2014 NFL Postseason Thread

[stessier]

According to John McClain (long time NFL reporter, was president of the writers association) teams think the Patriots have cameras in the visiting locker room (but won't come forth because of no evidence) and regularly play havok with the communications (headset radios) at Foxboro, but again, can't prove it.

Every team has a list of things that they believe the Patriots have done and gotten away with because they don't have proof. Everyone heard about the alleged filming of the Rams pre-SB practice. Most didn't hear that they allegedly kept doing it, and did it to Carolina two years later.

Keep in mind that Pats fans will try to dismiss Spygate as if it was a single incident. It was a pattern of cheating behavior that extended over AT LEAST six seasons, during when they won three Super Bowls - and included SPECIFIC allegations of cheating that could reasonably affected the outcome of two of those Super Bowls. Yet they treat it like it was a single instance of filming the Jets defensive signals.

Because that is what the league determined and punished. The league changed the rules in 2006 to prevent taping of coaches signals on the side lines. The Pats did it during the Jets game and were punished for that. If you have evidence of anything else, I'm sure the league office would be interested.

Edit: There was one article that mentioned the walk through tapings. That article was retracted by the newspaper. Why? Papers don't retract articles when they have solid sources.

[stessier]

I thought because I didn't see you at the meetings that you weren't getting the memos El Guapo.

[Isgrimnur]

The question is in reference to your accusation that the Bills cheat, something that I have never heard.

Sorry, my contempt for the original statements over rode my ability to write clearly. RM9 complained about cheating between the lines - penalties that are not called. My reference was that the Bills are horrible cheaters because they got called for the penalties.

I have not heard the Bills mentioned in anything outside the lines.

Thank you for the clarification.

What are you on about m8?

I was in an NFL thread that suddenly sounded like soccer.

Football is football, right?

[stessier]

According to John M[*]cClain (long time NFL reporter, was president of the writers association) teams think the Patriots have cameras in the visiting locker room (but won't come forth because of no evidence)

That's a new one for me.

and regularly play havok with the communications (headset radios) at Foxboro, but again, can't prove it.

I suspect either the communications equipment stinks or everyone does it>

From that article

• Redskin accuse Bucs
• Bucs accuse Dallas
• Chicago accuse Detroit
• Jets accuse Pittsburgh
• Bucs accuse Falcons
• Dallas accuse Jets

I suspect they stopped listing them because it was boring.

[noxiousdog]

Another good example is Edelman. I think everyone in the world thought he had a concussion yet was allowed to keep playing without being checked until much later.

[El Guapo]

Another good example is Edelman. I think everyone in the world thought he had a concussion yet was allowed to keep playing without being checked until much later.

FWIW the AP is reporting that Edelman was cleared to return to the game:

The Patriots top wide receiver was leveled by Seahawks safety Kam Chancellor after a 21-yard completion with just under 11 minutes left in New England's 28-24 win over Seattle on Sunday night.

After that series, Edelman was checked on the New England sideline by medical staff and an independent neurologist and cleared to return, said the person who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

[noxiousdog]

Another good example is Edelman. I think everyone in the world thought he had a concussion yet was allowed to keep playing without being checked until much later.

FWIW the AP is reporting that Edelman was cleared to return to the game:

The Patriots top wide receiver was leveled by Seahawks safety Kam Chancellor after a 21-yard completion with just under 11 minutes left in New England's 28-24 win over Seattle on Sunday night.

After that series, Edelman was checked on the New England sideline by medical staff and an independent neurologist and cleared to return, said the person who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

Irrelevant. He should have been checked immediately.

[stessier]

Another good example is Edelman. I think everyone in the world thought he had a concussion yet was allowed to keep playing without being checked until much later.

FWIW the AP is reporting that Edelman was cleared to return to the game:

The Patriots top wide receiver was leveled by Seahawks safety Kam Chancellor after a 21-yard completion with just under 11 minutes left in New England's 28-24 win over Seattle on Sunday night.

After that series, Edelman was checked on the New England sideline by medical staff and an independent neurologist and cleared to return, said the person who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.

Irrelevant. He should have been checked immediately.

I'm curious - how? This was discussed on Grantland's NFL podcast - one believed as you and one thought it was impossible to legislate. I have to agree with Barnwell - I don't know how you make a rule that works for this.

