Espn reporting Goodell confirmed Patriots using camera (2 Viewers)

[BigSteelThrill]

My main contention throughout all this is more with the league rules than what happened. Again, I don't approve of what the Pats did, but my concern is that the league should have rules that state, "Failure to comply will result in . . ." for a penalty phase.

I think they would rather say this is the rule and break it at your own peril. If you say the rule is that a team will forfeit a 3rd and said team has 3 3rd's next year and they need to win to get into the playoffs, what do you think the team will do if they know the worst that will happen is giving up a 3rd? They want to remove the temptation to cheat from their minds.

They coould set language to say that at a mimimum it wil be blah blah blah or that on a second infraction it will jump to blah blah blah.And I don't see how having three 3rd round picks should have any bearing on what the rule should be. The team did something TO GET those picks, so they still would loose something if they were taken away.

A set policy doesn't seem to be a problem in enforcing substance use suspensions. You don't see them saying that PLAYER X has 10 years still to play so the penalty should be more severe than PLAYER Y who only has two years left to play so he should get a lighter suspension. And you don't see them saying pot is not as hardcore as another drug or steroids . . . the rules are the rules no matter what.

Here you go... at the very minimum the team will receive a warning.At the very most, your team will cease to be a member in the NFL. Fini~

 

[Winston Wolfe]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

 

[Banger]

My main contention throughout all this is more with the league rules than what happened. Again, I don't approve of what the Pats did, but my concern is that the league should have rules that state, "Failure to comply will result in . . ." for a penalty phase.

I think they would rather say this is the rule and break it at your own peril. If you say the rule is that a team will forfeit a 3rd and said team has 3 3rd's next year and they need to win to get into the playoffs, what do you think the team will do if they know the worst that will happen is giving up a 3rd? They want to remove the temptation to cheat from their minds.

They coould set language to say that at a mimimum it wil be blah blah blah or that on a second infraction it will jump to blah blah blah.And I don't see how having three 3rd round picks should have any bearing on what the rule should be. The team did something TO GET those picks, so they still would loose something if they were taken away.A set policy doesn't seem to be a problem in enforcing substance use suspensions. You don't see them saying that PLAYER X has 10 years still to play so the penalty should be more severe than PLAYER Y who only has two years left to play so he should get a lighter suspension. And you don't see them saying pot is not as hardcore as another drug or steroids . . . the rules are the rules no matter what.

But then would they have to set rules and to say "you get X if you steal/tap into an opponents transmissions", "you get X if you you employ a device to jam transmissions", "if you pay an employee from another team to text message upcoming play calls you get X", etc. Once you start putting every example on paper then lawyers, etc. will analyze the rules to death to find loopholes. If you keep it more general and at the discretion of the Commish, it's much simpler IMO. If you don't like it don't break the rules.

 

[Banger]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

No. I posted that earlier in this thread and thought that may be what BB's "interpretation" of the rule was all about. I don't know if that is in fact part of the rule though.

 

[David Yudkin]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

IIRC, the rule states teams MAY NOT use cameras under certain conditions and certain timeframes (with game day being one of them). I do not believe it mentions anything at all about home or away, it just says "teams."

 

[David Yudkin]

But then would they have to set rules and to say "you get X if you steal/tap into an opponents transmissions", "you get X if you you employ a device to jam transmissions", "if you pay an employee from another team to text message upcoming play calls you get X", etc. Once you start putting every example on paper then lawyers, etc. will analyze the rules to death to find loopholes. If you keep it more general and at the discretion of the Commish, it's much simpler IMO. If you don't like it don't break the rules.

The Pats are accused of breaking a PARTICULAR rule . . . having a camera on the sideline and taping the opposition's signs/signals. All the other stuff at this point is not what they are getting written up for (and that certainly could change).If there are no rules against something (say text messaging), then they obviously don't need to define a penalty for something that is not a rule.And your argument is another one FOR defining the rules. If it doesn't say if something is legal or illegal, how can a team be held accountable if the rules are not spelled out?

 

[Kit Fisto]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

No. I posted that earlier in this thread and thought that may be what BB's "interpretation" of the rule was all about. I don't know if that is in fact part of the rule though.

