NFL.COM Reporting Jets Illegality (1 Viewer)

[DoubleG]

I will say this. The Jets cheated alot worse than NE did. NE wasn't on the field trying to use illegal tactics during the game. That's the big difference.

 

[Chop_Block]

I will say this. The Jets cheated alot worse than NE did. NE wasn't on the field trying to use illegal tactics during the game. That's the big difference.

Wow.I come for the atmosphere - I stay for the shtick.Shtick rating - out of a possible 10 stars - I give this an 8. Great routine, wonderful effort, missed the landing.

 

[greenline]

I will say this. The Jets cheated alot worse than NE did. NE wasn't on the field trying to use illegal tactics during the game. That's the big difference.

dude do you ever have anything to add except trying to antagonize? If you have I must've missed the post.

I think my opinions are fair game. Aside from being in agreement with anyone who dislikes the Patriots, I am deemed worthless. I don't find your posts interesting, insightful, or entertaining.

 

[Chase Stuart]

By the way, lol at Billick's actual statements

"They did an outstanding job. I credit the New York Jets. Their defensive line and linebackers did a very, very effective job of illegally simulating the snap count," Billick said. "They did it the whole game long. It needs to be caught."

I credit the Jets. They lost, and I don't have anything good to say about their performance, but they cheated really effectively.

"That's not an excuse by any stretch of the imagination. But it is illegal," Billick said. "Our guys have to deal with it. I don't know how to help my linemen with that because, you're in the heat of battle and you're calling the snap count, and the guy across from you is also calling a snap count - which is illegal."

Nice subtle jab by taking it so seriously.

I did enjoy that as well. Billick's a master of the sarcastic quip. As much as it is a complaint, he doesn't come off as whiny, IMO - because he isn't complainign about the refs, which is usually how one comes off sounding whiny.

It was well phrased.

He doesn't come off as whiny because his team won, plain and simple.

 

[rufan]

I think my opinions are fair game. Aside from being in agreement with anyone who dislikes the Patriots, I am deemed worthless.

Not deeming you worthless, but your last few posts are. Not even most Patriots fans truly believe the crap you are posting.

 

[greenline]

I think my opinions are fair game. Aside from being in agreement with anyone who dislikes the Patriots, I am deemed worthless.

Not deeming you worthless, but your last few posts are. Not even most Patriots fans truly believe the crap you are posting.

If cheaters never prosper, and the Patriots prospered, then they are not cheaters.

 

[corpcow]

I think my opinions are fair game. Aside from being in agreement with anyone who dislikes the Patriots, I am deemed worthless.

Not deeming you worthless, but your last few posts are. Not even most Patriots fans truly believe the crap you are posting.

If cheaters never prosper, and the Patriots prospered, then they are not cheaters.

 

[Chop_Block]

By the way, lol at Billick's actual statements

"They did an outstanding job. I credit the New York Jets. Their defensive line and linebackers did a very, very effective job of illegally simulating the snap count," Billick said. "They did it the whole game long. It needs to be caught."

I credit the Jets. They lost, and I don't have anything good to say about their performance, but they cheated really effectively.

"That's not an excuse by any stretch of the imagination. But it is illegal," Billick said. "Our guys have to deal with it. I don't know how to help my linemen with that because, you're in the heat of battle and you're calling the snap count, and the guy across from you is also calling a snap count - which is illegal."

Nice subtle jab by taking it so seriously.

I did enjoy that as well. Billick's a master of the sarcastic quip. As much as it is a complaint, he doesn't come off as whiny, IMO - because he isn't complainign about the refs, which is usually how one comes off sounding whiny.

It was well phrased.

He doesn't come off as whiny because his team won, plain and simple.

Well, yeah -- there was THAT.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Guys, This a real story and worth discussing. But please keep the tool factor down and especially the Jets vs Pats stuff. TIA.J

Well said. Bumping for the Page 3 crowd...

 

[Fiddles]

BUT THE PATRIOTS ARE THE BIGGEST CHEATERS IN THE NFL

FixedPS - Pats fans are unbelievably whiny, and I dub you their Whiner King

 

[PatsFanCT]

greenline is awesome. They're just jumping into the boat.

 

[phthalatemagic]

greenline is awesome. They're just jumping into the boat.

Is that the purpose of this message board?

 

[mad sweeney]

snap count practice=holding happens every play, refs need to call it not even in the same ballpark as institutionalized violation of league rules.

