Shula at it again with the "Asterisk" Argument

[Deus Irae]

You previously wrote...
>>The tampering rule that is cited is broken by the team, not the coach. >>


So you're saying that Shula didn't do anything wrong?

I'm saying that's not how the rule works.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

I'm saying that's not how the rule works.

Okay, so why don't you spell out the exact wording of the rule and how you interpret it to work. To simply say " that's not how it works" without supporting your argument with facts, i.e. the rule itself or some precedent in which the rule was applied (e.g. Capers and the Panthers being stripping of draft picks for tampering) doesn't hold water. If anything, it comes off as condescending to others who may disagree with you.
I've read the rule and have my interpretation. I'd like to read yours.

 

[Deus Irae]

Okay, so why don't you spell out the exact wording of the rule and how you interpret it to work. To simply say " that's not how it works" without supporting your argument with facts, i.e. the rule itself or some precedent in which the rule was applied (e.g. Capers and the Panthers being stripping of draft picks for tampering) doesn't hold water. If anything, it comes off as condescending to others who may disagree with you.
I've read the rule and have my interpretation. I'd like to read yours.

Were the Patriots and Jets in separate leagues when Parcells was tampered with? How about when Kraft and company 'bent' the tampering rules to get Belichick? Was either coach fined? Teams get punished for tampering, not coaches. Furthermore, the Shula 'tampering' had a problem/controversy. The Dolphins began talking to Shula before the merger, when the two teams were in separate leagues: it was punishable only because it continued post merger. People are trying to act as if it is an apples to apples comparison when it's not.

Here's the reality that posts like yours are trying to avoid. Shula was not the only person calling for punishments above and beyond what Goodell passed down. He was not the only person calling for an asterisk, as the NY Post demonstrated quite well. Others called for a suspension. This thread has basically been a bunch of Patriots fans making personal attacks on the winningest coach in NFL history just because they don't agree with him.

I disagree with Shula, about the penalty and about the significance of the idiotic ruling by Goodell. I think the asterisk is a silly notion which would mean absolutely nothing to history anyway, as the Maris/Ruth asterisk proved. However, the question of guilt is not at issue, since New England didn't appeal that. The question inherent in Shula's position is the sufficiency of the punishment, and Shula is by no means the only person in the country saying that the Patriots got off easy, or that further consequences were warranted.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

............

Here's the reality that posts like yours are trying to avoid. .

Originally Posted by Deus Irae
I'm saying that's not how the rule works.
>>>>>Okay, so why don't you spell out the exact wording of the rule and how you interpret it to work. To simply say " that's not how it works" without supporting your argument with facts, i.e. the rule itself or some precedent in which the rule was applied (e.g. Capers and the Panthers being stripping of draft picks for tampering) doesn't hold water....<<<<


You are the one who is avoiding answering the question. You stated" that's not how the rule works" and I asked you to cite the rule. If you can't. that's okay but you go off on a tangent (Parcells/Belichick) to avoid answering it.
That's the second question that you avoided answering, the first being whether you thought Shula was an innocent party when he made contact with the Dolphins while under contract with the Colts.
Both are simple straightforward questions. If you choose not to respond directly, it makes it difficult, if not impossible to understand whatever point that you're trying to make.

 

[pats1yes]

Well, getting back to the original post it is actually sad. Seriously, I actually feel sad for him.

He had a great career as a coach, his team was pretty darn good, he has a successful life in the restaurant business, and he still needs to express his distain for our Patriots.

It is OK, times move forward.

It is really quite sad.

 

[Deus Irae]

Originally Posted by Deus Irae
I'm saying that's not how the rule works.
>>>>>Okay, so why don't you spell out the exact wording of the rule and how you interpret it to work. To simply say " that's not how it works" without supporting your argument with facts, i.e. the rule itself or some precedent in which the rule was applied (e.g. Capers and the Panthers being stripping of draft picks for tampering) doesn't hold water....<<<<


You are the one who is avoiding answering the question. You stated" that's not how the rule works" and I asked you to cite the rule. If you can't. that's okay but you go off on a tangent (Parcells/Belichick) to avoid answering it.
That's the second question that you avoided answering, the first being whether you thought Shula was an innocent party when he made contact with the Dolphins while under contract with the Colts.
Both are simple straightforward questions. If you choose not to respond directly, it makes it difficult, if not impossible to understand whatever point that you're trying to make.

1.) Pointing out how the rule works is NOT tangental to showing how the rule works.

2.) The rule is 'tangental' to the conversation, since it has nothing to do with the 1972 Dolphins or the current Patriots squads.

3.) You are the one who is trying to make a point about it, not I.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, getting back to the original post it is actually sad. Seriously, I actually feel sad for him.

He had a great career as a coach, his team was pretty darn good, he has a successful life in the restaurant business, and he still needs to express his distain for our Patriots.

It is OK, times move forward.

It is really quite sad.

The article that is being quoted/cited was 'based' upon a radio interview Shula recently gave to 1060/1080 down here in Central Florida. During the interview, Shula was more than willing to acknowledge how good this Patriots team is. A writer with an agenda took items from the interview out of context in order to try to make his own point and stir the pot. People here fell for it because they've gotten so ridiculously sensitive.

 

[shmessy]

The article that is being quoted/cited was 'based' upon a radio interview Shula recently gave to 1060/1080 down here in Central Florida. During the interview, Shula was more than willing to acknowledge how good this Patriots team is. A writer with an agenda took items from the interview out of context in order to try to make his own point and stir the pot. People here fell for it because they've gotten so ridiculously sensitive.

______________________
I guess you got the same thing as putting an asterisk by Barry Bonds' home run record."

When asked about those remarks Thursday, Shula toned it down some, but he didn't exactly apologize.

"I didn't say anything that wasn't true back then, but I think I was the wrong guy to say it," Shula said. "When I said it, it was perceived as being self-serving. Maybe somebody else should have said it. Hey, I wasn't the one who fined Belichick $500,000 and took away a first-round draft pick. The NFL did that. Now ask yourself: Why did they do it?"
____________________

In black and white. his quote is his quote.

The writer makes no attribution to any radio station.

 

[Deus Irae]

______________________
I guess you got the same thing as putting an asterisk by Barry Bonds' home run record."

When asked about those remarks Thursday, Shula toned it down some, but he didn't exactly apologize.

"I didn't say anything that wasn't true back then, but I think I was the wrong guy to say it," Shula said. "When I said it, it was perceived as being self-serving. Maybe somebody else should have said it. Hey, I wasn't the one who fined Belichick $500,000 and took away a first-round draft pick. The NFL did that. Now ask yourself: Why did they do it?"
____________________

In black and white. his quote is his quote.

The writer makes no attribution to any radio station.

Where do you think the "remarks thursday" came from? I had originally said that the interview took place on Wednesday, but I was mistaken in my memory. When that same radio show (The Brady Ackerman Show) came back on Friday, he reminded everyone of the day the interview took place.

As for the asterisk for Bonds: it too would be meaningless. He'd still be the all-time MLB homerun champion. You either keep the team/player completely out of the rulebooks, or you're doing nothing but P.R. spin.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Can we all stop and ask ourselves why Deus is so feverently defending the sad sack of a former coach named Don Shula? What is at the root of his reason for so passionately defending a man who has consistently showed both poor taste and lack of dignity? That is the issue here...that is what we are discussing.

Ever since the media began to talk of an undefeated season for the Patriots, Don has acted with little or no grace. He has surely not acted as the hall of famer that he is (*see Michael Irvin's "Wow, that's what a hall of famer is...").

Although it is understandable anyone would want their record to last, Shula's behavior & commentary have been inexcuseable...period! Think of all the records the Patriots have broken in 2007. Can anyone name one person who's record was broken who acted in the manner we have witnessed Donny act since the Pats threatened his manhood?

Has anyone watched any of these record holders sit in the Monday Night booth and openly root for the Patriots NOT to break their record? There's only one I can think of and yup, that's our Donny Shula. He has embaressed himself continuously for months on end. He has acted indignant, envious, angry and worst of all, ungrateful in front of the entire nation. It is as if he doesn't care what people think of him or how we will think of him from this day forward.

Yes, as many here have stated, Don Shula's behavior has been embaressing & sad to watch.

So Deus, why is it you've been defending a man who has no defense? Is it because you feel sorry for the man? Can't you see that he is obviously feeling sorry for himself?

 

[PatriotsReign]

Ten characters