Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
So cheating is okay if you deem it inconsequential? Or it's okay if the team doing the cheating probably would have won with or without cheating? That hardly seems reasonable.
Cheating is cheating. No asterisks about it.
Here's something else to consider. In the September game between the Pats and Jets, the score was 38 to 14. That's a hell of a victory. Then the Pats get found out and the next time they play? 10 to 20. 1/2 is quite a bit closer than 1/2.7143. Isn't it possible that the cheating did, in fact, make a difference? Why would they even do it otherwise?
|
No cheating is not okay, but when it doesn't have any bearing on the rest of anything, as most people would readily be willing to admit, then it doesn't matter.
I think there is a general "get away with what you can and pay the fine if you have to" philosophy that permeates much of the nfl. That's why it is expected that a defensive back will take a pass interference penalty rather than give up a touchdown. Knocking the receiver over so he can't catch the ball is cheating, but the penalty is preferable to getting scored on- that's how the game is played. Since such philosophies no doubt come from the coaches, it doesn't seem illogical to me to assume that the coaches aren't above it themselves.
Yes, it is possible that the jets could have beaten the patriots that first game if the patriots hadn't cheated, but it probably isn't very likely.