when did "spygate" become a rule?

[BPF]

This has been asked but I don't think there is a clear answer.

I'd love a timeline analysis, but I think the strange wording of the rules and the SOP of teams (see #3) makes it all muddled and more confusing in light of Goodell's original shock and severe penalty.

Here is a review of all the relevant rules/memos/etc that I'm aware of.


1. Page 105 of the Game Operations manual says: "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." It later says for "coaching purposes" that "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." I don't understand the distinction "for coaching purposes." What other purposes are there?


2. NFL VP Ray Anderson: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

No mention of "coaching purposes." Says sidelines instead of field. Stands and mezzanine appear ok.

3. NFL Spokesman Greg Aiello: "It is not uncommon for visiting team video crews to request permission to shoot coaching video from both upper end zone positions...Teams typically shoot coaching video from one upper 50-yard line location and one upper end zone location, but there are no restrictions on shooting from both upper end zone positions as long as the opportunity is provided to both teams. No permission is needed from the league office."
Typically?! What is untypical and ok? I don't understand if this an exception to #1 and #2? If so, what other exceptions happen? So the GB video would have been fine if done with GB's permission in line as they give other teams? The Jets camera guy was caught in the mezzanine. Fine if he had permission?


I believe the in game use ideas come from this:
4. NFL Constitution & Bylaws, "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."

Notice the last part "might aid a team during the playing of a game." It implies that game the taping is happening in.

5. Bill Bellichick. "We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress...My interpretation of a rule in the constitution and bylaws was incorrect.” Notice that he references #4 and not Anderson's memo (#2) or Operation Manual (#1)
although those two items were referenced in most media articles/stories.

I suspect that BB held that #2 is meaningless as since none of it was being used for that game, it didn't apply. I wish if that was case, it was stated more clearly. "I read this(#4) and thought we were fine. The league says I should have paid more attention to #2. Then the discussion would have focused more on the where and how of what is allowed and not the knee-jerk "They video-taped and cheated."

* 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."

So theoretically the Patriots or any team could send scouts to another game with two other participants and videotape their signals from the stands/luxury box?? or even the sidelines if they can gain access??

 

[Deus Irae]

I think Andy Hart made a good point Thursday on PFW in Progress. In response to all those who asked "is video-taping opposing practices against the rules?", Hart said "is putting a stick of dynamite in the ball prior to kickoff specifically listed as being against the rules?"

Putting a stick of dynamite in the ball prior to kickoff would be ILLEGAL, as in a criminal offense. The point makes no sense at all.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Putting a stick of dynamite in the ball prior to kickoff would be ILLEGAL, as in a criminal offense. The point makes no sense at all.

Agreed, that's about the stupidest analogy I've heard to Spygate in a while. The league bylaws also don't expressly forbid murdering opposing players prior to the game to gain a competitive advantage, probably because they don't *need* to cover that. the law does.

 

[Hardboiled]

* 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...,
So theoretically the Patriots or any team could send scouts to another game with two other participants and videotape their signals from the stands/luxury box?? or even the sidelines if they can gain access??

I could read that too. Since they are not playing that game, there would be no in-game use of that video, so that seems ok and validates the what might have been an prior emphasis on no in-game use.

 

[pats1]

Putting a stick of dynamite in the ball prior to kickoff would be ILLEGAL, as in a criminal offense. The point makes no sense at all.

Agreed, that's about the stupidest analogy I've heard to Spygate in a while. The league bylaws also don't expressly forbid murdering opposing players prior to the game to gain a competitive advantage, probably because they don't *need* to cover that. the law does.

The point is obviously that just because something isn't specifically covered in the rules doesn't mean it's not illegal. And I think we can all agree breaking in to tape an opponent's practice is illegal -- and I don't mean unlawful.

 

[BradyFTW!]

The point is obviously that just because something isn't specifically covered in the rules doesn't mean it's not illegal. And I think we can all agree breaking in to tape an opponent's practice is illegal -- and I don't mean unlawful.

No, we can't all agree on that. If the rulebook doesn't say that something is against the rules, then the presumption is that it is allowed. Otherwise players would have to hop on one foot at all times, since the rulebook doesn't explicitly allow one to alternate feet.

This is how virtually all systems of rules work, and the league rulebook is no different.