ARTICLE: NFL can blame itself for scandal's timing

[tyke1doe]

The fact that your using Godell being the Commisioner of the NFL as proof that it didn't help the Patriots, when the very issue at stake is whether Godell is lying or not, just shows how blinded you are. You have dug so deep into defending the Patriots, to turn around now would be too much a blow to your ego...

Of course, you presume that Goodell is lying, which seems to indicate your clouded judgment also. But I'm sure that breeze right by you.

As of right now, he knows more about the situation than you or I.

How did it feel watching the Patreiots lose when the refs didn't make a momentum changing calls because the whole world was watching in light of Specter?

I shouted for the Giants just like most everyone in my household. Sorry, to bust your "He's a Patriots homer" bubble.

P.S., is this where I chide you for making additions to your post because you're "swimming" like someone else accused me?

 

[khiladi]

Of course, you presume that Goodell is lying, which seems to indicate your clouded judgment also. But I'm sure that breeze right by you.

As of right now, he knows more about the situation than you or I.

You mean the inconsistency in Godell's actions doesn't indicate something is fishy regarding his judgement? I wonder how they prove witnesses in court as unreliable?

Keep your ludicrous logic to yourself...

I shouted for the Giants just like most everyone in my household. Sorry, to bust your "He's a Patriots homer" bubble.

You do seem to jump on the bandwagon..

P.S., is this where I chide you for making additions to your post because you're "swimming" like someone else accused me?

Nice try... I can make additions to my post, it still doesn't matter. It means you recognized it, and you still didn't answer it. That to me indicates that your commenting about it is done simply to distract attention from your ridiculous logic.

What paper do you write for?

Again, how can they get punished for an act that you claim can't be proven to effect the game?

 

[tyke1doe]

Again, your once again operating under a false premise, and this time it is the Rams only practiced red-zone plays in the walk-through.

Well, that's what most people have been talking about.

Also Saturday, Mike Fish reported on ESPN that St. Louis' [pre-Super Bowl XXXVI] walk-through was devoted to red zone plays -- all new plays and new formations the Rams had not shown during the season. Going into that Super Bowl, the Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf" was the league's highest-scoring team. In that game, St. Louis was held to a field goal in the first half.

I'll take my apology now, if your ego won't suffer a tremendous blow.

Again, how can they get punished for an act that you claim doesn't effect the game?

You keep playing the bait and switch game.

I didn't say it didn't affect the game. I said it can't be determined that by doing so that resulted in a win.

You know like a ref can make a bad call and that can affect the game. But if that call is within the game, there's no way to determine if that call alone results in a win.

What I'm saying makes perfect sense. But if you want to twist and substitute words, I can see why you're so confused.

Is just plain ********... If you tell that to a college that fails you because you had the answers to the test in your pant pocket, they will laugh in your face ...

By your logic, that doesn't prove that you actually cheated...

Sigh. Is this the best you've got?

 

[tyke1doe]

You mean the inconsistency in Godell's actions doesn't indicate something is fishy regarding his judgement? I wonder how they prove witnesses in court as unreliable?

Inconsistency in actions? How so?

Keep your ludicrous logic to yourself...

If my logic is so ludicrous, why are you spending so much time arguing with me?

That doesn't say too much about you, now does it?

You do seem to jump on the bandwagon..

Yes, because to one as simple-minded as yourself, my position with respect to this matter amounts to defending the Patriots.

Nice try... I can make additions to my post, it still doesn't matter. It means you recognized it, and you still didn't answer it. That to me indicates that your commenting about it is done simply to distract attention from your ridiculous logic.

I guess if you litter your post with "ridiculous" that somehow proves your point.

What paper do you write for?

Why should you care?

Again, how can they get punished for an act that you claim can't be proven to effect the game?

And I've answered your question, but you just don't want to accept it.

You conveniently keep arguing that I'm saying that cheating didn't affect the game. By the way, the word is affect not effect.

By Goodell's own definition, cheating does not promote fair play and honest competition. Fair play and dishonest competition have an effect on the game. But we don't know or can't say whether it produced a win.

Now I'm going to either chalk it up to your ego that you don't want to acknowledge the difference in what you're saying and what I'm saying, or I'm going to charge it to your intellect that you aren't as smart as you claim to be.

 

[khiladi]

Well, that's what most people have been talking about.

You mean like people talking about Godell lying?

I'll take my apology now, if your ego won't suffer a tremendous blow.

Just as long as you apologize for the following statement.

Of course, you presume that Goodell is lying, which seems to indicate your clouded judgment also. But I'm sure that breeze right by you.

So which is it? The Patriots taped the red-zone plays of the Rams, or they didn't per the words of Godell?

You keep playing the bait and switch game.

I didn't say it didn't affect the game. I said it can't be determined that by doing so that resulted in a win.

Of course you did. You just have contradicted yourself many a time. For example, you argued that it doesn't count as an unfair advantage, because you can only prove unfair advantage when you win.

To your unfair advantage argument, I said you can't practically evaluate that apart from winning. If you lose, you didn't gain an unfair advantage in any practical way because you still lost.

So once again, how can you prove it affected the game? What this essentially means is that the term unfair advantage has no meaning according to your definition.

SO how does the NFL declare it as illegal when they can't even measure it's effectiveness?

What I'm saying makes perfect sense. But if you want to twist and substitute words, I can see why you're so confused.

I'm not twisting anything, but just showing how in your blind zeal you will defend the Patriots, even if this means blatantly contradicting yourself.

Sigh. Is this the best you've got?

Your really not that good...

 

[khiladi]

Inconsistency in actions? How so?

Isn't that what all the papers are talking about. For example, the claim that the Patriots gave them all the tapes, but now it is coming out that the Patriots only gave 6 tapes.

By Goodell's own definition, cheating does not promote fair play and honest competition. Fair play and dishonest competition have an effect on the game. But we don't know or can't say whether it produced a win.

SO it is just about the 'promotion' of fair play? So really, what about the degrees of punishment handed down by Godell for various cases? they all technically promote cheating, but according to you the extent of the cheating we can never measure. SO why does Wade Wilson get 4 game suspension for HGH when he doesn't even play?

We can't say that your cheating on the test actually produced the A, because you could have had a serious moral crisis at that moment. SO you just decided to guess all the answers on the test and just happened to get an A.

We can't prove that you actually cheated, but because you brought in the paper, what can we do...

 

[jesusphreak]

All I can say is that it is proven that New England taped the Rams walkthrough before the Super Bowl, you have to take the championship away. I don't care if you cannot prove that it would affect the outcome of the game. The point is that it is cheating, period. Cheating, no matter how small (or large) of an advantage it gives you should not be tolerated.

 

[Jarv]

All I can say is that it is proven that New England taped the Rams walkthrough before the Super Bowl, you have to take the championship away. I don't care if you cannot prove that it would affect the outcome of the game. The point is that it is cheating, period. Cheating, no matter how small (or large) of an advantage it gives you should not be tolerated.

I agree.

 

[tyke1doe]

You mean like people talking about Godell lying?

And I would ask what proof do they have that Goodell was lying? It is merely an opinion that Goodell lied.

But we have a report that the Pats taped the Rams red zone plays. Why would someone lie about that when that's a part of the overall controversy?

I think you like to argue for the sake of arguing and don't really process your thoughts very well, at least not here. But fear not, that happens to me too - sometimes.

So which is it? The Patriots taped the red-zone plays of the Rams, or they didn't per the words of Godell?

I don't think Goodell said they didn't tape the Rams red-zone plays. If I recall, I think he said that he didn't see how the Pats benefited from those calls.

Now, if he said they didn't tape the Rams red-zone plays, then please cite me a source, and I will amend my position.

Of course you did. You just have contradicted yourself many a time. For example, you argued that it doesn't count as an unfair advantage, because you can only prove unfair advantage when you win.

No. What I said is that what practical benefit does is an unfair advantage? You can't measure that a part from winning because winning is the reason why we call it an "unfair advantage." And remember my caveat: I said it's not an "unfair advantage" UNLESS we're talking about for betting purposes.

Inherent in that caveat is the acknowledgement that the unfair advantage benefited the Pats because keeping the score close would have an impact on point spreads. But when I speak of "unfair advantage" I'm saying it has no practical meaning outside of winning - which is why we're even talking about this issue.

If the Pats had lost all their games and the Super Bowls, we wouldn't be talking about this. We talk about it because many believe that by gaining that "unfair advantage" the Pats won their Super Bowls.

But what I'm saying is perfectly clear if you want to receive it. If you don't, then you say I'm contradicting myself, I'm using illogic, etc. and so on.

If you believe that, fine. But, remember, you decided to engage me in conversation.

So once again, how can you prove it affected the game? What this essentially means is that the term unfair advantage has no meaning according to your definition.

Again, I'll use the blown call example.

Does a blown call give a team an "unfair advantage"? Yes. Why? Because it is a call that shifts the momentum of a game or alters it in a particular way.

Does a blown call win a team the game? Taking the game as a whole, No. Why? Because a game is made up of several events and factors not only including the plays called, but the mental attitude of the team, talent, coaching decisions, etc.

Your problem is that you keep arguing that I'm saying it didn't affect the game. I am not saying that. I'm saying that one cannot determine whether it by itself resulted in a victory.

I can't get any more clearer than that. Again, I'm not the one having a hard time understanding what I'm saying. You are - whether deliberately or ineptly.

SO how does the NFL declare it as illegal when they can't even measure it's effectiveness?

The word is "its" as in "its effectiveness" not "it's" as in "it is effectiveness." If you're going to engage in a conversation and call someone "********" at least have the common decency to use the appropriate word because that doesn't speak too well of your own mastery of language - which speaks, to some degree, of one's ability to comprehend and process logic.

Second, I've already answered this above. Regardless whether cheating is effective or not, it contradicts a basic principle that the NFL is trying to enforce, namely "fair play" and "honest competition."

The Pats could have taped games and lost them all. Their methods wouldn't have been effective in terms of producing a win, but they are still illegal because they go against the principles and concepts of "fair play" and "honest competition."

Similarly, their methods could have been effective in terms of accomplishing a particular goal within that game, but the methods are still illegal because they go against the principles and concepts of "fair play" and "honest competition."

What's at issue (at least when I talk about how one measure's fair play practically) isn't whether breaking the rules were effective or ineffective, but whether the league can strip a team of a win when it can't be determined whether the cheating actually resulted in a victory. That's my whole point.

I'm not twisting anything, but just showing how in your blind zeal you will defend the Patriots, even if this means blatantly contradicting yourself.


Your really not that good...

Ah, not the old "you're a blind Patriots fan" defense. I guess you've got to fall back on something.

Let it not be said that I deprive you of the mileage you get from that one.

 

[tyke1doe]

All I can say is that it is proven that New England taped the Rams walkthrough before the Super Bowl, you have to take the championship away. I don't care if you cannot prove that it would affect the outcome of the game. The point is that it is cheating, period. Cheating, no matter how small (or large) of an advantage it gives you should not be tolerated.

But the question then comes, isn't the punishment the Pats received sending the same message that cheating will not be tolerated?

I think that message can be accomplished by other means then taking a victory away from the Pats.

That's our disagreement here, not that I condone cheating. But, rather, I'm not certain whether it - in and of itself - resulted in a win.

And when you talk about stripping a victory from a team, particularly a Super Bowl victory, then you have to have some very, very strong evidence.