None of us do. It's all speculation (re: hate/love) right now.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

But then would they have to set rules and to say "you get X if you steal/tap into an opponents transmissions", "you get X if you you employ a device to jam transmissions", "if you pay an employee from another team to text message upcoming play calls you get X", etc. Once you start putting every example on paper then lawyers, etc. will analyze the rules to death to find loopholes. If you keep it more general and at the discretion of the Commish, it's much simpler IMO. If you don't like it don't break the rules.

The Pats are accused of breaking a PARTICULAR rule . . . having a camera on the sideline and taping the opposition's signs/signals. All the other stuff at this point is not what they are getting written up for (and that certainly could change).If there are no rules against something (say text messaging), then they obviously don't need to define a penalty for something that is not a rule.And your argument is another one FOR defining the rules. If it doesn't say if something is legal or illegal, how can a team be held accountable if the rules are not spelled out?

Its called... INTEGRITY!Must not register in Patriot land.

 

[Winston Wolfe]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

IIRC, the rule states teams MAY NOT use cameras under certain conditions and certain timeframes (with game day being one of them). I do not believe it mentions anything at all about home or away, it just says "teams."

We are relying that the news media to tell us what the rule is. They may or may not me correct. Something about the way the rule is worded caused BB to use the word "interpretation" today. I don't have any knowledge other than what the media is reporting. As a Pats fan and season ticket holder, I am disappointed and it has left a bad taste in my mouth. I am not trying to justify anything. I guess my general question is this. Would the people who see this as black and white cheating issue change their mind if this was a case of a coach exploiting a gray area in poorly written rule, rather than blatant disregard for a specific rule?

 

[David Yudkin]

But then would they have to set rules and to say "you get X if you steal/tap into an opponents transmissions", "you get X if you you employ a device to jam transmissions", "if you pay an employee from another team to text message upcoming play calls you get X", etc. Once you start putting every example on paper then lawyers, etc. will analyze the rules to death to find loopholes. If you keep it more general and at the discretion of the Commish, it's much simpler IMO. If you don't like it don't break the rules.

The Pats are accused of breaking a PARTICULAR rule . . . having a camera on the sideline and taping the opposition's signs/signals. All the other stuff at this point is not what they are getting written up for (and that certainly could change).If there are no rules against something (say text messaging), then they obviously don't need to define a penalty for something that is not a rule.And your argument is another one FOR defining the rules. If it doesn't say if something is legal or illegal, how can a team be held accountable if the rules are not spelled out?

Its called... INTEGRITY!Must not register in Patriot land.

What does this have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that the league should consider spelling out the law of the land. It's pretty clear (at least to me) that this subversive type of competitive intelligence is pretty prevalent across the NFL. Yes, the Pats got caught and should be punished. But IMO they should have rules governing what the rules and penalties are. Is that asking too much?

 

[pwtrash]

Even if Brady were involved, I also don't see how anyone could prove it.

I agree. And I see that as a negative for Brady in terms of how his career would be perceived IF the infractions plumb the lowest possible depths. He'll be forever soiled with the residue of this in the minds of many people. Even if he didn't explicitly know about the cheating, he'd definitely be a primary beneficiary and his accomplishments will be called into question, as will the accomplishments of the Pats in general.

I think plenty of people hate him already for his ability to date women that the rest of the real world can only hope to see on screen or in lingerie catalogs.I see this entire situation getting blown out of proportion at this stage and like most other things once it is resolved it will go away and years from now this whole story will be nothing more than a footnote to Brady's career.

Wow, did we get sucked back into the Vick threads? Sure looks that way.

Are you comparing the maiming and torturing of dogs with some guy videotaping some guys fingers?

Yeah, one actually affects the NFL, one affects their image. The Pats situation IF they were cheating and relaying information in the game as it happened, is incalcuably worse than the Vick deal. Not looking to hijack this, maybe that debate deserves its own FFA thread, but you are wrong to think Vick is worse than this.

From an ethical standpoint, I disagree completely - animal cruelty is worse than the vast majority of acts that can happen with intention in the NFL (intentional injury is up there, I guess).From an NFL standpoint, I agree. I've moved from resentment, to grudging respect, to outright admiration for Tom Brady over the last 5 years. I think his single greatest strangth is his ability to read defenses and make the right pass at the right time. Needless to say, I'm pretty concerned about these allegations. IF they are true (probably are), and IF the technology was consistently used to advantage in order to relay real-time information about the defensive calls (not sure about this AT ALL, and I'm skeptical), then:1) There is no way in hell that Brady did not know what was going on, plausible deniability or no2) It is cheating, with an immediate effect far greater than performance enhancing drugs. It would be the equivalent of using a parabolic mic to hear what is being said in the huddle or intercepting helmet communication and then using that information to set the defense.3) It really tarnishes Brady's legacy in my mind, because what I consider to be his single greatest strength - his reads - will seem to have been the result of the booth, not his ability. (Yes, I know he has great accuracy, but his reads set him apart from everyone else - even Peyton - in my mind, at least.)I hope this is not the case. I'm not a Pats fan, but as a fan of the game, I don't want to feel like I've been snookered.It probably sounds like I'm over-reacting, but I remember the 2001 Colts/Raiders game, when Biekert figured out Manning's audibles in the middle of the game and the Oakland D dominated the fourth quarter, adjusting to every audible. I'm not arguing that was illegal - actually, I thought it was great MLB work & perfectly legal. But it was the deciding factor in the game, and stunning to watch. I just bring it up to point out the effect of fore-knowledge on the game.

 

[massraider]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

No. I posted that earlier in this thread and thought that may be what BB's "interpretation" of the rule was all about. I don't know if that is in fact part of the rule though.

None of us do. It's all speculation (re: hate/love) right now.

There's speculation and there's wild speculation. Until I see a quote regarding home and away teams, I am going to classify that loophole defense as "wild speculation". Hater/homer/whatever. My god, if we are going to make up stuff, and then claim it as good a theory as any other.......

 

[massraider]

Even if Brady were involved, I also don't see how anyone could prove it.

I agree. And I see that as a negative for Brady in terms of how his career would be perceived IF the infractions plumb the lowest possible depths. He'll be forever soiled with the residue of this in the minds of many people. Even if he didn't explicitly know about the cheating, he'd definitely be a primary beneficiary and his accomplishments will be called into question, as will the accomplishments of the Pats in general.

I think plenty of people hate him already for his ability to date women that the rest of the real world can only hope to see on screen or in lingerie catalogs.I see this entire situation getting blown out of proportion at this stage and like most other things once it is resolved it will go away and years from now this whole story will be nothing more than a footnote to Brady's career.

Wow, did we get sucked back into the Vick threads? Sure looks that way.

Are you comparing the maiming and torturing of dogs with some guy videotaping some guys fingers?

Yeah, one actually affects the NFL, one affects their image. The Pats situation IF they were cheating and relaying information in the game as it happened, is incalcuably worse than the Vick deal. Not looking to hijack this, maybe that debate deserves its own FFA thread, but you are wrong to think Vick is worse than this.

From an ethical standpoint, I disagree completely - animal cruelty is worse than the vast majority of acts that can happen with intention in the NFL (intentional injury is up there, I guess).From an NFL standpoint, I agree. I've moved from resentment, to grudging respect, to outright admiration for Tom Brady over the last 5 years. I think his single greatest strangth is his ability to read defenses and make the right pass at the right time. Needless to say, I'm pretty concerned about these allegations. IF they are true (probably are), and IF the technology was consistently used to advantage in order to relay real-time information about the defensive calls (not sure about this AT ALL, and I'm skeptical), then:1) There is no way in hell that Brady did not know what was going on, plausible deniability or no2) It is cheating, with an immediate effect far greater than performance enhancing drugs. It would be the equivalent of using a parabolic mic to hear what is being said in the huddle or intercepting helmet communication and then using that information to set the defense.3) It really tarnishes Brady's legacy in my mind, because what I consider to be his single greatest strength - his reads - will seem to have been the result of the booth, not his ability. (Yes, I know he has great accuracy, but his reads set him apart from everyone else - even Peyton - in my mind, at least.)I hope this is not the case. I'm not a Pats fan, but as a fan of the game, I don't want to feel like I've been snookered.It probably sounds like I'm over-reacting, but I remember the 2001 Colts/Raiders game, when Biekert figured out Manning's audibles in the middle of the game and the Oakland D dominated the fourth quarter, adjusting to every audible. I'm not arguing that was illegal - actually, I thought it was great MLB work & perfectly legal. But it was the deciding factor in the game, and stunning to watch. I just bring it up to point out the effect of fore-knowledge on the game.

Great post. I thought about that game as well. Beikert went into halftime, told the Raiders the audibles, and the Raiders took over in the 2nd half.

 

[Kit Fisto]

The Pats are accused of breaking a PARTICULAR rule . . . having a camera on the sideline and taping the opposition's signs/signals. All the other stuff at this point is not what they are getting written up for (and that certainly could change).

If there are no rules against something (say text messaging), then they obviously don't need to define a penalty for something that is not a rule.

And your argument is another one FOR defining the rules. If it doesn't say if something is legal or illegal, how can a team be held accountable if the rules are not spelled out?

Having a camera on the sidelines is all the Patriots have been charged with. Everything else is speculation/heresay. Goodell with sift through it all.

 

[David Yudkin]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

IIRC, the rule states teams MAY NOT use cameras under certain conditions and certain timeframes (with game day being one of them). I do not believe it mentions anything at all about home or away, it just says "teams."

We are relying that the news media to tell us what the rule is. They may or may not me correct. Something about the way the rule is worded caused BB to use the word "interpretation" today. I don't have any knowledge other than what the media is reporting. As a Pats fan and season ticket holder, I am disappointed and it has left a bad taste in my mouth. I am not trying to justify anything. I guess my general question is this. Would the people who see this as black and white cheating issue would change their mind if this was a case of a coach exploiting a gray area in poorly written rule, rather than blatant disregard for a specific rule?

The exact rule has been cited in at least one of these threads, and I do not recall there being a home/away loophole. The Pats I'm sure will come up with some explanation to say that they were not doing exactly what the rule prohibits and that what is on the videotape is in actuality something different than what it appears.I think their beef is in the interpretation of what they were using the video/information for. The rule itself states that you can't have cameras on the sidelines on game day and cited under what circumstances they are allowed.Obviously no one here has intimate knowledge of any of this, and I tried getting in touch with people that might have more knowledge but at this point I have not heard anything.

 

[remote controller]

When Goodell comes out last week and says that coaches need to be held to a higher standard, when he gave Wade Wilson 5 games for trying aid his ED, he sure as hell better remove that organ from BB. Anything less than that 5 game suspension will be a joke, and i expect a joke.

 

[Kit Fisto]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

IIRC, the rule states teams MAY NOT use cameras under certain conditions and certain timeframes (with game day being one of them). I do not believe it mentions anything at all about home or away, it just says "teams."

We are relying that the news media to tell us what the rule is. They may or may not me correct. Something about the way the rule is worded caused BB to use the word "interpretation" today. I don't have any knowledge other than what the media is reporting. As a Pats fan and season ticket holder, I am disappointed and it has left a bad taste in my mouth. I am not trying to justify anything. I guess my general question is this. Would the people who see this as black and white cheating issue change their mind if this was a case of a coach exploiting a gray area in poorly written rule, rather than blatant disregard for a specific rule?

 

[Kit Fisto]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

No. I posted that earlier in this thread and thought that may be what BB's "interpretation" of the rule was all about. I don't know if that is in fact part of the rule though.

None of us do. It's all speculation (re: hate/love) right now.

There's speculation and there's wild speculation. Until I see a quote regarding home and away teams, I am going to classify that loophole defense as "wild speculation". Hater/homer/whatever. My god, if we are going to make up stuff, and then claim it as good a theory as any other.......

Lots of wild speculation going on in here, both ways. Don't you see that?Belichick gets a year? Ouch that'll hurt and this was a big deal.

Slap on the wrist? This wasn't what it was made out to be.

Until I see a quote from Goodell that says this is a big deal, I'll reserve judgement.

 

[parrot]

I guess my general question is this. Would the people who see this as black and white cheating issue change their mind if this was a case of a coach exploiting a gray area in poorly written rule, rather than blatant disregard for a specific rule?

Depends, is the coach still Belichick? On the loophole idea, the rule says no cameras allowed on the field. Are the sidelines defined as part of "the field" in the context of this rule?

 

[reg]

I guess my general question is this. Would the people who see this as black and white cheating issue change their mind if this was a case of a coach exploiting a gray area in poorly written rule, rather than blatant disregard for a specific rule?

Depends, is the coach still Belichick? On the loophole idea, the rule says no cameras allowed on the field. Are the sidelines defined as part of "the field" in the context of this rule?

I think the "is prohibited on the sidelines" line would clarify that.

 

[Winston Wolfe]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I want to know WTF BB meant by interpretation.

PLEASE NOTE: I AM IN NO WAY TRYING TO DEFEND OR JUSTIFY ANYTHING.

 

[David Yudkin]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I want to know WTF BB meant by interpretation.

BB will only disclose something after the league says something. Nothing more, nothing less. We may not ever hear the hwole story on any of this.

 

[Winston Wolfe]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I want to know WTF BB meant by interpretation.

BB will only disclose something after the league says something. Nothing more, nothing less. We may not ever hear the hwole story on any of this.

Also, for the record, if this was a case of blatant disregard of the rules, I fully support suspending BB for multiple games.

 

[parrot]

I guess my general question is this. Would the people who see this as black and white cheating issue change their mind if this was a case of a coach exploiting a gray area in poorly written rule, rather than blatant disregard for a specific rule?

Depends, is the coach still Belichick? On the loophole idea, the rule says no cameras allowed on the field. Are the sidelines defined as part of "the field" in the context of this rule?

I think the "is prohibited on the sidelines" line would clarify that.

That's from the memo, not the actual rule, correct? Does that memo carry the weight of law, or was it just intended as a reminder in regards to the rule? It seems too simple but that could conceivably be BB's wiggle room for "interpretation".

 

[Kit Fisto]

Whatever, whatever, whatever...

There is language (or lack thereof) in the rule that Belichick has pushed. Like Yudkin said, this isn't all that unlike a fantasy player pushing a rule becuase it wasn't written specifically enough by the commish.

Now it's up to the Commissioner to determine if what Belichick did may be violating "the spirit" or a direct violation, but that's for Goodell to decide. Not homers/haters on fantasy football message boards.

We don't know what's on those tapes or what use the Patriots put it to. It's all speculation right now.

 

[Winston Wolfe]

Whatever, whatever, whatever... There is language (or lack thereof) in the rule that Belichick has pushed. Like Yudkin said, this isn't all that unlike a fantasy player pushing a rule becuase it wasn't written specifically enough by the commish.Now it's up to the Commissioner to determine if what Belichick did may be violating "the spirit" or a direct violation, but that's for Goodell to decide. Not homers/haters on fantasy football message boards.We don't know what's on thos etapes or what use the Patriots put it to. It's all speculation right now.

x 1000000

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Again, this is not about hating NE. This about hating cheaters.

Let's compromise and say its about hating cheaters with the amazing coincidence that said hatred is being voiced by:60% Jets and Steelers fans30% Rams, Colts, Raiders, Panthers fans10% Other

Purely speculation. But if it makes you feel comfortable to make up these stats, go for it.Funny how it is absolutely inconceivable to some of these Pats fans that an average football fan could be outraged by these allegations independently of their fan affiliation with a team.

My observation is empirical (sp?) based on the 3-4 active thread topics and observation of the most active posters. I freely admit that my estimates are exactly that, and I would welcome any thorough accounting of said posts by anyone who wants to represent that the qualitative accuracy of my statement is in err. You should also take note of the fact that I have not in any way defended BB's actions, played the "everybody is doing it" card, or otherwise attempted to minimize the impropriety of said actions. I am merely pointing out that it is an empirical fact that the the team affiliation of "hater" posts is concentrated in select areas, and as such attempts by you and other active posters in the subject matter threads to play the "unbiased outrage" card is transparent.Good day.

 

[AB in DC]

ETA - Goodell isnt a lawyer btw.

I don't know why I thought he was a lawyer. I guess because he was so heavily involved in the CBA that I couldn't imagine a non-lawyer being able to make sense of the whole thing...

 

[ookook]

My opinion is that what matters here is the intention not the interpretation.

For years the Patriots have been videotaping signals. Former staff have admitted it. Opposing coaches have said so based on first hand observation.

