2413547, OK - but that's a distinction based on the assumption... Posted by Brew, Wed Jan-21-15 10:40 AM
>There's tampering with the balls BEFORE the ref check and >there's tampering with ball AFTER it's already been checked. >The latter is a step beyond the former and circumventing that >referee assessment.
...that the refs didn't miss something before the game. If Rodgers is claiming he's gotten away with over-inflating balls and getting them past the refs' pre-game inspection, who's to say the Pats didn't do the same thing (only underinflating)? There's no proof (yet) that the Pats had the right PSI pre-game then doctored the balls afterwards (that I know of, at least..if I missed that let me know). Maybe the refs just missed it (like they have with Rodgers' footballs) and it was brought to their attention later.
>Are you surprised that a team which has been caught cheating >before (particularly when consider it was in games of the >greatest magnitude) and gets caught again for doing something >illegal (again, in a game of great magnitude) is going to >create a huge uproar?
Nah - I shouldn't be, at least. It's more annoying than surprising.
|