Brady to Ravens: 'Study the rule book and figure it out'

[The Mom Gene]

Maybe. I'm sure Spygate made a lot of people upset, but its hard to see at this point whether or not anybody internally is truly outraged by this incident.

 

I see basically two strikes, and it has more to do with Belichick than anything else, which is fine, because he's the kind of guy that is difficult to like, and people like to look for reasons to hate people they didn't like to begin with.

 

All of the other stuff like running different formations and all of that other nonesense is mostly just fan stuff.

The problem with that Jacket...  is that it's never happened before, and the defenses actually DIDN'T have time to adjust or compensate to defense the play.  Brian Baldinger studied the film of 3 consecutive plays of the Patriots last weekend against the Colts and he even said there was no way for the defending team to adjust, as even he couldn't tell who was eligible and who was ineligible. And the Patriots were in No-Huddle which made it even more confusing...  Even the refs couldn't figure it out initially, just like our game...  Hence the 3rd play where they actually DID get an "illegal formation" penalty.   Which should have happened way early. That's the problem with it. 

[rmcjacket23]

I'm one who really doesn't care who did it....  According to the league the team is responsible for the actions of it's players.  Look at last year's mess and the adversity they bestowed on the Ravens...  and now if RR isn't signed the CAP Space hit we'll take.  That being said...  You can IN flate the ball to a max...  which Aaron Rodgers does....  but you CANNOT DE flate it below the minimum, PERIOD... and if you are doing it, then you have an advantage of "better grip"...  As a girl, I can grip an underinflated ball better than a full one.

 

Bellichick should not be allowed to coach the Super Bowl.... and they lose a #1 draft pick... 

 

I'm tired of the Patriot Bovine crap...  Tuck Rule, Brady Rule, Goal Post Rule, Spygate, Funky Formations/Speed Play so as not to allow defenses to compensate...  and now Deflate-Gate???  Come on...  When does it all Stop?

And I agree that the organization is ultimately held responsible, though the RR situation was completely different due to how incredibly poorly the FO botched the whole thing.

 

As far as the Patriot "crap", half the things you listed aren't really their problem. The tuck rule really has nothing to do with the Patriots... its just one of many stupid NFL rules. The "Brady rule" is purely hypothetical... again, its not a Patriots problem, its a league problem, as is the goal post rule and the "funky formations".

 

This incident + SpyGate are situations where the Patriots actually manipulated rules... the rest really has nothing to do with them.

 

The point of Aaron Rodgers contention is that he actually CAN'T inflate the ball the way he wants, because he wants it inflated MORE than what is allowed. He can't inflate it to the max that he would prefer. Just like Brady can't go less than what is allowed, Rodgers can't go more than what is allowed... both would violate rules.

 

What I would expect, however, is that the rule is changed in some form or fashion. The rule itself sort of goes against logic to a certain extent to begin with.

[rmcjacket23]

The problem with that Jacket...  is that it's never happened before, and the defenses actually DIDN'T have time to adjust or compensate to defense the play.  Brian Baldinger studied the film of 3 consecutive plays of the Patriots last weekend against the Colts and he even said there was no way for the defending team to adjust, as even he couldn't tell who was eligible and who was ineligible. And the Patriots were in No-Huddle which made it even more confusing...  Even the refs couldn't figure it out initially, just like our game...  Hence the 3rd play where they actually DID get an "illegal formation" penalty.   Which should have happened way early. That's the problem with it. 

But no rules were breached... that's the point. The NFL has already acknowledged that, and so did our very own coach.

 

The issue was with the officials, and what Harbaugh perceived to be a lack of time given to the Ravens to mark eligible players. Based on the NFL's findings, the officials followed the protocol they were supposed to follow. From what I've read from other coaches, what Harbaugh was asking for was more or less a certain "courtesy" or "unwritten rule".

 

Again, that's not really a Patriots problem... that's a rule problem. Just like you can't blame the Patriots for the "tuck rule", you can't really blame a team for "cheating" when they don't actually violate rules.

 

If "cheating is cheating" to some people, then by definition, "not cheating has to be not cheating".

 

If, like me, you don't really buy into that logical, then you've come over to my side, which identifies the obvious "gray area" involved in some of these incidents.

[1/28/01]

Maybe. I'm sure Spygate made a lot of people upset, but its hard to see at this point whether or not anybody internally is truly outraged by this incident.

I see basically two strikes, and it has more to do with Belichick than anything else, which is fine, because he's the kind of guy that is difficult to like, and people like to look for reasons to hate people they didn't like to begin with.

