Someone explain to me why what the Pats did was sacrilege?

[maverick4]

Someone please explain this to me, because I do not understand why people are able to label Belichick and the Pats as these classless cheaters, or how this threatens the integrity of the league?

Here is my example. In baseball, the catchers and managers cover their mouths during discussions. Why? Because it is an unspoken rule that everyone TRIES to steal signs, and the players respond accordingly. In the NFL, coaches routinely cover their mouths while calling in the plays. Why? Because it is an unspoken rule that everyone TRIES to steal the play call, and the coaches respond accordingly. Last year the Dolphins used audio surveillance to steal Brady's line calls, and I don't recall nearly as much media frenzy.

If it is determined that trying to steal calls is punishable, then isn't the entire NFL screwed? Every team is screwed. From what I understand, the violation is videotaping, but how is that way worse than simply having binoculars like every other team has, and how does videotaping even help a team during the game? Seems like it's more for post-game analysis, kind of like how everyone videotapes the play on field.

 

[patpatriot]

Someone please explain this to me, because I do not understand why people are able to label Belichick and the Pats as these classless cheaters, or how this threatens the integrity of the league?

Because Americans love to tear down their heroes.

 

[oldskool138]

The Pats (or BB more specifically) are in trouble because they had a guy with Pats credentials filming where he wasn't supposed to be filming. That's it.

 

[Grizzafted]

The whole point is that it's not that big of a deal.

But this is a great chance for half of the known world to settle a score with Bill Belichick and try to throw the Patriots off their game. I mean, exactly, people's jobs are at stake, so don't you think Mike Tomlin, LT, and Jeff Fischer have a vested interest in making a huge mountain out of this molehill? And for the media ... well, it's a compelling story.

I think one thing that's huge that came out today is that the tape wasn't used at all for the Jets game. They took it in the first quarter, so the offensive shelacking we put on them was completely legitimate.

Beyond that... we're going to take our lumps, lose a 2nd round pick, and in a month people will be saying (privately), "of course you don't bet the outcome of a game on a few hand signals, and the truth is that it probably didn't make much of a difference for them anyway."

I think this is an important moment for sports journalism. I'd really like to see some kind of serious, in-depth piece about how useful this really is and how many teams do it.

It's already starting to blow over today, especially with like I said the revelation that the Pats performance on Sunday was completely legit.

 

[1BoltFan Here4Fun]

Someone please explain this to me, because I do not understand why people are able to label Belichick and the Pats as these classless cheaters, or how this threatens the integrity of the league?

If it is determined that trying to steal calls is punishable, then isn't the entire NFL screwed? Every team is screwed. From what I understand, the violation is videotaping, but how is that way worse than simply having binoculars like every other team has, and how does videotaping even help a team during the game? Seems like it's more for post-game analysis, kind of like how everyone videotapes the play on field.

That is pretty much the point. Anything that tarnishes the NFL in the public view is something that Goddell has to respond to.

The Jets made a stink about it and the NFL had to respond. Now it is a story the national media will beat to death. It may suck, but you can't run from the story.

In my understanding of what I've seen, the whole issue was the presence of the video camera on the sidelines and the fact that the guy tried to enter the Pats locker room at half time. Otherwise, its business as usual.

 

[maverick4]

The whole point is that it's not that big of a deal.

Videotaping on the sidelines doesn't give you an in-game edge, it may give an edge the same way that videotaping the play on the field may help you, by looking at it after the game and noticing tendencies (which all teams do).

I do not understand how the violation of videotaping is somehow extended into being called cheating or threatening the integrity of football or the NFL. By extending Belichick's violation to talking about cheating or integrity of the game, it creates a serious philosophical argument about what kind of preparation is permissable in football, and whether even videotaping the play on the field is considered cheating.

 

[1BoltFan Here4Fun]

Because Americans love to tear down their heroes.

hahahahahahaha. As IF BB is my hero... (sorry man, I couldn't resist)

 

[Grogan's neck roll]

Videotaping on the sidelines doesn't give you an in-game edge, it may give an edge the same way that videotaping the play on the field may help you, by looking at it after the game and noticing tendencies (which all teams do).

I do not understand how the violation of videotaping is somehow extended into being called cheating or threatening the integrity of football or the NFL. By extending Belichick's violation to talking about cheating or integrity of the game, it creates a serious philosophical argument about what kind of preparation is permissable in football, and whether even videotaping the play on the field is considered cheating.

It does give you an advantage, it's been covered in other threads, stop saying this. You can review the tape at half time, compare it to polaroids of defensive formations prior to the snap, and after the snap, and tell from there what the signs mean. There is plenty of time, no need to edit the tape, you turn on the camera when the coach is about to signal, you turn it off when he's done signalling. Not that complicated.

This isn't a "sacrilege", it's against the rules, it's an attempt to gain a competitive edge. Yes, others do it, the Pats got caught. But there is no denying they did something wrong, I don't subscribe to the "everyone else is doing it", I wouldn't let my son get away with that logic, never mind a grown man who knows the rules of his profession.

 

[maverick4]

Check out this recent ESPN article:
----
http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/story?id=3015550

Back in early August, we polled SportsNation on a plethora of issues regarding cheating in sports as part of a sitewide initiative called Cheatwave. In fact, we even took it off the field and asked how much you cheat in real life. If we ever find out which of you are in the 37% that take food that isn't yours from the communal refrigerator, expect a knock on the door.
In the light of the recent developments concerning the New England Patriots spying on the New York Jets and stealing their defensive signals, we decided to look back at what you told us before the season began. What did you think of the scenario when it was laid out to you as a hypothetical?

Look at the results below and join the Conversation to talk to other fans about what exactly constitutes cheating in the NFL.

The following results are from polls conducted from Aug. 9-10. To see complete list of NFL questions asked, click here.

A LITTLE EXTRA PEEK
Home teams often place video cameras on the sideline to record the opposing team's signals. The cameras are placed on the sideline under the guise that they provide extra game tape for the home team's coaches. When road teams attempt to get credentials for their sideline cameramen, the applications are usually rejected.
69.6% Cheating
30.4% Gamesmanship
Total Votes: 23,606

Your opinion on this issue hasn't changed. After it was announced that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell found the Patriots violated league rules and is considering severe sanctions, SportsNation weighed in with 68% agreeing that the Pats deserved some kind of punishment. Not surprisingly, the voters from Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine didn't agree.

SPYMASTER
Most teams send a scout to watch the game of the next opponent. The scout sits in the press box and tries to pick up signals from the other team. The team being scouted, however, will often have a coach on the sideline wearing a headset that is not plugged in, and he gives bogus signals to throw off the scout, as well as the opposing team.
90.1% Gamesmanship
9.9% Cheating
Total Votes: 23,606

So cheating is against the rules, but trying to embarrass the cheaters is perfectly OK. We like where you are going with this one, SportsNation! What if the Patriots had been videotaping bogus signs and found themselves in the wrong formations which led to a loss? Would we still be clamoring for sanctions? Right now, 32% of SportsNation feels the Patriots should lose multiple draft picks and pay a fine. Is that just because their actions might have paid off?

SIGNAL INTERCEPT
After the Dolphins defeated the Patriots 21-0 in Miami last season, Dolphins linebacker Zach Thomas claimed he knew the Patriots' audibles. He wasn't kidding. Teams sometimes will place microphones on their defensive players to tape the opposing team's audibles. The team then matches the audibles with the play the offense runs. In the shutout loss to Miami, the Patriots played their worst game of the season, as Tom Brady was sacked four times. Coincidence?
50.6% Gamesmanship
49.4% Cheating
Total Votes: 23,606

Wait a minute, SportsNation! Let's get this straight. Videotaping signals is bad, but audio is good? So if Peyton Manning walks up to the line and says "Blue 42, Red 38, Green 34", and you know exactly what that means from having taped it previously and frantically compared it to past plays, that's acceptable? How is that different from video?

We want to hear more of you feedback on the Patriots' situation, these poll results and anything else you have to say about cheating in the NFL. Join the Conversation below to sound off.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Obviously, this story is getting more traction because it's the patriots not the cardinals.

And obviously, it's not "sacrelege."

But man, are we so blinded by our desire to want it to be something that we can't see it for what it is? The league put a rule into place. They emphasized it. They did it, because they thought that it gave teams a competitive advantage.

Now the league is investigating whether the patriots broke that rule. If they did, though, they've done something the league has decided you shouldn't do because it gives you a competitive advantage. It's not more than that, but stripping away the hyperbole, it is that. And that's not good and not something I want my team involved in, so when Friday comes if that's what happened, I hope that Belichick and the team take it like men.

If you used a corked bat in baseball, you don't get to argue that it didn't really help you that much. Even if that's true -- and maybe it is -- it doesn't matter.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Heres the truth my friends....

NE is like the Yankees in baseball - Either you are in love with the team or you loathe them and want nothing but total destruction within the organization.

People who are NOT NE lovers of tthe team are tired of seeing NE up on top of the NFL and unfortunately the majority wins in this case at least with the upcoming punishment to be set by Goodell.

They want us cooked,done and back into the mediocre mix - or at least they are trying.

 

[maverick4]

A corked bat is a bad example, it is similar to using steroids, it affects on field performance. This is about espionage. A more comparable example would be recording audio signals like the Dolphins did to the Pats last year. So audio recording is okay, but video is not?

 

[true_patriot]

B U M P

can't allow this thread to die...

Must read ESPN article!!!

 

[Richter]

It does give you an advantage, it's been covered in other threads, stop saying this. You can review the tape at half time, compare it to polaroids of defensive formations prior to the snap, and after the snap, and tell from there what the signs mean. There is plenty of time, no need to edit the tape, you turn on the camera when the coach is about to signal, you turn it off when he's done signalling. Not that complicated.

This isn't a "sacrilege", it's against the rules, it's an attempt to gain a competitive edge. Yes, others do it, the Pats got caught. But there is no denying they did something wrong, I don't subscribe to the "everyone else is doing it", I wouldn't let my son get away with that logic, never mind a grown man who knows the rules of his profession.

Here's the thing though, even if it was so easy to do all that at halftime - you could do the same thing by hand, and it's not illegal. It's not the sign stealing, it's the camera, and that makes you wonder, why?

 

[maverick4]

you could do the same thing by hand, and it's not illegal. It's not the sign stealing, it's the camera, and that makes you wonder, why?

Exactly. If you allow binoculars or audio recording, you are simply talking about a matter of degrees of espionage. It seems a joke to call videotaping 'cheating' and 'ruining the integrity of the NFL', and then to condone lesser degrees of the same thing.

 

[Grogan's neck roll]

Here's the thing though, even if it was so easy to do all that at halftime - you could do the same thing by hand, and it's not illegal. It's not the sign stealing, it's the camera, and that makes you wonder, why?

This method relies on memory and having more than one person dedicated to the process, one to watch, the other to chart the play, and now you're raising the likelihood of human error. Videotaping is more accurate.

 

[maverick4]

Grogan, as I said before, you're arguing about various degrees of technology at this point, not whether the stealing of calls is okay.

It's stupid to say sideline videotaping is the worst thing ever, and then act like binoculars, audio recording, or videotaping of the play on field is perfectly okay.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

A corked bat is a bad example, it is similar to using steroids, it affects on field performance. This is about espionage. A more comparable example would be recording audio signals like the Dolphins did to the Pats last year. So audio recording is okay, but video is not?

I'm not denying that some cheating is worse than others. But the point about the corked bat is not to say they are the same. It's that they are both rules. You don't get to violate rules put into place to stop competitive disadvantages by saying they are dumb rules. Obviously, a substantial enough group in the NFL that gets to make the rules made them, and they made them for competitive disadvtange reasons. Arguing whether it's a good or bad rule, or necessary or not necessary one, is silly.

Let's go back to the corked bat example. Suppose Sammy Sosa goes home tonight and corks his bat. But he does a crappy job. He actually weakens the bat. So he gets a nice meaty fastball and swings really hard. If he'd had just a regular bat, he put such a nice swing on it that the ball would have gone 500 feet. But because he weakened the bat, he hits a pop up, the bat shatters, and cork balls fly all over the field.

Is it a defense that the rule's intent was to prevent getting an advantage and he actually gave himself a disadvantage? No. Is it a defense that major scientists tell you that corking bats doesn't help? No. Is it a defense that there are other things that tolerated in the league that, in one's opinion, are worse tha corked bats? No.

These are the defenses of cheaters after they are caught.

Sorry, I don't love ripping my team, and I'm not trying to rip them. As I've said in other posts, this is what it is, but not more than what it is.

This whole "we didn't gain an advantage" or "the rule is stupid" or "others do it" just sounds like classic deflection. Let's be men.

 

[maverick4]

PFAZ, I am not saying the Patriots are not guilty. They did break a rule and will probably be punished.

I am talking about just how much punishment should they receive, and how severe is the crime? It is ludicrous that people are calling the Patriots the worst cheaters ever, and talking about how this theatens the integrity of football.

If the NFL and fans basically condone stealing of signals by saying binoculars, audio recording, or videotaping of on-field play is okay, then we are merely arguing about the different levels of technology, and different levels of espionage.

Any punishment on the Pats for sideline videotaping will be tied into those other forms of espionage as well, with far reaching ramifications.

 

[Richter]

If you want to be a man, look past the ridiculous hyperbole and accusations being flung around, and judge this by the rules for what it is: a rules violation that in no way addresses competitive balance and is at best a minor infraction. Should the Patriots be punished for breaking a rule? Absolutely. Should they be regarded as cheaters and all of their accomplishments invalidated? Absolutely not, unless you're a jealous Colts/Jets/Dolphins/Chargers/Raiders/Steelers/etc... fan.