How will the Patriots win without filming sidelines from the press box?

Forget losing Tom Brady. How are the Patriots going to win without the massive advantage of filming sidelines from the press box? The NFL's harsh and absolutely not ridiculous punishment of the Patriots came down today. But worse than the fine and the forfeited draft pick is the impact the lack of press box sideline footage will have in the win-loss column.

When Tom Brady's DeflateGate suspension was first announced, I remember laughing hysterically at how absurdly severe it was. And now I can't even take the NFL seriously enough to laugh at it when it tries to act like it cares about its rules when it over-punishes the Patriots for doing something that was as close to nothing as something can be.

And of course, the same old crew of people will emerge from the woodwork and get on their well-worn soapboxes to preach about the moral uprightness of their teams and the debauched wickedness of the evil Patriots. By this point, these aging crusaders of football ethics will have hoarse voices as they try to remember their rehearsed streams of bullshit occasionally peppered with half-truths and innuendo. They'll likely be doing so while wearing the jersey of a team with cap violations, rampant PED use, or coaches who block kick returners.

Most importantly, the NFL has sent a message to everyone far and wide: don't film a team's sideline from the press box. The sideline, which is visible to 60,000 people, is being filmed by TV networks and NFL Films, and is often full of microphones attached to coaches and players, must not be filmed from the press box. This is too much of an advantage for one team to have.

The NFL is now a safe space for snowflakes

NFL owners are not trying to preserve honor and respect for the American flag. They are trying to make the NFL a safe space with limited speech, and protect a legion of easily upset fans so they don't throw a tantrum and change the channel because something made them mad.

The League has every right to do this. In this great country, you have the absolute right to prioritize profit over morality. You can suppress protests, then sell patriotism to stuff your pockets with cash as much as you want. It's a free country.

And if you can do so while accepting public funds for stadiums, so much the better. Hooray for private enterprise!

But now the NFL is akin to ultra-thin-skinned universities where safe spaces protect people from thoughts and opinions they are offended by. The snowflakes on the right are just as delicate and sensitive as those on the left. They need rules and regulations to protect them from the realities of the world.

Anyone embracing this rule is as dainty and weak as a college student offended by the movie How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

Seth Wickersham "beginning of the end" piece proves sports world revolves around Patriots

ESPN's Seth Wickersham's "Beginning of the end" piece on the Patriots claims there is a power struggle at the highest level of Pats' leadership: among the owner, the GOAT coach, and the GOAT quarterback. True or not, what the report conclusively proves is that the sports world is obsessed with everything the Patriots do.

Many of the pieces to Wickersham's puzzle seem to fit. I can imagine Bill Belichick grumbling about being coerced to trade Jimmy Garoppolo. I can imagine Tom Brady being worried about the security of his position as starter. I can imagine Robert Kraft interfering in an effort to alleviate tensions and to make his star QB happy. So there's a possibility it's all true.

But there's more than a possibility that the Patriots are the center of the sports world. That's an absolute certainty.

Even when they don't play, they're the top story. Just a whisper of dissension in Foxborough, and it's breaking news. The narrative of Garoppolo's success in San Fran is told as a Patriots' story. DeflateGate was national network news, not just sport news, and it endured for months. Compare that to the brief amount of time spent discussing the Seahawks violating concussion protocol (the media spent less time on that than Russell Wilson spent in the medical tent). People are obsessed with everything the Patriots do.

So while other New England fans might fret about tension behind the scenes, while other New England fans start blaming Bill or Tom or Bob for a breakup which hasn't happened yet, I'm just going to enjoy the fact that the sports world orbits around Foxborough, that Gillette Stadium is the center of the football universe. I'll enjoy it, because 20 years ago the Patriots were barely relevant, and 2 years from now the same might be true again.

Patriots vs. Chiefs Drinking Game: Banner Raising Edition

Football season is back and it begins as it should: with the Patriots raising a championship banner. This one made even sweeter by the failed attempts of the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell to punish the Pats for not kneeling to him and kissing his ass.

The Patriots begin their title defense against the Chiefs, and hope to become the first back-to-back champions since themselves back in 2003 and 2004. The team is loaded with talent but it's all about execution. Having talent is like stocking your fridge and liquor cabinet with great booze. Assembling it is the first step, but knowing what to do with it is far more important.

We're happy to help guide you to drinking your way through the 2017 season. And we begin with a drinking game to play as the Pats host the Chiefs, hoist a banner, and you destroy your internal organs and your life with toxic levels of alcohol.

Here are the rules...

Every time a commentator says:
Banner = take 1 drink of beer
Raise = 1 drink
Five = drink beer for 5 seconds
Time = 1 drink
Champion (in any form) = 1 drink and raise your ring fingers in the air as an FU to Goodell
Defending = 1 drink
Super Bowl = 1 drink
Fifty-one = drink for 51 seconds
Greatest/best = 1 drink

Do = 1 drink
Your = 1 drink
Job = 1 drink
No days off = 1 drink

Chiefs = 1 drink
(Kansas) City = 1 drink
Eric = 1 drink
Mitchell or Mitch = 1 drink
Ware = 1 drink
Any first name that begins with "De" (e.g. De'Anthony or Dee) = 1 drink
Smith = 1 drink
Game manager = 1 drink
AFC West = 1 drink
Chris (or Cris) = 1 drink
Marcus = 1 drink
Al = 1 drink

Deflate = 1 drink
Gate = 1 drink
Suspended = 1 drink
Roger = 1 drink
Goodell = 1 drink


Any time this is on screen:
The score 28-3: drink for 25 seconds
A banner = 1 drink per banner
A Lombardi Trophy = 1 drink per trophy
A Super Bowl ring = 1 drink per ring
Roger Goodell = finish your beer

Injured Spencer Ware = 1 drink
Injured Julian Edelman = finish your beer, toss it in the air, and whoever makes the most ridiculous catch get 1,000 points
Video of Ware and/or Edelman getting hurt = drink during entire clip

Super Bowl highlights = drink during the entire clip
The number 51 (including on the clock): 1 drink
Roman numerals = 1 drink per letter (bonus points for drinking Dos Equis, or Molson XXX)

Vince Wilfork = 1 drink, 1 shot, eat a turkey leg
Ernie Adams = 1 shot of liquor (bonus points if it's gin, Ernie seems like a gin guy)
Jimmy Garappolo = 1 drink


Bob Kraft = 1 drink
Kraft talking = drink the entire time he talks



Any time this happens:
Andy Reid mismanages the clock = finish your beer

Tom Brady yells in anger = 1 drink
Tom Brady yells in joy = 1 drink
Brady headbutts someone = 1 drink
Brady points out the "mike" = 1 drink (bonus points if drinking Mike's Hard Lemonade, but only if you're a girl or weigh under 100 pounds)
Brady says "alpha milk" = 1 drink

Pats go no huddle = 1 drink per snap
Chiefs run the ball = 1 drink
James White gets the ball = 1 drink
Matthew Slater makes a special teams tackle = 1 drink

Rob Gronkowski makes a catch = 1 drink
Gronk makes a big block = 1 drink
Gronk scores a TD = finish your beer, spike it (bonus points for glass containers spiked on hard surfaces)
You get worried that Gronk is hurt = 1 shot

Stephen Gostkowski barely makes a kick = 1 drink
Gostkowski misses a kick = 1 shot


So enjoy the game between the Patriots and Chiefs. And if you play this game, please also enjoy the trip to the hospital, the morgue, and the cemetery.

Tom Brady was stupid to destroy his phone, but I understand

The NFL for some reason needed a few weeks to come to the decision to do nothing about Tom Brady's suspension, and keep it at 4 games. This was announced literally on the eve of training camp, with Patriots players scheduled to report on Wednesday the 29th and Brady himself already in Foxborough. The bombshell with the announcement is the fact that Tom Brady evidently destroyed his cell phone during the investigation.

Frankly, the cell phone being destroyed is impossible to defend or explain. The NFL using the word "destroyed" is intentionally dramatic. It conjures an image of Tom Brady blowing his phone up with an M-80, or dropping it in a river in the wilderness. What actually happened to the phone is probably less theatrical. How many of us actually know what happens when we trade in or donate our phones?

Even if the phone was the smoking gun, you still don't destroy it. You just refuse to hand it over. You accidentally leave it next to a magnet, or drop it in the pool, or lose it while hiking, or let Gronk spike it into oblivion as an apparent joke.

It was not smart for Brady to have his phone "destroyed."

But I understand it. The witch hunt atmosphere created by the NFL's leaks and the media firestorm around this story would make it difficult to consistently make calculated and correct decisions. Brady couldn't simply admit guilt for this misdemeanor because it was being treated like a felony. Admitting guilt would tarnish your legacy and everything you've worked for your entire life, not to mention demoralize your teammates before the biggest game of their lives. Brady couldn't be honest so all he could do was shape, twist, and hide the truth as best as he could.

Some people are good at hiding the truth and deceiving people. You don't even notice them. Others aren't very good at it.

I'm not going to defend Tom Brady as innocent. I am going to point out how absurd this story has been from the beginning. This was a set-up. This was Brady getting caught stealing a candy bar and getting charged with grand theft auto, because some elements of the NFL want to see him pay.

Brady evidently broke a rule, got caught, and didn't come clean. He should be punished for violating the initial rule, which was an equipment violation. Should he be punished for obstructing "justice?" I'm not so sure. The NFL didn't seem to be seeking justice, it seemed to be seeking to destroy his reputation. That's vengeance, not justice.

Tom Brady's DeflateGate appeal should be televised by the NFL

Tom Brady vs. Ted Wells. Face to face. The Rings vs. The Report.

Tom Brady's appeal of his 4 game suspension will be heard Tuesday morning. And how much would you be willing to pay to watch it? Would you rather watch this hearing or a crappy Thursday Night Football game? Think of the ratings potential for this 4 hour DeflateGate hearing.

Why the hell isn't the NFL broadcasting this?

I'm not joking. Not completely, at least. The NFL should put this on TV. Put it on a tape delay so the League can prevent sensitive information from being aired (and also so that info can be leaked to reporters from Indianapolis). Have a halftime show with analysts from football, law, labor relations, and science to break down the hearing. Then on Tuesday night, broadcast a condensed 60 minute version of the hearing. The ratings will be through the roof.

Look at what's on the NFL Network Tuesday morning: a show about LaDainian Tomlinson, something about Dwayne Bowe as a rookie, an episode of Hard Knocks from 2010, and a countdown of the best Brady vs. Manning games.

Brady vs. Wells would get better ratings than any of that. Everyone in New England would be glued to their TVs, along many more people across the country. You could stream it online so people could watch at work.

This could be to the NFL Network what the OJ Simpson trial was to Court TV. Players appealing the arbitrary disciplinary decisions handed down by the NFL could become regular programming. And with Goodell's office in charge of discipline, there would be no shortage of material. There could even be highlights of historic appeals, packaged like NFL Films, with slow motion replays and invigorating classical music playing while a deep voice narrates the action.

Vegas could take bets on the results of appeals (if they haven't done so already):

Brady's suspension to remain at 4 games: 5 to 1
Brady's suspension reduced to 3 games: 3 to 1
Reduced to 2 games: EVEN
Reduced to 1 game: 5 to 2
Reduced to 0 games with a fine: 6 to 1
Reduced to 0 games, no fine: 10 to 1
Reduced to 0 games, no fine, Goodell resigns: 20 to 1

There could even be Fantasy Appeals Hearings, with lawyers, players, investigators, and arbitrators earning fantasy points. Think of what gambling and fantasy sports have already done for the ratings of NFL games. Add those elements to appeals hearings and you'll have high demand TV content 365 days a year.

This could be the biggest TV product created by the NFL since RedZone.

When Tom Brady's punishment for DeflateGate was announced, I laughed hysterically

My friend Mike called me at 5:39 p.m. and asked me "What the hell is going on in this world?" It took me a few seconds to realize he was talking about DeflateGate. Then he told me the punishment the NFL announced it would levy on Tom Brady and the Patriots:

A 4 game suspension

A $1 million fine

A 1st round pick in 2016 and a 4th rounder in 2017

Upon hearing this news, I laughed. Hysterically. This is one of the silliest things I've ever heard.

The 4th round pick is the cherry on top. I can imagine Roger Goodell and NFL execs discussing the punishment in a board room somewhere. "Okay, so we have a suspension for a quarter of the season, a million dollar fine, and a first round pick... Still seems a little light... How 'bout we toss a 4th round pick on top? There we go. That works."

I honestly can't get outraged over this. Not yet. Maybe I will when the season starts and the Steelers are able to get a BS win because they're going against Jimmy Garoppolo. Maybe I'll be angry if the Pats miss out on the playoffs or a bye because of a loss in those 4 games. We'll see. Then again, if the Pats go 4-0 during this suspension, I'll laugh even harder.

But I can't be upset right now. It's too ludicrous. I can't get upset at something that I don't take seriously. And I don't take this seriously. I don't take the NFL seriously, don't take the Wells Report seriously, don't take Goodell seriously. What's even funnier is that they take themselves seriously. But it's a joke. I tend to laugh at jokes.

The lack of proven connection to Brady, the inconsistencies and questions that the Wells Report didn't address, the fact that the same report disagreed with referee Walt Anderson about which pressure gauge he used, so on and so on. I can't marry the flimsiness of the evidence with the brutality of the punishments.

And ultimately, the Patriots are 4 time Super Champions. Even with this suspension they're still contenders for another title. It's a harsh punishment, but the lasting effect might not be as painful as it seems. It's a silly punishment, but these are silly people, playing God in their silly world.

And the final punchline of this joke: Tom Brady's first game back would be against the Colts in Indy. Think he'll be pumped for that?

Wells Report calls NFL referee Walt Anderson a liar

The Wells Report refutes NFL referee Walt Anderson's recollection of which air pressure gauge he used pre-game to check the Patriots' footballs. And that refutation is based on scientific experiments, which were based on Anderson's recollection of the pre-game air pressures of the Patriots' and Colts' footballs.

So Anderson's memory of which gauge he used is "probably" wrong, based on Anderson's memory of something else. So his memory is unreliable, based on how reliable his memory is.

That's odd, isn't it?

It's true that I'm a Patriots fan. But if you're one of those who think I'm just being a homer, and who think that the Patriots clearly cheated, then you should be able to spare a few brief moments to ponder the argument I'm about to make. If you can't read with an open mind the argument of a humble amateur blogger such as myself, then your convictions must be quite flimsy.

Here are the facts around the Wells Report refuting Walt Anderson's memory.

-Referee Walt Anderson brings 2 pressure gauges to games with him. He used one to check the Patriots' footballs pre-game, and those that were under 12.5 psi, he inflated until they were. He later recalled that the pressure gauge he used had a Wilson logo, and a long, crooked needle. The other gauge he had with him did not have a logo, and had a shorter,straighter needle.

-At halftime, those two gauges were each used to measure the air pressure in the Patriots' footballs. Each ball was measured by both gauges.

-The gauge with the Wilson logo consistently gave higher measurements than the non-logo gauge (0.3-0.45 psi higher). According to the Wilson gauge, 8 of the 11 Patriots' footballs tested had pressures consistent with the Ideal Gas Law (at least 11.32 psi) we've heard so much about, meaning they could have started the game at 12.5, and the decrease in pressure at halftime was due to the laws pf physics, not some dude in a bathroom.

In conclusion, Anderson says he used the Wilson gauge pre-game to measure the footballs, ensuring each was at 12.5 psi or more. At halftime, in 8 of 11 balls, that same gauge showed a loss in pressure consistent with what the Ideal Gas Law would allow for had the balls been at 12.5 psi at kickoff.

In other words, the circumstances around the circumstantial evidence that the Wells Report relies on, don't support the conclusions that the report reaches. Anderson, who is paid by the NFL to do things like test the air pressure of footballs, says he believes he used a pressure gauge with a Wilson logo, and a long, crooked needle. He wasn't certain, but he believes that was the gauge he used.

However, according to Ted Wells, who wasn't in the officials' locker room testing footballs, who wasn't paid by the NFL to do things like test footballs, concludes that Anderson is "more likely than not," wrong about which gauge he used.

Isn't that odd?

It takes Wells 60 pages to explain why he believes Anderson "probably" didn't use the gauge he remembers using. The circular logic behind the explanation is that Exponent did experiments trying to figure out why the Patriots' balls deflated so much more than the Colt's balls did from pre-game to halftime.

However, the amount of deflation from pre-game to halftime is based on Anderson's recollection of what the approximate air pressures were pre-game. Anderson remembers the Colts' footballs being in the neighborhood of 13.0 psi. That's his memory of a dozen footballs. And that's the basis for the Exponent experiments' determination of how much pressure the Colts' footballs lost (even though only 4 balls were tested).

In other words, the Wells Report says Anderson's memory is wrong, and the proof of that is an experiment based on something else he remembered.

Does that make sense?

Facts, truth, and logic are the enemies of the monster the DeflateGate story has become. Don't forget, this story all started with a now proven false leak to ESPN about 10 of 12 Patriots footballs being more than 2 psi lower than the legal limit. By the time that was shown to be false, the genie was out of the bottle, and the story had a life of its own.

Did the Wells Report try to find truth, or did it try to find guilt?

Photo Credit:
Getty Images

DeflateGate report probably made us generally aware of what was already suspected

The DeflateGate investigation is over. Ted Wells has concluded that the Patriots probably broke the rules and intentionally deflated footballs. And that Tom Brady was probably generally aware that this was going on. The report has more "probables" than a weekly NFL injury report.

Could you imagine if the most important lines in literature and cinema were phrased so inconclusively? What if the Gospels meekly proclaimed "And on the third day, Jesus probably rose, and we're generally aware that one day he will come again." What if Shakespeare's Hamlet asked "To probably be, or not to be? I'm generally aware that this is the question." How about classic lines in Star Wars and Terminator 2? "Luke, I'm probably your father." "I'm generally aware that I'll be back."

And aren't Ted Wells' conclusions things that we pretty much knew already? What new information has this investigation uncovered?

Didn't the 2 weeks of non-stop media coverage of DeflateGate take place under the presumption that the Patriots were probably guilty? From the initial leak of the story, to the Colts' suspicions earlier in the season, to the surveillance footage of a ballboy going into a bathroom with the footballs, the general consensus was that the Patriots were PROBABLY guilty. So by including qualifying words like "probably" and "generally aware," Ted Wells' investigation has only put into writing what most people had already assumed months ago: The Patriots are probably guilty, the quarterback was probably generally aware of it.

So what did the investigation unearth? Did it prove that employees deliberately deflated footballs? Did it prove that Tom Brady instructed them to do so? The report's conclusion only argues that Brady was "generally aware" that this was probably happening. What does that mean exactly?

I don't know why Patriots haters are thumping their chests about such an inconclusive conclusion. The haters long ago concluded that the Patriots were guilty. Most of them also thought it was a Belichick initiated conspiracy, and this report actually exonerates Belichick (in stronger language than it indicts Brady, weirdly). This report gives the haters a pile of inconclusive paper to use as ammunition in their never-ending and futile war against the Patriots. And I'm glad for that. The haters make winning fun.

I also don't know why Patriots fans can't face the fact that there's more than a little smoke here. Although speaking of smoke, the scientific evidence in the Wells report comes from a company that once claimed second hand smoke didn't cause cancer. I'm not sure how reputable their science is. I also don't know why Patriots fans should care.

As a football fan I've seen players busted for PEDs, I've seen teams violate the salary cap, I've seen players paid under the table, I've seen players tampered with, I've seen teams pipe noise into stadiums, I've seen falsified injury reports, I once saw a trainer trip an opponent, I once saw a head coach obstruct a kick return. I'm not morally justifying cheating, just pointing out that if non-Patriots fans thinks the Patriots are the only rule violators in the League, they need to grow up. And if Patriots fans think their team has any moral superiority to others, they too need to grow up.

Redskins, Just Change Your Name Already

The US Patent Office has revoked the trademark on the Redskins' name, claiming that said name is disparaging. While I don't disagree with that assessment, it's a sneaky, roundabout way for the US Government to get involved and try to compel the Redskins to change their name. Which they cannot do directly.

While I think the Government should be less involved in the controversy over the Redskins' name, the NFL has left a vacuum to be filled. The NFL normally micromanages every aspect of the game that involves appearance and image. They punish players for not tucking their shirt in, for choreographed celebration, and for doing anything that might tarnish the league's image.

Yet they've passed the buck of responsibility on the Redskins issue. They won't ask/request/demand that the Redskins change their name. Nor will they stand behind the name and defend it from its critics and detractors. They've wiped their hands of the issue. Which is decidedly indecisive of them. It's very un-Goodell-like.

Daniel Snyder, just change the name. Teams change their names all the time. Teams change cities with even more ease.

The Texans were the Oilers, the Ravens were the Browns, the Chiefs were the Texans, the Colts played in Baltimore, the Cardinals in St. Louis, the Rams in LA. The Washington Redskins were once the Boston Braves (changed to Redskins when they moved to Fenway Park in 1933). It happens.

The Red Sox were once the Pilgrims, once the Americans. The Yankees were once the Highlanders. The baseball Braves were once the Beaneaters. The Giants were once the Haymakers. From 1953 to 1959 the Cincinnati Reds changed their name to Redlegs because they didn't want to be associated with Communism.

Straw Man Argument #1:
The name isn't that offensive, here are some polls to back me up.

Who cares what percentage of randomly polled people find it offensive? It's not about being offensive, it's about being an outdated term. Like "negro" or "colored" are outdated terms. If you had a Native American friend, would you introduce him by saying "That Redskin over there is Charlie, he lives next door?"

People probably aren't offended by "redskin" because nobody uses it. But if people did use it, it would be considered a derogatory term. You wouldn't use it in conversation with a Native American. You'd get written up at work if you used it.

If you wouldn't use the term to the face of the person the term is supposed to describe, it's probably not a good term.

Straw Man Argument #2:
Slippery slope! Changing the name might lead to ridiculous requests to change other team's names.

So changing the Redskins' isn't a ridiculous request, but you're worried about future ridiculous requests. Lame argument. Deal with the absurd requests when they come. The Cleveland Indians might need to change their name, and their cartoonishly racist logo. The Chiefs should be okay because the term "chief" isn't racist. The Braves might be in some trouble. But let's deal with those discussions as they come up.

Not giving in now because you don't want to give in later is irrational.

Straw Man Argument #3:
History and tradition

I don't think you want to go down the road of history when discussing Native American issues.

This is a foolish argument anyway. It's like going back to the 1920s and arguing that women shouldn't have the right to vote because they traditionally and historically haven't had it. It's like arguing that we should continue to use terms like "negro" and "colored" because they're traditional and historical.

The Redskins have a rich history as the Redskins. Changing the name won't erase that history. The Syracuse Orange used to be the Orangemen until 2004, yet SU fans still shove their history down everyone's throat.

So Redskins, you've had your name for 80 years. It was a good run. But it's a term from the 1930s. It's time to grow up and find a new name for yourselves. Nobody uses the term "Redskin" anymore. You shouldn't either. You've changed names before, changed cities, changed stadiums, changed uniforms, changed logos. Time to find a new name.

NFL to Solve Racism By Banning N-Word... Homophobic Slurs Soon to Follow?

The NFL is considering banning the N-word on the field of play. Players who use the word could be assessed a 15 yard penalty. This proposal comes after the Richie Incognito bullying/hazing/abuse scandal. There's also a strong possibility that Michael Sam will become the NFL's first openly homosexual player. With eyes and ears open and looking for bigotry in the NFL, the League is motivated to crack down on slurs like the N-word. And perhaps homophobic slurs are next.

It's a nice sentiment from the NFL, but incorrectly focused. It's addressing the symptoms of an illness, but not the cause. Richie Incognito's behavior, for example, is a symptom of a much worse, much more deeply embedded disease. And he'd still be a complete jerk and his actions would still be egregiously wrong even if he never called Jonathan Martin a n-----.

And homophobia doesn't disappear just because people don't call someone a f-- to their face. Any discrimination and any obstacles Michael Sam might face will not be eliminated if the f-word is eliminated from the field of play.

Most of the times you hear n----- on the field, it's from one black player to another. Although sometimes it will be from a white wide receiver to a black security guard. Most of the time it will be between two or more black players, sometimes on the same team, sometimes on different teams, sometimes in a casual way, sometimes as part of aggressive trash talk.

A rule intended to reduce racism against black players will wind up penalizing more black players than white racists.

Enforcing this rule will add more workload to officials who already struggle to enforce basic black and white (forgive the pun) rules in a consistent manner. Officials will have to monitor the voices of 22 men on a field, surrounded by dozens of yelling players and coaches on the sideline, all while 70,000 fans are screaming. Good luck, refs.

This also means louder stadiums will see fewer penalties called. Crowd noise on offense/defense will also have an impact on this penalty.

And if two players from opposing teams both use it, then it offsets? What if one uses it twice and the other only once? What if the ref only hears one player? What if the ref hears it in a pile but can't identify who said it? And it's one thing for a ref to mistakenly call pass interference, it's another if a ref mistakenly penalizes a player for racism.

Officiating decisions determined too many games last year. This misguided attempt to remove racism from the game shouldn't allow officials to spoil any more games with their inconsistent application of rules.

Rules like this would be better enforced with fines after games, and possible suspensions for repeated violations or extreme incidents (example: a white player using the word toward a black player). There are many microphones surrounding a football field, and audio can be reviewed, enhanced, and analyzed. Use technology for this, not human ears, which are prone to human error.

The NFL is taking on a challenge that can't be solved by rules or by removing words from the field. Race relations/civil rights is one of the most complex and contentious issues in American history. I don't think the NFL is going to eliminate any racism in their League by eliminating racist language from the game.

