The stupid questions never asked

[Marko]

1. How come they tape the second half of the game, if they are going in at half time and decoding the signals to use in the second half of the same game?

2. What the heck is the difference if the camera is sheltered around three sides? Doesn't this just give the advantage to the home team?

3. If it is true that all the teams steal signals, would there actually be a competitive advantage or would you just be keeping up?

4. Isn't it more dishonest to have people hidden who are stealing signals than a camera everyone could see?

5. Mangini says the Pats gave him permission to tape after they told him to move the first time. If this is true, would the Pats give up such a devastating advantage to their opponent? Why didn't he extend the courtesy back the following year? (This is a much more troubling than after the memo, they really said screw you we'll do it anyway!)

6. If the rule states that no videotaping of the other coaches allowed, does it matter if its offense or defense or both?

7. How does someone as stupid as Roger Goodell get a job like that?

8. If Arlen Specter is really concerned about the integrity of the game wouldn't he want to know how widespread this is around the league, and what other type of things are being done(maybe even by his beloved Eagles)?

 

[JoePats]

1. How come they tape the second half of the game, if they are going in at half time and decoding the signals to use in the second half of the same game?

2. What the heck is the difference if the camera is sheltered around three sides? Doesn't this just give the advantage to the home team?

3. If it is true that all the teams steal signals, would there actually be a competitive advantage or would you just be keeping up?

4. Isn't it more dishonest to have people hidden who are stealing signals than a camera everyone could see?

5. Mangini says the Pats gave him permission to tape after they told him to move the first time. If this is true, would the Pats give up such a devastating advantage to their opponent? Why didn't he extend the courtesy back the following year? (This is a much more troubling than after the memo, they really said screw you we'll do it anyway!)

6. If the rule states that no videotaping of the other coaches allowed, does it matter if its offense or defense or both?

7. How does someone as stupid as Roger Goodell get a job like that?

8. If Arlen Specter is really concerned about the integrity of the game wouldn't he want to know how widespread this is around the league, and what other type of things are being done(maybe even by his beloved Eagles)?

1. Good point.
2. No idea. I'm guessing it's just an attempt to limit taping locations?
3. The media has basically equated videotaping people giving signals with a microphone eavesdropping in the coaches meeting where they go over the signals. It's patently absurd.
4. Each signal giver has to operate under the assumption that others are attempting to decode them. Where they do that is irrelevant.
5. The lack of even a small investigation into the Jets situation is frustrating. They automatically took Mangini's word for it, even though the statement was completely self-serving.
6. It should not matter.
7. Goodell seemed to have good credentials as the league's attorney. I think it's more concerning, from a Pats perspective, the people who have Goodell's ear. But Goodell did completely botch the situation.
8. You're confusing Arlen Specter with logic.

Good questions!

 

[shmessy]

Your thread title stinks.

Those are all EXCELLENT questions!

 

[Rob0729]

1. How come they tape the second half of the game, if they are going in at half time and decoding the signals to use in the second half of the same game?

2. What the heck is the difference if the camera is sheltered around three sides? Doesn't this just give the advantage to the home team?

3. If it is true that all the teams steal signals, would there actually be a competitive advantage or would you just be keeping up?

4. Isn't it more dishonest to have people hidden who are stealing signals than a camera everyone could see?

5. Mangini says the Pats gave him permission to tape after they told him to move the first time. If this is true, would the Pats give up such a devastating advantage to their opponent? Why didn't he extend the courtesy back the following year? (This is a much more troubling than after the memo, they really said screw you we'll do it anyway!)

6. If the rule states that no videotaping of the other coaches allowed, does it matter if its offense or defense or both?

7. How does someone as stupid as Roger Goodell get a job like that?

8. If Arlen Specter is really concerned about the integrity of the game wouldn't he want to know how widespread this is around the league, and what other type of things are being done(maybe even by his beloved Eagles)?

1.) Well, the dumbest answer to this I have seen on the Internet is that Ernie Adams has a photgraphic memory and can process defensive signals on the fly. You raise a very interesting question to people who want to deal with reality.
2.) I think it the location more than the type of inclosure.
3.) The only advantage you have from taping it is that you can go back and view it rather than going by memory.
4.) That is a question I have been wondering. If Belichick was being so covert and underhanded, why would they have the guy filming from the sidelines? If Belichick thought it was such a big crime, he would have hidden a cameraman in the stadium somewhere.
5.) Mangini's explanation never passed the BS test. Belichick and Pioli wouldn't give the Jets an extra pen for the coach's booth if they asked. No way would the Patriots ever signed off on giving the Jets an advantage that may help them in the future. Maybe another team, but not the Jets and Mangini. For all the talk about Goodell sweeping the Patriots' disgressions under the rug, this was covered up far quicker.
6.) No. The league has already said the Pats were punished for taping both defensive and offensive signals. This whole offensive signals thing is just the media splitting hairs to keep the story alive until it officially ends on Tuesday. Well, there will be a few weeks of people questioning why Goodell didn't levy new penalties for new charges.
7.) Other than how Goodell has handled this situation, I think he has done a pretty good job so far. He has made some monumentally bad mistakes when it comes to this situation though.
8.) The fact that Specter stepped in and threatened Antitrust hearings when TO was trying to get out a trade to go to Baltimore so he could become an Eagle, yet ignored similiar situations like the Deion Branch grievance; shows that Specter abuses power to suit the Eagles fan in him. The sad thing is that he back down faster into investigating whether the CIA uses torture for interogations faster than he has backed down investigating about Spygate.

That reminds me of Jon Stewarts' "Torture Talk" segment about Specter. No matter your politics and what you think of Stewart, you gotta love this as Patriots fans:

http://blog.pennlive.com/pennsyltucky/2008/02/jon_stewart_on_arlen_specter_s.html

 

[tuckeverlasting]

1.) Well, the dumbest answer to this I have seen on the Internet is that Ernie Adams has a photgraphic memory and can process defensive signals on the fly. You raise a very interesting question to people who want to deal with reality.
2.) I think it the location more than the type of inclosure.
3.) The only advantage you have from taping it is that you can go back and view it rather than going by memory.
4.) That is a question I have been wondering. If Belichick was being so covert and underhanded, why would they have the guy filming from the sidelines? If Belichick thought it was such a big crime, he would have hidden a cameraman in the stadium somewhere.
5.) Mangini's explanation never passed the BS test. Belichick and Pioli wouldn't give the Jets an extra pen for the coach's booth if they asked. No way would the Patriots ever signed off on giving the Jets an advantage that may help them in the future. Maybe another team, but not the Jets and Mangini. For all the talk about Goodell sweeping the Patriots' disgressions under the rug, this was covered up far quicker.
6.) No. The league has already said the Pats were punished for taping both defensive and offensive signals. This whole offensive signals thing is just the media splitting hairs to keep the story alive until it officially ends on Tuesday. Well, there will be a few weeks of people questioning why Goodell didn't levy new penalties for new charges.
7.) Other than how Goodell has handled this situation, I think he has done a pretty good job so far. He has made some monumentally bad mistakes when it comes to this situation though.
8.) The fact that Specter stepped in and threatened Antitrust hearings when TO was trying to get out a trade to go to Baltimore so he could become an Eagle, yet ignored similiar situations like the Deion Branch grievance; shows that Specter abuses power to suit the Eagles fan in him. The sad thing is that he back down faster into investigating whether the CIA uses torture for interogations faster than he has backed down investigating about Spygate.

That reminds me of Jon Stewarts' "Torture Talk" segment about Specter. No matter your politics and what you think of Stewart, you gotta love this as Patriots fans:

http://blog.pennlive.com/pennsyltucky/2008/02/jon_stewart_on_arlen_specter_s.html

that was phenomenal.

 

[DarrylS]

1. How come they tape the second half of the game, if they are going in at half time and decoding the signals to use in the second half of the same game?

This makes too much sense, the illiterate press cannot fathom things that make this much sense.

2. What the heck is the difference if the camera is sheltered around three sides? Doesn't this just give the advantage to the home team?

This is perhaps the easiest thing, look at a stadium, where is a location that is surrounded by three sides.. coaches booth, high end luxury suite or maybe some doorway..think of the possibilities when they design new stadiums. I do not think it gives an advantage, it is just a rule.. unless the new stadiums have conveniently located three sided shelters that are available to the home team.

5. Mangini says the Pats gave him permission to tape after they told him to move the first time. If this is true, would the Pats give up such a devastating advantage to their opponent? Why didn't he extend the courtesy back the following year? (This is a much more troubling than after the memo, they really said screw you we'll do it anyway!)

This has perplexed me that this has been downplayed since the inception of this issue, Mangini looks all warm and fuzzy even though he is a freaking creep and was part of this whole thing before he defected.

7. How does someone as stupid as Roger Goodell get a job like that?

Supposedly he was bred for the position, but looks more like he was inbred for the position

8. If Arlen Specter is really concerned about the integrity of the game wouldn't he want to know how widespread this is around the league, and what other type of things are being done(maybe even by his beloved Eagles)?

Arlen Specter is not concerned about the integrity of the game, he is concerned about his biggest donor Comcast first and his eagles second, he is pushing the envelope under the guise of integrity for more face time and to make the NFL bend in its conflict between Comcast and the NFL network.
All the while in Philly there has been a cop killing, allegations of abuse by the police caught on camera and Marvin Harrison involved in pretty significant shooting...Arlen is steadfast in his pursuit of all that is right and good at the expense of the patriots.. what a fraud.

Ten characters...

 

[Cartwright]

1. How come they tape the second half of the game, if they are going in at half time and decoding the signals to use in the second half of the same game?

2. What the heck is the difference if the camera is sheltered around three sides? Doesn't this just give the advantage to the home team?

3. If it is true that all the teams steal signals, would there actually be a competitive advantage or would you just be keeping up?

4. Isn't it more dishonest to have people hidden who are stealing signals than a camera everyone could see?

5. Mangini says the Pats gave him permission to tape after they told him to move the first time. If this is true, would the Pats give up such a devastating advantage to their opponent? Why didn't he extend the courtesy back the following year? (This is a much more troubling than after the memo, they really said screw you we'll do it anyway!)

6. If the rule states that no videotaping of the other coaches allowed, does it matter if its offense or defense or both?

7. How does someone as stupid as Roger Goodell get a job like that?

8. If Arlen Specter is really concerned about the integrity of the game wouldn't he want to know how widespread this is around the league, and what other type of things are being done(maybe even by his beloved Eagles)?

1.) Why tape a Championship Game? It's not like you will see that opponent again that season.

2.) If taping opponents is about 1% of what you do, why 2 cameras? Why spend ALL THAT TIME editing tape, synching them up, taking notes, and cataloging?

3.) Why engage in this activity, all the while keeping your owner in the dark, and ultimately embarrass him?

4.) Why keep talking about 'rules' when it is completely unclear what the actual rule is? There apparently is a rulebook that the public is privy to, and a separate publication distributed to each of the 32 NFL teams.

5.) Why do it all all? Why engage in it? If it doesn't serve some purpose, then why do it?

The Patriots are obviously a talented team, with a talented staff. Why jepordize your legacy by engaging in this type of activity? I don't begrudge a team that in game can decipher defensive signals and use them to their advantage, IF it's just a guy say, on the sideline or in the pressbox using binoculars, but it appears that the level of sophistication that the Pats have used goes way beyond that.

6.) How do you expect non-Pats fans to react to all this? You are surprised that this has resulted in doubts among your peers??

 

[JoePats]

1.) Why tape a Championship Game? It's not like you will see that opponent again that season.

Further proof the taping was not for signal stealing but rather for advance scouting.

2.) If taping opponents is about 1% of what you do, why 2 cameras? Why spend ALL THAT TIME editing tape, synching them up, taking notes, and cataloging?

You say all that time when you have no idea how much time is spent on that compared to everything else. You also have no idea who is exactly doing all that stuff with the tape and who looks at it. 2 cameras because they want to see the plays from different angles. It is a scouting tool not a sign-stealing tool.

3.) Why engage in this activity, all the while keeping your owner in the dark, and ultimately embarrass him?

Becuase BB knew that there were other teams doing this and felt it was no big deal.

4.) Why keep talking about 'rules' when it is completely unclear what the actual rule is? There apparently is a rulebook that the public is privy to, and a separate publication distributed to each of the 32 NFL teams.

There is a rule book and a game operations manual. Both have been quoted here.

5.) Why do it all all? Why engage in it? If it doesn't serve some purpose, then why do it?

The Patriots are obviously a talented team, with a talented staff. Why jepordize your legacy by engaging in this type of activity? I don't begrudge a team that in game can decipher defensive signals and use them to their advantage, IF it's just a guy say, on the sideline or in the pressbox using binoculars, but it appears that the level of sophistication that the Pats have used goes way beyond that.

You make it seem that by simply videotaping the signals it gives the Patriots the actual signals. That's ridiculous. They still have to be decoded. And stealing signals is legal. It's not like they bugged the coaches room in the opponents locker room. It's amazing people can't see this difference.

6.) How do you expect non-Pats fans to react to all this? You are surprised that this has resulted in doubts among your peers??

Not surprised at the reaction at the beginning of the ordeal but you figure that 8 months later logic would have seeped through at some point. But that would have been more likely to happen if they had some help from the media, which they haven't.

10 characters

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

1.) Why tape a Championship Game? It's not like you will see that opponent again that season.

The tapes were used to decipher the playcalling over a long period of time. Eventually, trends will show up even if the team is mixing up their signals to throw signal stealers off. Since it was about long-term use, taping the Championship Game was no different than taping any other game. That footage wasn't going to be immediately useful.

2.) If taping opponents is about 1% of what you do, why 2 cameras? Why spend ALL THAT TIME editing tape, synching them up, taking notes, and cataloging?

Every team steal signals. Only a fool thinks otherwise. The reason the Patriots were penalized is because of the WAY they did it. You can't video tape them, at least not in the way the patriots did it. As to the 1%, every little bit helps. Some games come down to a play here or a play there being the difference ... a 1% boost may be enough to be the difference between winning and losing... between going home to play golf or progressing to the SB.

3.) Why engage in this activity, all the while keeping your owner in the dark, and ultimately embarrass him?

All teams steal signals. Why do it? To gain an advantage. As to the owner being in the dark... The owner wants to win games and increase the value of his asset. He doesn't need to know every detail of how that success is acheived. It is that way in every company.

4.) Why keep talking about 'rules' when it is completely unclear what the actual rule is? There apparently is a rulebook that the public is privy to, and a separate publication distributed to each of the 32 NFL teams.

5.) Why do it all all? Why engage in it? If it doesn't serve some purpose, then why do it?

The Patriots are obviously a talented team, with a talented staff. Why jepordize your legacy by engaging in this type of activity? I don't begrudge a team that in game can decipher defensive signals and use them to their advantage, IF it's just a guy say, on the sideline or in the pressbox using binoculars, but it appears that the level of sophistication that the Pats have used goes way beyond that.

It serves a purpose as explained above. The Patriots were too good at it and violated the constraints that the NFL was putting on this kind of activity.

6.) How do you expect non-Pats fans to react to all this? You are surprised that this has resulted in doubts among your peers??

Let's be honest... really honest! If this were the Raiders that did it, it wouldn't have registered a blip on the radar. The penalty would have been $50,000 and a 4th round draft pick. The media would have talked about it for a week and moved on to bigger and better stories. Fans of other teams wouldn't give a d@mn !!! The is more about Patriots hate, jealousy, and the odd thrill for society to take down a person/group that is successfull.

10 Characters

 

[fair catch fryar]

1.) Well, the dumbest answer to this I have seen on the Internet is that Ernie Adams has a photgraphic memory and can process defensive signals on the fly. You raise a very interesting question to people who want to deal with reality.
2.) I think it the location more than the type of inclosure.
3.) The only advantage you have from taping it is that you can go back and view it rather than going by memory.
4.) That is a question I have been wondering. If Belichick was being so covert and underhanded, why would they have the guy filming from the sidelines? If Belichick thought it was such a big crime, he would have hidden a cameraman in the stadium somewhere.
5.) Mangini's explanation never passed the BS test. Belichick and Pioli wouldn't give the Jets an extra pen for the coach's booth if they asked. No way would the Patriots ever signed off on giving the Jets an advantage that may help them in the future. Maybe another team, but not the Jets and Mangini. For all the talk about Goodell sweeping the Patriots' disgressions under the rug, this was covered up far quicker.
6.) No. The league has already said the Pats were punished for taping both defensive and offensive signals. This whole offensive signals thing is just the media splitting hairs to keep the story alive until it officially ends on Tuesday. Well, there will be a few weeks of people questioning why Goodell didn't levy new penalties for new charges.
7.) Other than how Goodell has handled this situation, I think he has done a pretty good job so far. He has made some monumentally bad mistakes when it comes to this situation though.
8.) The fact that Specter stepped in and threatened Antitrust hearings when TO was trying to get out a trade to go to Baltimore so he could become an Eagle, yet ignored similiar situations like the Deion Branch grievance; shows that Specter abuses power to suit the Eagles fan in him. The sad thing is that he back down faster into investigating whether the CIA uses torture for interogations faster than he has backed down investigating about Spygate.

