Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

    Ok...

    Ferter an I have been having a little discussion, and I feel we need to clear the air.

    I have watched the tape several time of Super Bowl 36. I normally do not blame any loss on the refs or the game within the game. However, in the this case, the league or the refs decided to call a VERY loose game and New England used this to their advantage. It other terms...THEY CHEATED!

    After close analysis of the game you will notice that the receivers were held at the line (and tackled at times). Faulk was tackled 80% of the time coming out of the backfield on routes. The inside rushers held the interior lineman to allow blitzers through and the corners face guarded. If the receivers broke their routes the defender would grab a jersey just to slow him down a bit so he wasn't at his spot.

    I believe this game was the turning point for all the Martz haters, the Warner bashers and sourness some people feel towards the team. This was and is the best team to ever play the game of football. They were beat because of dirty tactics. THE PATS CHEATED us of our second ring.

  • #2
    Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

    This says it all for me, from a Howard Balzer article for Sports Weekly:

    There was one time in the game when Patriots defensive end Willie McGinest was so blatant in his mugging of Faulk that the officials couldn't ignore it. Later, McGinest would say he was shocked by the penalty, "because we had been doing that all game."

    The fact that the league has now made it a point to look for this and call it in the upcoming season makes me question how legit and fair these tactics were.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

      HEY! Somones with me. I have waited two years to bring this up and for the smoke to clear. I think it is time we open up a can right now.

      PATS ARE CHEATERS---BOTTOM LINE!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

        We still should have/could have won the game. No excuses.

        Normally most would prefer the "let them play" attitude in any sports playoff games, vs. calling ticky tacky penalties...but in this case, allowing this was 100% in the Patriots favor, as the more "finesse" rams were not able to take advantage of this themselves.

        But yes, this is WHY they won. They knew they had to get physical with our receivers and Faulk and bump them to disrupt their timing. Unfortunately, they took it to a whole other level, and the refs let it go.

        The thing that kills me is that every other team that took control of the NFL like the rams did for a few years, wins that damn game. The 9'ers, or cowboys, or steelers never lost their second SB during their heyday. Can't blame anyone but the Rams for that loss. I thought we were going to make history....

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

          How about this perspective. Blame the Refs. The refs saw the holding, grabbing and pulling happening right in front of their eyes and didnt call it. Did the patriots behave outside the rules-technically yes. However, what stops players from holding and grabbing is not per se that it is illegal, but that there are consequences to their behavior. Lets face it, most players push the outside of the envelope of the rules. You could probably call offensive holding on almost every play in the nfl if you wanted to.

          Lets assume a pitcher in a baseball game is throwing a spitball. Is he cheating- of course. If the umps know about it and let him get away with it, they are the ones that are making up the rules of the game as they go along by not following the rule book. The refs are altering the game by intentionally interpreting the rules in their own way and affecting the outcome in a way that favors one team over the other. Presumably, the refs in the superbowl would say that they allowed the clutching and grabbing to go both ways. We all know that that interpretation harmed the rams a lot more than it harmed the pats, even if it was correct.

          The Patriots did whatever they could to try and win. If the refs had called the game correctly, even given more leeway in a superbowl, presumably the patriots would have either had to alter their strategy or give up a lot more in penalty yards, which may have changed the game.

          Why did Martz call a downfield pass play at the end of the greenbay game with us up by three td's so captain kurt could get drilled in the ribs, putting him at less than 100%. Why did rod jones start in place of tucker and then miss the key block that led to the interception td. Wilkins missed a makeable 50 yarder and their guy made one. We didnt cause a single turnover. We couldnt stop them on defense at the end of the game despite having all the momentum and a huge advantage if we got the ball back to start overtime. Why didnt we run the ball more with faulk.

          Bottom line, i dont think you can blame this loss on the patriots cheating, the refs or anyone else other than the fact that we got outplayed that day. The actions of the patriots and the refs were certainly contributing factors, i agree 100% with that belief. But there was a lot more to it than just some extreme holding and grabbing.

          Ramming speed to all

          sign the big man

          general counsel

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

            If all this is true, why wasn't Mike Martz throwing his clipboard on the sidelines, jumping up and down, dumping Gatorade on the field and screaming at any official he could get within earshot of???? I was at that game and watched Martz on the sideline intently. For too much of the game, he stood 20 yards from the bench in some type of solitary meditation, staring at his charts, oblivious to the flow of the game. Another reason I blame Martz for that loss.

            Maybe the Pats did cheat and get away with it, but who sat back and watched it happen?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

              Originally posted by r8rh8rmike
              If all this is true, why wasn't Mike Martz throwing his clipboard on the sidelines, jumping up and down, dumping Gatorade on the field and screaming at any official he could get within earshot of???? I was at that game and watched Martz on the sideline intently. For too much of the game, he stood 20 yards from the bench in some type of solitary meditation, staring at his charts, oblivious to the flow of the game. Another reason I blame Martz for that loss.

              Maybe the Pats did cheat and get away with it, but who sat back and watched it happen?
              Show me a coach who has thrown a fit on the sideline and significantly altered the way the entire officiating squad called a game. We're not talking about a handful of instances. This was a tactic used throughout the Pats entire defensive gameplan. No ammount of screaming was going to change the way the officials called that, IMO.

              Martz raised the point after the Super Bowl, but was perceived as whining. Now he's on the competition committee and he's helped bring about some focus on the subject. It seems to me he's done all he could within his power thus far.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

                First things first, here are the rules in question. They are more complex than one might think and there is room for interpretation.



                Digest of Rules



                Use of Hands, Arms, and Body



                1. No player on offense may assist a runner except by blocking for him. There shall be no interlocking interference.

                2. A runner may ward off opponents with his hands and arms but no other player on offense may use hands or arms to obstruct an opponent by grasping with hands, pushing, or encircling any part of his body during a block. Hands (open or closed) can be thrust forward to initially contact an opponent on or outside the opponent’s frame, but the blocker immediately must work to bring his hands on or inside the frame.

                Note: Pass blocking: Hand(s) thrust forward that slip outside the body of the defender will be legal if blocker immediately worked to bring them back inside. Hand(s) or arm(s) that encircle a defender—i.e., hook an opponent—are to be considered illegal and officials are to call a foul for holding.

                Blocker cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an opponent in a manner that restricts his movement as the play develops.

                3. Hands cannot be thrust forward above the frame to contact an opponent on the neck, face or head.

                Note: The frame is defined as the part of the opponent’s body below the neck that is presented to the blocker.

                4. A defensive player may not tackle or hold an opponent other than a runner. Otherwise, he may use his hands, arms, or body only:

                (a) To defend or protect himself against an obstructing opponent.

                Exception: An eligible receiver is considered to be an obstructing opponent ONLY to a point five yards beyond the line of scrimmage unless the player who receives the snap clearly demonstrates no further intention to pass the ball. Within this five-yard zone, a defensive player may chuck an eligible player in front of him. A defensive player is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard zone until a point when the receiver is even with the defender. The defensive player cannot use his hands or arms to push from behind, hang onto, or encircle an eligible receiver in a manner that restricts movement as the play develops. Beyond this five-yard limitation, a defender may use his hands or arms ONLY to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. In such reaction, the defender may not contact a receiver who attempts to take a path to evade him.

                (b) To push or pull opponent out of the way on line of scrimmage.

                (c) In actual attempt to get at or tackle runner.

                (d) To push or pull opponent out of the way in a legal attempt to recover a loose ball.

                (e) During a legal block on an opponent who is not an eligible pass receiver.

                (f) When legally blocking an eligible pass receiver above the waist.

                Exception: Eligible receivers lined up within two yards of the tackle, whether on or immediately behind the line, may be blocked below the waist at or behind the line of scrimmage. NO eligible receiver may be blocked below the waist after he goes beyond the line. (Illegal cut)

                Note: Once the quarterback hands off or pitches the ball to a back, or if the quarterback leaves the pocket area, the restrictions (illegal chuck, illegal cut) on the defensive team relative to the offensive receivers will end, provided the ball is not in the air. 5. A defensive player may not contact an opponent above the shoulders with the palm of his hand except to ward him off on the line. This exception is permitted only if it is not a repeated act against the same opponent during any one contact. In all other cases the palms may be used on head, neck, or face only to ward off or push an opponent in legal attempt to get at the ball.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

                  Digest of Rules



                  Pass Interference



                  1. There shall be no interference with a forward pass thrown from behind the line. The restriction for the passing team starts with the snap. The restriction on the defensive team starts when the ball leaves the passer’s hand. Both restrictions end when the ball is touched by anyone.

                  2. The penalty for defensive pass interference is an automatic first down at the spot of the foul. If interference is in the end zone, it is first down for the offense on the defense’s 1-yard line. If previous spot was inside the defense’s 1-yard line, penalty is half the distance to the goal line.

                  3. The penalty for offensive pass interference is 10 yards from the previous spot.

                  4. It is pass interference by either team when any player movement beyond the line of scrimmage significantly hinders the progress of an eligible player of such player’s opportunity to catch the ball. Offensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is snapped until the ball is touched. Defensive pass interference rules apply from the time the ball is thrown until the ball is touched.

                  Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

                  (a) Contact by a defender who is not playing the ball and such contact restricts the receiver’s opportunity to make the catch.

                  (b) Playing through the back of a receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

                  (c) Grabbing a receiver’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass.

                  (d) Extending an arm across the body of a receiver thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, regardless of whether the defender is playing the ball.

                  (e) Cutting off the path of a receiver by making contact with him without playing the ball.

                  (f) Hooking a receiver in an attempt to get to the ball in such a manner that it causes the receiver’s body to turn prior to the ball arriving.

                  Actions that do not constitute pass interference include but are not limited to:

                  (a) Incidental contact by a defender’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball, or neither player is looking for the ball. If there is any question whether contact is incidental, the ruling shall be no interference.

                  (b) Inadvertent tangling of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

                  (c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the pass is clearly uncatchable by the involved players.

                  (d) Laying a hand on a receiver that does not restrict the receiver in an attempt to make a play on the ball.

                  (e) Contact by a defender who has gained position on a receiver in an attempt to catch the ball.

                  Actions that constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

                  (a) Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to the ball being touched.

                  (b) Initiating contact with a defender by shoving or pushing off thus creating a separation in an attempt to catch a pass.

                  (c) Driving through a defender who has established a position on the field.

                  Actions that do not constitute offensive pass interference include but are not limited to:

                  (a) Incidental contact by a receiver’s hands, arms, or body when both players are competing for the ball or neither player is looking for the ball.

                  (b) Inadvertent touching of feet when both players are playing the ball or neither player is playing the ball.

                  (c) Contact that would normally be considered pass interference, but the ball is clearly uncatchable by involved players.

                  Note 1: If there is any question whether player contact is incidental, the ruling should be no interference.

                  Note 2: Defensive players have as much right to the path of the ball as eligible offensive players.

                  Note 3: Pass interference for both teams ends when the pass is touched.

                  Note 4: There can be no pass interference at or behind the line of scrimmage, but defensive actions such as tackling a receiver can still result in a 5-yard penalty for defensive holding, if accepted. Note 5: Whenever a team presents an apparent punting formation, defensive pass interference is not to be called for action on the end man on the line of scrimmage, or an eligible receiver behind the line of scrimmage who is aligned or in motion more than one yard outside the end man on the line. Defensive holding, such as tackling a receiver, still can be called and result in a 5-yard penalty and automatic first down from the previous spot, if accepted. Offensive pass interference rules still apply.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

                    Originally posted by general counsel
                    Why did Martz call a downfield pass play at the end of the greenbay game with us up by three td's so captain kurt could get drilled in the ribs, putting him at less than 100%. Why did rod jones start in place of tucker and then miss the key block that led to the interception td. Wilkins missed a makeable 50 yarder and their guy made one. We didnt cause a single turnover. We couldnt stop them on defense at the end of the game despite having all the momentum and a huge advantage if we got the ball back to start overtime. Why didnt we run the ball more with faulk.
                    Good points, but regardless of all of that, had the officials actually called the penalties being committed, all of that could have been changed. I think out of everything you listed, turnovers was the biggest thing in terms of what we should have done and executed poorly.

                    You can look at it from this perspective and say, "Why didn't the Rams adapt to what was going on?" and downplay the role of the officiating. But then again, I would counter by asking, "Why should they have to?" The job of officials is to call a game according to the rules. If the Patriots aren't obeying the rules, it shouldn't be up to the Rams to make the adjustment -- it should be the officials' job.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

                      Ferter, did you have to look those rules up or did you actually have them memorized?



                      general counsel

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

                        We don't throw an INT for a TD, we don't fumble near the goal line, we don't miss a FG, or we at least stop the Pats on the last drive to force a deep FG we win.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

                          ferter...

                          reguardless of what the rule is; doesn't mean any of it was called. Bottom line---Pats played dirty ball and won the game.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

                            If the Pats didn't play dirty we win the game. If, if, if.

                            We were the better team. No one could have prepared or adjusted to the way the rules of the game changed for that game.



                            Originally posted by txramsfan
                            We don't throw an INT for a TD, we don't fumble near the goal line, we don't miss a FG, or we at least stop the Pats on the last drive to force a deep FG we win.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Did the Pats cheat to win Super Bowl 36

                              Nick, i hear you loud and clear and agree, and thats why i tried to point out in my post that it was the failure of the officials to makes the correct calls, rather than the clutching and grabbing per se, that changed the game.

                              I was at the game and have never watched the replay. Live, you get a very different perspective. Intellectually, it would be nice to watch the tape at least once and see how bad the rule breaking actually was, but i just cant bring myself to do it. The pain of reliving that experience is bad enough in my dreams at night, let alone actually watching the tape.

                              general counsel

                              Comment

                              Related Topics

                              Collapse

                              • GreatestShow99
                                Jim Thomas: Super Bowl loss still stings
                                by GreatestShow99
                                Feb. 3, 2002--New England Patriots kicker Adam Vinatieri kicks a 48-yard field goal as time runs out to give the Patriots a 20-17 win over the St. Louis Rams in Super Bowl XXXVI at the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans. (Chris Lee/P-D)

                                To this day, defensive end Leonard Little has never watched the entire game.

                                "Never will," Little said. "Because I felt that the best team didn't win that day. We didn't win; they won the game. It goes to show that anything can happen on any given day."

                                What happened on that day, Feb. 3, 2002, was one of the greatest upsets in Super Bowl history. The heavily favored Rams, at the apex of their brief but brilliant run as the Greatest Show on Turf, were toppled by the upstart New England Patriots 20-17 in Super Bowl XXXVI.

                                Now, as the Rams wind down preparations for Sunday's game at New England — their first trip to Foxborough since that 2001 season — Little is one of only four players left from that squad.

                                Although he wasn't a starter that season, Little had a breakout year with 14½ sacks, a total that remains his career high. He had another sack in that Super Bowl. Orlando Pace started at left tackle and Torry Holt started at wide receiver in the game, played at the Superdome in New Orleans. The team's obscure No. 3 quarterback that day was a fellow named Marc Bulger.

                                Seven years later, it's still hard for those Super Bowl vets to get away from the game.

                                "Funny, Leonard was just talking about it today during stretch," Pace said Thursday.

                                "I think about it occasionally, when I'm just sitting around or going through some old tapes or something," Holt said. "I just think about how it would've been for the players and the organization if we would have won that Super Bowl.

                                "I think about the one we won — that's always great."

                                Holt, Little and Pace were members of the Super Bowl XXXIV squad two years earlier that defeated Tennessee for the Lombardi Trophy. (Bulger was still in college for that one, at West Virginia.)

                                "But that one you lost is just always there," Holt continued. "You can't get rid of it. I think about it quite a bit."

                                That Patriots game changed careers, reputations and maybe even dynasties.

                                "For us to win two out of three Super Bowls, I guess we could've started our dynasty," Little said. "But it didn't happen."

                                "Who knows?" Bulger said. "If we get that second one, I may not be playing right now. There might have been three or four (titles), because when you lose a Super Bowl for whatever reason, it's another issue. Kind of the next year, it demoralizes you a little bit."

                                It demoralized coach Mike Martz and the Rams' front office. The team stumbled through a 7-9 season in...
                                -10-23-2008, 11:21 PM
                              • AvengerRam_old
                                I will never complain about the officiating in Super Bowl 36 again
                                by AvengerRam_old
                                I firmly believe that the officiating in Super Bowl 36 was horrible. I believe that the refs adopted a "let them play" attitude that played right into the hands of the Patriots strategy of ignoring rules relating to the right of receivers to run without being hit after five yards, as well as other rules.

                                Nonetheless, the past two days has really hammered home the point of how bad fans look when they complain about the officiating.

                                Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, when you complain about the officiating, you are engaging in a pointless exercise that only makes you look like an excuse-making, "sour grapes," sore loser.

                                I don't believe that NFL refs ever deliberately favor one team over another, so, when the officiating goes against your team, it really is more about bad luck than it is about any "conspiracy." When that "bad luck" hits on Super Bowl Sunday, it is magnified significantly. But complaining about it does no good.

                                So, I'm going to pledge here and now to put the SB36 officiating issue to rest. I'll look back at that season simply as a great run by a great Ram team that ended in disappointment.

                                Hopefully, the Rams will return to the big game soon, and when Super Bowl Monday comes, the refs won't even be discussed.
                                -02-07-2006, 10:31 AM
                              • r8rh8rmike
                                Bernie: Faulk Still Reeling From 'Being Cheated'
                                by r8rh8rmike
                                Faulk still reeling from 'being cheated'

                                1 hour ago • BY BERNIE MIKLASZ, Post-Dispatch Sports Columnist

                                NEW ORLEANS — Hall of Fame running back Marshall Faulk admits it: he’s still not over the Rams “being cheated” in a bitter loss to the New England Patriots in Super Bowl 36.

                                The game was played here, in Faulk’s hometown. And Sunday’s Super Bowl between San Francisco and Baltimore will be the first played at the Superdome since the Patriots upset the “Greatest Show” Rams 20-17.

                                "Am I over the loss? Yeah, I'm over the loss,” Faulk told Tom Curran of CSNNE.com. “But I'll never be over being cheated out of the Super Bowl.”

                                In the interview with Curran, Faulk initially claimed that he had only pleasant memories of competing in the Super Bowl because he only dwells on the 1999 Rams’ victory over Tennessee in the 34th Super Bowl.

                                Curran, however, told Faulk that Patriots fans believe he’s still ticked off over losing to New England and as a result his disdain comes across in his Patriots-related commentary on the NFL Network.

                                “They misunderstand,” Faulk said. “Am I over the loss? Yeah, I'm over the loss. But I'll never be over being cheated out of the Super Bowl. That's a different story. I can understand losing a Super Bowl, that's fine . . . but how things happened and what took place.”

                                What took place: a former Patriots employee accused the Patriots of videotaping the Rams’ walkthrough at the Superdome on the day before Super Bowl 36. But after investigating, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell ruled there was no evidence of the Patriots’ taping the Rams.

                                To this day, some Rams players and coaches from the 2001 team believe they were wronged and that the NFL covered up the Patriots’ tactics to avoid additional embarrassment for the league.