This is an attempt to make a show of effort. It's just for display. After the Incognito story and the impending arrival of Michael Sam, the NFL is being scrutinized. And its skeletons are out in the open, not even hidden in closets. They even have a team called the Redskins!

The NFL is now trying to seem like these issues are an important priority. Either that or the League is misguided/dumb enough to think that penalizing players for words will do anything to eliminate bigotry.

The NFL is a League of contradiction between how it wants to be perceived and how it actually is. The NFL wants a clean image to go along with its product of violence and primal intensity. They want players faster and stronger and hitting each other with more brutality, but they don't want bonuses paid out for hard hits. They want players who push their bodies beyond normal human tolerances, but not if certain substances are used to surpass those tolerances.

Now they want men who play with raw emotions and use their instinct instead of thinking, but who also watch their language.

NFL Refs Conspiring to Ruin Football Games? Revenge for Lockout?

Nothing will ever match the ineptitude of last year's replacement refs. They couldn't keep up with the pace of the game. They made obvious blunders. They ruined the on-field product so badly that the NFL caved and we all celebrated the return of the real refs, who performed so much better than their scab counterparts.

Then there's this year. For the most part NFL refs have been fine. They're not perfect. They make mistakes. And there's the same old inconsistencies with holding and P.I. and all that stuff that's always been annoying.

Then there are a handful of weird plays, all at the ends of big games, that involve obscure rules, or questionable rule interpretations, or forgetting what down it is.

The Patriots and Jets played an overtime game that turned when the Pats were flagged for pushing each other while attempting to block a hopelessly long field goal. Two Sundays ago the Patriots were in Charlotte and the game ended with a pass interference flag being picked up. And this past Sunday the Redskins were apparently given a 1st down, which was actually 3rd down, then the refs caught the "mistake" and reset the dial-a-down to indicate a 4th down. They also failed to measure the very close 1st down that wasn't actually a 1st down.

Mike Shanahan probably didn't ask for a measurement since he seemed to think his team already had a 1st down.

It's just weird that these things are happening. That was replacement level incompetence in the Redskins game. I haven't seen that pushing penalty called since the Pats/Jets game. And few people who don't work for the NFL think it was correct for the officials to pick up the P.I. flag in the Pats/Panthers game.

There was also the Steelers game on Thanksgiving, in which the refs took a touchdown off the board because the ball carrier's helmet was knocked off half a second before he scored a touchdown.

Is there a conspiracy? I doubt it.

Or do I?

Are a group of rogue referees trying to get revenge on the NFL for last year's lockout? Have they decided to spoil the endings of close marquee NFL games with confusion? They waited until the end of the game to penalize the Patriots for their pushing. They tried to go back in take a touchdown from the Steelers. They royally screwed up the end of the Redskins game, and never paused to explain the confusion to anyone on either sideline.

Lack of explanation is another trend in these calls. Belichick didn't get one in Carolina. Shanahan didn't get one Sunday night.

How many times have we heard football pundits and talking heads say "I've never seen anything like this," in regards to officials this year?

It's almost too odd. And keep in mind, the crew that officiated that Steelers game also did the Pats/Panthers game with that waved off pass interference in the end zone.

And three of these four games were nationally televised. The Steelers and Redskins games were on NBC, the Pats/Panthers game was on a Monday Night. Three were divisional matchups. Three were rivalry games. And 6 of the 7 different teams involved are among the NFL's most popular. The teams involved have also won 9 of the last 13 Super Bowls.

It's just too weird for the best football refs to make such bizarre decisions at the endings of big games. A little too weird.

The Pushing Rule

On Sunday Patriots rookie defensive lineman Chris Jones made history by being the first NFL player to be penalized for pushing his own teammate into other people. NFL Rule 913 (2b) was adopted before the season, but had not been enforced by the League's officials. Although it had been violated. So much so that the League emphasized enforcing the rule in a weekly training video distributed to officials. This video included footage of the rule being broken this season, and no penalty flags being thrown.

So a rule that hadn't been enforced for 6 weeks and 93 games finally got called in overtime on a potential game-winning 56-yard field-goal attempt. The resulting 15-yard penalty moved the Jets from hopeful field-goal range, to probable field-goal range.

We should remember that even if there hadn't been a penalty, the Patriots were not assured of victory. Their offense struggled all day. Who knows what would have happened.

And I do appreciate the intention of the rule. If two behemoth linemen are engaged at the line of scrimmage, using every ounce of strength against the other, then a third person uses their strength and weight to help push their teammate forward, it could become unsafe. And such plays have ended in injury.

Then again, how many plays in football are unsafe? Should we ban receivers from crossing the middle of the defense, or outlaw quarterbacks scrambling, or try to eliminate blocking from the game entirely? Safe football is an oxymoron.

And why is the penalty so harsh? You lose 15 yards because you push your teammate into the pile? So this penalty has the same consequence as decking a defenseless receiver or bodyslamming a quarterback to the ground. Does that make sense?

Well, rules are rules, right.

Except that for 6 weeks this rule wasn't enforced. Then the League decided to enforce it. So the officials knew about this change. Did the teams know that the League had instructed its officials to look for this violation? Because if you fail to enforce a rule for 6 weeks and 90+ games, then decide to enforce it to the letter without any notice, that seems a bit odd. And if the motivation behind the rule is player safety, wouldn't you want to tell the teams that it will be enforced, so that they might emphasize to their players that it might be enforced, so then it ideally won't need to be called? If something is illegal because it is dangerous, isn't it better to prevent it from happening at all than to catch someone in the act?

Maybe the NFL does inform teams of such things. And if they do, then the onus is on the coaching staff to pass that information along to the players.

Although I'm not so sure the NFL does a good job of explaining these rules to teams. In September there was an online article that discussed this rule, and stated that players from the "second level" could not push their teammates who had been on the line of scrimmage. That was how the NFL explained the enforcement of the rule.

This article was altered Sunday evening, not long after Bill Belichick's press conference. It now reads that pushing of any kind is illegal.

For the record, the NFL rule book stipulates that pushing teammates into the pile on a field-goal or PAT is illegal, and doesn't specify which players pushing which other players is illegal. So the rule was properly enforced Sunday, it just wasn't explained very well in September.

The NFL tried to clarify the rule, yet their explanation only muddled things.

Some might think this is justice for those evil Patriots to finally be punished for their history of rule violations and also karmic retribution for the Pats benefiting from things like the Tuck Rule. Some might find it fitting that the team that brought us SpyGate was undermined by a video, this time an NFL officials' training video.

All I see is a defensive linemen doing what he's been doing all season long, then getting penalized for it. I see two sets of large men pushing into each other. One of those men, Jones, barely pushes his teammate forward while he's trying to move forward himself. Then I see a referee throwing a flag, and a ball moved 15 yards forward, and a game being won because the League decided that Week 7 was the time to take a stand on the relatively innocuous thing that Jones was doing.

There's no grand conspiracy. It's just stupid. And silly. Rules are rules, but enforce them from Week 1 if they're in the book. And don't explain the rules one way, enforce them another, and then go back and change the explanation to suit the enforcement. That's ridiculously sketchy. Thankfully, Tom E. Curran noticed the modification.

The Patriots had ample opportunity to win that game before the penalty. And the responsibility for the loss is solely on them. However, the absurdity of the situation should not be ignored. It's ridiculous that a 15-yard penalty resulted from a harmless play that looked like a million other plays. Meanwhile 4 quarterbacks left games with injuries this week. Good job protecting players, NFL.

NFL Will Force Teams to Do Hard Knocks

The NFL owners agreed on a new policy regarding the League's HBO reality show Hard Knocks. If no team volunteers to be the subject of the behind-the-scenes show, the NFL will simply pick a team to be featured. And that team will be required to be the show's subject. Teams that will be exempt from selection include those with new head coaches, teams that have made the playoffs in the previous two seasons, and teams that have been on the show in the previous 10 seasons.

It sounds unfair to force a team that doesn't want to grant that kind of access to do it. I also think the playoff provision is unfair. Why should playoff teams be free of such scrutiny but the struggling teams be forced to deal with it?

What I would do if I ran a team is volunteer to get it out of the way. Then I'd get creative. I'd hire screenwriters from the best soap operas, acting coaches, makeup people, special effects gurus, the whole nine yards. I would make a complete mockery of the series and show fake stories about fake issues. I'd give the cameras enough artificially generated meat to sink their teeth into so they didn't pay attention to what was really happening within the team. Fake fights, fake confessionals, fake incidents, fake rivalries, fake enemies that become friends, fake friends that become enemies.

It would be like Wag the Dog meets the NFL.

Either that or I would volunteer and make the most boring show on in the history of television. I think if somehow the Patriots found their way onto the show, and fans rated it as the most boring season in series history, that achievement would satisfy Bill Belichick more than any of his Super Bowl titles.

Why There Will Never Be an NFL Team in London

There hasn't been much talk about the NFL moving a team to London this week, but it's always been a topic of discussion when this game is played. There will never be an American football team based in London and here's why:

Time/Distance
Because of the time zone difference, you can't have night games in London unless they start at 1:00am local time. So no Thursday, Monday, or Sunday night football. A 4:25pm game would have to start at 9:25pm in London. No night games in London or when the London team is on the road.

There's also the considerable jet lag teams would suffer flying to and from Britain. Because of this, the London team itself would probably have the best home-field advantage in the NFL. And would struggle the most on the road. Especially West Coast games. San Diego is 5,500 miles and 8 time zones from London.

Lack of Rivals
The Packers have the Bears, the Giants have the Eagles. The Patriots have the Jets. Who would be London's rival? The Patriots would be closest, at about 3,200 miles. And Washington was burned by the British in 1814. Somehow I don't think much animosity has carried into the 21st century.

Exchange Rate
Due to the cap, players in London would get paid the same amount as their counterparts in the States. Due to the exchange rate, their money would be worth less. $100 equals £62.23. And something that costs £100 costs $161. So players would effectively have less money to spend on houses, cars, strippers, et cetera. So if Darnell Dockett wanted to tweet a picture of $100k, it'd be £62,230 in British notes.

Brits Don't Like the Game
They prefer rugby for a physical sport. And of course soccer is king. While most Americans view soccer as boring and devoid of action, the Brits like that it doesn't pause (how many pauses are in a football game? well over a hundred), and the game can change in an instant. Scoring is rare in soccer, which makes it tense, and one goal could decide the game. Many Brits see our football as slow, hiccuping action, and they don't like the pads.

