn't just for the Patriots. In 1997 during a playoff game against the Chiefs, the Broncos offensive line had to go get some sort of slippery substance wiped off their jerseys. This is blatant cheating in a "win or go home" game, and they weren't even penalized the 15 yards they were supposed to have.

              Also, this incident occurred a couple years after I watched a TV special on how to "cheat" when playing football. One way was to use double-sided tape on your pads so your jersey couldn't be grabbed, and another method was....spraying Pam on your jersey to make it slippery so the other team couldn't grab you as well.

              All I'm saying is that cheating is a big part of professional sports. In this case, I don't even think it should be illegal. If you don't want the other team to know what you're doing, hide it better. I feel the same way about stealing signs in baseball. I'm against using a foreign substance like, say, pine tar, to make your pitches perform better, or spraying yourself down with non-stick cooking spray so a defensive lineman can't get a good grip on you to get you out of the way, but, to me, stealing signs and calls is just playing smart.

              Comment


              • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                A couple of weeks after the Patriots Spygate incident, Jimmy Johnson said on WFAN radio that he stole signals when he was coaching. He had a camera crew Video taping the signal caller in the press box. I guess that great Cowboys team from the 90's are a bunch of cheaters as well.

                Comment


                • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                  When the Jets spotted a Patriots on-field video assistant filming their coaching signals during a Sept. 9 game at the Meadowlands, it set into motion a passion play that could have starred another North Jersey operator, Tony Soprano. By exposing the dirty secret of his former boss, Pats coach Bill Belichick, Jets coach Eric Mangini broke a long-held code that NFL coaches live by: Don't go against the family. "If he wasn't before, Mangini's dead to Belichick now," says one head coach. "What Mangini did is a disgrace. He wouldn't be a coach in this league without Bill, and this is how he repays him."
                  Commissioner Roger Goodell ruled swiftly when he found out that New England had taped defensive hand signals. He fined Belichick $500,000 and the team $250,000 and stripped the club of a high-round 2008 draft pick. It's widely believed that New England has stolen signals in this manner for years, but officials from various clubs acknowledge that the Pats are not the only team that does it. Last week's revelation doesn't mean the New England dynasty is a fraud, but it does take some shine off those three Super Bowl wins.

                  It may seem absurd to think that if Belichick was blatantly violating an NFL rule -- one reenforced by two NFL memos in the last year -- the Jets should have ignored it. But last year the Lions and the Packers caught the Patriots taping and simply told them to stop without informing the league. Unlike New York, they followed the coaching fraternity's antisnitching code.
                  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...924/index.html

                  Again, it's not an isolated incident. They continued to do it even when caught by other teams, and after the league sent league wide memos.

                  As for the other teams suspected, it's just as wrong. I'll be the first person to stand up and be pissed off if the Colts were ever doing anything like this.
                  Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                  Comment


                  • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                    My least favorite argument to come out of the Patriots scandal is the "cheating is bad, but everyone does it" defense.

                    Would Tony Dungy tape signals? Cut opposing coaches mics? Have players fake injuries?

                    Nope.

                    Comment


                    • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                      Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                      My least favorite argument to come out of the Patriots scandal is the "cheating is bad, but everyone does it" defense.

                      Would Tony Dungy tape signals? Cut opposing coaches mics? Have players fake injuries?

                      Nope.
                      Or at least, that's what you would like to believe. I'm not as homicidally competitive as most professional athletes/coaches, and I'd do all of the above if it gave me an edge and it was a reasonable risk.

                      What year was it that the Colts were accused of piping in noise on the visitor's sideline? See, true or not, allegations of cheating as easy to find.

                      Regardless, I view this stuff as gamesmanship, not cheating. This is the same reason the Boston Garden's visitor's locker room used to be one of the nastiest places in the entire buildiing. It made it harder for the visiting team to focus on winning the game and preparing properly. Is that cheating, too?

                      Ty Cobb is in the hall of fame, and not only is he my personal Jesus, he's obviously got a reputation as being one of the dirtiest players and biggest rule-breakers to ever play. But, he's still in the Hall.

                      Comment


                      • Re: New England at Dallas - NFL Showdown Special - 10/14/07

                        Originally posted by Eindar View Post
                        Or at least, that's what you would like to believe. I'm not as homicidally competitive as most professional athletes/coaches, and I'd do all of the above if it gave me an edge and it was a reasonable risk.

                        What year was it that the Colts were accused of piping in noise on the visitor's sideline? See, true or not, allegations of cheating as easy to find.

                        Regardless, I view this stuff as gamesmanship, not cheating. This is the same reason the Boston Garden's visitor's locker room used to be one of the nastiest places in the entire buildiing. It made it harder for the visiting team to focus on winning the game and preparing properly. Is that cheating, too?

                        Ty Cobb is in the hall of fame, and not only is he my personal Jesus, he's obviously got a reputation as being one of the dirtiest players and biggest rule-breakers to ever play. But, he's still in the Hall.
                        It's not gamesmanship, it's cheating. If you knowingly break a rule, that you've been repeatedly warned not to break, then it's cheating. Barry Bonds cheated, Jose Conseco cheated, Bill Belichick cheated. I still think they should have forfeited that Jets game.

                        I believe with all my heart that Tony Dungy wouldn't cheat. Can I guarantee it? Of course not, people do awful things. But if there has ever been a more decent person who coached in the NFL I've not heard of him.

                        I don't think Cobb should be in the Hall of Fame. I actually disagree with how we use Hall of Fames and the voting process that populates them, but that's another argument.

                        And it's ridiculous to compare the Colts piping in crowd noise, a dirty rumor that has never been substantiated by anything other than whispers, with what was a blatant abuse of NFL rules.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X