Brilliant but unethical tactic if true. Do the winning P12 programs like Oregon and Furd do the same?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/2014/01/10/wall-street-journal-seahawks-win-by-cheating/

Its not cheating if it isn't called.

If it was as easy as holding every play every team in the NFL would do it.

Cal doesn't suck because we out-ethical everybody.

tenplay;842259898 said:

---

Brilliant but unethical tactic if true. Do the winning P12 programs like Oregon and Furd do the same?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/2014/01/10/wall-street-journal-seahawks-win-by-cheating/

---

Cal did, in the 2002 game vs. Washington.

OSU did, in the early 2000s. Rodgers had his worst game against OSU in 2003, 9-34 for 56 yards. Part of that was probably his knee injury from the USC game the week before, but a lot of it had to do with the extremely aggressive DB play that completely disrupted the passing game.

Harbaugh has complained continuously about this issue. His complaints appeared to payoff in the last SEA/SFO game when the refs called a tighter game resulting in a number of penalties against the Seahawks DB's.

tenplay;842259898 said:

---

Brilliant but unethical tactic if true. Do the winning P12 programs like Oregon and Furd do the same?

http://blog.seattlepi.com/football/2014/01/10/wall-street-journal-seahawks-win-by-cheating/

---

Oregon absolutely does this on offense.

I dont understand why Cal does not, given how it is a no-call anyway.

Later, Tedford acknowledged that he botched that game. He knew going in that the OSU DB's were very physical and that their strategy was to throw the receivers off their routes by hitting them hard at the LOS. Tedford said the way to counter that strategy is to move the receivers around, keep them in motion, etc. He said that is what he should have done.

OSU did nothing illegal. They just took advantage of a situation in which the opposing coach did not make the correct adjustments. Smart football by the Beavs......

HaasBear04;842259901 said:

---

Its not cheating if it isn't called.

If it was as easy as holding every play every team in the NFL would do it.

Cal doesn't suck because we out-ethical everybody.

---

lmao:rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh:

I'm glad the refs don't call PI every single play on the Seahawks dbs.

It seems like every single year more and more rules are implemented that hamstring defenses. Safeties can't hit anybody. Qb's can't be touched. It goes on and on.

Chip Kelly's great innovation is having his WRs hold. Everything else is derivative.

This is one place where I think technology could help football.

I think everyone can agree that football is and should be physical. We want DBs to be able to get their hands on people. But it should be objective. What I think most Cal fans can fairly complain about is the unevenness of calls. And if you are highly ranked/hyped, there is a good chance that Pac-12 refs will see the game from that vantage point (or I have an inferiority complex) and more calls favor the highly ranked team. I have zero data to back this up.

But in tennis for about 20 years they have been able to detect if a ball has hit the line of lands just after the line. Certainly technology could be designed to (initially) track contact, then determine a limit on allowable contact that could be more objective.

joshbalt;842259936 said:

---

Committing a foul/penalty isn't cheating anyway. There is no attempt to hide what they're doing, if the officials determine a rules violation has occurred its up to them to enforce it. The entire premise is ridiculous.

---

LOL. A strategy of intentionally breaking the rules because you don't expect to get caught isn't cheating? Suggesting it's okay because there is no attempt to hide is like saying it's okay to assault someone in public providing you don't flee the scene. In any event, the article never used the word cheating. I find the routine failure to fairly and evenly enforce the rules to be very frustrating.

Earl Thomas just committed pass interference on Jimmy Graham and it wasn't call. Now that's football!

This has been a hallmark of Belickhick's defenses at NE: hold as much as you can and force the refs to make the call. They can't call it on every down and eventually, it becomes "normal."

This is also similar to the defense played by Howland coached teams at least in the early years at ucla. Lots of holding and hand checking on every play and putting the onus on the refs to make calls.

This tactic has been pretty obvious. My football friends and I have been talking about this all season. I guess we should expect this from Pete the Cheat. I suspect the secondary is all on PED's and they constantly hold and foul players on almost every play.

I don't want to see flags on every play either, but unless they start getting called on it they are not going to change the behavior. If they get knocked out of the playoffs due to some legitimate penalty calls then perhaps their behavior will change. Barring this, I suspect it will not.

GoOoOoOoOoBears!;842260009 said:

---

LOL. A strategy of intentionally breaking the rules because you don't expect to get caught isn't cheating? Suggesting it's okay because there is no attempt to hide is like saying it's okay to assault someone in public providing you don't flee the scene. In any event, the article never used the word cheating. I find the routine failure to fairly and evenly enforce the rules to be very frustrating.

Earl Thomas just committed pass interference on Jimmy Graham and it wasn't call. Now that's football!

---

Nope. It IS NOT cheating. The "rules" in any game are what the refs enforce. They arent the same every game. They may change within the game. It isnt PI unless the ref calls PI. You can call it cheating I suppose, but its not really. It certainly is frustrating, and it is maddening when the other team "gets away" with it. Bellichek trying to film your closed practice-thats cheating. "Stealing" signs? Not cheating.

Maddox and Glavine just got into HOF for what you call cheating. They tried as hard as they could to never throw "strikes." Glavine especially would pound low outside over and over. He would hit the same spot, ump starts calling it a strike. Hitter can't hit it, starts chasing, hits weak grounders to 2b. Game over. Braves played Marlins one series and umps stopped calling those strikes. Leyland lobbied and it worked. Think Erik Gregg was one. Braves lose. But no one was cheating either way.

The rules do not change. The way the officials decide to interpret them or whether they are effective in noticing infractions is what changes.

Regardless, if you replay a Seattle game you can see they foul on almost every play. Most of the time they whine and pout and stare down the official when a foul is called, so regardless of whether it is "cheating" they should be called more often.

Also, given the relatively few PED related suspensions in the NFL and the fact that Seattle has 2 significant ones in the secondary, they are guilty of cheating.

Richard Sherman also was accused of PED's but won his appeal. Apparently there were some "issues" with the collection process.

joshbalt;842260076 said:

---

Who exactly established that they intend to break the rules as opposed to play to the limit? That's not in evidence so your LOL should be self directed. And in any case an intentional foul in the course of play is generally not described as cheating, its just a type of foul (or penalty). Are basketball players "cheating" when they foul to stop the clock? Of course not they are just implementing a strategy based on how referees call the game.

---

They're not playing to the limit of the rules - they're playing beyond them. They are breaking the rules but in and of itself this isn't the problem. The problem is that refs routinely routinely allow them to get away with it. I have no idea why NFL officials so freqently allow obvious PI and holding penalties to go uncalled. The view that games shouldn't be decided by officials is badly misguided if it leads to turning a blind eye to game changing penalties.

Your basketball analogy needs some work because in the situation you describe the refs are calling the fouls. If they were calling them on Seattle's defensive backs we wouldn't be having this conversation. As for establishing if Seattle intends to break the rules your comments are naive. Of course they intend to do what they do and what they do is grab and hold and that's against the rules. Re-read Mike Pereira comments in the article if you are unconvinced.

If you believe that teams are less obligated to play within the rules than referees are to enforce them then I agree. The refs absolutely should enforce the rules at all times to the best of their ability. But that does not absolve a team for systematically breaking poorly enforced rules.

GoOoOoOoOoBears!;842260227 said:

---

They're not playing to the limit of the rules - they're playing beyond them. They are breaking the rules but in and of itself this isn't the problem. The problem is that refs routinely routinely allow them to get away with it. I have no idea why NFL officials so freqently allow obvious PI and holding penalties to go uncalled. The view that games shouldn't be decided by officials is badly misguided if it leads to turning a blind eye to game changing penalties.

Your basketball analogy needs some work because in the situation you describe the refs are calling the fouls. If they were calling them on Seattle's defensive backs we wouldn't be having this conversation. As for establishing if Seattle intends to break the rules your comments are naive. Of course they intend to do what they do and what they do is grab and hold and that's against the rules. Re-read Mike Pereira comments in the article if you are unconvinced.

If you believe that teams are less obligated to play within the rules than referees are to enforce them then I agree. The refs absolutely should enforce the rules at all times to the best of their ability. But that does not absolve a team for systematically breaking poorly enforced rules.

---

Romantic and naive. Rules are only ever what is enforcible and enforced and then the question shifts to "who are the enforcers?" People who self regulate bc momma told them to be good or the pastor told them hell was really nasty do most of the work for people who are not so inclined. "Just win, baby" is the ultimate rule of sports, war, business. No use getting panties in a wad about the people who understand that reality.

biely medved;842260086 said:

---

Nope. It IS NOT cheating. The "rules" in any game are what the refs enforce. They arent the same every game. They may change within the game. It isnt PI unless the ref calls PI. You can call it cheating I suppose, but its not really. It certainly is frustrating, and it is maddening when the other team "gets away" with it. Bellichek trying to film your closed practice-thats cheating. "Stealing" signs? Not cheating.

Maddox and Glavine just got into HOF for what you call cheating. They tried as hard as they could to never throw "strikes." Glavine especially would pound low outside over and over. He would hit the same spot, ump starts calling it a strike. Hitter can't hit it, starts chasing, hits weak grounders to 2b. Game over. Braves played Marlins one series and umps stopped calling those strikes. Leyland lobbied and it worked. Think Erik Gregg was one. Braves lose. But no one was cheating either way.

---

Interesting perspective - I can certainly see where you're coming from here. A view that the rules are what the refs enforce in a game is very practical. But it isn't literally true because as oldblue83 said the rules (at least the official ones) don't change from game to game. Sometimes it's the interpretation that changes but often it's the enforcement (refs are clear on the rules and how they should be applied but choose to do something different as in your baseball example). As you say this can be maddening.

In any event I didn't intend for the use of the word cheating to be the focus of my post. My real concern is with the officiating because if the refs enforced the rules appropriately Seattle and teams like them couldn't get away with what they do. I especially dislike they way refs let more go in the playoffs.

But even if one does place most of the blame at the feet of the refs the use of the word cheating is not out of place. In this context the definition of cheating is "to violate rules or regulations" and that is exactly what Seattle does. I disagree with the premise that "it's only a crime if you get caught". The baseball scenario you provided is a good one to show how teams can exploit the lack of rule enforcement but it is also different to what I am talking about because throwing balls is not against the rules whereas pass interference and holding is.

biely medved;842260237 said:

---

Romantic and naive. Rules are only ever what is enforcible and enforced and then the question shifts to "who are the enforcers?" People who self regulate bc momma told them to be good or the pastor told them hell was really nasty do most of the work for people who are not so inclined. "Just win, baby" is the ultimate rule of sports, war, business. No use getting panties in a wad about the people who understand that reality.

---

Pretentious and arrogant. Taking issue with low quality officiating is a problem for you? It's clear whose panties are in a wad and that shallow thinking such as yours leads to immeasurable problems in society. Win at any cost is doing wonders for our environment, isn't it.

Absent any NCAA officiating changes, I wish Cal held on offense like Oregon and held on defense like Seattle.

GoOoOoOoOoBears!;842260332 said:

---

Interesting perspective - I can certainly see where you're coming from here. A view that the rules are what the refs enforce in a game is very practical. But it isn't literally true because as oldblue83 said the rules (at least the official ones) don't change from game to game. Sometimes it's the interpretation that changes but often it's the enforcement (refs are clear on the rules and how they should be applied but choose to do something different as in your baseball example). As you say this can be maddening.

In any event I didn't intend for the use of the word cheating to be the focus of my post. My real concern is with the officiating because if the refs enforced the rules appropriately Seattle and teams like them couldn't get away with what they do. I especially dislike they way refs let more go in the playoffs.

But even if one does place most of the blame at the feet of the refs the use of the word cheating is not out of place. In this context the definition of cheating is "to violate rules or regulations" and that is exactly what Seattle does. I disagree with the premise that "it's only a crime if you get caught". The baseball scenario you provided is a good one to show how teams can exploit the lack of rule enforcement but it is also different to what I am talking about because throwing balls is not against the rules whereas pass interference and holding is.

---

I agree with you Go. If you cheat on exams and pass a class but never get caught, it is still cheating. Breaking the rules to gain an advantage in most cases (there are exceptions like the basketball analogy) is still cheating regardless of whether you are caught....I'm sure if I killed biely's wife/kids in a drunk driving accident but the cops couldn't prove it, it would be fine and dandy cause I didnt' get caught....Nope, breaking the rules/law, especially if done on purpose with intent to gain advantage is almost always tainted. I'm sure you could come up with exceptions like breaking rules/laws to save someone etc....blah blah blah blah.....but as you wrote, the onus is on the officials and if they have to go to more video, then I'm for it. I'd rather reward a proper or good play than bad play either by omission or commission. It may be smart play for Seattle or New England to cheat if they win, but it is still cheating.....

Back in my playing days, DBS had 5 yards to do whatever they could to you. Simple solution to Seahawk tactics, don't let them grab you! Holding and all, Sherman and Browner would get devoured by a Jerry Rice,chad Johnson or Terrell Owens in their prime. Those are examples of receivers who go the extra mile to put in the work against a specific style.
On another note, teams have to know how to attack the Seahawks. I don't know if I have seen a team more prone double moves all year despite all the noise about how dominant their defense is.

Cal_Fan2;842260373 said:

---

I agree with you Go. If you cheat on exams and pass a class but never get caught, it is still cheating. Breaking the rules to gain an advantage in most cases (there are exceptions like the basketball analogy) is still cheating regardless of whether you are caught....I'm sure if I killed biely's wife/kids in a drunk driving accident but the cops couldn't prove it, it would be fine and dandy cause I didnt' get caught....Nope, breaking the rules/law, especially if done on purpose with intent to gain advantage is almost always tainted. I'm sure you could come up with exceptions like breaking rules/laws to save someone etc....blah blah blah blah.....but as you wrote, the onus is on the officials and if they have to go to more video, then I'm for it. I'd rather reward a proper or good play than bad play either by omission or commission. It may be smart play for Seattle or New England to cheat if they win, but it is still cheating.....

---

But these rules are grey area rules because they are never enforced as they are written. Minor holding is a part of the game. You push it until it gets called and that's where the threshhold or substance of the rule really is. Murder is pretty black and white.

oski003;842260387 said:

---

But these rules are grey area rules because they are never enforced as they are written. Minor holding is a part of the game. You push it until it gets called and that's where the threshhold or substance of the rule really is. Murder is pretty black and white.

---

Sure it is but some here are saying it ain't cheating if you don't get caught. I was merely pointing out that breaking rules or laws is occurs regardless of if law enforcement finds out. I'm not talking about the gray areas, I'm talking strictly about what the rules don't allow...I understand there are fine lines of holding, like if you don't extend your arms or pull, it is somewhat ok. No, I'm talking about more flagrant stuff, but my main premise is some guys cheat, they intend to and plan it, and try and hide it from the refs. That goes on all the time but it is still cheating in my mind. I'm not talking about something that happens in the heat of a play that is not planned because most of that is instinct.

The Seahawks are flagrant in this regard, at least in the secondary, and Jim Harbaugh is not the only coach to bring this up...

goldenjax;842260386 said:

---

Back in my playing days, DBS had 5 yards to do whatever they could to you.

---

Well, thanks for that trip down memory lane

Cal_Fan2;842260402 said:

---

Sure it is but some here are saying it ain't cheating if you don't get caught. I was merely pointing out that breaking rules or laws is occurs regardless of if law enforcement finds out. I'm not talking about the gray areas, I'm talking strictly about what the rules don't allow...I understand there are fine lines of holding, like if you don't extend your arms or pull, it is somewhat ok. No, I'm talking about more flagrant stuff, but my main premise is some guys cheat, they intend to and plan it, and try and hide it from the refs. That goes on all the time but it is still cheating in my mind. I'm not talking about something that happens in the heat of a play that is not planned because most of that is instinct.

The Seahawks are flagrant in this regard, at least in the secondary, and Jim Harbaugh is not the only coach to bring this up...

---

They aren't saying it isn't cheating if you don't get caught. They are saying it isn't cheating if it isn't called. Two different things. There is judgment involved. It's like when the cops don't care if they see a hundred cars going five miles per hour over the limit while driving safely.

Or it's like if a coach becomes an offensive genius by designing a controlled passing offense that is largely based on running "illegal" picks on a high percentage of plays. I'm sure those on this thread so upset with Seattle were equally indignant with that team's strategy.

OaktownBear;842260474 said:

---

They aren't saying it isn't cheating if you don't get caught. They are saying it isn't cheating if it isn't called. Two different things.

---

yes. good clarification.

There's a lot of subjectivity involved with the rules, and it also varies from crew to crew.

It is also odd that Oregon is the only one that gets us hurt with their receivers. Remember the one on Marc Anthony a couple of years ago. Then this past season v. Kam Jackson. Lots of borderline stuff that no other team seems to do.

OaktownBear;842260474 said:

---

They aren't saying it isn't cheating if you don't get caught. They are saying it isn't cheating if it isn't called. Two different things. There is judgment involved. It's like when the cops don't care if they see a hundred cars going five miles per hour over the limit while driving safely.

Or it's like if a coach becomes an offensive genius by designing a controlled passing offense that is largely based on running "illegal" picks on a high percentage of plays. I'm sure those on this thread so upset with Seattle were equally indignant with that team's strategy.

---

Did you see the Patriots game? Did you see when Luck was trying to escape on one play and the Patriot lineman stuck out his leg and tripped him. The announcers were all over it but it wasn't called. The guy was still cheating when he purposely tripped Luck with his leg.....regardless of whether it was called it is cheating, just like designing illegal pick plays. It is cheating irrespective if it is seen....for me, if a tree falls in the forest it does make a sound even if no one is there to see it. Cops seeing people driving 5 miles over the speed limit will tell you those people are breaking the law. Cops have discretion on whether to ticket them or not. Referee's don't have discretion. If they see a penalty, they must call it.

Some rules are subjective while others are very objective. We have all seen plays where one player blatantly cheated or broke a rule to keep a player from executing. Sometimes the broadcasters are besides themselves as are the fans yet the referee doesn't see it. In my mind, the player cheated even if the ref doesn't call it cause he had the wrong angle or was out of position.

GoOoOoOoOoBears!;842260350 said:

---

Pretentious and arrogant. Taking issue with low quality officiating is a problem for you? It's clear whose panties are in a wad and that shallow thinking such as yours leads to immeasurable problems in society. Win at any cost is doing wonders for our environment, isn't it.

---

Oh i didnt say I like this or live by it. But sorry, you're not in Kansas anymore, and that idealistic place only exists in little girl fiction next to the unicorns and rainbows, Princess Buttercup. Don't fool yourself into thinking that isn't how the world operates.

Cal_Fan2;842260494 said:

---

Did you see the Patriots game? Did you see when Luck was trying to escape on one play and the Patriot lineman stuck out his leg and tripped him. The announcers were all over it but it wasn't called. The guy was still cheating when he purposely tripped Luck with his leg.....regardless of whether it was called it is cheating, just like designing illegal pick plays. It is cheating irrespective if it is seen....for me, if a tree falls in the forest it does make a sound even if no one is there to see it. Cops seeing people driving 5 miles over the speed limit will tell you those people are breaking the law. Cops have discretion on whether to ticket them or not. Referee's don't have discretion. If they see a penalty, they must call it.

Some rules are subjective while others are very objective. We have all seen plays where one player blatantly cheated or broke a rule to keep a player from executing. Sometimes the broadcasters are besides themselves as are the fans yet the referee doesn't see it. In my mind, the player cheated even if the ref doesn't call it cause he had the wrong angle or was out of position.

---

Well that's your fault for trusting Dierdorf's eyes. Go back and watch it again and you'll note that Luck's foot is stepped on by his own OL. That is what caused him to initially start to go down. Had you called that, you would have cheated the Pats. But seriously, I'm starting to think this board has become the kiddie table at vacation bible school. Dierdorf was part of the nastiest, dirtiest offensive line perhaps in the history of pro football. They made their own rules. Y'all probably think that Elizabeth Warren will end Wall St corruption, that Obama will end climate change, that Apple will start taking their profits in California so they can pay state income taxes, that Chevron will voluntarily clean up Ecuador, that Walmart will help build fireproof garment factories in Bangladesh, that NSA will decide not to data mine phone logs, and that the Yankees getting saved 25 million and avoiding the luxury tax is legitimate justice. Read Bruce Jenkins in the Chron today about drugs players used when he was a beat writer in 70s and 80s. But those giys were only half pregnant so they get to be in HOF.

GoOoOoOoOoBears!;842260227 said:

---

They're not playing to the limit of the rules - they're playing beyond them. They are breaking the rules but in and of itself this isn't the problem. The problem is that refs routinely routinely allow them to get away with it. I have no idea why NFL officials so freqently allow obvious PI and holding penalties to go uncalled. The view that games shouldn't be decided by officials is badly misguided if it leads to turning a blind eye to game changing penalties.

Your basketball analogy needs some work because in the situation you describe the refs are calling the fouls. If they were calling them on Seattle's defensive backs we wouldn't be having this conversation. As for establishing if Seattle intends to break the rules your comments are naive. Of course they intend to do what they do and what they do is grab and hold and that's against the rules. Re-read Mike Pereira comments in the article if you are unconvinced.

If you believe that teams are less obligated to play within the rules than referees are to enforce them then I agree. The refs absolutely should enforce the rules at all times to the best of their ability. But that does not absolve a team for systematically breaking poorly enforced rules.

---

You should pay attention to more challenge reviews. What you'll find is that after slo mo repeated, different angles reasonable people still disagree on what they saw. Whether what they saw violates the "rules" and whether it should be enforced. How often are the announcers even in agreement with the replay official? <50 %???

biely medved;842260514 said:

---

Well that's your fault for trusting Dierdorf's eyes. Go back and watch it again and you'll note that Luck's foot is stepped on by his own OL. That is what caused him to initially start to go down. Had you called that, you would have cheated the Pats. But seriously, I'm starting to think this board has become the kiddie table at vacation bible school. Dierdorf was part of the nastiest, dirtiest offensive line perhaps in the history of pro football. They made their own rules. Y'all probably think that Elizabeth Warren will end Wall St corruption, that Obama will end climate change, that Apple will start taking their profits in California so they can pay state income taxes, that Chevron will voluntarily clean up Ecuador, that Walmart will help build fireproof garment factories in Bangladesh, that NSA will decide not to data mine phone logs, and that the Yankees getting saved 25 million and avoiding the luxury tax is legitimate justice. Read Bruce Jenkins in the Chron today about drugs players used when he was a beat writer in 70s and 80s. But those giys were only half pregnant so they get to be in HOF.

---

What does all that have to do with cheating? To me cheating is simply the intent of someone else regardless of if it was called or not. No, I don't sit at the kiddie table at bible school. I don't think life is fair but you can always strive for it to be.....seriously, if you think I'm Polyannish about life being fair, you dont' know my story. I know way more about suffering and horror than probably anyone here. I'm certainly don't think everything is rainbows and lollipos, but like I said before, I think the better man strives for it to be...not sure why you attempt to insult with sarcastic remarks and then overgeneralize to an entire population of different subjects.

Cal_Fan2;842260527 said:

---

..seriously, if you think I'm Polyannish about life being fair, you dont' know my story. I know way more about suffering and horror than probably anyone here.

---

You must have been in Unit 2.

I know, that place really sucked.