Football fan loses lawsuit over Patriots "Spygate"

[SandraC]

What the Frak are you guys talking about?! :rant:

There was a recent lawsuit filed by a Jet fan that was rightfully dismissed by the courts. The lawsuit stated the guy wanted his money back (and then some) for what he spent on Jets-Patriots games over the years, because the Patriots were rigging games or something. The lawsuit was rightfully dismissed because it was stupid, the courts stated the NFL is responsible for all league discipline.

So now a guy in his basement wearing a Tom Brady hat has decided because the court dismissed the lawsuit, the Patriots are exonerated from all wrong doing. The court did not rescind the penalties the NFL handed down to the Patriots, but that's what he's trying to make it sound like.

That's why he keeps referring to the lawsuit, like that's all that matters.


Sandra

 

[televisionarchives]

There was a recent lawsuit filed by a Jet fan that was rightfully dismissed by the courts. The lawsuit stated the guy wanted his money back (and then some) for what he spent on Jets-Patriots games over the years, because the Patriots were rigging games or something. The lawsuit was rightfully dismissed because it was stupid, the courts stated the NFL is responsible for all league discipline.

So now a guy in his basement wearing a Tom Brady hat has decided because the court dismissed the lawsuit, the Patriots are exonerated from all wrong doing. The court did not rescind the penalties the NFL handed down to the Patriots, but that's what he's trying to make it sound like.

That's why he keeps referring the lawsuit, like that's all that matters.


Sandra

No. In fact I agree with the fine and the punishment. The Patriots did break a rule. What I don't agree with is that it effected the outcome of any game. Back to the title of the thread again. In fact look at 2007 and the record the patriots had after they were told to stop. It proves my point. And Roger Goodell said just that. He would have to testify on behalf of the NFL . He did say this.
"The actual effectiveness of taping and taking of signals from opponents - it is something done widely in many sports. I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games.
"That doesn't change my perspectve on violating rules and the need to be punished."

 

[HD MM]

There was a recent lawsuit filed by a Jet fan that was rightfully dismissed by the courts. The lawsuit stated the guy wanted his money back (and then some) for what he spent on Jets-Patriots games over the years, because the Patriots were rigging games or something. The lawsuit was rightfully dismissed because it was stupid, the courts stated the NFL is responsible for all league discipline.

So now a guy in his basement wearing a Tom Brady hat has decided because the court dismissed the lawsuit, the Patriots are exonerated from all wrong doing. The court did not rescind the penalties the NFL handed down to the Patriots, but that's what he's trying to make it sound like.

That's why he keeps referring the lawsuit, like that's all that matters.


Sandra

Ahh, I see. Thanks for bringing me up to speed Snooks. :up

 

[SandraC]

No. In fact I agree with the fine and the punishment. The Patriots did break a rule. What I don't agree with is what they did effected the outcome of any game. In fact look at 2007 and the record the patriots had after they were told to stop. It proves my point. And Roger Goodell said just that. He would have to testify on behalf of the NFL . He did say this.
"The actual effectiveness of taping and taking of signals from opponents - it is something done widely in many sports. I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games.
"That doesn't change my perspectve on violating rules and the need to be punished."

That's rearranging things to match your opinion. The bottom line is that the Patriots were harshly punished for breaking rules that are in place to prevent cheating.


Sandra

 

[SandraC]

Ahh, I see. Thanks for bringing me up to speed Snooks. :up

Anytime Bucky...


Sandra

 

[televisionarchives]

That's rearranging things to match your opinion. The bottom line is that the Patriots were harshly punished for breaking rules that are in place to prevent cheating.


Sandra

No. It's what the NFL said, not me. And the fact the Season the Patriots had that year proves that . And not one person here has yet shown on what taping does to effect the outcome of a game. Not one. I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me how the taping effective even one game . They can't because it didn't. Even the NFL would have sided with the Patriots in Court and not the Fan/Lawyer/Jets Fan.

 

[SandraC]

No. It's what the NFL said, not me. And the fact the Season the Patriots had that year proves that . And not one person here has yet shown on what taping does to effect the outcome of a game. Not one. I'm still waiting for anyone to tell me how the taping effective even one game . They can't because it didn't. Even the NFL would have sided with the Patriots in Court and not the Fan/Lawyer/Jets Fan.

See what I mean, Bucky? Once again we circle right back to the lawsuit. Just can't let that go.

Of course the NFL would have sided with a team in their league that is involved in a lawsuit. The last thing any league needs is teams paying fans back becasue a court determined games were rigged.

Professional sports is nothing if people have reason to think game are not legitimate. That's why the Donagy (sp?) thing is so sensitive to the NBA.

And that's why there are such huge penalties for teams that break rules that involve cheating. Penalties imposed on the Patriots by the NFL in this case.

Asking us to tell him what taping does to effect the outcome of the game is absurd. He's trying to create a scarecrow he can knock over. We did not make the rule, the NFL did. If they thought taping was no big deal, there would not have been $750,000 in fines and the Patriots would not have been stripped of their first round draft pick.


Sandra

 

[televisionarchives]

See what I mean, Bucky? Once again we circle right back to the lawsuit. Just can't let that go.

Of course the NFL would have sided with a team in their league that is involved in a lawsuit. The last thing any league needs is teams paying fans back becasue a court determined games were rigged.

Professional sports is nothing if people have reason to think game are not legitimate. That's why the Donagy (sp?) thing is so sensitive to the NBA.

And that's why there are such huge penalties for teams that break rules that involve cheating. Penalties imposed on the Patriots by the NFL in this case.

