Belichick, and the Patriots, are being punished, correctly in my opinion, for insubordination. Not cheating.

That’s why a suspension might make more sense than the loss of a draft pick, but I can see it either way.

Belichick, and the Patriots, are being punished, correctly in my opinion, for insubordination. Not cheating.

That’s why a suspension might make more sense than the loss of a draft pick, but I can see it either way.

Good points. My guess is that this will *not* be a consistent penalty for others. A couple of reasons for this: 1. that much money could give some coaches a real financial hardship and, 2. loss of a first round draft pick for some teams could take them out of contention for a very long time (think New Orleans getting Reggie Bush or Tennessee getting Vince Young). The draft penalty could disrupt a team’s shot at league parity for many years.

On the immediate and well-defined punishment . . . I agree in principle. I also agree with your thoughts on forfeiting the game if such a punishment is clearly documented and the infraction is proven. This case is an interesting one, though. As my friend Lorne Cooper says, stealing signals is not cheating. The crime here was disregarding the commissioner’s orders. A forfeit for this crime would seem extreme.

However, to your point, if it were documented that way and teams and coaches understood the consequences of such an action, the potential punishment would do its job at preventing such issues.

Absolute and well documented cause< ->effect.

Good points. My guess is that this will *not* be a consistent penalty for others. A couple of reasons for this: 1. that much money could give some coaches a real financial hardship and, 2. loss of a first round draft pick for some teams could take them out of contention for a very long time (think New Orleans getting Reggie Bush or Tennessee getting Vince Young). The draft penalty could disrupt a team’s shot at league parity for many years.

On the immediate and well-defined punishment . . . I agree in principle. I also agree with your thoughts on forfeiting the game if such a punishment is clearly documented and the infraction is proven. This case is an interesting one, though. As my friend Lorne Cooper says, stealing signals is not cheating. The crime here was disregarding the commissioner’s orders. A forfeit for this crime would seem extreme.

However, to your point, if it were documented that way and teams and coaches understood the consequences of such an action, the potential punishment would do its job at preventing such issues.

Absolute and well documented causeeffect.

Second, I guess it seems to me that the penalty for cheating in a game should simply be forfeiting the game. This is pretty severe punishment in football, but it very much fits the “crime,” and it’s immediate. Clearly they are not behaving like adults, where you can tell them explicitly what the rule is and expect them to follow it. Instead they need to be treated like pets: you would never say to your dog, “ok, you didn’t sit, so I’m not going to take you for that long walk tomorrow like we planned.” No, you withhold the treat – immediate connection.

Second, I guess it seems to me that the penalty for cheating in a game should simply be forfeiting the game. This is pretty severe punishment in football, but it very much fits the “crime,” and it’s immediate. Clearly they are not behaving like adults, where you can tell them explicitly what the rule is and expect them to follow it. Instead they need to be treated like pets: you would never say to your dog, “ok, you didn’t sit, so I’m not going to take you for that long walk tomorrow like we planned.” No, you withhold the treat – immediate connection.