rodeo

How about having special footballs for crap.  No special kicking ball.  No balls doctored up by teams.  NFL provides balls.  That's it.  End of story. 

Seems to me the reason they give the teams the balls is so they can be altered to their preference. Hence the Packers over inflating for Rodgers with no issues.

Statute of limitations on Brad Johnson, but there would have been hellfire that rained down on him if this had been more widely known back in the day.

 

McCarthy...what? Are you talking about Aaron Rodgers?

Yes, Rodgers admitted that the Packers overinflate balls beyond the allowed limit. That's cheating.

Reminder that the Packers have been caught overinflating balls.

Well, I can only speak for myself but I don’t want to punish the Patriots because of my personal opinion towards them. I want to punish them because they got CAUGHT CHEATING RED HANDED.

They actually haven't been caught at all.

This isn't like a holding call - it's like a player running off the bench and tackling someone. You do that, you'll get ejected and probably suspended too.

In what way is it at all like that?

I love this idea in this thread that any breaking of the rules = suspended.

"Holding, #67 on the offense. 2 game suspension."

Keep this in mind: Greg Hardy was suspended with pay for 17 games all because of a pending misdemeanor charge that didn't affect the outcome of any game. You can't suspend Belichick for one game for affecting the competitive balance of an AFC Championship Game?

No, because it would be applying the rules to one team/coach and not the others who have come out and openly stated that they regularly break the rules and alter the balls.

Do you suspend Mcarthy? Do you take Brad Johnson's Super Bowl away?

Of course not. People want to punish the Patriots specifically for something numerous people admit that they do, because of their personal opinions on the Patriots.

It would be the most absurd thing in NFL history to suspend anyone for this lmao

I was reading an article about how Rodgers prefers the ball more inflated and it made the comment that the refs inspect the balls before the game.  Does this mean that the refs screwed up in their inspection or that the deflation happened after the inspection?

It means they let them slide because it wasn't a big deal, like how they'll let the Packers overinflate balls.

Wonder if New England was the only team doing this. Taller guys tend to have bigger hands, right?

Here's a video about how the Packers will add extra air to over-inflate footballs for Aaron Rogers, beyond the allowed limit.

http://vid809.photobucket.com/albums/zz11/mascho030916/Football%20Central/ScreenCaptureProject295.mp4

So let's see if we can trace this timeline. The refs tested the balls 2 hours before the game and kept the balls in their possession until the start of the game. The balls then went to the Patriots sideline, where presumably some guy stood there in front of 100+ cameras emptying the air out of them without being spotted. Then the balls were given back to the refs, who used them in the field of play. A Colts equipment staff guy noticed a ball was deflated, even though it was the refs job to test them, and if they didn't meet specifications, to not use them.

Now, 2 days later they've been tested and found to be low by the NFL. Were the Colts balls tested and found to not be low?

This story is full of holes, they need to release more info.

I didn't have as long to resent the Patriots after our Super Bowl as most people, because my cousin got signed as a back-up LT there in 2005 and played with them for a few years. Most of my extended family in the heart of Alabama are Patriots fans over it lol

Referee Jim Daopoulos:

 

"Officials would know if the football had less pressure or more pressure than the required amount and would appropriately substitute the football out."

PDP ‏@RIobserver 7h7 hours ago

@footballzebras @RefereeJimD @MikePereira Given Rule 2 Sections 1 & 2, how likely is it that this is a real issue?

 

Jim Daopoulos ‏@RefereeJimD

@RIobserver Not an issue at all....

 

 

Pats had nothing to do with deflated balls. Except for what they did to Andrew Luck.

Well I guess I'm wrong about the unprovable thing.

This is an utterly unprovable thing, true or false, and that's probably why the sour grapes accuser used it as their whine of choice. There's nothing the Patriots can produce that says "Well no we didn't, here is the proof," so it's just another thing to tack onto the irrational hate parade by the long litany of teams the Patriots have embarrassed on the field.

Seattle wins in the luckiest fashion known to man: "Don't point out their luck, they won clean, it was clutch! Why you gotta hate!"

Patriots win a blow out: "Rar I bet they cheated. I'm not sure how... um... deflated balls! Thats it! I'm so mad!"

Yeah none of those past Justice League are getting made

The Rock really is a terrible actor.

 

DC characters have certainly translated much better to TV shows (all on the CW) than Marvel so far.

 

Maybe that's the reality these days.  Marvel owns the big screen while DC owns the small one.

Have there been any Marvel characters translated to shows? Just the SHIELD show and as far as I'm aware (only watched 1 episode) that doesn't have any actual Marvel characters.

I have extremely high hopes for the Daredevil Netflix series. Outstanding cast with competent people making it.

Yeah I've had that pre-ordered for a looooong time. I've talked some with the guy and wife who wrote it and strangely the part I'm most excited about is more info about the Daynes. He still believes the theory that Dawn = Lightbringer.

Longclaw is a bastard sword so maybe when he discovers he's really not a bastard is when he'll somehow come across Oathkeeper.

That's not what bastard sword means

Surprised they didn't axe it in the first place in lieu of a scene with Loras in the brothel.

everyone assumes they're dead.  like sansa and arya who also have a claim.

 

also, legitimizing him would make him ned's heir, not robb's.   which would give him claim over the others.

 

its not going to happen though.

Ned wasn't King in the North, so being his heir means jack squat considering Bolton is the paramount house now.

As a realm if they're gonna rebel against Bolton they're better off doing it in support of a Manderly paramounty, considering White Harbor is far more important than Winterfell and also, still standing. At this point trying to install some completely landless Stark, no matter who, as the head of the North is just gonna set them back.

The GNC falls apart when you actually look at it through the lense of the feudalism Westeros is based on. Vassals give far less of a poo about what drop of blood or name their liege has than what's in it for them. What they get in return for the taxes they pay their liege.

If Jon breaks his NW vows and becomes the liege of the North, what does he offer his vassals in exchange for their taxes? Military protection with his dog? Food and trade?

Btw the way legitimizing Jon -still- doesn't make him Robb's heir. There are 2 other brothers ahead of him.

Point is moot any way as a royal decree lifts Jon from his nw oath which is what we are arguing in the first place.

Sent from my iPhone using CarolinaHuddle

The North is part of the Seven Kingdoms under Lord Paramount Roose Bolton. A "royal" decree by a traitor King Robb doesn't lift him from any oath.

A king changed his name. He didnt.

And name means everything in this universe. Being a bastard versus being a legitimized part of a noble family completely changes your life in terms of the law.

Bastards can't claim titles or land plus a kings decree trumps the nw oath.

Yes they can. Bastards are in the line of inheritance right after legit children. it goes legit sons, legit daughters, bastards. In fact, even without being legitimized, Jon has a better claim to the Iron Throne than Daenarys Targaryen. He doesn't need to be legitimized.