[Chrisoc13]

Basically just a bunch of whiners is what I see. Can't beat the Patriots? They must be cheaters. I'm not a fan of the Patriots but I can tell when I'm seeing sour grapes.

[RunningMn9]

(2) I am not aware of credible sources indicating that they filmed the Panthers walkthrough before that Super Bowl.

You'd have to ask the GM of the Panthers at that time, he's my source. I don't know who his sources were.

[RunningMn9]

I'm curious - how?

I thought the concussion protocol was explicit? In the event of a play where there is suspected head trauma, they have to go through the concussion protocol, which is administered in the locker room. The same protocol that Cliff Avril went through in the same game. I was under the impression that this protocol was non-negotiable, to prevent shenanigans like keeping the player on the field for the rest of the drive and then giving him the once over on the sidelines between drives.

From what I've seen in the NFL this year, the player usually (couldn't say whether it is always) heads to the locker room, and if they are cleared, then they return to the field. The test is not conducted on the sidelines.

[RunningMn9]

Basically just a bunch of whiners is what I see. Can't beat the Patriots? They must be cheaters. I'm not a fan of the Patriots but I can tell when I'm seeing sour grapes.

It certainly could be that. All I'm saying here is that the sentiment is pervasive in the NFL. And that's why accusations/appearance of Patriots cheating will be broadcast with a louder voice than accusations/appearance of Falcons cheating.

Because there isn't a sentiment pervasive in the NFL of the Falcons being cheating fucks.

[stessier]

I'm curious - how?

I thought the concussion protocol was explicit? In the event of a play where there is suspected head trauma, they have to go through the concussion protocol, which is administered in the locker room. The same protocol that Cliff Avril went through in the same game. I was under the impression that this protocol was non-negotiable, to prevent shenanigans like keeping the player on the field for the rest of the drive and then giving him the once over on the sidelines between drives.

Great summary of what happens. So how do you get the player off the field? Avril was knocked silly and the trainers ran out to him. Edelman got up and kept playing. How do you get him off the field? When? The independent guys in the booth called down and he was tested.

[El Guapo]

(2) I am not aware of credible sources indicating that they filmed the Panthers walkthrough before that Super Bowl.

You'd have to ask the GM of the Panthers at that time, he's my source. I don't know who his sources were.

I assume you're referring to the interview a couple weeks ago where he said that "people" have told him that the Super Bowl practices were filmed, but that there's no evidence?

[El Guapo]

I'm curious - how?

I thought the concussion protocol was explicit? In the event of a play where there is suspected head trauma, they have to go through the concussion protocol, which is administered in the locker room. The same protocol that Cliff Avril went through in the same game. I was under the impression that this protocol was non-negotiable, to prevent shenanigans like keeping the player on the field for the rest of the drive and then giving him the once over on the sidelines between drives.

Great summary of what happens. So how do you get the player off the field? Avril was knocked silly and the trainers ran out to him. Edelman got up and kept playing. How do you get him off the field? When? The independent guys in the booth called down and he was tested.

I'm not an expert on the protocol, but my understanding is that if the player "reports or exhibits" symptoms then they have to be removed and tested. Since Edelman apparently didn't report symptoms, the question would be when you would deem to have "exhibited" symptoms (this is where a team would have some wiggle room for 'shenanigans', I suppose). I also don't know the extent to which you would give a team some leeway based on the situation (they're 10 points behind in the 4th quarter of a Super Bowl, so the coaching staff has a lot of things on their mind that they might prioritize over second guessing a player who is not reporting symptoms).

[stessier]

I'm curious - how?

I thought the concussion protocol was explicit? In the event of a play where there is suspected head trauma, they have to go through the concussion protocol, which is administered in the locker room. The same protocol that Cliff Avril went through in the same game. I was under the impression that this protocol was non-negotiable, to prevent shenanigans like keeping the player on the field for the rest of the drive and then giving him the once over on the sidelines between drives.

Great summary of what happens. So how do you get the player off the field? Avril was knocked silly and the trainers ran out to him. Edelman got up and kept playing. How do you get him off the field? When? The independent guys in the booth called down and he was tested.