That reminds me of Jon Stewarts' "Torture Talk" segment about Specter. No matter your politics and what you think of Stewart, you gotta love this as Patriots fans:

http://blog.pennlive.com/pennsyltucky/2008/02/jon_stewart_on_arlen_specter_s.html

Thanks for posting! I missed that one. Too bad more media outlets aren't questioning Specter's true intentions and possibly investigating his integrity.

 

[Rob0729]

that was phenomenal.

Although I know you are talking about Jon Stewart, I am going to convince myself that you are talking about my stellar responses to the original questions.

 

[upstater1]

1. How come they tape the second half of the game, if they are going in at half time and decoding the signals to use in the second half of the same game?

Good question. I'd say it's pretty clear that the entire league knows which teams do not change signals. That's why you have repeated tapings of the Steelers. Seems people knew that Cowher was particularly susceptible to taping.

2. What the heck is the difference if the camera is sheltered around three sides? Doesn't this just give the advantage to the home team?


If you create a little booth on the field or else just stick a drape over the camera-guy, then the league can avoid the embarrassing perception that they allow spying. They are only concerned with perception. They can give a hoot less about spying. Taping is allowed, if you're hidden, in other words.

3. If it is true that all the teams steal signals, would there actually be a competitive advantage or would you just be keeping up?

Not all teams steal signals. Rather than put in the extra hour themselves to give their teams an edge, some coaches are lazy indolent sanctimonious holy do-gooders with quiet strength who prefer to blame their failures on coaches who actually work for a living.

4. Isn't it more dishonest to have people hidden who are stealing signals than a camera everyone could see?

No, no, no, no. The league is only concerned that there is an appearance of stealing signals. It can care less about anything else. Goodell made this clear in his interview with Costas.

5. Mangini says the Pats gave him permission to tape after they told him to move the first time. If this is true, would the Pats give up such a devastating advantage to their opponent? Why didn't he extend the courtesy back the following year? (This is a much more troubling than after the memo, they really said screw you we'll do it anyway!)

The Patriots never extended the courtesy at all. So, "If this is true..." is a bit like saying, "If we can trust everything that **** Nixon says..."

I love the NFL, it's a sham, but an entertaining sham.

 

[Rob0729]

1.) Why tape a Championship Game? It's not like you will see that opponent again that season.

2.) If taping opponents is about 1% of what you do, why 2 cameras? Why spend ALL THAT TIME editing tape, synching them up, taking notes, and cataloging?

3.) Why engage in this activity, all the while keeping your owner in the dark, and ultimately embarrass him?

4.) Why keep talking about 'rules' when it is completely unclear what the actual rule is? There apparently is a rulebook that the public is privy to, and a separate publication distributed to each of the 32 NFL teams.

5.) Why do it all all? Why engage in it? If it doesn't serve some purpose, then why do it?

The Patriots are obviously a talented team, with a talented staff. Why jepordize your legacy by engaging in this type of activity? I don't begrudge a team that in game can decipher defensive signals and use them to their advantage, IF it's just a guy say, on the sideline or in the pressbox using binoculars, but it appears that the level of sophistication that the Pats have used goes way beyond that.

6.) How do you expect non-Pats fans to react to all this? You are surprised that this has resulted in doubts among your peers??

