View Poll Results: What punishment should Tom Brady get?

Voters
55. You may not vote on this poll
  • No penalty at all

    7 12.73%
  • A fine, but no games missed

    7 12.73%
  • A one or two game suspension

    12 21.82%
  • A three to six game suspension

    18 32.73%
  • A more than six game suspensiuon

    11 20.00%
Page 5 of 33 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 652
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    The Northwest
    Wanting consistency is certainly fair. But there are definitely other factors as well. Some of which include:

    * other incidents of 'cheating' (be they real or percieved, specifically Spygate comes to mind) which makes this feel much worse because it's the same team AGAIN trying to cheat (and repeat offenders always look worse)
    * other incidents of bending/stretching/misapplying/circumventing the rules (the personnel against the Ravens, the tuck rule, etc) which aren't actually cheating, but definitely make the Pats appear to be less than interested in playing by the same rules as everyone else/getting unfair advantages.
    * Attitude. Brady comes off very smug. And Belicheck is one of the least likable people on the planet.
    * Jealousy. I actually imagine this is a much smaller deal here where as Duke fans we experience this all the time, but many fans are just jealous of success and hate on those teams because of that.

    Put it all together and there is no way the general reaction isn't going to be very harsh towards the Pats on this.

    Even compare the Rodgers-Brady thing about the balls.

    Rodgers is much more likable.
    Rodgers and his team has no history of sketchy stuff or cheating.
    Rodgers didn't come out and lie about knowing the ball pressure requirements or anything like that.
    Rodgers has a lot of success so jealousy isn't really going to be a factor.

    They won't be treated the same, because even though there is some of it that is very similar, a lot of it is not.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The City of Brotherly Love except when it's cold.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    So then, I want to get you on the record: Rodgers is also a cheater, correct? Will you say that emphatically and for the record so as to be consistent with your stated views?

    Also, doesn't this also mean that multiple Seahawks are cheaters because of taking PHDs (along with God knows how many other players from other teams)? You'll call them cheaters as well, right? I mean, you want to be consistent don't you? And what about all the teams that would play games with putting players on the IR when it wasn't necessary just so the team could benefit? That was cheating too, right?

    Look, we could go on and on about "cheating" and the list would be longer than DBR's proverbial arm. And that's fine if you want to play that game. Just be consistent across the board. That's only fair, after all. We don't want to demonstrate selective outrage, do we?
    I'm shocked, just shocked that there is widespread cheating in sports. Who new? Frankly, I find it bizarre the almost pathological defense of Tom Brady and the Patriots by New England fans and similar behavior by fans of other teams.

    We all know that cheating is endemic in sports at every level. It starts with widespread age cheating in youth sports. There was a lot of it in South Florida in my kids' leagues. I simply expect it, just follow the money. Pat's fans need to lose the sanctimony on this one and move on.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    It is a classic trick to deflect from your own wrongdoing by asking about the wrongdoing of others. Gary, your obsession with Rodgers is just not germane here. I hate to bring it up again, but the analogy is just too obvious -- the "Rodgers cheated and other players commit horrible crimes" line is just like Carolina fans saying that "Duke players all major in sociology and why didn't the NCAA punish Duke for Lance Thomas?"

    Guys, stop talking about other alleged misdeeds by other teams. It is 100% irrelevant. It does not excuse what the Pats/Brady did. He broke the rules. He knew he broke the rules. He lied about it. He refused to cooperate with the investigation in an effort to cover it up. I just don't see how someone can look at these incidents and not realize the simple reality there. I really think your admiration for the Pats and Tom Brady is blinding you.

    -Jason "I'm increasingly convinced that none of us can convince the Pats faithful that they are wrong. That is fine, but if I was one of them, the overwhelming number of people saying Brady lied and cheated would be tough for me to deal with" Evans
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    Quote Originally Posted by gurufrisbee View Post
    Wanting consistency is certainly fair. But there are definitely other factors as well. Some of which include:

    * other incidents of 'cheating' (be they real or percieved, specifically Spygate comes to mind) which makes this feel much worse because it's the same team AGAIN trying to cheat (and repeat offenders always look worse)
    Not true - see Seahawks. Number of players suspended for PED use since Pete Carroll took over - 9. (Number of college football championships vacated by a Pete Carroll coached team for cheating - 1) So, although I agree with you that the Patriots have Spygate in their past, I do not agree with the blanket statement that repeat offenders always look worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by gurufrisbee View Post
    * other incidents of bending/stretching/misapplying/circumventing the rules (the personnel against the Ravens, the tuck rule, etc) which aren't actually cheating, but definitely make the Pats appear to be less than interested in playing by the same rules as everyone else/getting unfair advantages.
    So, Terping.

    Quote Originally Posted by gurufrisbee View Post
    * Attitude. Brady comes off very smug. And Belicheck is one of the least likable people on the planet.
    And I see it that he's never gotten comfortable with being in front of a lot of people. I think he hates being up there at press conferences and doesn't like doing interviews. Just compare SNL appearances between him and Manning. Manning is much, much better in front of the camera than Brady is. If Brady had been better on SNL, or done some State Farm ads, we might be in a very different situation right now. I will grant you that Belichick is highly unlikeable. But funny. He's got a dry wit just like Coach K. He doesn't show it as often but it's there.

    Quote Originally Posted by gurufrisbee View Post
    * Jealousy. I actually imagine this is a much smaller deal here where as Duke fans we experience this all the time, but many fans are just jealous of success and hate on those teams because of that.

    Put it all together and there is no way the general reaction isn't going to be very harsh towards the Pats on this.
    Yep.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by 77devil View Post
    I'm shocked, just shocked that there is widespread cheating in sports. Who new? Frankly, I find it bizarre the almost pathological defense of Tom Brady and the Patriots by New England fans and similar behavior by fans of other teams.

    We all know that cheating is endemic in sports at every level. It starts with widespread age cheating in youth sports. There was a lot of it in South Florida in my kids' leagues. I simply expect it, just follow the money. Pat's fans need to lose the sanctimony on this one and move on.
    Lose the sanctimony? Wow, that's a very bizarre statement to make. I see it as the other way around. The Patriot haters are the ones that need to lose the sanctimony, and specifically for the reasons I outlined. The selective outrage directed toward New England, while not also directed toward other teams that also "bend the rules" in any variety of ways, is the smug sanctimony I'm condemning. Every time I hear someone from the League, or the talking heads on TV or the radio talk about the "integrity" of the game I get sick to my stomach because of the selective outrage which is the definition of sanctimonious.

    There are two separate issues here:

    1) Did Brady lie about not attempting, through others, to alter the balls after inspection? Very possibly. Then again, if it's true that the Patriots were at times playing with footballs the refs inflated to 16 PSI I absolutely can understand his desire to circumvent the rules. That's utterly ridiculous for officials to do such a thing. In that case, they'd have been the ones that created an unlevel playing field. And I honestly don't doubt that happened on multiple occasions to one degree or another.

    2) Did playing with under-inflated balls actually alter the playing field and give New England an unfair advantage? Almost everyone says, in no uncertain terms, it did not. So if it didn't, why is everyone so up in arms about this? Because it's New England. And that's my point about selective outrage by fans and some talking heads on TV and radio. If you want to bust Brady for doing it, fine. But let's be consistent and bust everyone and not just attempt to make him a martyr.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    It is a classic trick to deflect from your own wrongdoing by asking about the wrongdoing of others. Gary, your obsession with Rodgers is just not germane here. I hate to bring it up again, but the analogy is just too obvious -- the "Rodgers cheated and other players commit horrible crimes" line is just like Carolina fans saying that "Duke players all major in sociology and why didn't the NCAA punish Duke for Lance Thomas?"

    Guys, stop talking about other alleged misdeeds by other teams. It is 100% irrelevant. It does not excuse what the Pats/Brady did. He broke the rules. He knew he broke the rules. He lied about it. He refused to cooperate with the investigation in an effort to cover it up. I just don't see how someone can look at these incidents and not realize the simple reality there. I really think your admiration for the Pats and Tom Brady is blinding you.
    The bolded part is the key for me. In that initial press conference after the accusation, if Brady had said "Yes I like an underinflated ball. I ask the equipment guys to get as low as possible within the limit". I think he would have been fine. With the uncertainty over measurements, temperature variations on pressure, etc., he and the Pats would probably have gotten a slap on the wrist (small fine or something like that).

    The lying about not knowing the rule, lying about having the equipment guys do something about it, and the lack of cooperation is really the crux of the matter for me. I think that is why he might get suspended a few games over what is truly a minor issue.
    Last edited by tbyers11; 05-08-2015 at 09:51 AM.
    Coach K on Kyle Singler - "What position does he play? ... He plays winner."

    "Duke is never the underdog" - Quinn Cook

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    It is a classic trick to deflect from your own wrongdoing by asking about the wrongdoing of others. Gary, your obsession with Rodgers is just not germane here. I hate to bring it up again, but the analogy is just too obvious -- the "Rodgers cheated and other players commit horrible crimes" line is just like Carolina fans saying that "Duke players all major in sociology and why didn't the NCAA punish Duke for Lance Thomas?"

    Guys, stop talking about other alleged misdeeds by other teams. It is 100% irrelevant. It does not excuse what the Pats/Brady did. He broke the rules. He knew he broke the rules. He lied about it. He refused to cooperate with the investigation in an effort to cover it up. I just don't see how someone can look at these incidents and not realize the simple reality there. I really think your admiration for the Pats and Tom Brady is blinding you.

    -Jason "I'm increasingly convinced that none of us can convince the Pats faithful that they are wrong. That is fine, but if I was one of them, the overwhelming number of people saying Brady lied and cheated would be tough for me to deal with" Evans
    We'll agree to disagree, Jason. While not excusing Brady if he did know what was happening (still not even sure the "evidence" points to as much as the report is saying for a multitude of reasons), I have to ask that if someone found out that Wide Receiver X was playing with gloves that were not "approved" by the League, yet everyone agreed it gave him no unfair advantage, would there be this kind of outrage? I'm just not seeing it.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    It is a classic trick to deflect from your own wrongdoing by asking about the wrongdoing of others. Gary, your obsession with Rodgers is just not germane here. I hate to bring it up again, but the analogy is just too obvious -- the "Rodgers cheated and other players commit horrible crimes" line is just like Carolina fans saying that "Duke players all major in sociology and why didn't the NCAA punish Duke for Lance Thomas?"

    Guys, stop talking about other alleged misdeeds by other teams. It is 100% irrelevant. It does not excuse what the Pats/Brady did. He broke the rules. He knew he broke the rules. He lied about it. He refused to cooperate with the investigation in an effort to cover it up. I just don't see how someone can look at these incidents and not realize the simple reality there. I really think your admiration for the Pats and Tom Brady is blinding you.

    -Jason "I'm increasingly convinced that none of us can convince the Pats faithful that they are wrong. That is fine, but if I was one of them, the overwhelming number of people saying Brady lied and cheated would be tough for me to deal with" Evans
    Jason - it's not irrelevant to my argument which is that Deflategate is a smokescreen sent up to keep us from paying attention to things like Jameis Winston and Frank Cook being drafted in the first round. And yes, I think the NFL is doing it on purpose.

    But I will stop defending the Patriots and Brady. There will be some kind of punishment handed down. If it's too harsh, Brady will appeal. It will get reduced. And the Pats will lose to the Giants in the Super Bowl.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    Jason - it's not irrelevant to my argument which is that Deflategate is a smokescreen sent up to keep us from paying attention to things like Jameis Winston and Frank Cook being drafted in the first round. And yes, I think the NFL is doing it on purpose.

    But I will stop defending the Patriots and Brady. There will be some kind of punishment handed down. If it's too harsh, Brady will appeal. It will get reduced. And the Pats will lose to the Giants in the Super Bowl.
    As to your first paragraph, whether or not the NFL is doing it on purpose I can't say. But I do find all the Brady bashing sanctimonious when compared to the type of stuff you mentioned above. But that's American sports fans for you. Do anything you like off the field as long as you help my team on the field and I don't care. Typical - and tough to swallow for sure.

    As to your second paragraph, I'd just add one more sentence: And then everyone will be happy again.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Pats fan checking in here. My take:

    1) Letting the air out of a football likely gave Brady a competitive advantage. If not, why else would he do it? Why would he care?

    2) Was it a huge competitive advantage? No. Not at all. As plenty of people said, QB's like their footballs different ways. Baseball players like the balls they throw different ways. Hockey players like their sticks certain ways. People try to bend the rules all the time.

    3) Is it a huge crime what he did? No. I heard on local radio guy here sum it up perfectly - it's like stealing a few grapes before you pay for them. The Patriots would have beaten the Colts with properly inflated balls, just as Brady was great in the Super Bowl with properly inflated balls.

