OK, lets clear the air first.
I am not in any way, shape, or form, agreeing with Senator Spector about needing a independent investigation into spygate. What I am doing is questioning whether or not Bill Belicheat, I mean Belichick, is telling the truth about not understanding the rules about video taping coaches signals.
First things first, let's read the rule, so we all know it. Page 105 of the 2007 NFL "Game Operations Manual" 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...All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."
Now, to me that is as clear as it can possible be, so I have no idea how in the world Belichick could have not understood that, especially for that long. My 18-month old nephew could understand that rule. Okay that is kind of a wild stretch, but you get my point. I digress...
Matt Walsh comes forward and says "Here are some more tapes. No, there is no video of the Rams' walkthrough, and oh by the way, we did know that we were breaking the rules, no we did not care, and we were instructed on how to aviod being caught."
Bill Belichick fires back that he is telling the truth that he made a "mistake". He even went as far as saying Walsh was a low-level staffer, and was fired for "poor job performace." But wait, I thought Belichick had no idea who he was, and said that he could not pick him out of a lineup. Just smells funny to me, that's all.
They went from really bad to really good pretty quickly. Now, it was not a huge help, because the players still have to execute the plays, so I don't believe that it was a huge advantage.
I am not sure if Goodell should punish the Patriots in light of what Walsh said, or if he even will, and truly I don't really care. There is no way to prove whether Belichick is lying or Walsh is just trying to revenge his firing.
Personally, I think that Belichick is lying, just because it is hard to believe that he misinterpreted a rule for like five years. But still, all I have to say is for God sakes, let it go.
comments (13) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
OF COURSE HE'S LYING! Matt Walsh even said what great lengths they went to in order to cover up what they were doing. there was no misinterpretation. just for that, i think they should have another 1st rounder taken and suspend him for 4-8 games. not allowed on field, facility, nothing. cheating i can handle to a certain degree, but lying about it.. no.
4 months ago
Of course he's lying. He's supposed to be a football genius, and yet he's unable to figure out this very simple rule. Gimme a break.
4 months ago
Hmm, the NFL Constitution and By-Laws, seem to say that videotaping during a game is not illegal, "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."
A memo sent around the league should not change the NFL Constitution. You amend a constitution if it's shown to be faulty as it clearly is here. At the very best you can say the NFL dropped the ball by not updating it's rules and Bill Belichick dropped the ball by not telling the NFL that it's rules were inadequate.
"He even went as far as saying Walsh was a low-level staffer and was fired for 'poor job performance.' But what I thought Belichick had no idea who he was and said that he could not pick him out of a line-up. Just smells funny to me that all."
Bill Belichick said that he couldn't him out of a line-up before the Ram's walk-through allegation was brought to light. Surely at that point, Bill Belichick did a little research into him - as we all did. I'm sure that meant talking with the organization's HR department that lead to the information that he was "a low-level staffer and fired for 'poor job performance.'" In the end it doesn't matter, there's no way that an employee of Walsh's level would have contact of one of Belichick's level. It's like a mail clerk talking with the CEO, just doesn't happen - nor should it happen.
Not that the explanation is out there, I think the NFL owes the Patriots an apology, a draft pick, and retributions for financial damages.
from 4 months ago
Nice comment Don-it's great to see some people use their knowledge and do some research to make a reply rather than use their opinions and argue that their right despite what the rules say, just to add fuel to the fire. I agree with everything you've said!
from 4 months ago
this is the key language that no one cares about - "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game " I think the NFL then sent out that memo explaining what they meant, and the Patriots arrogantly ignored it. but what they were doing, and matt walsh backs this up, was not technically in violation of the rule. They were taping signals, and then using those tapes at a later point, not during the current game. Walsh, who all patriot haters believe is a saint, said when he was taping signals, he had the tapes until the game was over. i think the pats must have known they were at best in a gray area, and figured it was better to keep doing it and plead ignorance then ask and be told they were wrong. that was wrong.
in the end, i dont even see why it matters if belichick knew what he was doing was wrong. goodell didnt believe him, didn't believe him back in september, and since then, no new information has been learned about what the pats were doing. they were punished. as the writer of this article writes, let's move on.
from 4 months ago
Dan,
The league owes the Pats nothing. They ignored the rules and got caught. They were punished and that is that. Belichick is still lying to cover his own butt and it is aggravating. I don not care that he did it or why now but all I want is him to come out and say "Yes we cheated and I knew it was wrong."
from 4 months ago
C.J.-I think you're missing the point. Read Stew's comment above yours. The fact of the matter is the Pats didn't "cheat". Point blank, there's no arguing that, simply because they were penalized over a technicality of camera location-the fines imposed were NOT for "cheating", as you would put it. This is in black and white from the NFL, so how can you say they cheated? You can say it because that's your opinion. Careful not to confuse your opinion with fact-that's 2 different things.
The same thing goes for what you said about Belichick lying to cover his butt-that's your opinion, nothing at all factual about that, it's all your opinion. Again, careful not to confuse your opinion with fact.
from 4 months ago
if it was not cheating or brekaing any rule then why did they try to hide it? and TRUST me when i say i do not ever confuse my opinion with facts. to many of my professors would kill me if that was the case. all i do is play the hits like a wacky FM dj
from 4 months ago
I'm sorry, I don't see how standing in plain sight wearing Pats credentials is hiding anything.
I never said the didn't break any rules, I said that that you keep saying they "cheated", when in fact they were penalized for camera location. If you went to court for speeding, say, 55 in 35, and then the cop said that you were drunk and in a school zone, when you weren't.....wouldn't you want the correct terms to used and have people know that you weren't actually drunk in a school zone? See what I'm driving at here-the Pats were fine for where they taped from, not what they taped or what they used it for. Just like how the Government got Al Capone-not for all his crimes he had others commit on his behalf, but on tax evasion....2 different things.
The problem is that everyone runs around saying the Pats cheated, when in fact they did not. Cheating is having 13 men on the field. Not filming from an enclosed space with a roof overhead and 3 walls out of view of the coaches is an infraction of the rules for camera placement.
4 months ago
Nice article, C.J. I think I'm going to have to agree with Bob and Osi.
from 4 months ago
Andrew,
Thanks man. Just to let you know I agree with them too. I just get sick of it dominating sports talk shows everyday. That is why I said we need to let it go.
4 months ago
Over the course of the last seven years billions of dollars have been wagered on NFL football games. When you add up all the collective betting on football on a global scale it is hundreds of billions of dollars. A lot of people lost a lot of money because of the Pats cheating.
Now,in the gambling world, its called "fixing a game" when organized cheating occurs within a sports franchise. When this happens you leave the rhelm of sports and enter the sleazy world of crime.
Regardless of what Rodger would have us believe, fans outside of Boston think that the Pats had a huge advantage from cheating. So would people betting on the game if they knew about the cheating. When cheating is uncovered in a horse race or boxing match, they don't loose a draft pick, someone goes to jail.
A LOT OF PEOPLE LOST A LOT OF MONEY BECAUSE OF THE PATS CHEATING. THEY FOOLISHLY BELIEVED IN THE INTEGRITY OF THE NFL WHO KNEW OF THE CHEATING AT LEAST TWO YEARS AGO AT GREEN BAY.
You have to realize that cheating in pro sports is something bigger than the sport itself. With the amount of money that goes through gambling transactions, any type of cheating has to be investigated. And that is the door that Goodell, Kraft and Rooney et al. don't want Specter to open.
This story broke nine months ago. In that time we know that Specter sent a letter to Roger Goodell, sent a follow-up letter, spoke with Goodell and conducted a brief meeting with a person with knowledge of the situation.
That doesn’t seem like an unreasonable amount of time to spend on one of the many issues he deals with. He’s the ranking member of the committee with oversight of the N.F.L.’s antitrust exemption. If the league conducted a sham investigation into cheating —as the evidence suggests — then it’s totally appropriate for him to inquire into the matter.
4 months ago
No respect meant, but the line, "Personally, I think that Belichick is lying, just because it is hard to believe that he misinterpreted a rule for like five years." is very poor.
write a new comment