I'm not an expert on the protocol, but my understanding is that if the player "reports or exhibits" symptoms then they have to be removed and tested. Since Edelman apparently didn't report symptoms, the question would be when you would deem to have "exhibited" symptoms (this is where a team would have some wiggle room for 'shenanigans', I suppose). I also don't know the extent to which you would give a team some leeway based on the situation (they're 10 points behind in the 4th quarter of a Super Bowl, so the coaching staff has a lot of things on their mind that they might prioritize over second guessing a player who is not reporting symptoms).

There is actually an established list of symptoms they work off of - one is staggering around. That is what prompted the independents to call down to the sideline. Whose job is it to get him off and how does that actually happen is the question (in my mind anyway).

[EvilHomer3k]

Basically just a bunch of whiners is what I see. Can't beat the Patriots? They must be cheaters. I'm not a fan of the Patriots but I can tell when I'm seeing sour grapes.

Sour grapes is more along the lines of Chicagoans hating the Packers. This is more than that. It's not just a few teams or a few occurrences. It's not just complaints and accusations. There is evidence. It's not just breaking rules. It's the mentality that winning is the only thing and you push for every advantage every chance you get. Do anything as long as you don't break the letter of the rules (screw the spirit) or don't get caught. If you get caught you know you won't get punished until after the season so there isn't any real punishment for doing it.

RM9, you forgot signing players from other teams to get intel and playing very loose with injury reports.

[El Guapo]

Basically just a bunch of whiners is what I see. Can't beat the Patriots? They must be cheaters. I'm not a fan of the Patriots but I can tell when I'm seeing sour grapes.

It certainly could be that. All I'm saying here is that the sentiment is pervasive in the NFL. And that's why accusations/appearance of Patriots cheating will be broadcast with a louder voice than accusations/appearance of Falcons cheating.

Because there isn't a sentiment pervasive in the NFL of the Falcons being cheating fucks.

My main point is just that people say that the Patriots have a "history of egregious cheating" and the like (and often use that to say that they don't get the benefit of the doubt), when 90%+ of what's cited is rumor and speculation (combined with things that were totally legal, like the Ravens formations).

[stessier]

And no contempt for Seattle? A player left his feet in a rising fashion and crushed a player in the head - no flag. Clearly they know the rules and chose to ignore them in an attempt to remove a valuable opposing player from the game.

[El Guapo]

Basically just a bunch of whiners is what I see. Can't beat the Patriots? They must be cheaters. I'm not a fan of the Patriots but I can tell when I'm seeing sour grapes.

Sour grapes is more along the lines of Chicagoans hating the Packers. This is more than that. It's not just a few teams or a few occurrences. It's not just complaints and accusations. There is evidence. It's not just breaking rules. It's the mentality that winning is the only thing and you push for every advantage every chance you get. Do anything as long as you don't break the letter of the rules (screw the spirit) or don't get caught. If you get caught you know you won't get punished until after the season so there isn't any real punishment for doing it.

RM9, you forgot signing players from other teams to get intel and playing very loose with injury reports.

Grrrrr. What specifically are you referring to as "evidence" here? My point is that 90%+ of the stuff that gets thrown around very specifically IS just complaints and accusations.

Your two examples are exactly case in point. It is totally legal to sign players from other teams to get intel - teams do it ALL THE TIME (and of course, it's impossible to separate the degree to which the signing is for intel vs. ability - people thought the Patriots signed Danny Woodhead from the Jets for intel, but of course he went on to be a big contributor).

As for injury reports, that's just what people were complaining about with Peyton Manning's injury. Teams don't have to report that much on injuries, and lots of players get reported as "doubtful" and the like when it would take a borderline miracle to get them out of bed on gameday.

But again, that doesn't stop people from throwing together a laundry list of things that are legal swirled around with unsubstantiated allegations to document a "history of cheating".

[stessier]

Basically just a bunch of whiners is what I see. Can't beat the Patriots? They must be cheaters. I'm not a fan of the Patriots but I can tell when I'm seeing sour grapes.

Sour grapes is more along the lines of Chicagoans hating the Packers. This is more than that. It's not just a few teams or a few occurrences. It's not just complaints and accusations. There is evidence.

Care to share?

RM9, you forgot signing players from other teams to get intel and playing very loose with injury reports.

Whew, for a minute there I thought you were serious. Clearly you're just rabble rousing.

