Gopher State
Footballguy
Wow, pretty pathetic. Posting this in the appropriate thread wasn't enough, you have to draw everyone's eyes to it in your own thread because you're so insecure about the Pat's success.
Wow, pretty pathetic. Posting this in the appropriate thread wasn't enough, you have to draw everyone's eyes to it in your own thread because you're so insecure about the Pat's success.
Can they be relevant as gluttons for punishment?It's as if they are still relevant.Wow, pretty pathetic. Posting this in the appropriate thread wasn't enough, you have to draw everyone's eyes to it in your own thread because you're so insecure about the Pat's success.
We are still talking about spygate? Or the Patriots for that matter?January 2014 is the date of the comments2004?
My hope is we can stick to the facts and those who want a real discussion and those who want to hate\taunt will expose themselves soon enough. Lets ignore the haters and try to work constructively and see if we can't get somewhere.Out of curiosity, what did you think would happen when you started this thread?
So we know between Sept of 2006 and Sept of 2007 BB and co violated the 2006 memorandum.In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping 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
Does anyone have the specific rule(s) that stated video taping signals was illegal?Page 105 of the 2007 NFL Game Operations Manual states, "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...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."[17] Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...including without limitation...any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."[18] In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping 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."[18]
You're surprised by this, after they were handed a SB vs Seattle?So they cheated, but it's okay because they cheated better than everybody else?
thatsumitup?
yes, and after Scarnecchia was caught videotaping a 49ers walkthrough, current and former pats OC Josh McDaniels went on to tell the Denver staff how the pats coached and worked on the taping.Wasn’t the Rams (Marshall Faulk) issue was that their walk through a few days before the Super Bowl being filmed by the Patriots not the signal stealing?
It was a long time ago so I really don’t recall the whole situation
“That was practiced, that was coached, that was worked on,” McDaniels said in reference to the Patriots’ past practices, per Glazer.
ILLEGAL.“We didn’t lose the game because of any 'Spygate,' because of them having any additional things,” Cowher told 93.7 The Fan on Wednesday. “[if] they’re guilty of anything they’re guilty of arrogance because they were told not to do something but it was something everybody does. They got caught doing it with a camera.”
Lets ignore the haters and try to work constructively and see if we can't get somewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edu9cEB7gAcI urge everyone to ignore the haters and see if we can't get somewhere.
I care little enough about spygate that I didn't know that other thread existed, nor do I care to open it. The thing is haters on message boards didn't destroy non-existant evidence so they could have an excuse to troll NE fans. Goddell destroyed evidence for reasons still unknown, as if discovery of said evidence would've been a breach of national security. There are your facts. It's open to interperation I guess. I don't know how incriminating the evidence was. What I do know is that the league didn't want me to know. That in itself is pretty sketchy imo. It's not something I ever bring up but if others want to, well, suck it up; other fans get trolled for a lot less. And stop with the faux left-brain objective approach pretending like you're a cross between Joe Friday and Ed Murrow.My hope is we can stick to the facts and those who want a real discussion and those who want to hate\taunt will expose themselves soon enough. Lets ignore the haters and try to work constructively and see if we can't get somewhere.Out of curiosity, what did you think would happen when you started this thread?
No one even has the signal taping rule they allegedly broke?Since we know stealing signals was\is legal, I think it makes sense to start with the rules that were in place before and after 2006.
In summary (also from wiki), the Sept 2006 memo said:
So we know between Sept of 2006 and Sept of 2007 BB and co violated the 2006 memorandum.In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping 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
Does anyone have a link to the video taping of signals rules that were in place before the Sept 2006 memo?
All I have been able to find is a reference to page 105 section of the NFL handbook below. I don't pretend that a Wikipedia page is authoritative, but the page does have some good info on it so I am going to reference it with that caveat that I would welcome any challenges to the validity of its contents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_National_Football_League_videotaping_controversy
Does anyone have the specific rule(s) that stated video taping signals was illegal?Page 105 of the 2007 NFL Game Operations Manual states, "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...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."[17] Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...including without limitation...any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."[18] In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping 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."[18]
Yes, during the game and on the field. He didn't say the Steelers were filming the Pats' or others' games at any time.“Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game and everybody attempted to do that. We had people that always tried to steal signals,” said Cowher, whose 2004 team won 16 consecutive games before losing to the Patriots in the AFC title game. “What happened when we lost that game is they outplayed us. It had nothing to do with stealing signals or cheating or anything else.”
This begs the question why Goodell would bust the Pats for something that was neither illegal nor unique to the Pats.No one even has the signal taping rule they allegedly broke?Since we know stealing signals was\is legal, I think it makes sense to start with the rules that were in place before and after 2006.
In summary (also from wiki), the Sept 2006 memo said:
So we know between Sept of 2006 and Sept of 2007 BB and co violated the 2006 memorandum.In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping 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
Does anyone have a link to the video taping of signals rules that were in place before the Sept 2006 memo?
