What do you believe today? (1 Viewer)

[Sinn Fein]

What say you?

I think Walsh taped the Rams on his own, but then shared that with the Patriots/Belichick

 

[Tommy Collins]

What say you?I think Walsh taped the Rams on his own, but then shared that with the Patriots/Belichick

Why would he take the initiative to tape it on his own? Makes no sense.

 

[Sinn Fein]

What say you?I think Walsh taped the Rams on his own, but then shared that with the Patriots/Belichick

Why would he take the initiative to tape it on his own? Makes no sense.

Why not - he is left at the stadium, after the Patriots team photo, sees the Rams walkthrough - nobody asks him to leave, so he starts taping. I don't think it is a big stretch. I think it would be a bigger stretch for the Patriots to tell Walsh to figure out how to sneak into the stadium, and secretly tape the Rams walkthrough.I think it had to be a spur of the moment idea in any event. The real question is whether Walsh turned the tapes over to someone with the Patriots, and whether they used them.

 

[VonRomig]

What say you?I think Walsh taped the Rams on his own, but then shared that with the Patriots/Belichick

Why would he take the initiative to tape it on his own? Makes no sense.

Why not - he is left at the stadium, after the Patriots team photo, sees the Rams walkthrough - nobody asks him to leave, so he starts taping. I don't think it is a big stretch. I think it would be a bigger stretch for the Patriots to tell Walsh to figure out how to sneak into the stadium, and secretly tape the Rams walkthrough.I think it had to be a spur of the moment idea in any event. The real question is whether Walsh turned the tapes over to someone with the Patriots, and whether they used them.

OR... it could have been common practice for Walsh (maybe others) to hang around, and if not asked to leave he begins taping. This concept is backed by the fact that it has come out that the Pats have been taping SINCE the 2000 season. Which means that they were not just taping DURING the 2000 season.Von

 

[PMENFAN]

What say you?I think Walsh taped the Rams on his own, but then shared that with the Patriots/Belichick

Why would he take the initiative to tape it on his own? Makes no sense.

Why not - he is left at the stadium, after the Patriots team photo, sees the Rams walkthrough - nobody asks him to leave, so he starts taping. I don't think it is a big stretch. I think it would be a bigger stretch for the Patriots to tell Walsh to figure out how to sneak into the stadium, and secretly tape the Rams walkthrough.I think it had to be a spur of the moment idea in any event. The real question is whether Walsh turned the tapes over to someone with the Patriots, and whether they used them.

Von

I'd further venture a guess that BB had been taping since he's been coaching, to some extent. What would walsh possibly have that they haven't already admitted to? I mean really? When caught, BB went to the commissioner, not with hat in hand to say he was caught cheating, but he was caught doing what he though was within the rules. IE: Nothing hidden when caught. Not covering part up, but full admission. Even going as far as to turn over their notes on the tapes for the past several years. OR... it could have been common practice for Walsh (maybe others) to hang around, and if not asked to leave he begins taping. This concept is backed by the fact that it has come out that the Pats have been taping SINCE the 2000 season. Which means that they were not just taping DURING the 2000 season.Could Walsh have made this tape you suggest, and never use it with the Pats? What about past coaches and players that have left the Pats under less than ideal conditions? Wouldn't they have said something if the Pats were doing things that were not done in other places? There's too many people that would have wanted this information out that have left, for Matt Walsh to be the only guy who has the smoking guy. I think the guy is a disgruntled former employee who has some of the tapes for which notes were turned over. I don't hink he has anything new. I think he loves the spotlight. The Cindy Brady analogy reighn. "I've got a secret!!! But, I can't tell". The NFL has offered him immunity, if he is truthful. He wants immunity if he acts in good faith. How does one way it's not good faith when he's merely slandering the organization with ficticious information? He says he knew something that cannot be verified in either way. Say I say my friend, who was an assistant coach for the Bears in 85, told be they had a catalog of plays for a given week. You can prove I have the connection to the friend, but you can't prove, or disprove, the substance of our conversations. Did I act in good faith? You can't prove it. Full disclosure: I pulled the Bear connection out of my backside, solely to illustrate a for instance.

 

[JaxBill]

I believe that the Pats cheated but we'll never know how much. Time to move on.

 

[Obie Wan]

I believe that the Pats cheated but we'll never know how much. Time to move on.

great idea!!Since we never determine what exactly they did, they can continue to cheat in other ways that weren't part of the videotaping distraction, like use of the illegal frequencies.

 

[ImTheScientist]

The Pats are cheats!

 

[kethnaab]

What about past coaches and players that have left the Pats under less than ideal conditions? Wouldn't they have said something if the Pats were doing things that were not done in other places?

like....Eric Mangini, for instance? Interesting that he knew exactly what was going to happen and where it was going to happen.

 

[Sinners]

Mangini knew because the Jets hired a bunch of former Pats video staff. You know, the ones BeliCheat told to do the taping.

Video taping the hand signals from a defensive coach does not help a defensive, only the offense.... so quit trying to say Mangini cheated too. It makes NO sense as he was a defensive coach.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Patriots = cheaters

 

[PMENFAN]

What about past coaches and players that have left the Pats under less than ideal conditions? Wouldn't they have said something if the Pats were doing things that were not done in other places?

like....Eric Mangini, for instance? Interesting that he knew exactly what was going to happen and where it was going to happen.

Why wouldn't he have done this last year then, when they were in a playoff game? Would have had a bit more impact than the first game of the season, no? I still maintain that if you're trying to hide something, you don't hide it in plain sight, like a guy standing on the sideline with a camera focused on the other sideline. Can you think of amore overt way to do it? I can't.

