Espn reporting Goodell confirmed Patriots using camera (1 Viewer)

[Workhorse]

I think Workhorse assumes there is a finite amount of blame and shame to be dispersed, and if some gets on Mangini, that means less gets on Belichick. It doesn't work that way though.

Don't think or assume anything. Mangini's potential involvement doesn't take the heat off the Pats or Belichick. How many times do I need to post this for it to sink in?As for Marc's hypothetical (which seems to be contradicted by the news reports, but I'll bite), then no, Mangini doesn't appear to be stinky. But at that point, all of the Patriots titles are 100% clean and legit and nobody can ##### about it. Frankly Marc, as a Pats fan, I HOPE that's the case.

 

[reg]

another cameraman weighs in

A former Patriots cameraman said yesterday that Bill Belichick had a reputation for breaking the rules even when he was a head coach in Cleveland.

The ex-cameraman, who worked under Raymond Berry and Bill Parcells and asked that his name not be used, said rival video men in Cleveland always appeared to be “sneaky.”

“They were always kind of suspicious,” he said yesterday. “When Belichick was a coach there they seemed to be up to no good. The guys working with the Patriots used to talk to the Browns guys and they were always acting kind of hush-hush and sneaky. We didn’t have anything concrete; it was just a feeling.”

The cameraman was as shocked as anyone to hear the allegations leveled against the Patriots on Sunday night by the Jets, who charged the Pats were using a camera to steal defensive signals. But he wasn’t surprised they employed a practice he labeled commonplace.

What he can’t believe is they let themselves get caught.

“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.”

He described one way the Pats could have theoretically benefited from taping the Jets coaches. Because there’s a monitor and printer in the coaches booth and on the sidelines for the legal Polaroids teams are allowed to consult during the game, coaches would have a spot to view video.

“They could split off the feed that goes to the printers and back to the booth and just tap into the feed from the camera,” he said. “There’s a trunk with printers and monitors on the field, and they could have tapped into that, too.”

Put those images in front of men who know what they’re looking at, and it would be a huge advantage. What surprised him most, he said, was an obvious precaution the Patriots failed to take.

“I never actually recorded anything,” he said, “so as not to leave evidence!”

 

[Banger]

C.I?

Confidential Informant - I guess you don't watch NYPB Blue, the Shield, Sopranos, or Law and Order.

Nope. Thanks for the clarification. "Stinky" in terms of culpability in breaking the rule/cheating? Clearly not. But "stinky" in terms of shady moral character? Yeah, I'd put Mangini right up there.

but what if Mangini turns out to be the whistleblower (which appears to have been the case), alerting other teams, the competition committee, etc. that the Pats did this/continued to do this? Why would he have a shady character, despite what his motivations might have been?

 

[Arm Chair Express]

I'm sorry but explain this one to me like I don't know anything.How does video tape of the coaches signals help?I understand there are rules not to do it but really, how does it help?Couldn't anyone see this with a high powered camera lens from anywhere in the stadium?J

If it didn't help in some way why would they do it multiple times, even after apparently being warned?

But help me understand how it helps. How does videotape of the coaches signals help?J

Half time adjustment? Look at signals and formations. Maybe preparing for next game. Maybe they already had the signal from last year and were just confirming they were the same. Any number of ways. I know your smarter than that so use your imagination a little.

 

[The_Man]

I thought this article from a video trade journal was kind of interesting. Makes it very clear that the Patriots are at the forefront of video analysis and that it would be child's play for them to match up the Jets handsignals with game action to decipher their meaning.

The story also contains this piece of info:

"The Team Sports editing and analysis system is deemed so great an advantage that the NFL has decided it cannot be used on game day (nor can any computer system be used during the game)."

 

[phthalatemagic]

I think Workhorse assumes there is a finite amount of blame and shame to be dispersed, and if some gets on Mangini, that means less gets on Belichick. It doesn't work that way though.

Don't think or assume anything. Mangini's potential involvement doesn't take the heat off the Pats or Belichick. How many times do I need to post this for it to sink in?

 

[mad sweeney]

I can only imagine the crapstorm that would be developing if it was the Raiders who got caught instead.

I think it would be a lot funnier if the Raiders managed to compile their record of the last 5 years while cheating. Their punishment would probably be to make them keep doing it!

 

[fatness]

Mike Tomlin comments

Green Bay, Detroit and Buffalo have stepped up and joined the parade that was started by the New York Jets in accusing the New England Patriots of videotaping opposing teams' defensive hand signals during games.

Steelers coach Mike Tomlin stopped before going that far at Tuesday's weekly press conference, but did make his feelings on the issue known.

"Usually where there's smoke, there's fire. So those rumors are founded on something," said Tomlin, an NFL assistant for six years with Tampa Bay and Minnesota before being hired by Pittsburgh. "No, it's not totally shocking, no."

 

[Marc Levin]

I think Workhorse assumes there is a finite amount of blame and shame to be dispersed, and if some gets on Mangini, that means less gets on Belichick. It doesn't work that way though.

Don't think or assume anything. Mangini's potential involvement doesn't take the heat off the Pats or Belichick. How many times do I need to post this for it to sink in?As for Marc's hypothetical (which seems to be contradicted by the news reports, but I'll bite), then no, Mangini doesn't appear to be stinky. But at that point, all of the Patriots titles are 100% clean and legit and nobody can ##### about it. Frankly Marc, as a Pats fan, I HOPE that's the case.

It sounds like using recording devices was always prohibited, but that it was a common practice several years ago. It was, at some point in the last two or three years a point of emphasis to stop electronic surveillance. Plus, it is a cheat that aids the offense - not the defense - and Mangini was the Pats' defensive coach.My point is that it sounds like, for most of the time that Mangini was with the Pats, it was a "no big deal" offense. But in his last year or so he was there, it became a big deal. He left the pats suddenly and, apparently, to the chagrin of Belichick. Something is stinky there, I think, but it doesn't sound like it is Mangini.Are you trying to tell me that hte Pats defense was only good b/c the offense was stealing defensive signals? Are you saying mangini doesn't deserve recognition for his defensive coaching achievments? I am really confused how Mangini is "stinky" in this.ETA - I, personally, don't taint the Pats' S.B. wins b/c of this, but that is a separate issue.

 

[Reaper]

C.I?

Confidential Informant - I guess you don't watch NYPB Blue, the Shield, Sopranos, or Law and Order.

Nope. Thanks for the clarification. "Stinky" in terms of culpability in breaking the rule/cheating? Clearly not. But "stinky" in terms of shady moral character? Yeah, I'd put Mangini right up there.

but what if Mangini turns out to be the whistleblower (which appears to have been the case), alerting other teams, the competition committee, etc. that the Pats did this/continued to do this? Why would he have a shady character, despite what his motivations might have been?

He'd be the turn coat Mobster in the Witness Protection Program - Except all the other Mobster are actually giving him the :High Five:At worst Mangini is a Tattle Teller.."Nah nah nah nah nah.. Mangini is a Tattle Teller" - If someone wants to run with that one then more power to them.I think most Head Coaches have some "stink" on them.... Bellichik seems to go abpve and beyond.Kudos to Mangini - The Hero of the NFL for calling out THE RAT.

 

[Sammy3469]

I'm sorry but explain this one to me like I don't know anything.How does video tape of the coaches signals help?I understand there are rules not to do it but really, how does it help?Couldn't anyone see this with a high powered camera lens from anywhere in the stadium?J

If it didn't help in some way why would they do it multiple times, even after apparently being warned?

But help me understand how it helps. How does videotape of the coaches signals help?J

Half time adjustment? Look at signals and formations. Maybe preparing for next game. Maybe they already had the signal from last year and were just confirming they were the same. Any number of ways. I know your smarter than that so use your imagination a little.

Basically the camera allows the coaches upstairs to sync up the Jets signals and then what type of blitz was the result of the signal. Much like baseball the signals themselves don't change a lot, but the "activation" signal does. Once the Pats coaches pick those two things up, it's fairly easy for them to tell Brady through the headset what's coming once they see the Jets call and adjust their protection accordingly.

 

[GregR_2]

I'm sorry but explain this one to me like I don't know anything.How does video tape of the coaches signals help?I understand there are rules not to do it but really, how does it help?Couldn't anyone see this with a high powered camera lens from anywhere in the stadium?J

If it didn't help in some way why would they do it multiple times, even after apparently being warned?

But help me understand how it helps. How does videotape of the coaches signals help?J

Half time adjustment? Look at signals and formations. Maybe preparing for next game. Maybe they already had the signal from last year and were just confirming they were the same. Any number of ways. I know your smarter than that so use your imagination a little.

Basically the camera allows the coaches upstairs to sync up the Jets signals and then what type of blitz was the result of the signal. Much like baseball the signals themselves don't change a lot, but the "activation" signal does. Once the Pats coaches pick those two things up, it's fairly easy for them to tell Brady through the headset what's coming once they see the Jets call and adjust their protection accordingly.

There was a previously posted article (post 506 by reg) from a Boston newspaper interviewing a former Pats cameraman, that said it would be possible to feed the camera into a trunk on the sidelines that would even let the coaches up in the box view the video tape in real time.

 

[Sammy3469]

I'm sorry but explain this one to me like I don't know anything.How does video tape of the coaches signals help?I understand there are rules not to do it but really, how does it help?Couldn't anyone see this with a high powered camera lens from anywhere in the stadium?J

If it didn't help in some way why would they do it multiple times, even after apparently being warned?

But help me understand how it helps. How does videotape of the coaches signals help?J

Half time adjustment? Look at signals and formations. Maybe preparing for next game. Maybe they already had the signal from last year and were just confirming they were the same. Any number of ways. I know your smarter than that so use your imagination a little.

Basically the camera allows the coaches upstairs to sync up the Jets signals and then what type of blitz was the result of the signal. Much like baseball the signals themselves don't change a lot, but the "activation" signal does. Once the Pats coaches pick those two things up, it's fairly easy for them to tell Brady through the headset what's coming once they see the Jets call and adjust their protection accordingly.

There was a previously posted article (post 506 by reg) from a Boston newspaper interviewing a former Pats cameraman, that said it would be possible to feed the camera into a trunk on the sidelines that would even let the coaches up in the box view the video tape in real time.

I don't think it really matters where they view the tape, just that they do especially with all the radio contact these days.

 

[yabahos]

I thought this article from a video trade journal was kind of interesting. Makes it very clear that the Patriots are at the forefront of video analysis and that it would be child's play for them to match up the Jets handsignals with game action to decipher their meaning.

The story also contains this piece of info:

"The Team Sports editing and analysis system is deemed so great an advantage that the NFL has decided it cannot be used on game day (nor can any computer system be used during the game)."

Its a good link but the article is over 2 years old and quotes - While Belichick is an early adopter and evangelist of Team Sports, 26 of the 32 NFL teams (plus the NFL Officiating group) are now using this system.

Its probably safe to say that everyone is using this system now.

"it would be child's play for them to match up the Jets handsignals with game action to decipher their meaning."

I think its a little more difficult than that. Jimmy Dee the Pats Video director says this in the sidebar -

We also load and cut up the practice tapes we shot. When the coaches come off the field, the players shower and have a team meeting 45 minutes later. We need to be done by then and have the video on the server to be accessed in the practice meetings. We have a system in place where I collect the tapes halfway through practice and start the process, and the remainder gets done in that 45-minute period before the meetings. After that we continue to digitize the games. So that is how Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday are for us.

I have no idea how long practices last but it takes them at least 45 minutes to synch up everything, perform the qualtiy control on the information and have it ready for breakdown for half of a practice. If this is what they were doing it seems like its more of a next game thing than a what can I use it for now thing. This is pure speculation on my part but its more likely they were synching up a live feed to compare than using a system like this.

 

[BusMan]

I'm still at a loss as to how Patriots fans can defend blatant cheating that has apparently gone on for at least a few years . I imagine the more rational of them will look on this in a few months and be a bit embarrassed.

Who is "defending blatant cheating"?I've mentioned up and down this thread that this is TOTALLY embarrassing for the Patriots and I'm pretty embarrassed to be a fan of the team right now, if breaking a stated rule contributed to the team's success. Beyond embarrassed, really. More like REALLY pissed off.

You're filling this thread with off-topic bull that stinks of homerism. If you're so embarrassed to be a fan, either say nothing or skip the unsuccessful attempt to divert blame to Mangini. You're "saying" one thing that is contradicted by 98% of the content in your posts. We're not idiots, and its rude to treat us like we are. Sounds a bit like your fandom of the Patriots extends to BB's character flaws. Personally, I'll pass.

 

[BusMan]

Just as a personal/thread reminder: I'm very interested in whatever comes out regarding the radio frequency issues at Giants Stadium this past Sunday.

 

[Sweet J]

I'm still at a loss as to how Patriots fans can defend blatant cheating that has apparently gone on for at least a few years . I imagine the more rational of them will look on this in a few months and be a bit embarrassed.

Who is "defending blatant cheating"?I've mentioned up and down this thread that this is TOTALLY embarrassing for the Patriots and I'm pretty embarrassed to be a fan of the team right now, if breaking a stated rule contributed to the team's success. Beyond embarrassed, really. More like REALLY pissed off.

You're filling this thread with off-topic bull that stinks of homerism. If you're so embarrassed to be a fan, either say nothing or skip the unsuccessful attempt to divert blame to Mangini. You're "saying" one thing that is contradicted by 98% of the content in your posts. We're not idiots, and its rude to treat us like we are. Sounds a bit like your fandom of the Patriots extends to BB's character flaws. Personally, I'll pass.

There was no "blatant cheating that has gone on for at least a few years" if a rule was given THIS offseason prohibiting the videotaping of sideline coaches. Are you all saying a clear rule was in place 5 years ago against it? If not, we have ONE game where Bellicheck (allegedly) broke the rule.

 

[Marc Levin]

I'm still at a loss as to how Patriots fans can defend blatant cheating that has apparently gone on for at least a few years . I imagine the more rational of them will look on this in a few months and be a bit embarrassed.

Who is "defending blatant cheating"?I've mentioned up and down this thread that this is TOTALLY embarrassing for the Patriots and I'm pretty embarrassed to be a fan of the team right now, if breaking a stated rule contributed to the team's success. Beyond embarrassed, really. More like REALLY pissed off.

You're filling this thread with off-topic bull that stinks of homerism. If you're so embarrassed to be a fan, either say nothing or skip the unsuccessful attempt to divert blame to Mangini. You're "saying" one thing that is contradicted by 98% of the content in your posts. We're not idiots, and its rude to treat us like we are. Sounds a bit like your fandom of the Patriots extends to BB's character flaws. Personally, I'll pass.

There was no "blatant cheating that has gone on for at least a few years" if a rule was given THIS offseason prohibiting the videotaping of sideline coaches. Are you all saying a clear rule was in place 5 years ago against it? If not, we have ONE game where Bellicheck (allegedly) broke the rule.

Do you KNOW that it was just recently made a rule?Others have stated it has been a rule for at least two years but was given re-emphasis for ebforcement this past offseason - the reported behavior of other teams last year seems to support that there was a rule in place last year at the very least.

 

[pats3in4]

If you see a guy from the opponents team with a camera on your sideline, I'd expect you report it....

IT"S AGAINST THE RULES.

This did not happen. The photo showing the camera guy standing 20 feet away from the Jets players and coaches is a hoax. The Pats cameraman was on his own sideline recording the coaches from across the field.

Follow up question:

What NFL rule, exactly, did the Patriots violate? I'm curious to see the specifics of the rule.

I guess I just assumed that every team paid attention to the plays being signaled in by the opposition and analyzed them later...

The rule is no videocameras are allowed for whatever reason. Note that there is no rule against stealing signals. It is perfectly fine to have someone(s) use binoculars to observe the coaches across the field and take notes on what they are doing with their hands. It is perfectly fine to take still-pictures of said coaches with their hand signals and make notes. It is not fine to use a videocamera for this purpose, though. For that, BB and/or the Pats will pay whatever price Goddell deems appropriate for such a transgression.ETA: Slightly off topic...Last year when the Dolphins used recordings to read Brady's snap count and audibles in their 21-0 win, I was only mildly ticked at the Dolphins. I was really ticked at the Pats for not changing things up. Peyton Manning had a great story about changing things up when a former teammate went to an opponent in this week's Peter King column. He's right. You can (b)itch and moan about the other team stealing your signals, but if you suspect it's happening, then you can really cross up the opponent and pretty much put that practice to bed.