In my opinion, there is NO VALID REASON for taping signals other than to get an unfair advantage. It is not the same as analyzing team's tendencies and guessing what they will do in a situation. It is more akin to paying someone inside another organization to get the other team's playbook.

Whether there is some loophole or technicality, it is now without dispute that they have been using this to the advantage of their offense, an advantage other team's have not had.

It is not how I compete--I would rather lose than get an advantage like that. It is not how I wan tmy kids to compete.

No penalty will be stiff enough and no blight on their image tarnish enough.

I say BB should get 4 games and they should lose a 2nd and 5th and it is still not enough because other team's have suffered mor ethan that.

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

No. I posted that earlier in this thread and thought that may be what BB's "interpretation" of the rule was all about. I don't know if that is in fact part of the rule though.

None of us do. It's all speculation (re: hate/love) right now.

There's speculation and there's wild speculation. Until I see a quote regarding home and away teams, I am going to classify that loophole defense as "wild speculation". Hater/homer/whatever. My god, if we are going to make up stuff, and then claim it as good a theory as any other.......

Lots of wild speculation going on in here, both ways. Don't you see that?Belichick gets a year? Ouch that'll hurt and this was a big deal.

Slap on the wrist? This wasn't what it was made out to be.

Until I see a quote from Goodell that says this is a big deal, I'll reserve judgement.

I agree with this. If Belichick gets the hammer, we will know it was a pretty blatant cheating. If he doesen't, well the league obviously views whatever was done to be a minor issue. Im betting on the former, mainly because of the warning that was given out to make sure everyone understood the rules.

 

[ookook]

There is no dispute that both the spirit and intention were violated.

He should forfeit his rings!

 

[David Yudkin]

Here's the text of the rule since Ken was asking about it . . .

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."

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

If Belichick gets the hammer, we will know it was a pretty blatant cheating. If he doesen't, well the league obviously views whatever was done to be a minor issue. Im betting on the former, mainly because of the warning that was given out to make sure everyone understood the rules.

Actually, getting the hammer could also mean that political enemies exploited a tactical situation for strategic gain. Conversely, if he doesn't get the hammer, it could mean that Kraft's lawyers saved BB's tail, or it could mean that Goodell determines that the impropriety is not substantially worse than baseline impropriety around the league, or Goodell could determine that the benefit to the league by establishing a firm deterrant is outweighed by the negative impact that the tarnishing effect said suspension could have. There are complex political dynamics and brand value preservation calculations that are in play here. The world is not black and white despite most peoples desire for it to be that way.

 

[reg]

Here's the text of the rule since Ken was asking about it . . .

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."

Why don't they post the entire rule, rather than just snippets? Maybe there is something else on that page that Belicheck is interpreting differently.

 

[Marc Levin]

On a related note -- though this has more relevance to the Wade Wilson suspension than to Belichick --Exactly what authority does Goddell have to suspend a coach?With a player, it's outlined specifically in the collective bargaining agreement. There is no CBA for coaches, last I checked. And coaches are employed by their franchise, not the NFL, so any rules that the NFL imposes on their employees don't apply.

Since I didn't see a good answer to this question:All the teams are part of an unincorporated association called the NFL - under the charter agreement between the teams, they appointed this body called the commish and imbued him with certain powers - including running the organization, making the rules, and enforcing them.If the teanm wants to remain in the organization, it must follow the procedures, rules, and decisions of the commissioner.The coach is an employee of the Pats, who are members of the NFL. The Patriots are ordered to suspend BB, so, by the transitive property, the coach is suspended by the league.This is an oversimplistic explanation for how formal organizations like the NFL, MBL - or, for that matter, the Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church - operate.

 

[Shrek]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

Let me ask a question in return.Does anyone truly believe that the rule was created because there was such a rampant problem with home teams videotaping their visitors?

 

[Marc Levin]

But then would they have to set rules and to say "you get X if you steal/tap into an opponents transmissions", "you get X if you you employ a device to jam transmissions", "if you pay an employee from another team to text message upcoming play calls you get X", etc. Once you start putting every example on paper then lawyers, etc. will analyze the rules to death to find loopholes. If you keep it more general and at the discretion of the Commish, it's much simpler IMO. If you don't like it don't break the rules.

