Relevant videotaping official rules and memo snippets - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

wahwho · 05-11-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats1

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...al_ruling.html

The section referring to offensive signals is Reiss paraphrasing...I was hoping for the actual quote from Goodell's statement.

JoePats · 05-11-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats1

Did anyone else notice how Anderson's memo essentially prohibits regular game taping that all teams do? That tape, as described in the rules, is accessible to the team via video printers. It's a real odd memo, if you ask me.

Yes I was thinking the same thing. That is the Pats biggest problem here in my opinion.

But of course the rule prevents taping, and uses signs as an example. It does not prevent stealing or attempting to steal signs, which is a common part of competitive athletics at all levels.

LuthierJr · 05-11-2008, 09:16 PM

I saw this posted over at the Colts forum. The poster even quoted himself and asked others to make comments on it as it went un-noticed. They still won't respond to the post.

Quote:

1. Page 105 of the Game Operations 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." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

2. 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."

So you can see that taping signals is not against the rules. It's a matter of location, and a matter of not using the tapes for the game at hand. So if the Pats were taping signals from the endzone box, or upper press box, and just using them for future games then it is legal.

Now I know people argue that they did, in fact, use the tapes for the games at hand. Maybe they did, but where is the proof? NFL officials monitor locker rooms, and clubhouse activities use to prevent this sort of thing, among other things.

Maybe the Pats are not nearly as sinister as the media is making them out to be. I hate the Pats as much as the next guy, but I think the media has overblown this situation and it's been further dragged along by a politician who has other interests at heart.

Typical of other teams fans to overlook something that does not go along with the Patriot bashing.

***pats1*** · 05-11-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoePats

Yes I was thinking the same thing. That is the Pats biggest problem here in my opinion.

But of course the rule prevents taping, and uses signs as an example. It does not prevent stealing or attempting to steal signs, which is a common part of competitive athletics at all levels.

Actually, I think the important distinction is that Anderson's memo is not a rule. Honestly, it appears to be his interpretation of the rule, because I've never seen it attributed to anything other than his memo (i.e. an official manual or rulebook).

Anderson's memo wasn't agreed upon by the management council, etc. as I'm sure all the "official" materials are. That leaves just the two rules I provided, in which taping signals has no clear fit.

And that's exactly where I think Belichick expected to wiggle out of this. Goodell obviously couldn't come out and say that the rules didn't explicitly convict the said practice, though. That would be suicide.

In other words, Anderson can say taping offensive and defensive signals is against the rules, but if it isn't in the rules, nothing he says really matters.

JoePats · 05-11-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuthierJr

I saw this posted over at the Colts forum. The poster even quoted himself and asked others to make comments on it as it went un-noticed. They still won't respond to the post.

I didn't know they used logic on Colts forums. Good job by that poster.

JoePats · 05-11-2008, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats1

Actually, I think the important distinction is that Anderson's memo is not a rule. Honestly, it appears to be his interpretation of the rule, because I've never seen it attributed to anything other than his memo (i.e. an official manual or rulebook).

Anderson's memo wasn't agreed upon by the management council, etc. as I'm sure all the "official" materials are. That leaves just the two rules I provided, in which taping signals has no clear fit.

And that's exactly where I think Belichick expected to wiggle out of this. Goodell obviously couldn't come out and say that the rules didn't explicitly convict the said practice, though. That would be suicide.

In other words, Anderson can say taping offensive and defensive signals is against the rules, but if it isn't in the rules, nothing he says really matters.

You're probably right. Just curious, are they going to re-word the rule during the offseason? Or are they going to stick to things like hair length?

***pats1*** · 05-11-2008, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoePats

You're probably right. Just curious, are they going to re-word the rule during the offseason? Or are they going to stick to things like hair length?

Nope, from everything I heard from the owners' meetings, the competition committee felt there was nothing wrong with the wording of the rule:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/118728

Quote:

The NFL's nine-member Competition Committee Thursday met with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and three league VPs for 90 minutes on the Patriots' videotaping activities, and the committee said that "taping rules would not be changed in the aftermath of the controversy," according to Branch & Bishop of the N.Y. TIMES. Titans coach and committee co-Chair Jeff Fisher: "The rules are very, very clear. There is no need to be more specific or clarify any rules whatsoever." Goodell discussed his handling of Spygate, and committee members "seemed satisfied and eager to turn the page." Giants co-Owner John Mara: "All of us have our different opinions about the Patriots, but we were all satisfied that this thing was investigated properly and that they came to the proper conclusion." Colts President Bill Polian: "It's behind us. It's time to move forward"

JoePats · 05-11-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pats1

Nope, from everything I heard from the owners' meetings, the competition committee felt there was nothing wrong with the wording of the rule:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/118728

That's ridiculous. Why would they, as you said, hinge on a memo?

***pats1*** · 05-11-2008, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoePats

That's ridiculous. Why would they, as you said, hinge on a memo?

Because they can't possibly come out and change the rules. That would imply that what the Patriots did wasn't explicitly against the rules when it happened. And there's no way the competition committee, of all committees, would want such a thing out there.

The only thing Goodell and the competition committee have going for them is the widespread belief that what the Patriots did was "spying" and/or "cheating" - and thus blatantly not allowed in the league, and against the "spirit of the rules."

JoeSixPat · 05-11-2008, 09:38 PM

Did MangIdiot follow this rule in the manual when Spygate broke?

Quote:

B. If clubs believe that violations of any of the Origination, Editing, Exchange, or Shipping rules have occurred, such violations should be brought to the attention of the Vice President of Officiating.

Seems to me Eric when crying to the media - not the VP of Officiating.

Dock him a 1st round draft pick. After all he violated the same rule in the rulebook!