I'm about tired of reading about spygate, how the Pats are evil, how they've tainted the NFL as a whole, how Bill Belichick is a lousy, good for nothing, heartless S.O.B., and how everyone that's involved with the Patriots are classless, from the owner, to the coaching staff, to the players down to the personnel that do the team laundry and classless certainly includes the pathetic lying (and probably cheating) fans themselves.
The Pats cheated, point blank, end of discussion....now let's spend more than 6 months beating them up for it (along with beating the list of aforementioned folks, too). First off, the Pats did not cheat. Yes, I said it, they did not cheat. Ok, so I can't prove that. So, you prove it - prove that the Pats did in fact "cheat".....you can't, and neither can Commissioner Goodell or the NFL's competition committee, or a Senator from PA.
I know what you're thinking, and the answer is NO. The Pats were not fined for cheating. They were fined for violating the following rule: "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.", which was put out in a memo before the '07 season started.
Had the camera operator been in a booth enclosed on 3 sides with a roof overhead out of view of the coaches, spygate would never have been started. Instead, Belichick admits that he told the camera man to stand in plain view, adorned with Pats Staff badges and film the defensive signals....in plain view...let me say that again, in plain view. Why did I say that three times? Do you honestly think that a head coach would put a camera in the hands of an employee and tell them to go over and video tape the opposing teams defensive coach if he didn't think it was OK? Of course not, and if you said yes that Belichick would do that then you're fooling yourself. Coaches have complained for years about cheating, and I mean years. HERE's an article that takes a story out of a 1967 magazine (sport) that talks about cheating in the NFL. Don't think that's enough? I came across this article HERE on Bleacher Report. It's got 5 valid points where the NFL has jumped in and punished teams for "cheating", yet, none of them were as stiff as the punishment that was handed down to the Patriots and their staff. Still not enough? Well, how about when John Madden said stealing signs is nothing new.
The Pats were bad mouthed so much this year simply because they were on fire. They were, arguably, the best team that the NFL has seen in some 35 (or more) years. The 2007 season they went 18-1 which includes a perfect (UNDEFEATED) season, with the only loss being in the Super Bowl. Don't think that the Pats are (arguably) the best team ever? Here's some of the records that the Patriots (and/or Patriot players) broke in ONLY 2007 season:
Set the record for most wins in a regular season
Tom Brady set the single-season record for most touchdowns in a season with 50
Randy Moss broke the record for most touchdown receptions in a season with 23
Highest scoring team ever in a regular season, scoring 589 points
Tom Brady connected with Randy Moss for more touchdowns this season than any other quarterback has to any other receiver in any single season, ever. With 23 touchdowns, they shattered the previous high of 18 held by Dan Marino / Mark Clayton and Brett Favre / Sterling Sharpe.
The Patriots also set a record for most touchdowns scored in a season with 75, breaking Miami's record of 70
Randy Moss became the first receiver in history to get 100 yards in his first 3 games with a new team, then in week 4 with the Pats Moss had 102 yards
Ellis Hobbs returned the opening kickoff of the second half 108 yards for a touchdown setting the NFL record for longest kickoff return.
21 different players scored a touchdown for the Patriots, tying the record also held by the 1987 Rams and the 2000 Broncos.
If you care to dispute these records, you'll have to prove I'm wrong. Yes, I accidently closed the FireFox window I had the links open in. 
Enough about the team-what about that loser of a coach Belichick? Here's something that I posted earlier on TSB:
Despite the "Spygate" scandal, BBwas still named NFL 2007 Associated Press Coach of the Year. He's also been named and/or awarded AFC Coach of the Year (Committee of 101), Coach of the Year (Pro Football Writers of America/Pro Football Weekly), Coach of the Year (Dr. Z's All-Pros_), NFL Coach of the Year (FieldTurf), NFL Coach of the Year (Rick Gosselin, Dallas Morning News), NFL Coach of the Week for Week 17 (NFL.com), NFL Coach of the Year (USA TODAY), The Bill Walsh Award (USA TODAY), Earle 'Greasy' Neale Award: Pro Coach of the Year (Maxwell Football Club) and NFL Coach of the Week for Week 6 (NFL.com). That was just this past year. He's coached his team to 16-0 regular season, 18-1 including the playoffs, helping his team set records, brake records, all while dealing with Spygate, his personal life and the personal lives of his players. I'd say that's pretty special.
With that said, most, if not all teams love their head coaches, specially the ones that help to create dynasties and win 3 Superbowls in 4 years along with 4 AFC titles in 7 years, and making it to the playoffs 6 out of 7 years, and managed to coach successful seasons with winning records from 2001-2007 (all from 2000 to present day).
With all that said, I'm probably missing a few records someplace, but I'm sure that by now you get the idea.
Moving on....
What about those cocky, trash talking players? Hmmmm...I won't deny that there's a TON of smack talk going on in the NFL. I will say that the Pats did, IMHO, the least amount of it. You won't find a Pats player from 2007 saying how they guarantee a victory over an opposing team or talk smack about an opposing team even when an opposing team talked smack about them (Steelers and Chargers). It wasn't Pats fans whom booed a 14 year old girl due to the jersey she was wearing(Note that Robert Kraft, in a show of "class", honored the teen by having her watch the coin toss at center fieldby making her guest captain of the Patriots for the game).
Oh behold! The spygate scandall continues to grow because the "powers that be" deem it so! Nope, wrong there, too. The NFL's competition committee said "It was a thorough, fair process with lots of integrity. We were satisfied with what was done." As of this post, we're still waiting on Matt Walsh to strike a deal with the NFL so that he can show his tapes to the world. To whatever evidence he's got, I'll have to hear Belichick or Kraft on the tapes saying "Ya, go tape that other team, it's ok, it's worth the risk to get caught!"
The point of this post was NOT to bash any other team (sorry to those fans of the teams I did bring up), nor was it to justify the Patriots actions, or the actions of it's employees (including head coach).
The point of this post WAS to shed light on the subject of spygate, bringing up points that the average Joe might not know...to show that the Pats fans aren't classless, nor are the players or staff (I'd like to think the same of all the NFL's teams). That the Pats didn't get fined for what they were video taping, but how they were video taping it. I'd also like to note that Goodell stated that the taping in the Jets game was not a factor in the outcome of the game, and that nothing had been presented that showed that the Pats were using the tapes for in game use or halftime adjustments. Goodell also mentioned that he didn't think that spygate tainted the Pats accomplishments for the 07 season.
The reason why the tapes and notes were destroyed (the tapes and the notes that the Pats gave to the commish) was because Goodell didn't want them leaked out into the public where other teams could get hold of them and use them against the Jets. "We thought we had locked it up, and it got out five days later," Goodell said. "That was one of my concerns."
Here's how I'm looking at the whole spygate thing: We were caught doing something wrong even though we thought it was OK. We were punished, we paid our dues and we moved on. It's been 6 months (SIX MONTHS!!!) and people still carry on about it, saying such things as "they're classless", "they should have their Lombardi trophies taken away", "they're all cheaters", and blah blah blah. I've been a Pats fan since I was a fetus. I was a fan when they were wining one and 2 games a season. I was a fan when they won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years. I was a fan in the 2007 season when they went 18-1 and lost in a crushing upset to the NY Giants. I'll be a fan through out the entire spygate scandal. When all the smoke clears, I'll still be a fan of the New England Patriots. Chances are that I'll die a Pats fan.
The Patriots should be proud of what they've done this season. I know I am.
Respectfully,
Steve
You can participate in discussions about this topic HERE at TheScoreBoards.com
comments (63) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
Very nicely put together Steve.... you've conveyed the thoughts of many here in this article.
Welcome to Bleacher Report.
from 4 months ago
Thanks Chris! I hope that some of the folks that agree with this will post their comments, rather than just having the folks that disagree posting comments.
Respectfully,
Steve
4 months ago
Respectfully Steve - your out of your mind if this does not matter. It's not where they taped it's what they taped and what they used it for. If you do not see this as a problem I feel sorry for you.