But if that happens, which I doubt it will, I'll say I was wrong.

 

[jesusphreak]

But the question then comes, isn't the punishment the Pats received sending the same message that cheating will not be tolerated?

I think that message can be accomplished by other means then taking a victory away from the Pats.

That's our disagreement here, not that I condone cheating. But, rather, I'm not certain whether it - in and of itself - resulted in a win.

And when you talk about stripping a victory from a team, particularly a Super Bowl victory, then you have to have some very, very strong evidence.

But if that happens, which I doubt it will, I'll say I was wrong.

Well I agree that there would have to be *proof* to take such extreme measures. But if Walsh can pull out a tape of that Rams walkthrough, I don't know what else you can do besides take the win away from the Patriots. Even Belicheck decided not to use the tape, it simply shouldn't be allowed.

It might not seem very fair to the Patriots that won that SB, but then again it would not be fair to the Rams that lost that Super Bowl by a field goal if New England had an unfair advantage.

 

[tyke1doe]

Isn't that what all the papers are talking about. For example, the claim that the Patriots gave them all the tapes, but now it is coming out that the Patriots only gave 6 tapes.

Do you have any sources you might want to offer to support your claim because I have not heard that?

SO it is just about the 'promotion' of fair play? So really, what about the degrees of punishment handed down by Godell for various cases? they all technically promote cheating, but according to you the extent of the cheating we can never measure. SO why does Wade Wilson get 4 game suspension for HGH when he doesn't even play?

First, this is so convulted I can't even follow it.

What are you talking about? And what does Wade Wilson have to do with this?

Are you saying that Wade Wilson cheated? And if so, didn't you just argue my point for me? The issue of effectiveness isn't even an issue in Wilson's case. He was punished for breaking the rules.

We can't say that your cheating on the test actually produced the A, because you could have had a serious moral crisis at that moment. SO you just decided to guess all the answers on the test and just happened to get an A.

Huh?

We can't prove that you actually cheated, but because you brought in the paper, what can we do...

Huh?

I think you used the term "discursive" logic in a previous thread.

Physician heal thyself.

 

[tyke1doe]

Well I agree that there would have to be *proof* to take such extreme measures. But if Walsh can pull out a tape of that Rams walkthrough, I don't know what else you can do besides take the win away from the Patriots. Even Belicheck decided not to use the tape, it simply shouldn't be allowed.

It might not seem very fair to the Patriots that won that SB, but then again it would not be fair to the Rams that lost that Super Bowl by a field goal if New England had an unfair advantage.

I doubt that happens. But we'll see.

Oh, and thank you for being able to discuss this with all the additional histronics.

 

[Jarv]

Great, more draft picks for Dallas - could care less what Pats do. Sucks Giants owned us in playoffs and won a SB and you hear it where you live. With family deeply rooted in NYC and born on Long Island and spent early years in Bethel, CT. - NOT A GREAT PLACE TO GROW UP A DALLAS FAN.......

Kahoots wings are good and a view.

When did you move out of Bethel ? Thats the next town over me and most of my riding buddies grew up there.

I went to a private party at Hot Shots, local sports bar in Newtown, CT.It was like a 60/40 mix of Giants/Pats fans respectively. I had the numbers 7-3 in the local pool so I was routing for the score and not teams. Although I admit that I was routing for the Pats when the Giants had the ball and visa versa, just keep that 7-3 score going.

As for the topic at hand here, I think if the truth comes out about the Patriots cheating, it is as big as the 1919 Black Sox. Can you imgine the civil lawsuits that could errupt ? I mean gambling is legal in Nevada and everyone who lost money on that game could file civil suits, ex-players could sue for lost endorcements...Who knows what else ??

If BB is caught I could easily see a lifetime ban for him and Superbowls awarded to the losers. This really could be the tip of the iceberg (No pun intended Jerry).

 

[Kangaroo]

When did you move out of Bethel ? Thats the next town over me and most of my riding buddies grew up there.

