an interesting new thought

[patpatriot]

I read this in a previous thread:

"You are further proving your own ignorance. HAVE YOU READ THE FREAKIN' RULE? I have, and BB's interpretation is entirely plausible. In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

Now, don't sit there and try to tell me that the rule is not open to being interpreted as: prohibiting videotaping applied to use during the game in which the video is shot.

Does this mean that the patriots *first* mistake was not to bring to bring this quarrel to binding arbitration?

Is it a further mistake to not take that approach now that trying to be a "good corporate citizen" has had disasterous results for them?

Why not go on the offence?

 

[IcyPatriot]

Re: n interesting new thought

I still wonder why we are not swinging on this one.

 

[PatsFan24]

Re: n interesting new thought

because they were told to stop in 2006, they were given a warning that it was against the rules and not to do it, but they still did it.

 

[nittanylions52]

Re: n interesting new thought

I read this in a previous thread:

"You are further proving your own ignorance. HAVE YOU READ THE FREAKIN' RULE? I have, and BB's interpretation is entirely plausible. In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

Now, don't sit there and try to tell me that the rule is not open to being interpreted as: prohibiting videotaping applied to use during the game in which the video is shot.

Does this mean that the patriots *first* mistake was not to bring to bring this quarrel to binding arbitration?

Is it a further mistake to not take that approach now that trying to be a "good corporate citizen" has had disasterous results for them?

Why not go on the offence?

Just because you interpret a rule one way doesn't mean you shouldn't be punished for it. If you aren't sure of the interpretation (and I'm sure someone as smart as Belichick should be able to read the sentence the way I did, without interpreting it incorrectly), then there's a whole long offseason to ask for clarification. There's little room to "go on the offense."

 

[PatsFan24]

Re: n interesting new thought

the arrogance of BB on this issue is what lead to this whole mess. Had he stopped taping after the Packers game in 2006, this never would have been public and never would have gotten anywhere near this. That and making the mistake of doing it against a former coach was another bad choice. For whatever reason he felt that he could continue to get away with breaking rules, even after he has been caught.

 

[mgm79]

Re: n interesting new thought

I read this in a previous thread:

"You are further proving your own ignorance. HAVE YOU READ THE FREAKIN' RULE? I have, and BB's interpretation is entirely plausible. In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

Now, don't sit there and try to tell me that the rule is not open to being interpreted as: prohibiting videotaping applied to use during the game in which the video is shot.

Does this mean that the patriots *first* mistake was not to bring to bring this quarrel to binding arbitration?

Is it a further mistake to not take that approach now that trying to be a "good corporate citizen" has had disasterous results for them?

Why not go on the offence?

Because the memo that was sent out explained the meaning of the rule is that videotaping signal callers is against the not to be done.

 

[pats1]

Re: n interesting new thought

Because the memo that was sent out explained the meaning of the rule is that videotaping signal callers is against the not to be done.

But is an NFL memo an official rule, agreed to by owners and the like?

 

[PatriotsReign]

Re: n interesting new thought

the arrogance of BB on this issue is what lead to this whole mess. Had he stopped taping after the Packers game in 2006, this never would have been public and never would have gotten anywhere near this. That and making the mistake of doing it against a former coach was another bad choice. For whatever reason he felt that he could continue to get away with breaking rules, even after he has been caught.

That's ok though, Patriots fans still love our Bill Belichik!...every single one of us!

 

[mgm79]

Re: n interesting new thought

But is an NFL memo an official rule, agreed to by owners and the like?

BB argued he misinterpreted the rule, and the memo spelled out clearly that the rule prohibited videotaping of signal callers. You can't argue ignorance when you've been told don't do it!

 

[chrisfx811]

Re: n interesting new thought

If the last sentence would have said 'the game', then BB might have been in the clear. 'A game' really doesn't leave as much room for interpretation.

If that is the only rule regarding taping, it really does blow up the idiocy of the Practicegate that we are being subjected to, though. No mention of practice in that statement at all.

 

[richpats]

Guys, quit defending Belichick on this. He screwed up. I don't care if everyone does it. He's embarrassed the team, its fans and the only reason he hasn't been crucified is because he wins. He is an excellent coach who took it one step too far. He'll never live this down and he likely won't go to the Hall of Fame. Let's just enjoy the upcoming seasons, while he's still around.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Guys, quit defending Belichick on this. He screwed up. I don't care if everyone does it. He's embarrassed the team, its fans and the only reason he hasn't been crucified is because he wins. He is an excellent coach who took it one step too far. He'll never live this down and he likely won't go to the Hall of Fame. Let's just enjoy the upcoming seasons, while he's still around.

