John Harbaugh is a cry baby

[crew1954]

And blowing other teams out while running up the score on the likes of the hapless Buffalo Bills in a scorched earth campaign helped the team anymore than simply pointing out that it was a simple rules infraction and not cheating would have?

Oh, and for the record, I'm in favor of playing until the whistle. I just fail to see the logic behind panning bringing up the FACTS in the face of pressure because "it wouldn't have helped the team" and not panning what he actually did as a response to SpyGate.

I liked that. As a Pats fan it was delicious to watch the other supposedly pro players just humiliated, Spygate or not, but even more tasty with the knowledge that there was a mission.

 

[Yehoodi]

It still boggles my mind that people are so misinformed (a nice way of saying stupid). Filming Defensive signals did not become against the rules until the 2007 season. So why would there be an asterisk for the 2001,2003 & 2004 Super Bowls seasons ? It was legal for ALL teams to film defensive signals during those seasons, so how exactly did the Patriots cheat or get an upper hand on other teams during those years ?

Really people, it doesn't take an Einstein to understand this stuff. It's kind of like the morons who want to ban Barry Bonds and others for taking steroids. Steroids didn't become illegal in baseball until after the 2004 season when they first started testing players for it and giving them suspensions starting in 2005. Therefore, anything done prior to that was not against MLB rules.

sorry to burst your bubble there Scott, but you call people misinformed yet you go on to state misiformation yourself . . .

the video taping of opposing coaches was against the NFL rules long before the 2007 . . . that is why we got such a big fine . . .

furthermore, the location of the taping was irrelevant as the taping of the same was against the rules regardless of the location so long as said location was accessible to the team . . . putting in another way . . . anywhere in which the team has access (i.e the entire stadium) a team can not film from that location . . . so the sidelines, or the stands as some have mentioned, is a prohibited location to tape from . . .

the sole issue come down to the interpertation of the words "during the playing of a game" and whether that prohibition meant only the playing of the present game or a future game . . . for me reading the language of the rule when i read it back in 2007 it really meant the the playing of the game in which the taping was made, as opposed to one who would not use it and archive for some other reason which include a future game . . . if the rule meant any game the language would of said . . . "during the playing of any game"

. . . and i agree with BB in that he was trying to skirt the rules and not use it in the instant game and archive and therefore get around the rule which he interperted (i think correctly) as only prohibiting the film's used on the day that it was taken, but did not prohibit future use of some kind . . .

in the aftermath of the witch hunt that went on late Sept, 2007, I think Goodell (and the competition committee) felt the pressure to have a hanging as there was a very anger crowd outside the sheriff's office and it is easier to take the broaded interpertation and say it covers all games and thus BB is in violation, as opposed to step on the porch of the sheriff's office and tell the angry crowd "nothing was done that violated a rule as he did not use it for the playing of the same game as the taping so we'll gonna let him go free and you all can go home now" . . . sadly the narrower, and i believe correct, interpertation meant only to prohibit the instant game, but the crowd wanted blood . . .

so that Spygate, it was not an issue of only a few games in 06 or 07, but a broad interpertation of an old rule, that was reemphasized in a 2006 memo, and include BB's tenor at NE . . . it simply came down to a simple interpertation. . .

 

[upstater1]

sorry to burst your bubble there Scott, but you call people misinformed yet you go on to state misiformation yourself . . .

the video taping of opposing coaches was against the NFL rules long before the 2007 . . . that is why we got such a big fine . . .

furthermore, the location of the taping was irrelevant as the taping of the same was against the rules regardless of the location so long as said location was accessible to the team . . . putting in another way . . . anywhere in which the team has access (i.e the entire stadium) a team can not film from that location . . . so the sidelines, or the stands as some have mentioned, is a prohibited location to tape from . . .

the sole issue come down to the interpertation of the words "during the playing of a game" and whether that prohibition meant only the playing of the present game or a future game . . . for me reading the language of the rule when i read it back in 2007 it really meant the the playing of the game in which the taping was made, as opposed to one who would not use it and archive for some other reason which include a future game . . . if the rule meant any game the language would of said . . . "during the playing of any game"

. . . and i agree with BB in that he was trying to skirt the rules and not use it in the instant game and archive and therefore get around the rule which he interperted (i think correctly) as only prohibiting the film's used on the day that it was taken, but did not prohibit future use of some kind . . .

in the aftermath of the witch hunt that went on late Sept, 2007, I think Goodell (and the competition committee) felt the pressure to have a hanging as there was a very anger crowd outside the sheriff's office and it is easier to take the broaded interpertation and say it covers all games and thus BB is in violation, as opposed to step on the porch of the sheriff's office and tell the angry crowd "nothing was done that violated a rule as he did not use it for the playing of the same game as the taping so we'll gonna let him go free and you all can go home now" . . . sadly the narrower, and i believe correct, interpertation meant only to prohibit the instant game, but the crowd wanted blood . . .

so that Spygate, it was not an issue of only a few games in 06 or 07, but a broad interpertation of an old rule, that was reemphasized in a 2006 memo, and include BB's tenor at NE . . . it simply came down to a simple interpertation. . .

You're correcting a guy's misinformation with misinformation. There was never any rule against taping opposing coaches and there still isn't.

 

[Kontradiction]

I liked that. As a Pats fan it was delicious to watch the other supposedly pro players just humiliated, Spygate or not, but even more tasty with the knowledge that there was a mission.

I loved it too. I'm just interested in hearing his explanation for why that was any better of a response for the team than coming out swinging in his initial presser would have been.

 

[Ring 6]

He comes from Buffalo. State of New York. it's a very special part of the world that you've apparently been lucky enough to avoid. There's basically no reason for it to exist, so the inferiority complex isn't surprising.

The State of NY has no reason to exist? It must be so hard to be so much better than everyone else.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Part of the problem is that there are by-laws and memos which seem to contradict each other; some of that is due to their being poorly worded and therefore not very clear. There is also the question of how a memo can supersede league by-laws, as opposed to rule changes being only enacted after a vote of the owners. All that was exacerbated by Goodell's explanation for the penalty, which completely ignored those rules and by-laws.

The end result is that both sides have ammunition to back up their argument - and therefore neither side has incentive to say 'you're right, I'm wrong'.

 

[Ring 6]

And blowing other teams out while running up the score on the likes of the hapless Buffalo Bills in a scorched earth campaign helped the team anymore than simply pointing out that it was a simple rules infraction and not cheating would have?

It certainly seemed to keep them focussed on the task at hand.

Oh, and for the record, I'm in favor of playing until the whistle. I just fail to see the logic behind panning bringing up the FACTS in the face of pressure because "it wouldn't have helped the team" and not panning what he actually did as a response to SpyGate.

Its kind of simple really. He made a statement and moved on focussing on the footballl games ahead of him.
I'm not sure what you think it would have done for the 2007 team, the one he was coaching at the moment, for him to give it more publicity than it got.

His responsbility at the time was to lessen the distraction to the team, not to fight a PR war.

 

[Yehoodi]

You're correcting a guy's misinformation with misinformation. There was never any rule against taping opposing coaches and there still isn't.

you are not seriously trying to say that there was no prohition against taping opposing coaches? . . . how do you tape opposing defensive signals without taping the coaches who make those signals ? ? ? I mean please, these kind of statements are missing the obivous . . .

the said memo reads as follows:

That was re-emphasized in a memo sent Sept. 6 to NFL head coaches and general managers. In it, Ray Anderson, the league's executive vice president of football operations, wrote:"Videotaping 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."

Belichick draws $500,000 fine, but avoids suspension - NFL - ESPN

 

[Ring 6]

you are not seriously trying to say that there was no prohition against taping opposing coaches? . . . how do you tape opposing defensive signals without taping the coaches who make those signals ? ? ? I mean please, these kind of statements are missing the obivous . . .

the said memo reads as follows:

That was re-emphasized in a memo sent Sept. 6 to NFL head coaches and general managers. In it, Ray Anderson, the league's executive vice president of football operations, wrote:"Videotaping 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."

Belichick draws $500,000 fine, but avoids suspension - NFL - ESPN

The act of taping and the content taped was 100% legal. The location taped from was not, depending on the meaning of for use in that game. And that is an EXCERPT from the memo which leaves out the caveat that it is illegal if used for that game.

 

[Ring 6]

Part of the problem is that there are by-laws and memos which seem to contradict each other; some of that is due to their being poorly worded and therefore not very clear. There is also the question of how a memo can supersede league by-laws, as opposed to rule changes being only enacted after a vote of the owners. All that was exacerbated by Goodell's explanation for the penalty, which completely ignored those rules and by-laws.

The end result is that both sides have ammunition to back up their argument - and therefore neither side has incentive to say 'you're right, I'm wrong'.

There is nothing anywhere that says the act of taping opponents coaches giving signals is against the law. There is no ammunition to back up that that is right. The distinction of course is the means (location) of doing so.

 

[Yehoodi]

Part of the problem is that there are by-laws and memos which seem to contradict each other; some of that is due to their being poorly worded and therefore not very clear. There is also the question of how a memo can supersede league by-laws, as opposed to rule changes being only enacted after a vote of the owners. All that was exacerbated by Goodell's explanation for the penalty, which completely ignored those rules and by-laws.

The end result is that both sides have ammunition to back up their argument - and therefore neither side has incentive to say 'you're right, I'm wrong'.

agreed, it was kind of a mess . . . I think the biggest problem was that BB was correct in that he found a loop pole in the rule, specifically the archiving of the footage and not using it during the game in which he was taping . . . and which was therefore in compliance with the rule . . . the the NFL should of done, in a normal world, was not to penalties the pats, amend the rules to say the "present game or any future game" and move on from there . . .

. . . but as I stated above there was a linch mob outside Sheriff Goodell office and they want to linch BB or burn the town, and Sheriff Goodell was not about to try to explain the subtles of the loop pole in the rule . . . and it was easiest to just hand over the prison to the natives . . .

this also explains why BB did what he did, fans of other teams called him arrogant and some in house fans called him stupid for risking his legacy, but if one is complying with the rules, in one's eyes, one is not arrogant or stupid, just complying with the rules . . .

I remember reading the rule back in 2007 and it talked about in game stuff, i.e you can't mess with the other teams head sets, he cant video tape and use it in the same game (only stills can be used), you can't bugged the other side, and so on and so on, but all of the stuff and prohited stuff deal with things that were going to be reused during the instant game . . . so the rule and the language, "during the playing of the game" really meant the instant game as it qualified things that were talking about in game usage . . .

so this is how i have always looked at Spygate . . . we had a rule that deal with prohibiting things during the playing of that game, BB was just archiving it for future reference (and therefore was not arrogant and stupid) and Goodell got caught with a linch mob outside his office and took the safest road . . .

 

[Yehoodi]

The act of taping and the content taped was 100% legal. The location taped from was not, depending on the meaning of for use in that game. And that is an EXCERPT from the memo which leaves out the caveat that it is illegal if used for that game.

I had to read your post a few times and not sure, are you saying the act of taping is legal? . . . if you are then you are incorrect . . . the rule prohibits it . . . i dont know how to double post so i reenter the text

That was re-emphasized in a memo sent Sept. 6 to NFL head coaches and general managers. In it, Ray Anderson, the league's executive vice president of football operations, wrote:"Videotaping 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."

yes you are correct in that this excerpt does not include what you can do with it, but it does say you cant do it . . .one has to look at the actual rule which says "yada yada yada [and you cant do this to gain an advantage] "during the playing of the game." . . .

we do know this much tho that video taping was prohibited on at least one level (being reused in the instant game) the only grey area was if this prohibition against video taping also encompassed usage beyond the ingame usage . . .

.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The State of NY has no reason to exist? It must be so hard to be so much better than everyone else.

Have you ever been to Buffalo? It objectively sucks. It's a crap city with no purpose.

I understand that probably 10,000 of your posts prominently involve ridiculous straw men, but this is a stretch even by your standards.

 

[Ring 6]

Have you ever been to Buffalo? It objectively sucks. It's a crap city with no purpose.

There are about 20,000,000 people in NY and 270,000 of them are in Buffalo.
Yes I have been to Buffalo. Its not a great place to live or visit, but its hardly worthy of stating that those people, not to mention the other 19+ million in the rest of the state have no reason to exist.
You can't seriously think you are better than those people because they live on a depressed economic area. In fact, they are genuinely nice people, very likely nicer people than whereever you are preaching from with your opinion they are not worthy human beings.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There are about 20,000,000 people in NY and 270,000 of them are in Buffalo.
Yes I have been to Buffalo. Its not a great place to live or visit, but its hardly worthy of stating that those people, not to mention the other 19+ million in the rest of the state have no reason to exist.
You can't seriously think you are better than those people because they live on a depressed economic area. In fact, they are genuinely nice people, very likely nicer people than whereever you are preaching from with your opinion they are not worthy human beings.

Right on, sport. I just remembered how pointless it is to debate literally anything with Captain Strawman himself. You live for these petty back-and-forths, I don't, so I'm just going to end this now.

 

[Ring 6]

Have you ever been to Buffalo?

I understand that probably 10,000 of your posts prominently involve ridiculous straw men, but this is a stretch even by your standards.

Do you know what a straw man is? It is responding as if your statement or argunment is something you never said.
How can ASKING YOU A QUESTION "The State of NY has no reason to exist?"

After you say:

State of New York. it's a very special part of the world that you've apparently been lucky enough to avoid. There's basically no reason for it to exist

It is basically verbatim and an attempt to see if you really think you are that much better than 20,000,000 people who happen to live somewhere different than you, causing you to look down your nose at them.

That is an attmept to find out if you are really as ingorant as your post implies, not a strawman.

 

[Ring 6]

Right on, sport. I just remembered how pointless it is to debate literally anything with Captain Strawman himself. You live for these petty back-and-forths, I don't, so I'm just going to end this now.

It would be much more appropriate for you to accept responsibility that your comment was ignorant.

 

[Ring 6]

I had to read your post a few times and not sure, are you saying the act of taping is legal?

It is 100% legal. There is no restriction whatsoever in taping anything in the stadium, providing it is done from the right location.

. . . if you are then you are incorrect . . . the rule prohibits it . . . i dont know how to double post so i reenter the text

That is totally incorrect. You are using an excerpt that does not include the critical part, which states the location is the issue.

That was re-emphasized in a memo sent Sept. 6 to NFL head coaches and general managers. In it, Ray Anderson, the league's executive vice president of football operations, wrote:"Videotaping 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."

You are taking an excerpt, not the entire statement. It also stated 'for use during that game'

yes you are correct in that this excerpt does not include what you can do with it, but it does say you cant do it . . .one has to look at the actual rule which says "yada yada yada [and you cant do this to gain an advantage] "during the playing of the game." . . .

How can it be against the rules to tape when there is an explicit rule describing allowed location?

we do know this much tho that video taping was prohibited on at least one level (being reused in the instant game) the only grey area was if this prohibition against video taping also encompassed usage beyond the ingame usage . . .

.

The rule explicitly said for use in that game. If you wish to ignore the parts of the rule that you don't like, you will continue to make incorrect comments.

 

[Mr.Kraft]

and 18 pages later in this thread let see what Harbaugh thinks

 

[Raymond]

agreed, it was kind of a mess . . . I think the biggest problem was that BB was correct in that he found a loop pole in the rule, specifically the archiving of the footage and not using it during the game in which he was taping . . . and which was therefore in compliance with the rule . . . the the NFL should of done, in a normal world, was not to penalties the pats, amend the rules to say the "present game or any future game" and move on from there . . .

. . . but as I stated above there was a linch mob outside Sheriff Goodell office and they want to linch BB or burn the town, and Sheriff Goodell was not about to try to explain the subtles of the loop pole in the rule . . . .

I am unable to grasp your point with these references to loops and poles.:ugh: