PatsFanSince74

That's pretty much the long and the short of it. The Manual alone is ambiguous, allowing for Belichick's interpretation thereof. However, the Memo is painstakingly unambiguous, no longer allowing for his interpretation.

The question I have asked myself repeatedly is, What could have possessed BB to think he could tape as he did during the Jets game?

Since one of the few things of which we can be certain about Bill Belichick is that he is "Not Stupid," the only answer that I can come up with, other than "Supreme Arrogance," is that I have known very senior and highly successful corporate-types who get into such a zone that they disregard very important details of which they should be aware or of which they actually have been made aware.

Perhaps that's what happened in this case. Perhaps Belichick was so focused on beginning a new season with a new cadre of players, perhaps he was so taken up with the details of preparing for the season opener on the road against a Division Rival for which he used to work, that he just plain overlooked something that he actually knew and approved the taping. Please don't dismiss this out of hand. It's entirely plausible. Estrella is very junior, by all accounts a kid in awe of his surroundings. If BB mentioned taping to him (or if he asked BB about taping), it is highly unlikely that he would question what he heard or thought he heard.

In corporations, it's the job of a senior staff member to make sure things like that don't happen and, in effect, save the boss from himself. In this case, that kind of safety net was most likely not in place.

__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.

richpats

That's just an interpretation that would get Belichick off the hook. The Pats broke a rule, it doesn't matter if they gained an advantage from it or not. The rule is in place to prevent an action that could potentially lead to gaining an unfair advantage.

If the rules are interpreted the way you said, then there would be no need for rules against taping in the first place. They would have to write a rule against viewing recorded material , which would be impossible to enforce or determine guilt via evidence, basically an NFL official would have to be in the locker room while it is being viewed by a team.

The existing rule is designed to prevent an action and can be enforced and judged with evidence. In the Pats' case, the evidence was in the NFL's hands and the verdict was an obvious one.

PatsFanSince74

You raise an interesting set of questions. However, this was not a "discussion memo," it was a directive. Your arguments might work in a complex corporate hierarchy, but it's hard to argue that the memo wasn't clear (right down to the bit about enclosed structures, etc.).

__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.

Deus Irae

The memo has no authority. The rule is what matters.

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

richpats

I think if Belichick believed that sideline videotaping was within the rules, he knew he was taking a risk with his own interpretation. When you play with fire.....

BPF

It seems to me that other coaches interpreted the rule the same way BB did, since Magini was the only one to turn him in. BB has been coaching in the league a very long time and if this has been standard practice that means a lot of coaches allowed this videotaping to go on in their stadiums.

richpats

Of course a coach would like that interpretation, because it circumvents the rule. Whether other coaches were OK with it or not, it was still a rule violation. I do suspect it was something that went on in the league though, probably why the league issued the memo.

PatriotsReign

You're right richpats, Belichik did break a rule. And has paid the price for it. He never owed anyone any answers regarding his interpretation, his arrogance or his slyness...he owes answers to no one.

Goodell dealt with it and that issue is over and done with. Just becaus the media won't leave it alone doesn't mean it's not finished. the only reason the media has kept on this is because BB wouldn't give them any answers..."We've moved onto the Chargers...anyone want to talk about the Chargers?"

Why we're still debating if he broke a rule or if his interpretation was reasonable is irrelevant now...it's over. This issue can't be re-opened unless Walsh has something. If he does not, it's over... for good.

upstater1

Your statement is a tautology. The rule the Patriots supposedly broke says it DOES matter if they gained an advantage during the game. It says so right in the very rule you're citing. Sounds to me like you haven't read it.

richpats

But how could the NFL prove if an advantage was gained OR how could the Pats possibly prove that an advantage was NOT gained? Since it's impossible either way, the only aspect that can be enforced is the action itself (i.e. videotaping).