Aikman is right, the penalty should be severe

[ConstantReboot]

That's a lame cliche. Not all examples are equal nor do all examples merit equal punishment.
You're just making crap up right now.

My friend, I'm trying to do you a favor here. You really sound like a complete idiot saying "oh well the Vikings didn't know they were breaking the rules but the Patriots did. So the VIkings should get a letter of reprimand but the Patriots should be suspended for all eternity."

Whenever you have to completely make things up that there is no evidence of, it only hurts your case. You say the Patriots have probably done it for years? Well I respond that half the quarterbacks in the NFL have probably been doing it for years.

Where has it been shown that that is what happened? Seriously.

Make things up? LOL.

Sorry but you lost all credibility with what you said and making yourself look silly. If you want to debate in a intelligent manner first stop with the name calling - it doesn't make you look tough. Secondly, you can come back with something better than making things up. Come on, you can do better than that.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Well the Vikings were tampering with balls on the sidlelines by heating them up in a 12 degree game and they got a letter of warning.

So if a 1st offense is a letter of warning, what should a 2nd offense be?

I can't even offer you a cookie for good post.

Not sure if you are serious?
If so did you hurt yourself stretching?

 

[Rogah]

Make things up? LOL.

Sorry but you lost all credibility with what you said and making yourself look silly. If you want to debate in a intelligent manner first stop with the name calling - it doesn't make you look tough. Secondly, you can come back with something better than making things up. Come on, you can do better than that.

Sure thing. Just as soon as you come up with something better than the ridiculously lame "It was ok for the Vikings because they didn't know they were breaking the rules but the Patriots did."

 

[Rogah]

I can't even offer you a cookie for good post.

Not sure if you are serious?
If so did you hurt yourself stretching?

If you have something intelligent to say, now would be a good time.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Sure thing. Just as soon as you come up with something better than the ridiculously lame "It was ok for the Vikings because they didn't know they were breaking the rules but the Patriots did."

Who said I stated it was okay with the Vikings? Don't put words in my mouth here. I didn't say it was okay with the Vikings. I said that the Vikings didn't know that heating the balls was part of the rules and was considered cheating. Once they realized their error they stopped.

On the other hand, Patriots might have been doing this for years. Ball boys don't suddenly deflate a ball 25% on all of the balls for no reason. Someone gave them the order to do so and thus the Brady and the Patriots had motives for doing it. A malicious INTENT to do it to give them an advantage over another is cheating. Brady and Bellicheck knows the rules. Yet they did it. Thus thats cheating.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

If you have something intelligent to say, now would be a good time.

Ummmm.... You first... Then....


I'll try

 

[SkinsandTerps]

I've watched it many times. It looked like it probably did but there isn't a pic I could find where it is definitive.

Yet you ignored Aikman (clearly along with others) who stated it was not a catch.
Now you are flipping the script. Basically saying that his experience makes him an expert.

So confusing.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Yet you ignored Aikman (clearly along with others) who stated it was not a catch.
Now you are flipping the script. Basically saying that his experience makes him an expert.

So confusing.

How's Quincy? Errr.... I mean RGIII?

Some extra lean years ahead for Gruden and co...

Lol

 

[SkinsandTerps]

So Aikman was wrong or right in saying it wasn't a catch ? No outrage about Aikman saying it wasn't a catch...but playing both sides does not work.

You made it more confusing...because you are smack talking...I am asking someone that is not you a question. Thanks for your response though.

 

[DogFace]

So Aikman was wrong or right in saying it wasn't a catch ? No outrage about Aikman saying it wasn't a catch...but playing both sides does not work.

You made it more confusing...because you are smack talking...I am asking someone that is not you a question. Thanks for your response though.

Aikman was wrong it was a catch. Also, I am outraged with him.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Aikman was wrong it was a catch. Also, I am outraged with him.

Some expert he is then. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about if I go by what you say.
Surely you must trump his knowledge and level of expertise.

 

[DogFace]

Some expert he is then. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about if I go by what you say.
Surely you must trump his knowledge and level of expertise.

I agree.

 

[Nightman]

Some expert he is then. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about if I go by what you say.
Surely you must trump his knowledge and level of expertise.

Was Aikman a QB or a WR or a ref?

I think he knows a lot more about the football than he does about a rule that didn't even exist when he was playing.

 

[Rogah]

Ummmm.... You first... Then....


I'll try

ok, here's a perfectly intelligent statement based on fact: The Vikings got caught tampering with balls on the sidelines and as punishment they got a letter of warning, nothing more.

Here's a perfectly intelligent question: if a first offense merits a letter of warning, what should a second offense be? (which isn't really even a second offense, it's just that some people are calling it that based on something that happened 7 years ago)

I look forward to your perfectly intelligent response. You promised me you'd try, so try really hard.

 

[Rogah]

So Aikman was wrong or right in saying it wasn't a catch ? No outrage about Aikman saying it wasn't a catch...but playing both sides does not work.

You made it more confusing...because you are smack talking...I am asking someone that is not you a question. Thanks for your response though.

I don't like the "appeal to an authority's opinion" fallacy in these types of arguments. I sometimes (rarely) respect what mediots say but you have experts who disagree with each other so generally all people do is choose to believe the experts who agree with them and ignore the experts who disagree.

As far as Dez Bryant is concerned, he caught the ball, got 3 feet down in bounds while running, fell down in bounds, and was absolutely positively making a football move (stretching for the end zone) when the ball was slightly juggled.

That's the textbook definition of a catch. That also is a rule that is significantly different from when Aikman played.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

ok, here's a perfectly intelligent statement based on fact: The Vikings got caught tampering with balls on the sidelines and as punishment they got a letter of warning, nothing more.

Here's a perfectly intelligent question: if a first offense merits a letter of warning, what should a second offense be? (which isn't really even a second offense, it's just that some people are calling it that based on something that happened 7 years ago)

I look forward to your perfectly intelligent response. You promised me you'd try, so try really hard.

Two days to come up with that? Repost.


You will have to do a little more before I can "become intelligent" for you.

Was their "intent"?
Can you prove it?



Here's a teaser. I can prove intent. You cannot. But go ahead Try anyway.

 

[Rogah]

Two days to come up with that? Repost.

Sorry if I don't spend my life on these forums like you do. I didn't realize there was some sort of statute of limitation on responding to posts here.

You will have to do a little more before I can "become intelligent" for you.

It will obviously take far, far more than anything I could ever do in order to help you become intelligent.

I made a factual statement, I asked a polite question, and now you're proving you're too gutless to answer a simple question.

I'll answer any question you want just as soon as you answer one single question of mine: If a first offense is a letter of reprimand, what should a 2nd offense be?

It is really a simple question. There's no reason for you to be so terrified of answering it.

 

[Staubacher]

Sorry if I don't spend my life on these forums like you do.

Hey! I resemble that remark.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Sorry if I don't spend my life on these forums like you do. I didn't realize there was some sort of statute of limitation on responding to posts here.
It will obviously take far, far more than anything I could ever do in order to help you become intelligent.

I made a factual statement, I asked a polite question, and now you're proving you're too gutless to answer a simple question.

I'll answer any question you want just as soon as you answer one single question of mine: If a first offense is a letter of reprimand, what should a 2nd offense be?

It is really a simple question. There's no reason for you to be so terrified of answering it.

Meh... I threw you a bone.
You picked it up. Predictable.

If you want to compare the two examples then you must prove intent.

You cannot. You sir, lose,

Case closed.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Sorry if I don't spend my life on these forums like you do.

That's funny... Real funny... You have about 50 posts over the last 3 days

Lmao


You ain't as brite as you thawt I was