What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

ESPN, NFLNETWORK FALSE REPORTS about the Pats cheating (1 Viewer)

GregR said:
Sweet J said:
Can someone please explain to me how videotaping a sideline coach is different that watching the coach from the stands and taking notes?
Click to expand...
You want explained how a picture is worth a thousand words?Or were you looking for more like this?

From here.

]“We used to film opposing players all the time,” he said. “The coaches would ask us to focus on someone in the pregame and then they’d monitor it in the coaches booth. It’s a common thing everyone does. I just can’t believe the Patriots were so brazen about it.”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
That's actually a good example. He says that he used to film opposing players "all the time." Is that against the rules? I don't think so. What about focusing on the opposing player wherever he goes? What about filming him, close up, as he motions to his other players on the field? It seems like anybody on the field is fair game to be filmed, right? Even in the huddle? As he wispers to his fellow defensive backs? Videotaping a guy motioning to other d-backs seems similar to videotaping a coach on the sidelines, but it isn't against the rules, is it (if it were, it would be a huge logistical problem to enforce).
 
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?
Click to expand...
Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.
Click to expand...
With regard to videotaping, which before being called videotaping was called filming, as it dated back to at least the 50's if not sooner than that. Film originated as probably as much as a reason to know what you were doing wrong as to know what your opponent was doing. Other sports GENERALLY haven't lent themselves to videotaping as much as the NFL, though its evermore becoming in vogue in other sports. Football, being a weekly affair, as always lent it self more to that. So apart from the tradition of film, the difference is, film analysis is done as means of evaluating and predicting tendencies. The Nickel back plays 8 yards off the weakside for a blitz, you pick that up, it's the kind of thing thats in the public domain. Its predictive but not guaranteed.

If you decipher signs through videotaped analysis, you cease to be predicting, you are knowing EXACTLY what is going to be called. There is a difference, and a pretty major one where I stand, but I guess we'll find out where the league stands.

I could study a teams offense for a season and write their playbook. I could also just break into their office or bribe their player and take it. By your logic, I've acquired the knowledge of their plays either way and there is no difference.

 
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?
Click to expand...
Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.
Click to expand...
With regard to videotaping, which before being called videotaping was called filming, as it dated back to at least the 50's if not sooner than that. Film originated as probably as much as a reason to know what you were doing wrong as to know what your opponent was doing. Other sports GENERALLY haven't lent themselves to videotaping as much as the NFL, though its evermore becoming in vogue in other sports. Football, being a weekly affair, as always lent it self more to that. So apart from the tradition of film, the difference is, film analysis is done as means of evaluating and predicting tendencies. The Nickel back plays 8 yards off the weakside for a blitz, you pick that up, it's the kind of thing thats in the public domain. Its predictive but not guaranteed.

If you decipher signs through videotaped analysis, you cease to be predicting, you are knowing EXACTLY what is going to be called. There is a difference, and a pretty major one where I stand, but I guess we'll find out where the league stands.

I could study a teams offense for a season and write their playbook. I could also just break into their office or bribe their player and take it. By your logic, I've acquired the knowledge of their plays either way and there is no difference.
Click to expand...
I guess this is where I'm stuck. The public nature of a coach giving his signals to the other team. He's doing it in front of 50,000 people, and yet the NFL gives him a weird zone of privacy saying "don't tape him!" . . . . So that is one difference between breaking in and stealing a playbook. Instead, I would liken it to someone leaving his playbook open on the bench, and some guy on the opposing team using a zoom lense and taking a snapshot of it.
 
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. - Patriots coach Bill Belichick apologized Wednesday for the commotion surrounding his team following accusations that his club spied on the Jets during New England's season-opening victory in New York.

Belichick said he spoke with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell this week about a "videotaping procedure" during last Sunday's game and "my interpretation of the rules."

"At this point, we have not been notified of the league's ruling," Belichick said in a statement. "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league's decision, I will have further comment."

 
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?
Click to expand...
Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.
Click to expand...
With regard to videotaping, which before being called videotaping was called filming, as it dated back to at least the 50's if not sooner than that. Film originated as probably as much as a reason to know what you were doing wrong as to know what your opponent was doing. Other sports GENERALLY haven't lent themselves to videotaping as much as the NFL, though its evermore becoming in vogue in other sports. Football, being a weekly affair, as always lent it self more to that. So apart from the tradition of film, the difference is, film analysis is done as means of evaluating and predicting tendencies. The Nickel back plays 8 yards off the weakside for a blitz, you pick that up, it's the kind of thing thats in the public domain. Its predictive but not guaranteed.

If you decipher signs through videotaped analysis, you cease to be predicting, you are knowing EXACTLY what is going to be called. There is a difference, and a pretty major one where I stand, but I guess we'll find out where the league stands.

I could study a teams offense for a season and write their playbook. I could also just break into their office or bribe their player and take it. By your logic, I've acquired the knowledge of their plays either way and there is no difference.
Click to expand...
I guess this is where I'm stuck. The public nature of a coach giving his signals to the other team. He's doing it in front of 50,000 people, and yet the NFL gives him a weird zone of privacy saying "don't tape him!" . . . . So that is one difference between breaking in and stealing a playbook. Instead, I would liken it to someone leaving his playbook open on the bench, and some guy on the opposing team using a zoom lense and taking a snapshot of it.
Click to expand...
There is a line the league has established, and its been crossed. Your issues seems to lie with where the line is. I think its as appropriate of one as any, because where do you draw it hereafter? High powered directional microphones that could capture coaches discussions? Bugging the sidelines, bugging the locker room? There is a line somewhere, we may not agree on where it is, but we can certainly agree that right now, its looking like it was crossed, I guess thats as simple as I can state it.My personal issue is twofold. Number one, the definant arrogance to do this WEEK ONE, when a memo had been circulated outling exactly this infraction, because of your prior actions. You may not deem it a big deal, and in the scheme of NFL violations, and I've been using the felony versus misdameanor versus a federal offense argument, I don't think this is nothing, but I also don't think it's a 4 alarm violation in and of itself as a league infraction. It would be much more serious if they are found guilty of whats apparently being investigated with regard to monkeying with radio signals. If there was any tampering on that end, where would you stand?

 
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?
Click to expand...
Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.
Click to expand...
With regard to videotaping, which before being called videotaping was called filming, as it dated back to at least the 50's if not sooner than that. Film originated as probably as much as a reason to know what you were doing wrong as to know what your opponent was doing. Other sports GENERALLY haven't lent themselves to videotaping as much as the NFL, though its evermore becoming in vogue in other sports. Football, being a weekly affair, as always lent it self more to that. So apart from the tradition of film, the difference is, film analysis is done as means of evaluating and predicting tendencies. The Nickel back plays 8 yards off the weakside for a blitz, you pick that up, it's the kind of thing thats in the public domain. Its predictive but not guaranteed.