    OK...those three things said.

    4) The Patriots, and namely Brady and the two other guys, cheated. Period. Anyone who plays the "well, we don't know for certain," or "they just said more probable than not, so what does that really mean," is either a) a Patriots homer or b) has their head in the sand or c) is both. The facts from the report are incontrovertible.

    The two guys admitted to doing it before.
    Brady clearly had told them to do it before.
    The balls were below the normal level, and it can't be explained by the cold weather.
    The guy took the balls into the bathroom, when that was against protocol.

    5) Brady should absolutely be suspended for this. And no - not because he had some minions deflate the ball. Yes, that was a little bit bad. But it's because he lied during the investigation. Repeatedly. To everyone. He lied on the local radio stations. He lied in his press conference. He lied to the investigators. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and then he did what any 5 year old would do which is lie, deflect, deny and act defiant. That's why he should (and will) get suspended. I still think it should be 2 games or less. My buddy (a Jets fan and Patriot hater) thinks it should be 8 games, but I just can't see that happening.

    6) For those who read point 5 and say, "Show me proof? You got nothing!", I say go back and read point 4. You want "proof"

    Brady said he didn't know the guys who allegedly let out the air. Lie.
    The guy who took the balls said he didn't go to the bathroom. Lie.
    When it was shown to him that he did indeed go, he said he specifically went because it had a urinal. Lie.
    Brady - right after getting off the phone with a local radio station the Monday morning after the game, and being asked about Deflategate (before it was a national story) immediately called one of the guys in question. This after not talking to him at all in the months prior. He had numerous conversations with him over the next few days. When asked if he talked about the deflate stuff he said no. Repeat - when asked if he talked about the deflate stuff he said no. That's laughable. A flat out lie.
    He said he had never talked with guys about the inflation of the balls. Lie.
    He said he had never instructed anyone to let air out of balls before. Lie.

    And for people saying that he didn't have to give up his texts....that's accurate. He didn't. It's not a civil trial. There was no subpoena. He also wasn't under oath during any of his testimony. But the fact that he didn't give up his phone makes him look guilty, and in my opinion, proves he was guilty. The "I don't give my phone to anyone" argument is hollow. IF you don't have anything to hide, then there's no reason not to give it up.

    7) Brady will never, ever, ever, ever, ever sue the NFL or anyone over this. Because the moment he did, then there would be subpoenas and he would be under oath to tell the truth. He will appeal any suspension and likely have it reduced. My guess is 4 games down to 2.

    Again, I don't think it was a huge deal. I think lots of QB's do this. I think it's like stealing grapes. But the problem is that Brady then lied and tried to cover it up. That's what makes this bad. The coverup is always worse than the crime.

    And lastly, if this were a civil trial, there is no doubt in my mind that Brady would have been found guilty....even with just the information that was presented. A bunch of really, really good lawyers basically came to that conclusion (because in a civil trial all it is, is 51%). But Brady would have settled, because he knew he was guilty and in a real civil court would not have been able to stonewall, deny evidence, or lie to the lawyers.

    8) It hurts Brady's image. But he'll be just fine.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Boston area, OK, Newton, right by Heartbreak Hill
    I just read that article about "the Christian Laettner" of Kentucky politics.

    The Pats have their own Coach K figure in Belichick but I only just now realized that Brady is the Pats' Laettner! (This is not defending the Pats.)

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    So -- Brady is football's equivalent of Gaylord Perry?

    Whitey Ford threw a spitter later in his career, too.

    It happens. The level of indignation varies no what seat you're sitting in I suppose.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Udaman View Post
    Pats fan checking in here. My take:

    1) Letting the air out of a football likely gave Brady a competitive advantage. If not, why else would he do it? Why would he care?

    2) Was it a huge competitive advantage? No. Not at all. As plenty of people said, QB's like their footballs different ways. Baseball players like the balls they throw different ways. Hockey players like their sticks certain ways. People try to bend the rules all the time.

    3) Is it a huge crime what he did? No. I heard on local radio guy here sum it up perfectly - it's like stealing a few grapes before you pay for them. The Patriots would have beaten the Colts with properly inflated balls, just as Brady was great in the Super Bowl with properly inflated balls.

    OK...those three things said.