I went to a private party at Hot Shots, local sports bar in Newtown, CT.It was like a 60/40 mix of Giants/Pats fans respectively. I had the numbers 7-3 in the local pool so I was routing for the score and not teams. Although I admit that I was routing for the Pats when the Giants had the ball and visa versa, just keep that 7-3 score going.

As for the topic at hand here, I think if the truth comes out about the Patriots cheating, it is as big as the 1919 Black Sox. Can you imgine the civil lawsuits that could errupt ? I mean gambling is legal in Nevada and everyone who lost money on that game could file civil suits, ex-players could sue for lost endorcements...Who knows what else ??

If BB is caught I could easily see a lifetime ban for him and Superbowls awarded to the losers. This really could be the tip of the iceberg (No pun intended Jerry).

This is not even close to the Black Sox Scandals please that scandal is like the point shaving schemes they busted some college players for years back. Unless the patriots where fixing the score for monetary gain through gambling this is not even in the ball park of the Black Soxs

 

[Jarv]

This is not even close to the Black Sox Scandals please that scandal is like the point shaving schemes they busted some college players for years back. Unless the patriots where fixing the score for monetary gain through gambling this is not even in the ball park of the Black Soxs

I guess we just looking at cheating in different ways.

The way I look at it if you cheat on your tax's its considered stealing for monitory gains and you can go to jail for that.

If you cheat to win the biggest gain on earth you actually get 2 types of monitory games.

1st and formost the winners share (which is more than the losers share) of the Super bowl winnings and secondly gained endorcements, which would be harder to prove unless their is a guarantee, like the old "I'm going to Disneyworld" ads.

Remember that civil lawsuits are different than criminal, I'm not an expert but I think it has to do with only proving 51% vs beyond reasonable doubt, but there are plenty of lawyers here who I hope can clear that up

 

[khiladi]

And I would ask what proof do they have that Goodell was lying? It is merely an opinion that Goodell lied.

But we have a report that the Pats taped the Rams red zone plays. Why would someone lie about that when that's a part of the overall controversy?

And Godel not telling the truth isn't part of the overall controversy? For example:

Goodell's remarks were puzzling in several respects. First, if the Patriots were guilty only of occasional sideline taping, this would seem to merit a letter of reprimand. So why were the Patriots hit with the harshest fine in NFL history? When the scandal first broke, Goodell used extremely strong language about New England's sins. Now, he was implying the whole thing was no big deal.

Or how about this one:

Finally, Goodell declared that the materials the league destroyed contained no evidence of Super Bowl cheating. But the material went back only to 2006.

Or how about this one:

Either way, it is more than curious that the league inspected one tape from this season and the rest, materials from a year when the Patriots did not appear in a Super Bowl.

If Goodell had been forthright about the tapes in the first place, perhaps no one would be spoiling the Super Bowl party.

Yes, your comparison just sucks. Part of the issue at stake is whether the league is covering something up or not, which leads us directly to the integrity of Godell.

I don't think Goodell said they didn't tape the Rams red-zone plays. If I recall, I think he said that he didn't see how the Pats benefited from those calls.

Now, if he said they didn't tape the Rams red-zone plays, then please cite me a source, and I will amend my position.

You obviously missed the point in the whole exercise.

No. What I said is that what practical benefit does is an unfair advantage? You can't measure that a part from winning because winning is the reason why we call it an "unfair advantage." And remember my caveat: I said it's not an "unfair advantage" UNLESS we're talking about for betting purposes.

But according to you it is cheating because it doesn't promote fair play and honest competition? SO now an unfair advantage is dictated by 'betting' purposes? What does betting have to do with the 'practicality' game? My how your logic just keeps twisting and turning.

Your making up definitions as you go along as well. No, that isn't why it is called unfair advantage. Have you looked up the term unfair in the dictionary? Cheating is an unfair advantage, even if the team loses.