If you decipher signs through videotaped analysis, you cease to be predicting, you are knowing EXACTLY what is going to be called. There is a difference, and a pretty major one where I stand, but I guess we'll find out where the league stands.

I could study a teams offense for a season and write their playbook. I could also just break into their office or bribe their player and take it. By your logic, I've acquired the knowledge of their plays either way and there is no difference.
Click to expand...
I guess this is where I'm stuck. The public nature of a coach giving his signals to the other team. He's doing it in front of 50,000 people, and yet the NFL gives him a weird zone of privacy saying "don't tape him!" . . . . So that is one difference between breaking in and stealing a playbook. Instead, I would liken it to someone leaving his playbook open on the bench, and some guy on the opposing team using a zoom lense and taking a snapshot of it.
Click to expand...
There is a line the league has established, and its been crossed. Your issues seems to lie with where the line is. I think its as appropriate of one as any, because where do you draw it hereafter? High powered directional microphones that could capture coaches discussions? Bugging the sidelines, bugging the locker room? There is a line somewhere, we may not agree on where it is, but we can certainly agree that right now, its looking like it was crossed, I guess thats as simple as I can state it.My personal issue is twofold. Number one, the definant arrogance to do this WEEK ONE, when a memo had been circulated outling exactly this infraction, because of your prior actions. You may not deem it a big deal, and in the scheme of NFL violations, and I've been using the felony versus misdameanor versus a federal offense argument, I don't think this is nothing, but I also don't think it's a 4 alarm violation in and of itself as a league infraction. It would be much more serious if they are found guilty of whats apparently being investigated with regard to monkeying with radio signals. If there was any tampering on that end, where would you stand?
Click to expand...
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?
Click to expand...
Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.
Click to expand...
With regard to videotaping, which before being called videotaping was called filming, as it dated back to at least the 50's if not sooner than that. Film originated as probably as much as a reason to know what you were doing wrong as to know what your opponent was doing. Other sports GENERALLY haven't lent themselves to videotaping as much as the NFL, though its evermore becoming in vogue in other sports. Football, being a weekly affair, as always lent it self more to that. So apart from the tradition of film, the difference is, film analysis is done as means of evaluating and predicting tendencies. The Nickel back plays 8 yards off the weakside for a blitz, you pick that up, it's the kind of thing thats in the public domain. Its predictive but not guaranteed.

If you decipher signs through videotaped analysis, you cease to be predicting, you are knowing EXACTLY what is going to be called. There is a difference, and a pretty major one where I stand, but I guess we'll find out where the league stands.

I could study a teams offense for a season and write their playbook. I could also just break into their office or bribe their player and take it. By your logic, I've acquired the knowledge of their plays either way and there is no difference.
Click to expand...
I guess this is where I'm stuck. The public nature of a coach giving his signals to the other team. He's doing it in front of 50,000 people, and yet the NFL gives him a weird zone of privacy saying "don't tape him!" . . . . So that is one difference between breaking in and stealing a playbook. Instead, I would liken it to someone leaving his playbook open on the bench, and some guy on the opposing team using a zoom lense and taking a snapshot of it.
Click to expand...
There is a line the league has established, and its been crossed. Your issues seems to lie with where the line is. I think its as appropriate of one as any, because where do you draw it hereafter? High powered directional microphones that could capture coaches discussions? Bugging the sidelines, bugging the locker room? There is a line somewhere, we may not agree on where it is, but we can certainly agree that right now, its looking like it was crossed, I guess thats as simple as I can state it.My personal issue is twofold. Number one, the definant arrogance to do this WEEK ONE, when a memo had been circulated outling exactly this infraction, because of your prior actions. You may not deem it a big deal, and in the scheme of NFL violations, and I've been using the felony versus misdameanor versus a federal offense argument, I don't think this is nothing, but I also don't think it's a 4 alarm violation in and of itself as a league infraction. It would be much more serious if they are found guilty of whats apparently being investigated with regard to monkeying with radio signals. If there was any tampering on that end, where would you stand?
Click to expand...
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.
Click to expand...
Or simply not wanting to see it. Denial is a river that runs deep.
 
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?
Click to expand...
Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.
Click to expand...
With regard to videotaping, which before being called videotaping was called filming, as it dated back to at least the 50's if not sooner than that. Film originated as probably as much as a reason to know what you were doing wrong as to know what your opponent was doing. Other sports GENERALLY haven't lent themselves to videotaping as much as the NFL, though its evermore becoming in vogue in other sports. Football, being a weekly affair, as always lent it self more to that. So apart from the tradition of film, the difference is, film analysis is done as means of evaluating and predicting tendencies. The Nickel back plays 8 yards off the weakside for a blitz, you pick that up, it's the kind of thing thats in the public domain. Its predictive but not guaranteed.

If you decipher signs through videotaped analysis, you cease to be predicting, you are knowing EXACTLY what is going to be called. There is a difference, and a pretty major one where I stand, but I guess we'll find out where the league stands.

I could study a teams offense for a season and write their playbook. I could also just break into their office or bribe their player and take it. By your logic, I've acquired the knowledge of their plays either way and there is no difference.
Click to expand...
I guess this is where I'm stuck. The public nature of a coach giving his signals to the other team. He's doing it in front of 50,000 people, and yet the NFL gives him a weird zone of privacy saying "don't tape him!" . . . . So that is one difference between breaking in and stealing a playbook. Instead, I would liken it to someone leaving his playbook open on the bench, and some guy on the opposing team using a zoom lense and taking a snapshot of it.
Click to expand...
There is a line the league has established, and its been crossed. Your issues seems to lie with where the line is. I think its as appropriate of one as any, because where do you draw it hereafter? High powered directional microphones that could capture coaches discussions? Bugging the sidelines, bugging the locker room? There is a line somewhere, we may not agree on where it is, but we can certainly agree that right now, its looking like it was crossed, I guess thats as simple as I can state it.My personal issue is twofold. Number one, the definant arrogance to do this WEEK ONE, when a memo had been circulated outling exactly this infraction, because of your prior actions. You may not deem it a big deal, and in the scheme of NFL violations, and I've been using the felony versus misdameanor versus a federal offense argument, I don't think this is nothing, but I also don't think it's a 4 alarm violation in and of itself as a league infraction. It would be much more serious if they are found guilty of whats apparently being investigated with regard to monkeying with radio signals. If there was any tampering on that end, where would you stand?
Click to expand...
Let me back up: If there was a clear rule given in the offseason (and I'd love to see the memo) stating, "under no circumstances may any team videotape any sideline coach, nor may the team use a videotape recorded by a third party," and Bellicheck did it anyway, I would be comfortable with Goodall throwing the book at him (if proven).There is a big interpretation/enforcement problem, however. If it is true that photographs are ok, but not film, then we have a problem (what is film but many still photos, right?). And what about high-speed cameras. Or hiring one hundred photographers and then combining them to make a video. And then what about game tapes that inadvertantly catch sideline coaches? What about blowing up game tapes and focusing on the sideline. What about hiring a guy with photographic memory? Problems problems. So that all goes into me thinking the rule is silly, because there are ways around it but still staying within the letter of the rule. And I know about staying in the "spirit" of the rule, but . . . are there any other rules that footbally players or coaches violate the "spirit" of the rule while staying within the "letter"? If so, why focus on this one? Problems problems.

I feel different about the radio signals, I think, because there is not as much room for interpretation, and also because it has a stinkier feel about it. Jamming a radio signal "feels" more like drugging a guy before a big fight.

 
Marc Levin said:
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.
Click to expand...
What about a difference between using a high-speed camera (which according to others in these threads as legal) and using film?
 
Sweet J said:
Marc Levin said:
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.
Click to expand...
What about a difference between using a high-speed camera (which according to others in these threads as legal) and using film?
Click to expand...
Why can't you just accept the fact that the Patriots cheated, got caught, and now should be punished?
 
Sweet J said:
Marc Levin said:
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.
Click to expand...
What about a difference between using a high-speed camera (which according to others in these threads as legal) and using film?
Click to expand...
Not legal.My understanding is that NO recording devices, including a camera, may be on the sideline.How that would prevcent you from buying a ticket for one of your guys to photograph from the stands is confusing.Sweet J, the rule, as I understand it from the newspapers and from every single commentator with the exception of none is that the team may have NO recording device on the sideline.Why is it difficult for you to accept that it is a rule violation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CrossEyed said:
Sweet J said:
Marc Levin said:
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.
Click to expand...
What about a difference between using a high-speed camera (which according to others in these threads as legal) and using film?
Click to expand...
Why can't you just accept the fact that the Patriots cheated, got caught, and now should be punished?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the rule that was allegedly broken, nor have I seen what, exactly, the pats did. Once I see those, I'd be perfectly willing to admit what happened. So far one guy posted a rule stating that videotaping must be done in a special videotaping booth.
 
Sweet J said:
CrossEyed said:
Sweet J said:
Marc Levin said:
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.

Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.
Click to expand...
What about a difference between using a high-speed camera (which according to others in these threads as legal) and using film?
Click to expand...
Why can't you just accept the fact that the Patriots cheated, got caught, and now should be punished?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the rule that was allegedly broken, nor have I seen what, exactly, the pats did. Once I see those, I'd be perfectly willing to admit what happened. So far one guy posted a rule stating that videotaping must be done in a special videotaping booth.
Click to expand...
Here's a quote from the rule and the memo...http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...s_in_focus.html

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
Click to expand...
 
Also, Sweet J, if the NFL said cameras are OK, but vidoecameras are not, so what? The pats got caught this year (and were accused last year, and have been shown to be using for years) video cameras.

Finally, whoever said cameras were OK is wrong - a player had a disposable camera he was using to take pics of the stadium for his kid seized at a game last year.

 
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
Sweet J said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
I think in all sports, there is a respect for the human computer of the mind to break down and evaluate signs being stolen.

But if you can't see the difference between video taping and doing it on sight, then I don't know what to tell you.

Given one real time glance versus being able to rewind, review and disect the sign and you can't see the difference?
Click to expand...
Is there a difference between watching the game from the sideline and being able to disect the game in videotape? Sure, but we allow it. I don't see the difference between allowing a coach to watch videotapes of the game, but not allowing a coach to watch a videotape of sideline coaches.
Click to expand...
With regard to videotaping, which before being called videotaping was called filming, as it dated back to at least the 50's if not sooner than that. Film originated as probably as much as a reason to know what you were doing wrong as to know what your opponent was doing. Other sports GENERALLY haven't lent themselves to videotaping as much as the NFL, though its evermore becoming in vogue in other sports. Football, being a weekly affair, as always lent it self more to that. So apart from the tradition of film, the difference is, film analysis is done as means of evaluating and predicting tendencies. The Nickel back plays 8 yards off the weakside for a blitz, you pick that up, it's the kind of thing thats in the public domain. Its predictive but not guaranteed.

If you decipher signs through videotaped analysis, you cease to be predicting, you are knowing EXACTLY what is going to be called. There is a difference, and a pretty major one where I stand, but I guess we'll find out where the league stands.

I could study a teams offense for a season and write their playbook. I could also just break into their office or bribe their player and take it. By your logic, I've acquired the knowledge of their plays either way and there is no difference.
Click to expand...
I guess this is where I'm stuck. The public nature of a coach giving his signals to the other team. He's doing it in front of 50,000 people, and yet the NFL gives him a weird zone of privacy saying "don't tape him!" . . . . So that is one difference between breaking in and stealing a playbook. Instead, I would liken it to someone leaving his playbook open on the bench, and some guy on the opposing team using a zoom lense and taking a snapshot of it.
Click to expand...
There is a line the league has established, and its been crossed. Your issues seems to lie with where the line is. I think its as appropriate of one as any, because where do you draw it hereafter? High powered directional microphones that could capture coaches discussions? Bugging the sidelines, bugging the locker room? There is a line somewhere, we may not agree on where it is, but we can certainly agree that right now, its looking like it was crossed, I guess thats as simple as I can state it.My personal issue is twofold. Number one, the definant arrogance to do this WEEK ONE, when a memo had been circulated outling exactly this infraction, because of your prior actions. You may not deem it a big deal, and in the scheme of NFL violations, and I've been using the felony versus misdameanor versus a federal offense argument, I don't think this is nothing, but I also don't think it's a 4 alarm violation in and of itself as a league infraction. It would be much more serious if they are found guilty of whats apparently being investigated with regard to monkeying with radio signals. If there was any tampering on that end, where would you stand?
Click to expand...
Let me back up: If there was a clear rule given in the offseason (and I'd love to see the memo) stating, "under no circumstances may any team videotape any sideline coach, nor may the team use a videotape recorded by a third party," and Bellicheck did it anyway, I would be comfortable with Goodall throwing the book at him (if proven).There is a big interpretation/enforcement problem, however. If it is true that photographs are ok, but not film, then we have a problem (what is film but many still photos, right?). And what about high-speed cameras. Or hiring one hundred photographers and then combining them to make a video. And then what about game tapes that inadvertantly catch sideline coaches? What about blowing up game tapes and focusing on the sideline. What about hiring a guy with photographic memory? Problems problems. So that all goes into me thinking the rule is silly, because there are ways around it but still staying within the letter of the rule. And I know about staying in the "spirit" of the rule, but . . . are there any other rules that footbally players or coaches violate the "spirit" of the rule while staying within the "letter"? If so, why focus on this one? Problems problems.

I feel different about the radio signals, I think, because there is not as much room for interpretation, and also because it has a stinkier feel about it. Jamming a radio signal "feels" more like drugging a guy before a big fight.
Click to expand...
Regarding the memo, our seeing that will depend on who big an issue this turns into. Its not currently availble for public consumption, but I'd keep my eye on thesmokinggun.com for the next week or so, I feel like it will pop up there. We are going off that nefarious word of "league insiders". But with rampant discussion of the memo, no one has denied this memo's existance, no one on the pats is saying they didn't know, so take for granted for the purposes of this discussion that the memo exists and highlighted an existing rule.As for your hypothetical outlined, I think they are issues that merit examination if it comes to that. But your hypothetical scenario is more a look into future enforcement and not the current punishment of the situation the Pats are being accused of right now. We don't know what would happen if a team bought all 80,000 seats to a game and had everyone in the seats shooting video of the sideline, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. What we do have here is the possibliity of hard evidence(a videotape) of league rule. You are mixing where you stand with how the league will respond to this perception. Personally, I don't think Vick should have been suspended by the NFL for the dogfighting, but I realize there is a different perception by the majority and he hangs and so be it. I think you'll need to reconcile that if the majority wants a pound of flesh here, and if they are guilty, they are going to get it because they did it.

 
Marc Levin said:
Sweet J said:
Marc Levin said:
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.
Click to expand...
What about a difference between using a high-speed camera (which according to others in these threads as legal) and using film?
Click to expand...
Not legal.My understanding is that NO recording devices, including a camera, may be on the sideline.How that would prevcent you from buying a ticket for one of your guys to photograph from the stands is confusing.Sweet J, the rule, as I understand it from the newspapers and from every single commentator with the exception of none is that the team may have NO recording device on the sideline.Why is it difficult for you to accept that it is a rule violation?
Click to expand...
I have been more focused on the fact that I see it as a silly rule, and therefore don't see how everyone is so up in arms. I understand that it is a violation to have cameras in the field, but the rule someone posted in the other thread indicates that a team CAN take videos in a special video booth. If that is the case, I still haven't seen the rule that prohibits videotaping of sideline coaches.
 
Jetdoc said:
Here's a quote from the rule and the memo...

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...s_in_focus.html

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ready to live up to your words and call for the book to be thrown at Belichick, Sweet J?
 
Sweet J said:
Marc Levin said:
Sweet J said:
Marc Levin said:
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.
Click to expand...
What about a difference between using a high-speed camera (which according to others in these threads as legal) and using film?
Click to expand...
Not legal.My understanding is that NO recording devices, including a camera, may be on the sideline.How that would prevcent you from buying a ticket for one of your guys to photograph from the stands is confusing.Sweet J, the rule, as I understand it from the newspapers and from every single commentator with the exception of none is that the team may have NO recording device on the sideline.Why is it difficult for you to accept that it is a rule violation?
Click to expand...
I have been more focused on the fact that I see it as a silly rule, and therefore don't see how everyone is so up in arms. I understand that it is a violation to have cameras in the field, but the rule someone posted in the other thread indicates that a team CAN take videos in a special video booth. If that is the case, I still haven't seen the rule that prohibits videotaping of sideline coaches.
Click to expand...
LOL! The booth is set up in such a way that you can not videotape sideline coaches all game long and, if the coach knows where the camera is, he can hide his signals. A canmeraman on the sideline can continually place himself behind the D-player's line of sight with the coach.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jetdoc said:
Here's a quote from the rule and the memo...

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...s_in_focus.html

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ok, but what about videotaping someone as part of a team's normal videotaping of the game (they are allowed to video the game in a special "non-accessable" booth, correct?The way I interpret the above is that "IF the team is allowed to make a video of the game from a special booth and examine game tapes later, than the team can also videotape the sideline coaches."

This, of course, is NOT what the Pats did. The Pats broke the rule, because they had a guy on the sidelines videotaping. So my question is merely hypothetical.

 
Sweet J said:
Jetdoc said:
Here's a quote from the rule and the memo...

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...s_in_focus.html

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ok, but what about videotaping someone as part of a team's normal videotaping of the game (they are allowed to video the game in a special "non-accessable" booth, correct?The way I interpret the above is that "IF the team is allowed to make a video of the game from a special booth and examine game tapes later, than the team can also videotape the sideline coaches."

This, of course, is NOT what the Pats did. The Pats broke the rule, because they had a guy on the sidelines videotaping. So my question is merely hypothetical.
Click to expand...
My bet is the accessible film booth is above the opposing coach's sideline and has restricted sides and roof - they can film the field, but would be prevented from filming the opposing coaches by the rules of phsyics. If they got coaches, it would be incidental and they couldnb't have a camera trained on defensive coaches.
 
Marc Levin said:
Sweet J said:
Marc Levin said:
Sweet J said:
Marc Levin said:
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.
Click to expand...
What about a difference between using a high-speed camera (which according to others in these threads as legal) and using film?
Click to expand...
Not legal.My understanding is that NO recording devices, including a camera, may be on the sideline.How that would prevcent you from buying a ticket for one of your guys to photograph from the stands is confusing.Sweet J, the rule, as I understand it from the newspapers and from every single commentator with the exception of none is that the team may have NO recording device on the sideline.Why is it difficult for you to accept that it is a rule violation?
Click to expand...
I have been more focused on the fact that I see it as a silly rule, and therefore don't see how everyone is so up in arms. I understand that it is a violation to have cameras in the field, but the rule someone posted in the other thread indicates that a team CAN take videos in a special video booth. If that is the case, I still haven't seen the rule that prohibits videotaping of sideline coaches.
Click to expand...
LOL! The booth is set up in such a way that you can not videotape sideline coaches all game long and, if the coach knows where the camera is, he can hide his signals. A canmeraman on the sideline can continually place himself behind the D-player's line of sight with the coach.
Click to expand...
If this is the case, than I retract my comment that it is a silly rule. What you are saying is that a team can TRY and videotape a sideline coach from the booth but that a coach can thwart this. By allowing video from the booth, but not allowing video (or any recording device, including a camera) on the sideline, it makes a more clear rule and easier to enforce. In that case, what Bellichick did was clearly wrong.
 