    4) The Patriots, and namely Brady and the two other guys, cheated. Period. Anyone who plays the "well, we don't know for certain," or "they just said more probable than not, so what does that really mean," is either a) a Patriots homer or b) has their head in the sand or c) is both. The facts from the report are incontrovertible.

    The two guys admitted to doing it before.
    Brady clearly had told them to do it before.
    The balls were below the normal level, and it can't be explained by the cold weather.
    The guy took the balls into the bathroom, when that was against protocol.

    5) Brady should absolutely be suspended for this. And no - not because he had some minions deflate the ball. Yes, that was a little bit bad. But it's because he lied during the investigation. Repeatedly. To everyone. He lied on the local radio stations. He lied in his press conference. He lied to the investigators. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and then he did what any 5 year old would do which is lie, deflect, deny and act defiant. That's why he should (and will) get suspended. I still think it should be 2 games or less. My buddy (a Jets fan and Patriot hater) thinks it should be 8 games, but I just can't see that happening.

    6) For those who read point 5 and say, "Show me proof? You got nothing!", I say go back and read point 4. You want "proof"

    Brady said he didn't know the guys who allegedly let out the air. Lie.
    The guy who took the balls said he didn't go to the bathroom. Lie.
    When it was shown to him that he did indeed go, he said he specifically went because it had a urinal. Lie.
    Brady - right after getting off the phone with a local radio station the Monday morning after the game, and being asked about Deflategate (before it was a national story) immediately called one of the guys in question. This after not talking to him at all in the months prior. He had numerous conversations with him over the next few days. When asked if he talked about the deflate stuff he said no. Repeat - when asked if he talked about the deflate stuff he said no. That's laughable. A flat out lie.
    He said he had never talked with guys about the inflation of the balls. Lie.
    He said he had never instructed anyone to let air out of balls before. Lie.

    And for people saying that he didn't have to give up his texts....that's accurate. He didn't. It's not a civil trial. There was no subpoena. He also wasn't under oath during any of his testimony. But the fact that he didn't give up his phone makes him look guilty, and in my opinion, proves he was guilty. The "I don't give my phone to anyone" argument is hollow. IF you don't have anything to hide, then there's no reason not to give it up.

    7) Brady will never, ever, ever, ever, ever sue the NFL or anyone over this. Because the moment he did, then there would be subpoenas and he would be under oath to tell the truth. He will appeal any suspension and likely have it reduced. My guess is 4 games down to 2.

    Again, I don't think it was a huge deal. I think lots of QB's do this. I think it's like stealing grapes. But the problem is that Brady then lied and tried to cover it up. That's what makes this bad. The coverup is always worse than the crime.

    And lastly, if this were a civil trial, there is no doubt in my mind that Brady would have been found guilty....even with just the information that was presented. A bunch of really, really good lawyers basically came to that conclusion (because in a civil trial all it is, is 51%). But Brady would have settled, because he knew he was guilty and in a real civil court would not have been able to stonewall, deny evidence, or lie to the lawyers.

    8) It hurts Brady's image. But he'll be just fine.
    Totally agree with all of the above points !!

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Bostondevil View Post
    I just read that article about "the Christian Laettner" of Kentucky politics.

    The Pats have their own Coach K figure in Belichick but I only just now realized that Brady is the Pats' Laettner! (This is not defending the Pats.)
    Frankly, this may be giving Tom Brady TOO much credit. I don't doubt his football skills but I've never thought he was the brightest light bulb in the pack.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quick question to those comparing Rodgers and Brady re: ball inflation:

    Did Rodgers ever try to get the ball inflation changed AFTER the balls were checked by officials?

    It is one thing to pump up the balls to see what the officials will let slide. It is another to change the inflation after the officials approve the ball.

    Oh. Then there's lying about it. Coward.

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Tampa
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    We'll agree to disagree, Jason. While not excusing Brady if he did know what was happening (still not even sure the "evidence" points to as much as the report is saying for a multitude of reasons), I have to ask that if someone found out that Wide Receiver X was playing with gloves that were not "approved" by the League, yet everyone agreed it gave him no unfair advantage, would there be this kind of outrage? I'm just not seeing it.
    I have no idea if underinflated balls truly gave Brady or the Pats a competitive advantage. While I suspect the impact was minimal, if at all, there was an interesting observation by the group at fivethirtyeight.com about the seemingly too good to be true low fumble rate the Pats have.

