Peter King again misses the point BB made - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***Deus Irae*** · 02-19-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richpats

Memo: "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."

Manual: "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."

My "interpretation":

The Manual allows for videotaping if the locations is "enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead". The Memo doesn't allow for videotaping of ANY type. Either way Belichick broke the rule by having a cameraman on the field.

Some are trying to stress the "during the game" language in reference to WATCHING the recorded video, it actually refers to RECORDING the video itself.

Read them in their entirety and maybe that will help you. Here, let me help. This is from Reiss:

Quote:

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "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."

The key issue is how one views "a game". For Belichick, it was referring to the game being filmed. For Goodell, it meant any game, present or future.

***IcyPatriot*** · 02-19-2008, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstater1

I think King's interpretation is the correct one. Even Jon Kraft said it was. I can't see how it would be interpreted any other way. If you read Reiss' article, it's clear that Belichick is referring to the rule in the manual which is different than the one in this memo. That rule can be interpreted the Belichick way.

All King is saying is that the memo overrides the rule in the manual, and that Belichick should have been aware of the memo.

The thing is, the league on multiple occasions has caught teams violating the memo, and they didn't care. So I'm sure Belichick just deliberately ignored the memo. Either that or perhaps he really didn't see it.

I agree with all you say here ... I'm wondering how many league memos Belichick pays attention to ... then again how many head coaches pay attention to all that crap.

tdw777 · 02-19-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

Read them in their entirety and maybe that will help you. Here, let me help. This is from Reiss:

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "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."

The key issue is how one views "a game". For Belichick, it was referring to the game being filmed. For Goodell, it meant any game, present or future...simply put: YES

You also have to also read the rule in its entirety. When you read the rule in its entirety, you begin to understand how BB interpreted the rule the way he did. I'm not saying he was correct or incorrect in his interpretation...I am merely saying that when you take an unbiased and logical look at it, you begin to understand how someone may interpret the rule the way BB did.

The rule itself is ambiguous..video equipment "in use" “during the game" "for coaching purposes". As the blogger for the sports professor cited in a previous post points out " http://thesportslawprofessor.blogspo...pretation.html/ if we wanted to write a rule that limited the making of video recordings to the two enclosed locations ..we could do so directly, without the need to use phrases like "to be in use" or refer to particular coaching locations or limit the prohibition to "during the game." If the rule is as the NFL says, why have the first clause at all? The rule is a mess, and the very fact that a bunch of lawyers (or fans in this case) are all staring at it and seeing different things (even if wrongly) displays reasonable ambiguity by itself.

I am not a lawyer, but in my profession I sometimes have to interpret legal descriptions that contain ambiguities. What you have to do is interpret intent...what was the intent of the writer at the time he wrote it. There will be many who don't agree with this anaology..but, I think it can be applied in this case.

What was the intent of the NFL at the time the rule was written?? To me, it is obvious that they did not want video technology to influence the game; hence "in use" in the coaches both," "on the field" "in the locker room". BB’s interpretation of the rule..agree or not..is valid. He was not using the video for in game use.

What BB should have done when the memo came out was to call the league office and ask for further clarification of the rule. I think he admitted as such in his interview with Reiss.

Topher · 02-19-2008, 07:22 PM

My first post - but I just wanted to say I am astounded that most people arent smart enough to see Belichick's interpretation is very sound - - and the belief that videotaping signals is prohibited in and of itself makes no sense based on the "rules."

If the purpose of the rule was that signals are not supposed to be tapped, then you would hope that somewhere, in the memo, or gameday manual, or bylaws, there would have been a sentence flat out saying "the videotaping of opponents signals is prohibited."

Instead in each of these statements from the NFL, the rule is qualified - - each say that such tapings or use of equipment are only prohibited in certain locations during the game.

What does this mean? It means that if all of these statements mean what they say, then the videotaping of signals is allowed in every location other than those stated. It also means the only way the medias (or NFL's) interpretation works is if you stop reading each of these rules in midsentence- which makes no sense.

Moreover, the purpose of the location qualifications seems to clearly be to prevent access and usage of the tapes during the game. Therefore, even if Belichick didnt comply with the letter of the law, there is no plausible argument that he didnt comply with its purpose - - or that it was that big a deal cause taping of signals is (according to the rules) allowed anyway.

I would also add that for an old school coach like Belichick, who has probably seen this done since the 70s, it would be very easy for him to presume that the rule cant mean what everyone seems to think it does.

Sorry for the long, rambling first post, and thanks to anyone who actually bothered to read it. I've been needing to write this for 6 months

letekro · 02-19-2008, 07:30 PM

Without courts, or a similar judicial body, to interpret this language, BB was left hoping that his interpretation of the rule was the same as the league office's. BB should have erred on the side of caution and asked for clarification on this issue. Being a bit of an old-school guy, he probably assumed that what he was doing was part of the game and had always been such, i.e., no would enforce the rule - like jaywalking. In fairness to him, nobody could've foreseen the resulting ***** storm. But, again, he was reckless here.

***PatsFanJess*** · 02-19-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topher

My first post - but I just wanted to say I am astounded that most people arent smart enough to see Belichick's interpretation is very sound - - and the belief that videotaping signals is prohibited in and of itself makes no sense based on the "rules."

If the purpose of the rule was that signals are not supposed to be tapped, then you would hope that somewhere, in the memo, or gameday manual, or bylaws, there would have been a sentence flat out saying "the videotaping of opponents signals is prohibited."

Instead in each of these statements from the NFL, the rule is qualified - - each say that such tapings or use of equipment are only prohibited in certain locations during the game.

What does this mean? It means that if all of these statements mean what they say, then the videotaping of signals is allowed in every location other than those stated. It also means the only way the medias (or NFL's) interpretation works is if you stop reading each of these rules in midsentence- which makes no sense.

Moreover, the purpose of the location qualifications seems to clearly be to prevent access and usage of the tapes during the game. Therefore, even if Belichick didnt comply with the letter of the law, there is no plausible argument that he didnt comply with its purpose - - or that it was that big a deal cause taping of signals is (according to the rules) allowed anyway.

I would also add that for an old school coach like Belichick, who has probably seen this done since the 70s, it would be very easy for him to presume that the rule cant mean what everyone seems to think it does.

Sorry for the long, rambling first post, and thanks to anyone who actually bothered to read it. I've been needing to write this for 6 months

Great first post!!! I especially agree about the part of BB being old school. Every sign points to this being exactly what happened.

tdw777 · 02-19-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topher

....Moreover, the purpose of the location qualifications seems to clearly be to prevent access and usage of the tapes during the game. Therefore, even if Belichick didnt comply with the letter of the law, there is no plausible argument that he didnt comply with its purpose - -

Exactly. Great first post Topher.

SVN · 02-19-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topher

My first post - but I just wanted to say I am astounded that most people arent smart enough to see Belichick's interpretation is very sound - - and the belief that videotaping signals is prohibited in and of itself makes no sense based on the "rules."

If the purpose of the rule was that signals are not supposed to be tapped, then you would hope that somewhere, in the memo, or gameday manual, or bylaws, there would have been a sentence flat out saying "the videotaping of opponents signals is prohibited."

Instead in each of these statements from the NFL, the rule is qualified - - each say that such tapings or use of equipment are only prohibited in certain locations during the game.

What does this mean? It means that if all of these statements mean what they say, then the videotaping of signals is allowed in every location other than those stated. It also means the only way the medias (or NFL's) interpretation works is if you stop reading each of these rules in midsentence- which makes no sense.

Moreover, the purpose of the location qualifications seems to clearly be to prevent access and usage of the tapes during the game. Therefore, even if Belichick didnt comply with the letter of the law, there is no plausible argument that he didnt comply with its purpose - - or that it was that big a deal cause taping of signals is (according to the rules) allowed anyway.

I would also add that for an old school coach like Belichick, who has probably seen this done since the 70s, it would be very easy for him to presume that the rule cant mean what everyone seems to think it does.

Sorry for the long, rambling first post, and thanks to anyone who actually bothered to read it. I've been needing to write this for 6 months

send this to florio and king. though doubt it will have an affect.

cupofjoe1962 · 02-19-2008, 10:01 PM

I like to hear Peter King's weekly interview on the dale & holly WEEI show.

I laugh every time I hear him because, he really does not know anything
about football. He may be a good writer, but his football knowledge is
at a middle school level.

I also get a kick out of Jerry Callahan. He is also a guy who makes me
scratch my head over his success. His knowledge is on the same level
of Peter King. He also reminds me of the Howie Carr of sports. If he is
not writing a negative article, he is not in the paper.

***IcyPatriot*** · 02-19-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cupofjoe1962

I like to hear Peter King's weekly interview on the dale & holly WEEI show.

I laugh every time I hear him because, he really does not know anything
about football. He may be a good writer, but his football knowledge is
at a middle school level..

Peter King has great football knowledge on a personal level ... he's not an x's and o's guy and he does not pretend to be. He's getting too much bad info from his friend Marty Shat-enheimer on this one.