B-Deep said:
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. - Patriots coach Bill Belichick apologized Wednesday for the commotion surrounding his team following accusations that his club spied on the Jets during New England's season-opening victory in New York.Belichick said he spoke with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell this week about a "videotaping procedure" during last Sunday's game and "my interpretation of the rules.""At this point, we have not been notified of the league's ruling," Belichick said in a statement. "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league's decision, I will have further comment."
Click to expand...
OK, so it sounds like he did something, he knows that it was wrong, and he's going to see what the penalty is before he comments. That's understandable. He also seems embarrassed, but not contrite. I'm sure that the people who hate him will roll their eyes and say that he is making excuses isn't taking responsibility for his actions, while the people who like him will say, see, it was all a misunderstanding, he apologized, he's taking the punishment like a man. Realistically, this is embarrassing, and neither as devastating as the Patriots haters will make it out to be, nor as minor as the fans make it out to be. As a fan, I'm disappointed. Bill, I wish I could quit you.
 
bostonfred said:
B-Deep said:
FOXBOROUGH, Mass. - Patriots coach Bill Belichick apologized Wednesday for the commotion surrounding his team following accusations that his club spied on the Jets during New England's season-opening victory in New York.Belichick said he spoke with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell this week about a "videotaping procedure" during last Sunday's game and "my interpretation of the rules.""At this point, we have not been notified of the league's ruling," Belichick said in a statement. "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league's decision, I will have further comment."
Click to expand...
OK, so it sounds like he did something, he knows that it was wrong, and he's going to see what the penalty is before he comments. That's understandable. He also seems embarrassed, but not contrite. I'm sure that the people who hate him will roll their eyes and say that he is making excuses isn't taking responsibility for his actions, while the people who like him will say, see, it was all a misunderstanding, he apologized, he's taking the punishment like a man. Realistically, this is embarrassing, and neither as devastating as the Patriots haters will make it out to be, nor as minor as the fans make it out to be. As a fan, I'm disappointed. Bill, I wish I could quit you.
Click to expand...
The real shame is the backlash onto Brady, who would have been the one receiving the direct and on-field benefit of knowing defensive signals.
 
Mr.Happy said:
Here is what happened

Belichick thought there was a loophole in the rules and it could be exploited. Belichick wouldn't outright cheat...It would call into question his "genius" label. But it makes perfect sense, knowing him as long as I have as "just a fan", that he would think he found a loophole and he was "outsmarting the league" by exploiting the loophole. I am 100% sure he thought he found a loophole, and tried to exploit the heck out of it.

It makes perfect sense knowing his personality, and cheating would go against what we know about him because "The great Bill Belichick doesn't need to cheat". He thought he found a loophole, and he screwed up.
Click to expand...
Jetdoc said:
Here's a quote from the rule and the memo...

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...s_in_focus.html

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can see where Belichick thought there was a loophole in "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." See, it doesn't specifically say "Bill Belichick's team" is not permitted to do it, so that's a loophole, right?
 
JohnnyU said:
Marc Levin said:
The real shame is the backlash onto Brady, who would have been the one receiving the direct and on-field benefit of knowing defensive signals.
Click to expand...
I always knew he was overrated :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I'll save us the time and post the conversation summary:JohnnyU: This proves Brady is overratedbostonfred: Then Manning choked in the Pats gameJohnnyU: What?bostonfred: The Colts turned up the heat in the stadium when they found out many Patriots defenders had the flu. This caused many of them to leave the game. This was also cheating, and Manning looked terrible until they left. Therefore, Manning is overrated.JohnnyU: That's a ridiculous argumentbostonfred: So is the argument that Brady is overrated because of this. Manning is a choker. JohnnyU: Whatever, the Colts are reigning world champs. Manning is the bestbostonfred: Exactly. And the Pats are three time world champs. Brady is the best.
 
bostonfred said:
JohnnyU said:
Marc Levin said:
The real shame is the backlash onto Brady, who would have been the one receiving the direct and on-field benefit of knowing defensive signals.
Click to expand...
I always knew he was overrated ;)
Click to expand...
I'll save us the time and post the conversation summary:JohnnyU: This proves Brady is overratedbostonfred: Then Manning choked in the Pats gameJohnnyU: What?bostonfred: The Colts turned up the heat in the stadium when they found out many Patriots defenders had the flu. This caused many of them to leave the game. This was also cheating, and Manning looked terrible until they left. Therefore, Manning is overrated.JohnnyU: That's a ridiculous argumentbostonfred: So is the argument that Brady is overrated because of this. Manning is a choker. JohnnyU: Whatever, the Colts are reigning world champs. Manning is the bestbostonfred: Exactly. And the Pats are three time world champs. Brady is the best.
Click to expand...
And neither one of them are as good as Bradshaw. :P
 
apalmer said:
Mr.Happy said:
Here is what happened

Belichick thought there was a loophole in the rules and it could be exploited. Belichick wouldn't outright cheat...It would call into question his "genius" label. But it makes perfect sense, knowing him as long as I have as "just a fan", that he would think he found a loophole and he was "outsmarting the league" by exploiting the loophole. I am 100% sure he thought he found a loophole, and tried to exploit the heck out of it.

It makes perfect sense knowing his personality, and cheating would go against what we know about him because "The great Bill Belichick doesn't need to cheat". He thought he found a loophole, and he screwed up.
Click to expand...
Jetdoc said:
Here's a quote from the rule and the memo...

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...s_in_focus.html

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can see where Belichick thought there was a loophole in "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." See, it doesn't specifically say "Bill Belichick's team" is not permitted to do it, so that's a loophole, right?
Click to expand...
The loophole in question is where the offense took place. Belichick interpreted the rule to say "at home", not on the road.
 
bostonfred said:
JohnnyU said:
Marc Levin said:
The real shame is the backlash onto Brady, who would have been the one receiving the direct and on-field benefit of knowing defensive signals.
Click to expand...
I always knew he was overrated ;)
Click to expand...
I'll save us the time and post the conversation summary:JohnnyU: This proves Brady is overratedbostonfred: Then Manning choked in the Pats gameJohnnyU: What?bostonfred: The Colts turned up the heat in the stadium when they found out many Patriots defenders had the flu. This caused many of them to leave the game. This was also cheating, and Manning looked terrible until they left. Therefore, Manning is overrated.JohnnyU: That's a ridiculous argumentbostonfred: So is the argument that Brady is overrated because of this. Manning is a choker. JohnnyU: Whatever, the Colts are reigning world champs. Manning is the bestbostonfred: Exactly. And the Pats are three time world champs. Brady is the best.
Click to expand...
Brady sucks - there is a reason he fell so far in the draft, and why his coach needs to cheat to help Brady know where to throw. :PBeing facetious... but it was fun to type nonetheless.
 
