NFL.COM Reporting Jets Illegality (1 Viewer)

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Here are my questions...Are BB and Goodell "on the same page" as to the duration of the videotaping activities? For example, did BB make any statements such as "we didn't start videotaping until Week 6 of the 2006 season"? Would he make such statements if he knew there were damming videos back in Foxboro? Would he make such statements making the safe assumption that either other teams or network game coverage could prove him wrong? I haven't heard any clarification of Goodell and BB's published statements around the period in which the alleged transgressions occurred, but I am aware that ESPN is reporting that Patriots are providing videotape and associated files dating back to 2000 as part of the ongoing investigation. Can anyone chime in here with facts or links?As the story became public I saw references to the 2006 Green Bay game, and possible other 2006 games including Detroit and a couple more. I've also heard players (Heinz Ward, others) make allegations about the Patriots knowing the playbook, signals, audibles, etc as far back as the AFC championship games vs Pittsburg, but I haven't necessarily heard any allegations about suspect videotaping activities prior to 2006. Can anyone chime in here with facts or links?My questions go to understanding / forming my own opinion about "where the asterisk begins" (recognizing that many have already made the "leap of logic" to "once a cheater, always a cheater").

Anybody? Facts or links?Going once....

 

[NYCGangGreen]

Why would Mangini have a hard time getting a coaching job elsewhere???

If the Raiders can hire Art Shell twice.....then anything is possible.

For the record:

I dont (hut) think that (blue 42) not having (zebra delta) a penalty called by a ref, is equal to (hut) blatantly going (slot x, slot x) against a league ruling confirmed by the commish a week prior (hike)!

ETA: How could Billick hear it....maybe the lineman used it as an excuse for all their penalties??

 

[Sinners]

This just in. The Ravens cheated too!!!

The Ravens OL held on every play!!! Unfortunately the refs also didn't call this.... Get a life you loser Pats homers. You guys cheated and got caught, move on already.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

This just in. The Ravens cheated too!!!The Ravens OL held on every play!!! Unfortunately the refs also didn't call this.... Get a life you loser Pats homers. You guys cheated and got caught, move on already.

Holding is not "cheating".Hell, when the Pats where holding receivers all day every day... that wasnt cheating.Its was an infraction within the context of the game. They have refs for those things.It was actually an incredibly smart and effective way to play.Cheating is when you go outside the game (coaches and players) to gain a advantage on something that isnt offciated within the designated fields of play.Like using a video camera. Or interfering with audio signals. Or lacing the teams food with exlax.

 

[twitch]

just some unbelievable weakness around here.

 

[suspected]

From Websters cheating is "violating the rules dishonestly". Cheating can happen on the field or off the field. The Pats cheated. What the Jets did was also cheating: a deliberate, calculated violation of the rules. Most penalties that occur during a game are not premeditated and intentional.

 

[mad sweeney]

From Websters cheating is "violating the rules dishonestly". Cheating can happen on the field or off the field. The Pats cheated. What the Jets did was also cheating: a deliberate, calculated violation of the rules. Most penalties that occur during a game are not premeditated and intentional.

Your definition above does not make any mention of intention or premeditation. Every holding penalty is deliberate and premeditated. And every foul, called or uncalled, premeditated or not, is essentially cheating. But an on-field penalty is an on-field penalty and is nowhere near the same league (well I guess other than the NFL) as the cheating the Pats engaged in. This "debate" gets weaker and weaker by the day. I'll say it again, Billick phrased it the way he did so that he could bag on the refs without getting fined. This is a ridiculous attempt to compare apples and slinkys.And btw, EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED since every single team got a flag thrown on them this weekend and had some fouls that weren't called.

 

[bostonfred]

EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED

This is really all I've been saying all along.

 

[Sinners]

EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED

This is really all I've been saying all along.

But the Pats took the cheating to a MUCH higher level and therefore are punish more severely. Team that cheated by holding or jumping offsides are penalized on the field. Generally yardage is taken from their teams. The Pats cheating took place on the field, off the field, across the field etc.... Be glad they got off so lightly.

 

[mad sweeney]

EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED

This is really all I've been saying all along.