All I have been able to find is a reference to page 105 section of the NFL handbook below. I don't pretend that a Wikipedia page is authoritative, but the page does have some good info on it so I am going to reference it with that caveat that I would welcome any challenges to the validity of its contents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_National_Football_League_videotaping_controversy
Does anyone have the specific rule(s) that stated video taping signals was illegal?Page 105 of the 2007 NFL Game Operations Manual states, "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...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."[17] Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...including without limitation...any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."[18] In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping 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."[18]
I'm challenging you to debate without the hate.
It appears defending the Patriots from scurrilous accusations isn't the hard part.
The hard part is finding someone, anyone willing to have an honest discussion on the subject; that and ignoring the noise from the haters.
Fair question.This begs the question why Goodell would bust the Pats for something that was neither illegal nor unique to the Pats.No one even has the signal taping rule they allegedly broke?Since we know stealing signals was\is legal, I think it makes sense to start with the rules that were in place before and after 2006.
In summary (also from wiki), the Sept 2006 memo said:
So we know between Sept of 2006 and Sept of 2007 BB and co violated the 2006 memorandum.In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping 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
Does anyone have a link to the video taping of signals rules that were in place before the Sept 2006 memo?
All I have been able to find is a reference to page 105 section of the NFL handbook below. I don't pretend that a Wikipedia page is authoritative, but the page does have some good info on it so I am going to reference it with that caveat that I would welcome any challenges to the validity of its contents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_National_Football_League_videotaping_controversy
Does anyone have the specific rule(s) that stated video taping signals was illegal?Page 105 of the 2007 NFL Game Operations Manual states, "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...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."[17] Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...including without limitation...any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."[18] In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping 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."[18]
I'm challenging you to debate without the hate.
It appears defending the Patriots from scurrilous accusations isn't the hard part.
The hard part is finding someone, anyone willing to have an honest discussion on the subject; that and ignoring the noise from the haters.
Believe me I know Goodell is FOS and rules without evidence, we know this, he has been discredited repeatedly, but in every instance there was a selfish motive for the NFL. We know what the alleged motive for the NFL not doing an inventory of all tapes, ie possibly revealing that the SBs were compromised. What then was the NFL's motive for slapping down the Pats for this?
Actually, Vinatieri's helmet had all the extra hardware. How else could he kick a 45 yard FG in a snow storm? So, Flutie picks up Vinatieri's helmet by mistake because he was deep in a recap of the "Miracle in Miami" with the head cheer leader. So, with Flutie in shot-gun position, he hears Belichick mutter "just kick the f*** extra point... somebody will get hurt on this play some day... the league should just eliminate it... I'm gonna give a ####ty press conference and file a false injury next week if we miss this... No, Tom, I haven't seen your Uggs for men... did you look under the bench?"... confused, Doug did all he could do, hit the first dropkick since the 1940s.they take brady out of the game, who takes helmet off and sets it down
flutie mistakenly picks helmet up and enters game
brady goes up to concession stand
belichick, not realizing flutie's mistake, assumes brady still has helmet on and calls him to pick up an extra box of nachos
pretty simple if you think about it
I am unclear about the classy outside the lines thing. That is where the ongoing cheating was done. That is where Belichick petulantly mocks NFL policy from the injury report to participating in press conferences. That is where their T.E's party to the detriment of the team, other T.E.'s kill folks, and their Q.B.'s wife throws their best receiver under the bus. That is where the owner, after making a big to do over his dead wife shows up with a chippy just months later. Nope, the organization is not particularly classy outside the lines. News flash, none of them are.Why are y'all SO sensitive about this issue? All shtick aside... why?
Fwiw, spygate alone is not the reason so many don't like the Pats coaches / organization. It's actually an interesting dichotomy.
Outside the lines, the Patriots are as classy as it gets (from what we see/hear as NFL fans). When it comes to the game itself, that is where the questions lie (again, from what we see/hear)
The memo was a clarification of the rule. If league thought enough of the matter to issue a memo then it's clear to be they considered it cheating.This begs the question why Goodell would bust the Pats for something that was neither illegal nor unique to the Pats.
Believe me I know Goodell is FOS and rules without evidence, we know this, he has been discredited repeatedly, but in every instance there was a selfish motive for the NFL. We know what the alleged motive for the NFL not doing an inventory of all tapes, ie possibly revealing that the SBs were compromised. What then was the NFL's motive for slapping down the Pats for this?
Honest and civil? In this place? Dude, you're dealing with 40 year old men who spend way too much time not just talking about football, but fantasy football. Think about how twisted and sad that is.Good post GT.
I only disagree that it isn't possible to have an honest and civil discussion; I think we can if everyone (myself included) can put their emotions to the side and try to determine fact from fiction. It sure as heck won't be easy, I am counting on Patriot fans to ignore the haters and keep it civil. I am also hoping that the mods recognize that the haters are trying to get the thread shut down and maybe help keep the tool factor down in the thread (both sides).
I know I am as guilty as anyone at letting my emotions get the best of me and figured why not at least try and have a civil discussion about an important topic.
We can disagree and still be excellent to one and other.
Do we have to go to secret cult meetings to learn about "the truth"?But for those who are genuinely interested in learning about the issue and understanding the truth, you won't find any of this in the Shark Pool.
