Shockt327
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,406
- Reaction score
- 656
Umm.... I can see from your post that reading comprehension isn't one of your major skill sets.
This part should jump right out at you: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant......." What that says is that you can't use anything but a polaroid or field telephone to relay the opponent's signals to your coaching staff DURING THE GAME IN WHICH THEY ARE COLLECTED. The Patriots never did that. They collected video of opponents signals (just like every other club does.did) for use in a data file of known signals, FOR FUTURE USE.
Calm down. I'm citing Article IX, Section 9.1(c)(14) as a response to the common fan-assumption that there is no rule against spying and it's only about camera location. Even if you think Belichick could've argued his way around it, it's still a rule about spying. Even if you think Belichick is 100% right....it's still a rule about spying. My criticism is against people who frequently argue that Spygate was about camera placement and not spying. It's an argument that just isn't true.
The Patriots never used this system in-game, and were never accused by the league of doing such a thing. The only people who have claimed such a thing are trolls from losing franchises, and repotards/mediots who are trying to hack their way to some sort of name recognition.
Yes, I agree. Again, I'd point to the Scouts Inc article which does the best job of pointing out how the tape is simply used to stream-line the film breakdown process so you can identify coverages. It's not about knowing anything pre-snap, in-game.
So, nice try, and thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
Yeah, I must really hate the Patriots just because I think the "camera placement" argument is a weak response to Spygate criticizers.
Oh, and apparently I also support mob lynching, too.
Last edited: