The Patriots broke a rule that shouldn't be a rule

Rules are rules. And if the Patriots altered the air pressure of the ball after the refs inspected them, then they deserve to be disciplined for circumventing a rule.

But why is this rule even a rule? Why can't teams inflate or deflate the ball as much as they want? Why limit them to between 12.5 and 13.5 lbs/PSI? If Tom Brady prefers to throw a football at 11 lbs/PSI, and Aaron Rodgers wants to throw a ball with 14.5, why is there a rule preventing them from doing so?

What unfair edge would be gained? Teams use their own balls. How could one team gain an advantage over the other if both teams are using the footballs they prefer?

What's the worse that could happen? Passing offense might be more efficient and prolific? It wouldn't be the first time a rule change favored the offensive side of the ball.

The NFL allows players to select which cleats they'll use. They let quarterbacks and receivers decide to wear gloves or not. They let everyone decide the types of facemasks they want to wear. Why is this piece of equipment different?

Furthermore, the NFL allows the outside of balls to be rubbed up, broken in, scuffed, and so on. If changing the outside of the ball is fair game, why is the inside of the ball so rigidly restricted?

Again, I'm not saying that rule breaking should be excused. But I think this particular rule should be examined. It's a stupid rule.

Photo Credit: Maddie McGarvey, The New York Times

Ray Lewis was right about NFL rules

Ray Lewis made a great point about the NFL and its over-reliance on rules. But his point was lost because he pissed Patriots fans off.

There are two topics that are guaranteed to piss off New England fans: SpyGate and the Tuck Rule. Start talking about these, even in passing, even as a joke, and Pats fans will flip out.

And I don't know why. I'm a Patriots fan, and I don't care about either topic. In 2001 the rules gave the Pats a break and bailed Brady out of a game-losing fumble. So what? The Raiders still allowed the game-tying and game-winning drives. The Patriots still beat the Steelers then the Rams. And yes, the Patriots filmed opposing signals from the sideline. So? If you're dumb enough to think doing so made any significant difference, then you should be mad at your own teams for either not noticing it and blowing the whistle on the Pats, or for not doing it themselves.

We in New England normally don't care what Ray Lewis says or thinks, it's just funny to hear him talk. Just imagine him dressed as Abraham Lincoln, with a beard and a stovepipe hat, giving the Gettysburg Address...

Four score, and SEVEN years ago, OUR fathers... Now we are engaged, in a GREAT Civil War... this nation UNDER GOD, shall have a new birth, of freedom. And that government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, shall not perish, FROM THE EARTH!!!! WHO'S HOUSE IS THIS? OUR HOUSE!!! WHO'S HOUSE IS THIS? OUR HOUSE!!! 

This is Robert E. Lee we're talking about, it's a chess game!

We all have a good laugh when Ray gets going.

But when he mentioned the Tuck Rule earlier this week, people in New England lost their minds.

In his recent remarks about how overly litigious the NFL has become, Lewis made the mistake of dwelling on the Tuck Rule. He argued that Tom Brady and the Patriots would be unknowns without the obscure rule. And he chose to do it the week after his former team was eliminated by the Pats. So his message was lost. Obscured, or obstructed, if you will.

And that's unfortunate because it was a good point. Rules were once meant to govern and control the game, now they define them. Rules used to focus on the clock and on formations and on player conduct and safety. People have been throwing and catching footballs long before rules existed to define when throws begin and end, when catches begin and end. But now the elemental parts of the game are being defined by rules. The basic parts that come together to make a game - throws, catches, tackles - are becoming complicated sequences of events. Dissecting a catch is like dissecting the Magic Bullet Theory in JFK. (fun fact: Arlen Specter, a nemesis of the NFL, came up with the Magic Bullet Theory when he was a junior prosecutor)

Throwing and catching are intuitive things. The NFL has turned them into complex, difficult to understand, even more difficult to explain concepts.

Football is something you're supposed to enjoy while relaxed, maybe even while having a few beers. You shouldn't need a philosopher and a lawyer in order to explain what a catch is to fans.

The Tuck Rule was a bad rule. It tried (and failed) to define what a throw is. But we all know what a throw is. We don't need rules to define it.

We don't need rules to define catches either. Rules for in and out of bounds are fine. Rules about clocks and formations are fine (although, not to John Harbaugh). Rules to define basic things that human beings have been doing for thousands of years? No, we don't need those.

So Ray Lewis was right.

Steelers-Ravens Game Almost Decided by Stupid Application of Rules

A late 4th quarter touchdown scored by the Pittsburgh Steelers was overturned last night. Why? Because a Steelers running back Le'Veon Bell's helmet popped off just before he carried the ball across the goal-line. The helmet came off due to a helmet-to-helmet hit initiated by a Ravens defender. There was no penalty called.

I understand the rule that play should stop once a helmet comes off. That's been a rule in college football for years. An official sees a helmet come off, for whatever reason, and the play is blown dead. It's a rule strictly for player safety. And it makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is the ability to review a play that's already ended, and decide when it would have theoretically ended had the refs blown a whistle the instant a helmet came off. How does this time-travelling hindsight whistle improve player safety? The play has already been run and finished. You can't go back in time and protect a vulnerable player AFTER the play is over. You can't go back and stop the play before the player became vulnerable.

I hate how influential rules can be when they're applied outside of their spirit and intention. Last night a player safety rule was applied in a way that did NOTHING to improve player safety, and did nothing to punish the person who jeopardized the player's safety in the first place (the Ravens defender). However it could have had a significant impact on the outcome of the game.

So no impact on player safety, possible impact on the game's outcome, and the rule is used. Makes no sense.

I'm so utterly, utterly sick and tired of NFL games turning because of the rulebook and the literal or inconsistent or vague application of those rules. What happened to analyzing games for player performances and coaching decisions? Now games are analyzed by quoting rules and consulting former officials. Rules are meant to govern games, not direct them.

The fact that a player safety rule was invoked where it had no impact on player safety does not make sense.

The fact that a guy gets clobbered as he's diving across the goal-line, so hard that his helmet pops off his head, and that's what allowed refs to effectively go back in time and blow a whistle to stop the play, does not make sense.

The fact that this type of play is reviewable does not make sense.

The fact that rules against things like helmet-to-helmet contact can't be enforced in review, but this rule can, does not make sense. That's something that actually could improve player safety.

The spirit of these rules means nothing to the NFL or to its officials. It's literal lawyering, it's asinine, it's confusing, it's lame. It makes NFL games aggravating not entertaining.

Or maybe the refs are trying to quietly get revenge on the NFL for last year's lockout. Hmmmmm. Conspiracy theory.