All of the other stuff like running different formations and all of that other nonesense is mostly just fan stuff.

I dont mind the running of different formations. Thats within the rules of football. Is it perhaps "frowned upon" by some? Sure, but thats no biggie to me.

The Spygate issue and now this is just too much. What else do we not know about? I am not insinuating that the Pats are the only team to skirt some rules, but they are constantly in the headlines for stuff like this. It has to take its toll at some point on outside perspective.

[The Mom Gene]

And I agree that the organization is ultimately held responsible, though the RR situation was completely different due to how incredibly poorly the FO botched the whole thing.

 

As far as the Patriot "crap", half the things you listed aren't really their problem. The tuck rule really has nothing to do with the Patriots... its just one of many stupid NFL rules. The "Brady rule" is purely hypothetical... again, its not a Patriots problem, its a league problem, as is the goal post rule and the "funky formations".

 

This incident + SpyGate are situations where the Patriots actually manipulated rules... the rest really has nothing to do with them.

 

The point of Aaron Rodgers contention is that he actually CAN'T inflate the ball the way he wants, because he wants it inflated MORE than what is allowed. He can't inflate it to the max that he would prefer. Just like Brady can't go less than what is allowed, Rodgers can't go more than what is allowed... both would violate rules.

 

What I would expect, however, is that the rule is changed in some form or fashion. The rule itself sort of goes against logic to a certain extent to begin with.

These were actually rules that were instituted BECAUSE...  When clearly Brady was pump-faking and was stripped, I have to agree with Ray Lewis on that one...  Woodson knocked the ball from Brady's hand ...  it was a fumble.  They never would have gone to the Super Bowl that year...

 

The Brady Rule is one that was instituted when players go for the QB's legs...  as did Pollard when he was with the Chiefs... and caused Brady's ACL injury...  And to this day the defenders speak of the "strike zone" of a QB.  Because otherwise, hit to high, get a "Rouging the Passer" penalty...  Same with too low.

 

These rules were clearly "instituted" FOR the Patriots.

[rmcjacket23]

I dont mind the running of different formations. Thats within the rules of football. Is it perhaps "frowned upon" by some? Sure, but thats no biggie to me.

The Spygate issue and now this is just too much. What else do we not know about? I am not insinuating that the Pats are the only team to skirt some rules, but they are constantly in the headlines for stuff like this. It has to take its toll at some point on outside perspective.

But are they really "constantly in the headlines though"? I guess technically they are, but like I said, you've essentially got SpyGate + this, and you've basically got 7-8 years in between the two.

 

They are constantly in the news (because for some reason fans have an infatuation with everything they do) for a lot of things that are essentially "frowned upon" stuff like you addressed, and for incidents of what I consider pure happenstance, such as the "Tuck Rule".

[rmcjacket23]

These were actually rules that were instituted BECAUSE...  When clearly Brady was pump-faking and was stripped, I have to agree with Ray Lewis on that one...  Woodson knocked the ball from Brady's hand ...  it was a fumble.  They never would have gone to the Super Bowl that year...

 

The Brady Rule is one that was instituted when players go for the QB's legs...  as did Pollard when he was with the Chiefs... and caused Brady's ACL injury...  And to this day the defenders speak of the "strike zone" of a QB.  Because otherwise, hit to high, get a "Rouging the Passer" penalty...  Same with too low.

 

These rules were clearly "instituted" FOR the Patriots.

I wouldn't say they were clearly instititued just for the Patriots... they were clearly instituted just for QBs.

 

If Aaron Rodgers tears his ACL on a low hit like Brady does, I think the league does the exact same thing. The league knows QBs are the meal ticket to ratings (even our fans would agree thats the case), and that the league is just flat out better to watch and better on the field when its "stars" are playing.

 

We can not like Brady because we think he lobbies for flags (which he undoubtedly does) and we think he's soft, but that's not a rules violation, which is what we are talking about here.

 

I get it... we don't like him. I don't like him either. Not too many things bring me more joy when watching football than us blowing him up. But in the end, do you really believe the NFL considers Brady to be some kind of rules violator or a guy that "people have had enough of his shenanigans with"? Fans might, but the NFL is in control of punishment here.

 

Belichick is on a completely different level than Brady in this case.

[The Mom Gene]

 

I get it... we don't like him. I don't like him either. Not too many things bring me more joy when watching football than us blowing him up. But in the end, do you really believe the NFL considers Brady to be some kind of rules violator or a guy that "people have had enough of his shenanigans with"? Fans might, but the NFL is in control of punishment here.

 

Belichick is on a completely different level than Brady in this case.

Kraft has a lot of pull in this league...  and that is why I believe they push the envelope.

[rmcjacket23]

Kraft has a lot of pull in this league...  and that is why I believe they push the envelope.

I'd say a lot of owners (ours included) have a lot of pull in this league, and they frankly should, because in the end, its their league.

[Tenacious Faulker]

Right back at ya Tom

This make Brady's comment to the Ravens for the illegal formations during the divisional game:  "Maybe those guys gotta study the rule book and figure it out".  Just plain arrogant and obnoxious. He then capped that gem off with "Maybe we’ll have something in store next week"........and that turned into Deflate-gate.  He/they actually daring people to catch them.  Well, now they getting figured out.

 

So what punishment fits the crime?  

 

I can't see loss of draft picks since ANY team would trade a that for a Super Bowl.   I can't see the pittance of $500k fines being a deterent (max allowed) - even $5M seems like a bargain price to me.

[The Raven]

The problem with that Jacket...  is that it's never happened before, and the defenses actually DIDN'T have time to adjust or compensate to defense the play.  Brian Baldinger studied the film of 3 consecutive plays of the Patriots last weekend against the Colts and he even said there was no way for the defending team to adjust, as even he couldn't tell who was eligible and who was ineligible. And the Patriots were in No-Huddle which made it even more confusing...  Even the refs couldn't figure it out initially, just like our game...  Hence the 3rd play where they actually DID get an "illegal formation" penalty.   Which should have happened way early. That's the problem with it. 

 

Actually, it has happened before. The same rule the Patriots are using is the same rule we used when we ran our Wildcat unbalanced line in 08 and 09. But we all forget, don't we?

[The Raven]

These were actually rules that were instituted BECAUSE...  When clearly Brady was pump-faking and was stripped, I have to agree with Ray Lewis on that one...  Woodson knocked the ball from Brady's hand ...  it was a fumble.  They never would have gone to the Super Bowl that year...

 

The Brady Rule is one that was instituted when players go for the QB's legs...  as did Pollard when he was with the Chiefs... and caused Brady's ACL injury...  And to this day the defenders speak of the "strike zone" of a QB.  Because otherwise, hit to high, get a "Rouging the Passer" penalty...  Same with too low.

 

These rules were clearly "instituted" FOR the Patriots.

 

The tuck rule was not instituted for the Patriots. It had long been in the rule book. If it were instituted for the Patriots, why has it recently been removed from the rulebook? Brady's still in the league, after all. Riddle me that.

[RavensDE]

It was cheatish, not cheating.  The heart of the matter according to Harbaugh is that the signals from refs on who is eligible are the same as who is ineligible but it has never been an issue because it has always been pretty obvious who the eligible receiver is. Once we got the penalty and the ref's understood they made sure we were properly notified as to who was who.  In reality they didn't so much fool us as they fooled the refs.  After the ref's caught on they didn't run those plays again.  

 

Personally I think it was pretty crafty.  It was a sneaky move that was put together with hard earned study.  I wish we had thought of it, but I don't think Harbaugh or Kubiak are into that sort of thing.  It is a one shot deal. 

 

May the Patriot's fail to win another game in all of history.

[zwerrell]

Actually, it has happened before. The same rule the Patriots are using is the same rule we used when we ran our Wildcat unbalanced line in 08 and 09. But we all forget, don't we?

The difference is subtle but important. What the Pats did that was different, and bordering on unethical/rule breaking was the declaration of ineligability mere seconds before the snap. The rules clearly state, regardless of Mr. Brady's smug and now ignominious 'read the rules' remark, that the defense is allowed time to identify the declared eligible or ineligible players which the refs were not permitting. So technically, the refs were at fault for the issue, but that was a deliberate attempt by the Pats to confuse the situation by way of manipulating the refs, which if not technically not allowed is outside of the rules and bordering on unethical.

***

Now I agree with the criticism that we alone are ultimately responsible for the success of those plays. Why did we not call a time out? Why did our staff or players not catch on after the first time?

I remarked to my father right when the HB declared himself ineligible that something was up and that the TE was uncovered, and an eligible receiver, screaming at Mosely (the TV more accurately) to cover him. As anyone who watches football with me will attest, having been a d-lineman and lb responsible for calling adjustments, I love to watch the LOS for violations and offensive formations for pre-snap penalties (and am probably quite irritating about it)... But how was I able to recognize the eligible linemen from my couch (the floor, actually) within seconds but it took our staff three plus plays and a penalty to catch on?

