Pats might just be guilty... [merged: Alleged picture]

[ursa99]

Update: Picture in post 27.

First off, I'm a huge Pats fan, live 5 miles from the stadium.

O.K...I just watched the whole game again looking for the suspect camera guy. I have a HD DVR and was able to see everything pretty clearly. Here is what I observed. The guy in question was wearing a dark green shirt and beige shorts. He did stick out for the following reasons. All the other still and video photographers were wearing orange jackets. This guy was not. More interesting was the fact that he photographed the action on the field when the Jets were on offense but when the Jets were on defense he was positioned quite near the Jets bench and pointed his camera toward Mangini and Co. It is very obvious that he was NOT photographing the game action. I saw this 5 different times. If this guy is an employee of the Pats, I afraid he and they have some explaining to do.

Lets hope there is another explanation because from what I observed it isn't looking good.

 

[Seymour93]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

At what points of the game did you see him? (Specific times)

 

[mgcolby]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

And so you expect us to believe that you could see all of this from the same video that a lot of people on this board recorded? And the TV cameras had this guy in their shots consistantly?

Sorry but I don't buy it. Although living 5 miles from the stadium makes it hard to discredit you.

 

[Sundayjack]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

First off, I'm a huge Pats fan, live 5 miles from the stadium.

O.K...I just watched the whole game again looking for the suspect camera guy. I have a HD DVR and was able to see everything pretty clearly. Here is what I observed. The guy in question was wearing a dark green shirt and beige shorts. He did stick out for the following reasons. All the other still and video photographers were wearing orange jackets. This guy was not. More interesting was the fact that he photographed the action on the field when the Jets were on offense but when the Jets were on defense he was positioned quite near the Jets bench and pointed his camera toward Mangini and Co. It is very obvious that he was NOT photographing the game action. I saw this 5 different times. If this guy is an employee of the Pats, I afraid he and they have some explaining to do.

Lets hope there is another explanation because from what I observed it isn't looking good.

The allegation is that the cameraman and the camera were on the New England sideline. You're focused on the wrong guy.

 

[letekro]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

Too innocuous to be a jets or chargers fan....ursa means bear....bears fan??

 

[ursa99]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

At 5:17 of the first quarter, the Pats are 3rd and 8 on the Jets 10 yard line there is a field level shot and you can clearly see this guy pointing his camera at Mangini. I'm extracting the video now and if I can I'll post pictures tomorrow. There are other examples but this one is the best I've seen. Like I said if this is the guy then something is amiss. If it isn't then all is well.

 

[Pujo]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

Too innocuous to be a jets or chargers fan....ursa means bear....bears fan??

Click on his name and look at his posts, maybe he's making something out of nothing and maybe he isn't, but he's a Pats fan.

 

[Keegs]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

nevermind......

 

[SVN]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

iam surprised the pats would try something like this on the road that too in nyc so blatantly that tv shots pick it up..if they did then they arent very smart

 

[kolbitr]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

Too innocuous to be a jets or chargers fan....ursa means bear....bears fan??

Hey, maybe he's an old-time Dan Hampton fan!

Of course, the last Bear to wear that number was Tank Johnson, I think.

 

[primetime]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

Usually it's the defensive coordinator throwing out the signals. That was always the way it worked with the Patriots. Romeo sent out the signals back in the day, then Mangini, now Pees. Not the head coach. Plus the guy was on the Patriots sidelines, not the Jets.

 

[ursa99]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

The allegation is that the cameraman and the camera were on the New England sideline. You're focused on the wrong guy.

Then I'm happy to be proved wrong.

 

[sarge]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

O.K...I just watched the whole game again looking for the suspect camera guy. I have a HD DVR and was able to see everything pretty clearly. Here is what I observed. The guy in question was wearing a dark green shirt and beige shorts. He did stick out for the following reasons. All the other still and video photographers were wearing orange jackets. This guy was not. More interesting was the fact that he photographed the action on the field when the Jets were on offense but when the Jets were on defense he was positioned quite near the Jets bench and pointed his camera toward Mangini and Co. It is very obvious that he was NOT photographing the game action. I saw this 5 different times. If this guy is an employee of the Pats, I afraid he and they have some explaining to do.

Lets hope there is another explanation because from what I observed it isn't looking good.

Please give specific times. Or atleast scpecific drives.

If what you say is true, I will confirm it.

 

[ursa99]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

Please give specific times. Or atleast scpecific drives.

If what you say is true, I will confirm it.

See post #6

 

[PatriotsReign]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

At 5:17 of the first quarter, the Pats are 3rd and 8 on the Jets 10 yard line there is a field level shot and you can clearly see this guy pointing his camera at Mangini. I'm extracting the video now and if I can I'll post pictures tomorrow. There are other examples but this one is the best I've seen. Like I said if this is the guy then something is amiss. If it isn't then all is well.

I guess I'd have to see exactly which rules prevent this type of behavior and in what way(s) were these rules violated.

We see guys stealing signals in baseball every game and that's supposed to be against the rules too.

 

[cubicle_6]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

The camera in question was on the Pats Sideline, not the Jets sideline as was first reported.
Still, the rule is you can't have a camera, even on your own sideline, and film the opponent's coaches.

If you're saying the cameraman in question was on the Jets sideline, you got the wrong guy. He's a Jet guy.
Hmm, maybe he was spying on us?

 

[Pats726]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

First off, I'm a huge Pats fan, live 5 miles from the stadium.

O.K...I just watched the whole game again looking for the suspect camera guy. I have a HD DVR and was able to see everything pretty clearly. Here is what I observed. The guy in question was wearing a dark green shirt and beige shorts. He did stick out for the following reasons. All the other still and video photographers were wearing orange jackets. This guy was not. More interesting was the fact that he photographed the action on the field when the Jets were on offense but when the Jets were on defense he was positioned quite near the Jets bench and pointed his camera toward Mangini and Co. It is very obvious that he was NOT photographing the game action. I saw this 5 different times. If this guy is an employee of the Pats, I afraid he and they have some explaining to do.

Lets hope there is another explanation because from what I observed it isn't looking good.

so post a still pic of the guy???

 

[Sundayjack]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

Then I'm happy to be proved wrong.

From ESPN, just to support the point:

NFL security confiscated a video camera and its tape from a New England Patriots employee on the team's sideline during Sunday's game against the Jets in a suspected spying incident, sources said.

The camera and its tape were placed in a sealed box and forwarded to the league office for investigation, the sources said.

"The rule is that 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," the league said in a statement from spokesman Greg Aiello. "Clubs have specifically been reminded in the past that the videotaping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals on the sidelines is prohibited.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

First off, I'm a huge Pats fan, live 5 miles from the stadium.

O.K...I just watched the whole game again looking for the suspect camera guy. I have a HD DVR and was able to see everything pretty clearly. Here is what I observed. The guy in question was wearing a dark green shirt and beige shorts. He did stick out for the following reasons. All the other still and video photographers were wearing orange jackets. This guy was not. More interesting was the fact that he photographed the action on the field when the Jets were on offense but when the Jets were on defense he was positioned quite near the Jets bench and pointed his camera toward Mangini and Co. It is very obvious that he was NOT photographing the game action. I saw this 5 different times. If this guy is an employee of the Pats, I afraid he and they have some explaining to do.

Lets hope there is another explanation because from what I observed it isn't looking good.

Could you please say WHERE he was on the Pats sideline so that I may look for this person as well....

OH, and just out of curiosity, how can you tell when MOST of the footage of the game was broadcast from the Pats side of the field and most of their bench wasn't on the tape for most of the game...

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Pats might just be guilty...

Could you please say WHERE he was on the Pats sideline so that I may look for this person as well....

He acknowledged his mistake in post #12.

Maybe this was the Jets taping themselves for those late, lonely meetings in the Meadowlands.