So exactly WHEN did it become illegal to tape from sidelines?

[juny]

sorry to add another post about this, but all i've seen is the reinforcement memo of 2006, but not when this policy took effect. depending when this rule took affect some of these older tapes wouldn't be 'illegal'.

 

[JoeSixPat]

sorry to add another post about this, but all i've seen is the reinforcement memo of 2006, but not when this policy took effect. depending when this rule took affect some of these older tapes wouldn't be 'illegal'.

I'm not sure but the issue pre-2006, given the wording of the rule was that taping was illegal for anything related to the game taking place THAT day.

Other teams were doing the same thing. The coach of the Cowboys admitted he did it, though you haven't seen one person call their Super Bowls tainted.

All teams admit they tape from elsewhere in the stadium as well - and it is perfectly legal, from what I can tell, for them to video tape signals being called using a telephoto lense and telescopic mike and (if it were possible) sync up the video and use that for THAT game - which is different from what the Patriots were doing pre and post 2006.

So here you have a situation where teams even today can continue to "legally cheat" as long as they do it from the stands.

Everyone asks why Belichick did it from the field - my answer is quite simple - to intimidate the other teams. MangIdiot knew this and blew the whistle, thinking it would intimidate the Patriots and cause a distraction. It did - and they responded by going 16-0 that season.

 

[NEPatriot]

When.?

it all started when the son of a b*****, Ratmargini, spoke and everything went to hell. Of course, asholes Specter and media have added more fuel to it to make the matter even worse. Somewhere and some place, Tomase suddently showed up with his rubbish as he proved to everybody that he was an opportunist. In the end, we are in the middle of a gun fight with no place to run or hide.

 

[stcjones]

I'm not sure but the issue pre-2006, given the wording of the rule was that taping was illegal for anything related to the game taking place THAT day.

Other teams were doing the same thing. The coach of the Cowboys admitted he did it, though you haven't seen one person call their Super Bowls tainted.

All teams admit they tape from elsewhere in the stadium as well - and it is perfectly legal, from what I can tell, for them to video tape signals being called using a telephoto lense and telescopic mike and (if it were possible) sync up the video and use that for THAT game - which is different from what the Patriots were doing pre and post 2006.

So here you have a situation where teams even today can continue to "legally cheat" as long as they do it from the stands.

Everyone asks why Belichick did it from the field - my answer is quite simple - to intimidate the other teams. MangIdiot knew this and blew the whistle, thinking it would intimidate the Patriots and cause a distraction. It did - and they responded by going 16-0 that season.

SO....doesn't all this sh## that Walsh is dragging out.....IRRELEVANT??? All these tapes took place BEFORE THE RULE went into place!!!

 

[JoeSixPat]

SO....doesn't all this sh## that Walsh is dragging out.....IRRELEVANT??? All these tapes took place BEFORE THE RULE went into place!!!

Well, if there's nothing on or about the tapes that Belichick didn't disclose, then - yeah.

And thus far it sounds like the NFL doesn't think there's anything new.

They sure can't fault Belichick for not handing them over though - obviously Matt Walsh stole them... hence at least one of the reasons he thought the Pats might sue him.

 

[LuthierJr]

I'd like to know a concrete answer to this as well. Also I hear it kicked around a lot, but I'm not 100% on it. Is it legal, prior to last season and as of right now, to tap opposing teams signals regardless of the location?

 

[juny]

On a side note, isn't still legal to tape the opposing signal caller, just not from the sideline. all of this is moot now with the defense also getting a radio now.

 

[TealSox]

I've been saying this from the beginning...

If the Pats did anything, they broke the rules of cheating. In my opinion and experience, cheating has been a part of football since the beginning. Only then it wasn't considered cheating. Coaches tried to get any advantage they could by almost any means and I would be surprised that any winning team doesn't try to gain some sort of advantage.

Was it cheating when the 49ers would shut down the audio at the beginning of the game causing the other team's offense to use hand signals rather than call plays in? So what does that mean about Joe Montana? Is he any less of a QB?

 

[doubledowntrent]

Can someone dig up an answer to this question? Because if there wasn't a rule about taping until before last season then it isn't considered cheating for the rest of the years.

 

[LuthierJr]

Can someone dig up an answer to this question? Because if there wasn't a rule about taping until before last season then it isn't considered cheating for the rest of the years.

Exactly. I want to know the answer to this too. Was it (links/reference would be nice), in prior years, still against league regulations to videotape defensive signals period and just BB interpreted the rules differently (to mean that you could tape them only if it meant use in future games) or was it, in fact, not against the rules to tape the signals.

 

[PaulRevere]

I'll try to answer

From the NFL Game Day Operations Manual states:

1. Page 105 of the Game Operations manual: "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: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

By the way - it's not a rule book but a manual. It also covers things like the number of footballs the home team has to provide and appropriate clothing to be worn. It seems like after several complaints from teams about opponents taping (perhaps Green Bay about the Pats) a "clarifying" memo was sent out:

A memo from Ray Anderson, NFL head of football operations, to head coaches and GMs on Sept. 6, 2006 said: "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."

Now a confusing this for me is, a team is allowed to film the game from various points in the stands if it has the other teams permission. This was the jets issue from a couple years ago. They were caught filming, claimed they had permission but the Pats disputed that. So, the "rule" is rather fungible in how it is applied.

At the end of the day this is not about rules or memos but a lazy and overzealous media feeding on the passions and ignorance of sports fans around the country and made worse by incompetent Commissioner. It was then co-opted by a head-line seeking politician.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Re: I'll try to answer

From the NFL Game Day Operations Manual states:

1. Page 105 of the Game Operations manual: "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: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

By the way - it's not a rule book but a manual. It also covers things like the number of footballs the home team has to provide and appropriate clothing to be worn. It seems like after several complaints from teams about opponents taping (perhaps Green Bay about the Pats) a "clarifying" memo was sent out:

A memo from Ray Anderson, NFL head of football operations, to head coaches and GMs on Sept. 6, 2006 said: "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."

Now a confusing this for me is, a team is allowed to film the game from various points in the stands if it has the other teams permission. This was the jets issue from a couple years ago. They were caught filming, claimed they had permission but the Pats disputed that. So, the "rule" is rather fungible in how it is applied.

At the end of the day this is not about rules or memos but a lazy and overzealous media feeding on the passions and ignorance of sports fans around the country and made worse by incompetent Commissioner. It was then co-opted by a head-line seeking politician.

Thanks for the first credible attempt to answer the main query. Maybe this will serve as a base for others to disucss precisely what was "illegal" and what was permissible.

Like your last para also. Well said!

 

[Metaphors]

Goodell's only real mistake is that he could have prevented this situation from ever happening. He could have made a personal phone call to Belichick and Kraft telling them to knock it off. He also could have informed NFL security at every game (but especially Pats games) to eject anyone with unauthorized electronic grear.

So why didn't he do these very simple steps? Because he didn't think it was a big deal. Certainly not anything that threatened the competitive integrity of the league. Even during the Jets game in question after the latest memo, the Pats were able to get a camera guy on the sidelines without as much as a peep from NFL security.

So why have cameras prohibited and a memo reinforcing it? The NFL doesn't want their sidelines becoming an electronics "arms race". High tech microphones and cameras trying to record things that aren't readily visible to everyone (private conversations, play sheets, etc.). It wasn't a problem yet, for reasons stated on this board multiple times, but why not stop it from becoming a problem eventually? Seems reasonable to me, but only with enough urgency to warrent a memo.

Nobody anticipated the fallout from having a tape seized with opposing signals on it. Everyone knew Belichick was doing it. Belichick never denied it or tried to hide it. But the seized tape changed everything and only then did everyone realize the media frenzy this would create. Everything that happened after that point was unavoidable.

So the question for me is not when recording devices became prohibited in the operating procedures manual. The key question is when did sideline videotaping become a threat to league integrity. I believe the answer is sometime after week 1 in 2007. If anyone disagrees, please find me an action by anyone that treated this issue (common knowledge around the league for years) with that level of seriousness and urgency.

 

[flasox27]

I would add that unfortunately everything he did subsequently only compounded it. Apparently, he is a practioner of the when you are in a hole keep digging school. At this point in time the damage has already been done and I still doubt he has the backbone to close the case.

 

[LuthierJr]

Re: I'll try to answer

From the NFL Game Day Operations Manual states:

1. Page 105 of the Game Operations manual: "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: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

By the way - it's not a rule book but a manual. It also covers things like the number of footballs the home team has to provide and appropriate clothing to be worn. It seems like after several complaints from teams about opponents taping (perhaps Green Bay about the Pats) a "clarifying" memo was sent out:

A memo from Ray Anderson, NFL head of football operations, to head coaches and GMs on Sept. 6, 2006 said: "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."

Now a confusing this for me is, a team is allowed to film the game from various points in the stands if it has the other teams permission. This was the jets issue from a couple years ago. They were caught filming, claimed they had permission but the Pats disputed that. So, the "rule" is rather fungible in how it is applied.

At the end of the day this is not about rules or memos but a lazy and overzealous media feeding on the passions and ignorance of sports fans around the country and made worse by incompetent Commissioner. It was then co-opted by a head-line seeking politician.

Thanks for the answer.

So just for example lets take the Steelers championship game. Signals, ect. Were filmed from the endzone areas (I'm assuming from a "legal" position) they were, again presumably, not using it during the game which is somewhat supported by the level of editing done to the tape. (I guess they could have used it and then went over it again later and did the editing work, but there is nothing to support that so I'll have to assume they did not) So in this case since the filming was done from a approved location, and it was not used in the game at hand (many will argue otherwise, but there is no proof) then there was nothing wrong with it?

I've seen many posters on other forums crying about "oh they cheated in the championship game, which means they did in the superbowl too" drivel. But if my above conclusion is right then we, in fact, did nothing wrong at all. In fact if the above thoughts are indeed correct then we did nothing wrong at all except for in the first half of the first game of the year last season. And even at that the rule seems rather ambiguous on how it can be translated. I, personally, tend to adopt a translation contrary to what BB has, but this is big business and if you can find a loophole, or have an aggressive translation of a rule so that it benefits you then why not use it?

So we got hit with 3/4 a million in fines, lost a very important pick, and our team has been drug through the mud for the past 8 months or whatever all because of breaking one rule that had no outcome on the game at hand. Man.... when I think about it this way... we royally got ****ed in the ass.

 

[flasox27]

Embalmer
Try telling that to some people and they will label you a conspiracy theorist.
There are people on this site that consider Goodell Kraft's candidate for commisioner and a close personal friend. They believe that Kraft is pleased with the way this fiaco has been handled.

 

[PaulRevere]

You make a good point.

"So just for example lets take the Steelers championship game. Signals, ect. Were filmed from the endzone areas (I'm assuming from a "legal" position) they were, again presumably, not using it during the game which is somewhat supported by the level of editing done to the tape. (I guess they could have used it and then went over it again later and did the editing work, but there is nothing to support that so I'll have to assume they did not) So in this case since the filming was done from a approved location, and it was not used in the game at hand (many will argue otherwise, but there is no proof) then there was nothing wrong with it? "

I suppose that the memo did "clarify" the taping of signals notion. Prior to that it would appear that if you had the opponents permission to make "game tapes" you could easily focus on the sidelines and film signals from the stands. Who would check.

Now, that's interesting because the rule/memo says all filming from the sidelines by a team is forbidden. So, why did the Jets lay the trap with security and state police and confiscate the film? The very act of filming was the issue not what's on the tape.

 

[belichickaholic]

Mike Reiss answered this questioin in one of his Q+A's. He said he asked an NFL GM and the answer was "about forever." It just went unenforced. The Commish tried to scapegoat Belichick to send a message to all teams. I remember they interviewed him before the SD game in September and The a-hole said that he felt the criticizm (i.e. cheating) of Belichick was warranted. I believe the guy couldn't care less about the damage he's done to this franchise. He didn't just punish Belichick but the players have to deal with this sh*t as well. He totally screwed up. It should have been nothing more than a $25.000 fine.

 

[tdw777]

.....He didn't just punish Belichick but the players have to deal with this sh*t as well..

as do the fans, expecially those of us living outside the NE area.

 

[NEPatriot]

In the past 17 years, it was not considered 'illegal' when doing it. When it came to Pats turn to do it, it is not only 'illegal' but it also gets more attention and coverage than anything else in NFL history.