 

[Sweet J]

I'm still at a loss as to how Patriots fans can defend blatant cheating that has apparently gone on for at least a few years . I imagine the more rational of them will look on this in a few months and be a bit embarrassed.

Who is "defending blatant cheating"?I've mentioned up and down this thread that this is TOTALLY embarrassing for the Patriots and I'm pretty embarrassed to be a fan of the team right now, if breaking a stated rule contributed to the team's success. Beyond embarrassed, really. More like REALLY pissed off.

You're filling this thread with off-topic bull that stinks of homerism. If you're so embarrassed to be a fan, either say nothing or skip the unsuccessful attempt to divert blame to Mangini. You're "saying" one thing that is contradicted by 98% of the content in your posts. We're not idiots, and its rude to treat us like we are. Sounds a bit like your fandom of the Patriots extends to BB's character flaws. Personally, I'll pass.

There was no "blatant cheating that has gone on for at least a few years" if a rule was given THIS offseason prohibiting the videotaping of sideline coaches. Are you all saying a clear rule was in place 5 years ago against it? If not, we have ONE game where Bellicheck (allegedly) broke the rule.

Do you KNOW that it was just recently made a rule?Others have stated it has been a rule for at least two years but was given re-emphasis for ebforcement this past offseason - the reported behavior of other teams last year seems to support that there was a rule in place last year at the very least.

All I know is what people have been saying in these threads. People have been saying "Goodell sent a memo this offseason stating 'no cameras.'" I haven't seen this memo, nor have I seen the rule that purports to outlaw videotapes. You, or anyone else, is certainly welcome to post memo. Or the rule.

 

[GregR_2]

...All I know is what people have been saying in these threads. People have been saying "Goodell sent a memo this offseason stating 'no cameras.'" I haven't seen this memo, nor have I seen the rule that purports to outlaw videotapes. You, or anyone else, is certainly welcome to post memo. Or the rule.

Goodell sent a memo sternly warning teams not to break the rules in this regard. It wasn't a memo creating the rule.

 

[Marc Levin]

I'm still at a loss as to how Patriots fans can defend blatant cheating that has apparently gone on for at least a few years . I imagine the more rational of them will look on this in a few months and be a bit embarrassed.

Who is "defending blatant cheating"?I've mentioned up and down this thread that this is TOTALLY embarrassing for the Patriots and I'm pretty embarrassed to be a fan of the team right now, if breaking a stated rule contributed to the team's success. Beyond embarrassed, really. More like REALLY pissed off.

You're filling this thread with off-topic bull that stinks of homerism. If you're so embarrassed to be a fan, either say nothing or skip the unsuccessful attempt to divert blame to Mangini. You're "saying" one thing that is contradicted by 98% of the content in your posts. We're not idiots, and its rude to treat us like we are. Sounds a bit like your fandom of the Patriots extends to BB's character flaws. Personally, I'll pass.

There was no "blatant cheating that has gone on for at least a few years" if a rule was given THIS offseason prohibiting the videotaping of sideline coaches. Are you all saying a clear rule was in place 5 years ago against it? If not, we have ONE game where Bellicheck (allegedly) broke the rule.

Do you KNOW that it was just recently made a rule?Others have stated it has been a rule for at least two years but was given re-emphasis for ebforcement this past offseason - the reported behavior of other teams last year seems to support that there was a rule in place last year at the very least.

All I know is what people have been saying in these threads. People have been saying "Goodell sent a memo this offseason stating 'no cameras.'" I haven't seen this memo, nor have I seen the rule that purports to outlaw videotapes. You, or anyone else, is certainly welcome to post memo. Or the rule.

???I asked if you know because I have been asking for four or five pages now for someone to tell me how old the rule is. You implied the rule was only one game old - that is hardly an assertion to make if you don't know how old the rule is and there are multiple reports of complaints about the Pats' behavior stretching back to last year.It seems close minded to say "hey, the rule is only a game old" when there are clear reportsd of complaints last year and there were multiple memos "reminding" the league abou tthe rule (obviously not "creating" the rule).ETA - needless to say, at this point, enough info has come out regarding the Pats last year that Belichick can't plead ignorance of the rule.

 

[Kit Fisto]

The rule is no videocameras are allowed for whatever reason. Note that there is no rule against stealing signals. It is perfectly fine to have someone(s) use binoculars to observe the coaches across the field and take notes on what they are doing with their hands. It is perfectly fine to take still-pictures of said coaches with their hand signals and make notes. It is not fine to use a videocamera for this purpose, though. For that, BB and/or the Pats will pay whatever price Goddell deems appropriate for such a transgression.

Thank you!

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

I'm still at a loss as to how Patriots fans can defend blatant cheating that has apparently gone on for at least a few years . I imagine the more rational of them will look on this in a few months and be a bit embarrassed.

Who is "defending blatant cheating"?I've mentioned up and down this thread that this is TOTALLY embarrassing for the Patriots and I'm pretty embarrassed to be a fan of the team right now, if breaking a stated rule contributed to the team's success. Beyond embarrassed, really. More like REALLY pissed off.

You're filling this thread with off-topic bull that stinks of homerism. If you're so embarrassed to be a fan, either say nothing or skip the unsuccessful attempt to divert blame to Mangini. You're "saying" one thing that is contradicted by 98% of the content in your posts. We're not idiots, and its rude to treat us like we are. Sounds a bit like your fandom of the Patriots extends to BB's character flaws. Personally, I'll pass.