So you're saying that you think it's OK to break the rules because everyone else is doing it, it's OK for some people to get caught and not others, but that it's not OK for someone to complain to the commissioner.

I don't recall saying any of those three things. Nor could any of those things be taken from anything I said. It's not ok to break the rules, that's why the refs have little yellow flags in their pants. You can see clearly in my post that I said the refs needed to call it as it's a foul. But here, let me bold it for you because you obviously missed it.

It's not ok for some to get caught and others not, but it's a reality that refs do not call every foul of every game. My comparasin to holding is that it's just a foul that happens all the time in every game. Again, no idea how you got that out of my post.

It's perfectly fine to complain to the commisioner, if the Jets were doing that the refs should've thrown a flag or two. Complain to the commish and he'll tell Perreria to make sure his crew keeps an ear out for that. Where you got that I have a problem with that I have no idea.

If you Pats fans want to start threads about common fouls and try to compare them to the cheating Belicheat was essentially convicted of then you should be prepared to take more crap as being whiny tools. The Pats got away with several uncalled fouls against SD (at least 2 blatant OPIs and a facemask) and I didn't see VBD going crazy about that.

 

[mad sweeney]

I will say this. The Jets cheated alot worse than NE did. NE wasn't on the field trying to use illegal tactics during the game. That's the big difference.

Every penalty=illegal tacticDo you mean to say that the Pats committed zero penalties in their game? Called or uncalled? Cuz that's all this is, a penalty that didn't get called. All I can say is that the Pats organization and Belicheat are sure taking record fines pretty well considering they did nothing wrong.As Ditka said, If someone accuses you of cheating and you don't fight it, then you're cheating.

 

[jonmhend]

I don't think it equates at all but I do find it all amusing. I'm not sure if I qualify as a TOOL (great band, btw) but I do enjoy watching how easily people get needled. Belichick didn't even cheat. It was a simple videotaping procedure and a mis-interpretation of a rule. The Jets cheated though. That is clear. they did it repeatedly too as stated by the Ravens. It's unfortunate that the Jets had to resort to cheapshot tactics and it's even more unfortunate they are 0-2.

I've seen it all now. Someone actually buying Beilcheats excuse. Cut and pasted from TMQ:Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."And how did he mis-interpret this? The lame excuse Belicheat came up with was a flat out lie. You know it and I know it. And for those of you equating what the Pats did to what the Jets did is just ridiculous. I thought you were just trying to be funny - but some of you actually seem to believe it.

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't think it equates at all but I do find it all amusing. I'm not sure if I qualify as a TOOL (great band, btw) but I do enjoy watching how easily people get needled. Belichick didn't even cheat. It was a simple videotaping procedure and a mis-interpretation of a rule. The Jets cheated though. That is clear. they did it repeatedly too as stated by the Ravens. It's unfortunate that the Jets had to resort to cheapshot tactics and it's even more unfortunate they are 0-2.

I've seen it all now. Someone actually buying Beilcheats excuse. Cut and pasted from TMQ:Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."And how did he mis-interpret this? The lame excuse Belicheat came up with was a flat out lie. You know it and I know it. And for those of you equating what the Pats did to what the Jets did is just ridiculous. I thought you were just trying to be funny - but some of you actually seem to believe it.

It was quite clear from interviews with Goodell and with Kraft, when both were asked about the misinterpretation, that neither bought into it. They both refused to acknowledge that it was valid and said they weren't going to speak for BB. But it was extremely obvious from the way they phrased their response that they knew it was a bunch of hooey. And the 750K and draft pick and Kraft's easy acceptance of it shows it.

 

[Sinners]

Uhm, I need a link to the tape. Saw the one on the Pats; They were caught red handed. Where's the one on the Jets? Where's the proof? I can accuse Ray Lewis of taking HGH, but without any evidence at all, who cares....

Beside we're comparing apples to oranges. Refs can penalize the Jets on this, but didn't. Refs can't grab a camera man behind the Pats' bench....

 

[Bri]

Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."And how did he mis-interpret this? The lame excuse Belicheat came up with was a flat out lie. You know it and I know it. And for those of you equating what the Pats did to what the Jets did is just ridiculous. I thought you were just trying to be funny - but some of you actually seem to believe it.

on the radio they said BB was being "wise" as the camera was in the stands.I am solely answerring your Q here

 

[AB in DC]

I've seen it all now. Someone actually buying Beilcheats excuse. Cut and pasted from TMQ:Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."

That's funny, because from reading every thread here, it seems like the big deal is because BB violated a "Rule", not a "memo".The actual "Rule", per NFL.com, reads a lot differently: "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." Nothing about sidelines or "any other locations".So which is it? Did BB violate an official rule, or an unofficial memo?

 

[jonmhend]

Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."And how did he mis-interpret this? The lame excuse Belicheat came up with was a flat out lie. You know it and I know it. And for those of you equating what the Pats did to what the Jets did is just ridiculous. I thought you were just trying to be funny - but some of you actually seem to believe it.

on the radio they said BB was being "wise" as the camera was in the stands.I am solely answerring your Q here

Unless the still shot that everyone has linked as the proof of the cheating isn't really showing the right guy, then no he was not in the stands. He was on the Jets sideline, wearing similar clothes to other Jets personnel.

 

[Skeetcher]

Guys,

This a real story and worth discussing. But please keep the tool factor down and especially the Jets vs Pats stuff.

TIA.

J

Well said. Bumping for the Page 3 crowd... greenline

fixed

 

[bostonfred]

I've seen it all now. Someone actually buying Beilcheats excuse. Cut and pasted from TMQ:Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."

That's funny, because from reading every thread here, it seems like the big deal is because BB violated a "Rule", not a "memo".The actual "Rule", per NFL.com, reads a lot differently: "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." Nothing about sidelines or "any other locations".So which is it? Did BB violate an official rule, or an unofficial memo?

I can understand him trying to stretch "be in use" and "during the game" to mean "you can't look at the video during the game" as opposed to "you can't record the video during the game". It's a little self serving to stretch it that way, but I can understand it. But it should still be punished, because it sounds like the memo was intended to clarify the rule.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I've seen it all now. Someone actually buying Beilcheats excuse. Cut and pasted from TMQ:Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."

That's funny, because from reading every thread here, it seems like the big deal is because BB violated a "Rule", not a "memo".The actual "Rule", per NFL.com, reads a lot differently: "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." Nothing about sidelines or "any other locations".So which is it? Did BB violate an official rule, or an unofficial memo?

I wasn't even aware of this. Is there another rule that imbues rule equivalence power to memos from the commisioner? Sorry, I guess I glossed over the rules-related bickering in prior threads.

 

[jonmhend]

I've seen it all now. Someone actually buying Beilcheats excuse. Cut and pasted from TMQ:Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."

That's funny, because from reading every thread here, it seems like the big deal is because BB violated a "Rule", not a "memo".The actual "Rule", per NFL.com, reads a lot differently: "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." Nothing about sidelines or "any other locations".So which is it? Did BB violate an official rule, or an unofficial memo?

Who cares? Call it whatever you want. The fact is that it came from the NFL the week before the season started and reiterated exactly what the NFL's interpretation of the rule was. This isn't a court of law. This is the judge and jury making a preemptive attempt to say - here is exactly what I think about this issue. A better response from Belicheat would be to say it fell behind the fax machine and I never saw it. To say he read that memo and misinterpreted it is crap. Nowhere in that memo do they put it in the context of how a coach may choose to use the footage. It was entirely in the context of not getting the footage to begin with. Spin away.

 

[notapplicable]

Brian Billick is a B*TCH. He's notorious for #####ing. I refuse to listen to anything he says.

 

[Aabye]

Guys, This a real story and worth discussing. But please keep the tool factor down and especially the Jets vs Pats stuff. TIA.J

Is this a story? It sounds like the Jets' defensive linemen were guilty of a penalty that wasn't getting called. It's as much of a story as, say, a group of offensive linemen flinching and inducing a number of off-sides calls against the defense or a bunch of defensive holding that's not being called. It sounds like Billick wants the officials to crack down on this rule.It's almost nothing like the Patriots fiasco, as far as I can tell.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

...The fact is that it came from the NFL......This is the judge and jury making a preemptive attempt to say - here is exactly what I think about this issue....

What would happen if the commissioner's office came out with a memo that that his interpretation of the rules requires that all cheerleaders stop wearing any clothing below the waist? Would disregard for that memo constitute violating the rules of the NFL, or deviation from guidelines from the commissioner's office subjecting the violator to penalties governed by a collective bargaining agreement? Are the commissioner's powers limited in a guidance memo situation versus a league rule, or is the interpretation of his office final and absent recourse?I'm not asking to make a point; I'm asking because I don't know.

 

[PatsFanCT]

greenline is awesome. They're just jumping into the boat.

Is that the purpose of this message board?

It's the purpose of this thread. And he's doing a damn fine job.

 

[GregR_2]

I've seen it all now. Someone actually buying Beilcheats excuse. Cut and pasted from TMQ:Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."

That's funny, because from reading every thread here, it seems like the big deal is because BB violated a "Rule", not a "memo".The actual "Rule", per NFL.com, reads a lot differently: "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." Nothing about sidelines or "any other locations".So which is it? Did BB violate an official rule, or an unofficial memo?

I wasn't even aware of this. Is there another rule that imbues rule equivalence power to memos from the commisioner? Sorry, I guess I glossed over the rules-related bickering in prior threads.

The actual "Rule" as per NFL.com, includes "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."Guess he sort of forgot to include that part in his post though.

 

[PatsFanCT]

Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."And how did he mis-interpret this? The lame excuse Belicheat came up with was a flat out lie. You know it and I know it. And for those of you equating what the Pats did to what the Jets did is just ridiculous. I thought you were just trying to be funny - but some of you actually seem to believe it.

on the radio they said BB was being "wise" as the camera was in the stands.I am solely answerring your Q here

Unless the still shot that everyone has linked as the proof of the cheating isn't really showing the right guy, then no he was not in the stands. He was on the Jets sideline, wearing similar clothes to other Jets personnel.

No, that was not the guy in question, he was with the NFL or part of the televison crew, but all the talk did say he was on the Patriots sideline.

 

[mad sweeney]

Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."And how did he mis-interpret this? The lame excuse Belicheat came up with was a flat out lie. You know it and I know it. And for those of you equating what the Pats did to what the Jets did is just ridiculous. I thought you were just trying to be funny - but some of you actually seem to believe it.

on the radio they said BB was being "wise" as the camera was in the stands.I am solely answerring your Q here

Unless the still shot that everyone has linked as the proof of the cheating isn't really showing the right guy, then no he was not in the stands. He was on the Jets sideline, wearing similar clothes to other Jets personnel.

That is not the man in question, although Pats message boards are wondering who that guy is and why he had a camera on the sidelines, and rightly so. The culpprit in question was on the Patriots sideline.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

I've seen it all now. Someone actually buying Beilcheats excuse. Cut and pasted from TMQ:Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."

That's funny, because from reading every thread here, it seems like the big deal is because BB violated a "Rule", not a "memo".The actual "Rule", per NFL.com, reads a lot differently: "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." Nothing about sidelines or "any other locations".So which is it? Did BB violate an official rule, or an unofficial memo?

I wasn't even aware of this. Is there another rule that imbues rule equivalence power to memos from the commisioner? Sorry, I guess I glossed over the rules-related bickering in prior threads.

The actual "Rule" as per NFL.com, includes "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."Guess he sort of forgot to include that part in his post though.

I see. Thanks. Perhaps all prior taping before Week 1 2007 was in domes? Otherwise, it looks like a smoking gun to me. What am I missing?A related question: Can I not put a powerful enough video device in an approved booth to capture most of what I could capture from the opposing sideline? Again, sorry if this has been covered already...

 

[brednbuddah]

Gotta laugh at the folks trying to equate this to what the Patriots did. Kinda like appealing to the Commish because the refs missed an interference call.

it is kinda funny.what about when a QB simulates a snap (with a hard count) to get the D to jump off-sides, if the QB gets caught - penalty.oh, this just in - the ravens WON the game.

 

[mad sweeney]

I've seen it all now. Someone actually buying Beilcheats excuse. Cut and pasted from TMQ:Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."

That's funny, because from reading every thread here, it seems like the big deal is because BB violated a "Rule", not a "memo".The actual "Rule", per NFL.com, reads a lot differently: "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." Nothing about sidelines or "any other locations".So which is it? Did BB violate an official rule, or an unofficial memo?

The OFFICIAL memo that was sent out was to remind teams about the rule that BB (and most likely others but specifically BB) violated repeatedly last year, prompting the memo. On the field includes the sidelines, as the memo points out.Whatever wording you choose to apply, and it's the rule that matters, no video cameras on the field (which includes the sidelines) is extremely clear in it's wording and intent. The memo seems a little more specific, although all the locations in the memo are covered by the rule, the memo spells it out a little more. That the memo was even more specific makes the "misinterpretation" excuse even more a bunch of BS.To answer your question specifically, he violated the rule which the commish labeled as "longstanding". Just as every year they re-emphasize rules that sort of slide, this year they re-emphasized to teams about the videotaping.

 

[mad sweeney]

...The fact is that it came from the NFL......This is the judge and jury making a preemptive attempt to say - here is exactly what I think about this issue....

What would happen if the commissioner's office came out with a memo that that his interpretation of the rules requires that all cheerleaders stop wearing any clothing below the waist? Would disregard for that memo constitute violating the rules of the NFL, or deviation from guidelines from the commissioner's office subjecting the violator to penalties governed by a collective bargaining agreement? Are the commissioner's powers limited in a guidance memo situation versus a league rule, or is the interpretation of his office final and absent recourse?I'm not asking to make a point; I'm asking because I don't know.

Ridiculous comparasin. The memo and the rule said the same thing. The memo was just a little more specific, however all the spelled out specifics are covered by the original language of the rule.As for the cheerleader rule i am all in favor of that although I would rather see above the waist exposed.

 

[Shrek]

What the Pats did was a violation of league rules, policed by league officials.The Jets violated a game rule, supposed to be policed by game officials.And I saw little to no flags for it...so did it really happen, or is Billick just a whiny biotch?Please quit trying to equate this to what the Pats did.Oh...and its not cheating if you don't get caught.This is more comparable to a team who has a way of holding by the Oline without getting caught. Its against the rules, but if it does not get called...sorry, its not cheating.A "penalty" is now the same as violating league rules?Just more Pats fan trying to deflect the criticism of their team.Pretty sad.

Nope, he's pretty much dead on right. Blame the officials for this one. It's their job to see this and call it.

*Eric Mangini = Belichick's ball boy

Belichick=tarnished face of NFL

tarnished face of NFL = Jets snap count practices

GOLD

 

[Folded Undercard]

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.

 

[Shrek]

As a realist, I think that Mangini is going to have a hard time getting a job in the future. Unless he has a tremendous run with the Jets, or this eventually blows over, it's going to be very difficult for someone to justify bringing in someone who did so much damage to his previous organization after he left. Would you hire someone who had publicly soured his relationship with his previous boss and then burned him that badly? Wouldn't you wonder if he might do the same to you? From the perspective of a future employer, hiring Mangini is a greater risk than hiring another coach.

I couldn't disagree more.Funny how this is being portrayed by Pats fans as a "revenge against Belichick" tactic.You think there's a small chance it could be a "doing what's best for my team" tactic? No, that's just unreasonable. The best thing to do for your team in that situation is OBVIOUSLY to shut up and let said cheating continue. Don't want to piss off the good ol' boys who have benefited from it for so long.Honestly (reasonable) Pats Fan, I am disappointed that you would continue to grasp at this perception in the name of sour grapes.

 

[Shrek]

snap count practice=holding happens every play, refs need to call it not even in the same ballpark as institutionalized violation of league rules.

So you're saying that you think it's OK to break the rules because everyone else is doing it, it's OK for some people to get caught and not others, but that it's not OK for someone to complain to the commissioner.

at trying to say the two are even close to the same thing, but....You're right. It's not OK. I wonder if you will waste the same amount of breath chastising Billick for whining to the commissioner as you did with Mangini. Somehow I doubt it.

What's whinier football fans? Mangini reporting Belichick to NFL security for violating an NFL mandate that everyone was reminded not to break before the season began? Or Billick using the media as an outlet to complain about alleged in-game penalties?

 

[GregR_2]

I've seen it all now. Someone actually buying Beilcheats excuse. Cut and pasted from TMQ:Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."

That's funny, because from reading every thread here, it seems like the big deal is because BB violated a "Rule", not a "memo".The actual "Rule", per NFL.com, reads a lot differently: "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." Nothing about sidelines or "any other locations".So which is it? Did BB violate an official rule, or an unofficial memo?

I wasn't even aware of this. Is there another rule that imbues rule equivalence power to memos from the commisioner? Sorry, I guess I glossed over the rules-related bickering in prior threads.

The actual "Rule" as per NFL.com, includes "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."Guess he sort of forgot to include that part in his post though.

I see. Thanks. Perhaps all prior taping before Week 1 2007 was in domes? Otherwise, it looks like a smoking gun to me. What am I missing?A related question: Can I not put a powerful enough video device in an approved booth to capture most of what I could capture from the opposing sideline? Again, sorry if this has been covered already...

You're a coach who doesn't want his signals taped. You know where the video booths are that both teams are allowed to tape from. You can block the view, holding up something to cover your mouth or having someone block the view to you while you do your signals. This is definitely done by some teams and during the media coverage they even showed one team having a guy with a towel blocking the view to the defensive coach when he sent in his hand signals. If you're able to record from wherever you want, you could just go find an angle they wouldn't be able to block.So question for you. At what point will, "Everyone including the Pats should have just followed the rules" come out as opposed to dissecting every iota of the rules looking for some way it isn't breaking them?

 

[Shrek]

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.

 

[Bri]

Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."And how did he mis-interpret this? The lame excuse Belicheat came up with was a flat out lie. You know it and I know it. And for those of you equating what the Pats did to what the Jets did is just ridiculous. I thought you were just trying to be funny - but some of you actually seem to believe it.

on the radio they said BB was being "wise" as the camera was in the stands.I am solely answerring your Q here

Unless the still shot that everyone has linked as the proof of the cheating isn't really showing the right guy, then no he was not in the stands. He was on the Jets sideline, wearing similar clothes to other Jets personnel.

No, that was not the guy in question, he was with the NFL or part of the televison crew, but all the talk did say he was on the Patriots sideline.

I thought he was front row of stands behind the pats bench but geesh is alot of this info fuzzy from all the poor reporting....I just don't know anymore

 

[twitch]

Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "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."And how did he mis-interpret this? The lame excuse Belicheat came up with was a flat out lie. You know it and I know it. And for those of you equating what the Pats did to what the Jets did is just ridiculous. I thought you were just trying to be funny - but some of you actually seem to believe it.

on the radio they said BB was being "wise" as the camera was in the stands.I am solely answerring your Q here

Unless the still shot that everyone has linked as the proof of the cheating isn't really showing the right guy, then no he was not in the stands. He was on the Jets sideline, wearing similar clothes to other Jets personnel.

No, that was not the guy in question, he was with the NFL or part of the televison crew, but all the talk did say he was on the Patriots sideline.

I thought he was front row of stands behind the pats bench but geesh is alot of this info fuzzy from all the poor reporting....I just don't know anymore

he was definitely on the sidelines, Bri. You can see some of the actual illegal video on You Tube...'Pats cheating" will pull it up...the video which by the way was apparently ILLEGALLY heisted from the NFL by some FOX affiliate....allegedly. Its been reported on the 4letter network's website. The NFL is all over someone on that subject. There's so much cheese and so many accusations and slander being thrown around by goofballs all over the place that at this point I cant even remember what the Pats did wrong. Oh, right, they cheated so they can keep beating up on teams.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

So question for you. At what point will, "Everyone including the Pats should have just followed the rules" come out as opposed to dissecting every iota of the rules looking for some way it isn't breaking them?

I'm sorry; I'm not understanding your question. Do you mean when will I or when will whiney tools come out and say "Everyone including the Pats should have just followed the rules"?Everyone including the Pats should have just followed the rules.OK?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").

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What the Pats did was a violation of league rules, policed by league officials.

The Jets violated a game rule, supposed to be policed by game officials.

That is exactly the difference.

Within the context of the game and without.

Punching someone in the nuts, on the field, is horrendous, but it isnt "cheating". Though it may help you win.

The rules are there to handle such situations and the refs are there to enforce those rules.

Going outside of the context of the game is cheating. Which was what the Pats did.

 

[Bri]

he was definitely on the sidelines, Bri. You can see some of the actual illegal video on You Tube...'Pats cheating" will pull it up...

thanks

 

[bostonfred]

snap count practice=holding happens every play, refs need to call it not even in the same ballpark as institutionalized violation of league rules.

So you're saying that you think it's OK to break the rules because everyone else is doing it, it's OK for some people to get caught and not others, but that it's not OK for someone to complain to the commissioner.

at trying to say the two are even close to the same thing, but....You're right. It's not OK. I wonder if you will waste the same amount of breath chastising Billick for whining to the commissioner as you did with Mangini. Somehow I doubt it.