[gameoverman]

My main point is just that people say that the Patriots have a "history of egregious cheating" and the like (and often use that to say that they don't get the benefit of the doubt), when 90%+ of what's cited is rumor and speculation (combined with things that were totally legal, like the Ravens formations).

1982 Snowplow game is the starting point for me. I know technically it wasn't cheating, no rule against it at the time, but certainly 30+ years of questionable incidents of sportsmanship is a 'history' isn't it?

Not being a fan of either team, all I can say is it taints but not removes their accomplishments in my eyes. Some say Brady was playing against a less than stellar Seattle defense, okay but Seattle was up 24-14 with one quarter to go. Their zero point fourth quarter is because Lane and Avril got injured? It might explain why the Patriots scored more, but not why the Seahawks offense went limp. So I do think they still get credit for being champs.

[El Guapo]

My main point is just that people say that the Patriots have a "history of egregious cheating" and the like (and often use that to say that they don't get the benefit of the doubt), when 90%+ of what's cited is rumor and speculation (combined with things that were totally legal, like the Ravens formations).

1982 Snowplow game is the starting point for me. I know technically it wasn't cheating, no rule against it at the time, but certainly 30+ years of questionable incidents of sportsmanship is a 'history' isn't it?

I don't think anything that happened in 1982 is relevant history to anything that Belichick, Brady, and/or Kraft are accused of. It's also silly to pick one (apparently legal) event from 1982 and then nothing for 20+ years in order to create "30+years" of cheating / poor sportsmanship / tomfoolery.

[LawBeefaroni]

tomfoolery.

See, it's even named after the cheating QB.

[EvilHomer3k]

Basically just a bunch of whiners is what I see. Can't beat the Patriots? They must be cheaters. I'm not a fan of the Patriots but I can tell when I'm seeing sour grapes.

Sour grapes is more along the lines of Chicagoans hating the Packers. This is more than that. It's not just a few teams or a few occurrences. It's not just complaints and accusations. There is evidence.

Care to share?

RM9, you forgot signing players from other teams to get intel and playing very loose with injury reports.

Whew, for a minute there I thought you were serious. Clearly you're just rabble rousing.

First, it is quite pointless to enter into a serious discussion with you on the subject. You'll always have excuses for their clearly unsportamanlike (as well as outright cheating) behavior. You've already shown a propensity to ignore evidence and reports in this thread.

Second, circumstantial evidence (accusations) is evidence. Other teams accusing the Patriots of unsportsmanlike play and breaking rules is, therefore, evidence. This is, of course, evidence you will choose to completely ignore because it didn't come from the mouth of the almighty, himself, Bill Belichick.

[El Guapo]

Getting back to the Super Bowl, one question: if Malcolm Butler goes down in the end zone after the interception, would that have been a safety? He catches the ball while his right foot is on the goal line and most of his body is leaning onto the field, he then gets knocked back (by the receiver) into the end zone, and then dives forward to about the 1.

So, if he went down in the end zone before diving forward, is that a safety, or a touchback?

[stessier]

Basically just a bunch of whiners is what I see. Can't beat the Patriots? They must be cheaters. I'm not a fan of the Patriots but I can tell when I'm seeing sour grapes.

Sour grapes is more along the lines of Chicagoans hating the Packers. This is more than that. It's not just a few teams or a few occurrences. It's not just complaints and accusations. There is evidence.

Care to share?

RM9, you forgot signing players from other teams to get intel and playing very loose with injury reports.

Whew, for a minute there I thought you were serious. Clearly you're just rabble rousing.

First, it is quite pointless to enter into a serious discussion with you on the subject. You'll always have excuses for their clearly unsportamanlike (as well as outright cheating) behavior. You've already shown a propensity to ignore evidence and reports in this thread.

Fine, then explain it to my El Guapo alt. He seems quite reasonable for a lawyer.

Second, circumstantial evidence (accusations) is evidence. Other teams accusing the Patriots of unsportsmanlike play and breaking rules is, therefore, evidence. This is, of course, evidence you will choose to completely ignore because it didn't come from the mouth of the almighty, himself, Bill Belichick.

Ah.

So do you agree not all evidence is equal? Can you also see that some people might expect those who say they have "evidence" expect documented proof of wrong doing as opposed to innuendo and circumstances? Or that circumstantial evidence is viewed as worthless without corroborating facts? The lawyer alt could probably go into this more if you'd like.

