However, there’s a distinction between ambiguity in the rules and doing mental gymnastics to argue a case for doing something that’s obviously wrong.
Most players tend to be American so I’ll use an American Football metaphor...
NE Patriots spygate was them in the wrong. They argued their case but it was futile.
Then DeflateGate. That was ambiguous. They could have cheated by lowering the pressure of the balls, but to what advantage as they were out of sight by half time. If they did concoct a plan, they’d have only deflated a certain percentage of the balls to give themselves plausible deniability.
They have extremely intelligent experienced people working in the background for analysis and opponents (as well as their own players) performances and favourite plays etc.
Therefore if they did it on purpose, it was a botched job. The ambiguity of it says they’re not guilty as they deserve the benefit of the doubt. But because of spygate giving them a reputation as they were not far apart timewise, public opinion was “Obvious cheating!”
It’s how we are programmed. We judge a situation against previous ones when every situation is unique.
That’s what reputation is. A good reputation can get you out of many a sticky situation. A bad reputation is like a ball and chain around your ankle weighing you down. But, as in the Patriots case, they got a bad reputation thru’ one dumb spygate situation, then every ambiguous call on the field was ‘Patriots cheating again’.
The ball and chain made them stronger as it gave them resilience as they knew they had to fight harder as they had a reputation that the refs (or umpires, whatever they’re called...hey, I’m a limey who likes real football, you know the one, we’re you use your foot! Lol) even had unconscious bias in in all probability.
Talking of credibility, why listen to me? I’m just some punk on the internet spouting his opinions, right?
Yes that’s true, however, I’m a psychologist, so understand how people respond to differant situations as I keep up to date with the research and have read most of the best credible books etc
Plus I’be done research and talked to hundreds if not into the thousands of people in a clinical set up designed specifically so they have no reason to lie as I can’t disclose any info about what that person said apart from a few specific scenarios.
For example they have just murdered someone, I know that person has been murdered as it’s in the news and I also know my client knows that person as I have talked to them for four hours a week for four years and my client has blood on them and tell me they did it.
Then I can call someone, usually a colleague or the Association to get a second opinion. Never jump to calling the police straight away unless they are holding you hostage with a weapon lol.
Hope someone gets my point...long winded as it is.
I’m new to this, it’s my 3rd post ffs lol.