 

[Das Boot]

I believe that the Pats cheated but we'll never know how much. Time to move on.

People sure are in a hurry to destroy evidence and move on from the Patriots cheating.

 

[Serenity Now]

I believe that the Pats cheated but we'll never know how much. Time to move on.

People sure are in a hurry to destroy evidence and move on from the Patriots cheating.

The NFL, not the Pats, decided to destroy the tapes, how would you like them to be un-destroyed to satisfy you? How do you do anything but move on? I know, take the word of a guy who was fired by the Pats but has been living in obscurity for years, that's right....he has no axe to grind...

 

[Das Boot]

I believe that the Pats cheated but we'll never know how much. Time to move on.

People sure are in a hurry to destroy evidence and move on from the Patriots cheating.

The NFL, not the Pats, decided to destroy the tapes, how would you like them to be un-destroyed to satisfy you? How do you do anything but move on? I know, take the word of a guy who was fired by the Pats but has been living in obscurity for years, that's right....he has no axe to grind...

Well...I'd be happy with a full, impartial investigation into the whole spygate mess - something on the order of the Mitchell report, only by someone without ties to Goodell and the NFL.

And I'll be extremely relieved if Walsh doesn't turn over his tapes to the NFL, so the evidence isn't immediately destroyed.

And while we're at it, it would be nice to see NE fans show an interest in getting to the truth instead of "moving on".

 

[datonn]

What say you?I think Walsh taped the Rams on his own, but then shared that with the Patriots/Belichick

I won't personally make up my mind until after I've watched our elected representatives waste millions of taxpayer dollars (and precious time) holding Congressional Hearings on the subject on C-SPAN.

 

[GregR_2]

I null voted. This isn't like the original Spygate taping where the facts were pretty well established from the get go and the Pats were not disputing what happened, but were instead debating whether what happened was legal.

Instead we have a source who has evidence we don't know for sure what it is yet, and a team that has already denied that the action occurred which the unknown evidence is supposed to be about. I don't think enough is known to go "believing" any version of what the real events were.

I think BB is a big enough scumbag to have done it, but I still hope the Pats didn't for the black eye it will give the league if they did.

 

[PMENFAN]

I believe that the Pats cheated but we'll never know how much. Time to move on.

People sure are in a hurry to destroy evidence and move on from the Patriots cheating.

The NFL, not the Pats, decided to destroy the tapes, how would you like them to be un-destroyed to satisfy you? How do you do anything but move on? I know, take the word of a guy who was fired by the Pats but has been living in obscurity for years, that's right....he has no axe to grind...

Well...I'd be happy with a full, impartial investigation into the whole spygate mess - something on the order of the Mitchell report, only by someone without ties to Goodell and the NFL.

And I'll be extremely relieved if Walsh doesn't turn over his tapes to the NFL, so the evidence isn't immediately destroyed.

And while we're at it, it would be nice to see NE fans show an interest in getting to the truth instead of "moving on".

That's where your ignorance and hatred of the Patriots gets in the way. Goodell is the impartial authority that is the ultimate aurhotiry on all things NFL. The only thing broken was a league rule, not a law. His word is the ultimate word when it comes to NFL rule matters. As a NE fan, we got to the truth, and the team was docked a first round draft pick. They broke a league rule, and were made an example of. We know from other coaches that this practice is not the sole property of the Patriots.

What I would have liked to hear was Belichicks argument that he thought it was acceptable. That's the only thing we don't know. And as I've said before, his actions back up his statement that he thought it was legal. The taping was done overtly, not covertly. the notes given correlated to the tapes.

So, what is left besides moving on? Maybe Walsh has something, but I suspect it's the same information already given to the league. If he felt it was so incriminating, who not bring it up when the investigation was under way? Why wait until 2 days before they play in the SB to go 19-0. Could it be that he merely had an axe to grind for being terminated from the corporation? Could it be he was terminated for his actions, specifically maybe a tape that he wants to share? I don't know, nor do you.

At the end of the day, I think the Walsh saga ends with him saying he can't cooperate, because he can't get what he wants in terms of legal protection. That's what his actions have led me to believe. He's got nothing, and he'll never come forward and admit to being the fraud he is.

************

ETA

I know the league has an antitrust exemption, as all professional sports do. Why? Why allow these varying entities to collaborate in their league operation? In sports, the league thrives when they act collectively to provide a product. In regular business, it's good for Walmart when Kmart does poorly. They want to vulture off of each other. In sports, the league thrives when each team does well. They do this by implementing league wide rules to send revenue from large market clubs to small market clubs. They collude to get a TV contract under the NFL entity, while each also has a home market contract as well. What we don't see is the Dallas Cowboys getting a TV contract in Southern California. In the real business world, Dallas would love to penetrate such a market, but the league prevents this.

There is obviously far more to the intricacies of the Sherman Act, but this is the basic reason we have the protection for the sports leagues we have. And regardless of Arlen Spectors grandstanding, the Anti-Trust Exemption is not in jeopardy. Not over where they choose to distribute their product, not over any other issue. Spector is a schmuch for suggesting anything otherwise.

 

[faulkfan]

I believe that the Pats cheated but we'll never know how much. Time to move on.

People sure are in a hurry to destroy evidence and move on from the Patriots cheating.