Respectfully,
Dan
from 4 months ago
Dan, thanks for the comments. For the record, I'm not out of my mind....I think. I don't see how you come to your conclusion(s)-I just showed where the Pats were cited for where they taped, not what they taped, and according to the rules that govern the NFL, should they have been in an appropriate place (ie. roof overhead, 3 walls, out of sight of the coaches etc.etc.), then LEGALLY, and BY THE RULES, a team can tape the opposing defensive signals. I hate to disagree with you, but it is infact WHERE they taped, not WHAT they taped that the Pats got introuble for, as stated by Goodell in quoting the rules that he stated the Pats violated. Text in CAPS are to stress the word, not to shout (no shouting please!).
No need to feel sorry for me, even though I don't see a problem with this, specially when (as I pointed out and linked to) things of this nature (stealing signals) aren't uncommon in the NFL, nor have the ever been. If it were uncommon, and no one ever stole signals, then no one would ever cover their mouth when they talked now, would they.
Respectfully,
Steve
4 months ago
The Pats, just like every other team in the league was reminded not to do this just before the season started. Then Belicheat decided that he was above the rules and would do it anyway. This is CHEATING! It's a HUGE unfair advantage if one team does this while the other team follows the rules. If I was in a competition with someone and my opponent was able to do things that I wasn't able to do because it was AGAINST THE RULES - well, I would report it or never play them ever again in protest. It's simply not fair competition. I suppose if the letter from the commish told all teams: "video taping in any form is ok" then there is no problem, but this was certainly not the case.
ChasmGM
4 months ago
ChasmGM-So, despite the fact that the Pats were doing something that was within the rules, it's still cheating in your opinion? Even though folks like John Madden stated that this type of activity has been in the NFL longer than he has, and even though I linked to other situations were spying illegally was cited by the NFL, the Pats are accused of cheating for Belichicks (NOT Belicheat) interpretation of the rules. Even though the commissioner of the NFL said himself that the Pats violated videotaping procedure rules in how the video taped things, not what they video taped, you'll still argue that they cheated? Sounds more like your stating your opinion to the facts that I posted in my article.
While I'm being honest, this is why spygate will not die, because some folks (and I'm not pointing fingers) won't let it go, despite the fact that facts are provided, like the actual violations that the Pats were fined for, which weren't cheating, yet people still try to force their opinion and state that the Pats cheated. Despite the fact that some of the NFL's most notable people are saying that this isn't unusual, people say it is. Despite the fact that the competition committee said that they felt that spygate was yesterdays news, and that it was handled fairly and thouroughly, people still argue that it's a cover up and that it's not done. Despite the fact that Goodell stated that in his investigation he saw NO evidence of where the tapes or notes helped to gain an advantage during that game that they were obtained, people still say that the Pats gained an advantage. Despite the fact that the Pats had a punishment handed down to them BEFORE they provided the tapes to Goodell, and that the investigation took less than 2 weeks, people still say that the investigation took to long and that's a coverup. Despite the fact that the punishment handed down was the most damaging punsihment given in NFL history, people still say that it wasn't enough. Despite all the facts, people still attempt to dispute the facts with their opinion, then proceed to tell me (and other Pats fans and others who read their posts) that they are right. In fact, they are only right about one thing: It's their opinion.
Don't take this out of context, it's meant to show that the facts I've provided are disputed by opinions, which don't really hold up to facts now, do they?
Respectfully,
Steve
4 months ago
Steve - sorry if I was a bit abrupt - I didn't need to be mean. I understand what you wrote - but I also now you are a Pat fan and may have a different view on this. Here is the official rule and the memo that came out reinforcing it:
1. Page 105 of the Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."
2. And, a memo from Ray Anderson, NFL head of football operations, to head coaches and GMs on Sept. 6, 2006 said: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.
The last sentence - "or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game." - is the one where you CANNOT do this - anywhere - period.
They should of updated the rule based on what the memo says - and maybe they are in process of doing that. But the bigger questions is "Why are you defending them?" What the Patriots did was wrong - forget about what other teams did - they were wrong also. If this was my team I would not write a story about how good they were or how many passes they are catching or how they are getting the shaft - I would write a story on how they were cheaters and why they did it with all the talent they had in the first place.
That's why I will never understand a fan of a team that disrespects it's sport support the team like it did nothing wrong
Agree to disagree I guess
Dan
from 4 months ago
Thanks for the apology Dan-I sincerely appreciate it! As for the rules and the memo, the memo is just a memo, and something tells me that if the Pats were fined for violating a memo, they'd have a fit rather than pay fines etc. Also, and someone/anyone, correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but Ray Anderson cannot just go and create official rules for the NFL by putting out a memo.....can he? If not, then we're back to square one. Even if he did, the "or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game" could be easily disputed, as the camera operator for the Pats was on the Jets side lines-I'm sure it would be hard for the Belichick to run over to the opposing teams side lines to view the tape during the game. I'm sure you see what I'm driving at here, that the camera was in fact not accessible to coaching staff during the game.
Onto the larger question, why would I defend them? Simply put, because I'm a fan. A bit more in depth, because I honestly feel that the Pats punishment did not fit their crime. Furthermore, I'm a bit tired of hearing people make comments like "Belicheat"-no offense- and hearing the same people say that "the Pats got fined for cheating! They cheated, that's all there is to it!" When in all actuality, the fine was for the location of the camera operator when he was filming what he was filming, not for "cheating". Aside from that, it blows my mind how easily people dismiss other teams cheating, and people saying how other teams cheated (like I said about Madden and in the link to SPORT magazine in my original post), and people don't care a bit....for some reason it always goes back to them stating that the Pats cheated. Like a vicious, endless cycle....so yes, sometimes it's best to just agree to disagree, although I thank you for attempting to see my side of it (and yes, I did return the favor!).
Respectfully,
Steve
4 months ago
"or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
This doesn't mean the signals can't be taped. It means that taped signals can't be used and viewed during that particular game, ie. halftime.
Taping defensive signals is perfectly legal, as is taping offensive signals.
When you hear about guys "watching film" what do you think they're doing?
Checking out highlights on ESPN ?
What do you think the linebackers / linemen study in the coming week before the game to prepare?
Offensive signals and plays.
Offensive tackles / Quarterbacks study the defensive signals.
Whatever team you are a fan of just tapes the signals from a box - every team records signals.
"Disrespects it's sport" - NFL players, coaches, and management have been totally unconcerned with this nonsense.
Why do you think Herm Edwards just waved to the camera when the Patriots were taping the Jets years ago?
It's just a case of a rival fan looking for an excuse to diminsh an opposing team.
What's next?
Turf-gate against the Steelers for not replacing the grass that gets so hard to play in when it rains?
Wind-gate against the Giants for opening the South end service door to create a head wind when the opposing team is kicking a field goal on that side of the field?
We could go back a few years to the Superbowl 49'ers era and have Headset-Gate.
NFL rules state that when one teams commuication headsets go down, the other team is not allowed to use theirs either.
The 49'ers headsets had a history of "communication problems" and it Steve Young would manage to get about 10 or 12 scripted plays in using the hurry up before "the problem was fixed".
Enough is enough already.
from 4 months ago
Excellent points Rod-thanks for the reinforcement on this-your post really shows how teams go that extra mile to gain an advantage.
I couldn't agree more, enough is enough, but since the topic (spygate) won't seem to die, I figured that I'd try to open some eyes by pointing out some facts and whatnot, and also show what exactly the Pats were fined for (low and behold the exact term they were fined for was not "cheating"!!!).
Respectfully,
Steve
4 months ago
The full sentence is
Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.
So if you are a New England staff member you CANNOT tape anything at any location - this cannot be more clear. Belichick got the memo.
So yes it means videotaping - not viewing. It sure does mean the signals CANNOT be taped - this is why they were fined and lost a draft pick. I really have a hard time with people defending this - they got caught - period. This is not an issue about breaking the rules - they broke them.
I really do not see why this is not disturbing to all fans of the game of football - no matter what team you root for. What the Pats did was WRONG. They gained a competitive advantage - why else would they do something against the rules multiple times. If somebody would answer that question in a reasonable fashion I would tend to think differently about this.