Asking us to tell him what taping does to effect the outcome of the game is absurd. He's trying to create a scarecrow he can knock over. We did not make the rule, the NFL did. If they thought taping was no big deal, there would not have been $750,000 in fines and the Patriots would not have been stripped of their first round draft pick.


Sandra

If you're going to continue to say they cheated you should be able to back that up with just one bit of evidence that effected a game. In fact the man who sued would also have to bring evidence that just one game was rigged. He would have to say the the cameramen was giving information to the team during a game. But that's not what the hired him to do. And the NFL knows that as well.

 

[SandraC]

If you're going to continue to say they cheated you should be able to back that up with just one bit of evidence that effected a game. In fact the man who sued would also have to bring evidence that just one game was rigged. He would have to say the the cameramen was giving information to the team during a game. But that's not what the hired him to do. And the NFL knows that as well.

Aaaaaaaand we're back to the lawsuit again. See how this works, Bucky?

Again, read this slowly if you have to...if the NFL thought what the Patriots did was not a bad thing, there wouldn't be such harsh penalties for violating that rule. The NFL knows it's a bad thing.


Sandra

 

[televisionarchives]

Aaaaaaaand we're back to the lawsuit again. See how this works, Bucky?

Again, read this slowly if you have to...if the NFL thought what the Patriots did was not a bad thing, there wouldn't be such harsh penalties for violating that rule.


Sandra

But you said they cheated. How? They broke the rules. I agree. But cheating is not the same thing . Cheating effects the outcomes of games.

 

[SandraC]

But you said they cheated. How?

They violated NFL rules against cheating and were punished for it.


Sandra

 

[televisionarchives]

They violated NFL rules against cheating.


Sandra

No. They violated one rule. It was not a rule against cheating.
It was this one.
"no video devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during a game." Again. The lawsuit . As silly and stupid as it was part of me wanted to see it happen so the guy wouldn't have won in court because of the zero evidence of rigged games or cheating. And that's what this whole thread is all about.
[COLOR=#980202 ! important][COLOR=#980202 ! important][COLOR=#980202 ! important][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

 

[cosmo_kramer]

But you said they cheated. How? They broke the rules. I agree. But cheating is not the same thing . Cheating effects the outcomes of games.

Directly and indirectly. From what I've read on this, this activity wasn't only to help benefit the game being played at the time, but future games as well. After the game the 'signals' feed was combined with the regular game footage to see the signal then the play called. This information was primarily put together for the next time the Pats played that team...

Also, I looked up the definition of cheating. Here's a couple:

Cheating is an act of lying, deception, fraud, trickery, imposture, or imposition. Cheating characteristically is employed to create an unfair advantage, usually in one's own interest, and often at the expense of others. Cheating implies the breaking of rules.

to practice fraud or trickery , to violate rules dishonestly

 

[SandraC]

No. They violated one rule. It was not a rule against cheating.
It was this one.
"no video devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during a game."

That's not a rule against cheating? In your world perhaps.

What's the purpose of the rule?

Again. The lawsuit . As silly and stupid as it was part of me wanted to see it happen so the guy wouldn't have won in court because of the zero evidence of rigged games or cheating. And that's what this whole thread is all about.

This whole thread is about you trying to make it sound like the dismissal of the lawsuit means the Patriots are innocent. They are not innocent, the NFL tried and convicted them, and handed out a harsh sentence.


Sandra

 

[Jimbo]

Directly and indirectly. From what I've read on this, this activity wasn't only to help benefit the game being played at the time, but future games as well. After the game the 'signals' feed was combined with the regular game footage to see the signal then the play called. This information was primarily put together for the next time the Pats played that team...

Also, I looked up the definition of cheating. Here's a couple:

The Steeler's use to have a trick play in every game one year ....
According to your post, THEY were cheating ... in your definition.

 

[televisionarchives]

Directly and indirectly. From what I've read on this, this activity wasn't only to help benefit the game being played at the time, but future games as well. After the game the 'signals' feed was combined with the regular game footage to see the signal then the play called. This information was primarily put together for the next time the Pats played that team...

Also, I looked up the definition of cheating. Here's a couple:

No coach uses the same signals over again and certainly not in future games. . With Signals you keep changing them up. Then you have two guys on the sidelines giving them. You also use a dummy signal. So I guess a team is cheating when they have a coach whose sole job is to look for defensive signals.

 

[cosmo_kramer]

The Steeler's use to have a trick play in every game one year ....
According to your post, THEY were cheating ... in your definition.

Please elaborate as to how illegal videotaping during a game is the same as a team running a trick play....

 

[SandraC]

No coach uses the same signals over again and certainly not in future games. . With Signals you keep changing them up. Then you have two guys on the sidelines giving them. You also use a dummy signal.

...and yet there is still a rule against videotaping, with severe penalties for those who violate it. Go figure.


Sandra

 

[cosmo_kramer]

No coach uses the same signals over again and certainly not in future games. . With Signals you keep changing them up. Then you have two guys on the sidelines giving them. You also use a dummy signal.

Sure, ask Jon Gruden if the Raiders changed signals, or anything else for that matter in Super Bowl 37.

And, if they were constantly being changed why would the Patriots risk getting caught breaking the rules for a futile effort??

 

[televisionarchives]

...and yet there is still a rule against videotaping, with severe penalties for those who violate it. Go figure.


Sandra

I guess you don't understand me. I agree with the ruling. I really didn't see what benefit they got from videotaping. And every team has someone doing one thing during a game. Trying to steal signals and giving that to the coach in real time during a game. You seem to think I'm defending the videotaping. I'm not. I'm defending a team that won without using that and that's what the lawsuit was all about. After the stopped them from doing it they won almost every game that year. And every team was on the look out to see if the Patriots would try to steal signals and they still lost.