syhuang

I said "Belicheat was aware of video-taping", not limited to Jets game. Belicheat stated many times that he "misinterpreted" the rules, which indicates he was aware of video-taping. You kept mentioning watching the tape part because one of the reasons that NFL didn't fine Broncos more seriously is that McDaniels and his coach staff didn't watch the tape Scarnecchia made, for example, your post here, Now, you finally admit it's a moot point.

Which one? Belicheat was aware of video-taping? or NFL had six other tapes and notes?

I doubt you actually read the link of official NFL statement. Again, in the statement, NFL say "we have found no evidence to suggest that Coach McDaniels or any other member of the coaching staff watched the tape. Nor have we identified any evidence to suggest that any member of the coaching staff or club management directed Mr. Scarnecchia to record the practice". As for what you said about how easy it is for a NFL coach to "instruct" video-taping, just remember the key word, "evidence". Anything else is just speculation. On the other hand, when Goodell handed cheatriots the penalty, in addition to Jet's game, NFL also had six other tapes and notes from cheatriots. Belicheat also admitted he was aware of video-taping. It's correct that Belicheat or any of cheatriots' coach staff didn't have a chance to watch the video from Jet's game, but NFL also had evidence (6 other tapes and notes) that Belicheat or his coach staff members watched other tapes and instructed the video-taping.

You need to read the official NFL statement of this incident first before you compare this one to spy gate. --------- "Based on our investigation, we have found no evidence to suggest that Coach McDaniels or any other member of the coaching staff watched the tape. Nor have we identified any evidence to suggest that any member of the coaching staff or club management directed Mr. Scarnecchia to record the practice. We are aware of no evidence that would indicate the recording of any other opposing team practices or walk-thrus, or the like. And there is no reason to believe that the improper videotaping in London had any competitive effect on the October 31 game between the Broncos and 49ers.

You miss the point. The current evidence points to a single incident done by Broncos' video director, Steve Scarnecchia, ALONE, while it's not the case in spy gate.

Because the current evidence points to a single incident done by Broncos' video director, Steve Scarnecchia, alone. Scarnecchia recorded 49ers' walk-through and when he presented the video to McDaniels, McDenial refused to watch it. Later Broncos reported this incident to NFL themselves. McDaniels was fined for not reporting the incident to NFL immediately, not his involvement of video taping.

While I don't mind Bills draft either Mallett or Luck, I think college records and stats are not a good pointer to project player's NFL success. For example, another SEC QB lead his school to 9-3, 11-2, and 11-2 records recently. In his freshman season, he completed 50.7% with 9 TD and 4 INT. In sophomore year, his completion percentage was 60.5% with 15/9 TD/INT. In his junior season, the completion percentage was further improved to 67.8% and the TD/INT ratio was also improved to an impressive 28/8. He lead his school to a BCS bowl win this year and won the Sugar bowl MVP this year. Who is this quarterback? His name is JaMarcus Russell. And yeah, we all know Russell is a winner in NFL. Yes, the school is different and the player is different. But my point is, college stats are pretty useless when projecting NFL performance.

I really like here, it's funny he stares at the tackler and then continues to run.

news report Do not check the forum as often, sorry if this is posted already.

My take is that the noise and other stuff are caused by the "thing" which makes the plane disappeared.

I am watching this game too. That 52 yard TD run by Luck few minutes ago was simply incredible.

I saw "someone else' playing in Stanford's jersey last week.

I guess it's time to congratulate Kafka for his stellar NFL career!!!

Except he says he chooses Heat because he needs champion rings to be remembered as the great one. He even refers himself in the 3rd person like he is so great already. It's not a bad thing, it's just ironic that he wants to be THE KING but doesn't realize he will be remembered as Wade's Queen.

So much talk about James to be the greatest one, he is now no more than a Pippen or Gasol. It's a big achievement to be like Pippen or Gasol for most players, but for James' talent, it's an underachievement. Heat is always Wade's team and Wade already won a champion without James, how many champions does James win without Wade? No matter how many champions Heat wins the next few season, it's Wade's legacy and James will be remembered as Wade's sidekick. And Bosh will probably be remembered as another Robert Horry.

I understand this part. However, it doesn't explain why every league has to have same instant replay setup and not just top leagues. The promotion/demotion is done after the season. Thus, as long as a league has the same instant replay setup for all the games within the league during the season, it's fair for all teams in the same league imo.

I think we may have different views of what "judgment" call is. I agree every call is basically a referee making a 'judgment', either it's a foul or an out-of-bound call. But to me, "judgment call" is the calls made by referees where the rules allow them to have the flexibility to make decision, for example, a holding penalty in NFL, strike/ball in baseball, etc. However, the cases where there are clear definition, it doesn't fall into "judgment call" category. For example, an out-of-bound call, a buzzer shot, a 12-man penalty, etc. When a referee makes the call, yes, it's his judgment at the time. But since these have clear definition in the rule, they are reviewable. I mean, when a NFL referee makes the judgment and doesn't think a player is out-of-bound while the instant replay shows the player stands on the foul line, the call can be reversed. And to me, offside has a very clear definition in the rules.

Indeed, cost is a concern here. I remember I read an article mentions the FA head of Wales doesn't like instant replay because of cost. However, why can't instant replay be only used in top leagues and top tournaments if money is the concern? Just like high school and college baseball do not use instant replay like MLB. EDIT: in addition to merely watch the replays, I am pretty sure there are technology to help offside calls which camera angles aren't a big issue.

Offside is an interesting topic. Does it fall into judgment call category? I'm leaning toward that instant replay can use on offside some day, maybe only when it results in a goal. To me, offside is like an out-of-bound call, it's just an invisible line created by the last defender when the ball is kicked. There isn't much "judgment" involved imo.

To be fair, most of the instant replays used in other sports do not apply to judgment calls too. You can't challenge strike or ball by instance replay in baseball, you can't ask to review a holding penalty in NFL, referees can't review a double-dribble in NBA, and a high-stick penalty is not reviewable in hockey either. Instant replays are mainly used on non-judgment call situations where technology helps to verify if a flyball clears fence, if a puck clears goalline, if a player has both feet inbound, or if a buzzer beating shot is indeed on time. When MLB was debating to use instant replay, anit instant replay fans didn't like it because they thought it would taint baseball tradition and they were so afraid machines would call strike/ball that human factor would be lost in the game. This is just like what the soccer world is worrying right now and look what happened to MLB, instant replay doesn't use on judgment calls, just like other sports. As far as I know, people are asking for technology help on non-judgment calls in soccer like goalline technology, it's not like they want to apply instant replays to all kinds of foul calls on the field. I really can't understand why FIFA is so stubborn against instant replays on non-judgment calls.

After FIFA's review of Lampard goal, they conclude umpires didn't make any mistake, just like all other games: http://i.imgur.com/nrgC8.jpg </sarcasm off>

For NFL and NHL, I think it actually changes quite a bit. There are quite a few bad calls being corrected by video review. While many calls, especially judgment calls, are still bad, overall, video review improves the game imo. Honestly, I'd take the game being slowdown a bit than having the game decided by one bad call. To me, make it right is more important than ending the game on time. Of course, there are limitation on video review. For example, it shouldn't and can't be used on judgment calls like strike or ball in baseball, a foul or not in yesterday's game, and so on. However, it can help to make the call right in other areas like if a fly ball clears the fence, if a player is out-of-bound, if the ball/puck clears goalline, or if it's a hand ball in soccer games. Refs will always make mistake but video reviews can help to correct some of their mistakes and reduce the occasions when bad calls decide the game outcome.

On the other hand, Slovenia only needs a tie to ensure they advance. They may be very conservative in that game and play for a tie.

I think U.S. can still advance with a tie now if England and Slovenia also tie and U.S. maintain the GS advantage over England (currently +2). A win is definitely better so we don't need to worry about tie-breakers.

And this Slovenian defender claims it's U.S. players pushing and holding them........ link Slovenian defender Marko Suler was adamant the referee had made the correct decision to disallow Edu’s goal and accused the Americans of roughhouse tactics. “They were pushing and holding all the time,” Suler said. “You could see it was a foul and it was the correct decision. They did not deserve to win the game. It would not have been the correct result. We were the better team.”