[Isgrimnur]

Forward progress and spot of the ball. Regardless of where his back foot is, if the ball is clear of the endzone when he is hit and goes backwards and then downed, it's spotted where he was hit.

If he gets hit back into the endzone, retains his feet, then attempts to advance it again and fails to clear the endzone, it's a safety.

[RunningMn9]

Getting back to the Super Bowl, one question: if Malcolm Butler goes down in the end zone after the interception, would that have been a safety? He catches the ball while his right foot is on the goal line and most of his body is leaning onto the field, he then gets knocked back (by the receiver) into the end zone, and then dives forward to about the 1.

So, if he went down in the end zone before diving forward, is that a safety, or a touchback?

I believe the rule is that the ball has to come completely out for it to not be a touchback. I was surprised that he came out, but then I just assumed it was excess momentum from him teleporting forward to get in position to make that play.

[LawBeefaroni]

Getting back to the Super Bowl, one question: if Malcolm Butler goes down in the end zone after the interception, would that have been a safety? He catches the ball while his right foot is on the goal line and most of his body is leaning onto the field, he then gets knocked back (by the receiver) into the end zone, and then dives forward to about the 1.

So, if he went down in the end zone before diving forward, is that a safety, or a touchback?

It probably would have been a touchback. I think it's refs discretion if his momentum carries him back into the end zone while making the catch(touchback) or if another player forces him in (touchback). If he catches it, runs out for a bit, and then runs back, that's a safety.

[El Guapo]

Getting back to the Super Bowl, one question: if Malcolm Butler goes down in the end zone after the interception, would that have been a safety? He catches the ball while his right foot is on the goal line and most of his body is leaning onto the field, he then gets knocked back (by the receiver) into the end zone, and then dives forward to about the 1.

So, if he went down in the end zone before diving forward, is that a safety, or a touchback?

I believe the rule is that the ball has to come completely out for it to not be a touchback. I was surprised that he came out, but then I just assumed it was excess momentum from him teleporting forward to get in position to make that play.

So it's where the ball is, not where the defender is? I believe the ball was clearly (albeit barely) out of the end zone when caught (above the ~ .4 yard line), though Butler himself never entirely leaves the end zone. Since when the ball is caught it was not in the end zone, but only goes into the end zone when Butler goes back, that would be a safety then, right? Barely a safety, but a safety nonetheless.

In any event, probably best for him to err on the side of caution and dive back onto the field unless he knows his safety rules really well.

[RunningMn9]

Can you also see that some people might expect those who say they have "evidence" expect documented proof of wrong doing as opposed to innuendo and circumstances? Or that circumstantial evidence is viewed as worthless without corroborating facts? The lawyer alt could probably go into this more if you'd like.

In a court of law, or the court of public opinion, or a discussion between fans of a stupid football team? I can only hope that people answer that question differently depending on the context we are discussing.

For instance - the standard that the Patriots face for being punished for illegally deflating footballs to gain a competitive advantage is surprisingly low. If the evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) is such that Wells determines that a transgression more likely than not occurred, the standard has been met. So for me, the questions come down to this:

1) What are were the actual results of the tests on the 12 Patriot footballs (what were they when then refs cleared them and what were they when they were tested)?

2) What did the Colts have their footballs inflated to when they were checked by the officials, and were they tested during/after the game as well - did they have similar characteristics in terms of loss of pressure due to atmospheric conditions?

If the answer to 1) is that the balls were all verified at 12.5 PSI, and if during the course of testing, it is shown that any loss of pressure measured is not consistent with atmospheric conditions; AND it is shown that the footballs used by the Colts did not exhibit similar loss of pressure due to identical atmospheric conditions; THEN the video of the ball boy taking the balls into the bathroom (where one would reasonably know that no cameras exist) for 90 seconds (which has been shown to be more than enough time to let some air out of footballs) will be enough to meet that low standard for discipline.

At that point it is more likely than not that the footballs were tampered with, and it is more likely than not that the tampering was at the direction of Brady.

That's going to reflect very poorly on the Patriots and Brady - and will probably sting more than any subsequent punishment.

If the investigation shows that atmospheric conditions are sufficient to explain any variances between the initial and in-game checks, and if it is found that the same atmospheric conditions affected the Colts footballs in a similar fashion, than the Pats will (and should) be cleared and it won't matter what that guy was doing in the bathroom (if such a video even exists).