You just don't get it. There is no comparing on field penalties with institutionalized spying. Period.

 

[bostonfred]

EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED

This is really all I've been saying all along.

You just don't get it. There is no comparing on field penalties with institutionalized spying. Period.

Calling out the snap count is premeditated cheating. You have to be kidding that you're supporting him for this. Take the blinders off, man.

 

[suspected]

From Websters cheating is "violating the rules dishonestly". Cheating can happen on the field or off the field. The Pats cheated. What the Jets did was also cheating: a deliberate, calculated violation of the rules. Most penalties that occur during a game are not premeditated and intentional.

Your definition above does not make any mention of intention or premeditation. Every holding penalty is deliberate and premeditated. And every foul, called or uncalled, premeditated or not, is essentially cheating. But an on-field penalty is an on-field penalty and is nowhere near the same league (well I guess other than the NFL) as the cheating the Pats engaged in. This "debate" gets weaker and weaker by the day. I'll say it again, Billick phrased it the way he did so that he could bag on the refs without getting fined. This is a ridiculous attempt to compare apples and slinkys.And btw, EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED since every single team got a flag thrown on them this weekend and had some fouls that weren't called.

It is really quite simple. An honest mistake is not cheating but still can be a penalty. A false start is not cheating. You really think all holding is premeditated? You really think every foul is essentially cheating (a dishonest violation of the rules)? You really think a false start is comparable to what the Jets did? Most penalties during a game are honest mistakes. The Jets cheated. They violated the rules dishonestly. They began the play knowing they were going to break the rule.

 

[Sinners]

From Websters cheating is "violating the rules dishonestly". Cheating can happen on the field or off the field. The Pats cheated. What the Jets did was also cheating: a deliberate, calculated violation of the rules. Most penalties that occur during a game are not premeditated and intentional.

Your definition above does not make any mention of intention or premeditation. Every holding penalty is deliberate and premeditated. And every foul, called or uncalled, premeditated or not, is essentially cheating. But an on-field penalty is an on-field penalty and is nowhere near the same league (well I guess other than the NFL) as the cheating the Pats engaged in. This "debate" gets weaker and weaker by the day. I'll say it again, Billick phrased it the way he did so that he could bag on the refs without getting fined. This is a ridiculous attempt to compare apples and slinkys.And btw, EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED since every single team got a flag thrown on them this weekend and had some fouls that weren't called.

It is really quite simple. An honest mistake is not cheating. A false start is not cheating. You really think all holding is premeditated? You really think every foul is essentially cheating (a dishonest violation of the rules)? You really think a false start is comparable to what the Jets did? Most penalties during a game are honest mistakes. The Jets cheated. They violated the rules dishonestly. They began the play knowing they were going to break the rule.

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?I think you're just a Jets hater and are blinded by those rose colored glasses.

 

[suspected]

From Websters cheating is "violating the rules dishonestly". Cheating can happen on the field or off the field. The Pats cheated. What the Jets did was also cheating: a deliberate, calculated violation of the rules. Most penalties that occur during a game are not premeditated and intentional.

Your definition above does not make any mention of intention or premeditation. Every holding penalty is deliberate and premeditated. And every foul, called or uncalled, premeditated or not, is essentially cheating. But an on-field penalty is an on-field penalty and is nowhere near the same league (well I guess other than the NFL) as the cheating the Pats engaged in. This "debate" gets weaker and weaker by the day. I'll say it again, Billick phrased it the way he did so that he could bag on the refs without getting fined. This is a ridiculous attempt to compare apples and slinkys.And btw, EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED since every single team got a flag thrown on them this weekend and had some fouls that weren't called.

It is really quite simple. An honest mistake is not cheating. A false start is not cheating. You really think all holding is premeditated? You really think every foul is essentially cheating (a dishonest violation of the rules)? You really think a false start is comparable to what the Jets did? Most penalties during a game are honest mistakes. The Jets cheated. They violated the rules dishonestly. They began the play knowing they were going to break the rule.

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?I think you're just a Jets hater and are blinded by those rose colored glasses.

No I'm not. Cheating is a dishonest violation of the rules. First of all you have to break a rule. I don't think a QB changing his cadence is against the rules. Second the violation has to be dishonest. That is of course a judgement call. I think some of the items you mention above are a dishonest violation of the rules and are cheating. I would add that they are typically spur of the moment decisions that happen in an instant. They are not typically premeditated before the play even begins. I think what the Jets did was deliberate premediated cheating.

 

[bostonfred]

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?

Simple. It's against the rules. If there weren't an advantage to be gained, why would they be doing it? Can anyone answer this?

 

[Sinners]

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?

Simple. It's against the rules. If there weren't an advantage to be gained, why would they be doing it? Can anyone answer this?

So Pass interference isn't against the rules? Holding isn't against the rules? One guy argues rules, the other argues premeditation. You're both crazy to think it compares to what the Pats do.

 

[bostonfred]

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?

Simple. It's against the rules. If there weren't an advantage to be gained, why would they be doing it? Can anyone answer this?

So Pass interference isn't against the rules? Holding isn't against the rules? One guy argues rules, the other argues premeditation. You're both crazy to think it compares to what the Pats do.

You're almost caught up. Neither holding nor stunting are breaking the rules in a premeditated fashion. Why don't you think it compares?

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?

Simple. It's against the rules. If there weren't an advantage to be gained, why would they be doing it? Can anyone answer this?

So Pass interference isn't against the rules? Holding isn't against the rules? One guy argues rules, the other argues premeditation. You're both crazy to think it compares to what the Pats do.

You're almost caught up. Neither holding nor stunting are breaking the rules in a premeditated fashion. Why don't you think it compares?

What's the penalty for breaking these rules?

 

[Sinners]

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?

Simple. It's against the rules. If there weren't an advantage to be gained, why would they be doing it? Can anyone answer this?

So Pass interference isn't against the rules? Holding isn't against the rules? One guy argues rules, the other argues premeditation. You're both crazy to think it compares to what the Pats do.

You're almost caught up. Neither holding nor stunting are breaking the rules in a premeditated fashion. Why don't you think it compares?

How is stunting NOT premeditated? Are you saying they are epileptic?

 

[bostonfred]

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?

Simple. It's against the rules. If there weren't an advantage to be gained, why would they be doing it? Can anyone answer this?

So Pass interference isn't against the rules? Holding isn't against the rules? One guy argues rules, the other argues premeditation. You're both crazy to think it compares to what the Pats do.

You're almost caught up. Neither holding nor stunting are breaking the rules in a premeditated fashion. Why don't you think it compares?

How is stunting NOT premeditated? Are you saying they are epileptic?

Stunting is premeditated but not against the rules. Pass interference is not premeditated. I think the problem is that you misunderstood the logical operator "AND".

 

[mad sweeney]

EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED

This is really all I've been saying all along.

You just don't get it. There is no comparing on field penalties with institutionalized spying. Period.

Calling out the snap count is premeditated cheating. You have to be kidding that you're supporting him for this. Take the blinders off, man.

I'm not supporting anybody on this. It's an on-field transgression under the control of the game refs and is completely and totally different than a spy ring. You're the one with the blinders. They are not even in the same category. QBs try to do it, and sometimes get called. Defenders try to do it and sometimes get called. Hell, coaches try to do it with sudden formation shifts. Is it cheating on 4th and short to go to a hard count and try to draw the team offsides? It's a simple delay of game or unsportsmanlike penalty. I don't see any fines levied against players when they get flagged for it. I don't see anyone get tossed or suspended for it when they get flagged. Get real, this is nowhere near the same thing and it's not even just a Jets thing. There were at least 3 flags for it this weekend, Billick's just mad he didn't get the calls that he should've. And he should have gotten flags for it if they were doing it and it's all on the refs for not calling it. It's an on-field practice, exactly like holding, that you could probably call at least once a game on every team. Pull your head out of the sand and face the reality that faking the snap count is not cheating int he same way as the Pats spy ring.This is so stupid I am actually starting to hope that BB gets kicked out of the league and the Pats get boned for years to come. Never have I seen such blatant ignorance, faulty logic and and blind, deaf and dumb homerism. It's absolutely unbelievable and makes me hate Pats fans and the entire team. And I could really care less about the AFCE, but now I am wishing harsh penalties against them for having such bone headed fans.

 

[bostonfred]

It's an on-field practice, exactly like holding, that you could probably call at least once a game on every team.

If it's so common, how come nobody else has been reported to the commissioner?

 

[Sinners]

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?

Simple. It's against the rules. If there weren't an advantage to be gained, why would they be doing it? Can anyone answer this?

So Pass interference isn't against the rules? Holding isn't against the rules? One guy argues rules, the other argues premeditation. You're both crazy to think it compares to what the Pats do.

You're almost caught up. Neither holding nor stunting are breaking the rules in a premeditated fashion. Why don't you think it compares?

How is stunting NOT premeditated? Are you saying they are epileptic?

Stunting is premeditated but not against the rules. Pass interference is not premeditated. I think the problem is that you misunderstood the logical operator "AND".

I'm sorry to inform you that you don't know anything about football. However the good news is that we can call an end to the argument right here cause obviously you are wrong. Stunting to induce a false start is equally against the rules as calling out snap counts to induce a false start. They are both against the rules and have the exact same intent.Thank you, thank you! :trophy:edit: BTW where did you use "the logical operator "AND"" in your previous post?

 

[mad sweeney]

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?

Simple. It's against the rules. If there weren't an advantage to be gained, why would they be doing it? Can anyone answer this?

So Pass interference isn't against the rules? Holding isn't against the rules? One guy argues rules, the other argues premeditation. You're both crazy to think it compares to what the Pats do.

You're almost caught up. Neither holding nor stunting are breaking the rules in a premeditated fashion. Why don't you think it compares?

What's the difference if it's premeditated or not? If a guy's beating you and you hold him, you are dishonestly violating the rules. Premeditation doesn't matter unless there's a personal foul involved. You're giving short bussers a bad name.

 

[bostonfred]

How does it differ from a LB stunting to try and induce a false start? How does it differ from a DB grabbing the WR to prevent a sure TD and getting a pass interference call? How does it differ from a LT grabbing and taking his guy down to prevent a sack? How does it differ from some guy on special teams intentionally running down the field while out of bounds? How does it differ from a QB changing up his cadence and yelling HUT HUT a few times instead of HIKE to try and get an offsides?

Simple. It's against the rules. If there weren't an advantage to be gained, why would they be doing it? Can anyone answer this?

So Pass interference isn't against the rules? Holding isn't against the rules? One guy argues rules, the other argues premeditation. You're both crazy to think it compares to what the Pats do.

You're almost caught up. Neither holding nor stunting are breaking the rules in a premeditated fashion. Why don't you think it compares?

How is stunting NOT premeditated? Are you saying they are epileptic?

Stunting is premeditated but not against the rules. Pass interference is not premeditated. I think the problem is that you misunderstood the logical operator "AND".

I'm sorry to inform you that you don't know anything about football. However the good news is that we can call an end to the argument right here cause obviously you are wrong. Stunting to induce a false start is equally against the rules as calling out snap counts to induce a false start. They are both afainst the rules and have the exact same intent.Thank you, thank you! :trophy:

This is incorrect. Stunting is legal. It's specifically the attempt to induce a false start that is against the rules. For example, a team that moves its hands in a way to simulate the snap. Your argument is similar to saying "sure, the Pats were stealing signs, but stealing signs is legal". That's also a fallacy. Stealing signs with a camera is illegal. Stunting to induce a false start is illegal. Stunting in and of itself is legal. Stealing signs in and of itself is legal.

 

[mad sweeney]

It's an on-field practice, exactly like holding, that you could probably call at least once a game on every team.

If it's so common, how come nobody else has been reported to the commissioner?

You've never heard a coach say they didn't get the holding calls they thought they should've gotten in a game? There were flags for what Billick was complainging about thrown over the weekend, just not in his game. Whatever, you're hopeless. And I'm losing brain cells with every post. Another week of this and I might be down close to your level. Good luck with your season, hope the sand doesn't get too deep into your ears. Make sure to come up for air. And have fun rooting for the lying, cheating, tainted face of the NFL.

 

[bostonfred]

It's an on-field practice, exactly like holding, that you could probably call at least once a game on every team. Pull your head out of the sand and face the reality that faking the snap count is not cheating int he same way as the Pats spy ring.

On the field includes the sidelines, as the memo points out.

 

[mad sweeney]

It's an on-field practice, exactly like holding, that you could probably call at least once a game on every team. Pull your head out of the sand and face the reality that faking the snap count is not cheating int he same way as the Pats spy ring.

On the field includes the sidelines, as the memo points out.

I ignored you, then decided to undo it so I could see what new gems you'd come up with. I'm going back to my original idea. In-game player practice, not related whatsoever to the videotaping memo. Simply disgusting.

 

[GregR_2]

... but I haven't necessarily heard any allegations about suspect videotaping activities prior to 2006. Can anyone chime in here with facts or links?

My questions go to understanding / forming my own opinion about "where the asterisk begins" (recognizing that many have already made the "leap of logic" to "once a cheater, always a cheater").

I haven't heard specifics along the lines of "we caught them red-handed doing X" other than the Packers game.As far as unsubstantiated allegations, the furthest back that was posted in the other thread came from the Boston Herald. This is also the place it was described how in the past, video taping has been used lived by the coaches up in the booth before a game, and so is a mechanism that could be used with taping signals to get an advantage.

A former Patriots [team stats] 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!”

 

[Skeetcher]

Just to put some closure on the 'coaches code' bull#### being bandied around by the 14 year old pats fans on this board.... Billick has apologised to Eric Mangini.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8028050f

I wonder who he could be referring to when he talks about wild imaginations *cough* greenline, icon, bostonfred *cough* ?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Self-aggrandizement:

SeniorVBDStudent posts a link to a story on NFL.COM with sarcastic editorial comments about Billick "breaking the code" in order to "amp up" a few unruly Jets fans.

Adam Schefter is a known frequenter to the board.

Billick issues public apology.

Hmmmmm.

I'm takin this whiney tool thing NATIONWIDE baby!

 

[PatsWillWin]

Jets cheat and squeeze a playoff appearance in - the Patriots cheat and get three rings.

This is just further evidence to support what we all already know: Belichick is a genius at everything he does.

 

[Banger]

from the NY daily news...

First it was SpyGate. Now there's CryGate, and the one doing the crying is Ravens coach Brian Billick, who complained about the Jets "illegally simulating" his team's snap count in Sunday's game. The result: Three false-start penalties for the Ravens and the perception that Billick was accusing Eric Mangini of cheating.

It also fueled speculation that Billick, acting on behalf of the coaching fraternity, was calling out Mangini for blowing the whistle on former mentor Bill Belichick, supposedly a violation of some unwritten coaches' code. Not true at all, according to Billick, who told the Daily News last night that he was more upset with the officials than the Jets' alleged tactics.

Billick and Mangini spoke yesterday - Mangini placed the first call - and Billick made it sound like the conversation ended on good terms. He insisted he wasn't thinking about the Jets-Patriots video scandal when he made his comments on Monday, which sparked a firestorm. "This isn't New England, Part II," he said from the Ravens' offices.

Evidently, Billick's original remarks struck a nerve with Mangini, who is being painted as the bad guy for reporting Belichick's blatant disregard for league rules. Mangini phoned Billick to let him know the Jets "weren't trying to pull anything illegal or duplicitous," Billick said. "He called to make sure I knew it was nothing by design," Billick said. "Halfheartedly, I said, 'You're better than me.' I coach it. Frankly, we don't get away with it that often. That's gamesmanship."

Mangini's reputation is taking an unfair hit, with this wild notion out there that he's an ungrateful snitch. Was anybody calling Belichick a rat for filing tampering charges against Mangini last year in the Deion Branch case? Here's one way to look at Mangini's role in Spy-Gate: What if a former Pepsi executive went to work for Coke and suspected his old company of trying to steal its secret recipe? Should he look the other way or try to stop it?

Nevertheless, Billick's original comments created a buzz in the coaching community.

"I'm sure he's sending a message to Mangini: 'Everybody knows you were part of that (in New England), and it's not right that you ratted out the team that gave you a chance to get a head job,' " said one NFC assistant coach, who has long suspected the Patriots of chicanery.

Teams try to simulate snap counts all the time, according to coaches and players. It's supposed to be an unsportsmanlike-conduct penalty on the defense, but the Jets didn't get busted once last Sunday. In theory, it should be difficult for a road team to get away with it, considering it's usually quiet in the stadium when the home team has the ball.

Are the Jets chronic simulators? Not according to former left guard Pete Kendall, the last person you'd expect to defend the Jets. His daily rants over his contract situation led to a bitter divorce last month, but when reached yesterday by the Daily News, Kendall said he never heard of any Jets defensive players deliberately calling out a cadence to make the offense jump offsides.

"I don't believe that was taught," Kendall said. "Did it happen a time or two in training camp? Sure. Every once in awhile, a wise-guy defensive lineman would look to have some fun, but I don't think it was institutional. Could it have happened in the defensive meeting room? Of course, but in three years there, with the relationships I had with guys on the other side of the ball, at some point I would've heard somebody laughing or joking about how they got an offensive lineman to jump off side in a game by simulating a snap count - and that didn't happen."

Kendall sticking up for the Jets. Can this story get any stranger?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Was anybody calling Belichick a rat for filing tampering charges against Mangini last year in the Deion Branch case?

In the NFL community? Doubt it. In the footballguys forum? Absolutely.

 

[twitch]

perception is reality.

 

[Reaper]

Self-aggrandizement:

SeniorVBDStudent posts a link to a story on NFL.COM with sarcastic editorial comments about Billick "breaking the code" in order to "amp up" a few unruly Jets fans.

Adam Schefter is a known frequenter to the board.

Billick issues public apology.

Hmmmmm.

I'm takin this whiney tool thing NATIONWIDE baby!

UMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.... CONGRATS

You should PM Joe and see if he'll pin this fine exhibition next to the "making the Shark Pool Better" thread......

I just want to For reading this garbage.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

It's an on-field practice, exactly like holding, that you could probably call at least once a game on every team. Pull your head out of the sand and face the reality that faking the snap count is not cheating int he same way as the Pats spy ring.

On the field includes the sidelines, as the memo points out.

I ignored you, then decided to undo it so I could see what new gems you'd come up with. I'm going back to my original idea. In-game player practice, not related whatsoever to the videotaping memo. Simply disgusting.

Looks to me like you put him on ignore because you got pwned in the debate. Repeatedly.

 

[corpcow]

EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED

This is really all I've been saying all along.

You just don't get it. There is no comparing on field penalties with institutionalized spying. Period.

Calling out the snap count is premeditated cheating. You have to be kidding that you're supporting him for this. Take the blinders off, man.

No I'm not. Cheating is a dishonest violation of the rules. First of all you have to break a rule. I don't think a QB changing his cadence is against the rules. Second the violation has to be dishonest. That is of course a judgement call. I think some of the items you mention above are a dishonest violation of the rules and are cheating. I would add that they are typically spur of the moment decisions that happen in an instant. They are not typically premeditated before the play even begins.

I think what the Jets did was deliberate premediated cheating.

Since when does "dishonest" mean "premeditated"? These are two discrete things. I guess what you're getting at is a "mens rea" - the state of mind, was it an innocent mistake or something done deliberately knowing it was against the rules. Note, though, "deliberate" is different than "premeditated". You can cheat without it having been premeditated. Anyway, yes, every violation is technically "cheating" - a violation of the rules, and no one is telling the refs, "yes, I held that play, you should call it", which is why they are flagged. The point that we're all trying to make here is that there are different degrees of cheating, and thus there are different levels of penalties.

It's laughable that you're equating this to what the Pats did.

First of all, this is no more than an accusation by Billick, who wasn't even on the field. Weren't Pats fans the most vocal reminding everyone that these were previously just allegations? "Let's wait for the evidence." Even if they did it, there's no evidence that this was a concerted attempt by the Jets organization to gain an advantage. Others posted the story where Kendall - who has no lost love for the Jets organization - defended the Jets and denied that this was a "standard systematic practice".

And finally, even if it was, it's still a world's away from what the Pats did. Goddell felt that what the Pats did was worthy of the maximum fine he could make and the loss of a first round draft pick - a landmark penalty. The Jets would have been guilty of a defensive delay of game which is a 5 yard penalty - less severe than holding, PI, tripping, etc.

This is also Billick, who had this gem as part of his justification:

"You have to look at the nature of the penalties. First off, the fact that we had 11 penalties and they only had two and we dominated the game," Billick said. "I have a hard time understanding that the team that was playing so well and dominating had so many penalties and the other team had only two."

How about that the Jets were just more disciplined? The Jets are far and away the least penalized team (4 penalties on the season vs. 7 for second place), whereas the Ravens are leading the league in penalties (21) and penalty yards (186). Oh yeah, Indy had more penalties than NO, NE had more penalties than the Jets - didn't seem to matter those weeks. Cincy must have been simulating the snap count as well right? That's why they had 10 in week 1?

 

[mad sweeney]

It's an on-field practice, exactly like holding, that you could probably call at least once a game on every team. Pull your head out of the sand and face the reality that faking the snap count is not cheating int he same way as the Pats spy ring.

On the field includes the sidelines, as the memo points out.

I ignored you, then decided to undo it so I could see what new gems you'd come up with. I'm going back to my original idea. In-game player practice, not related whatsoever to the videotaping memo. Simply disgusting.

Looks to me like you put him on ignore because you got pwned in the debate. Repeatedly.

I hardly think that a memo about videotaping has any bearing about an on field, in game penalty. You have to take things in context, and snipping bits and pieces to try and prove a point doesn't work. In the context of the memo about videotaping, on the field includes the sidelines. In the context of my statement of an on field infraction (def simulating snap counts), ion field means exactly that, on the field. As in, the players on the field in the game. Totally different situations. I could go cutting a sentence out of context from anyone's argument and use it to "own" them. But that's not the case. Anyone defending the comparasin is clearly either a blind homer Pats fan, a fisherman, or just plain not right in the head. The two situations are completely different and it's only through out of context semantics that they can be equated. I have no problem admitting when/if I get owned, but I don't see that happening in this case.

 

[mad sweeney]

EVERY SINGLE TEAM THIS WEEK CHEATED

This is really all I've been saying all along.

You just don't get it. There is no comparing on field penalties with institutionalized spying. Period.

Calling out the snap count is premeditated cheating. You have to be kidding that you're supporting him for this. Take the blinders off, man.

No I'm not. Cheating is a dishonest violation of the rules. First of all you have to break a rule. I don't think a QB changing his cadence is against the rules. Second the violation has to be dishonest. That is of course a judgement call. I think some of the items you mention above are a dishonest violation of the rules and are cheating. I would add that they are typically spur of the moment decisions that happen in an instant. They are not typically premeditated before the play even begins.

I think what the Jets did was deliberate premediated cheating.

Since when does "dishonest" mean "premeditated"? These are two discrete things. I guess what you're getting at is a "mens rea" - the state of mind, was it an innocent mistake or something done deliberately knowing it was against the rules. Note, though, "deliberate" is different than "premeditated". You can cheat without it having been premeditated. Anyway, yes, every violation is technically "cheating" - a violation of the rules, and no one is telling the refs, "yes, I held that play, you should call it", which is why they are flagged. The point that we're all trying to make here is that there are different degrees of cheating, and thus there are different levels of penalties.

It's laughable that you're equating this to what the Pats did.

First of all, this is no more than an accusation by Billick, who wasn't even on the field. Weren't Pats fans the most vocal reminding everyone that these were previously just allegations? "Let's wait for the evidence." Even if they did it, there's no evidence that this was a concerted attempt by the Jets organization to gain an advantage. Others posted the story where Kendall - who has no lost love for the Jets organization - defended the Jets and denied that this was a "standard systematic practice".

And finally, even if it was, it's still a world's away from what the Pats did. Goddell felt that what the Pats did was worthy of the maximum fine he could make and the loss of a first round draft pick - a landmark penalty. The Jets would have been guilty of a defensive delay of game which is a 5 yard penalty - less severe than holding, PI, tripping, etc.