What's whinier football fans? Mangini reporting Belichick to NFL security for violating an NFL mandate that everyone was reminded not to break before the season began? Or Billick using the media as an outlet to complain about alleged in-game penalties?

Alleged? You don't call Belichick's actions alleged. I've seen tape of the Jets breaking the rules, and they've been punished for it. There's nothing "alleged" about these in-game penalties, and I for one am outraged.

 

[bostonfred]

As a realist, I think that Mangini is going to have a hard time getting a job in the future. Unless he has a tremendous run with the Jets, or this eventually blows over, it's going to be very difficult for someone to justify bringing in someone who did so much damage to his previous organization after he left. Would you hire someone who had publicly soured his relationship with his previous boss and then burned him that badly? Wouldn't you wonder if he might do the same to you? From the perspective of a future employer, hiring Mangini is a greater risk than hiring another coach.

I couldn't disagree more.Funny how this is being portrayed by Pats fans as a "revenge against Belichick" tactic.You think there's a small chance it could be a "doing what's best for my team" tactic? No, that's just unreasonable. The best thing to do for your team in that situation is OBVIOUSLY to shut up and let said cheating continue. Don't want to piss off the good ol' boys who have benefited from it for so long.Honestly (reasonable) Pats Fan, I am disappointed that you would continue to grasp at this perception in the name of sour grapes.

Go ahead and highlight the part of my post where I said that he did this out of sour grapes or revenge. In the post you clipped, I specifically said that I think he blew the whistle for personal advantage. I would have no problem with him whistleblowing if he had never been involved with it. I would have no problem with him catching someone cheating. But if you believe that there's any kind of asterisk next to anything the Patriots ever did, then it would be remarkably inconsistent to claim that the defensive coordinator didn't know it was happening. And if he knew it was happening, then he's a hypocrite for benefitting from it when he coached there, but blowing the whistle on it when it benefitted him to do so. And regardless, the fact that he's involved in this at all would absolutely make another employer nervous. Without question. Would you hire a marginal retread candidate if he had burned his previous employer this badly? Regardless of the motivation? (Note that I say marginal - as I said in the post you quoted, if he makes a big run with the Jets, it's a whole different ballgame)

 

[mad sweeney]

snap count practice=holding happens every play, refs need to call it not even in the same ballpark as institutionalized violation of league rules.

So you're saying that you think it's OK to break the rules because everyone else is doing it, it's OK for some people to get caught and not others, but that it's not OK for someone to complain to the commissioner.

at trying to say the two are even close to the same thing, but....You're right. It's not OK. I wonder if you will waste the same amount of breath chastising Billick for whining to the commissioner as you did with Mangini. Somehow I doubt it.

What's whinier football fans? Mangini reporting Belichick to NFL security for violating an NFL mandate that everyone was reminded not to break before the season began? Or Billick using the media as an outlet to complain about alleged in-game penalties?

Alleged? You don't call Belichick's actions alleged. I've seen tape of the Jets breaking the rules, and they've been punished for it. There's nothing "alleged" about these in-game penalties, and I for one am outraged.

Are you outraged by the falgrant rules violations caught on tape of the Patriots that were not flagged which include, but are not limited to: a facemask on LT, a two handed pushoff by Moss and most flagrant of all a push off by Stallworth on the very next play after a mild (but not entirely unwarranted) defensive PI call on Cromartie. Where is your outrage at these illegal cheating activities?If you are seriously outraged about the Jets "cheating", then outraged is not quite the proper adjective for you. If you are outraged that the refs didn't call it, then you're on the right track. But as Billick acknowledged, he'd seen it flagged earlier in another game, and it should've been flagged then. And if you're just outraged by the fact that he called the Jets violation alleged, then that's just silly.

The funny thing about the way Billick phrased all of this is that he is really going after the refs with his speech. But if he says the refs did a poor job flagging the Jets, he gets fined. So he phrases it as the Jets doing a good job performing "illegal" activities, giving hapless Pats fans a new round of ammo to try and deflect that fact that their beloved coach is a dirty cheat and will most likely be further punished for violating longstanding rules.

 

[JZilla]

Brian Billick is a B*TCH. He's notorious for #####ing. I refuse to listen to anything he says.

Brian Billick called, he doesn't give a crap what you listen toOh hey Pats fans.. heads up.. YOU'RE STILL WHINING. I was trying to watch a movie but I was interrupted by the constant squealing from the innerwebs.