Pats say Colts cheated</p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'></p> The NFL is looking into allegations that the Indianapolis Colts piped in noise during the game Sunday between the Colts and the Patriots. The charge comes after Patriots President Jonathan Kraft became the latest NFL team executive to accuse the Colts of the distracting tactic that is against the rules.</p> "We're aware of it and we're looking into it," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Monday. "It may just be the TV feed from CBS, but we're checking it out."</p> Observers at the game said there seemed to be a "skip" in the sound during the game Sunday, which the Patriots won 24-20. That might confirm the long-held suspicion among many people in the NFL that the Colts play loud crowd noise to help distract opponents when the other team is on offense.</p> "We're aware of the accusations, but there has never been anything to substantiate it," Aiello said.</p> Kraft approached NFL Vice President of Security Milt Ahlerich after Kraft and his parents, Patriots owners Bob and Myra Kraft, left the Patriots locker room after the game.</p> Kraft was angry as he told Ahlerich the league needed to look into the allegation. Ahlerich is the same person who confiscated a videotape made by the Patriots during a game against the New York Jets in Week 2 that led to the Spygate controversy.</p> In addition, New England quarterback Tom Brady also commented on how loud it was in the RCA Dome.</p> "I don't know how you measure levels of being deaf, but we couldn't hear anything out there," Brady said.</p> This is the latest in a string of incidents between the teams that have fueled the growing Colts-Pats rivalry. In the past, Colts General Manager Bill Polian has vehemently argued that the Patriots have bent the rules in terms of use of replay challenges and the pass interference rule.</div></p> I know I heard it while watching it on tv, and ehmunro said so as well.</p> Glad that the NFL is looking into it.</p> </p>
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully, its beenrecorded for posterity.</p> Even more interesting will be the spin on how artificially pumped in noise is worse thanrecording another team.Though, I think it might have something to do w/ Brady not being able to hear the voices in his head telling him hottie to hook up w/ next. rofl.</p> </p>
Its definitely against the rules and should be checked out, but if someone tries to equate it with videotaping signals, they're being idiotic.. Crowd noise doesn't play that big a role in the outcome and the line between what's acceptable and what's not gets kind of blurry when you look at something like the Seahawks stadium.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder)</div><div class='quotemain'> It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Hopefully, its beenrecorded for posterity.</p> Even more interesting will be the spin on how artificially pumped in noise is worse thanrecording another team.</p> </div></p> IthinkitmighthavetodowithundueinterferencewiththeabilityofQBstocallaudiblesatthelineofscrimmage,theabilityofteamstocallplaysfromthesidelines,andhowtheColtsdefendersusetheexcessivepipedinnoiseascovertoshoutoutsimulatedsnapcountstodrawoffensivelinemenoffsides,apenalty.But,yeah,Icanseehowavideothatwouldn'tbeofanyusethegameitwasmade,andwouldhavebeenlegalifthecameramanwasbackanotherfiftyfeet(inthestands),isamuchworseinfraction.</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Its definitely against the rules and should be checked out, but if someone tries to equate it with videotaping signals, they're being idiotic.. Crowd noise doesn't play that big a role in the outcome and the line between what's acceptable and what's not gets kind of blurry when you look at something like the Seahawks stadium.</p> </div></p> I think there's a pretty significant difference between simulation and architecture. It does give Seattle an added advantage that their stadium is designed specificly to amplify sound, but I don't think that should be put in association with piping in noise from a CD.</p> </p>
Now that you mention it, I did notice some skipping and I actually thought it was something wrong with the television. I still believe that the Patriots are being snitches for going after the Colts even when theyescaped with a win. Go figure, they will only go 14-2 anyways.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Its definitely against the rules and should be checked out, but if someone tries to equate it with videotaping signals, they're being idiotic.. Crowd noise doesn't play that big a role in the outcome and the line between what's acceptable and what's not gets kind of blurry when you look at something like the Seahawks stadium.</p> </div></p> I usually respect and agree with just about everything you say, but this is crazy. Crowd noise plays a huge factor in a game because it severely limits what an offense can and cannot do. For instance, the announcers even mentioned that Brady had to run to see the coordinator to get the plays because he couldn't hear itin his helmet speaker. Also, it makes it impossible to change the play at the line of scrimmage because there's no way you can get every player on the field on the same page without them all being able to hear the QB.But most importantly, it forces you to go with a set snap count, which is a HUGE advantage for the defensive line when it comes to pressuring the quarterback.</p> ehmunro is right. This is worse (if they really did it) because it directly effects the game that's happening. There's no question about it. Videotaping signals, deciphering them,and then putting them to use in the same game is pretty much impossible. So it's only going to give a team an advantage in a future game, and if and only if, the team is stupid enough to use the same exact signals that they did the last time the two teams played.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (agoo101284)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> Its definitely against the rules and should be checked out, but if someone tries to equate it with videotaping signals, they're being idiotic.. Crowd noise doesn't play that big a role in the outcome and the line between what's acceptable and what's not gets kind of blurry when you look at something like the Seahawks stadium.</p> </div></p> I think there's a pretty significant difference between simulation and architecture. It does give Seattle an added advantage that their stadium is designed specificly to amplify sound, but I don't think that should be put in association with piping in noise from a CD.</p> </p> </div></p> </p> I didn't mean to equate the two, but I think it deserves to at least be brought up if you're worried about keeping crowd noise "authentic." Seattle has one of, if not the, loudest/intimidating stadiums in the league (opponents who play there are among the highest in false start penalties, I believe). It isn't as blatantly fake as piping in crowd noise over the speakers, but when they have a similar advantage that the Colts were trying to achieve, you have to question how much of that noise is actually coming from the fans and if its unfair that the Seahawks gain that edge simply because their stadium's newer/more expensive. Either way, the Colts should be punished if caught. I mainly brought the Seattle case to show how pointless it is to try and label this a really serious type of cheating. The lines between what's acceptable and not are so blurry and its impossible to determine if a crowd would been able to be frustrate a QB without the noise. . Also, I'm kind of annoyed that this is getting so much publicity but nobody ran with a story a couple weeks ago when Redskins fans were admitting to hearing artificial noise against the Giants. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (44Thrilla)</div><div class='quotemain'>I usually respect and agree with just about everything you say, but this is crazy. Crowd noise plays a huge factor in a game because it severely limits what an offense can and cannot do. For instance, the announcers even mentioned that Brady had to run to see the coordinator to get the plays because he couldn't hear it in his helmet speaker. Also, it makes it impossible to change the play at the line of scrimmage because there's no way you can get every player on the field on the same page without them all being able to hear the QB.But most importantly, it forces you to go with a set snap count, which is a HUGE advantage for the defensive line when it comes to pressuring the quarterback.</div>I shouldn't have said it doesn't impact the game. After all, I still remember the Giants-Seahawks game a couple years ago when my team committed 11 false start penalties that basically killed any attempt to mount a game-tying drive (stupid Luke Petitgout...). However, I don't think you can try and equate this with the Patriots' stealing signals, as I've seen a couple people do already (And I'm not one of those dudes that agreed with those ridiculously exaggerated clains against the Pats early in the season, either). Its such a vague issue at this point that its hard to determine what's right/wrong and how much of an advantage this fake noise provided. The best you can do is make sure they stop and be happy that you came out with a win. And, IMO, officiating played a much bigger role in that game than the crowd.</p>
This is a joke, right?</p> The older I get , the more I like College football as opposed to the NFL.</p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Shard)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> The Patriots complaining about cheating, ha. I hate Bill Belichick.</p> </div>You hate Belichick because Jonathan Kraft accused the Colts of cheating?</p> </p>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney)</div><div class='quotemain'></p> I didn't mean to equate the two, but I think it deserves to at least be brought up if you're worried about keeping crowd noise "authentic." Seattle has one of, if not the, loudest/intimidating stadiums in the league (opponents who play there are among the highest in false start penalties, I believe). It isn't as blatantly fake as piping in crowd noise over the speakers, but when they have a similar advantage that the Colts were trying to achieve, you have to question how much of that noise is actually coming from the fans and if its unfair that the Seahawks gain that edge simply because their stadium's newer/more expensive. Either way, the Colts should be punished if caught. I mainly brought the Seattle case to show how pointless it is to try and label this a really serious type of cheating. The lines between what's acceptable and not are so blurry and its impossible to determine if a crowd would been able to be frustrate a QB without the noise. . Also, I'm kind of annoyed that this is getting so much publicity but nobody ran with a story a couple weeks ago when Redskins fans were admitting to hearing artificial noise against the Giants.</div></p> I think you're approaching the debate between whats the difference between video taping and having a guy watch with binoculars. One is easily trackable and the other isn't. That's why Seattle can build whatever they want, but Indy's CD is illegal. Seattle can say its for the visual (because it is a beautiful stadium visually), and the guy with the binoculars can say, "Oh, I'm looking at the hot cheerleader behind him."</p> </p>