But that is all besides the point:

If unfair advantage can't be measured practically, because nobody can say an unfair advantage caused a team to win, then how can something be deemed an unfair advanatge when it isn't possible to measure it?

Inherent in that caveat is the acknowledgement that the unfair advantage benefited the Pats because keeping the score close would have an impact on point spreads. But when I speak of "unfair advantage" I'm saying it has no practical meaning outside of winning - which is why we're even talking about this issue.

If the Pats had lost all their games and the Super Bowls, we wouldn't be talking about this. We talk about it because many believe that by gaining that "unfair advantage" the Pats won their Super Bowls.

1. What do point spreads have to do with fair play and competition, to borrow your own words? What does a point spread have to do with gambling? Wasn't it you that was talking about how the league can't be punished by Congress because they discourage gambling? Why yes, it was...

2.

Is that why college teams that lose are exempted from punishments in regards to violating the college rules in recruiting talent? Wait a minute, they are not...

3.

Whether we talk about it or not has no relevance to the argument regarding unfair advantage. The reason we wouldn't be talking about it is because even when the team cheated, it still couldn't win. They sucked and couldn't win even when they cheated. Nobody remembers a loser.

But what I'm saying is perfectly clear if you want to receive it. If you don't, then you say I'm contradicting myself, I'm using illogic, etc. and so on.

If you believe that, fine. But, remember, you decided to engage me in conversation.

Your making up definitions that only you agree to, not the rest of the world.

Does a blown call win a team the game? Taking the game as a whole, No. Why? Because a game is made up of several events and factors not only including the plays called, but the mental attitude of the team, talent, coaching decisions, etc.

But the possibility is there that it can win the game, irrespective of everything else. But a blown call isn't the same thing as willfully violating the rules. And once again, there are degrees at which to measure an unfair advantage or not.

The word is "its" as in "its effectiveness" not "it's" as in "it is effectiveness." If you're going to engage in a conversation and call someone "********" at least have the common decency to use the appropriate word because that doesn't speak too well of your own mastery of language - which speaks, to some degree, of one's ability to comprehend and process logic.

That is pretty lame, worrying about an apostrophe...

Second, I've already answered this above. Regardless whether cheating is effective or not, it contradicts a basic principle that the NFL is trying to enforce, namely "fair play" and "honest competition."

Or is it about point spreads and betting?

The Pats could have taped games and lost them all. Their methods wouldn't have been effective in terms of producing a win, but they are still illegal because they go against the principles and concepts of "fair play" and "honest competition."

Similarly, their methods could have been effective in terms of accomplishing a particular goal within that game, but the methods are still illegal because they go against the principles and concepts of "fair play" and "honest competition."

So then how does Godell hand out varying punishments if one cannot gage the effectiveness of a punishment? For example, Godell said taping from the sidelines is a minor violation can't really be true according to your logic, right... It should be treated equally as taping the walk-through...

What's at issue (at least when I talk about how one measure's fair play practically) isn't whether breaking the rules were effective or ineffective, but whether the league can strip a team of a win when it can't be determined whether the cheating actually resulted in a victory. That's my whole point.

I know what your point is, and it is stupid. Knowing the plays and formations can very well effect the game, otherwise coaching and scheming would be absolutely irrelevant. Disguising blitzes would be pointless, and trying to gain match-ups through formations wouldn't matter as well.

 

[firehawk350]

I cut the brake lines on somebody's car. They crashed into a tree and died. I don't think I should go to jail for murder because you can't prove that the lack of brakes caused the accident. They could have gotten into an accident either way. There are a lot of factors that go into driving (awareness, spatial logic, coordination, etc.).

 

[tyke1doe]

And Godel not telling the truth isn't part of the overall controversy? For example:

Or how about this one:

Or how about this one:

Yes, your comparison just sucks. Part of the issue at stake is whether the league is covering something up or not, which leads us directly to the integrity of Godell.

You obviously missed the point in the whole exercise.

But according to you it is cheating because it doesn't promote fair play and honest competition? SO now an unfair advantage is dictated by 'betting' purposes? What does betting have to do with the 'practicality' game? My how your logic just keeps twisting and turning.

Your making up definitions as you go along as well. No, that isn't why it is called unfair advantage. Have you looked up the term unfair in the dictionary? Cheating is an unfair advantage, even if the team loses.

But that is all besides the point:

If unfair advantage can't be measured practically, because nobody can say an unfair advantage caused a team to win, then how can something be deemed an unfair advanatge when it isn't possible to measure it?

1. What do point spreads have to do with fair play and competition, to borrow your own words? What does a point spread have to do with gambling? Wasn't it you that was talking about how the league can't be punished by Congress because they discourage gambling? Why yes, it was...

2.

Is that why college teams that lose are exempted from punishments in regards to violating the college rules in recruiting talent? Wait a minute, they are not...

3.

Whether we talk about it or not has no relevance to the argument regarding unfair advantage. The reason we wouldn't be talking about it is because even when the team cheated, it still couldn't win. They sucked and couldn't win even when they cheated. Nobody remembers a loser.


Your making up definitions that only you agree to, not the rest of the world.

But the possibility is there that it can win the game, irrespective of everything else. But a blown call isn't the same thing as willfully violating the rules. And once again, there are degrees at which to measure an unfair advantage or not.

That is pretty lame, worrying about an apostrophe...
Or is it about point spreads and betting?

So then how does Godell hand out varying punishments if one cannot gage the effectiveness of a punishment? For example, Godell said taping from the sidelines is a minor violation can't really be true according to your logic, right... It should be treated equally as taping the walk-through...

I know what your point is, and it is stupid. Knowing the plays and formations can very well effect the game, otherwise coaching and scheming would be absolutely irrelevant. Disguising blitzes would be pointless, and trying to gain match-ups through formations wouldn't matter as well.

First, I'd like to know the source of your citations because they sound like an opinion to me and not an actual news story. And you know what they say about opinions.

Second, you apparently misunderstood my point about betting and point spreads. But that's not surprising. So I can understand how it doesn't make sense to you. I merely have to shake my head and move along.

Third, I can't follow the flow of your arguments. You post an opinion from another source then right below it say my argument "sucks."
But I'm quite amused at your use of the juvenile term "sucks."

I do have to commend you though. You do use the word "stupid" quite liberally, like a high schooler.

At any rate, you decided to engage me in conversation, not I you. If you are so bothered by my comments and positions, and if they are illogical to you, then I take it next time I offer them, you'll simply move along.

But I doubt you can resist because deep within your soul, you know I make valid points, which is why you can't let me go.

 

[tyke1doe]

I cut the brake lines on somebody's car. They crashed into a tree and died. I don't think I should go to jail for murder because you can't prove that the lack of brakes caused the accident. They could have gotten into an accident either way. There are a lot of factors that go into driving (awareness, spatial logic, coordination, etc.).

First, you wouldn't go to jail if they can't prove you cut the brakes.

Second, if they had proof that you cut the brakes, and they can prove that the lack of brakes caused the accident, you would indeed be charged with a crime.

Third, there may be a lot of factors that go into driving, true. But the accident wasn't a result of driving, but the result of the brakes being cut. And with technology being what it is today, forensic scientists could determine whether the cause was a result of an inability to stop because the brakes were cut.

Fourth, the difference between your example and the taping example is that in the former (yours), there is a more direct cause-and-effect relationship, i.e., you go fast in a car, you don't have brakes, you crash.
The same can't be said for knowing a team's signals with respect to winning, i.e., you know these signals, you stop this drive, you win the game. It's not the same cause-and-effect relationship.
That's not going to be the case all the time.

With all due respect, that was a very, very, very weak attempt at a rebuttal.