Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   10 years ago today either the Patriots dynasty was born or you watched the Raiders get jobbed by the NFL in the worst way imaginable, depending on where you live. Happy 10th anniversary to the Tuck Rule game   (espn.go.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, Patriots, Raiders, NFL, Rich Gannon, playoffs, tuck rule, Charles Woodson, Tedy Bruschi  
•       •       •

3428 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 Jan 2012 at 12:34 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



274 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-19 09:21:42 PM  

redmid17: Iceberg659: redmid17: NASAM: And I saw that game live as well, and thought that it was a forward pass at the time, but upon further review, it was clearly a lateral.

On your opinion. I've seen probably every breakdown shown by the networks and have not been convinced. It's not clearly anything. It's one of the most divisive calls in NFL history.

Nah, buddy. That shiat was a fumble. I'd love to play the homer and say it was too close to call but the Raiders got hosed. Brady's arm was just starting to go back when it was knocked out.

If Truthers were 75% of the American population (aka NFL fans), that might be an accurate analogy.


I just checked your profile. We're both Hoosiers and Colts fans. I don't want to fight anymore.
 
2012-01-19 09:27:52 PM  

netweavr: Alright, who the f*ck submitted this and who the hell greenlit it?


10 years ago today either the Patriots dynasty was born or you watched the Raiders get jobbed by the NFL in the worst way imaginable, depending on where you live. Happy 10th anniversary to the Tuck Rule game

Wrasslin' Fan for sure.
 
2012-01-19 09:29:23 PM  
For what it's worth, Zack Crockett converts a 3rd and 1 with 2:40 to go and this play never happens.
 
2012-01-19 09:31:51 PM  

Primitive Screwhead: For what it's worth, Zack Crockett converts a 3rd and 1 with 2:40 to go and this play never happens.


ZACK CROCKETT IS A SAINT. DON"T YOU DARE DEMEAN HIS NAME AND LEGACY.
 
2012-01-19 09:37:22 PM  
Fairness of the rule aside (and I do feel for Raiders fans a bit), that game and the superbowl win were honest-to-FSM magical moments for me. 2001 had been a horrid year on all sorts of levels for me (and for everyone else for the one big one), and those two games pretty much flipped my mood around. Only other times sports made me feel that way were the Sox coming back against the Yankees in '04 and LFC coming back in the CL final in '05. It's a shame that all of those things had to come at the expense of other fans...but you've got to think they'll all have their day eventually.
 
2012-01-19 09:40:43 PM  

cptrios: Fairness of the rule aside (and I do feel for Raiders fans a bit), that game and the superbowl win were honest-to-FSM magical moments for me. 2001 had been a horrid year on all sorts of levels for me (and for everyone else for the one big one), and those two games pretty much flipped my mood around. Only other times sports made me feel that way were the Sox coming back against the Yankees in '04 and LFC coming back in the CL final in '05. It's a shame that all of those things had to come at the expense of other fans...but you've got to think they'll all have their day eventually.


So you were a big fan of Gerard's obvious dive then?
 
2012-01-19 09:41:36 PM  

redmid17: Primitive Screwhead: For what it's worth, Zack Crockett converts a 3rd and 1 with 2:40 to go and this play never happens.

ZACK CROCKETT IS A SAINT. DON"T YOU DARE DEMEAN HIS NAME AND LEGACY.


LMAO!!

and my mistake there was 2:24 left in the game Link (new window)
 
2012-01-19 09:59:51 PM  

regindyn: Patriots dynasty was born when 9/11 happened and the NFL decided "Patriots" have to win. The Tuck Rule was just a lulzy side effect.


This is absolutely correct. There is no way they were going to let the Raiders(them swords look muslimmy) defeat the Patriots.
 
2012-01-19 10:11:02 PM  

redmid17: cptrios: Fairness of the rule aside (and I do feel for Raiders fans a bit), that game and the superbowl win were honest-to-FSM magical moments for me. 2001 had been a horrid year on all sorts of levels for me (and for everyone else for the one big one), and those two games pretty much flipped my mood around. Only other times sports made me feel that way were the Sox coming back against the Yankees in '04 and LFC coming back in the CL final in '05. It's a shame that all of those things had to come at the expense of other fans...but you've got to think they'll all have their day eventually.