4 months ago
Hi, and you're absolutely right, Belichick did get the memo. In reading your post, it seems that we are, yet again, back to square one-it's not what they were taping, it's how they were taping what they were taping. Unless I'm mistaken, and someone/anyone please correct me if I'm wrong on this, the staff is not allowed in the press box-so technically, any team could put a camera in the press box and tape the opposing team doing anything until the camera operator is blue in the face. Taking it to the extreme, if signals are that strictly forbidden to be taped, then there should be NO cameras on the field, in the stadium, in a blimp overhead or anywhere within a 1 mile radius of the game itself, simply because if the Pats are on the 50 yard line, and the start to line up at the line of scrimmage, and the ESPN camera operator is focused on the ball and the line, but in the background you can barely make out what the opposing defensive coordinator is singling with his hands....that's cheating because the signals are being video taped. Hey, you can't argue that simply because I was going by what you said which was "It sure does mean the signals CANNOT be taped". Doesn't seem right does it-almost argumentative, which I was not trying to be, although I'm sure it seems that way.
I'd like to think that this doesn't seem disturbing to all football fans because I'm sure that John Madden wasn't lying when he said that teams do it and have been doing it-it goes back to why do coaches/coordinators cover their mouths when they call plays? Why do teams review tapes of previous games? Why do gates to the stadiums open up when there are no deliveries even though the wind rips through the stadium when opening? Please take a few minutes and read the links I provide about what John Madden said and what was covered in SPORT magazine, you might find it good reading!
I'd like to think that this whole thing was a media feeding frenzy and was blown out of porportion. Really, Vick and his dog fighting scandal didn't eve last this long. Part of the problem is that the Pats have been in the media spotlight since 2001, and this season set more records for viewing audiences than any other televised event for games that involved the Pats. Goes to show the power of the media I guess.
Respectfully,
Steve
4 months ago
Steve,
the point of the rule is to prevent stealing signals (and more) as higlighted in this memo sent out in 2006. . .
(the purpose of memos like this are to remind teams the purpose of a rule)
"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."
in your many accolades of belichick, you failed to mention his inability to correctly interpret a plainly written rule and multiple memos from the league. (that is, unless he didn't misinterpret the rules. . . and just lied about his interpretation. in that case, you have a coach that violated the rules and then felt it necessary to lie about it.)
you've also failed to cite your "enclosed on 3 sides with a roof overhead out of view of the coaches" reference. though, if someone would be videotaping from an enclosed booth as such - "out of view of the coaches", then it would be impossible to see the coaches and their hand signals. (i.e. i can't see you, you can't see me)
i personally believe your argument on videotaping has more holes than you realize.
you did make your point that the patriots had a potent offense this year.
greatest ever? not in my opinion (even if spygate didn't exist).
had teams like the 99 and 00 rams, 98 vikings, 83 redskins, 84 dolphins, etc. kept starters on the field well into the 4th qtr with a huge lead AND the entire season finale with the #1 seed locked up, the patriots would not have the record today.
had peyton manning played the entire season finale in his 49 TD year, brady very well may not have the new record.
had jerry rice played more than 12 games the year he caught 22 TDs, moss wouldn't have the record.
i've seen enough other teams and enough other players that i find it foolish to jump on the bandwagon and say that the 2007 patriots were even the best offense ever, let alone best team. as time passes, the 2007 patriots will be remembered more like the 1998 vikings (plus spygate) or the 2001 rams. the potent offense that couldn't get it done when it counted.
4 months ago
Hmmm....I'm not so sure if I'd say that Belichick had an "inability to correctly interpret a plainly written rule and multiple memos from the league". I think I'd be more incline to say that Belichick thought for sure that he had a loophole in a rule, attempted to exploit it, and the NFL stomped him for it. I would then agree with Belichick. Then, I would disagree with Belichick. If it were me, I would never have done such a thing. However, you don't get to be number one by not taking risks and pushing the limits, which is why Belichick and the Pats have been in the spot light for so long.
As for not citing the "enclosed on 3 sides with a roof overhead out of view of the coaches" rule.....well, that's part of the whole page 105 of the game operation manual that "Page 105 of the league's Game Operations manual says: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." You can simply google "page 105 of the NFL game operations manual" and see the results, which will back me on this.
Now, you list quite a few "what if's" (for lack of a better term) in your reply-what if the 99 and 00 rams, 98 vikings, 83 redskins, 84 dolphins, etc. kept starters on the field well into the 4th qtr with a huge lead AND the entire season finale with the #1 seed locked up, the patriots would not have the record today. Well, as you hinted to, they didn't, therefore, they don't hold the records that the Pats do. What if the Pats had tried for onside kicks everytime the kicked the ball? What if the Pats had utilized Maroney more in the first half of the season to shake things up rather than relying on the passing game? What if...what if...what if...? Point being that none of the teams yo had mentioned had done the things you had mentioned-therefore, the Pats broke their records.
I will give credit where credit is due, Peyton Manning (for the record, that was Peyton, NOT Eli Manning that I had just mentioned) is a great, if not phenomenal QB. He will be (mark my words) a HOF'er. Also, for the record, I love his commercials and his skit's on SNL.
Also, I think that you're absolutely right-had Jerry Rice played an entire season he would've set the record so hight that it would've taken an act of congress to break that record. Jerry Rice...one word-awesome.
No, for your last paragraph, I find that one a lot more difficult to debate. I'd say that the '07 Pats will be remembered as one of the best teams ever if anything, solely for their unmatched record of 16-0, which has never before been done in a regular season. Now, further that with all of their records that the made/broke in the regular '07 season, and further that with their winning record since 2001 and I think that you've got a team that's stealing the spotlight from the majority of the NFL.
Now, as far as making my point with the whole "videotaping argument has more holes in it than I realize", ......yes, I know. Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not perfect. I'll also admit that for a first post here, I think that I've held my own, and brought up some very valid points that are hard to dismiss as far as spygate is concerned. Not bad for a photographer from upstate NY.
I'd be curious if having the 2 co-captains for defense have working headsets in their helmets (exactly like the QB and back up QB have) would help to curb teams wanting to view other teams signals, or would that just make is so that the coach would want one of the co-captains out on every snap?
I'd like to thank you for your polite, thoughtful and most of all, respectful comments in reply to my post. It's nice to have a decent conversation, as compared to the "belicheat sucks and pats cheats and sucks" comments that I get day in and day out (It's hell being a Pats fan living in NY!).
Respectfully,
Steve
4 months ago
Among other flawed reasons why the Pats weren't cheating was the reasoning that teams change their signals constantly, therefore the Pats could gain no significant advantage from their taping. If that's the case, why destroy the tapes? The obvious answer is that Goodell wanted all of this to just go away. Goodell claimed the investigation would remain open, if that's the case, why destroy evidence? Belichick would never allow this to be done to his team, so he obviously knew it was wrong. The BS about "misinterpreting" sounds awfully similar to Andy Petitte "misremembering".
As far as Belichick winning all sorts of awards, didn't Nixon win his last election in a landslide? Much like Nixon, if the truth comes out that Belichick authorized the taping of the Rams walkthrough then he's done. Should it turn out that Walsh has any tape of a Rams walkthrough I don't think any proof of it being authorized by belichick is required; he's shown a propensity towards that sort of below board activity.
Classless? How about Vince Wilfork, doing his best to take over Rodney Harrison's role as dirtiest player in the NFL? The hit on Losman (pats fans whine he was pushed and "accidentally" hit Losman's knee), attempting to gouge Brandon Jacob's eye (pats fans claim he was just "sending a message"), etc?
The bottom line is if it turned out that Indy had been taping signals or had taped a Pats walkthrough in 2k6 EVERY pats fan would be crying that they deserve another ring. Pats fans should try to avoid having a double standard just because the shoe is on their foot.
4 months ago
Taping offensive signals is legal? Umm do you mean audiotaping, since they are called in to the QB? Or do you mean videotaping the qb as he gets the signal?
