Relevant videotaping official rules and memo snippets

[wahwho]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/final_ruling.html

The section referring to offensive signals is Reiss paraphrasing...I was hoping for the actual quote from Goodell's statement.

 

[JoePats]

Did anyone else notice how Anderson's memo essentially prohibits regular game taping that all teams do? That tape, as described in the rules, is accessible to the team via video printers. It's a real odd memo, if you ask me.

Yes I was thinking the same thing. That is the Pats biggest problem here in my opinion.

But of course the rule prevents taping, and uses signs as an example. It does not prevent stealing or attempting to steal signs, which is a common part of competitive athletics at all levels.

 

[LuthierJr]

I saw this posted over at the Colts forum. The poster even quoted himself and asked others to make comments on it as it went un-noticed. They still won't respond to the post.

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."

2. 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."

So you can see that taping signals is not against the rules. It's a matter of location, and a matter of not using the tapes for the game at hand. So if the Pats were taping signals from the endzone box, or upper press box, and just using them for future games then it is legal.

Now I know people argue that they did, in fact, use the tapes for the games at hand. Maybe they did, but where is the proof? NFL officials monitor locker rooms, and clubhouse activities use to prevent this sort of thing, among other things.

Maybe the Pats are not nearly as sinister as the media is making them out to be. I hate the Pats as much as the next guy, but I think the media has overblown this situation and it's been further dragged along by a politician who has other interests at heart.

Typical of other teams fans to overlook something that does not go along with the Patriot bashing.

 

[pats1]

Yes I was thinking the same thing. That is the Pats biggest problem here in my opinion.

But of course the rule prevents taping, and uses signs as an example. It does not prevent stealing or attempting to steal signs, which is a common part of competitive athletics at all levels.

Actually, I think the important distinction is that Anderson's memo is not a rule. Honestly, it appears to be his interpretation of the rule, because I've never seen it attributed to anything other than his memo (i.e. an official manual or rulebook).

Anderson's memo wasn't agreed upon by the management council, etc. as I'm sure all the "official" materials are. That leaves just the two rules I provided, in which taping signals has no clear fit.

And that's exactly where I think Belichick expected to wiggle out of this. Goodell obviously couldn't come out and say that the rules didn't explicitly convict the said practice, though. That would be suicide.

In other words, Anderson can say taping offensive and defensive signals is against the rules, but if it isn't in the rules, nothing he says really matters.

 

[JoePats]

I saw this posted over at the Colts forum. The poster even quoted himself and asked others to make comments on it as it went un-noticed. They still won't respond to the post.

I didn't know they used logic on Colts forums. Good job by that poster.

 

[JoePats]

Actually, I think the important distinction is that Anderson's memo is not a rule. Honestly, it appears to be his interpretation of the rule, because I've never seen it attributed to anything other than his memo (i.e. an official manual or rulebook).

Anderson's memo wasn't agreed upon by the management council, etc. as I'm sure all the "official" materials are. That leaves just the two rules I provided, in which taping signals has no clear fit.

And that's exactly where I think Belichick expected to wiggle out of this. Goodell obviously couldn't come out and say that the rules didn't explicitly convict the said practice, though. That would be suicide.

In other words, Anderson can say taping offensive and defensive signals is against the rules, but if it isn't in the rules, nothing he says really matters.

You're probably right. Just curious, are they going to re-word the rule during the offseason? Or are they going to stick to things like hair length?

 

[pats1]

You're probably right. Just curious, are they going to re-word the rule during the offseason? Or are they going to stick to things like hair length?

Nope, from everything I heard from the owners' meetings, the competition committee felt there was nothing wrong with the wording of the rule:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/118728

The NFL's nine-member Competition Committee Thursday met with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and three league VPs for 90 minutes on the Patriots' videotaping activities, and the committee said that "taping rules would not be changed in the aftermath of the controversy," according to Branch & Bishop of the N.Y. TIMES. Titans coach and committee co-Chair Jeff Fisher: "The rules are very, very clear. There is no need to be more specific or clarify any rules whatsoever." Goodell discussed his handling of Spygate, and committee members "seemed satisfied and eager to turn the page." Giants co-Owner John Mara: "All of us have our different opinions about the Patriots, but we were all satisfied that this thing was investigated properly and that they came to the proper conclusion." Colts President Bill Polian: "It's behind us. It's time to move forward"

 

[JoePats]

Nope, from everything I heard from the owners' meetings, the competition committee felt there was nothing wrong with the wording of the rule:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/118728

That's ridiculous. Why would they, as you said, hinge on a memo?

