Jerry Rice Just Admited He Used Stickum

Bald Bull · Post #1 » by **Bald Bull** » Fri Feb 6, 2015 9:53 pm

http://www.csnbayarea.com/49ers/ex-49er ... kum-gloves

Does it tarnish him for anyone? He is still GOAT for me, but I'm going to dread dealing with fans of other teams who never let it go.

NinerSickness · Post #2 » by **NinerSickness** » Sat Feb 7, 2015 1:50 am

Bald Bull wrote:Does it tarnish him for anyone?

Of course it does. That's the definition of cheating. Looks like he can join *Brady in the group of HOFers with an asterisk by his name.

tallglassowater · Post #3 » by **tallglassowater** » Sat Feb 7, 2015 2:25 am

Nah. Not a big deal to me. I think by stickum he meant the tacky spray used for taping anyway. Not the same.

NinerSickness · Post #4 » by **NinerSickness** » Sat Feb 7, 2015 3:02 am

tallglassowater wrote:Nah. Not a big deal to me. I think by stickum he meant the tacky spray used for taping anyway. Not the same.

Was tacky spray legal to put on gloves?

clyde21 · Post #5 » by **clyde21** » Sat Feb 7, 2015 6:24 am

It's funny because in the same interview he said that Brady was cheating because he was using deflated balls, then he called stickum "kinda cheating."

He's never been known to be the brightest bulb in the box. :roll:

NinerSickness · Post #6 » by **NinerSickness** » Sat Feb 7, 2015 6:48 am

I'm confused. Some people said what he did was against the rules; some people said it wasn't:

Page 34 of the NFL Rule Book reads that prohibited substances include: "Adhesive, Slippery Substances -- (i) Adhesive or slippery substances on the body, equipment, or uniform of any player; provided, however, that players may wear gloves with a tackified surface if such tacky substance does not adhere to the football or otherwise cause handling problems for players."

So was it illegal or not?

By the way, would someone sticky this thread?

shouldakepowens · Post #7 » by **shouldakepowens** » Sat Feb 7, 2015 7:33 am

Come on Jerry just shut up and go enjoy retirement!

Bald Bull · Post #8 » by **Bald Bull** » Sat Feb 7, 2015 3:14 pm

The fact that he admitted it this season while our organization is looking questionable isn't helping lol. I know he has no connection tot his front office, but it still feels like a **** storm.

tallglassowater · Post #9 » by **tallglassowater** » Sun Feb 8, 2015 5:01 am

NinerSickness wrote:
tallglassowater wrote:Nah. Not a big deal to me. I think by stickum he meant the tacky spray used for taping anyway. Not the same.

Was tacky spray legal to put on gloves?

Doubtful. But it isn't stickum. I was just clarifying that. Olineman use that **** all the time. Pretend to tape an ankle but spray it on your hands to help out. Not a big deal in my book.

Filming other teams and using sound is pretty bad. If it wasn't for that nobody would give a second thought to the deflated balls.

Post #10 » by **MHSL82** » Sun Feb 8, 2015 5:41 pm

tallglassowater wrote:
NinerSickness wrote:
tallglassowater wrote:Nah. Not a big deal to me. I think by stickum he meant the tacky spray used for taping anyway. Not the same.

Was tacky spray legal to put on gloves?

Doubtful. But it isn't stickum. I was just clarifying that. Olineman use that **** all the time. Pretend to tape an ankle but spray it on your hands to help out. Not a big deal in my book.

Filming other teams and using sound is pretty bad. If it wasn't for that nobody would give a second thought to the deflated balls.

I guess not a big deal, but I don't care how it's done. Pretending to tape an ankle and spraying it on your hands is just as bad as just grabbing it and spraying it on your hands. (Some would say worse because of deception, but the blunt way would still be avoiding being caught, I suppose if no one saw. Either way, the intent would be cheating, which is all equal to me.)

I know you weren't saying the method is the reason it's no big deal, just some people do create casualness to something to minimize what it actually is doing.

CrimsonCrew · Post #11 » by **CrimsonCrew** » Mon Feb 9, 2015 5:51 pm

In terms of an indictment of a legacy, I don't think deflated balls or stickum are a huge deal. The advantages they grant are relatively minimal, and if you aren't doing the other things right, it's not going to make a break a career. If the Pats cheated in deflate-gate - and it's looking like they may not have - it wouldn't mean that Brady isn't still a phenomenal QB. I think it would tarnish him a bit in conversation of greatest of all time, but it doesn't mean he's not a HOFer. The same goes for Rice. Rice is the undisputed GOAT in large part due to his longevity. It wasn't the seasonal numbers - which are certainly right in the discussion of GOAT but are not dispositive - but his ability to play at the very highest level for 18 years in a 20-year career. To me, something about steroid use (healing properties) for Rice would be much more of an indictment.