This is also Billick, who had this gem as part of his justification:

"You have to look at the nature of the penalties. First off, the fact that we had 11 penalties and they only had two and we dominated the game," Billick said. "I have a hard time understanding that the team that was playing so well and dominating had so many penalties and the other team had only two."

How about that the Jets were just more disciplined? The Jets are far and away the least penalized team (4 penalties on the season vs. 7 for second place), whereas the Ravens are leading the league in penalties (21) and penalty yards (186). Oh yeah, Indy had more penalties than NO, NE had more penalties than the Jets - didn't seem to matter those weeks. Cincy must have been simulating the snap count as well right? That's why they had 10 in week 1?

The funniest thing about the Billick thing, who has since apologized to Mangini and admitted it was a slam on the refs not the Jets, is that he was basically calling out the refs but worded it in such a way as to not get fined. And that's all it was. The timing of it lent it to the Pats scandal comparasins, especially for blind Pats homers grasping at straws to shift the focus from their team's true cheating ways, but all he was doing was #####ing about the refs without getting a fine for it. He even came out and said so.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Pats fans are no more whiny or tooly than other teams' fans

XThis whole spygate thing has made it even more evident.

When the Pats got caught last week, there was hard evidence from the start. Yet there were still denials, #####ing and whining from some Pats fans here. Then it turned to "Well everybody does it, it's no big deal". Then it turned to "Well Mangini is just a rat". Then it turned to, "Oh, just wait until the Pats play the Jets again- they're gonna slaughter 'em for payback." Etc, ad nauseum. Blah blah blah. Anything but accepting the truth staring them in the face. They got caught cheating, and they would be punished.

Finally, after everything was said and done, a FEW Pats fans here accepted that their team screwed the pooch, digested the punishment, and moved on. Good for them, seriously. Those fans are being reasonable.

As for the rest of the whinebags who are still rankled that their team got caught, and haven't been able to shut up about it for the last several days- you're the reason for the perceived notion of toolish Pats fans in the SP. The sad thing is that the Patriot Tool had nearly become an extinct species around here after their last SB win. Too bad that it's making a comeback.

*applause*

What are you applauding? This clown comes on here and lumps every Pats fan (except a few) into a category like he knows something about thousands of NE fans based on a few posts from a messageboard. This poster, along with that other guy who actually tried using numbers to back up his claim is why I frequent these boards less and less. I find the whole double standard on this board extremely frustrating. I've seen many fan bases, other than NE, that backup and support their team in the face of the most obvious of circumstances. Its part of human nature, so to think any other team or its fan base is any different is just plain ######ed. But when Pats fans do it, its whining. You would think that after winning their 3rd SB, the hating would stop......to bad its making a comeback.

at a windy ###bag like you calling someone else a clown. You are really disgracing yourself in these threads.If you're going to continue to make statements like this you should back it up with actual evidence or situations. Honestly, from the years that you have posted here, I expected more from you. You have usually been rational and insightful before, yet with this topic you've lost your ####### mind because someone is talking about your NFL team. Seriously, get a grip.

And as far as saying I know something about thousands of Pats fans, I've never said that. If you find a place where I said it, I will gladly eat my words.

What I said, and will continue to say, is that MANY of the Pats fans ON THIS BOARD are being tools about this. That's what I meant when I said "a few Pats fans here" and "The sad thing is that the Patriot Tool had nearly become an extinct species around here after their last SB win." This is not saying anything about "thousands of Pats fans". I will admit, though, that it's probably saying something about hundreds of them.

Your problem is that you think you have to filter someone's input on this situation through their fan affiliation. So if someone says it was right for the league to suspend Pacman Jones, is your first reponse "Well of course you would think that- you're a Colts fan!"? Of course not. Why? Because you don't have to be a fan of any particular team to see that he was being a dumb### who deserved what he got.

Same as Belichick. You don't mind hearing it. You just don't want to hear it from someone who you perceive to be a Jets fan.

Some people are shameless.

 

[enfuego]

Brian Billick = whiny windbag