BB's interpretation?

[Bobs My Uncle]

Reference. BB's statement released earlier.

“Earlier this week, I spoke with Commissioner Goodell about a videotaping procedure during last Sunday’s game and my interpretation of the rules. At this point, we have not been notified of the league’s ruling. Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league’s decision, I will have further comment.”

Axiom 1. Bill Belichick is a very smart man

Axiom 2. Bill Belichick is anal when it comes to being properly prepared for almost any eventuality on the football field.

Axiom 3. Bill Belichick has forgotten more about NFL rules and regulations than most people in the NFL know.

In light of the above axioms and issued statement by BB, I can only assume that BB went into this game knowingly believing that putting the cameraman on the sidelines wasn't against league policy.

Now this would explain away the bizarre nature of why, after being wearned about this previously and after apparently reading the memo that went out to the league touching on this subject, BB still went ahead and put that cameraman out there.

What are the other possibilites?

1) BB had issues with the wording previously and never received clarification on the matter and this was his way of getting it answered.

2) BB basically said to Godell "screw your policy I don't like it"

3) BB made a mistake and forgot about the policy and is covering his *****.

4) BB wanted to mess with Mangini's miniscule mind.

5) Fill in the blank

 

[mgteich]

I vote for 2

Reference. BB's statement released earlier.



Axiom 1. Bill Belichick is a very smart man

Axiom 2. Bill Belichick is anal when it comes to being properly prepared for almost any eventuality on the football field.

Axiom 3. Bill Belichick has forgotten more about NFL rules and regulations than most people in the NFL know.

In light of the above axioms and issued statement by BB, I can only assume that BB went into this game knowingly believing that putting the cameraman on the sidelines wasn't against league policy.

Now this would explain away the bizarre nature of why, after being wearned about this previously and after apparently reading the memo that went out to the league touching on this subject, BB still went ahead and that cameraman out there.

What are the other possibilites?

1) BB had issues with the wording previously and never received clarification on the matter and this was his way of getting it answered.

2) BB basically said to Godell "screw your policy I don't like it"

3) BB made a mistake and forgot about the policy and is covering his *****.

4) BB wanted to mess with Mangini's miniscule mind.

5) Fill in the blank

 

[Kdo5]

I vote for 2

How about the answer...the Pats got caught and will take their punishment?



And mgteich you seriously seem to have an issue with Belichick. It even seems like you want him suspended every time you suggest the possibility.

 

[aluminum seats]

Reference. BB's statement released earlier.




Axiom 1. Bill Belichick is a very smart man

Axiom 2. Bill Belichick is anal when it comes to being properly prepared for almost any eventuality on the football field.

Axiom 3. Bill Belichick has forgotten more about NFL rules and regulations than most people in the NFL know.

In light of the above axioms and issued statement by BB, I can only assume that BB went into this game knowingly believing that putting the cameraman on the sidelines wasn't against league policy.

Now this would explain away the bizarre nature of why, after being wearned about this previously and after apparently reading the memo that went out to the league touching on this subject, BB still went ahead and put that cameraman out there.

What are the other possibilites?

1) BB had issues with the wording previously and never received clarification on the matter and this was his way of getting it answered.

2) BB basically said to Godell "screw your policy I don't like it"

3) BB made a mistake and forgot about the policy and is covering his *****.

4) BB wanted to mess with Mangini's miniscule mind.

5) Fill in the blank

This lays it out pretty well, I think. The only "rational" explanation if this turns out to be true is, I guess, an arrogance on Belichick's part. But his brilliance leads me to think there's a CHANCE that nothing will come from this--that in some way, he will turn out to be technically right on what the Pats did.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Well, here's the bottom line. If you see a magic trick, and you want to know how it's done, ask yourself a very straightforward question: "What's the only way it could have been done?" Often, this will give you something very close to the correct answer, no matter how improbable it seems.

You can apply a similar analysis to these sorts of issues. When someone is in a jam, you try to figure out all the facts and then sort through all the possible responses. When you land one that theoretically can fit, you sell it. This is what lawyers do, for example.

When this story first broke and the details came out, I asked myself what was the likely response (assuming it wasn't just "we did it.") The only one I could come up with was "the rule isn't clear." BB's statement seems to imply this is where they are going.

Now, I've expressed a cynical view about how they came up with that defense, but the "interpretation" issue does seem to fit pretty comfortably with the one other fact we know here. This video taping was done openly, notoriously, on the road, and against a team that knows we do it and even knows the guy who did it. This seems so brazen, and Belichick is smart enough, that it really does suggest he thought there was a loophole in the language of this mysterious league "directive."

I wish we had the language of the "directive" or rule.

 

[Bobs My Uncle]

Well, here's the bottom line. If you see a magic trick, and you want to know how it's done, ask yourself a very straightforward question: "What's the only way it could have been done?" Often, this will give you something very close to the correct answer, no matter how improbable it seems.

You can apply a similar analysis to these sorts of issues. When someone is in a jam, you try to figure out all the facts and then sort through all the possible responses. When you land one that theoretically can fit, you sell it. This is what lawyers do, for example.

When this story first broke and the details came out, I asked myself what was the likely response (assuming it wasn't just "we did it.") The only one I could come up with was "the rule isn't clear." BB's statement seems to imply this is where they are going.

Now, I've expressed a cynical view about how they came up with that defense, but the "interpretation" issue does seem to fit pretty comfortably with the one other fact we know here. This video taping was done openly, notoriously, on the road, and against a team that knows we do it and even knows the guy who did it. This seems so brazen, and Belichick is smart enough, that it really does suggest he thought there was a loophole in the language of this mysterious league "directive."

I wish we had the language of the "directive" or rule.

Which is why I started another thread asking for such language of the policy.

Knowing how BB operates, and given the complete openess and obviousness of the situation, I can't for the life of me believe that this was anything but an interpretation issue.

 

[cavtroop]

"1) BB had issues with the wording previously and never received clarification on the matter and this was his way of getting it answered."

Bingo, we have bingo. This is the same type of issue as the infamous 'injury reports'. An fairy unclear rule, BB probably asked for clarification, got some mumbo jumbo in response. So, to clear the situation up, he games the game to the point that the league has to step in, and truly clarify the rule.

this one may sting a bit, but BB will get the result he is looking for - whether that is more clarity to the rule, or showing that everyone in the league does this, so either the rule is invalid, or needs to be enforced proactively.

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

For those who saw the Patriots All Access show when they had the rules interpreter in, you could see how Bill feels about the way rules are written and interpreted. He also was able to give his own interpretations which also seemed logical and he backed up his reasons with video proof and proof from previous games. At the end of the segment he did not seem overly thrilled with the interpretation of specific rules.

Also, the few times you hear him on NFL films on the sideline, you can hear he gets agitated at the interpretation of some of the rules. He seems to know them better than most.

I'm not saying he didn't violate a league policy here. What I am saying is that he probably did have an interpretation of the rule that he believed to be correct and is not BS-ing Goddell.