[LawBeefaroni]

Getting back to the Super Bowl, one question: if Malcolm Butler goes down in the end zone after the interception, would that have been a safety? He catches the ball while his right foot is on the goal line and most of his body is leaning onto the field, he then gets knocked back (by the receiver) into the end zone, and then dives forward to about the 1.

So, if he went down in the end zone before diving forward, is that a safety, or a touchback?

I believe the rule is that the ball has to come completely out for it to not be a touchback. I was surprised that he came out, but then I just assumed it was excess momentum from him teleporting forward to get in position to make that play.

So it's where the ball is, not where the defender is? I believe the ball was clearly (albeit barely) out of the end zone when caught (above the ~ .4 yard line), though Butler himself never entirely leaves the end zone. Since when the ball is caught it was not in the end zone, but only goes into the end zone when Butler goes back, that would be a safety then, right? Barely a safety, but a safety nonetheless.

That's a forward progress thing.

The important factor in a safety is impetus. Two points are scored for the opposing team when the ball is dead on or behind a team’s own goal line if the impetus came from a player on that team.

...

Examples of Non-Safety:
(a) Player intercepts a pass with both feet inbounds in the field of play and his momentum carries him into his own end zone. Ball is put in play at spot of interception.
(b) Player intercepts a pass in his own end zone and is downed in the end zone, even after recovering in the end zone. Impetus came from passing team, not from defense. (Touchback)

One would infer from (a) that if the ball is caught with one or both feet in the endzone then it's even less of a safety.

[El Guapo]

1) What are were the actual results of the tests on the 12 Patriot footballs (what were they when then refs cleared them and what were they when they were tested)?

2) What did the Colts have their footballs inflated to when they were checked by the officials, and were they tested during/after the game as well - did they have similar characteristics in terms of loss of pressure due to atmospheric conditions?

One difficulty with this is that my understanding (from what I've read) is that the NFL does not have records of where the balls tested before the game. I.e. they don't write that down. All they have is the refs saying that they checked the balls and they passed (and I think the refs sign each ball after they check it).

I don't know whether they have any oral testimony from the refs on this (either "the Patriots balls were all at or around 12.5, or "the Patriots balls were on the low end while the Colts balls were on the medium end").

I also assume that the NFL will improve their balls protocols during the offseason.

[LawBeefaroni]

By the way, someone explain how this (the bolded part) can happen on a PAT:

Section 3 Try
GENERAL RULES
Article 1 General Rules. After a touchdown, the scoring team is awarded a Try in an attempt to score one or two
additional points during one scrimmage down.
...
RESULTS OF A TRY
Article 2: Results of a Try. During a Try, the following shall apply:
(a) If a kick results in a field goal by the offense, one point is awarded. An artificial or manufactured tee shall not be
permitted to assist in the execution of a Try-kick. (The conditions of 11-4-1 must be met.) The ball is dead as soon as
it becomes evident that the kick has failed.
(b) If a Try results in a touchdown by the offense, two points are awarded. If a touchdown is not scored, the Try is over at
the end of the play.
(c) If the defense gains possession, the ball is dead immediately. The defensive team cannot score during a Try.
(d) If there is no kick, and the Try results in what would ordinarily be a safety against the defense, one point is awarded
to the offensive team.

If the defense gains possession, the ball is dead. What play would "ordinarliy be a safety against the defense" in such a situation. A penalty?



Related to previous post, here is the full Safety definition:

Section 5 Safety
SAFETY
Article 1 Safety. It is a Safety:
(a) if the offense commits a foul in its own end zone or
(b) when an impetus by a team sends the ball behind its own goal line, and the ball is dead in the end zone in its
possession or the ball is out of bounds behind the goal line.
Exceptions:
It is not a safety:
(1) If a forward pass from behind the line of scrimmage is incomplete in the end zone.
(2) If a defensive player, in the field of play, intercepts a pass or catches or recovers a fumble, backward pass,
scrimmage kick, free kick, or fair catch kick, and his original momentum carries him into his end zone where the ball
is declared dead in his team’s possession. The ball belongs to the defensive team at the spot where the player’s foot
or other body part touched the ground to establish possession.
(a) If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball commits a foul in the end zone, it is a
safety.
(b) If a player who intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball throws a completed illegal forward pass from the end
zone, the ball remains alive. If his opponent intercepts the illegal pass thrown from the end zone, the ball remains
alive. If he scores, it is a touchdown.
(c) If a player of the team which intercepts, catches, or recovers the ball commits a foul in the field of play, and the
ball becomes dead in the end zone, the basic spot is the spot of the change of possession.
(d) If the spot where possession changed is inside the one-yard line, the ball is to be spotted at the one-yard line.
SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE
The impetus is always attributed to the offense, unless the defense creates a new force that sends the ball behind its own
goal line by muffing a ball which is at rest or nearly at rest, or by illegally batting or illegally kicking a ball (3-16-3).