    Personally, I agree with Udaman. It's an otherwise minor issue compounded by the cover up. Worth a game suspension, or two at most.

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by TampaDuke View Post
    Personally, I agree with Udaman. It's an otherwise minor issue compounded by the cover up. Worth a game suspension, or two at most.
    I agree with Udaman almost entirely as well. My only quibble is with his very first point. I think Brady wanted the footballs at the level he did specifically because, like every other pro QB, he liked the feel of it best. I don't believe it gave him a competitive advantage in the real sense of the word. It's a nuanced point, I grant you. But I do think it's an important one.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    Did playing with under-inflated balls actually alter the playing field and give New England an unfair advantage? Almost everyone says, in no uncertain terms, it did not.
    What? I would have thought quite the opposite, but that there was universal agreement that that advantage was, in the end, extremely minimal. Certainly, no one's positing that the Patriots would have lost to the Colts or anything, but I don't think there's widespread consensus that there was no effect whatsoever.

    Regardless, even if your assertion above is stipulated, it doesn't matter. Saying it didn't make a difference sounds like someone busted for insider trading defending himself on the grounds that the non-public information they traded on turned out to be inaccurate. Brady thought it provided him an advantage, so he skirted the rules. End of story. If you break into a bank, you're not off the hook if the vault just happened to be empty.

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Udaman View Post
    ... A bunch of really, really good lawyers basically came to that conclusion (because in a civil trial all it is, is 51%). But Brady would have settled, because he knew he was guilty and in a real civil court would not have been able to stonewall, deny evidence, or lie to the lawyers ...
    Udaman, your whole post was tremendous. Thanks. One point I'd like to make is that the folks who cavalierly throw out "the investigation was fixed" and "the investigation wasn't independent" and "the NFL wanted this result" seem, to me, to be in tin-foil-hat land. Three partners at the law firm put their name on this report. Three or four other associates are mentioned in a footnote as working on the matter. These are all folks of tremendous professional accomplishment, bound by certain ethical rules. Are all attorneys ethical? Of course not. Is there any evidence that the ones who did this investigation and prepared this report are unethical? None at all that I'm aware of. If anyone is aware of something untoward, please take your complaint and evidence to the state where these attorneys are licensed (all easily knowable information -- just look them up on their firm's website). And if anyone does not have such evidence, quit making such silly accusations, even on an internet message board.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by killerleft View Post
    How about the baseball bat? The tennis racquet? The bowling ball? Changeable by the user, according to need and/or whim. Many other examples, I'm sure, where the equipment is tailored to suit the individual user. If everybody has a chance to change the hardness of the ball, then the weather and other factors could make choosing correctly very important, like snow skiers and their ski waxes...
    I sort of anticipated a response like this, and I'm sympathetic to your argument, but I think there's a distinction: No one else hits with your bat or catches with your glove in baseball. No one else uses your hockey stick, or swings your golf clubs or your tennis racquet, or snaps into your skis. Those are individual pieces of equipment, and need to be individualized due to different sizes of people. The puck and the ball are different.

    The principal purpose of hockey, for example, is to move the puck into the opposing team's goal. Thus, the puck and the goals are the primary objects and focus of the activity. The sticks are just implements used for that object. Similarly, the principal purpose of football is to move the football across the opposing team's goal line. The ball, then, is the central object and focus of that game. The quarterback is not the only person in a football game to use the football. All the skill players touch it. That's why it should be uniform, just like a hockey puck, which is passed from player to player. Just like a tennis ball, which is hit back and forth, or a baseball, which is thrown, hit and caught by multiple players on every play. It's not so much "equipment" as it is the most quintessential thing about the whole game. Same thing with basketball hoops and basketballs (I despise the NCAA's allowing schools to supply their own chosen balls for home games), soccer balls and goals, etc.

    Golf balls seem to be an exception. The definition of the game is "hit the ball into a hole," after all, so it's clearly one of the principal objects in the game. I guess the most satisfying taxonomic reason for letting everyone use their own ball within set parameters there would seem to be the fact that only one player uses each ball. I'll go with that rather than being so much of a curmudgeon as to proclaim that all players on tour should be using tour supplied, uniform golf balls.

Similar Threads

  1. x-country results
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-24-2009, 01:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •