Is there a bigger hypocrite/phony than Dungy?

tmack on 01-08-2008 at 08:25 PM said:
Yes, DS, I'm drawing conclusions about this issue based upon the facts of the matter. The fact that BB was fined the maximum amount, that the team was also fined and has to forfeit a first round draft pick leads one to believe the matter was "serious." The fact that BB actually violated two rules, not just one, trumps the message board argument that has been repeated ad nauseum that the Patriots could have legally taped "from the stands" (which is absolutely false and violates both the same rules as being on the sideline).

When I'm debating, DS, I do like to deal with the facts of the matter, whereas you admittedly have a biased view of all things Tony Dungy. I realize that someone such as yourself, who has gulped down so much Homer-flavored Kool-Aid he's practically drowning, doesn't want to deal with facts, DS, but please don't be angry with the rest of us who do.

Now, the two rules in question (since you asked so nicely):

The "Game Operations Manual" states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game," and I'm presuming this is what the false notion of "taping from the stands" being legal was derived from. However, later in the same rule it is stated, "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." That certainly wouldn't include shooting the camera from the stands, would it DS?

Lastly, the rules clearly state that taping signals OF ANY KIND is prohibited. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. No special place. No room for "misinterpretation."

It sure is nice to know, though, that you base your arguments (which you defend so vehemently, mind you) on heresay found on the internet. And you wonder why I roll my eyes. :rolleyes:
Your tone sucks. There really is no reason to write like a douche bag.

Your facts are not facts, they're opinions or just wrong.

1. There is no max fine. You invented that out of whole cloth. Maybe you meant the biggest fine given to date. If so, your mocking tone lacks precision.

2. You can believe what you want about whether a big fine equals serious. I think Goodell thought what BB did was serious. I disagree with Roger's conclusion and so do others who have experience in the game. But big penalties and jail sentences are given to innocent men all the time. In some places, huge penalties are given for smoking a joint. Do you really believe that the presence of a big penalty perforce means the crime or violation is serious. All you are really saying is that you think that whatever Goodell does must be right and measured and is an indication that BB's violation was serious. Bully for you.

3. Two rules/one rule....it doesn't demand the conclusion that taping is a big deal. Ten rules wouldn't demand that conclusion either. Taping is or isn't a big deal, regardless of how many rules were violated. It's true that lots of rules violations might be meaningful, but you are writing as if you can add up the violations and voila, you have a solid conclusion. What if kissing your wife and grabbing her ass over her skirt in public violated 17 laws? Would that make it a serious violation in the eyes of anyone besides that particular legislature?

4. It's not crystal clear from your connecting of the dots that coaches can't video from the stands. What if it was from a luxury box? Maybe that's the kind of stands that they can video tape from. Maybe there are other rules that bear on this. Pardon me if I don't buy that the great Tmack is the final authority on the NFL rules on taping.

And really, stop with the mocking tone. It does nothing to advance the discussion or convince anyone that you are correct.
 
DarrylStingley on 01-08-2008 at 07:57 PM said:
Your tone sucks. There really is no reason to write like a douche bag.

That's too bad. Personally, I would consider arguing a subject you know nothing or very little about until you are blue in the face "writing like a douche bag," but that's probably just me too.

Your facts are not facts, they're opinions or just wrong.

No, they're facts. Facts are objective, your opinion and your theories aren't.

1. There is no max fine. You invented that out of whole cloth. Maybe you meant the biggest fine given to date. If so, your mocking tone lacks precision.


Are you sure about that? Read the first sentence of: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3018338. Again, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

2. You can believe what you want about whether a big fine equals serious. I think Goodell thought what BB did was serious. I disagree with Roger's conclusion and so do others who have experience in the game. But big penalties and jail sentences are given to innocent men all the time. In some places, huge penalties are given for smoking a joint. Do you really believe that the presence of a big penalty perforce means the crime or violation is serious. All you are really saying is that you think that whatever Goodell does must be right and measured and is an indication that BB's violation was serious.


That isn't what I'm saying at all. It's what you want to think I'm saying so that you can rationalize your irrational argument. Surely I can't actually be on this keyboard regurgitating facts, citing articles, and using my brain to debate you DS, I must just be blindly following what Goodell thinks. :rolleyes:

3. Two rules/one rule....it doesn't demand the conclusion that taping is a big deal. Ten rules wouldn't demand that conclusion either. Taping is or isn't a big deal, regardless of how many rules were violated.


Again, that's one of those opinions that you're throwing out that doesn't mean diddly squat.

4. It's not crystal clear from your connecting of the dots that coaches can't video from the stands. What if it was from a luxury box? Maybe that's the kind of stands that they can video tape from. Maybe there are other rules that bear on this. Pardon me if I don't buy that the great Tmack is the final authority on the NFL rules on taping.


The rules are very clear: you cannot videotape/record the opposing team's signals at any place or at any time. The other rule could be open to interpretation, but that one is not.

I am sorry that my tone sucks, but my patience for you is simply wearing thin. Have you ever argued with someone who knows virtually nothing about the subject at hand, yet they still get all riled up and act like a know-it-all? That's you, bro. Simmer down, or at the very least learn what the f*ck you're talking about.

Peace out.
 
tmack on 01-08-2008 at 09:14 PM said:
That's too bad. Personally, I would consider arguing a subject you know nothing or very little about until you are blue in the face "writing like a douche bag," but that's probably just me too.



No, they're facts. Facts are objective, your opinion and your theories aren't.



Are you sure about that? Read the first sentence of: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3018338. Again, you simply do not know what you are talking about.

[/b]

That isn't what I'm saying at all. It's what you want to think I'm saying so that you can rationalize your irrational argument. Surely I can't actually be on this keyboard regurgitating facts, citing articles, and using my brain to debate you DS, I must just be blindly following what Goodell thinks. :rolleyes:

[/b]

Again, that's one of those opinions that you're throwing out that doesn't mean diddly squat.

[/b]

The rules are very clear: you cannot videotape/record the opposing team's signals at any place or at any time. The other rule could be open to interpretation, but that one is not.

I am sorry that my tone sucks, but my patience for you is simply wearing thin. Have you ever argued with someone who knows virtually nothing about the subject at hand, yet they still get all riled up and act like a know-it-all? That's you, bro. Simmer down, or at the very least learn what the f*ck you're talking about.

Peace out. [/B]
Congrats on stomping your feet and saying that "I'm right and you are an idiot" when you have not actually proven any of your points. You have just repeated them with vigor. Cute.

If you think that a serious fine equals a serious violation, and that's factual rather than opinion, I think you may have been hit with a few grenades in basic training. Either that or your military based respect for authority has made you loopy.

No matter how many times you stamp your feet, BB did something that violates the rules and that's bad, but the fact that someone decided to give him him a big nasty fine doesn't mean he was right to do that and even if he was, that the big nasty fine means that it was a big nasty violation.

War out.
 
jaric on 01-08-2008 at 03:11 PM said:
I'm sure the timing of the incident didn't help Bill's cause.

But do you really think the Commish would issue a historical fine for something he didn't believe was at least a semi-serious issue, simply to send a message?

I'm not out to tar and feather Bill. He paid his punishment and I'm content to move on, but I don't think the commish would react the way he did, simply to rule by fear unless he saw something on the tapes that bothered him.

Yes.

It's no coincidence that Goodell has handed out the largest suspensions, fines, etc., in NFL history within one year of his becoming commissioner. He's out to make a statement, and he crucified the Patriots and BB to further his agenda.

BB ignored Goodell's memo, and so Goodell punished him for THAT, not so much the actual taping of signals.

Btw, if Goodell stated that there was nothing on those tapes that implicated the Patriots, why'd he fine them so much?
 
PatsFan09* on 01-08-2008 at 09:21 PM said:
Btw, if Goodell stated that there was nothing on those tapes that implicated the Patriots, why'd he fine them so much?

"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.
I'm curious to how you drew the conclusion you did when Goodell came right out said you deliberately attempted to avoid long standing rules.
 
PatsFan09* on 01-08-2008 at 09:21 PM said:
He's out to make a statement, and he crucified the Patriots and BB to further his agenda.

BB ignored Goodell's memo, and so Goodell punished him for THAT, not so much the actual taping of signals.

Btw, if Goodell stated that there was nothing on those tapes that implicated the Patriots, why'd he fine them so much?

You Truly can't be serious ???? Can you ???? This is the most obserd thing I hear yet & 4 months later ... OUCH!!!!

Yea thats it...he used BB to further the career he already had...Holy Crap Batman !!! don't swear Robin !!!

So BB didn't get fined at all for having illegal sideline cameras taping & stealing opponants signals that is specifivcally aginst the NFL: By-Laws !!!

I knew that had nothing to do with all the ruckus...because I heard more than a few people actually say they think BB did all this on purpose to inspire his team...Everyone that didn't piss themselves laughing hysterically heaing that...should tell a Doctor & they will guide you the rest of the way

So PatFan...just for more Shits & Giggles...can you tell me what exactlyGoodwell ment in this letter...define the words...calculated-deliberate-rules-fair play-honest competition


"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.
 
tmack on 01-08-2008 at 07:50 PM said:
Taping defensive signals from the stands isn't legal either.

You can't even bring in a picture camera in the stands...they will escort you out or conviscate it...

When the NFL decided to ban cameras on sideline, Booths & locker room...its anywhere accessable to the coaching staff.

Everyone is forgetting the main reason for this rule & on purpose in the media because it details the distinct advantage BB had...That camera is 10' away from him & his staff on the sideline

I crack up hearing about everyone filming in the stands & the End Zone were the Jets lost a previous permission granted in Gillette...no one has access 10' away from the coaching staff...

Thats the real advantage...
 
No, DS, Tmack has more than proven all of his points. He's used multiple sources. He has facts. This is where the frustration comes in with you.

You've stated the same opinions over and over again. You keep using the same people who said BB's infraction was "no big deal" but ignore the fact that those people have violated the same rule. Well, of course, they're going to say it's not a big deal.

I've more than explained to you why I believe you to be biased and irrational. You fire back with, "No, you just disagree with me and so you're calling me irrational." That's not the case and I'm done arguing with you. As I said in the last PM to you, I believe your views on Dungy to be irrational. Obviously, I don't agree with you. I disagree with people on this board all of the time and I rarely ever call anyone irrational. In fact, it's usually you.

So, you win. There's no point in going round and round in circles. If Tmack wants to keep up the good fight then all of the power to him. I'm out.
 
Dolphin22 on 01-09-2008 at 12:06 AM said:


I crack up hearing about everyone filming in the stands & the End Zone were the Jets lost a previous permission granted in Gillette...no one has access 10' away from the coaching staff...


You do realize with technology you could be 10' away or in the endzone and still be able to view a transmited signal?
 
Therick67* on 01-09-2008 at 03:00 PM said:
You do realize you can with technology you could be 10' away or in the endzone and still be able to view a transmited signal?

Therick...seriously how old are you? I really need to know before If you want me to continue responding to your obsurd comments
 
Dolphin22 on 01-09-2008 at 03:11 PM said:
Therick...seriously how old are you? I really need to know before If you want me to continue responding to your obsurd comments



Hey shit head - I noticed you skipped the comments in the Brady thread that make you look stupid...
 
ICB on 01-09-2008 at 02:37 PM said:
No, DS, Tmack has more than proven all of his points. He's used multiple sources. He has facts. This is where the frustration comes in with you.

You've stated the same opinions over and over again. You keep using the same people who said BB's infraction was "no big deal" but ignore the fact that those people have violated the same rule. Well, of course, they're going to say it's not a big deal.

I've more than explained to you why I believe you to be biased and irrational. You fire back with, "No, you just disagree with me and so you're calling me irrational." That's not the case and I'm done arguing with you. As I said in the last PM to you, I believe your views on Dungy to be irrational. Obviously, I don't agree with you. I disagree with people on this board all of the time and I rarely ever call anyone irrational. In fact, it's usually you.

So, you win. There's no point in going round and round in circles. If Tmack wants to keep up the good fight then all of the power to him. I'm out.
I don't care if you are frustrated or you are out.

TMack has one fact. His fact is that the $500,000 fine was the largest in NFL history. Yay.

Everything else in this discussion, on both sides, is an opinion.

It's not a fact that it's OK or not OK for Dungy to talk negatively about BB during the media storm, for example. Any view on that is an opinion, no matter what your opinion is.

It's not a fact that what Belichick did was a serious offense. And the fact that there was a big fine with the max finanancial penalty doesn't make it so. It certainly supports your opinion, but in the end, whether the existence of a big fine transforms the offense into a serious one is still a matter of opinion.

If it makes you feel good to say that I'm irrational for having an opinion on these things that is different than yours or TMack's or Jaric's, or that I would applaud if Belichick did exactly what Dungy did if things were reversed (as you said before), that's your perogative.

I know that I am expressing opinions that are contrary to your opinions, I think think there is a rational basis for my views, I know that others share my views and I know that in my personal and professional life, that I am almost exclusively perceived as an intelligent, rational person. That you disagree with me is of no moment, because your contention that having a view that is different than yours makes me irrational is, itself, irrational.
 
Dolphin22 on 01-08-2008 at 10:06 PM said:
You can't even bring in a picture camera in the stands...they will escort you out or conviscate it...

...

Hrm I wonder why I have numerous shots of so many of us in teh stands then> That is an incorrects statement.

The crux of this too is that the words "no competitive advantage was gained" is in that ruling. Makes it pretty clear cut to someone who's brain isn't dysfunctional due to unbridled hate.
 
PatrietteAz on 01-09-2008 at 03:25 PM said:
Hrm I wonder why I have numerous shots of so many of us in teh stands then> That is an incorrects statement.

The crux of this too is that the words "no competitive advantage was gained" is in that ruling. Makes it pretty clear cut to someone who's brain isn't dysfunctional due to unbridled hate.

Just a warning Paz, be careful venturing into here. Read too much and your brain may explode.
 
Therick67* on 01-09-2008 at 03:14 PM said:
Hey shit head - I noticed you skipped the comments in the Brady thread that make you look stupid...

How old are you ?
 
PatrietteAz on 01-09-2008 at 03:25 PM said:
Hrm I wonder why I have numerous shots of so many of us in teh stands then> That is an incorrects statement.

The crux of this too is that the words "no competitive advantage was gained" is in that ruling. Makes it pretty clear cut to someone who's brain isn't dysfunctional due to unbridled hate.

Yea those cell phone 3 ' pictures are pretty hi tec ....pleas don't make me laugh...
 
Undertaker #59* on 01-09-2008 at 03:27 PM said:
Just a warning Paz, be careful venturing into here. Read too much and your brain may explode.

The truth really hurts you guys alot more than i even imagined !
 
You can bring cameras into the stadium. I do it every game. A regular old full size digital camera that takes video. They are totally allowed and noone will turn you away or confiscate it. "Lee" wouldn't know that though as he doesn't actually ever go to a game in person.
 
I saw Dungy in a news conference last night on NFL Network and tried to look at him as a genuine, nice person who just went a little too far with his "dark day" blather. I couldn't. He can't suffer enough for my tastes.
 
DarrylStingley on 01-10-2008 at 09:34 AM said:
I saw Dungy in a news conference last night on NFL Network and tried to look at him as a genuine, nice person who just went a little too far with his "dark day" blather. I couldn't. He can't suffer enough for my tastes.

A fun discussion from September, including most of the principals from this thread.

http://www.soxplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2573

All Hail Saint Anthony Dungy of Indianapolis, Patron Saint of the Classy
 
Back
Top