Speak for yourself pal...I'm not embaressed, are YOU? I'm damn proud to have Belichik as our coach.

Personally, not many Patriots fans worry about our "image" since image is comprised of nothing but opinion. Only phonies worry about image. Kinda like the businessman who gets his hair cut every week hoping he has the right image.

Belichik is defiant...so what? We don't care about image. it's Saturday, so go get your hair cut...

 

[chrisfx811]

Guys, quit defending Belichick on this. He screwed up. I don't care if everyone does it. He's embarrassed the team, its fans and the only reason he hasn't been crucified is because he wins. He is an excellent coach who took it one step too far. He'll never live this down and he likely won't go to the Hall of Fame. Let's just enjoy the upcoming seasons, while he's still around.

I guess one should just dig up the post with all the quotes of former coaches who have done questionable things in the past:

Certain statements from Goodell's press conference have gotten wide dissemination, others not so much. For example, Goodell said the following:

"I'm not sure there is a coach in the league that doesn't expect that their signals are being interpreted by opposing teams. That's why they go to great lengths," Goodell said. "I think it was Coach [Bill] Parcells earlier this season who said, 'Any coach that doesn't expect his signals to be stolen is stupid.' It's pretty simple but teams understand that it's a risk and they prepare for that. I don't believe it affected the outcome of any games."

He also said the following:

"I think as far as the actual effectiveness of taping signals from opposing football teams or other sports is something that's done, and done quite widely, and teams prepare for that."

Is there anything covered in NFL rules governing the taping of opposing practices? George Allen was an advocate of this with the Redskins in the 1970s, and people still laugh about it.

"we should take a look back at the most famous spy in league history, the late Rams and Redskins head coach George Allen.

Allen basically convinced everyone in the league he was spying on them even though no one ever truly nailed him. I've often heard former Cowboys director of personnel Gil Brandt allude to evidence, but he's hesitant to produce any. I know for a fact that the Cowboys used to rent out the second floor of a Dallas hotel because it offered views of the club's old practice facility and they didn't want Rams "spies" to take advantage.

Hall of Famer Bob Lilly once told me that a helicopter flying over practice might cause head coach Tom Landry to send his players home early. Former Cowboys and Patriots scout Bucko Kilroy, who died recently, was at the center of one of Allen's favorite stories.

In 1967, Landry credited some of Allen's antics for helping the Rams rout the Cowboys, 35-13.

"It was early in the season, and we were working out over at a high school in Dallas," Landry told The Dallas Morning News. "We noticed that there was a car there every day. Finally, we got somebody to check it out, and we found out it was a rented car. We traced it down, and it ended up that one of the LA Rams scouts was watching practice.

"Everybody got excited about it. George just said the only reason he did it was because Bucko Kilroy was watching his practice. Bucko was one of our scouts. He was a big guy, about 260 or 270. [Allen] said he caught Bucko up a tree watching the Rams' practice. We just laughed because Bucko could never get up a tree.

"It was so important in the newspapers all week, we ended up getting beat. We were thinking about the scouting more than the game."

George Allen is revered as a coaching saint in football circles. We know Paul Brown secretly introduced radio sideline communications, and it only became widespread in the NFL when it was accidentally discovered. We know George Halas bugged opposing locker rooms, and according to Steve Sabol, sent fraudulent game film to opposing teams to damage their preparations vs the Bears. We understand that George Allen had a predilection for spying. According to Jimmy Johnson, when he took over from Shula in Miami, the staff told him not to worry about the 15 second communication cut off between sideline and Qb prior to offensive snaps, because "they had a way to circumvent that talking to Marino". ["I'll tell you the comments that Jimmy Johnson had about it yesterday kind of opened my eyes. I don't condone the actions, but I think this goes on a lot more than we, myself included, realized. Jimmy said that when he got to the Miami Dolphins, they told him they had a way to circumvent the 15-second cut-off for coach-to-quarterback communication. That's a huge advantage" http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal...at_transcript/] So Shula had some technique that circumvented offensive communications rules. We know that Jimmy Johnson said he used video of opposing signals when he was coaching. We know Parcells has alluded to similar practices. Johnson also stated that he learned his techniques from Schottenheimer, who employed the current Colts O-line coach, Howard Mudd, to do those things.

So here is a brief list of coaches who participated in these hijinks:

George Halas
Paul Brown
George Allen
Jimmy Johnson
Don Shula
Marty Schottenheimer
BB

That's the Mt. Rushmore of the NFL, folks.

 

[PatriotsReign]

I guess one should just dig up the post with all the quotes of former coaches who have done questionable things in the past:

Nice to see a Pats fan who's not phony!

 

[chrisfx811]

Or this kind of stuff:

NFL teams often turn to tactics such as spying and counter-spying to learn about – and
keep up with – their opponents

By Daniel Uthman

Ainsley Battles had gone from undrafted free agent to starter at safety for the Pittsburgh
Steelers and was nearing the end of his second training camp in 2001 when he got an
unexpected phone call.

One week before the team's opener against the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Steelers told
Battles he was being cut.

One day later, his phone rang again. It was Battles' agent telling him that another team
the Jacksonville Jaguars – planned to sign him. "An eventful 24 hours," Battles said.
But before Battles could begin studying the Jaguars' playbook, the Jaguars studied him,
asking him questions about the Steelers.

"I could only tell them the little bit I knew," he said. "It was really nothing they didn't already know."

Such exploratory questioning was common in the eight seasons Tom Coughlin was the
Jaguars' coach. The team signed a handful of freshly cut Steelers players, many of whom --unlike Battles --were around long enough only for a quick Q and A.

Questioning new players about their former teams is standard procedure in the NFL, but
it's just one of the ways teams work to keep or gain an edge on the competition. In a
league that turned over nearly one-third of its head coaching jobs in the most recent
offseason, any advantage a coach and his staff can get is of immense value and immense need for protection.

"Stuff is so secretive because jobs are hard to come by," said Oregon State quarterbacks coach Danny Langsdorf, who was an offensive assistant with the New Orleans Saints
from 2002 to 2004. "If you have something special or you're a little ahead of the game,
you have to protect it."

As such, spy and counter-spy tactics are part of the game, whether it's signing a player released from an upcoming opponent, locking up game plans at a team's headquarters or even eavesdropping on a sensitive contract negotiation.

Kevin Murray, president of the New Jersey-based counter-espionage firm Murray
Associates, has counted NFL teams among his clients over the years. Though
confidentiality clauses prohibit him from speaking of specific clients and cases, Murray
said his company has worked on both sides of the business, from protecting teams to
protecting agents and players who are involved in high-level contract talks.

 

[chrisfx811]

Just remember folks, the 7 o'clock show is different than the 9 o'clock show.

Bledsoe suggests that the scandal has been overplayed and that stealing signals always will be part of the game. As a freshman at Washington State, he received an award from his coaches after he stole offensive calls from the sideline in a win over California; he had been able to figure out when Cal was going to run, pass or screen pass.

"Listen, that kind of stuff has been going on for as long as there have been video cameras," Bledsoe says of the accusations against the Patriots. "I know people are trying to make this out like this is some huge scandal, but it is at every level. You talk about college, you talk about high school -- people are taping stuff, and that is what they do. And they try and gain an advantage that way. And that is what the Patriots were doing."

As for where teams cross the line of fair play, he says, "It is a pretty fuzzy line. Like in other realms in the world, in the business world, when you get into a highly competitive environment, people are going to try and do what they can get away with. That is not unique to football."

 

[patsfan13]

Re: n interesting new thought

BB argued he misinterpreted the rule, and the memo spelled out clearly that the rule prohibited videotaping of signal callers. You can't argue ignorance when you've been told don't do it!

Actually is disallows video taping signal callers from dertain locations, you are still free to do it in other areas of the stadium.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Just remember folks, the 7 o'clock show is different than the 9 o'clock show.

Keep it coming chrisfx811!!

 

[PatriotsReign]

Re: n interesting new thought

Actually is disallows video taping signal callers from dertain locations, you are still free to do it in other areas of the stadium.

Now isn't that the damnest thing!?

 

[richpats]

Speak for yourself pal...I'm not embaressed, are YOU? I'm damn proud to have Belichik as our coach.

Personally, not many Patriots fans worry about our "image" since image is comprised of nothing but opinion. Only phonies worry about image. Kinda like the businessman who gets his hair cut every week hoping he has the right image.

Belichik is defiant...so what? We don't care about image. it's Saturday, so go get your hair cut...

You seem to be insecure when somebody doesn't see eye-to-eye with you. You should seek counseling about that....but you're probably just a little kid who hasn't had any responsibility your whole life. Or just an adult who never grew up. For your sake I hope it's not the latter.