There was no "blatant cheating that has gone on for at least a few years" if a rule was given THIS offseason prohibiting the videotaping of sideline coaches. Are you all saying a clear rule was in place 5 years ago against it? If not, we have ONE game where Bellicheck (allegedly) broke the rule.

Do you KNOW that it was just recently made a rule?Others have stated it has been a rule for at least two years but was given re-emphasis for ebforcement this past offseason - the reported behavior of other teams last year seems to support that there was a rule in place last year at the very least.

All I know is what people have been saying in these threads. People have been saying "Goodell sent a memo this offseason stating 'no cameras.'" I haven't seen this memo, nor have I seen the rule that purports to outlaw videotapes. You, or anyone else, is certainly welcome to post memo. Or the rule.

....The "Game Operations Manual" states that "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." The manual states that "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." ...Go buy a copy of the Game Operations Manual and read it yourself. "The Earth is flat, I have not circled the globe, show me it is not flat"....

 

[Sweet J]

....The "Game Operations Manual" states that "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." The manual states that "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." ...Go buy a copy of the Game Operations Manual and read it yourself. "The Earth is flat, I have not circled the globe, show me it is not flat"....

I'm not sure I get it. Does that mean that video recording devices can be used in places other than the coaches booth or the field? Aren't teams allowed to make game tapes? I am guessing that they are allowed to make game tapes in a "vido shooting location" that is enclosed on all sides with a roof." If that is the case, can a person in that location video an opposing coach? According to your rule here, it seems that they can.

 

[adamjw2]

No punishment is necessary. How's this look?

2001*

2003*

2004*

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

....The "Game Operations Manual" states that "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." The manual states that "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." ...Go buy a copy of the Game Operations Manual and read it yourself. "The Earth is flat, I have not circled the globe, show me it is not flat"....

I'm not sure I get it. Does that mean that video recording devices can be used in places other than the coaches booth or the field? Aren't teams allowed to make game tapes? I am guessing that they are allowed to make game tapes in a "vido shooting location" that is enclosed on all sides with a roof." If that is the case, can a person in that location video an opposing coach? According to your rule here, it seems that they can.

#1 He was taping on the Field#2 You arent allowed to tape Defenisive Signals. It is another rule. I just posted the rule about where you can't tape the game.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

....

The "Game Operations Manual" states that "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." The manual states that "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." ...

Go buy a copy of the Game Operations Manual and read it yourself.

"The Earth is flat, I have not circled the globe, show me it is not flat"....

I'm not sure I get it. Does that mean that video recording devices can be used in places other than the coaches booth or the field? Aren't teams allowed to make game tapes? I am guessing that they are allowed to make game tapes in a "vido shooting location" that is enclosed on all sides with a roof." If that is the case, can a person in that location video an opposing coach? According to your rule here, it seems that they can.

I think the point is that there is an official game recording (which the teams can then later slice and dice for their own purposes) and the network cameras. I'm pretty sure the point is that the teams are not supposed to make their own recordings.I can't wait until someone reads that rule and builds an enclosure with an opening in the floor and an angled mirror allowing them to see over to the other sidelines. "But it had 4 walls and a roof!"

 

[Marc Levin]

Why do folks think they can use cameras? Still photographs are "video recording devices of any kind."

 

[David Yudkin]

Why do folks think they can use cameras? Still photographs are "video recording devices of any kind."

This is the part that really makes no sense to me. Teams take still photographs of every play and then shoot them down to the field immediately to scope out defensive alignments, stunts, audibles, etc. Isn't that using a camera at a game?I understand that it's not directed at the defensive signal calling, but it's still using a camera on game day.

 

[Marc Levin]

Why do folks think they can use cameras? Still photographs are "video recording devices of any kind."

This is the part that really makes no sense to me. Teams take still photographs of every play and then shoot them down to the field immediately to scope out defensive alignments, stunts, audibles, etc. Isn't that using a camera at a game?I understand that it's not directed at the defensive signal calling, but it's still using a camera on game day.

Those shots are not from the coaches booth - they are from the special vidoeo booths

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

Mike and the Mad Dog on the case today:

"George Young, you can debate him but there's never been a more honest guy in the league, said Belichick would never be the coach of the

Giants because he's the lousiest person he ever met his entire football career"

 

[David Yudkin]

Why do folks think they can use cameras? Still photographs are "video recording devices of any kind."

This is the part that really makes no sense to me. Teams take still photographs of every play and then shoot them down to the field immediately to scope out defensive alignments, stunts, audibles, etc. Isn't that using a camera at a game?I understand that it's not directed at the defensive signal calling, but it's still using a camera on game day.

Those shots are not from the coaches booth - they are from the special video booths

I understand that they are not taken the same way or from the same spot . . . but they are in the same vein and are trying to accomplish the same thing. Pictures are pictures and game day is game day. Why not just say that there can't be any camera at all allowed on game day?I'm not trying to defend what the Pats did, I'm just trying to see where/why the line is drawn in a certain spot.

 

[parrot]

It is perfectly fine to take still-pictures of said coaches with their hand signals and make notes. It is not fine to use a videocamera for this purpose, though.

Really all video is is a series of still pictures. With the digital technology currently available you could set up still cameras to take pictures at a pace that would be every bit as useful as video in the signal stealing regard. They're definitely going to have to refine the rule if they mean to enforce it.

 

[GregR_2]

Why do folks think they can use cameras? Still photographs are "video recording devices of any kind."

This is the part that really makes no sense to me. Teams take still photographs of every play and then shoot them down to the field immediately to scope out defensive alignments, stunts, audibles, etc. Isn't that using a camera at a game?I understand that it's not directed at the defensive signal calling, but it's still using a camera on game day.

