Suggestions of NY Giants cheating : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

A sports reporter for the Toronto Globe and Mail has stated there are serious suggestions going around the NFL that the NY Giants have been cheating during the playoffs. I have no idea how credible this reporter or the "Toronto Globe and Mail" are, but I really hope this rumor is not true...

There are serious suggestions in the National Football League that the New York Giants have been cheating in the playoffs by intercepting radio transmissions.

The matter was first brought to the attention of NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue after the Giants defeated the Philadelphia Eagles in their playoff game two weekends ago.

The Eagles said they have reason to believe the Giants were able to listen to the plays being sent via radio from coaches to their quarterback, Donovan McNab. All NFL quarterbacks have helmets equipped with special radios. Once the Giants heard the plays, the Eagles are claiming, they were able to set up their defence accordingly with hand signals.

Yesterday, similar fears were being expressed by the Minnesota Vikings, who were crushed 41-0 by the Giants in the National Football Conference final on Sunday.

The NFL is desperately is trying to keep the issue quiet, what with the Giants having qualified for the Super Bowl. But, rest assured, you'll hear more about this sinister stuff in the next few weeks.

When teams first began using radios to call in plays to their quarterback I remember wondering how they could do so without their opponents listening in. (Are the frequencies scrambled? Are the frequencies somehow restricted?) Considering how much money is riding on these games, particularly the playoffs, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that someone came up with a way to beat the system and use it to cheat. True or not, I can definitely see why the NFL would want to keep a lid on this.

-- CD (, January 16, 2001


I predict we will NOT hear more about this. The Giants do not have to cheat to win. Their defensive coach is a GENIUS and is sure to be a head coach somewhere real soon. The Giants play the eagles twice every year, and have now beaten them 9 consecutive times. How many new wrinkles could they have in their game plan? This is really silly. McNabb could do nothing the first two times this year, and could do nothing this last time. Do you really think a team this good has to cheat?

And CD, I know you are feeling bad-we have talked about this off board. We scored 41 points-it would have been hard to beat us in any manner last sunday. These Giant coaches spend more hours on game film than anybody in the league-I have said it a few times- Fox is brilliant-you will not find a coach who dedicates more time to scouting out another team.

Correct me if I am wrong. A league that has been around as long as the NFL is not going to stoop to hiding something like this. It is absurd.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), January 16, 2001.

41 to zip! Couldn't have cheated that much!

-- (viking@sore.loser), January 17, 2001.


Do I believe this rumor is true? ...No. I'd need a whole lot more evidence than the words of just one unknown sports reporter.

Do I believe the Giants "needed" something like this to have defeated the Eagles or Vikings in such a convincing manner? ...Absolutely not. (Even if the radio calls *were* being intercepted, this couldn't account for the Vikings pathetic defence giving up 41 points.)

Do I believe, as you suggested, "a league that has been around as long as the NFL is not going to stoop to hiding something like this? " ...Hmm, now that's a very good question! Let's think about that for a moment.

Let's assume your are Paul Tagliabue and information lands on your desk which proves conclusively that the Giants did indeed intercept radio calls during their last two playoff games. You would then have to make a decision. Do you make this information public and expose the league to the biggest sports scandal since the infamous 1919 Black Sox world series "fix"? Do you risk losing the confidence (and loyalty) of million$ of fan$ who will forever more have doubts about the legitimacy of every future game that is played? Not only would billions of dollars be at risk, but the very future of the league could well be at stake. Or, do you instead bury the evidence and say nothing in hopes that these allegations can never be proven? Say nothing and hope that those die hard NFL fans like you and me look at reports such as this one and think them absurd. If you were in the commissioner's position, FS, what action would you take if you knew for a fact that the Giants had indeed cheated?

-- CD (, January 17, 2001.


Not sure what you mean by this, FS...

And CD, I know you are feeling bad-we have talked about this off board.

Are you suggesting I posted this article out of some sort of anger or resentment? If so, rest assured, that was not the case.

-- CD (, January 17, 2001.

You're a sore loser CD, get over it.

-- (, January 17, 2001.

If a head coach suspected the opposition of intercepting his team's radio signals, this could be easily discouraged by occasionally throwing in deliberately misleading play calls. Then again, it might pay for the offense not to discourage eavesdropping.

-- David L (, January 17, 2001.

Seems to me using radio to call in plays is cheating. If a team thinks its opponent is intercepting radio signals, there are other methods of calling plays. Shuttling players is one way, made a fine art by Tom Landry. And God forbid a quarterback has to call his own plays!