Where exactly are we trying to get? Nothing is changing.Lets ignore the haters and try to work constructively and see if we can't get somewhere.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edu9cEB7gAcI urge everyone to ignore the haters and see if we can't get somewhere.
Do you have a link to the rule or any reference to it prior to the memo?cstu said:The memo was a clarification of the rule. If league thought enough of the matter to issue a memo then it's clear to be they considered it cheating.SaintsInDome2006 said:This begs the question why Goodell would bust the Pats for something that was neither illegal nor unique to the Pats.
Believe me I know Goodell is FOS and rules without evidence, we know this, he has been discredited repeatedly, but in every instance there was a selfish motive for the NFL. We know what the alleged motive for the NFL not doing an inventory of all tapes, ie possibly revealing that the SBs were compromised. What then was the NFL's motive for slapping down the Pats for this?
What was the rule in place prior to 2006; fair question to ask is it not?Do you have a link to the rule or any reference to it prior to the memo?cstu said:The memo was a clarification of the rule. If league thought enough of the matter to issue a memo then it's clear to be they considered it cheating.SaintsInDome2006 said:This begs the question why Goodell would bust the Pats for something that was neither illegal nor unique to the Pats.
Believe me I know Goodell is FOS and rules without evidence, we know this, he has been discredited repeatedly, but in every instance there was a selfish motive for the NFL. We know what the alleged motive for the NFL not doing an inventory of all tapes, ie possibly revealing that the SBs were compromised. What then was the NFL's motive for slapping down the Pats for this?
Kind of like the Shuke and Furley threads in the FFA. Just desperate attempts to capture past message board glory.It's as if they are still relevant.Wow, pretty pathetic. Posting this in the appropriate thread wasn't enough, you have to draw everyone's eyes to it in your own thread because you're so insecure about the Pat's success.
Pats needed an obscure, never used before or since 'Tuck Rule' to get to the SB the first time.that's not cheating, but it's a gift from the refs..again, Kraft + Goodell = best buddies..they get the breaks when they need to.Bogus PI call against Rams - gift from refs.listen to Faulk and Warner about the game..No baseless rumors from some doochbag trying to sell a book, just facts from someone who would know and has no reason to lie.
Lets have a good discussion, no name calling and unlike that other thread we aren't going to allow any of that "possible" or "rumor" type crap. Lets stick to the facts and see where it leads us.PITTSBURGH -- Bill Cowher has a message for Pittsburgh Steelers fans who think their team was cheated out of a trip to the Super Bowl 10 years ago: Get over it.The Steelers were drummed by New England, 41-27, in the 2004 AFC Championship Game at Heinz field, a loss that came under suspicion a couple of years later when the Patriots were caught trying to steal signals and formations by illegally videotaping opposing teams.
“We didn’t lose the game because of any 'Spygate,' because of them having any additional things,” Cowher told 93.7 The Fan on Wednesday. “[if] they’re guilty of anything they’re guilty of arrogance because they were told not to do something but it was something everybody does. They got caught doing it with a camera.”
Cowher, who coached the Steelers from 1992-2006, said what the Patriots did happened regularly in the NFL before the league allowed coordinators to relay plays to their quarterback and defensive signal-caller via a helmet radio.
“Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game and everybody attempted to do that. We had people that always tried to steal signals,” said Cowher, whose 2004 team won 16 consecutive games before losing to the Patriots in the AFC title game. “What happened when we lost that game is they outplayed us. It had nothing to do with stealing signals or cheating or anything else.”
Scott Brown | ESPN.com
From the ESPN Steeler site:
http://espn.go.com/blog/pittsburgh-steelers/post/_/id/4294/cowher-dismisses-impact-of-spygate
More to come...
It appears that stealing signals is legal (even today) and there was no rule in place regarding recording said signals before the 2006 memorandum.No one even has the signal taping rule they allegedly broke?Since we know stealing signals was\is legal, I think it makes sense to start with the rules that were in place before and after 2006.
In summary (also from wiki), the Sept 2006 memo said:
So we know between Sept of 2006 and Sept of 2007 BB and co violated the 2006 memorandum.In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping 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
Does anyone have a link to the video taping of signals rules that were in place before the Sept 2006 memo?
All I have been able to find is a reference to page 105 section of the NFL handbook below. I don't pretend that a Wikipedia page is authoritative, but the page does have some good info on it so I am going to reference it with that caveat that I would welcome any challenges to the validity of its contents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_National_Football_League_videotaping_controversy
Does anyone have the specific rule(s) that stated video taping signals was illegal?Page 105 of the 2007 NFL Game Operations Manual states, "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...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."[17] Belichick stated that he believed that if footage so collected was not used during the game, its collection was legal, as the NFL Constitution and Bylaws stipulate that "...any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited...including without limitation...any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."[18] In a September 2006 memorandum sent out by NFL Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson, though, all teams were told that "videotaping 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."[18]
I'm challenging you to debate without the hate.
It appears defending the Patriots from scurrilous accusations isn't the hard part.
The hard part is finding someone, anyone willing to have an honest discussion on the subject; that and ignoring the noise from the haters.