 

[pats1]

That's ridiculous. Why would they, as you said, hinge on a memo?

Because they can't possibly come out and change the rules. That would imply that what the Patriots did wasn't explicitly against the rules when it happened. And there's no way the competition committee, of all committees, would want such a thing out there.

The only thing Goodell and the competition committee have going for them is the widespread belief that what the Patriots did was "spying" and/or "cheating" - and thus blatantly not allowed in the league, and against the "spirit of the rules."

 

[JoeSixPat]

Did MangIdiot follow this rule in the manual when Spygate broke?

B. If clubs believe that violations of any of the Origination, Editing, Exchange, or Shipping rules have occurred, such violations should be brought to the attention of the Vice President of Officiating.

Seems to me Eric when crying to the media - not the VP of Officiating.

Dock him a 1st round draft pick. After all he violated the same rule in the rulebook!

 

[JoePats]

Because they can't possibly come out and change the rules. That would imply that what the Patriots did wasn't explicitly against the rules when it happened. And there's no way the competition committee, of all committees, would want such a thing out there.

The only thing Goodell and the competition committee have going for them is the widespread belief that what the Patriots did was "spying" and/or "cheating" - and thus blatantly not allowed in the league, and against the "spirit of the rules."

Good point. Didn't think of it that way.

I hope somebody asks Goodell on Tuesday exactly what rule the Patriots broke. He's either going to point to a memo which isn't in the rule book, or the part about taping location. Not that the Pats didn't violate the taping location part of it, because they did, but it would put in proper perspective this ridiculous ordeal.

 

[pats1]

Speaking of the competition committee, I was browsing through the PFT archives today, and picked up on this piece:

http://archive.profootballtalk.com/9-10-07through9-17-07.htm

POSTED 8:58 a.m. EDT, September 12, 2007​

WERE PATS STUNG BY COMPETITION COMMITTEE?​

There's a theory making the rounds in league circles that the Sunday confiscation of Matt Estrella's camera was the result of a specific effort by the NFL's Competition Committee to nail the Patriots.​

It was, some believe, a sting operation.​

Rumors also are swirling that Jets coach Eric Mangini, who was with the Pats through the 2005 season, began to spread the word to other teams in 2006 regarding the tactics that Bill Belichick employs. But even after a close call last year in Green Bay, the Patriots kept doing it.​

The thinking in some circles is that the Competition Committee, which has endorsed the use of a radio receiver in the helmet of one defensive player, wants to use the Patriots' situation as the impetus for getting the additional two votes necessary to pass the rule.​

In March 2007, 22 of the 24 teams needed to push the measure through voted in favor of it.​

Though such a rule will not be perfect given the extent of the substitutions made on defense, it would eliminate the temptation to steal defensive signals, because it would eliminate the defensive signals.​

And, in our view, it's a no-brainer that this rule will be passed come March 2008. ​

And it makes perfect sense. This may not have even been a Mangini-orchestrated event. If it was a sting, the NFL wasn't going to waste any time. Hence Week 1. Everyone knew the Pats were doing it (nevermind, I'm sure, a bunch of other teams), as evidenced by the Herm Edwards "waving at the camera" and Polian clearing out the cameras at the 2006/7 AFC Championship game, but it took the competition committee to actually pull the trigger.

Here's the Polian thing by the way, same link:

POSTED 6:01 p.m. EDT, September 11, 2007

PATS GUILTY OF CHEATING​

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has concluded that the New England Patriots violated league rules when videotaping defensive signals being sent in from the sidelines by Jets coaches during Sunday's game at the Meadowlands.​

NFL Security confiscated a camera and videotape from Pats employee Matt Estrella, a video assistant. Mort says that the evidence that was confiscated confirmed the suspicion.​

And the punishment could be severe.​

Mortensen reports that Goodell is considering the possibility of stripping the team of "multiple draft picks," given that he has issued a stern warning to all teams to avoid such behavior.​

We'll echo what we said below about Claude Wroten and anyone who tests positive at the scouting combine. In this case, the persons responsible for doing this are either stupid, or they have a serious problem. ​

The Patriots previously had been linked to such behavior. And yet they kept on doing it.​

Former defensive coordinator Eric Mangini is now the head coach of the Jets, and likely knew a thing or two about these practices in New England. And yet they kept on doing it.​

In fact, we're told by a very good source that, when the Packers caught a Pats employee doing the same thing last season, the Packers knew exactly what to look for, and nailed the guy in the act. The Packers didn't press the issue only because they lost the game 35-0, and didn't want to complain under those circumstances.​

The Pats' habits in this regard were so well known that, per the same source, Colts president Bill Polian had all on-field cameras removed for the 2006 AFC championship game.​

Thus, the Patriots knew that other people know what was happening. And yet they kept on doing it.​

If all of this is true, it reflects a dangerous amount of arrogance in that team's coaching staff. In fact, our guess is that, now that the poo has hit the propeller, whoever put this system in place will privately justify it after the fact by explaining that, in the end, the cost was far less than the benefits that have been derived.​

And it makes us -- and likely many others -- wonder how far back all of this goes. How many Lombardis are potentially tainted? How many of the games during that record-setting winning streak?​

Regardless of the lost draft picks, which mean much less in the salary cap era than they used to, there's now a stain on the NFL first dynasty of the new century. How far it spreads and how deep it goes remains to be seen.​

And for those wondering what exactly "offensive signals" are (or could be, besides what Florio talked about in his piece today):

POSTED 11:10 a.m. EDT, September 16, 2007​

ANOTHER PATS CHEATING ALLEGATION​

As Jay Glazer of FOX mentioned during FSN's Pro Football Preview, folks around the league are offering up all sorts of suspicions regarding the Patriots in the wake of last Sunday's spy scandal.​

And Glazer mentions another tactic of which we previously hadn't heard -- putting a camera in the end zone to capture clear images of Peyton Manning's pre-snap hand signals.​

We expect more of this stuff to come, since more and more people are talking. Eventually, someone with first-hand knowledge of what has gone on will come forward.​

 

[pats1]

I just asked Mike Reiss if his posting was the NFL press release word-by-word, and he told me it was.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/final_ruling.html

Bill Belichick has been fined $500,000 by the NFL. That is the maximum amount under the NFL Constitution and By-Laws for violating league policy last Sunday on the use of equipment to videotape an opposing team’s offensive or defensive signals.

 

[Hardboiled]

Because they can't possibly come out and change the rules. That would imply that what the Patriots did wasn't explicitly against the rules when it happened. And there's no way the competition committee, of all committees, would want such a thing out there.

The only thing Goodell and the competition committee have going for them is the widespread belief that what the Patriots did was "spying" and/or "cheating" - and thus blatantly not allowed in the league, and against the "spirit of the rules."

I hear ya, but...

I think a cover for Goodell is that he considers the taping practice to be violation of the 2006 memo and beyond. He ignores whether taping of coaches from other locations is prohibited. He focuses on the 2006 memo and the last two years.

If asked about the prior years he says:

I saw an opposing coach wave at the Patriots camera in 2004. He and his staff didn't think it was anything to worry about. Other coaches considered it an appropriate practice during those years and prior. I've heard from coaches who said the practice would be ineffective if they did their due diligence and changed their signals.

In the end, the 2006 memo addressed the sideline taping issue and it should have been followed by all teams. We consider the violations to be in the 2006 and 2007 season and consider the matter closed.​

He still acts tough but limits the issue.

 

[wahwho]

I just asked Mike Reiss if his posting was the NFL press release word-by-word, and he told me it was.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/09/final_ruling.html

Great, thanks. :cool3:

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Did MangIdiot follow this rule in the manual when Spygate broke?



Seems to me Eric when crying to the media - not the VP of Officiating.

Dock him a 1st round draft pick. After all he violated the same rule in the rulebook!

First of all, I stand by the time-honored nicknaming of the NY Jest coach as Mangina. I just wanted to make my opinion known on that matter, although I do consider Mangidiot acceptable as well.

But on the other subject, just from a historical standpoint, I have to differ. I have heard varying stories on whether it was Jets security, League security, or a combined force that confiscated the video. But I do believe the tape was handed over to the league, and I assume that meant the "right" NFL official. I even think I remember Mangina doing the "it's a league matter" type of quote immediately after the tape was seized.

But of course, his OWN taping practices from 2006 are a smoking gun by the terms of the Anderson memo.

 

[pats1]

I even think I remember Mangina doing the "it's a league matter" type of quote immediately after the tape was seized.

That is correct.

 

[fourthandmiles]

I didn't know they used logic on Colts forums. Good job by that poster.

That was probably one of us trolling.

 

[cornhuskers_2002]

I think Goodell made it clear today that taping coaches is illegal.

 

[Hardboiled]

I think Goodell made it clear today that taping coaches is illegal.

He did, didn't he. "The rule is taping of offensive or defensive signals."

He appears to be referencing the Anderson memo.

I was hoping for him or the reporters specifically refer the rule on taping coaches.


Unless there is more to the Anderson memo that hasn't been quoted, I know of nothing that says taping coaches hand and arm movements is prohibited in and of itself.