Black Sox scandal equivalent? Hardly, CD. That was the throwing of an entire World Series by players paid off by big-time gambling interests, as you are well aware I'm sure. This is cheating to WIN. Players cheat to win on every play in many sports. That's why the calling of penalties/fouls was instituted.

-- Rich (, January 17, 2001.

A NY defensive player (forgot who it was, a lineman I think) was quoted yesterday as saying that Culpepper would give away the snap count with some very subtle "tick", which allowed the Giants to get off the snap even quicker than Viking OL's, who had to listen for the snap. So they would watch very carefully for this "tick", and jump. Culpepper reportedly wasn't even aware he did it, but the Giants noticed it on film. They wouldn't say what it is, because they play us again next year!

This would be enough to greatly, greatly disrupt the Vikes offense, because Culpepper being able to connect to Moss/carter depends on a 3, 4, or 5 step drop, and he was always getting pressure and often had to do a 1, 2 step drop and then move laterally, breaking up the flow of the play.

This also reportedly happened with Jeff George last year, who would open his hands a little right before the actual snap, and the defenders just watched his hands once they knew this.

As far as our defense giving up 41 points? Didn't really surprise me. But I expected that we could score 50. I bet that if Culpepper didn't have that tick we would have made it a much better game. It was just very, very, VERY strange how this offense just collapsed, and here we have an explanation directly from a Giant that makes perfect sense. (Watching for a giveaway snap signal from the QB isn't cheating BTW, just smart football.)

As far as the radio stuff goes - doesn't sound too likely. But if it's true, yes it's cheating, and if it isn't as bad as the Black Socks scandal then it's the 2nd worst U.S. sports scandal ever. This was the NFC playoffs, and the NFC championship. Tagliabue would risk a lot personally by covering it up (jail, even? fraud charges?), and he would actually look pretty good himself by exposing it and cleaning house. But I don't think it's true.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 17, 2001.

Well, it was an interesting topic while it lasted...

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Minnesota Vikings officials said there was no truth to yesterday's reports of the New York Giants intercepting their radio transmissions to quarterback Daunte Culpepper, thus knowing which defense to use on each play. In fact, the exact words used were they 'laughed' at the reports. However, and misconstruing this may have led to the original report, several team sources said they were concerned that the Giants, as well as the Colts and Packers, had deciphered the Vikings defensive signals from the sideline and were better able to score points on them. Minnesota allowed an average of 35 points in those three games, while averaging 21.5 points allowed in their other 15 games. The New York Post went one further contacting the NFL, the Giants, Eagles and the Vikings Joe Banner, chief operating officer of the Eagles, had no comment. Bob Hagan, Vikings director of public relations, said NFL officials informed him no teams have contacted the league and so no investigation is being conducted. Greg Aiello, the NFL's vice president of communications, said yesterday, 'Nobody has contacted this office. Nobody has made any accusations. There's nothing to it.' Pat Hanlon, the Giants vice president of communications, said 'There's nothing to it. It's bull.'

Bemused- The article also mentions what you had pointed out regarding Culpepper telegraphing the snap...

The rumors of Giants signal stealing yesterday were initially given credence by many in the press simply because the Giants defense had done such an unbelievably good job against the high-powered Vikings offense. Extra help didn't seem out of the realm of possibility. Well, a far more believable rumor has now taken its place. Apparently, Daunte Culpepper opens his hands shortly before the ball is snapped, aiding the Giants defenders on getting off the ball quickly, sometimes even before the offensive line could...

-- CD (, January 17, 2001.

OT, but something I've always wondered. TV coverage of baseball uses a centerfield camera that shows catcher's signals to the pitcher. Doesn't the team at bat pick-up on this?

-- Lars (, January 17, 2001.

Good question, Lars!

On that note, Randy Moss said a couple years ago that he was looking up at the Jumbotron in the metrodome while running his fly routes to see when Randall Cunningham was throwing, so he could time his turn and leap to better take advantage on the dback. They watch that thing all the time after they're involved in a big play, BTW - they like to see themselves on TV.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), January 17, 2001.

Funny but quite believable. Too bad Randy forgot his glasses Sunday.

-- Lars (, January 18, 2001.

CD, just so you know, the Globe and Mail is the Canadian equivalent of the NY Times (i.e. the newspaper of record). It is widely read across the country.

The reporter,Marty York, has a habit of writing stuff that is off-the- wall. Quite a lot of it ends up being empty rumours, but occasionally he'll break a good story (doesn't look like it in this case, though).



-- Johnny Canuck (, January 18, 2001.

Thanks, JC. I was curious about that.

-- cd (, January 18, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