In Butler's catch, the impetus would still be the offense's (passing the ball). He'd have to exit and the re-enter the end zone for a safety.

[RunningMn9]

One difficulty with this is that my understanding (from what I've read) is that the NFL does not have records of where the balls tested before the game. I.e. they don't write that down. All they have is the refs saying that they checked the balls and they passed (and I think the refs sign each ball after they check it).

I don't know whether they have any oral testimony from the refs on this (either "the Patriots balls were all at or around 12.5, or "the Patriots balls were on the low end while the Colts balls were on the medium end").

Yes, I assume that this is the case. Oral testimony from the refs would be just fine for the purposes of this investigation.

[Remus West]

Basically just a bunch of whiners is what I see. Can't beat the Patriots? They must be cheaters. I'm not a fan of the Patriots but I can tell when I'm seeing sour grapes.

Sour grapes is more along the lines of Chicagoans hating the Packers.

No it isn't. That's simply rivalry. Claims of cheating being the only reason for their dominance is sour grapes.

This is more than that. It's not just a few teams or a few occurrences. It's not just complaints and accusations. There is evidence. It's not just breaking rules. It's the mentality that winning is the only thing and you push for every advantage every chance you get. Do anything as long as you don't break the letter of the rules (screw the spirit) or don't get caught. If you get caught you know you won't get punished until after the season so there isn't any real punishment for doing it.

What have they been proven doing other than the spygate thing? The rest is, to the best of my knowledge, complaints and accusations lacking proof.

RM9, you forgot signing players from other teams to get intel and playing very loose with injury reports.

pfffft. Every team does that. You just provided a great example of sour grapes.

I'm a Lions fan and not a Patriots fan but I have no hate towards the Patriots. I find myself amazed at the level of animosity they generate. I'm also a Red Wings fan and they were/are a more dominant franchise in their league yet I don't see the same level of accusations and foaming at the mouth fury directed their way.

[RunningMn9]

Claims of cheating being the only reason for their dominance is sour grapes.

No one has ever claimed that the only reason for their dominance is cheating. The claim being made is that the "thing" that drives the Patriots organization to be dominant is the same "thing" that drives them to cross the line into cheating. They have a "win at any cost, end justifies the means" mentality that results in a lot of different factors that explain their dominance. It also (allegedly) makes them more likely to bend/stretch/break the rules, especially when emboldened by a normally sympathetic Commissioner.

That's the feeling that is pervasive across the NFL. At the league level, not necessarily at the fan level.

I'm also a Red Wings fan and they were/are a more dominant franchise in their league yet I don't see the same level of accusations and foaming at the mouth fury directed their way.

Maybe that should tell you that your perception of the Patriots is off, viewing them from afar as you are. Maybe the explanation isn't just simple sour grapes. Maybe the explanation is that their is some legitimate justification for the rampant paranoia about the Patriots in team offices around the land? Maybe the Red Wings aren't cheating fucks, so don't get accused of being cheating fucks?

[LordMortis]

I'm a Lions fan and not a Patriots fan but I have no hate towards the Patriots.

You forgot to mention that you are Wolverine fan and Brady will always be Wolverine in your eyes.

[LordMortis]

Maybe the Red Wings aren't cheating fucks, so don't get accused of being cheating fucks?

They have done their share and it makes me sad when they do (like when Ozzy was switching in and out non regulation stick)... Except for Cicerelli. I have no idea why, but my blinders always went up for Cicerelli. (We won't even mention what a shit he was in his personal life)

Maybe that should tell you that your perception of the Patriots is off

Criticism can be pretty high around here. I hear many calling them the deFlatriots.