The NFL, not the Pats, decided to destroy the tapes, how would you like them to be un-destroyed to satisfy you? How do you do anything but move on? I know, take the word of a guy who was fired by the Pats but has been living in obscurity for years, that's right....he has no axe to grind...

This isn't about believing someone who comes out of the woodwork with some outlandish claim. There is proof (or at least there was until the NFL destroyed it) that the Pats had been involved in this type of behavior.A lot of posters jumped on Chris Henry when that kid told the cops that Henry had assaulted him on the sidewalk one evening. The kid had no proof or credibility and we found out he was lying, but Henry's past history suggested that it wasn't out of the realm of possibility that he would act as the kid suggested. The authorities investigated to find out for sure. That is how it works. It would be fool hardy and further destroy the credibility of the league and Goodell if he takes the stance that it is merely a disgruntled x-employee. God knows he wouldn't offer that kind of benefit of the doubt to a player like Henry, Tank, or Pacman. We wouldn't want or expect him to and it makes no sense for you to suggest that we do so with Mr. Walsh and these recent allegations.

I have no idea if this happened or how, and neither do you, but given that Pats record of cheating under BB investigating it further is a given.

As for Walsh's request for immunity, have you ever had to go up against an organization with the resources of Robert Kraft and the celebrity of BB? How about both of those plus the NFL? I would be dang sure that I wasn't going to be thrown under the bus by Goodell and the other owners before I gave them anything. Especially when the evidence from that last incident was destroyed already. The NFL has done nothing to appear trustworthy in this situation and I would be treading very carefully if I were Walsh as well.

You can choose to wear rose colored glasses and keep telling everyone that this is all the work of a disgruntled former employee, but I seem to recall a lot of Pats fans saying that the initial incident in week 1 wasn't what it appeared to be either and they were wrong. I, however, will reserve jugement until the facts begin to come out. I think that we will find out what Goodell is made of in all this. Will he be a tool for the owners or will he have the courage (unlike Selig) to take and honest look and make an honest effort to find the truth and enforce the rules.

 

[PMENFAN]

I believe that the Pats cheated but we'll never know how much. Time to move on.

People sure are in a hurry to destroy evidence and move on from the Patriots cheating.

The NFL, not the Pats, decided to destroy the tapes, how would you like them to be un-destroyed to satisfy you? How do you do anything but move on? I know, take the word of a guy who was fired by the Pats but has been living in obscurity for years, that's right....he has no axe to grind...

This isn't about believing someone who comes out of the woodwork with some outlandish claim. There is proof (or at least there was until the NFL destroyed it) that the Pats had been involved in this type of behavior.A lot of posters jumped on Chris Henry when that kid told the cops that Henry had assaulted him on the sidewalk one evening. The kid had no proof or credibility and we found out he was lying, but Henry's past history suggested that it wasn't out of the realm of possibility that he would act as the kid suggested. The authorities investigated to find out for sure. That is how it works. It would be fool hardy and further destroy the credibility of the league and Goodell if he takes the stance that it is merely a disgruntled x-employee. God knows he wouldn't offer that kind of benefit of the doubt to a player like Henry, Tank, or Pacman. We wouldn't want or expect him to and it makes no sense for you to suggest that we do so with Mr. Walsh and these recent allegations.

I have no idea if this happened or how, and neither do you, but given that Pats record of cheating under BB investigating it further is a given.

As for Walsh's request for immunity, have you ever had to go up against an organization with the resources of Robert Kraft and the celebrity of BB? How about both of those plus the NFL? I would be dang sure that I wasn't going to be thrown under the bus by Goodell and the other owners before I gave them anything. Especially when the evidence from that last incident was destroyed already. The NFL has done nothing to appear trustworthy in this situation and I would be treading very carefully if I were Walsh as well.

You can choose to wear rose colored glasses and keep telling everyone that this is all the work of a disgruntled former employee, but I seem to recall a lot of Pats fans saying that the initial incident in week 1 wasn't what it appeared to be either and they were wrong. I, however, will reserve jugement until the facts begin to come out. I think that we will find out what Goodell is made of in all this. Will he be a tool for the owners or will he have the courage (unlike Selig) to take and honest look and make an honest effort to find the truth and enforce the rules.

Comparing the Spygate incident with those that broke laws is the folly of fools. This was a league rule that was broken. They were merely adding a high tech twich to a practice that is as much a part of the game as the forward pass. The league has done nothing trustworthy? They only gave the highest penalty ever for a rules infraction. Seems pretty trustworthy to me.

As for the immunity. If the league, Kraft, BB or anybody subjects Mr. Walsh to any type of harrassment, they open themselves to a civil suit for harrassment. Now, it seems to me that Mr. Walsh has already been offered indemnity for TRUTHFUL testimony. He declined. He wants indemnity if he acts in GOOD FAITH. The differenct between truth and good faith? Good faith can't be proven. "well, it's what I was told. I didn't know it to be false." You can't disprove it. Mr. Walsh intends to lie, and he wants to be able to slander the Patriots and NFL with impunity, and they'll likely never grant his wish.

Tell the truth Mr. Walsh, or rish retribution. That's the message the league has sent loud and clear, and Mr. Walsh has heard. It's why he has maintained his substantive silence.

 

[JaxBill]

I believe that the Pats cheated but we'll never know how much. Time to move on.

People sure are in a hurry to destroy evidence and move on from the Patriots cheating.

The NFL, not the Pats, decided to destroy the tapes, how would you like them to be un-destroyed to satisfy you? How do you do anything but move on? I know, take the word of a guy who was fired by the Pats but has been living in obscurity for years, that's right....he has no axe to grind...

Well...I'd be happy with a full, impartial investigation into the whole spygate mess - something on the order of the Mitchell report, only by someone without ties to Goodell and the NFL.

And I'll be extremely relieved if Walsh doesn't turn over his tapes to the NFL, so the evidence isn't immediately destroyed.

And while we're at it, it would be nice to see NE fans show an interest in getting to the truth instead of "moving on".

The Mitchell report is one of the main reasons I just want to move on. All that has done is give ESPN something to talk about. Nothing has come out of it and nothing will. The NFL will never overturn the Pats Super Bowls just like Clemens ot McNamee will never go to jail.

 

[faulkfan]

I believe that the Pats cheated but we'll never know how much. Time to move on.

People sure are in a hurry to destroy evidence and move on from the Patriots cheating.

The NFL, not the Pats, decided to destroy the tapes, how would you like them to be un-destroyed to satisfy you? How do you do anything but move on? I know, take the word of a guy who was fired by the Pats but has been living in obscurity for years, that's right....he has no axe to grind...

This isn't about believing someone who comes out of the woodwork with some outlandish claim. There is proof (or at least there was until the NFL destroyed it) that the Pats had been involved in this type of behavior.A lot of posters jumped on Chris Henry when that kid told the cops that Henry had assaulted him on the sidewalk one evening. The kid had no proof or credibility and we found out he was lying, but Henry's past history suggested that it wasn't out of the realm of possibility that he would act as the kid suggested. The authorities investigated to find out for sure. That is how it works. It would be fool hardy and further destroy the credibility of the league and Goodell if he takes the stance that it is merely a disgruntled x-employee. God knows he wouldn't offer that kind of benefit of the doubt to a player like Henry, Tank, or Pacman. We wouldn't want or expect him to and it makes no sense for you to suggest that we do so with Mr. Walsh and these recent allegations.

I have no idea if this happened or how, and neither do you, but given that Pats record of cheating under BB investigating it further is a given.

As for Walsh's request for immunity, have you ever had to go up against an organization with the resources of Robert Kraft and the celebrity of BB? How about both of those plus the NFL? I would be dang sure that I wasn't going to be thrown under the bus by Goodell and the other owners before I gave them anything. Especially when the evidence from that last incident was destroyed already. The NFL has done nothing to appear trustworthy in this situation and I would be treading very carefully if I were Walsh as well.

You can choose to wear rose colored glasses and keep telling everyone that this is all the work of a disgruntled former employee, but I seem to recall a lot of Pats fans saying that the initial incident in week 1 wasn't what it appeared to be either and they were wrong. I, however, will reserve jugement until the facts begin to come out. I think that we will find out what Goodell is made of in all this. Will he be a tool for the owners or will he have the courage (unlike Selig) to take and honest look and make an honest effort to find the truth and enforce the rules.

Comparing the Spygate incident with those that broke laws is the folly of fools. This was a league rule that was broken. They were merely adding a high tech twich to a practice that is as much a part of the game as the forward pass. The league has done nothing trustworthy? They only gave the highest penalty ever for a rules infraction. Seems pretty trustworthy to me.

As for the immunity. If the league, Kraft, BB or anybody subjects Mr. Walsh to any type of harrassment, they open themselves to a civil suit for harrassment. Now, it seems to me that Mr. Walsh has already been offered indemnity for TRUTHFUL testimony. He declined. He wants indemnity if he acts in GOOD FAITH. The differenct between truth and good faith? Good faith can't be proven. "well, it's what I was told. I didn't know it to be false." You can't disprove it. Mr. Walsh intends to lie, and he wants to be able to slander the Patriots and NFL with impunity, and they'll likely never grant his wish.

Tell the truth Mr. Walsh, or rish retribution. That's the message the league has sent loud and clear, and Mr. Walsh has heard. It's why he has maintained his substantive silence.

I may have erred in comparing Goodell's response to each, but my overarching point as to offering benefit of the doubt when one has already proven to be willing to break the rules holds true. The Pats have shown that they are willing to cheat and thus, Mr. Walsh's assertions have to be given some gravity based on that.I am unsure how you can purport to know that Walsh intends to lie. It can be taken as nothing more than personal opinion at best. Similarly, your logical path from the initial offer of protection by the NFL to Walsh having maintained his silence as prrof of anything ignores so many other variables that it fails to deserve comment.

I say again, I am not saying that walsh is truthful or if his accusations legitimate. I am only suggesting that with the recent findings as to the Pats actions that this matter needs to be considered carefully. I also can only put myself in Walsh's shoes and say that I would personally have some concerns with handing over what I had (even if it is legitimate) without assurances that I wouldn't be thrown under the bus. I agree that the NFL did hand out stiff penalties to BB and the Pats, but their credibility did take a hit in the eyes of some in the public for destroying the evidence that had been brought forth (as evidenced by the many articles and airtime devoted to the subject). This does not mean that Walsh has material evidence of his own or that the Pats are guilty. It merely means that I can understand his cautious approach.

One thing I hold pretty firmly to, however, is that Pats fans calling him a liar holds no water due to their bias. I only hope to see an impartial investigation (unlike those we saw with the Clemons hearing) where the facts or lack thereof are presented and the truth acknowleged. If the Pats are innocent then great, then they should go after Walsh for defamation. If otherwise, then they should be punished in kind.

 

[AB in DC]

The Mitchell report is one of the main reasons I just want to move on. All that has done is give ESPN something to talk about.

 

[Chaka]

I know ya did it, just admit it!

 

[Serenity Now]

As a taxpayer, I would think that you'd be horrified at the notion of another dog and pony show like the one we've been having over the steroids. At least in the case of the steroids there were laws being broken. All those "fact finding missions" and hearings are about is a bunch of bloated, stupid, attention-seeking congresspeople trying to get some face time on tv.

Did you watch that clown show with Clemens on it last week? It was painfully obvious which members of congress Clemens had been gladhanding the week prior and the ones he hadn't. It would have been funny had it not been so pitiful.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Please note, this is an observation, not a criticism.

As I'm typing, current poll results are:

100 votes - Walsh taped authorized by NE

11 votes - Walsh did not tape

 

[Filthy]

Seriously; this scandal has touched off such a frenzy that given Bill Belichick's rep, NOTHING is beyond belief. With today's technology it's amazing that they weren't more covert with this crap. I don't buy for a minute that BB thought he was on the up and up but rather had his excuse ready should anyone find out.

Also, apparently people here are giving the Patriots/BB an out by putting out the 'yeah he filmed that on his own' or 'they didn't use the material though' excuses. What's laughable and somewhat sad is that people actually believe those statements.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Seriously; this scandal has touched off such a frenzy that given Bill Belichick's rep, NOTHING is beyond belief. With today's technology it's amazing that they weren't more covert with this crap. I don't buy for a minute that BB thought he was on the up and up but rather had his excuse ready should anyone find out. Also, apparently people here are giving the Patriots/BB an out by putting out the 'yeah he filmed that on his own' or 'they didn't use the material though' excuses. What's laughable and somewhat sad is that people actually believe those statements.

I don't understand why it is so hard to believe that he mis-interpreted a league rule. It is not like the guy was hiding that he was taping opponents defensive signals. He was doing it in plain view for everyone to see. Goodell had previously stated that on the tapes there were even defensive coaches waving to the camera. If it was such a big deal how come no other team filed a complaint before the Jets game this season?

 

[Filthy]

Seriously; this scandal has touched off such a frenzy that given Bill Belichick's rep, NOTHING is beyond belief. With today's technology it's amazing that they weren't more covert with this crap. I don't buy for a minute that BB thought he was on the up and up but rather had his excuse ready should anyone find out.

Also, apparently people here are giving the Patriots/BB an out by putting out the 'yeah he filmed that on his own' or 'they didn't use the material though' excuses. What's laughable and somewhat sad is that people actually believe those statements. :(

Point 1I don't understand why it is so hard to believe that he mis-interpreted a league rule. Point 2It is not like the guy was hiding that he was taping opponents defensive signals. He was doing it in plain view for everyone to see. Goodell had previously stated that on the tapes there were even defensive coaches waving to the camera. Point 3If it was such a big deal how come no other team filed a complaint before the Jets game this season?

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!2. Pretty sure, the Pats video guy wasn't clearly a Pats employee and there are alot of people on the sidelines so he might just blend into the crowd or be mistaken for an NFL guy.

3. Perhaps the Jets complained because Mangini KNEW firsthand how much Bill B. was using this stuff. The reason BB is/was so pissed at Mangini wanting a headcoaching job is that it was in his (BB) division. Not only is he carrying some of the Pats plays with him but also their dirty laundry.

 

[Road Warriors]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Please note, this is an observation, not a criticism.As I'm typing, current poll results are:100 votes - Walsh taped authorized by NE11 votes - Walsh did not tape

I am a little surprised at the results. I had expected a little more doubt on Walsh's (alleged) story.Now that the Patriots have come out and denied authorizing or using these tapes, I think the story plays out like this:1. Walsh has tapes, he'll say he was told to tape the walkthrough by a Patriot Official, and that he turned over copies to the Patriots (I am still not sure how he still has a copy - unless he took his copy after the fact).2. Patriots vehemently deny that they authorized or used those tapes in any manner. Huge character assassination attempt on Walsh. (this part has already started). The Patriots ultimately realize this is a he said/he said issue.3. NFL investigates and determines there is no credible evidence that the Patriots authorized or used the tapes in question. (The tapes, of course, will be destroyed).4. Story fades into oblivion. The NFL really just needs to get this story out in the open sooner rather than later. The speculation is probably far more damaging than the reality. Whether you believe the Patriots or not, the NFL is better just giving full immunity - and getting the story over and done with.

 

[Philo Beddoe]

Seriously; this scandal has touched off such a frenzy that given Bill Belichick's rep, NOTHING is beyond belief. With today's technology it's amazing that they weren't more covert with this crap. I don't buy for a minute that BB thought he was on the up and up but rather had his excuse ready should anyone find out.

Also, apparently people here are giving the Patriots/BB an out by putting out the 'yeah he filmed that on his own' or 'they didn't use the material though' excuses. What's laughable and somewhat sad is that people actually believe those statements.

Point 1I don't understand why it is so hard to believe that he mis-interpreted a league rule. Point 2It is not like the guy was hiding that he was taping opponents defensive signals. He was doing it in plain view for everyone to see. Goodell had previously stated that on the tapes there were even defensive coaches waving to the camera. Point 3If it was such a big deal how come no other team filed a complaint before the Jets game this season?

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!2. Pretty sure, the Pats video guy wasn't clearly a Pats employee and there are alot of people on the sidelines so he might just blend into the crowd or be mistaken for an NFL guy.

3. Perhaps the Jets complained because Mangini KNEW firsthand how much Bill B. was using this stuff. The reason BB is/was so pissed at Mangini wanting a headcoaching job is that it was in his (BB) division. Not only is he carrying some of the Pats plays with him but also their dirty laundry.

So you are pretty sure he wasn't clearly a Pats employee? Why were a number of defensive coaches waving to the camera? You have all the answers so fire away.

 

[Filthy]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

Nope; not grey at all. It says any use of information gathering equipment that might aid a team during the playing of a game shall be prohibited. During the playing of a game. Doesn't even come close to BB interpretation of that he thought it meant the game he's taping. Again, it says 'a game'. A game means ANY GAME; preseason, regular season or Post season. A GAME = ANY GAME. Now that first part where it states only if a team is a participant is a little grey but then it closes with 'that may aid a team during the playing of a game.' So even if the Pats taped opponents during games they weren't playing, that last sentence ends the discusssion; period. point. blank.

 

[Filthy]

Seriously; this scandal has touched off such a frenzy that given Bill Belichick's rep, NOTHING is beyond belief. With today's technology it's amazing that they weren't more covert with this crap. I don't buy for a minute that BB thought he was on the up and up but rather had his excuse ready should anyone find out.

Also, apparently people here are giving the Patriots/BB an out by putting out the 'yeah he filmed that on his own' or 'they didn't use the material though' excuses. What's laughable and somewhat sad is that people actually believe those statements.

Point 1I don't understand why it is so hard to believe that he mis-interpreted a league rule. Point 2It is not like the guy was hiding that he was taping opponents defensive signals. He was doing it in plain view for everyone to see. Goodell had previously stated that on the tapes there were even defensive coaches waving to the camera. Point 3If it was such a big deal how come no other team filed a complaint before the Jets game this season?

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!2. Pretty sure, the Pats video guy wasn't clearly a Pats employee and there are alot of people on the sidelines so he might just blend into the crowd or be mistaken for an NFL guy.

3. Perhaps the Jets complained because Mangini KNEW firsthand how much Bill B. was using this stuff. The reason BB is/was so pissed at Mangini wanting a headcoaching job is that it was in his (BB) division. Not only is he carrying some of the Pats plays with him but also their dirty laundry.

So you are pretty sure he wasn't clearly a Pats employee? Why were a number of defensive coaches waving to the camera? You have all the answers so fire away.

Well since the tapes were destroyed and we must rely solely on what the NFL told us. First it was just the Jets game being taped. Then it was tapes from 2006 and some notes. Then we find out the notes detail taping of the Steelers in 2001 and 2004 regular season and AFC championship games as well as the taping going back to 2000. How much are we not being told and at what point do Pat fans throw in the towel on this scandal. With each revealation, this grows and the pool of defenders dwindle but at some point you just can't believe the crap that's being used as excuses.

 

[Road Warriors]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

Nope; not grey at all. It says any use of information gathering equipment that might aid a team during the playing of a game shall be prohibited. During the playing of a game. Doesn't even come close to BB interpretation of that he thought it meant the game he's taping. Again, it says 'a game'. A game means ANY GAME; preseason, regular season or Post season. A GAME = ANY GAME. Now that first part where it states only if a team is a participant is a little grey but then it closes with 'that may aid a team during the playing of a game.' So even if the Pats taped opponents during games they weren't playing, that last sentence ends the discusssion; period. point. blank.

I know I'm not going to convince you, but I think there is grey area here, for this reason... the first phrase spends a lot of effort to set the context of the rule. Any time during a game in which the team is playing from start to finish. All that context, then the next reference to game could reasonably be linked to the context set above. It could also reasonably be intrepreted as you have, by using the article "A" rather than "THE" You claim it is completely black & white, but require the nuance of the use of "A" vs. "THE" as your definitive proof of its absolute unquestioned intent.

FWIW, I ultimately agree with your conclusion of the intent of the rule.

 

[Filthy]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

Nope; not grey at all. It says any use of information gathering equipment that might aid a team during the playing of a game shall be prohibited. During the playing of a game. Doesn't even come close to BB interpretation of that he thought it meant the game he's taping. Again, it says 'a game'. A game means ANY GAME; preseason, regular season or Post season. A GAME = ANY GAME. Now that first part where it states only if a team is a participant is a little grey but then it closes with 'that may aid a team during the playing of a game.' So even if the Pats taped opponents during games they weren't playing, that last sentence ends the discusssion; period. point. blank.

I know I'm not going to convince you, but I think there is grey area here, for this reason... the first phrase spends a lot of effort to set the context of the rule. Any time during a game in which the team is playing from start to finish. All that context, then the next reference to game could reasonably be linked to the context set above. It could also reasonably be intrepreted as you have, by using the article "A" rather than "THE" You claim it is completely black & white, but require the nuance of the use of "A" vs. "THE" as your definitive proof of its absolute unquestioned intent.

FWIW, I ultimately agree with your conclusion of the intent of the rule.

I'm guessing it depends on your personality. To me, you must take the paragraph as a whole and not break it down into 3 seperate and unrelated sentences. If viewed as a whole (which IMO you must) it seems to cover what it was intended to. Unless you're deliberately looking for wiggle room (which, respectfully I think you are for the sake of your argument) you can't misread that into thinking what BB was doing was okay.

 

[Chaka]

As a taxpayer, I would think that you'd be horrified at the notion of another dog and pony show like the one we've been having over the steroids. At least in the case of the steroids there were laws being broken. All those "fact finding missions" and hearings are about is a bunch of bloated, stupid, attention-seeking congresspeople trying to get some face time on tv. Did you watch that clown show with Clemens on it last week? It was painfully obvious which members of congress Clemens had been gladhanding the week prior and the ones he hadn't. It would have been funny had it not been so pitiful.

Two important facts: 1) The NFL and MLB benefit greatly from government granted antitrust exemptions. That makes anything they do fall under the scrutiny of congress.2) Considering the high value Americans put on NFL and MLB there are many more things the government spends their time and money on that are far less important to Americans.

 

[Chaka]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

What is unclear about "...during the play of a game."?

 

[PatsFanCT]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

What is unclear about "...during the play of a game."?

I guess it gets gray when the NFL tells you that you are allowed to tape games as long as you are not using the tape for in-game use.

 

[Road Warriors]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

What is unclear about "...during the play of a game."?

Question for the crowd insisting that "a game" in this rule means that any tape taken cannot be used for any game, ever...Does the coaches film of the play on the field violate this rule?

It is videotape equipment. It is used to aid a team ( prep work ) during the playing of a game.... not the one in which the film is taken, but a game, nonetheless. Does that violate this rule?

 

[GregR_2]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

I think the rule is pretty cut and dry. You can't use videotape machines from the start to the finish of a game. The other rule that was violated says you can't use video recording equipment on the field. Those are both pretty straight forward.The phrase "during the playing of a game" doesn't even have anything to do with the timing of when such equipment is banned. It is part of the description of the uses of the catch-all category of "other electronic devices". Videotape machine was already explicitly listed.

I agree with you that I doubt Belichick truly misinterpreted this rule. Sort of makes it ironic then, doesn't it, that whether Matt Walsh is going to be truthful and act in good faith is the subject of debate on the indemnity agreement, when you profess that you already feel BB hasn't done so, and it is his statements that Walsh might end up contradicting?

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm wondering if the Pats have evidence that Walsh was on assignment someplace else that would not place him at the Super if that would be enough to raise doubts on the validity of the tape. Something like credit card receipts, editing logs that he signed in/out that are date stamped with pay stubs, other tapes he may have been sent to videotape, etc.

Not saying such evidience exists . . . but would that be enough to throw a wrench in his story (say hotel and restaurant receipts from NYC)?

 

[GregR_2]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

What is unclear about "...during the play of a game."?

Question for the crowd insisting that "a game" in this rule means that any tape taken cannot be used for any game, ever...Does the coaches film of the play on the field violate this rule?

It is videotape equipment. It is used to aid a team ( prep work ) during the playing of a game.... not the one in which the film is taken, but a game, nonetheless. Does that violate this rule?

Already answered this without having seen your post yet. But you seem to be misreading what "during the playing of a game" is referring to. It is part of a description of devices that cannot be used. It has nothing to do with the timing of when they cannot be used. They can't be used "from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant"

It could also be written like this:

From the start to the finish of games a team is a participant in, teams are prohibited from any use of:

* Communications equipment

* Information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones

* Videotape machines

* Telephone tapping

* Bugging devices

* Any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game

 

[Road Warriors]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

What is unclear about "...during the play of a game."?

Question for the crowd insisting that "a game" in this rule means that any tape taken cannot be used for any game, ever...Does the coaches film of the play on the field violate this rule?

It is videotape equipment. It is used to aid a team ( prep work ) during the playing of a game.... not the one in which the film is taken, but a game, nonetheless. Does that violate this rule?

Already answered this without having seen your post yet. But you seem to be misreading what "during the playing of a game" is referring to. It is part of a description of devices that cannot be used. It has nothing to do with the timing of when they cannot be used. They can't be used "from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant"

It could also be written like this:

From the start to the finish of games a team is a participant in, teams are prohibited from any use of:

* Communications equipment

* Information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones

* Videotape machines

* Telephone tapping

* Bugging devices

* Any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game

I guess I am "NOT smarter than a 5th grader" You're right, I misread the context of the last phrase.

However, that doesn't change this question. Assuming that the video of the coaches was not ever used during a game, but only in prep, how does it differ than other scouting films?

Or is that only covered in the memo?

 

[PatsFanCT]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

What is unclear about "...during the play of a game."?

Question for the crowd insisting that "a game" in this rule means that any tape taken cannot be used for any game, ever...Does the coaches film of the play on the field violate this rule?

It is videotape equipment. It is used to aid a team ( prep work ) during the playing of a game.... not the one in which the film is taken, but a game, nonetheless. Does that violate this rule?

Already answered this without having seen your post yet. But you seem to be misreading what "during the playing of a game" is referring to. It is part of a description of devices that cannot be used. It has nothing to do with the timing of when they cannot be used. They can't be used "from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant"

It could also be written like this:

From the start to the finish of games a team is a participant in, teams are prohibited from any use of:

* Communications equipment

* Information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones

* Videotape machines

* Telephone tapping

* Bugging devices

* Any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game

Except that isn't the entire rule. This is also part of it:"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."

Teams are allowed to videotape games, according to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello.

“It is not uncommon for visiting team video crews to request permission to shoot coaching video from both upper end zone positions,” Aiello said. “Home clubs must provide visiting clubs with equal vantage points for the taping of games. Teams typically shoot coaching video from one upper 50-yard line location and one upper end zone location, but there are no restrictions on shooting from both upper end zone positions as long as the opportunity is provided to both teams. No permission is needed from the league office.”

That's where it becomes gray, but I still don't buy Belichicks "misinterpretation" of the rule. However, it does appear that teams are allowed to tape games, and that includes offensive and defensive signals, as long as the cameras are in a legal spot.

 

[Road Warriors]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

What is unclear about "...during the play of a game."?

Question for the crowd insisting that "a game" in this rule means that any tape taken cannot be used for any game, ever...Does the coaches film of the play on the field violate this rule?

It is videotape equipment. It is used to aid a team ( prep work ) during the playing of a game.... not the one in which the film is taken, but a game, nonetheless. Does that violate this rule?

Already answered this without having seen your post yet. But you seem to be misreading what "during the playing of a game" is referring to. It is part of a description of devices that cannot be used. It has nothing to do with the timing of when they cannot be used. They can't be used "from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant"

It could also be written like this:

From the start to the finish of games a team is a participant in, teams are prohibited from any use of:

* Communications equipment

* Information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones

* Videotape machines

* Telephone tapping

* Bugging devices

* Any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game

Except that isn't the entire rule. This is also part of it:"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."

Teams are allowed to videotape games, according to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello.

“It is not uncommon for visiting team video crews to request permission to shoot coaching video from both upper end zone positions,” Aiello said. “Home clubs must provide visiting clubs with equal vantage points for the taping of games. Teams typically shoot coaching video from one upper 50-yard line location and one upper end zone location, but there are no restrictions on shooting from both upper end zone positions as long as the opportunity is provided to both teams. No permission is needed from the league office.”

That's where it becomes gray, but I still don't buy Belichicks "misinterpretation" of the rule. However, it does appear that teams are allowed to tape games, and that includes offensive and defensive signals, as long as the cameras are in a legal spot.

Was that second part from the rulebook or from the memo sent this season?

 

[trader jake]

The Pats don't have much credibility in this area, but they have more than Matt Walsh does right now. Until that guy shows us something of value he gets no benefit of the doubt from me.

 

[PatsFanCT]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

Here's the rule, in all its glory:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

This rule, as written, has no gray area to you? It's purely black & white, and any 5th grade level reader would never interpret the bolded part as meaning you can't using anything you collect during that game. I have a hard time believing that anyone could honestly say that rule is crystal clear and has no alternative interpretations.Honestly, I don't think Belichick truly "misinterpreted" the intent of this rule, as much as he felt he had "letter of the law" coverage trying to exploit the rule as written.

What is unclear about "...during the play of a game."?

Question for the crowd insisting that "a game" in this rule means that any tape taken cannot be used for any game, ever...Does the coaches film of the play on the field violate this rule?

It is videotape equipment. It is used to aid a team ( prep work ) during the playing of a game.... not the one in which the film is taken, but a game, nonetheless. Does that violate this rule?

Already answered this without having seen your post yet. But you seem to be misreading what "during the playing of a game" is referring to. It is part of a description of devices that cannot be used. It has nothing to do with the timing of when they cannot be used. They can't be used "from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant"

It could also be written like this:

From the start to the finish of games a team is a participant in, teams are prohibited from any use of:

* Communications equipment

* Information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones

* Videotape machines

* Telephone tapping

* Bugging devices

* Any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game

Except that isn't the entire rule. This is also part of it:"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."

Teams are allowed to videotape games, according to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello.

“It is not uncommon for visiting team video crews to request permission to shoot coaching video from both upper end zone positions,” Aiello said. “Home clubs must provide visiting clubs with equal vantage points for the taping of games. Teams typically shoot coaching video from one upper 50-yard line location and one upper end zone location, but there are no restrictions on shooting from both upper end zone positions as long as the opportunity is provided to both teams. No permission is needed from the league office.”

That's where it becomes gray, but I still don't buy Belichicks "misinterpretation" of the rule. However, it does appear that teams are allowed to tape games, and that includes offensive and defensive signals, as long as the cameras are in a legal spot.

Was that second part from the rulebook or from the memo sent this season?

It was a quote from Aiello regarding the Jets cameraman getting booted from Foxboro last year, likely being the first domino tipped in the Pats-Jets war.Link

 

[GregR_2]

... (snip to save scroll)I guess I am "NOT smarter than a 5th grader" You're right, I misread the context of the last phrase. However, that doesn't change this question. Assuming that the video of the coaches was not ever used during a game, but only in prep, how does it differ than other scouting films? Or is that only covered in the memo?

I don't really see why BB thinks this section of the rules takes precedence over the section that very specifically mentions video recording and specifies when it is legal and when it is illegal. But even if he did honestly believe it was this part, the recording of the tape would be illegal by this rule too.Anyway, as to your question though... I believe the issue is that it was an illegal recording, not whether it was put to a use that legal tape could have been. I don't believe their punishment from the NFL had to do with how they were used, they had to do with how they were obtained, and probably an added measure for Goodell believing BB intentionally violated the rules in a calculated manner. Specter saying that Goodell issued the punishment before he even saw the tape and notes would seem to confirm that thought.So how does it differ? The scouting film was legally obtained. The illegal film was illegally obtained. Filming from the illegal locations could have afforded them views of the signal callers that the legal filming locations would not have had, because of the teams knowing where they are and so being able to block their line of sight.But the crux of it is that the recording of the tape was illegal they way they did it, and that's what they got punished for.

 

[AB in DC]

1.Please stop using that excuse that BB just misinterpreted the rule. A fifth grader could read that and follow the rules but Bill 'The Genius' Belichick isn't that bright?!

You got it backwards. Belichick thought he was so smart that he found a loophole when it wasn't there.