The Pats are accused of breaking a PARTICULAR rule . . . having a camera on the sideline and taping the opposition's signs/signals. All the other stuff at this point is not what they are getting written up for (and that certainly could change).If there are no rules against something (say text messaging), then they obviously don't need to define a penalty for something that is not a rule.And your argument is another one FOR defining the rules. If it doesn't say if something is legal or illegal, how can a team be held accountable if the rules are not spelled out?

David, I am missing your point here. Why should the commish spell out punishments for rule violations if he doesn't have to?

 

[Dickie Dunn]

For years the Patriots have been videotaping signals. Former staff have admitted it. Opposing coaches have said so based on first hand observation.

Just to be clear, the ex-cameraman that was quoted by the Boston Herald worked for the Patriots, but not for Belichick. He worked for Raymond Berry and Parcells, but he specifically pointed out the tactics suspected when Belichick was in Cleveland.So this is something that could have been going on not only under a different coaching staff, but under a completely different ownership and front office regime as far back as at least 1989 (Berry's last season)? Which leads me to believe this is rampant and has been a "wink wink" kind of thing throughout the league for a long time. Only the fact that Goodell is intent on cracking down on it, and Belichick's current staff was caught doing it, has made it into the story it is now.

 

[Winston Wolfe]

Here's the text of the rule since Ken was asking about it . . .

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."

I was aware of what the media has been reporting. "It later says:" means that it is not the rule in its entirety. We don't even know if that is what BB was referring tnce again, I am not looking to justify. BB's statement left me curious.

 

[AB in DC]

So far the NFL hasn't posted anything. I believe the quote is from a newspaper website (or blog).

 

[Kit Fisto]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

Let me ask a question in return.Does anyone truly believe that the rule was created because there was such a rampant problem with home teams videotaping their visitors?

Could be.I could hypothetically hide a videographer in Gillette much easier than I could, say the Meadowlands.

 

[Kit Fisto]

Which leads me to believe this is rampant and has been a "wink wink" kind of thing throughout the league for a long time. Only the fact that Goodell is intent on cracking down on it, and Belichick's current staff was caught doing it, has made it into the story it is now.

Could be.Although I think the Mangini/Belichick war is what brought this to light, however.

 

[mad sweeney]

For years the Patriots have been videotaping signals. Former staff have admitted it. Opposing coaches have said so based on first hand observation.

Just to be clear, the ex-cameraman that was quoted by the Boston Herald worked for the Patriots, but not for Belichick. He worked for Raymond Berry and Parcells, but he specifically pointed out the tactics suspected when Belichick was in Cleveland.So this is something that could have been going on not only under a different coaching staff, but under a completely different ownership and front office regime as far back as at least 1989 (Berry's last season)? Which leads me to believe this is rampant and has been a "wink wink" kind of thing throughout the league for a long time. Only the fact that Goodell is intent on cracking down on it, and Belichick's current staff was caught doing it, has made it into the story it is now.

One thing is for sure, it will be interesting to see what Parcells and Meshawn have to say about this Sunday morning...

 

[Dickie Dunn]

Which leads me to believe this is rampant and has been a "wink wink" kind of thing throughout the league for a long time. Only the fact that Goodell is intent on cracking down on it, and Belichick's current staff was caught doing it, has made it into the story it is now.

Could be.Although I think the Mangini/Belichick war is what brought this to light, however.

I don't doubt that at all.If you thought it was on before ... something tells me BB and Co. would like to approach Dec. 9 in a way that would make 56-3 seem like "pattycakes."

 

[Shrek]

Again, this is not about hating NE. This about hating cheaters.

Let's compromise and say its about hating cheaters with the amazing coincidence that said hatred is being voiced by:60% Jets and Steelers fans30% Rams, Colts, Raiders, Panthers fans10% Other

Purely speculation. But if it makes you feel comfortable to make up these stats, go for it.Funny how it is absolutely inconceivable to some of these Pats fans that an average football fan could be outraged by these allegations independently of their fan affiliation with a team.

My observation is empirical (sp?) based on the 3-4 active thread topics and observation of the most active posters. I freely admit that my estimates are exactly that, and I would welcome any thorough accounting of said posts by anyone who wants to represent that the qualitative accuracy of my statement is in err. You should also take note of the fact that I have not in any way defended BB's actions, played the "everybody is doing it" card, or otherwise attempted to minimize the impropriety of said actions. I am merely pointing out that it is an empirical fact that the the team affiliation of "hater" posts is concentrated in select areas, and as such attempts by you and other active posters in the subject matter threads to play the "unbiased outrage" card is transparent.Good day.

Or, you could accept the fact that someone's opinion is separate from their being a fan of another team.A) I have noted that you haven't played the weak argument cards that many others have. It's refreshing to get an opinion from someone who can be a fan yet be logical and reasonable in their arguments.B) You can't see if someone's outrage is unbiased or not, because before you listen to anyone's point, sor some odd reason it's very important for you to filter that point through the "Who's your favorite team?" filter. And that's unfortunate.Why is it that every time someone makes a point against the Patriots/BB in this situation, the first words out of Pat fan's mouth is "Oh yeah? And who's your team?" WTF does it matter who their team is if their point is valid?I know it chaps the ### of the average Patriot fan to think that their team should have to account for their actions to anyone. And I know it chaps their ### a hundred times worse to think they should have to be accountable to a Steelers/Jets/Colts/Panthers fan. To that I say tough ####. They aren't investigating the Steelers/Panthers/Jets/Colts or anyone else. When they do, those teams better come up with their own answers.

 

[Kit Fisto]

Parcells has already gone on record saying it happens all the time.

 

[Winston Wolfe]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

Let me ask a question in return.Does anyone truly believe that the rule was created because there was such a rampant problem with home teams videotaping their visitors?

I do believe that the home team could more easily have the necessary infrastructure necessary and their coordinator's box could be altered to give them extra information. Do I believe that it is possible that the intent of the rule was improperly worded leaving a gray area? Sure.Unfortunately, as an accountant that deals with tax law, I read rules and regulations for what they actually say, not for intent.

As for your specific question, I don't have the NFL game operating manual, so I can't answer your question conclusively. As I said, the home team could more easily add cameras to their stadium for the specific reason of stealing signals. This could have been the reason for the rule in the first place.

 

[jon_mx]

Seems like the arguments are coming down to 'everybody does it' and it all depends on what 'is' means......where have I heard this all before?

 

[Mungo Burrows]

The Pats are accused of breaking a PARTICULAR rule . . . having a camera on the sideline and taping the opposition's signs/signals. All the other stuff at this point is not what they are getting written up for (and that certainly could change).

If there are no rules against something (say text messaging), then they obviously don't need to define a penalty for something that is not a rule.

And your argument is another one FOR defining the rules. If it doesn't say if something is legal or illegal, how can a team be held accountable if the rules are not spelled out?

Having a camera on the sidelines is all the Patriots have been charged with. Everything else is speculation/heresay. Goodell with sift through it all.

True, this is even more speculation, but I wonder at what point does the allegation of cheating/compromised integrity (particularly in light of the media hoopla it's causing) cross over into Conduct Detrimental to the League. Basically this is sullying the reputation of that shield he pointed to when Troy Smith confronted him in the rookie symposium.Some have said the league will want to keep this quiet with a fairly minor penalty because they don't want to drag the NFL reputation though the mud of a bigger scandal. Well here's the deal...it looks like the scandal genie is already out of the bottle. If anything Goodell has shown a tendency to point to anyone wallowing in the "mud" and make a bold statement that "the rest of us aren't like that, and we won't tolerate it".

 

[Shrek]

This was mentioned in another thread. I assume it was speculation. What would everyone's take be if the memo or the rule specifically mentioned the "home team may not..." or "you may not, in your stadium" and did not specifically mention the visiting team? Would this change anyone's opinion?

Let me ask a question in return.Does anyone truly believe that the rule was created because there was such a rampant problem with home teams videotaping their visitors?

I do believe that the home team could more easily have the necessary infrastructure necessary and their coordinator's box could be altered to give them extra information. Do I believe that it is possible that the intent of the rule was improperly worded leaving a gray area? Sure.Unfortunately, as an accountant that deals with tax law, I read rules and regulations for what they actually say, not for intent.

I can appreciate what you mean here. And that may come into play. But with the specific wording of "including but not limited to offensive or defensive signals", I'm sure the gray area was reduced significantly.