Those shots are not from the coaches booth - they are from the special video booths

I understand that they are not taken the same way or from the same spot . . . but they are in the same vein and are trying to accomplish the same thing. Pictures are pictures and game day is game day. Why not just say that there can't be any camera at all allowed on game day?I'm not trying to defend what the Pats did, I'm just trying to see where/why the line is drawn in a certain spot.

Just because two methods aim to arrive at the same outcome doesn't mean they are equally ethical.The league has decided they don't want using technology to crack direct communication about FUTURE plays between coaches and players as part of the game. They have apparently decided it is ok to use some technology for players to evaluate PAST plays.

They might use knowledge they gained from that to come to their own conclusions on FUTURE plays, but they have to do that with their own minds, not through technological spying. Isn't that a pretty clear distinction the league has chosen to make?

 

[Winston Wolfe]

I am interested in seeing what the "interpretation of the rule" was.

 

[FBGirl79]

This may have been mentioned already in this thread b/c I haven't read all the way through but I was reading the Sept. 3rd SI and in an interview with Peyton Manning he specifically mentioned the Patriots recording them trying to steal their signals which I thought was interesting given all this just now coming out.

 

[Kit Fisto]

I'm going to wait and see. The truth will come out on it's own time, not mine. And I still feel this is going to be a much smaller issue in the end despite the typical media spin.

 

[Marc Levin]

Why do folks think they can use cameras? Still photographs are "video recording devices of any kind."

This is the part that really makes no sense to me. Teams take still photographs of every play and then shoot them down to the field immediately to scope out defensive alignments, stunts, audibles, etc. Isn't that using a camera at a game?I understand that it's not directed at the defensive signal calling, but it's still using a camera on game day.

Those shots are not from the coaches booth - they are from the special video booths

I understand that they are not taken the same way or from the same spot . . . but they are in the same vein and are trying to accomplish the same thing. Pictures are pictures and game day is game day. Why not just say that there can't be any camera at all allowed on game day?I'm not trying to defend what the Pats did, I'm just trying to see where/why the line is drawn in a certain spot.

???Pics of the field of play are hella different than pics of the defensive coach sending in signals. Seeing the signal removes the guess of what they are doing from a certain formation - only the formation is visible from the video booth.BTW, there's nothing wrong with steraling the defense's signals - but training a device on the d-coach at eye level just to steal the signals is poor gamesmanship.

 

[Marc Levin]

Whether Angry Bill has to eat a fine or lose draft picks, he's going to have to give the same generic contrition speech in front of the press. His one paragraph blurb actually doesn't give anyone any real indication on how this will play out. When there is smoke, sometimes it's just smoke.When there is smoke, sometimes it's fire, but think about it - the NFL makes more money with Angry Bill on the sidelines amping up good matchups than he is getting whacked for a camcorder offense. The NFL will always choose money first. If Michael Vick had won the last five SuperBowls with the Falcons and was the face of the new modern NFL, do you think the dogfighting issue would have played out the same way? Of course not, Roger Goodell would have driven down to Atlanta himself to bury those dogs as deep as possible. Angry Bill and the Patriots make the NFL money. As long as they do, they aren't going to get hammered over this no matter the truth. Now if the league is suddenly pro Peyton Manning and the Colts, because that marketing angle makes the NFL more money, then the Patriots might start to see a problem. The reason the generally irresponsible and unprofessional world of sports journalism uses this kind of spin, whether it's real or not, is because of the reactions like the ones in this thread. They want controversy, they want ratings, they want to find any angle to spice up a specific game matchup whenever possible. I respect what the Patriots have accomplished in the post free agency era of the NFL. They are the NFL's only true dynasty right now. And yes, Angry Bill is probably the last guy I'd want to share a beer with at a BBQ. But let's hear out the facts and get the full story before we start throwing stones. And based on these reactions, justified or not, can you blame Angry Bill for his general discontent with the media and his baseline excessive paranoia? Truth or not, if you react, you are really support irresponsible sports journalism on all levels. You become the reason guys like Stephen A Smith still have a job. I'm going to wait and see. The truth will come out on it's own time, not mine. And I still feel this is going to be a much smaller issue in the end despite the typical media spin.

Have you ever considered pursuing a career writing articles for a newspaper or magazine?Agree with you or not, you are a top-notch op-ed writer.

 

[parrot]

Whether Angry Bill has to eat a fine or lose draft picks, he's going to have to give the same generic contrition speech in front of the press. His one paragraph blurb actually doesn't give anyone any real indication on how this will play out. When there is smoke, sometimes it's just smoke.When there is smoke, sometimes it's fire, but think about it - the NFL makes more money with Angry Bill on the sidelines amping up good matchups than he is getting whacked for a camcorder offense. The NFL will always choose money first. If Michael Vick had won the last five SuperBowls with the Falcons and was the face of the new modern NFL, do you think the dogfighting issue would have played out the same way? Of course not, Roger Goodell would have driven down to Atlanta himself to bury those dogs as deep as possible. Angry Bill and the Patriots make the NFL money. As long as they do, they aren't going to get hammered over this no matter the truth. Now if the league is suddenly pro Peyton Manning and the Colts, because that marketing angle makes the NFL more money, then the Patriots might start to see a problem. The reason the generally irresponsible and unprofessional world of sports journalism uses this kind of spin, whether it's real or not, is because of the reactions like the ones in this thread. They want controversy, they want ratings, they want to find any angle to spice up a specific game matchup whenever possible. I respect what the Patriots have accomplished in the post free agency era of the NFL. They are the NFL's only true dynasty right now. And yes, Angry Bill is probably the last guy I'd want to share a beer with at a BBQ. But let's hear out the facts and get the full story before we start throwing stones. And based on these reactions, justified or not, can you blame Angry Bill for his general discontent with the media and his baseline excessive paranoia? Truth or not, if you react, you are really support irresponsible sports journalism on all levels. You become the reason guys like Stephen A Smith still have a job. I'm going to wait and see. The truth will come out on it's own time, not mine. And I still feel this is going to be a much smaller issue in the end despite the typical media spin.

Have you ever considered pursuing a career writing articles for a newspaper or magazine?Agree with you or not, you are a top-notch op-ed writer.

Top quality post.

 

[switz]

Whether Angry Bill has to eat a fine or lose draft picks, he's going to have to give the same generic contrition speech in front of the press. His one paragraph blurb actually doesn't give anyone any real indication on how this will play out. When there is smoke, sometimes it's just smoke.When there is smoke, sometimes it's fire, but think about it - the NFL makes more money with Angry Bill on the sidelines amping up good matchups than he is getting whacked for a camcorder offense. The NFL will always choose money first. If Michael Vick had won the last five SuperBowls with the Falcons and was the face of the new modern NFL, do you think the dogfighting issue would have played out the same way? Of course not, Roger Goodell would have driven down to Atlanta himself to bury those dogs as deep as possible. Angry Bill and the Patriots make the NFL money. As long as they do, they aren't going to get hammered over this no matter the truth. Now if the league is suddenly pro Peyton Manning and the Colts, because that marketing angle makes the NFL more money, then the Patriots might start to see a problem. The reason the generally irresponsible and unprofessional world of sports journalism uses this kind of spin, whether it's real or not, is because of the reactions like the ones in this thread. They want controversy, they want ratings, they want to find any angle to spice up a specific game matchup whenever possible. I respect what the Patriots have accomplished in the post free agency era of the NFL. They are the NFL's only true dynasty right now. And yes, Angry Bill is probably the last guy I'd want to share a beer with at a BBQ. But let's hear out the facts and get the full story before we start throwing stones. And based on these reactions, justified or not, can you blame Angry Bill for his general discontent with the media and his baseline excessive paranoia? Truth or not, if you react, you are really support irresponsible sports journalism on all levels. You become the reason guys like Stephen A Smith still have a job. I'm going to wait and see. The truth will come out on it's own time, not mine. And I still feel this is going to be a much smaller issue in the end despite the typical media spin.

Have you ever considered pursuing a career writing articles for a newspaper or magazine?Agree with you or not, you are a top-notch op-ed writer.

 

[Workhorse]

Why do folks think they can use cameras? Still photographs are "video recording devices of any kind."

This is the part that really makes no sense to me. Teams take still photographs of every play and then shoot them down to the field immediately to scope out defensive alignments, stunts, audibles, etc. Isn't that using a camera at a game?I understand that it's not directed at the defensive signal calling, but it's still using a camera on game day.

Those shots are not from the coaches booth - they are from the special video booths

I understand that they are not taken the same way or from the same spot . . . but they are in the same vein and are trying to accomplish the same thing. Pictures are pictures and game day is game day. Why not just say that there can't be any camera at all allowed on game day?I'm not trying to defend what the Pats did, I'm just trying to see where/why the line is drawn in a certain spot.

???Pics of the field of play are hella different than pics of the defensive coach sending in signals. Seeing the signal removes the guess of what they are doing from a certain formation - only the formation is visible from the video booth.BTW, there's nothing wrong with steraling the defense's signals - but training a device on the d-coach at eye level just to steal the signals is poor gamesmanship.

Just curious: Where do you stand on advance scouts with binoculars sitting in the press box, studying the next week's opponent coaches, and taking copious notes for the following week in order to steal signals?

 

[TD Ryan]

Whether Angry Bill has to eat a fine or lose draft picks, he's going to have to give the same generic contrition speech in front of the press. His one paragraph blurb actually doesn't give anyone any real indication on how this will play out. When there is smoke, sometimes it's just smoke.When there is smoke, sometimes it's fire, but think about it - the NFL makes more money with Angry Bill on the sidelines amping up good matchups than he is getting whacked for a camcorder offense. The NFL will always choose money first. If Michael Vick had won the last five SuperBowls with the Falcons and was the face of the new modern NFL, do you think the dogfighting issue would have played out the same way? Of course not, Roger Goodell would have driven down to Atlanta himself to bury those dogs as deep as possible. Angry Bill and the Patriots make the NFL money. As long as they do, they aren't going to get hammered over this no matter the truth. Now if the league is suddenly pro Peyton Manning and the Colts, because that marketing angle makes the NFL more money, then the Patriots might start to see a problem. The reason the generally irresponsible and unprofessional world of sports journalism uses this kind of spin, whether it's real or not, is because of the reactions like the ones in this thread. They want controversy, they want ratings, they want to find any angle to spice up a specific game matchup whenever possible. I respect what the Patriots have accomplished in the post free agency era of the NFL. They are the NFL's only true dynasty right now. And yes, Angry Bill is probably the last guy I'd want to share a beer with at a BBQ. But let's hear out the facts and get the full story before we start throwing stones. And based on these reactions, justified or not, can you blame Angry Bill for his general discontent with the media and his baseline excessive paranoia? Truth or not, if you react, you are really support irresponsible sports journalism on all levels. You become the reason guys like Stephen A Smith still have a job. I'm going to wait and see. The truth will come out on it's own time, not mine. And I still feel this is going to be a much smaller issue in the end despite the typical media spin.

 

[Diabolic]

[...]

When there is smoke, sometimes it's fire, but think about it - the NFL makes more money with Angry Bill on the sidelines amping up good matchups than he is getting whacked for a camcorder offense.

The NFL will always choose money first. If Michael Vick had won the last five SuperBowls with the Falcons and was the face of the new modern NFL, do you think the dogfighting issue would have played out the same way? Of course not, Roger Goodell would have driven down to Atlanta himself to bury those dogs as deep as possible.

Angry Bill and the Patriots make the NFL money. As long as they do, they aren't going to get hammered over this no matter the truth. Now if the league is suddenly pro Peyton Manning and the Colts, because that marketing angle makes the NFL more money, then the Patriots might start to see a problem.

[...]

You are both right and wrong. Mostly wrong. The NFL is interested in preserving their business, which - in that regard - means they are choosing money. Having a tolerance for poor sportsmanship, rule violations, and outright cheating will cost the NFL money. Turning a blind eye to someone like BB or MV simply for money would cause a slow and steady crumble. Why? Because the NFL draws a generally high-income, morally righteous demographic that would quickly turn away, if this type of behavior was allowed to proliferate. (Awaiting the obligatory "Source?" post.)Ever notice that NFL commercials are mostly for expensive cars, while NBA commercials are for Gatorate and sneakers?

 

[jonessed]

I'm still at a loss as to how Patriots fans can defend blatant cheating that has apparently gone on for at least a few years . I imagine the more rational of them will look on this in a few months and be a bit embarrassed.

Who is "defending blatant cheating"?I've mentioned up and down this thread that this is TOTALLY embarrassing for the Patriots and I'm pretty embarrassed to be a fan of the team right now, if breaking a stated rule contributed to the team's success. Beyond embarrassed, really. More like REALLY pissed off.

You're filling this thread with off-topic bull that stinks of homerism. If you're so embarrassed to be a fan, either say nothing or skip the unsuccessful attempt to divert blame to Mangini. You're "saying" one thing that is contradicted by 98% of the content in your posts. We're not idiots, and its rude to treat us like we are. Sounds a bit like your fandom of the Patriots extends to BB's character flaws. Personally, I'll pass.

There was no "blatant cheating that has gone on for at least a few years" if a rule was given THIS offseason prohibiting the videotaping of sideline coaches. Are you all saying a clear rule was in place 5 years ago against it? If not, we have ONE game where Bellicheck (allegedly) broke the rule.

The rule was not created this offseason. It's been in place for some time.

 

[packersfan]

Update from RotoWorld. If this is all the Pats get, that's just a slap on the wrist. Losing a third is nothing.

FOXSports.com's John Czarnecki reports the Patriots could lose a third-round pick after being caught stealing signals in regular season games.

Some around the league are pushing for the Pats to lose multiple draft choices, and strong consideration is reportedly being given to suspending coach Bill Belichick for one year. Czarnecki also says that cheating has been going on for decades in both college and pro football and that Belichick may have done it because he knows his opponents are too.

Source: FOXSports.com

 

[Marc Levin]

Why do folks think they can use cameras? Still photographs are "video recording devices of any kind."

This is the part that really makes no sense to me. Teams take still photographs of every play and then shoot them down to the field immediately to scope out defensive alignments, stunts, audibles, etc. Isn't that using a camera at a game?I understand that it's not directed at the defensive signal calling, but it's still using a camera on game day.

Those shots are not from the coaches booth - they are from the special video booths

I understand that they are not taken the same way or from the same spot . . . but they are in the same vein and are trying to accomplish the same thing. Pictures are pictures and game day is game day. Why not just say that there can't be any camera at all allowed on game day?I'm not trying to defend what the Pats did, I'm just trying to see where/why the line is drawn in a certain spot.

???Pics of the field of play are hella different than pics of the defensive coach sending in signals. Seeing the signal removes the guess of what they are doing from a certain formation - only the formation is visible from the video booth.BTW, there's nothing wrong with steraling the defense's signals - but training a device on the d-coach at eye level just to steal the signals is poor gamesmanship.

Just curious: Where do you stand on advance scouts with binoculars sitting in the press box, studying the next week's opponent coaches, and taking copious notes for the following week in order to steal signals?

No problem with it at all - I might change up my signals by next week, and probably will. I know those scouts are out there and they are not on the opposing sideline. They are in the stands.

 

[Marc Levin]

Update from RotoWorld. If this is all the Pats get, that's just a slap on the wrist. Losing a third is nothing.FOXSports.com's John Czarnecki reports the Patriots could lose a third-round pick after being caught stealing signals in regular season games.Some around the league are pushing for the Pats to lose multiple draft choices, and strong consideration is reportedly being given to suspending coach Bill Belichick for one year. Czarnecki also says that cheating has been going on for decades in both college and pro football and that Belichick may have done it because he knows his opponents are too.Source: FOXSports.com

And losing Belichick for a year???I'd say that is an appropriate penalty.

 

[greenline]

It's all speculation. All of it. The degree of actual filiming. The people with knowledge. The level of impact. The usage. The potential punishment. The public opinion. It all means nothing.

Thre Patriots are in violation of improper camera use. That's it. They will be punished according to that violation. If the NFL has any additional proof on how this was being used aside from SPECULATION, the punishment will increase.

Until then, it's a violation of one league rule with mounds of speculation.

This has mostly been fueled by purists who are unhappy with the tactic, media looking to make a name for themselves, and scorned NFL fans.

Converserly, it is being defended and deflected adamantly by Patriots fans reacting out of pure emotion and fear.

This is all fueled and flamed but in two weeks it will be an after thought for most.