I'm not endorsing cheating here at all, and if this had come out during his career I think Rice should have been punished. I'm just saying if we're talking about his legacy, I don't think it's a huge deal, just as Brady and deflated balls wouldn't be a huge deal if it weren't during his career - and in the context of the Pats being caught previously.

NinerSickness · Post #12 » by **NinerSickness** » Mon Feb 9, 2015 5:58 pm

Rice didn't actually say he used stickum; he said he used "spray." If he used the spray they use for taping, then it was legal because that stuff doesn't get on the ball.

CrimsonCrew · Post #13 » by **CrimsonCrew** » Mon Feb 9, 2015 5:59 pm

And not surprisingly, PFT are being total dicks about DeflateGate, playing both sides with abandon. They jump on the Pats as zealously as anyone, don't care about getting the story right, etc. Then, when others criticize the Pats, they jump on those guys. This was from the article with Haley criticizing Brady:

Granted, Haley wasn’t exactly a choirboy during his career, and the 49ers were long-standing circumventers of the salary cap.

But in Haley’s mind, PSI: New England is a scandal that will cloud Brady’s career.

Haley wasn't a choirboy off the field. That doesn't bear on his performance on it at all IMO. And the cap circumvention is such a red herring. Haley left the Niners in '91. The cap wasn't established until '94. Granted he returned for two seasons late in his career. I don't think his three combined sacks made the difference in his HOF candidacy - though to be fair, they did put him over 100.

NinerSickness · Post #14 » by **NinerSickness** » Mon Feb 9, 2015 6:58 pm

I was mistaken. Rice actually did say he used stickum:

"in an interview with ESPN that aired on Jan. 17, Rice admitted something amazing. He sprayed stickum on his gloves. "I know this might be a little illegal, guys, but you put a little spray, a little stickum on the them, to make sure that texture is a little sticky," Rice said."

He cheated. *Rice deserves an asterisk just like *Tom *Brady does. Sad time to be a 49er fan.

-AC- · Post #15 » by **-AC-** » Mon Feb 9, 2015 9:20 pm

I thought stick-um was goop in a tub and not a spray? Stick-um could be being used as a General term...

NinerSickness · Post #16 » by **NinerSickness** » Mon Feb 9, 2015 10:44 pm

-AC- wrote:I thought stick-um was goop in a tub and not a spray? Stick-um could be being used as a General term...

This is why someone needs to follow up with Jerry, so we understand what he meant. He said stickum, so until he says otherwise I'll assume he was cheating.

CrimsonCrew · Post #17 » by **CrimsonCrew** » Mon Feb 9, 2015 11:00 pm

Stickum comes in an aerosol according to Wikipedia. I think the language of the rule was general, anyway. I don't think it was like performance enhancers where they list specific drugs or ingredients. I think it's basically, "applying a sticky substance to the hands or ball."

NinerSickness · Post #18 » by **NinerSickness** » Mon Feb 9, 2015 11:17 pm

CrimsonCrew wrote:Stickum comes in an aerosol according to Wikipedia. I think the language of the rule was general, anyway. I don't think it was like performance enhancers where they list specific drugs or ingredients. I think it's basically, "applying a sticky substance to the hands or ball."

Yes, but the rule did say you can't put anything on your hands that adheres to the ball.

Does stickum adhere to the ball?

-AC- · Post #19 » by **-AC-** » Mon Feb 9, 2015 11:26 pm

Meh, whatever... Players before 81' could use anything they pretty much wanted to and with the evolution of tacky gloves players in the 90's and after were taken care of... So I'm not sure its really fair to chastise those in that 10 year window for looking at ways to do the same thing players both before and after had the advantages that they did catching the ball...

NinerSickness · Post #20 » by **NinerSickness** » Tue Feb 10, 2015 4:46 am

-AC- wrote:Meh, whatever... Players before 81' could use anything they pretty much wanted to and with the evolution of tacky gloves players in the 90's and after were taken care of... So I'm not sure its really fair to chastise those in that 10 year window for looking at ways to do the same thing players both before and after had the advantages that they did catching the ball...

But the question isn't whether things are easier for receivers now VS Rice's day; everyone knows that QBs & receivers have it far easier now. The question is did he give himself an illegal advantage over other receivers who obeyed the rules. If he did, then he deserves and asterisk just like *Brady does.