Re: Belichick said he had "misinterpreted" NFL rules-true or bs?
If you read the rules there is no rule, nor even any rule close, to outlawing "stealing sign".
Indeed the Patriots complained about a technique the Dolphins under Saban were doing. They put microphones and communicated the audibles that Brady was calling at the line of scrimmage last year, to their coaches via radio or recording devices, presumably for analysis.
The commissioner officially said there was no problem doing so. So "sign stealing" is not forbidden in football any more than in MLB, where it is a hallowed art.
Nor is it even with a technical violation in that only QBs are allowed to have radio equipment and the "miked" defensive players, like Jason Taylor obviously had a broadcast radio, (but unknown if it had a receive capability as that would have violated the coach to player communication
rule.)
There is a prohibition on taping/filming except in certain designated areas. but that prohibition is qualified by the statement for use "in the game".
That prohibition in NOT in the rulebook. It is in a companion document that describes other things necessary to provide for playing a game, like proper police security, need for badges, to access the field; areas assigned for various sideline camera men to use, et cetera. Uniforms to be worn by various new media, yada, yada, yada.
No prohibition on taping /filming from anywhere then, if the information taped, is not analyzed or used "in the game", as the rule does indeed qualify, its prohibition on taping/filming. Then there is NO DIFFERENCE from what the Dolphins were cleared by the commissioner's office last off season. At most a technical violation, but likely less severe since the prohibition is not in the rulebook, unlike the radio prohibition which is in the rule book, at most.
There was no provision to do that analysis "in the game" use either; as the Commissioner conceded, in his press statement. There was no real-time instant communication link in the system, to communicate with a knowledgeable coach. The camera man is not a coach, never played football in either the NFL or a major college system. He is by background unsuitable to analyze any signs. His background is as a pure video technician, (probably on purpose).
The tape info would have to be broken down and analyzed by a knowledgeable football professional post game, and so even more evidence it could not be used except maybe somehow if analyzed at half time. It was probably meant as a companion to the analysis of game film, post game, which is obviously allowed and the NFL itself arranges the trades of Coaches tape between teams each week.
Now Belichick did not try to hide what he was doing. The camera man did not not slink around in an disguise, donning a network or local TV cameraman identification. He did have Identification, and a proper field pass identifying him. The Patriots thought they what they were doing was either completely alright, or at most subject to "interpretation".
If there is anything that Belichick did wrong, is to read the rule carefully; and see what it says, rather than what it meant to say, but didn't actually say.
Too smart by half, for an intimidated Commissioner, in awe of the wrath of NYC media in a feeding frenzy.
If Bob Kraft were Al Davis he would go to court and he would win. The Law is what the Law says, not what it meant to say. But I don't think he will, as that would undermine Commissioner Goodell. But I wouldn't invest in Mangini's career, though...