Jetdoc said:
Sweet J said:
CrossEyed said:
Sweet J said:
Marc Levin said:
There's a big difference between staring at someone with your eyes - they can shield/display quickly their signals - and using electronic surveillance, which can be slowed down, enhanced, has zooming features, can be fed into a computer for clarity, etc., etc.

Not seeing the difference between stealing sugnals with your eyes and stealing them with recording equipment is displaying technological illiteracy.
Click to expand...
What about a difference between using a high-speed camera (which according to others in these threads as legal) and using film?
Click to expand...
Why can't you just accept the fact that the Patriots cheated, got caught, and now should be punished?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the rule that was allegedly broken, nor have I seen what, exactly, the pats did. Once I see those, I'd be perfectly willing to admit what happened. So far one guy posted a rule stating that videotaping must be done in a special videotaping booth.
Click to expand...
Here's a quote from the rule and the memo...http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...s_in_focus.html

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
:lmao: This still won't convince the most outspoken homers, but it's a good start. :lmao:

 
Mr.Happy said:
Here is what happenedBelichick thought there was a loophole in the rules and it could be exploited. Belichick wouldn't outright cheat...It would call into question his "genius" label. But it makes perfect sense, knowing him as long as I have as "just a fan", that he would think he found a loophole and he was "outsmarting the league" by exploiting the loophole. I am 100% sure he thought he found a loophole, and tried to exploit the heck out of it.It makes perfect sense knowing his personality, and cheating would go against what we know about him because "The great Bill Belichick doesn't need to cheat". He thought he found a loophole, and he screwed up.
Click to expand...
This seems like the most likely scenario.It also explains his non-apology apology -- in his Asperger's-like mind, it probably never occurred to him that other people could get embarrassed or hurt by this.
 
abrecher said:
Mr.Happy said:
Here is what happenedBelichick thought there was a loophole in the rules and it could be exploited. Belichick wouldn't outright cheat...It would call into question his "genius" label. But it makes perfect sense, knowing him as long as I have as "just a fan", that he would think he found a loophole and he was "outsmarting the league" by exploiting the loophole. I am 100% sure he thought he found a loophole, and tried to exploit the heck out of it.It makes perfect sense knowing his personality, and cheating would go against what we know about him because "The great Bill Belichick doesn't need to cheat". He thought he found a loophole, and he screwed up.
Click to expand...
This seems like the most likely scenario.It also explains his non-apology apology -- in his Asperger's-like mind, it probably never occurred to him that other people could get embarrassed or hurt by this.
Click to expand...
That seems the most likely scenario to you? Really?A loophole? You can read that rule above, love to hear what loophole BB thought might be there.There is no explanation needed for his "apology". That is the standard apology made without admitting any guilt. Also, you'll notice, without denying anything, either.
 
The loophole apparently is that the memo said something to the effect of "Home teams may not videotape..."

Belichick's story is that it said nothing about away games. No one has ever accused the Patriots of stealing signals via a videocamera at Gillette; it's all been on the road.

Call it ticky-tack, cutting corners, cheating, whatever. Let's let Goodell hand out the punishment and then we'll see how serious an offense this was.

My take, flame away:

Goodell: Bill, I know you know better than this. Even though it didn't say it explicitly, you know the spirit of the rule.

Bill: Well, are you going to punish me on breaking a rule, or breaking the spirit of the rule?

Goodell: 4th rounder '08, 1 game for you, and 250k from Mr. Kraft. Do it again, and you get the year. And I'll go re-write that rule.

Bill: Got it. Peace out.

 
Kit Fisto said:
The loophole apparently is that the memo said something to the effect of "Home teams may not videotape..."

Belichick's story is that it said nothing about away games. No one has ever accused the Patriots of stealing signals via a videocamera at Gillette; it's all been on the road.

Call it ticky-tack, cutting corners, cheating, whatever. Let's let Goodell hand out the punishment and then we'll see how serious an offense this was.

My take, flame away:

Goodell: Bill, I know you know better than this. Even though it didn't say it explicitly, you know the spirit of the rule.

Bill: Well, are you going to punish me on breaking a rule, or breaking the spirit of the rule?

Goodell: 4th rounder '08, 1 game for you, and 250k from Mr. Kraft. Do it again, and you get the year. And I'll go re-write that rule.

Bill: Got it. Peace out.
Click to expand...
The memo is not the rule. The memo is just a memo.Stolen from the other thread:

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

That's not spirit of the law, that's letter of the law.

 
Kit Fisto said:
apalmer said:
Mr.Happy said:
Here is what happened

Belichick thought there was a loophole in the rules and it could be exploited. Belichick wouldn't outright cheat...It would call into question his "genius" label. But it makes perfect sense, knowing him as long as I have as "just a fan", that he would think he found a loophole and he was "outsmarting the league" by exploiting the loophole. I am 100% sure he thought he found a loophole, and tried to exploit the heck out of it.

It makes perfect sense knowing his personality, and cheating would go against what we know about him because "The great Bill Belichick doesn't need to cheat". He thought he found a loophole, and he screwed up.
Click to expand...
Jetdoc said:
Here's a quote from the rule and the memo...

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patr...s_in_focus.html

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I can see where Belichick thought there was a loophole in "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." See, it doesn't specifically say "Bill Belichick's team" is not permitted to do it, so that's a loophole, right?
Click to expand...
The loophole in question is where the offense took place. Belichick interpreted the rule to say "at home", not on the road.
Click to expand...
Which part says "at home"? He might as well claim he interpreted it to mean only for games played on the moon on Tuesday nights. If that's his defense, they should double whatever sanction they would otherwise have imposed just to address his disrespect of the league's intelligence.
 
massraider said:
Kit Fisto said:
The loophole apparently is that the memo said something to the effect of "Home teams may not videotape..."

Belichick's story is that it said nothing about away games. No one has ever accused the Patriots of stealing signals via a videocamera at Gillette; it's all been on the road.

Call it ticky-tack, cutting corners, cheating, whatever. Let's let Goodell hand out the punishment and then we'll see how serious an offense this was.