So you were a big fan of Gerard's obvious dive then?


Heh...it's a give-and-get business, isn't it? My teams have all been punished enough by bad calls over the years, it's reasonable to expect that some go their way too.
 
2012-01-19 10:13:13 PM  

cptrios: redmid17: cptrios: Fairness of the rule aside (and I do feel for Raiders fans a bit), that game and the superbowl win were honest-to-FSM magical moments for me. 2001 had been a horrid year on all sorts of levels for me (and for everyone else for the one big one), and those two games pretty much flipped my mood around. Only other times sports made me feel that way were the Sox coming back against the Yankees in '04 and LFC coming back in the CL final in '05. It's a shame that all of those things had to come at the expense of other fans...but you've got to think they'll all have their day eventually.

So you were a big fan of Gerard's obvious dive then?

Heh...it's a give-and-get business, isn't it? My teams have all been punished enough by bad calls over the years, it's reasonable to expect that some go their way too.


I know. It just sucks for us AC Milan fans, especially since we'd already had a goal disallowed because of a bad offside call.
 
2012-01-19 10:17:07 PM  

vladimpaler: and of course the fact they cheated for seven years


This is another of my favorites. Everybody is convinced that they took video from the wrong spot in the stadium from the day they won their first Super Bowl to the day it became news. Nobody wonders if Bill was taping in his first 5-11 season with the Patriots, nor did they think they could have been "cheating" when the Pats were 5-5 in 2001. Nope...they must have started week 11 of 2001 all the way through week 1 of 2007. Nor has their even been proof of when they started breaking the rule.

But it must have been right before they won the Super Bowl. And even though they stopped at the beginning of '07, they coaches already had all the footage memorized which got them to an 18-0 record heading into the Super Bowl. Unfortunately, since the Pats beat the Giants in the last game of the regular season the Giants obviously had to change their defensive signals and without any videotape of the new signals the Patriots just couldn't stop the Giants in the Super Bowl.
 
2012-01-19 10:46:51 PM  

Cagey B: BKITU: Oh, don't worry, Raiders fans. You can keep crying about it for another farking decade. Your tears are delicious.

Can't lie, it still sucks ten years out. But at least we managed to get rid of Norv Turner.


So you've got that going for ya.
 
2012-01-19 11:44:45 PM  
It was a BS call.. Brady fumbled.

\Still doesn't consider AFC as professional football
 
2012-01-20 12:02:08 AM  
It was a fumble. Period.

/half-drunk
//this anniversary isn't helping
 
2012-01-20 01:08:27 AM  

Generation_D: biggest joke call in history, well at least since the immaculate reception.


Except for the Immaculate Reception not being total bullshiat you're absolutely right.
 
2012-01-20 01:24:55 AM  
This is one of the dumbest threads on fark.
Yes, it was probably a fumble.
The Pats didn't win on that play.
History has proven they were the better team.
Get over it. It was a decade ago.
Oh, wait, I'm a Jets fan, 'it ruined the NFL forever!!'
Raiders wouldn't have beat the Steelers or the Rams anyway. You even had a Super Bowl after that and still lost.
Your retarded team traded 1 & 2 for Palmer. You have 5 draft picks in the next 2 years.
The Raiders suck and so does Oakland. I agree that their uniforms are cool.
 
2012-01-20 03:33:43 AM  
tucsoncitizen.com

Justin Tuck?
 
2012-01-20 05:02:48 AM  

jaylectricity: vladimpaler: and of course the fact they cheated for seven years

This is another of my favorites. Everybody is convinced that they took video from the wrong spot in the stadium from the day they won their first Super Bowl to the day it became news. Nobody wonders if Bill was taping in his first 5-11 season with the Patriots, nor did they think they could have been "cheating" when the Pats were 5-5 in 2001. Nope...they must have started week 11 of 2001 all the way through week 1 of 2007. Nor has their even been proof of when they started breaking the rule.