4 months ago
Anonymous wrote: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches’ booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game.
"So if you are a New England staff member you CANNOT tape anything at any location - this cannot be more clear."
You're treating the memo as if it was the rule. It's not. It differs in important ways from what the rule on page 105 of the NFL GAME OPERATIONS MANUAL actually says. The quote "or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game," is not in the actual rule. That's something Ray Anderson added in his September 2006 memo. As Steve pointed out, Anderson does not have the power to rewrite the rules. According to THE NFL CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS, rule changes must be proposed by the teams and voted on by them.
There are other differences. The memo emphasizes recording signals. The rule gives equal weight to any use of video recording devices in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game. Recording your cheerleaders for a team cheerleader video, or recording a back up defensive lineman saying, Hi, mom!" violates the rule just as much as recording signals does if the camera happens to be in the wrong location.
The memo says "on the sidelines" while the actual rule says "on the field." That's important when it comes to interpretation because NFL rules defines "the field." To keep it simple, check out the digest of rules at NFL.com. It says, "The field is 360 feet long and 160 feet wide. The end zones are 30 feet deep." THE OFFICIAL PLAYING RULES say the same thing in a lot more language. 360 feet long. That's from the end line of one end zone to the end line of the other. 160 feet wide. That's the area between the sidelines. So going strictly by the rule, a team isn't violating the rule by having a camera on the sideline. Were the Patriots sending players on the field with helmet cams? The Patriots did fail to have their camera enclosed on all sides with a roof over it though such as it would have been if they put it in a press box not used by coaches. (Heck, the camera would have had a better view of the opposing sideline to boot.)
So, the rule doesn't forbid recording from any location accessible to team staff. The rule doesn't emphasize the recording of signals. The rule prohibits cameras from the field, not the sidelines. Rule changes can't be decreed in memos from league officials. They need to be voted on by the clubs.
"Spygate" is really just about a minor technicality in camera location.
Scott Sheaffer
4 months ago
Steve,
"I think I'd be more incline to say that Belichick thought for sure that he had a loophole in a rule, attempted to exploit it, and the NFL stomped him for it."
He may have found a weak loophole in the rule, though the memos intended to highlight the purpose of that rule were very clear. If he felt that the memo contradicted his interpretation of the rule, he had plenty of time to ask the league for clarification before he got caught and punished in 2007.
My purpose of comparing the 2007 Pats to other great offenses of the past was this. I personally believe that the 2007 Pats benefitted (i.e. breaking records) from 'running up the score'. I know that no such rule exists to limit scoring. However, there is a code of conduct that all these past teams have followed that the 2007 Pats did not. Had running up the score been the norm all these years (even at the risk of injuring your starters when the game has essentially been won), the Pats probably wouldn't have even been close on setting the record. That's my view. Their stats from the season are a bit "padded" in my opinion.
For example, when the 85 Bears clobbered the Pats in the Super Bowl, Jim McMahon didn't play any of the 4th quarter. There wasn't any FG situations that the Bears decided to go for it instead to pile on the points with a TD. This is the kind of restraint that the Patriots didn't really exercise this past season.
So, if you want to view the 2007 Pats as the best ever, that's your decision. Most of the country however, won't remember them that way. I personally would concede them as the best team to lose a Super Bowl in recent memory.
I still find it odd that some Pats fans are defending the technicality of this egregious violation of a rule by talking about field dimensions and enclosed taping areas. (I say egregious because of the punishment handed out by the league and that the violations went back 7 years). If the Pats felt that the rule was truly and properly interpreted, they should have appealed the punishment. They should have been up in arms at the injustice of the league's decision.
None of that happened. They paid it and remained silent. I find that silence peculiar if they truly did nothing wrong in fair play, but only in semantics.
Respectfully,
Nashville (anonymous from last night)
4 months ago
Nashville - you hit the nail right on the head!
"I still find it odd that some Pats fans are defending the technicality of this egregious violation of a rule by talking about field dimensions and enclosed taping areas. (I say egregious because of the punishment handed out by the league and that the violations went back 7 years). If the Pats felt that the rule was truly and properly interpreted, they should have appealed the punishment. They should have been up in arms at the injustice of the league's decision.
None of that happened. They paid it and remained silent. I find that silence peculiar if they truly did nothing wrong in fair play, but only in semantics."
4 months ago
Hello Nashville,
Did you know Bill Belichick was born in Nashville? His father was an assistant coach at Vanderbilt. After that, he spent some time in North Carolina and then became a scout for Navy.
Anyway, back to Spygate. The whole thing is nothing but a technicality. It's like Steve said earlier, it's not what they filmed, it's where they filmed from. It's not about whether they should appeal or not. I don't want to speak for Steve, but I'm contrasting what they did and were punished for vs. what the media and opposing fans think they did and should be punished for.
Besides, semantics or no semantics, Ray Anderson still can't change rules simply by writing memos. ; )
Scott
4 months ago
Scott,
I'm not going to lie. I haven't read the entire NFL rule book. I'm guessing you haven't either. Me, I've only read portions of it.
But common sense tells me that these memos were only meant to highlight the purpose of an existing rule to prevent teams from stealing signals with video recording. You obviously disagree. But, I honestly don't think that Ray Anderson was trying to "change" anything with his memos.
Having seen the reactions of many Pats fans, I'm surprised at the variety of excuses and explanations for the Pats illegal taping.
Here are some off the top of my head. . .
Haters
Everyone else is just jealous
The videotaping didn't give us any advantage
It only happened in part of 1 quarter (even though it has been revealed by Goodell that the Pats have done this regularly since 2000)
Eric Mangini is a betrayer
Everyone cheats
It wasn't cheating
Everyone steals signals
It was only technically against the rules
The NFL is trying to keep parity by going after the Pats and letting other teams win
and many many more
Here's how I see it. . .
Bill Belichick has achieved statistical success (both wins, SBs and some of the records they've set along the way). His methods have produced great results.
The general public now learning more about those methods. Many fans of the other teams (and the NFL in general) feel as though they are justified in believing some of these methods can be considered cheating. If not cheating, he has clearly violated rules and been punished with some pretty hefty penalties. They also (fairly or unfairly) believe that "spygate" is only the tip of an unknown iceberg when it comes to the methods of Belichick. We don't know what else has been done.
On the other hand, Pats fans seem to feel as though the accomplishments of their team are now being unjustly questioned because of the actions of their coach and the growing speculations of fans and the media.
I personally feel as though Belichick probably isn't the first coach to cheat. I'm not sure he's the only current coach to cheat. BUT I feel as though illegally videotaping defensive hand signals IS cheating. Because he has proven himself as someone willing to break the rules (after repeated 'reminders' of the rules), a good part of my common sense is saying "this probably isn't the only rule he's misinterpreted".
If you feel as though Belichick is a good coach always wanting to follow the rules, I must disagree. If you feel as though Belichick has looked for every opportunity (even if it's against the rules) to win, then I agree 100%.
Respectfully,
Nashville
PS - Having been here 8 years, I'm not originally from Nashville, but know that Belichick was from here. I also have noticed that the city has never been interested in claiming Belichick as a native son.
4 months ago
Well, it appears that I've missed a few of the comments here, although after reading through them, I can see that we're back to the point of my original post-Belichick and the Pats were fined for how they taped what they taped, NOT what they taped. Per the rules, I don't see how any one could argue that. Basically, the rules say "don't do this from this spot"-Belichick assumed that it was OK to do it next to that spot....apparently not. Now, not only was Belichick fined an whopping half a mil, but the team (organization) was fined 250k simply because "Coach Belichick not only serves as the head coach but also has substantial control over all aspects of New England's football operations. His actions and decisions are properly attributed to the club.", and also docked a 1st round draft pick (which was the first time in NFL history that that's happened). So, not only was the coach punished, but the organization was punished, not once, but twice! When else has a team been punished so harshly? You can't honestly tell me that the Pats weren't made out to be an example, nor can you tell me that the punishment fits the crime. Read the rules, and in plain black and white, it says what can and can't be done-so, running a video camera from an incorrect location is justification of a personal fine of $500,000, a team fine of $250,000 and having the team's first round draft pick taken away? Before you answer, read the rules-then stop and think, it's not what we taped, it's how the Pats taped what they taped. Key thing that I'm stressing is that it's where it was taped from that caused the punishment, NOT what we taped-don't agree? It goes back to the location of the camera operator. Should he have been in the Press box, where the Pats coaching staff can't get to, he could've legally taped signals all day long. See my point? It's not what the Pats taped, it's where they were (how they taped it, where they taped it from, however you'd like to look at it).
As for contesting it, the Pats did-Belichick met with Goodell and put his two cents in. I'm sure that Kraft did, too, along with a few other staff members. Goodell made a decision, and instead of contesting it and making it 10 times worse in the media, the Pats paid the fines, made multiple public apologies for doing the things that got them in trouble (never admitting wrong....see my point above), and moved on with it, as did most of the NFL.
Nashville, let's run through some of the "excuses" that came off the top of your head:
*There are people out there that hate the Pats-a quick google search will prove this.
*You're right, it did only happen in part of the first quarter-which is what the Pats were fined for. Anything else is irrelevant to this penalty due to the fact that the Pats were punished BEFORE the tapes that showed this practice going back several years was handed over to Goodell.
*Eric Mangini being a betrayer is a matter of opinion. I feel he planned in advance to blow the whistle. Do I hate Mangini? Let's just say he's not on my Christmas list. Same for the Jets team. That's my opinion on it, that's all (sorry, nothing factual there aside from it's my opinion).
*Everyone does cheat, to some extent. See my comments in my article along with the links that I provided.
*You're right, it wasn't cheating. It goes back to the actual rule the Pats broke, which has been discussed in depth already (not what, but how).
*You're right again, everyone steals signals. If not, then why do the offensive coordinators cover their mouths still when calling in signals?
*Yet again, you're right, it was only technically against the rules. Not what, but how. Filming from the press box would've been fine.
*Saying that the NFL is only going after the Pats is again, a matter of opinion. The Pats have been in the spotlight since 2001, literally, because they've become a dynasty-which means that their beating other teams, which increases the amount of people that dislike them. Again, just a matter of opinion.
I will agree, that there are some lame excuses out there, and I've heard quite a few of them. Then again, living in NY, I catch a lot of flack for being a Pats fan. I've had my fair share of arguments about the whole spygate thing, and it always boils down to the rule that the Pats were cited for breaking-nothing more than an infraction of an improperly placed video camera.
While the accomplishments of the team might have been in question, I think that it was clear just how good they are when they played 16-0 in the 07 season.
I'm glad to hear that you feel that Belichick probably isn't the first coach to cheat. I'd like to point out that he's probably not the only coach using questionable tactics in the NFL-see my links above, and also see the post above by Rod.
Unless someone can convince me that the Pats actually "cheated" rather than breaking the rules stated earlier, I'll hold off on calling the Pats cheaters and finding another team to love.
Respectfully,
Steve
P.S. - I bet that if in 2000, Belichick had taken the job as head coach for the Titans, and turned them into a dynasty like he has the Pats, Nashville Tenn. would claim him. ;)
4 months ago
Steve,
There are too many counterpoints to make, but I will leave you with just one (at least for now).
You said that you think that every team "cheats, to some extent", but refuse to say that the Patriots cheated. Are the Patriots not included in "every team"? Intentionally or not, you have conceded that the Patriots cheat to some extent, but say that the videotaping doesn't fall into that category.
So, my question is. . . HOW do you think that the Patriots ARE cheating? (Unless you need to retract your "every team does cheat, to some extent" statement - or change it to "everyone, except the Patriots, cheats to some extent".)
This double standard has boggled my mind. That some NE fans say - "we didn't cheat" and a moment later say "everyone cheats". Can you see my trouble understanding? Do the Patriots exist outside the realm of "everyone"? Is there some magic I don't know about? ;)
Very Curious,
Nashville
PS - if you can explain what you surmise the other 31 teams are cheating, that would be an added bonus.
4 months ago
by the way, I personally don't believe that every team cheats.
Nashville
4 months ago
< < < Nashville writes: I'm not going to lie. I haven't read the entire NFL rule book. I'm guessing you haven't either. Me, I've only read portions of it.
But common sense tells me that these memos were only meant to highlight the purpose of an existing rule to prevent teams from stealing signals with video recording. You obviously disagree. But, I honestly don't think that Ray Anderson was trying to "change" anything with his memos.> > >
Hi Nashville,
The camera rule isn't in the rule book which I've read. It's in something else called THE NFL GAME OPERATIONS MANUAL instead which I've only seen small portions of. The rule only bans using cameras from 3 specific locations. If the camera is located outside those locations, there'd have been no violation. Anderson's memo extends the ban to "any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game." Anderson doesn't have the power to make that change. The rule doesn't treat recording signals any differently than recording your own team's cheerleaders. Anderson's memo emphasizes recording signals. Again, he doens't have the power to change the rule and make recording signals seem worse than anything else. I agree with those who regard this violation as a minor technicality. The NFL has already punished Belichick and the Patriots severely for it. Like Steve has been saying all along, the problem isn't what they recorded, it's where they recorded from. Yes, there was a violation, but the media feeding frenzy blew it up into something much more serious than it actually was. Why not show some proportionality?
Scott
4 months ago
Scott,
I read what you wrote the first time. I'll say it again, I don't think that Ray Anderson was trying to "change" anything. I believe he sent a memo to coaches to highlight what behavior they expected on the videotaping issue and why.
However, if you're right about this only being a technicality, I'm sure that the competition committee will change this rule by the start of the season. The new wording will specify that it is indeed OK to video defensive and offensive signals and maybe even photocopy pages from other teams playbooks just as long as you don't do it from here, here, and here. I don't think there's a rule forbidding photocopying other teams playbooks, so it's not cheating or against the rules, right?
Your cheerleading comparison is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. I'm sure that the league is concerned with videotaping for that reason. Do you honestly think that this videotaping bit in the NFL GAME OPERATIONS MANUAL (that you haven't read in its entirety) is just for the league to be difficult about where teams put their game taping cameras or to prevent teams from getting footage of their cheerleaders? Or do you think that it's meant to prevent teams from recording things other than the playing action on the playing field?
I told some friends down here that are fans of a variety of teams (including a diehard Patriots fan originally from MA) and they ALL think it's HILARIOUS that some fans are defending Spygate as merely a "technical violation". We all thank you for your contribution to our entertainment.
Respectfully,
Smiling in Nashville
PS - I'm waiting to hear back from Steve. He says that "every team cheats", but that the Patriots didn't when it came to their videotaping. I'm not sure how he thinks they're cheating, so we'll see what he says.
from 4 months ago
It's a statement based on your argument.
The act of taping wasn't illegal, but the location that the filming was taking place was against the rules.
"They didn't cheat" means that they didn't violate any NFL rules by filming signals.
"Every team cheats" is in response to those who seem to be interpreting the NFL Game Operations Manual as if it says "videotaping signals is forbidden".
If indeed "videotaping signals is cheating", then yes: "every team cheats", as every NFL team records and studies signals.
So, in summary:
The Patriots did not cheat - videotaping signals is legal.
However, if videotaping signals wasn't legal, that is to say, videotaping signals was illegal; every team would be cheating, including the Patriots.
But since it is legal, we can rest assured that no team that records signals is cheating.
Now, can someone please tell me: Who is on first?
from 4 months ago
Nuts.
The full sentence was supposed to read:
"The act of taping wasn't illegal, but the location that the filming was taking place was against the rules as stipulated by a memo released by the NFL, not the actual NFL rulebook."
4 months ago
<<< Nashville Writes > > >Scott,
I read what you wrote the first time. I'll say it again, I don't think that Ray Anderson was trying to "change" anything. I believe he sent a memo to coaches to highlight what behavior they expected on the videotaping issue and why. > > >
Hi Nashville,
When it comes to changes, all you need to do is compare the rule to the memo. They're both online. In fact, they're both quoted in the 7th comment in this thread. Anderson's line "or at any other locations accessible to club staff members" simply isn't in the rule. The rule requires that the camera be in an enclosed location with a roof, and it lists only three areas that cameras can't be operated from. So we're back to what Steve's been saying all along. It's not what they recorded, it's where they recorded from.
Scott
from 4 months ago
Thank you Scott! You posted when I was typing!
Respectfully,
Steve
4 months ago
Nashville,
About the comment I made about teams cheating to some extent-->If not, then why do people still cover their mouthes when calling in plays? Reading lips would, in my opinion, be stealing defensive signals. The word "Blitz" is easy to lip read from a distance, as the "BL" part of it is easy to pick up on.
Aside from that, how is what the Pats did cheating? Allow me to be more specific: How is what the Patriots got fined for cheating? It boils down to specifics-they were fined for filming from an illegal position, nothing more-so again, we're back at it's not what they taped, but where they were when they taped it.
While all of you are laughing, you're apparently missing the facts that have been brought up here, or are blatantly ignoring them. It's been stated that Belichick and the Pats were penalized for illegally video taping an opponents defensive signals, with the reason for it being illegal is the location of the camera. That has been proven and is a fact, yet, you and your friends, including a "diehard Patriots fan) laugh at the very rule that the Pats were penalized for violating....so if the Pats weren't fined for "cheating", how did they cheat?
Unless you can come up with actual facts, and show me where the Pats violated a rule other than camera location, I'll consider you points moot, similar to the way your last comment about "...thank you for your contribution to our entertainment." comment was both sarcastic and a veiled slam.
Still Respectful,
Steve
4 months ago
Steve
You're being too technical here. You're whole argument here is based on where the pats taped defensive signals from - basically saying if they did it from a different position that it wiould be OK what they did.
Do you think what they did was OK - regardless where they taped it from. Do you think they gained a competitive advantage because of the information they collected? Do you think it is morally right to do this. Do you think it was good sportsmanship?
Your whole argument based on a technicality - as opposed to the right thing to do.
Do you think the right thing to do is taping opposing sidelines defensive signals to help win games?
This is what it comes down to. People judge other people based on their actions. The actions of the pats - whether or not they kinda broke the rules or not - was wrong. They won football games because this - and I say this because why would they do it over and over.
We might as well be watching WWE if we let this type of stuff happen
Dan
from 4 months ago
< < < Dan to Steve: You're being too technical here. You're whole argument here is based on where the pats taped defensive signals from - basically saying if they did it from a different position that it wiould be OK what they did. > > >
Hmmm . . . People use a camera location rule to launch an anti-Patriot crusade, BUT Steve's the one who's being too technical.
Scott
4 months ago
Steve,
I wasn't being sarcastic. I was honestly laughing. My friends honestly thought it was hilarious and a weak argument on your part (and I fully described your position).
I didn't think that you would find that sarcastic and a veiled slam. I thought this was a good hearted and spirited debate. I was wrong. I apologize.
Regardless, you've never answered me on what you think the intent of the rule is. I don't expect you to now. You would have probably given me an answer if you actually had one by now.
I will give you this. . . if you merely look at the wording of the NFL Game Operations Manual on this subject, then YES, YOU ARE RIGHT. It is only a technical violation of a rule.
However, to believe that is the entire story is narrow-minded. To ignore the intent of the rule is foolish. Had this truly been merely a technical violation of a rule, no one would have been punished. No one would be talking about it. No one would feel the need to defend the Patriots.
Reality paints a much larger picture than the paragraph you are choosing to hang the Patriots reputation on.
I hope some day you choose to see the forest instead of staring at one technical tree.
Respectful even when I'm accused otherwise,
Nashville
PS - Because my comments have offended, I promise to not comment on the Bleacher Report again. Even if any more developments in the Spygate saga further tarnish the Patriots' reputation in the court of public opinion.
from 4 months ago
No need to not post comments on the Bleacher Report again-this is but one article, and I'm sure you'll find many more articles already posted, and ones to be posted in the future that you'd like to comment on. It would be a shame for you not to post again about your thoughts.
As for your comments that I mentioned, while I was not offended, I was bit bothered to see them, as I too had thought this was a nice discussion, free of insults of any kind, including minor "pokes in the rib". Perhaps I both misunderstood and jumped the gun when had said that they were sarcastic and a veiled slam. Please accept my apologies.
Now, for the single, lonely technical tree....you're absolutely right. That's all I'm looking at-the rule that the Pats broke, nothing more. Reason being is that the Pats broke a rule, the media used the word cheating then all heck broke lose. I've yet to really mention my opinion, and almost wish I didn't have to (I don't, but I will). My opinion is that the rule is in place to keep teams from intercepting in game signals and using it to get an advantage. Key word there is in game-which it was proven (shown) that the Pats did not use anything they taped in the same game at any point leading back to 2000. Is it right or wrong for the Pats to tape defensive signals? That's something that I'd go back and forth on myself, seeing how it's been noted that other teams have done it (see Madden comments made earlier), and is probably still being done now (see "reviewing tape" comments made earlier), I'd have to remain on the fence about this one. If I was forced to decide, I'd say let it go, as from what I've read and heard, teams change their signals every week, and also that I believe that it's the players that make the plays, not folks looking at last weeks games on tapes. In a league that is defined by rules and both the specifics and technicalities of rules, it's hard to not be technical or specific and I find it somewhat appalling that Goodell would levy the penalties he did against the Pats for a technical infraction, while the refferee in the super bowl could've blown his whistle when Eli Manning was in the "Grasp and Control" of at least 2 Patriots defenders, but was given that extra few seconds to get away and made a pass completion which changed the tide of the game....I guess it's all in the interpretation, isn't it. How I interpret things, how Goodell does, how you do and how the ref does are all different, which is why the rules are as specific as they are.
The single point I wanted to make by posting this article was to have people realize that the Pats were in fact NOT penalized for cheating, that they were penalized for a technical violation-all in hopes that I'd be able to avoid hearing "Pats cheated!" for the next gazillion years.
Looking forward to your reply Nashville-
Respectfully,
Steve
4 months ago
Great article. That we are still talking about this at all is absurd, but Patriots fans need to keep writing articles and say things like you have written because enough is enough already.
4 months ago
< < < Nashville Wrote: Do you honestly think that this videotaping bit in the NFL GAME OPERATIONS MANUAL (that you haven't read in its entirety) is just for the league to be difficult about where teams put their game taping cameras or to prevent teams from getting footage of their cheerleaders? Or do you think that it's meant to prevent teams from recording things other than the playing action on the playing field? > > >
Nashville,
I'm a strict constuctionist on this one. When the rule says cameras can't be used from three spots, I believe the intent is indeed to ban filming from those spots. The rule, unlike the memo, doesn't mention signals. If the intent is to stop teams from taping signals, why doesn't the rule simply say "Videotaping an opponent's signals is prohibited?"
Scott
4 months ago
Common sense - they gained a competitive advantage - that's what it comes down to. Keep quoting the rules it will not change societies view IMO.
3 months ago
You forgot one other record steve. They broke there own record of 18 consecutive regular wins by winning 19 after defeating the Giants this year during regular season. That record is still going however because they havent lost in the regular season yet.
from 3 months ago
You're absolutely right. I did forget to mention that record. I'm also sure that I forgot other ones, too!
3 months ago
There is no proof they did this every game. They may have gained competitive advantage against the jets, but it would have had to happen on December 16th, the next time they played them because it came down from the NFL that if they gained anything, it would be in a future game. I think it might be hard to decipher a coordinators signals in between plays which is 40 seconds.
I live in New England and fox25 showed the actual "leaked" footage of the videotaping, shortly after the first Jets game and all it was focused on was the coordinator then the camera would look at the scoreboard showing what down and the time left on the clock. Im pretty sure you can do the same thing from the "approved" method of videotaping set forth by the nfl.
What it comes down to The pats are an awesome team and one of the best ever. Like there predecessors (Cowboys, Steelers, 49ers) people get sick of seeing them always win so they start to dislike that team and will constantly bash them. If the suck ass jets or raiders were doing this, this wouldnt get nearly as much attention.
from 3 months ago
Great points Chris! There is no proof that they did this in every game, yet people still claim they've been "cheating" for years.
Your last paragraph hits the nail right on the head as to why people love to hate the Pats.
3 months ago
Correct Chris - in a future game - that is where they gained a competitive advantage - probably against division rivals.
They got caught this year - yes the Pats had a great year even thought they choked in the
Superbowl - I will give you that. What about those other years - do you think this was the FIRST time Bill decided to do this - if you think that then you are naive.
Man I bet you hope Walsh has nothing
Yes some people will bash the Pats because they win - just like the Yankees. But when people think of the Yankees they think integrity. When people think of the Pats they think cheating.
Sorry
from 3 months ago
So, if the Pats had gained an advantage in years prior as you had hinted to, then why weren't all the Pats games wins? Why didn't they win by 100 points every game? Why did so many games come down to the last few minutes, and in some cases, the last few seconds? Why were games decided by the last second field goal of Adam Vinatieri? If the Pats had all of this advantage that you say they had, then why did they lose so many games over the years?
It's your opinion that people think of cheating when they think of the Pats, and that people think of integrity when they think of the Yankees. Again, that's your opinion and yours alone. Personally, when I think of the Yankees, I think of the highest team salary in MLB for how many years running now? When I think of the Pats.....one word-dynasty. Of course, that's just my opinion.
3 months ago
< < < Anonymous Wrote: Common sense - they gained a competitive advantage - that's what it comes down to. Keep quoting the rules it will not change societies view IMO. > > >
There's nothing wrong with seeking a competitive advantage as long as it's done within the rules. Your dismissal of the rules reveals a lot. It shows that some people really don't care if Belichick did anything wrong; they just want an excuse to bash the Patriots. It goes a long way toward explaining how a minor violation like filming from the wrong spot gets blown up into a major controversy.
from 3 months ago
Excellent point Scott. Very well said.
3 months ago
People dont think of yankees as "integrity". They think, best team money can buy, and that isn't even true anymore. When is the last time they one a championship?
Anyways, I think Belichick should have gotten the fine, but I don't feel they should have lost a draft pick over this. I think that's completely ridiculious!
I am a pats fan, but I don't think the wool has been pulled over my eyes. I don't think this is the only time this has happened, however, don't you think its ironic who the coach was that revealed this? A former Belichick disciple, Mangina. Brian Billick called him out a few games after all this broke about the defense "mimicking" the offensive audibles at the line of scrimmage, which is illegal, but the Jets suck so it never gained momentum.
I truely believe that other teams are recording signals one way or another, thats why you always see them covering there mouths with a play sheet when on the sidelines. The only coaches that said anything negative about this are the ones who have gotten burned by the pats over the years (Dungy?)
I even heard Jimmy Johnson, the old cowboys coach admit that they stole signals when he was coach all the time. Does that mean he should give back all his championships rings like some espn analyst suggested the pats should do?
The Broncos in the late 90's illegaly went over the salary cap and won a superbowl. Should they have an asterik next to there name as a superbowl winner?
Basically, coaches and players will do anything they can to gain a competitive advantage. Some call it cheating, I say its part of the game.
from 3 months ago
I meant to say Brian Billick called out the Jets, not the Pats.
3 months ago
< < < Chris Wrote: The only coaches that said anything negative about this are the ones who have gotten burned by the pats over the years (Dungy?)
I even heard Jimmy Johnson, the old cowboys coach admit that they stole signals when he was coach all the time. Does that mean he should give back all his championships rings like some espn analyst suggested the pats should do? > > >
Scott: Are you talking about comments on Fox or from that WFAN radio show? On the radio show, Johnson went into detail on how he did the taping and explained that he was taught to do it the way Marty Schottenheimer did it with the Chiefs. Johnson praised Howard Mudd, the Chiefs' offensive line coach, as the best signal stealer in the league. What's really interesting about all this is that Howard "the best in the entire league at stealing signals" Mudd currently works for Tony Dungy!
If anyone wants to hear Johnson's Spygate comments, it's about halfway through this conversation from September 28, 2007. He talks about all the upcoming games and when they get to the Patriots, they start discussing Spygate.
http://www.wfan.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=1036042
Transcripts of the Spygate comments are available in various places. Here's one:
http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sports/patriots/index.php/2008/02/23/jimmy-johnson-thinks-spygate-is-overblown/
It's worth listening to the audio though because Johnson's Spygate comments go on a little past where all the transcripts I've seen end. Johnson says that a lot of stadiums have video systems that record everything that happens in a game and which could be played back later.
Scott
3 months ago
Steve,
You wrote a pretty good piece about Spygate, but looking back at the comments, it also sparked a good discussion as well instead of a flame war. I've got an idea I want to run by both you and Stew Winkel. Could you guys e-mail me at KmacAlp@aol.com?
Scott
3 months ago
(I've been trying to post this comment for 2 days and have kept getting an error page)
Hey Steve,
I appreciate your response.
I agree that the Patriots were NOT punished by the NFL for cheating. But, many members of the public and media attached that word to it. I personally believe that when you break the rules for any kind of competitive advantage, it IS cheating.
There are two types of rules in my opinion. There are rules that, when violated, can be punished and taken care of during the course of the game - i.e. defensive pass interference, offsides, etc. The other type of rules is to govern behaviors that can affect the the fair play of a game, but have no punishment that is given during the course of the game. This would include (but is not limited to) steroids, HGH, and illegal videotaping.
I personally view violations of that second kind of rule as cheating.
I don't believe that every player or team violates these rules. That's why I feel that it IS cheating when a person or team does. It is unfair to the fans, the integrity of the game, and to all those that don't cheat.
I think that when players like Harrison and Merriman (and others) make the decision to use HGH or whatever, they're cheating. It's an unfair advantage to ANY other player that lives by the rules, whether that player is a teammate or an opposing player.
Even more complex is when a coach violates a rule, as Belichick did. Steroids give an advantage to the player that uses them, but information can help an entire team. When that information is gained through dishonest means, I think it's cheating.
I don't think that EVERY coach engages in this practice, despite what the Jimmy Johnsons of the world say. If Belichick (and possibly unnamed others) videotapes against league rules for a competitive advantage, I see it as cheating. I believe that many coaches don't seek these advantages SIMPLY BECAUSE they're against the rules.
If it comes to light that other coaches are engaging in similar practices that violate league rules, I will think of those actions as cheating. My label of cheating isn't reserved for the Patriots, it is reserved for the actions that violate my definition of it.
Unfortunately, many Patriot fans have resorted to saying that anyone that thinks they cheated is simply a jealous fan of some other team or a "hater". However, I feel as though I have good and logical reasoning as to why I think the Patriots cheated.
I don't view the Patriots as "cheaters" because they're successful or even because they've beaten my beloved Steelers in a couple of big games. There are plenty of other teams that have had success and other teams that have beaten the Steelers in big games that I don't view as cheaters. My point of view isn't a result of me simply being a childish and poor sport. I view Belichick's actions as cheating because they violated a rule intended to promote fair play.
Thanks for finally revealing your thoughts on the intent of the rule. It has been nice to go back and forth with someone willing to discuss this controversial NFL topic. There are many unreasonable people out there on both sides of the issue that have unfairly painted their fellow fans.
It would be a shame if the Patriots didn't need any of these taped signals to win. But, it would be an even bigger shame if they actually did. Unfortunately, we'll never know what these signals accomplished.
Respectfully,
Nashville
PS - I think a good solution to this rule would be for the NFL to be the sole provider of game film. Instead of allowing teams to tape whatever they want, just provide game film from locations that all teams can agree on.
from 3 months ago
Ahhh, nice to see you back Nashville! I was starting to worry that you wouldn't post back!
Thanks for sharing your opinion. I must say that I respect your views on it, and for that reason, I won't knit pick anything you've said. It's your opinion and I respect it and how you expressed it. I'd also like to thank you for coming back and posting-you're absolutely right...it is nice to be able to go back and forth with people who actually want to discuss things rather than point the finger and call names. Now, if we could only learn to agree to disagree! :P
As for some of your ideas, like the NFL being the only ones to hand out video for viewing, well....I don't think that would sit well for the teams owners. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I don't think that it would go over very well. If I had to guess, I'd say that almost every team in pro sports studies films of other teams. I think that the NFL has tried to restrict that so that it doesn't become such an advantage for one team over another team, which is one reason why I think the Pats and Belichick were penalized so harshly. Now, what do you think about having 2 captains having earphones to receive instructions up to the last 15 seconds of the game clock, much like the QB does? I say 2, but maybe even 3, as the QB is always in the game, but the defense comes and goes. This would allow on field adjustments to the offense much like the offense can adjust to the defense-and would allow to do away with most defensive signals.
<<<"It would be a shame if the Patriots didn't need any of these taped signals to win. But, it would be an even bigger shame if they actually did. Unfortunately, we'll never know what these signals accomplished.">>>
I look at it this way-the Pats stated that they had been doing that for a while now, and had handed over all of their tapes and notes. I can only assume that they stopped illegally video taping defensive signals, too. They then went undefeated that entire season. I'd like to think that rules out the need to video tape signals of any sort, or to "cheat" in any way.
Again, thanks for your perspective on things.
Respectfully,
Steve
3 months ago
NY GIANTS IS THE CHAMPIONS OF THE WORKD WHOOOOOOOO!!!!!! I'M GONNA GO TO GROCERY STORE TO BUY CHEATIES CEREAL BOX! HEH HEH!
from 3 months ago
Nice Glenn, get back to work.
3 months ago
I personally think the patriots are a bunch of lying, cheating, caniving (sp) bastards, who don't deserve to wear the title of our forfathers who were actual patriots fighting for our freedoms instead of a group of jackasses fighting and cheating for drug money. The fact that they won all their games except for the one that matters just goes to show you that they are lame pieces of feces that don't have any skill or respect for the game. They also smell like New England, as do all New Englanders, Pee yew! The stench, even from where I'm at singes my nose hairs.
from 3 months ago
Your comment is so far off target that I won't even bother to dispute it. Ok, so I will. You're comparing apples and oranges in your analogies of our fight against Britain for our independence, and an organization that is for entertainment and money making purposes-and you further embarrass yourself by calling a professional NFL team a "group of jackasses fighting and cheating for drug money".
Furthermore, the fact that you state that "they are lame pieces of feces that don't have any skill or respect for the game" immediately after you stated "The fact that they won all of their games except for the one that matters" is a contradiction in itself-for a team to win 18 of 19 games, then be told that they have no skill or respect for the game is ridiculous.
You manage to carry on about your dislike for the New England Patriots by stating "They also smell like New England, as do all New Englanders, Pee yew! The stench, even from where I'm at singes my nose hairs." Seriously? What are you, like 12? That comment is just childish.
P.S. It's "conniving".
3 months ago
I have to admit you bring up many valid points, and i believe that the taping shenanagins(if thats how u spell it) thats been goin on is just a little blown out of proportion. If the Patriots were losing and not winning by 50 points a game this spygate ordeal wouldnt be as big as it is now. Any good team out there always has something bad going to happen to them because there a winning team/franchise, the Detroit Lions, Oakland Raiders, The Miama Dolphins and some other losing franchises might be doing the same thing but since they lose mosre times than they win no attention is givin to them. Just a thought.
from 3 months ago
That's true, whenever someone is in the spotlight, people look for their flaws. Once found, they hold onto it like a dog holds onto a bone. Just like in politics-people (media) check the background going back years and years until they find some dirt. This whole spygate deal is the same scenario-something happened and was blown so far outta proportion that it's now pathetic, and has given many a reason to dislike the Patriots.
I guess that it's human nature to cheer the underdogs and root against those that dominate. People cheered the Dolphins saying "I hope they win, they really need it!" and booed the Pats saying "They deserve to lose!". I guess that with the Pats being in the spotlight for the last 7 years and winning 4 Super Bowls has given even more of a reason for people to hate them. Oh well. Forth and onward I guess.
Thanks for your honest insight Joe! I appreciate it!
3 months ago
Hey Teeve! Breaking the rules regardless of whether you 'knew' you were doing it or not IS cheating. Regardless... ANYTIME a person is passionate and competitive in what they are doing, they are going to look for an edge. ALL teams are looking for that edge in different ways.
I too, get tired of hearing about spygate, as well as all these college sport recruiting scandals. They should impose the fine or punishment and then shut up about it. There was a time when the excitement was all about the game... The 'majestic interceptions' or the 'marvelous touchdowns' were talked about and then replayed, in many cases rehearsed by children in sandlots all across the United States... Now, it seems all we hear about are the fines, sentencings, paroles, drug possessions, steroid abuse, gambling, and the aforementioned cheating. What kind of image does that paint for our youth when we take their heroes, expose them for something they do wrong, and then next season we let them come back and score touchdowns, even though they did something so awful the season before?
'Problems' have always existed in sports and they're always going to exist. When a person thrives on adrenaline, such as athletes do, they are going to engage in risky behavior. Eventually, they are going to get called on the carpet for their misdoings. When that happens, we should take them out of the spotlight, not draw more attention to them. Right now, all we're doing is glamorizing bad behavior.
The real losers here are the fans. Fans of the offending teams or players as well as those of other teams. I mean, isn't football what it's really all about anyway? So, in short I agree with most of what you said, it's time they shut up about 'problems' and start talking more about what we can expect out of teams this coming season.
Just for the record, I am NOT a Patriots fan. But I don't hate them either. I grew up a Cowboys fan, so it's kind of hard for me to hate someone for winning. Now I just enjoy watching a good game, no matter who is playing, and often find myself more or less impartial, cheering for both teams.
That's just my two cents, but even that won't get you a mile down the road towards the next game.
Nate
from 3 months ago
Ha! Great to hear from you Nate! I knew it was you when I read "Teeve!"!!!
You're right about looking for an edge-which is what seemed to happen with the Pats. The only thing I'd disagree about is the cheating part-a team isn't cheating when the QB goes no huddle and catches a defender still on the field (even though he's running off to his bench) and the team is called for an extra man on the field. I don't consider that cheating, any more than I'd say their both just a tactic to gain an edge (as you'd already mentioned).
I'd also agree with every thing else you said, specially those who really loses out in the end here, which are the fans. I think it's sad to see people bickering over a penalty and arguing about which team is better. I'd much rather enjoy the sport game by game rather than waste my time arguing that one team is better than another. What's that saying? Don't hate the players, hate the game.
Hope that all is well with you and yours-shoot me an email one of these days!
Guten Tag!
Teeve
3 months ago
< < < Nashville I view Belichick's actions as cheating because they violated a rule intended to promote fair play. > > >
Hello, Nashville. Good to see you back. What gives you the idea that the rule was intended to promote fair play? The NFL has a lot of Game Operations rules which have nothing to do with fair play. An example of this would be the rule about logos on the coaching staff's clothing and what brand those clothes have to be.
If a team follows the actual videotaping rule (as opposed to the memo which misrepresents the rule) and records signals from a press box not used by coaches, how are they at a disadvantage compared to a team that records the same signals from an improrper location?
Scott
from 3 months ago
scott,
sorry, but i won't go back and forth on this anymore.
if you want to compare illegally videotaping defensive hand signals to shirt logos and videotaping cheerleaders (from your earlier post), that's your right. personally, and in my opinion, i think it's a ridiculous comparison.
it think it's clear that you and i are unable to establish a middle ground from which to engage in a discussion.
we'll just have to agree to disagree.
respectfully,
nashville
3 months ago
Nashville,
Come on, now. That's a straw man. I think you're just ducking the question. ; ) "If a team follows the actual videotaping rule (as opposed to the memo which misrepresents the rule) and records signals from a press box not used by coaches, how are they at