My take, flame away:

Goodell: Bill, I know you know better than this. Even though it didn't say it explicitly, you know the spirit of the rule.

Bill: Well, are you going to punish me on breaking a rule, or breaking the spirit of the rule?

Goodell: 4th rounder '08, 1 game for you, and 250k from Mr. Kraft. Do it again, and you get the year. And I'll go re-write that rule.

Bill: Got it. Peace out.
Click to expand...
The memo is not the rule. The memo is just a memo.Stolen from the other thread:

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

That's not spirit of the law, that's letter of the law.
Click to expand...
Like I said, that's my take. Everyone else is offering their take on how this will go down, but you know what? Neither side knows a damn thing. It's all speculation.Haters, hate on; homers, love on. Won't change Goodell's ruling.

 
Kit Fisto said:
massraider said:
Kit Fisto said:
The loophole apparently is that the memo said something to the effect of "Home teams may not videotape..."

Belichick's story is that it said nothing about away games. No one has ever accused the Patriots of stealing signals via a videocamera at Gillette; it's all been on the road.

Call it ticky-tack, cutting corners, cheating, whatever. Let's let Goodell hand out the punishment and then we'll see how serious an offense this was.

My take, flame away:

Goodell: Bill, I know you know better than this. Even though it didn't say it explicitly, you know the spirit of the rule.

Bill: Well, are you going to punish me on breaking a rule, or breaking the spirit of the rule?

Goodell: 4th rounder '08, 1 game for you, and 250k from Mr. Kraft. Do it again, and you get the year. And I'll go re-write that rule.

Bill: Got it. Peace out.
Click to expand...
The memo is not the rule. The memo is just a memo.Stolen from the other thread:

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

That's not spirit of the law, that's letter of the law.
Click to expand...
Like I said, that's my take. Everyone else is offering their take on how this will go down, but you know what? Neither side knows a damn thing. It's all speculation.
Click to expand...
I need a link to BB's "away" team defense please. Where is this story coming from?
 
massraider said:
Kit Fisto said:
The loophole apparently is that the memo said something to the effect of "Home teams may not videotape..."

Belichick's story is that it said nothing about away games. No one has ever accused the Patriots of stealing signals via a videocamera at Gillette; it's all been on the road.

Call it ticky-tack, cutting corners, cheating, whatever. Let's let Goodell hand out the punishment and then we'll see how serious an offense this was.

My take, flame away:

Goodell: Bill, I know you know better than this. Even though it didn't say it explicitly, you know the spirit of the rule.

Bill: Well, are you going to punish me on breaking a rule, or breaking the spirit of the rule?

Goodell: 4th rounder '08, 1 game for you, and 250k from Mr. Kraft. Do it again, and you get the year. And I'll go re-write that rule.

Bill: Got it. Peace out.
Click to expand...
The memo is not the rule. The memo is just a memo.Stolen from the other thread:

Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

Ray Anderson, the league's head of football operations, sent a memo to head coaches and GMs last September 6 that said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

That's not spirit of the law, that's letter of the law.
Click to expand...
I have no idea where this loophole business is coming from, so this is a wild guess, but if what you both just said is the case, Belichick may have read the memo and said, cool, this only applies to the home team. Which, if he didn't check the actual rulebook, would explain why he said he misinterpreted it. In which case, he'd be guilty of breaking the rule. But it would also mean that he wasn't cheating, and got caught, so much as trying to exploit a loophole, and wrong. I don't have much of a moral problem with him trying to exploit a loophole. I have more of a moral problem with him deliberately trying to cheat.

 
Kit Fisto said:
The loophole apparently is that the memo said something to the effect of "Home teams may not videotape..."

Belichick's story is that it said nothing about away games. No one has ever accused the Patriots of stealing signals via a videocamera at Gillette; it's all been on the road.

Call it ticky-tack, cutting corners, cheating, whatever. Let's let Goodell hand out the punishment and then we'll see how serious an offense this was.

My take, flame away:

Goodell: Bill, I know you know better than this. Even though it didn't say it explicitly, you know the spirit of the rule.

Bill: Well, are you going to punish me on breaking a rule, or breaking the spirit of the rule?

Goodell: 4th rounder '08, 1 game for you, and 250k from Mr. Kraft. Do it again, and you get the year. And I'll go re-write that rule.

Bill: Got it. Peace out.
Click to expand...
Since there is no CBA for coaches, Goodell is holding the hammer here. If Belichick wants get cute, he'll get himself a year's suspension with little recourse to correct it. See, the key thing being overlooked here is that this is not the first offense. They were questioned last year, a meeting I presume none of us were privy to(Goodell you better not be readin these boards!). In there may lay the words that could hang Belichick.

The only thing saving Belichick from a suspension at this point is the league not wanting this circus to go on for extended period. You have the hoopla of the new coach and then the hoopla of the return. It will be bad enough when they play the Jets again. But if he determines Justice is more important than perception, and he's in his infancy as a

 
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
The only thing saving Belichick from a suspension at this point is the league not wanting this circus to go on for extended period. You have the hoopla of the new coach and then the hoopla of the return. It will be bad enough when they play the Jets again. But if he determines Justice is more important than perception, and he's in his infancy as a
Click to expand...
I don't know. I don't think the networks would like the Colts/Pats game to go off without Belichick. That's got to be one of the premier nationally televised games of the year.
 
bostonfred said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
The only thing saving Belichick from a suspension at this point is the league not wanting this circus to go on for extended period. You have the hoopla of the new coach and then the hoopla of the return. It will be bad enough when they play the Jets again. But if he determines Justice is more important than perception, and he's in his infancy as a
Click to expand...
I don't know. I don't think the networks would like the Colts/Pats game to go off without Belichick. That's got to be one of the premier nationally televised games of the year.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm presupposing a 3-5 game suspension. If I'm not mistaken, these two hook up Week 9, under all but the most extreme of circumstances, I think he'd be on the sidelines for that one.The Charger game this weekend may well be the second biggest and best regular season game in the NFL this year, and at this juncture, I can't see a ruling coming down Friday to keep him out of that game though.Mike and the Mad Dog actually had a pretty good solution, suspend him for the next Jets game. Kills the hoopla and hype and bad vibes of that matchup and metes some justice to the egreged party.
 