But it must have been right before they won the Super Bowl. And even though they stopped at the beginning of '07, they coaches already had all the footage memorized which got them to an 18-0 record heading into the Super Bowl. Unfortunately, since the Pats beat the Giants in the last game of the regular season the Giants obviously had to change their defensive signals and without any videotape of the new signals the Patriots just couldn't stop the Giants in the Super Bowl.


Belichick eventually admitted to Goodell he had been taping from his first day with the Patriots. Keep ignoring the facts if it makes you feel better.

Yeah, they went 18-0. Didn't win the Super Bowl, and haven't since they stopped cheating.
 
2012-01-20 07:44:13 AM  
Still the best sporting event I've ever been to and I don't know if it's possible to top it. The roar when we heard "the quarterback's arm was moving forward" was the loudest I'd ever heard that place. Of course that was topped when Vinatieri's 45-yarder somehow went through (I've never heard it go from dead silent to painfully loud so quickly). Just an amazing night.

/Pats-Colts Divisional Game might be #2
//CUT THAT MEAT!
///Pats-Chargers in San Diego was fun, too
////San Diegans don't like when you do another man's dance
 
2012-01-20 07:58:10 AM  

regindyn: Patriots dynasty was born when 9/11 happened and the NFL decided "Patriots" have to win. The Tuck Rule was just a lulzy side effect.


And, unlike their selfish and terrorist-loving opponents, the Patriots have decided to be introduced as a team!

GO TEAM FREEDOM! GO AMERICA!

*Belichick troll face*
 
2012-01-20 08:00:18 AM  

ArtosRC: America was coming off of the worst attack on its soil in its history. It needed a champion to rally behind-- some champion that exemplified America.

What better team than the Patriots? What better title for the American people who so desperately wanted to hold nationalistic pride to their hearts? Patriots defeating anything would be a morale-booster.



At the time, on another online non-Fark board, we speculated either the Skins (Pentagon), Steelers (United 93), Jets, or Giants (duh) were going to win, based on the Yankees run as "America's Team" and the "They DESERVE to winh because of teh 9/11!"
 
2012-01-20 09:25:27 AM  
The Raiders fans call it the "Tuck Rule" game, the Patriots fans call it the "Snow Bowl".
 
2012-01-20 09:36:31 AM  
Amurica...Fark Ya!:

My theory is the BITW is a programming project for someone. All his posts are a pithy quote followed by a Dialectized paragraph.
 
2012-01-20 10:10:07 AM  

Iceberg659: redmid17: NASAM: And I saw that game live as well, and thought that it was a forward pass at the time, but upon further review, it was clearly a lateral.

On your opinion. I've seen probably every breakdown shown by the networks and have not been convinced. It's not clearly anything. It's one of the most divisive calls in NFL history.

Nah, buddy. That shiat was a fumble. I'd love to play the homer and say it was too close to call but the Raiders got hosed. Brady's arm was just starting to go back when it was knocked out.


So you successfully just described the reason it wasn't a fumble.

NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-01-20 02:28:34 PM  

redmid17: WinoRhino: Yes, he was moving the ball forward, but he hit his other hand with it. Forward momentum stopped at that point. He succeeded in "tucking it" and was in the process of drawing it back to reload. Not that it matters, but it wasn't a tuck. It was a pump. He didn't see the guy on his blind side coming to crush him. He wasn't trying to protect the ball as it went forward. He pumped, hit it with his other hand, and started to draw back to throw. He got crushed. He fumbled. Look, I'm happy the Patriots won. I'm happy they got the call. But let's face facts... it was a bad call.

^^^ This


I didn't care even a little bit about either team --actually don't like either of them but at the time was pulling for NE. Ive been watching football for over 40 years. Dozens and dozens and dozens of times I have seen quarterbacks hit and fumble and never once was this even discussed as a possibility--until this game. I have watched it several times before and definitely saw it as Brady pump faking the pass and had clearly pulled the ball down without any intention of throwing a pass at that point. Even though I dislike the Raiders, they got jobbed on this call IMHO. And even the most ardent supporter of NE that hides behind this travesty and the "it's a rule" is spitting in the face of the spirit of football especially since this happened at such a crucial point in the game. Should have been a fumble. Patriots didnt secure the ball and lost it. Tarnished the res of the playoffs for me that year.
 
2012-01-20 02:40:16 PM  

GacysBasement: redmid17: WinoRhino: Yes, he was moving the ball forward, but he hit his other hand with it. Forward momentum stopped at that point. He succeeded in "tucking it" and was in the process of drawing it back to reload. Not that it matters, but it wasn't a tuck. It was a pump. He didn't see the guy on his blind side coming to crush him. He wasn't trying to protect the ball as it went forward. He pumped, hit it with his other hand, and started to draw back to throw. He got crushed. He fumbled. Look, I'm happy the Patriots won. I'm happy they got the call. But let's face facts... it was a bad call.

^^^ This

I didn't care even a little bit about either team --actually don't like either of them but at the time was pulling for NE. Ive been watching football for over 40 years. Dozens and dozens and dozens of times I have seen quarterbacks hit and fumble and never once was this even discussed as a possibility--until this game. I have watched it several times before and definitely saw it as Brady pump faking the pass and had clearly pulled the ball down without any intention of throwing a pass at that point. Even though I dislike the Raiders, they got jobbed on this call IMHO. And even the most ardent supporter of NE that hides behind this travesty and the "it's a rule" is spitting in the face of the spirit of football especially since this happened at such a crucial point in the game. Should have been a fumble. Patriots didnt secure the ball and lost it. Tarnished the res of the playoffs for me that year.


Awwwwwwwww
 
2012-01-20 03:00:30 PM  
static6.businessinsider.com
 
2012-01-20 03:13:10 PM  

vladimpaler: I hate the Patriots with a passion, first because they are my local team and I get them shoved them down my throat no matter how badly they suck, and of course the fact they cheated for seven years (winning their only Super Bowls during that time) and got away with only a slap on the wrist from the league.

That being said, the Patriots got screwed on that call. Woodson hit Brady in the head. That is a personal foul, meaning the Patriots should have gotten 15 yards and a first down. The tuck rule would never been an issue if the refs had been doing their jobs.


You do realize that video taping the other team is perfectly legal, right? The only difference is where they were taping from... I honestly do not know how much of a difference it could have made.
 
2012-01-20 03:29:23 PM  

JuicePats: Iceberg659: redmid17: NASAM: And I saw that game live as well, and thought that it was a forward pass at the time, but upon further review, it was clearly a lateral.

On your opinion. I've seen probably every breakdown shown by the networks and have not been convinced. It's not clearly anything. It's one of the most divisive calls in NFL history.

Nah, buddy. That shiat was a fumble. I'd love to play the homer and say it was too close to call but the Raiders got hosed. Brady's arm was just starting to go back when it was knocked out.

So you successfully just described the reason it wasn't a fumble.

NFL Rule 3, Section 22, Article 2, Note 2. When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.

[s3.amazonaws.com image 248x320]


No. Back as in he was about to bring it back for a pass.
 
2012-01-20 03:56:38 PM  

Petey the Headless Parakeet: vladimpaler: I hate the Patriots with a passion, first because they are my local team and I get them shoved them down my throat no matter how badly they suck, and of course the fact they cheated for seven years (winning their only Super Bowls during that time) and got away with only a slap on the wrist from the league.

That being said, the Patriots got screwed on that call. Woodson hit Brady in the head. That is a personal foul, meaning the Patriots should have gotten 15 yards and a first down. The tuck rule would never been an issue if the refs had been doing their jobs.

You do realize that video taping the other team is perfectly legal, right? The only difference is where they were taping from... I honestly do not know how much of a difference it could have made.


The Patriots broke the rules in order to gain an advantage. That is called cheating. The Patriots cheated for seven years, from 2000 through the first game of 2007.

If it doesn't make a difference, why was what the Patriots did illegal?
If it doesn't make a difference, why did the two teams who caught the Patriots taping in 2006 (the Packer and the Lions) just kick the Patriot videographer out of the stadium, but former Patriot assistant coach Eric Mangini, then coaching the Jets, hold the guy, confiscate the tape, and report everything to the league? Maybe Mangini knew more about the value of the tapes the Patriots illegally recorded you or I do.
 
2012-01-20 04:21:50 PM  

vladimpaler: Petey the Headless Parakeet: vladimpaler: I hate the Patriots with a passion, first because they are my local team and I get them shoved them down my throat no matter how badly they suck, and of course the fact they cheated for seven years (winning their only Super Bowls during that time) and got away with only a slap on the wrist from the league.

That being said, the Patriots got screwed on that call. Woodson hit Brady in the head. That is a personal foul, meaning the Patriots should have gotten 15 yards and a first down. The tuck rule would never been an issue if the refs had been doing their jobs.

You do realize that video taping the other team is perfectly legal, right? The only difference is where they were taping from... I honestly do not know how much of a difference it could have made.

The Patriots broke the rules in order to gain an advantage. That is called cheating. The Patriots cheated for seven years, from 2000 through the first game of 2007.

If it doesn't make a difference, why was what the Patriots did illegal?
If it doesn't make a difference, why did the two teams who caught the Patriots taping in 2006 (the Packer and the Lions) just kick the Patriot videographer out of the stadium, but former Patriot assistant coach Eric Mangini, then coaching the Jets, hold the guy, confiscate the tape, and report everything to the league? Maybe Mangini knew more about the value of the tapes the Patriots illegally recorded you or I do.


If it was legal and just 'whre they videotaped it from', then why did they get such a hefty fine? And if I'm not mistaken, lose a draft pick over it.
 
2012-01-20 04:25:24 PM  

GacysBasement: vladimpaler: Petey the Headless Parakeet: vladimpaler: I hate the Patriots with a passion, first because they are my local team and I get them shoved them down my throat no matter how badly they suck, and of course the fact they cheated for seven years (winning their only Super Bowls during that time) and got away with only a slap on the wrist from the league.

That being said, the Patriots got screwed on that call. Woodson hit Brady in the head. That is a personal foul, meaning the Patriots should have gotten 15 yards and a first down. The tuck rule would never been an issue if the refs had been doing their jobs.

You do realize that video taping the other team is perfectly legal, right? The only difference is where they were taping from... I honestly do not know how much of a difference it could have made.

The Patriots broke the rules in order to gain an advantage. That is called cheating. The Patriots cheated for seven years, from 2000 through the first game of 2007.

If it doesn't make a difference, why was what the Patriots did illegal?
If it doesn't make a difference, why did the two teams who caught the Patriots taping in 2006 (the Packer and the Lions) just kick the Patriot videographer out of the stadium, but former Patriot assistant coach Eric Mangini, then coaching the Jets, hold the guy, confiscate the tape, and report everything to the league? Maybe Mangini knew more about the value of the tapes the Patriots illegally recorded you or I do.

If it was legal and just 'whre they videotaped it from', then why did they get such a hefty fine? And if I'm not mistaken, lose a draft pick over it.


They got fined pretty heavily as well. Needless to say, Goodell destroyed all evidence in a transparent investigation.
 
2012-01-20 05:19:04 PM  
The Raiders got screwed and it was extremely satisfying. Raider Nation got jobbed and it was titillating! If it had been my Broncos, I'd still be pissed, so knowing that the excrutiating butthurt still radiates throughout Raider Nation is righteous!!!
 
2012-01-20 05:27:02 PM  

vladimpaler: Belichick eventually admitted to Goodell he had been taping from his first day with the Patriots. Keep ignoring the facts if it makes you feel better.


I didn't realize I was talking to a personal friend of Roger Goodell who was there during this "admission."

GacysBasement: If it was legal and just 'whre they videotaped it from', then why did they get such a hefty fine? And if I'm not mistaken, lose a draft pick over it.


Because he defied the memo.

/You're just mad your team didn't think to do it
 
2012-01-20 06:06:10 PM  

jaylectricity: vladimpaler: Belichick eventually admitted to Goodell he had been taping from his first day with the Patriots. Keep ignoring the facts if it makes you feel better.

I didn't realize I was talking to a personal friend of Roger Goodell who was there during this "admission."


Here's a link to a Spygate history: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3392047

I'll save you some trouble and point out one passage:

Feb. 13, 2008: During a 1-hour, 40-minute meeting with Goodell, Specter says the commissioner told him Belichick had been taping the sidelines since 2000. "There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter says.

Any other stupid comments you feel the need to make?
 
2012-01-20 06:12:32 PM  

vladimpaler: Here's a link to a Spygate history: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3392047

I'll save you some trouble and point out one passage:

Feb. 13, 2008: During a 1-hour, 40-minute meeting with Goodell, Specter says the commissioner told him Belichick had been taping the sidelines since 2000. "There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter says.

Any other stupid comments you feel the need to make?


Arlen Spector said?

LMAO.
 
2012-01-20 06:27:51 PM  

jaylectricity: vladimpaler: Here's a link to a Spygate history: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3392047

I'll save you some trouble and point out one passage:

Feb. 13, 2008: During a 1-hour, 40-minute meeting with Goodell, Specter says the commissioner told him Belichick had been taping the sidelines since 2000. "There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter says.

Any other stupid comments you feel the need to make?

Arlen Spector said?

LMAO.


Once again, a Patriot fan dodges the issue. Specter reported what happened between Goodell and Belichick, according to Goodell. Did Belichick sue, saying he was not taping? Nope. Did Goodell sue, saying I never said that? Again, no.

From 2000 through the first game of 2007, the New England Patriots violated NFL rules to gain an advantage. There is no doubt they were cheating ("This episode represents a calculated and deliberate attempt to avoid long-standing rules designed to encourage fair play and promote honest competition on the playing field," Goodell said in a letter to the Patriots.) and they received a very minor punishment.

They were 12-2 in the playoffs with three Super Bowl wins during the time they were cheating, since then they are 3-3 with no titles, despite having a better regular season record.

They cheated and won, and since they stopped cheating, they stopped winning. Accept reality and move on.
 
2012-01-20 06:37:35 PM  

vladimpaler: They cheated and won, and since they stopped cheating, they stopped winning. Accept reality and move on.


You know, I've always thought it was just common knowledge that they did, in fact, break the rules - I didn't think whether they did or did not break the rules was ever actually in question.

However, what I never really understood, mostly because I didn't follow the story that closely at the time, is what exactly they gained from breaking the rules, and how it actually helped them.
 
2012-01-20 06:42:44 PM  

vladimpaler: Did Belichick sue, saying he was not taping?


Belichick didn't say anything. Nothing. Not one thing. He said, "It's a league issue and I'll leave it at that."

You're quoting an old Senator from Pennsylvania (and we know how them folks in Pennsylvania feel about their football) and expecting me to believe that what he says is the definitive truth.
 
2012-01-20 06:46:56 PM  

vladimpaler: Accept reality and move on.


Accept reality...you and other butthurt fans are the only ones that aren't moving on.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if you and your ilk didn't keep bringing it up.

Everyone that is actually involved in the incident has moved on...but you can't.
 
2012-01-20 07:42:10 PM  

jaylectricity: vladimpaler: Accept reality and move on.

Accept reality...you and other butthurt fans are the only ones that aren't moving on.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if you and your ilk didn't keep bringing it up.

Everyone that is actually involved in the incident has moved on...but you can't.


Here's an offer: I will never bring up the cheating again if you and all the other Patriot fans never bring up the results of the cheating. Deal?
 
2012-01-20 07:44:22 PM  

jaylectricity: vladimpaler: Accept reality and move on.

Accept reality...you and other butthurt fans are the only ones that aren't moving on.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if you and your ilk didn't keep bringing it up.

Everyone that is actually involved in the incident has moved on...but you can't.


He's too busy
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-01-20 08:00:06 PM  

vladimpaler: Here's an offer: I will never bring up the cheating again if you and all the other Patriot fans never bring up the results of the cheating. Deal?


I can only make that deal on my own behalf. And you'll be hard pressed to find me ever touting Patriots Super Bowl Rings in fark sports threads.

So yeah...deal.
 
2012-01-20 08:02:00 PM  

jaylectricity: vladimpaler: Did Belichick sue, saying he was not taping?

Belichick didn't say anything. Nothing. Not one thing. He said, "It's a league issue and I'll leave it at that."

You're quoting an old Senator from Pennsylvania (and we know how them folks in Pennsylvania feel about their football) and expecting me to believe that what he says is the definitive truth.


So you think Spector is lying and Goodell and Belichick just shrugged and let him tell any story he wanted to? Yeah, that's believable.

ESPN quoted the senator after he met with Roger Goodell. Neither Goodell nor Belichick ever disputed what Specter said. That means Belichick did admit to the commissioner he taped from 2000 on. Also, Matt Walsh had copies of tapes he made for the Patriots in 2000 and 2001. How much more proof do you actually need?
 
2012-01-20 08:24:47 PM  
I thought we had a deal. I guess we should now focus our character assassinations on you.
 
2012-01-20 08:31:04 PM  

jaylectricity: I thought we had a deal. I guess we should now focus our character assassinations on you.


I was researching my answer before I sent it (maybe you and the other Patriot fans ought to try it), so I missed your response.

You want to assasinate my character? Yawn. Your complete rejection of reality regarding Spygate makes me have no respect for you as a sports fan or a person. Therefore, anything you say is meaningless to me as I just consider the source.

If you and other Patriot fans feel the need to continue attacking me for telling the truth, have fun.
 
2012-01-20 08:32:35 PM  

vladimpaler: I was researching my answer before I sent it (maybe you and the other Patriot fans ought to try it), so I missed your response.


So while you were offering me a deal on the table you were researching a way to win this argument under the table?

Turns out you're a lying scumbag that prefers to trick people into false deals where each party agrees to let the past results fade, then continue the argument with more attacks on people's actions in the past.

And yet here you are passing judgment on other people who are a million times more successful than you in an attempt to make yourself feel better.

Just give it up...you can't win, I can't win, it's over and done with. If I thought you were genuine I'd give you my phone number and we could talk this out over the phone.
 
2012-01-20 08:39:09 PM  
Look at the time stamps, buddy. It took me over 20 minutes before seeing your rebuttal on the Arlen Spector thing. That was after I agreed never to bring up the Patriots success in the early part of the decade. You had plenty of time to see that I accepted your deal, yet you said nothing. Then when I pointed it out, you pretend that I snuck my acceptance in while you were "researching" the whole thing.

It's so weird how the Patriots couldn't score on the Mannings (and their weak defense) in the second half of the 2006 AFC championship game even though they had the clear advantage of recorded defensive signals from years past.
 
2012-01-20 08:49:31 PM  

jaylectricity: Look at the time stamps, buddy. It took me over 20 minutes before seeing your rebuttal on the Arlen Spector thing. That was after I agreed never to bring up the Patriots success in the early part of the decade. You had plenty of time to see that I accepted your deal, yet you said nothing. Then when I pointed it out, you pretend that I snuck my acceptance in while you were "researching" the whole thing.

It's so weird how the Patriots couldn't score on the Mannings (and their weak defense) in the second half of the 2006 AFC championship game even though they had the clear advantage of recorded defensive signals from years past.


In the Patriots defense, it was Peyton Manning in the 2nd half of that game. They still put up 13 points, 27 total that game, in the 2nd half. The Patriots offense was more than productive enough given their past history against the Colts. Blame the defense, not the offense.
 
2012-01-20 08:50:58 PM  

jaylectricity: vladimpaler: I was researching my answer before I sent it (maybe you and the other Patriot fans ought to try it), so I missed your response.

So while you were offering me a deal on the table you were researching a way to win this argument under the table?

Turns out you're a lying scumbag that prefers to trick people into false deals where each party agrees to let the past results fade, then continue the argument with more attacks on people's actions in the past.

And yet here you are passing judgment on other people who are a million times more successful than you in an attempt to make yourself feel better.

Just give it up...you can't win, I can't win, it's over and done with. If I thought you were genuine I'd give you my phone number and we could talk this out over the phone.


You made two posts, I responded to one, and researched my answer to the other. You responded to my response before I got back and saw it. So what?

I can win the Spygate argument, the facts are on my side. You lost the argument, so now you resort to personal attacks, and I still don't care. You are a little person who derives self -worth from how your favorite football team does, and you are greatly offended that I don't ignore the fact your team cheated for seven years. You don't like it, don't reply.
 
Displayed 50 of 274 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report