Having an NFL team in London would be like having a hockey team in the Arizona desert. Thankfully, the NFL isn't as dumb as the NHL.

Honeymoon Over for Refs

The real referees have returned, and all were greeted with applause across the NFL this weekend. Until they started making calls. The honeymoon is already over, especially for Giants and Packers fans. Missed calls, game-changing penalties, in other words: human beings being human.

The real refs are experts at game management. They know the rulebook better than those who wrote it. They can still make mistakes, though.

The reaction of some NFL fans to the real refs reminds me of something. You go out with a girl, she's a good woman, but after a while she kind of wears thin on you. Things just don't click. So you break-up with her. Then you go out with someone completely wrong for you, some C word who flirts with your friends and gets really loud and honest when she drinks, and in retrospect you're  ex-girlfriend seems like a goddess. Then you and your ex reunite, you expect perfection, and reality disappoints.

These refs make mistakes. There are 22 moving pieces on a football field, and a handful of officials out there to enforce 122 pages of intricate rules. Let's not get too irate at them for not living up to our unrealistic expectations of flawlessness.

So instead of falling back in love with the zebras, maybe we should just be friends and see where that goes. They're not without fault, they make mistakes, but the alternative is much, much worse.

NFL Referee Lockout Is Over

I think the last time I wrote something so happily was when the Bruins hoisted the Stanley Cup in early summer of 2011. The NFL Referee lockout is over! The real refs could return as early as tonight as the Baltimore Ravens face the Cleveland Browns.

And never again will officials be cheered so heartily, and welcomed with such warmth.

All I've been able to find out about the terms of the deal is that the refs agreed to an 8 year CBA, so I have no idea how much the NFL caved about the pension or anything else. And maybe that's how both parties want it the terms to be.

All I care about is that the men who know how to run an NFL football game will be running it. They won't be perfect. They'll make mistakes. But those mistakes will be minimalized in effect. Mistakes should be egregious exceptions to the norm, not normality, and not to be expected. Which they were the replacements.

And I'm sure the sideline decor of coaches and coordinators will improve. So too will the behavior of defensive backs in coverage, and offensive lineman in pass-blocking.

The sheriffs are back in town.

I would love to give Ed Hochuli a hearty handshake, even if he'd crush all the bones in my fingers.

Photo Credit:
AP Photo

Bill Belichick Fined $50k

This news isn't surprising at all. Bill Belichick put his hands on an official, that's against the rules, so the NFL has to punish him. Considering the lack of maliciousness with the contact, a suspension would have been too much.

Las Vegas even set an over/under on the fine, at $50,000.

It makes sense. Kyle Shanahan got fined $25k for pursuing then berating officials after a game. This was one step worse than that as Belichick actually made physical contact.

I don't think there will be many more incidents like this one, especially from Belichick. He crossed a line, the NFL has penalized him, and he won't cross it again.

Replacement Refs Will Cost the NFL Money

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, the NFL's replacement refs find a way to screw up a game even more.

The Packers should have won last night's game. There's no doubt about it. But a game-sealing interception by Green Bay was ruled a game-winning touchdown by Seattle.

These referees plainly suck. The argument has been that since they're not driving viewers away, there's no motivation for the NFL to give in to the unionized referees.

I'm not so sure that this premise is true. There may be an effect these refs are having on games that poses a financial threat to the NFL.

These games are taking longer, and they're progressing more slowly. These refs are taking extra long to confer and make decisions. They have to discuss with NFL officials what they can and can't review.

Long games aren't good for TV ratings. Especially the featured games on Sunday and Monday night. How many viewers do NBC and ESPN lose as these games crawl past midnight? How many fans fall asleep instead of watching the commercials which pay the NFL's bills?

Here's another argument. Even if the NFL isn't losing viewers due to the referees, are they gaining any?

What will we tell the British about our officials when the Patriots and Rams play in London in a few weeks? How do these debacles make the NFL more appealing to European fans? Roger Goodell and the NFL have been working hard to grow the game in international markets. But show the end of last night's game to some German guy watching football for the first time and try to explain to him why that was called a touchdown.

Why would any new fan want to watch a game being officiated by fourth-rate hacks who understand the rules less than the players and coaches they're officiating over? How can new fans truly get into a game if they don't understand what is and isn't a penalty?

It isn't just the game that's being ruined by this relatively insignificant labor dispute, it's the brand.

What Replacement Refs Are Like

I've come up with an analogy to illustrate the significant drop-off between proper NFL officials and the replacement refs that have tortured football fans for 2 weeks.

The proper NFL refs are like the US Congress. We didn't like them, they didn't seem to get anything right, and all we did was criticize them. But they actually knew what they were doing. They knew the procedures by heart, their mistakes were rare, and they knew how to do the job.

The current replacement refs are like the Norwood (or insert your hometown) Town Council being asked to do Congress's job. They're trying, but they aren't equipped to do the job, nor do they have the experience to figure out how to do it.

So imagine defense committees at Congress being run by people who are accustomed to zoning permits and organizing free concerts at the gazebo in the center of town. That's what these replacement refs are like running an NFL game.