Kit Fisto said:
BusterTBronco said:
[icon] said:
Maybe we should get a "Flame the Patriots" forum that way the Shark Pool can focus on Fantasy Football
Click to expand...
Whaddsa matta, Pats fan? You don't like other people pointing out the fact that your team is a bunch of CHEATERS?
Click to expand...
Is this coming from a Broncos fan, Mr. Glass House?
Click to expand...
First off, I don't agree with BusterT. I think he's kicking someone while he's down. Some Patriots fans are intolerable, but that doesn't mean it's cool to lash out at all of them the first chance you get. I definitely think a little tact and class are called for in a situation like this.With that said, despite popular belief to the contrary, Shanahan is one of the cleanest coaches in the league (at least, among all coaches who have been tenured more than 4 or 5 years). Please give me an example where Denver has willfully and knowingly violated an NFL rule in an effort to gain a competitive advantage. Hell, Tony Dungy is a bigger cheater (or almost-cheater) than Mike Shanahan- just check out the Indy injury reports from last season if you don't believe me.
Sweet J said:
sho nuff said:
Sweet J said:
Can someone please explain to me how videotaping a sideline coach is different that watching the coach from the stands and taking notes?
Click to expand...
Can you analyze the notes later to match them up with specific things that happened in the game quite as easy? Nope.That and the Pats were warned about this...why do people continue to insist on making excuses and saying its not that bad this and that...its just like baseball...blah blah blah.The league, and even specifically the Patriots, were warned not to do this. The crux of the problem and what might get them more punishment than some people think is right is that they were told by the commish to quit this crap, and they did it anyway.
Click to expand...
So the Pats were warned "don't try and watch opposing signals and guess what they mean?" Or just warned "don't videotape opposing coaches"? What happens if a game tape inadvertantly catches a coach giving signals? This outrage here is insane.
Click to expand...
This isn't a matter of a videotape inadvertantly catching a signal. This is a matter of a Patriots employee DELIBERATELY LYING about his purpose in order to gain access so he could knowingly and maliciously violate an NFL rule, despite having been repeatedly warned in the past about his actions. It's one thing to accidentally walk into a stranger's house. It's another thing to cut the power to the alarm system, break the windows with a crowbar, take everything you can get your hands on, and then try to run before the police showed up.
 
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
bostonfred said:
NY/NJMFDIVER said:
The only thing saving Belichick from a suspension at this point is the league not wanting this circus to go on for extended period. You have the hoopla of the new coach and then the hoopla of the return. It will be bad enough when they play the Jets again. But if he determines Justice is more important than perception, and he's in his infancy as a
Click to expand...
I don't know. I don't think the networks would like the Colts/Pats game to go off without Belichick. That's got to be one of the premier nationally televised games of the year.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm presupposing a 3-5 game suspension. If I'm not mistaken, these two hook up Week 9, under all but the most extreme of circumstances, I think he'd be on the sidelines for that one.The Charger game this weekend may well be the second biggest and best regular season game in the NFL this year, and at this juncture, I can't see a ruling coming down Friday to keep him out of that game though.Mike and the Mad Dog actually had a pretty good solution, suspend him for the next Jets game. Kills the hoopla and hype and bad vibes of that matchup and metes some justice to the egreged party.
Click to expand...
I think this would be fair. I'm not really into the idea of suspending coaches, but if there's going to be a one game suspension, I think it makes more sense for the one game be against the Jets, and not some random team that just happens to have been in the right place at the right time. It also takes the burden off of Goodell to make a snap decision (to avoid the "you held off of suspending him for the Chargers game so you could suspend him for the Buffalo game? Way to screw the Jets twice"). The multigame suspension of a head coach would be extremely harsh. I'd be shocked if that happened.
 
SSOG said:
With that said, despite popular belief to the contrary, Shanahan is one of the cleanest coaches in the league (at least, among all coaches who have been tenured more than 4 or 5 years). Please give me an example where Denver has willfully and knowingly violated an NFL rule in an effort to gain a competitive advantage.
Click to expand...
The Broncos have been fined and lost two third round picks for separate salary cap violations. They cut block more than any team in the NFL. They have a long history of steroid violations, from Lyle Alzado, to Bill Romanowski, to Kenny Peterson just this year.
 
CrossEyed said:
Nobody is talking that much about the radio frequencies. I think that makes this potentially a much bigger deal.
Click to expand...
That issue is what the league is still investigating.If the Pats are found guilty of stealing offensive plays by tapping into the headsets, all hell will break loose.NO wonder the Pats D is so good, and looks like they know the plays - they do!
 
Obie Wan said:
CrossEyed said:
Nobody is talking that much about the radio frequencies. I think that makes this potentially a much bigger deal.
Click to expand...
That issue is what the league is still investigating.If the Pats are found guilty of stealing offensive plays by tapping into the headsets, all hell will break loose.NO wonder the Pats D is so good, and looks like they know the plays - they do!
Click to expand...
If that's the case, and this can be confirmed that they've been doing this for some time, I'll be disgusted.But it's a little early to start that kind of speculation.
 
bostonfred said:
SSOG said:
With that said, despite popular belief to the contrary, Shanahan is one of the cleanest coaches in the league (at least, among all coaches who have been tenured more than 4 or 5 years). Please give me an example where Denver has willfully and knowingly violated an NFL rule in an effort to gain a competitive advantage.
Click to expand...
The Broncos have been fined and lost two third round picks for separate salary cap violations. They cut block more than any team in the NFL. They have a long history of steroid violations, from Lyle Alzado, to Bill Romanowski, to Kenny Peterson just this year.
Click to expand...
The cap violations were Bowlen's fault, and the official league statement said they were PLAINLY (their word, not mine) a result of Bowlen being cash-strapped rather than an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. Cut blocking is perfectly legal and practiced by all 32 teams (as well as ever pop warner team ever), so saying that Denver cut blocks more than any team in the NFL as if that makes them cheaters is like saying they tackle more than any team in the NFL as if that makes them cheaters. Romanowski said he didn't take steroids until he was with Oakland, so the "long history of violations" really boils down to Lyle Alzado and some fringe defensive player who has appeared in 3 games in his Denver "career", whose "career" statistics in Denver are 1 assisted tackle, and who didn't even make the team. And I don't know how you're counting Alzado against Shanahan, since his last career year in Denver was in 1978, back when Shanny was the offensive coordinator of Eastern Illinois University, John Elway was a promising high school recruit, and Kaiser still owned the Broncos.Thanks for playing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Godsbrother
Harrison, Matthews, others facing indefinite suspension
Replies
35
Views
2K
msommer
msommer
T
My Predictions for the 2014 draft and free agency
Replies
28
Views
3K
Bob Magaw
Bob Magaw
Joe Bryant
4/18 Footballguys Weekly News Summary - Topics and Comments from YOU
Replies
2
Views
951
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top