JoeSixPat

I'm not sure what's up here, but we've all seen the rule, the manual, and the memo.

All are perfectly clear that taping is allowed in the appropriate locations and conditions.

The rules set by the NFL are VERY clear about that.

If Goodell or his spokesmen are deciding to change that on the fly, in an effort to avoid negative press for having rules that allow taping of signals, then THAT in turn should be a major story and scandal.

Teams are required to follow the rules. They cannot be required to follow whatever daily interpretation that the Commissioner or his spokespeople might have, depending on whether they think its the answer the public might want to hear.

Note that Mike Reiss today asked for clarification on this matter from a league spokesman - and even went so far as to illustrate an appropriate location from which taping could be conducted that was consistent with the rules set by the NFL.

The response he recieved was that taping of signals is illegal REGARDLESS of location - even though the rules set by the NFL say otherwise.

I'm hoping he or some other member of the media challenges the Commissioner's office on this. If they mean "regardless of location" they need to say "regardless of location" in the rules.

The rules currently say otherwise, and given a chance to clarify that in 2006, the NFL reaffirmed that taping was allowed in different locations.

Mike Reiss' Q&A on taping

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Hardboiled

Baffling.

One would think the NFL would pull out or invent a definition of "coaching video" or "game video" and hide behind that.

Instead of "because it is."

Strange how we've been bombarded with page 105 and the Anderson memo, but nothing else to say that taping coaches' hand signals is prohibited.

I hoped Reiss responded "and that is not based upon the Anderson memo, but something else, right?"

In another thead someone mentioned a Reiss converstaion with a NFL person who said it's always been prohibited, just never enforced. That doesn't even make sense. How has it been prohibited? A document? Word of mouth? thought travel? Vulca Mind Melds?

Why can't a NFL person just say when it became prohibited? Jimmy Johnson's description of his taping appears to be within the rules. Just say so.

Didn't Goodell say "longstanding rules" ? He must have be referring to something. The NFL can't document that?

JoeSixPat

What this comes down to is that teams that follow the rules 100% to the letter of the law can find that Goodell has changed the rule on a whim (or in reality, because he wants to avoid being embarrassed in public).

So they might as well scrap the entire rulebook and just let Goodell decide on a daily basis what rules exist and how he wants to enforce them against which team.

I'm enbellishing to a degree but that's the precedent Goodell is setting here - he's not just judge jury and executioner - he's taken away all authority on setting rules away from the NFL owners - and they are willing to stand for it.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Iron Helmet

Before the memo came out the rule was very unclear. Typcially, ambiguous language in interpreted to the detriment of the drafter. Sooooo, how is video taping material that is NOT used during the playing of a game, that is not AIDING a team during the game 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."

Hardboiled

Iron,

That was all cleared up with the 2006 memo that either:

a) prohibited taping of any type from certain locations

or


b) prohibited taping of any type from all locations

What's so hard to understand? The memo is CLEAR.

Iron Helmet

My subject line says PRE-MEMO...Post memo is also debatable, but pre-memo is what I am wondering about. Capish?

Iron Helmet

That the Pats were not using the video during the game (confirmed by Walsh), our pre-2006 video taping practices were LEGAL. READ THE CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS.

The tainted SB thing is CRAP. The only thing that you can call tainted is the 2006 season and the first quarter of the Jets game in 07.

No one is going to tell me the NFL was unaware of our taping practices from 2000-2006. Our guys were in plain view. Coaches were waving back to the cameras. The NFL's lack of clarification and or action is an indication of legality. If I blow by a state trooper doing 55mph for 6 years and never get a ticket, I think I can assume that I am in compliance with the law. Now that we have more information and the speculation is over, lets get the story straight.

Hardboiled

Sorry Iron, I guess you didn't understand the tenor of my reply. I suggest you read this thread or the many before it.

upstater1

No sports writer has to take that into account because A-hole Goodell said he never bought BB's interpretation, and in fact the A-Hole commish took "Matt's" word over BB's in this case.

Therefore, all sports writers conclude that taping before 2006 was illegal as well.

This is all on Goodell.

JoePats

Probably true. With the next step being BB's take of "Can a memo override the league bylaws?" He was undoubtedly doubting that after the instances of 2006 (specifically the Jets at Gillette) that merited nary a blip on the radar screen.

Either way the memo is clear. The media's take on the advantages gained by violating this memo is asinine.