[PurpleLady90]

I was actually discussing this with my dad last night. We are both under the agreement that NFL needs to make an example of the Patriots. Since they concluded that 11 out of the 12 balls were underinflated, then they should be fined and be suspended from post season football next year. Even if they go 16-0, they're suspended and have no chance.

 

NFL needs to make an example or other wise we are going to continue to hear about the Cheatriots.

 

Thoughts?

Gosh, I wish the NFL would have the balls to do that. But...they don't and that's why the Pats can get away with pretty much anything.

[PurpleLady90]

Watching Bellichicks press conference, he just sounds guilty lol

[Tank 92]

The tuck rule was not instituted for the Patriots. It had long been in the rule book. If it were instituted for the Patriots, why has it recently been removed from the rulebook? Brady's still in the league, after all. Riddle me that.

 

 

To be fair, I don't think anyone had ever heard about the tuck rule until it was used in the game against the Raiders. Seems more than a coincidence that it was pulled out then and basically handed the game to the pats allowing them to advance to the SB.   

[rmcjacket23]

To be fair, I don't think anyone had ever heard about the tuck rule until it was used in the game against the Raiders. Seems more than a coincidence that it was pulled out then and basically handed the game to the pats allowing them to advance to the SB.   

No, actually, it sounds exactly like a coincidence... if you actually consider the circumstances.

 

1. The rule was basically about three seasons old... it was instituted in 1999.

2. It wasn't even the first time the rule was used in that season... it happened to Vinny Testaverde earlier that season.

3. Nobody can even remotely claim favoritism or conspiracy in this case, because it was literally Brady's first season, and the Patriots were nowhere near the "dynasty" looking team that they have become.

[SCraven 21]

The Colts didn't have a leg to stand on because they were drubbed, but I'm wondering would the league have seen it differently being that our game was so close and they threw the ball 50 times?

 

 

[ravensdfan]

Bellicheat essentially throwing Brady under the bus...

 

“I think we all know that quarterbacks, kickers, specialists have certain preferences on the footballs,” Belichick said.  “They know a lot more than I do.  They’re a lot more sensitive to it than I am.  I hear them comment on it from time to time, but I can tell you and they will tell you that there’s never any sympathy whatsoever from me on that subject.  Zero.  Tom’s personal preferences on his footballs are something that he can talk about in much better detail and information than I could possibly provide.”

 

[Archeearl92]

not unless they could prove that the Pats did it I guess

[rmcjacket23]

The Colts didn't have a leg to stand on because they were drubbed, but I'm wondering would the league have seen it differently being that our game was so close and they threw the ball 50 times?

Zero percent chance... it would incredibly discredit the NFL if they made such a big decision without being able to even vaguely determine what impact it had on the game.

[rmcjacket23]

Bellicheat essentially throwing Brady under the bus...

Actually a smart move by them from a punishment standpoint... he knows the NFL won't have much of a leg to stand on to punish Brady harshly at all.

 

But no matter... Brady will deny his knowledge in his PC as well, and the wagons will come full circle.

[Mt. Crushmore]

no

[beasy2487]

Bellicheat essentially throwing Brady under the bus...

 

An idiom about what happens when you lay down with dogs comes to mind...

[GrimCoconut]

I wish.

[cursona pirate]

Probably not. Goodell don't like us lol.

[ravensfan160]

Bellicheat essentially throwing Brady under the bus...

The more I thought about it last night I started to think that not only did Brady absolutely know about it but its possible he did it without Belicheat knowing. We all know he is all powerful in that organization but the only person close to that level of influence is Brady. I can see Belicheat having a blind spot when it comes to Brady and if you're the ball boy how do you say no to Tom Brady.

 

It would be hilarious either way though and I just hope the NFL comes down hard on them both.

[CalvinSmoke]

There's no proof the Patriots did it, they would need a bigger offense to wipe off a playoff win like that. This aint the NCAA

[JoeyFlex5]

the thought wouldnt even cross their minds. 

 

if they pulled some stuff like the buffalo wild wings commercials then they may consider it, but still probably wouldnt take action. 

 

the patriots simply get away with breaking the rules all the time, im flabbergasted at how every single time we see them in the playoffs, they bend rules and show zero sportsmanship and spit on the integrity of the game. its pathetic and i really hope their legacy is tarnished big time, the only "dynasty" in NFL history that has an asterisk next to it due to multiple cheating offenses, pathetic.