                                "If you lost a game and your brother cheated you," Faulk told Curran, “you'll remember that.”

                                The walkthrough allegation was an extension of the “Spygate” scandal that got the Patriots and coach Bill Belichick in big trouble with the NFL. After handing down punishments that included $750,000 in fines and the loss of a first-round draft pick, in bringing the matter to a close, Goodell curiously ordered the destruction of all Spygate evidence.

                                “Obviously, the commissioner gets to handle things how he wants to handle them,” Faulk said, “but if they wanted us to shut up about what happened, show us the tapes. Don't burn 'em.”

                                Goodell later said he destroyed the tapes because what they showed was “totally consistent with what the team told me.” He added, “It is something done widely in many sports. I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games.”

                                That wasn’t good enough for Faulk, who had more to say. Let’s just say he’s suspicious. The alleged taping supposedly happened when...
                                -01-30-2013, 11:41 AM
                              • LaRamsFanLongTime
                                Number 8
                                by LaRamsFanLongTime
                                Im sorry but the story of Kurt Warner is way better then the story of Tom Brady. He got to start as a rookie and became the youngest (at the time) to ever win a super bowl at the qb position. That is pretty cool but KW came outta no where. He was a Arena guy that made his way back to an Nfl sideline no one gave him a chance to be anything. We went from worst team of the decade to Super Bpwl Champs. Brady was not exactly the underdog he was the youg stud QB of the future for the pats. Kurt was the "Man I hope Trent Green stays healthy" backup. The pats beat us by a field goal and they get a number 8 Americas Game. We get a seven point victory in probably the greatest last 3 minutes in the history of the Super Bowl and we get 20. I truly cannot stand the damn pats. I know many will say dude your just jealous and yes I am they stole the thunder and became Americas sweethearts. The 99 Rams on the other hand should go down as one of the Finest single season teams to ever play the game and yet people think more about the Rams loss to the Pats instead of the victory against the Titans.
                                -02-06-2007, 05:54 PM
                              • AvengerRam_old
                                Once and For All: The Difference Between the Rams' and Seahawks' Super Bowl Losses
                                by AvengerRam_old
                                A lot of Ram fans, myself included, have commented on the endless whining coming from the Northwest about the officiating in the Super Bowl.

                                Many Seahawk fans have responded by attempting to draw a parallel to Ram fans' reaction to the Super Bowl loss to New England.

                                Now, I will not deny that many Ram fans blame the refs for that loss, and some even saw it as some sort of Post 9/11 Pro-Patriotism conspiracy.

                                I am not among those extremists, but I did think there was a problem with the officiating in that game.

                                That said, there is a significant difference between the officiating issues in Super Bowls 36 and 40.

                                In SB36, the Patriots recognized that NFL officials had been adopting a "let them play" attitude in the playoffs for years. From this recognition came a deliberate strategy - hit the Ram receivers, hold if necessary, but don't let them run their routes. In other words, the Patriots deliberately broke the rules, and banked on the officials letting those infractions go unchecked. This strategy paid off for the most part (the refs finally calling a hold on Faulk in the Red Zone), and allowed the Patriots to win a narrow 3 point victory.

                                In SB40, the Steelers had no strategy of breaking the rules. Rather, they were the beneficiaries of a few close calls on key plays. Whether you agree that these calls were made correctly or not, to the extent that the Steelers gained from these calls, it was merely the luck of the draw. And, unlike SB36, the game margin was significant - 11 points.

                                So, there is a very important difference. Being mad about "luck of the draw" close calls by officials is like being mad at the weather or freak injuries. Like it or not, these things are part of the game, and you have to overcome them to win it all.

                                Being mad at a team that deliberately broke rules - and a league that (until two years later after the Patriots pulled the same crap on the Colts and the league started enforcing the rules again) allowed such infractions to continue with impunity - well, that's a different issue altogether.

                                So, Seahawk fans... no, you don't know our pain.
                                -04-02-2006, 08:19 PM
                              Working...
                              X