If you're a Rams fan, Panthers fan, or Eagles fan, you probably want to see the Lombardi torn out of Foxboro and placed in your respective trophy cases.
Sorry, that's just not going to happen.
I understand everyone is unhappy about this whole ordeal that includes Roger Goodell. How would you feel with Arlen Specter breathing down your neck? The sheer creepiness of the literal aspect of that statement is mind-boggling.
The fact of the matter is that "Spygate" really is not all that interesting. This happens every single week in the NFL. And not only the NFL, but most any sport. Everyone is trying to get the upper hand on their opponent no matter what the situation or arena.
The most obvious is baseball. You cannot tell me that every manager in the MLB isn't sitting in their dugout eye-balling that guy on 3rd trying to figure out what those signals mean, all just to get the upper hand. Every basketball player is trying to figure out what those numbers mean that the point guard is screaming about and it goes on and on and on and on and on.
No doubt, this is bad for the NFL. But it wouldn't be so bad if more people realized how incredibly meaningless this all is. The only reason this has gotten the publicity it has is because they are the Patriots. If the Raiders or Dolphins had been cheating, everyone would have laughed... And laughed... And laughed, and then moved on. But because this is the Patriots everyone thinks that they only became what they are because of these tapes. That's just not the case. The Patriots pieced together one of the best teams I, or anyone else, have ever seen.
All of those good players to go along with one of the best coaches to ever put on a headset, that's where all the winning came from. I do not believe that any of these tapes gave them just enough of an advantage to pull one out. They won because they were the better team. And for those of you screaming about beating the Rams in 2001, there was no walk-thru tape, let it go. You robbed the Titans in '99, isn't that enough?
On to Matt Walsh, he was a meaningless film assistant. He had nothing the NFL didn't already know about. Way to go, Specter. I had to laugh when I saw this story first talked about on NFL Live and they didn't even have a picture of him. That should show just how meaningless the man was in all of this.
The Patriots have been reprimanded, and pretty severely as is the forte of Goodell Khan. The '72 Dolphins still can claim to be the only undefeated team in the modern era (so Don Shula, shut up), and best of all, the team we all love to hate was picked apart in free agency. It's a win for everyone. Don't even try complaining Patriots fans, you still have your 3 rings. So yeah, you win too.
The bottom line is this, it's over. This whole thing is over and congress needs to start focusing on oil prices and the war rather than what is going on in professional sports. In the big picture, in the grand scheme of things, (insert other generic prepositional phrase to say "look at the whole situation") professional sports are irrelevant to how a country is run. Keep that in mind Mr. Specter when the people of Pennsylvania hopefully finally toss you out. Sorry to get political.
Bill Belichick is not Richard Nixon. Let it alone, people.
comments (8) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Your "Everybody does it" defense of Belichick is pre-adolescent in its moral reasoning. Here's how it is, Bob: cheating invalidates the cheater's victory, and thereby destroys the game. There is no point in playing any game cheapened and debased by cheaters. Belichick, and every cheater in every sport, should just be tossed out. Reserve sport for those whose integrity merits a place in the game.
There is, of course, a counter argument to the assertion that there is no point in playing a debased game. That argument is that it's all about getting the money. That is the same argument made for prostitution; so what if it's wrong, the pay is good enough. But is whoring out sport what you really want? Not me, thanks.
about 1 month ago
You miss the point entirely my friend. Where is the line drawn between a competitive advantage by being smarter than the other guy, and cheating? And yes, cheating would invalidate the victory if in fact those tapes gave them enough to really affect the outcome. The fact of the matter is, it didnt. These tapes did not give them anything that they would not have gotten watching normal game film. Defensive coordinators change up their signals every week anyway.
I'm not saying that what Belichick did wasnt stupid, all I'm saying is this is not as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be.
And stop intellectualizing with your big words to try and outsmart me here, fella. Not gonna happen. And as far as prostitution goes, it's your body, do what you will. That's a completely different arguement and holds no merit.
about 1 month ago
Bob, I may have missed a point, but you missed a line; the one between outsmarting an opponent and cheating. That line is the rule book. If you'd like to argue that what Belichick did is merely stupid and not against the rules, take up that argument with Roger Goodell.
Your argument that it is OK to cheat as long as cheating doesn't really help so much is not very persuasive. It is equivalent to suggesting that bank robbery is OK as long as you don't get away with much money. Sorry, I just can't agree with you on that.
Sorry, Bob. I didn't realize I was intellectualizing. Just tell me which words gave you trouble, and I'll dumb it down for ya.
about 1 month ago
Hey Rob,
The major "violation" in the Spygate case actually had nothing to do with the fact that they were filming signals. It had to do with the position of the camera. Current NFL rules state that a team may film from any location which is effectively a box. At least three walls, I think.
In fact, prior to 2006, this was not even remotely illegal. The only contingency was that the you had to have the other team's permission. In 2006, the Jets were caught filming in Gilette without our permission; we just kicked the video guy out.
You know, you're totally right, though, Rob. Everyone who cheats should be just kicked out. In fact, I think anyone who's ever cut a corner in life should be hung from the gallows. It's just not fair to the rest of us who chose not to cut that corner, because we all thought it would be unfair.
You make your choices and you're punished for them accordingly, right?
about 1 month ago
One more thing, you can talk high and mightily about the "integrity" of a game, but when it comes down to it, the game is just the people who play it. I don't think there's anyone out there who's "integrity" merits a place in professional sports; we're a world of messed up people, and we all do wrong from time to time.
Except for Vince Wilfork, apparently. He is just the nicest damn man, with all that money he donates to diabetes research. Oh, but people accuse him of cheap shots all the time...
about 1 month ago
Hi Zachary,
The 2007 Game Operations Manual does state, as you have mentioned, that cameras must be enclosed on all sides, including overhead. However, the fact that the camera in question was not enclosed is not the major violation. The manual also states "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game". What Belichick was fined half a million for was not having a camera out of its required enclosure, but for "use of equipment to videotape an opposing team’s offensive or defensive signals".
I appreciate your use of irony, but take care; Bob may accuse you of intellectualizing when he catches you using rhetoric.
So we agree; cheaters should be kicked out, and for the reason you state. Hanging them from the gallows, though? Nah, stopping them from ruining the game by getting them out of the game is exactly enough. Nothing less will do, and nothing more is needed. After all, it's only a game, but it isn't even a game if cheaters take the field.
I also agree with you that we're all human and we all mess up. In real life, when we mess up, consequences follow and we take our lumps and learn better. In sport, when we mess up on the field, we draw penalties. But when we cheat, as opposed to when we commit a foul, we really aren't playing the game any more...so why should we be allowed to ruin it for those who want to play? We agree about that, right?
from about 1 month ago
Hi Rob,
I knew there was something I was forgetting, thank you. Under that interpretation of the rule, then you are right, what Belichick did was a violation. Given that, I'm going to digress to the larger argument of "did Belichick cheat?" for two reasons: 1) I am a Patriots fan (an admission of bias), and 2) I like spying in football.
Belichick said that he misinterpretted the rules. Maybe he was lying, maybe he wasn't; that's something we'll never know. You can say you think, but you really can't say you know. So given that, how could he have misinterpretted the rule?
"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."
First, video recording devices: It is obvious to you and me that they meant cameras, but for all we know they could have meant VCRs; which is a recording device for videos. We know they meant cameras, but some people could just as easily jump to the other conclusion.
Second, in use: How do you define the use of a camera? Bear in mind here we are not talking about using a camera, we are talking about a camera being in use. If the use of the camera is to record things, then you cannot record things during the game. If the use of the camera is to break down plays (which it was), then you cannot break down plays during the game.
This is semantics. Semantics should not be relevant, but in this case it is because they had a lawyer write the rulebook. Honestly, the rule in the book should read "Don't record from the field, coaches' booth, or in the locker room using a camera during the game." To me, this seems much more clear. Maybe this would get picked apart in a courtroom if someone invented a camera-like device which was not a camera, but in that case the NFL has the liberty of saying "You know what we meant." With the original reading, it's much vaguer, and it can't be assumed. Feel free to break down my rendition of the rule if you want, by the way; I'm curious to see if I'm just jawing off.
So if you can accept the above even remotely, then it should seem possible that he misinterpreted the rule. At that point you have to ask: how much do you punish for a misinterpretation? Does a misinterpretation really warrant a suspension?
Cheating is flagrant disregard for the rules. Is it cheating if he just misinterpreted the rule? The fact of the matter is that many people will misinterpret things, rules or otherwise. Many people will look for interpretations of rules to circumvent them. In a sport where accusations of cheating fly wildly (hell, the Colts have been accused of pumping fake crowd noise in through the speakers for years), it's impossible to weed out the true cheaters on their words or the words of others. I think Goodell realized this, and many measures have been taken now to aid the NFL in confirming these accusations.
Bottom line, I think Goodell sat Belichick down and said "Okay, so you say you misinterpreted the rules, and you made the stupid choice of not clarifying after the memo. Here's a hefty fine to help you remember what the rules are. Don't do it again." If he did do it again, or if he had filmed the Ram's walkthrough, I'd be all on board to have him suspended (Okay, maybe not all on board). This one is just too close to call.
from about 1 month ago
Oh, and thank you for the thoughtful arguments. I haven't had a good intarweb debate in years.
write a new comment