1.) The Pats knew they would face the Steelers again. In fact, they met the first game of the year the following season. It is still impossible to take an analog camera and view and decode signals during halftime. No one has come up with credible way for the Patriots to view defensive signals during halftime. Besides, would trying to break down defensive signals be a better use of their staff's time than trying to make halftime adjustments?
2.) Belichick may have understated the importance, but once these films are loaded into an AVID system, it doesn't take that much work to synch the things up. It is the loading an analog tape into an AVID system that takes the longest time.
3.) I am sure there are plenty of things Belichick and Pioli do that Kraft doesn't have a clue about. And I am not talking about shady or illegal stuff. Kraft is a billionaire businessman with other business interests. He is not micromanaging Belichick to know his video staff's practices. Kraft is pretty hands off when it comes to Belichick.
4.) JoePats answered this one.
5.) This is why the Patriots are so successful. Not because they "cheat". Because they are sticklers for details. They want to know everything about their opponents and they will gather as much information as they can no matter how insignificant.
6.) Who really cares what other people think? Other teams have been accused of and some even convicted of worse crimes than the Patriots. It just hasn't been blown out of proportion as Spygate has. The Denver Broncos were caught cheating the cap during their two Super Bowl wins by fudging both Elway's and Terrell Davis' contracts. That allowed them to have a stronger roster than they should have had. I consider that to be a worse crime with a clearer competitive advantage than filming defensive signals where it is legal to steal them anyway. Yet, no one talks about those Super Bowl wins by the Broncos of being tainted.

 

[PromisedLand]

Doesn't the rule state that taping from locations which are not enclosed on all sides and covered with a roof is illegal? I always assumed that meant you weren't allowed to tape the action on the field. You were allowed to tape interviews, training videos, or whatever, inside the stadium. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[upstater1]

Doesn't the rule state that taping from locations which are not enclosed on all sides and covered with a roof is illegal? I always assumed that meant you weren't allowed to tape the action on the field. You were allowed to tape interviews, training videos, or whatever, inside the stadium. Please correct me if I am wrong.

No, you're allowed to tape action on the field, but presumably you're doing it to tape the splits, the angle that TV viewers can never get, the angle that coaches need for prep. Ostensibly, we're talking about shooting from the end zones, high up in some box somewhere, if that's possible. But it's not possible in every stadium so the NFL words things loosely to allow for Mangini to film "with permission." LOL.

The whole thing is one big joke. Like a camera couldn't zoom in on signals from the upper deck. Yeah right.

 

[Marko]

The main thrust of this post was not really to have the questions answered, but to illustrate the lack of honest thought and unbiased reporting on the subject.

 

[PromisedLand]

Doesn't the rule state that taping from locations which are not enclosed on all sides and covered with a roof is illegal? I always assumed that meant you weren't allowed to tape the action on the field. You were allowed to tape interviews, training videos, or whatever, inside the stadium. Please correct me if I am wrong.

No, you're allowed to tape action on the field, but presumably you're doing it to tape the splits, the angle that TV viewers can never get, the angle that coaches need for prep. Ostensibly, we're talking about shooting from the end zones, high up in some box somewhere, if that's possible. But it's not possible in every stadium so the NFL words things loosely to allow for Mangini to film "with permission." LOL.

The whole thing is one big joke. Like a camera couldn't zoom in on signals from the upper deck. Yeah right.

Maybe this isn't the proper forum to debate the rules (again ), but the rule does not state that the taping location must be enclosed on three sides as suggested by Marko in an earlier post which I responded to. Since posting I have looked it up. The rule states, "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/sports/20080511_NFL_DOCUMENTS.pdf

Why would the NFL bother having a rule which requires video shooting locations to be (in essence) fully enclosed, if they wanted teams to be able to video the field from that location? Are they worried about videographers being exposed to crowd noise? I am being silly of course, but I still don't "get" the spirit of that rule unless it is meant to prohibit taping of the field during games.

 

[upstater1]

Maybe this isn't the proper forum to debate the rules (again ), but the rule does not state that the taping location must be enclosed on three sides as suggested by Marko in an earlier post which I responded to. Since posting I have looked it up. The rule states, "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/sports/20080511_NFL_DOCUMENTS.pdf

Why would the NFL bother having a rule which requires video shooting locations to be (in essence) fully enclosed, if they wanted teams to be able to video the field from that location? Are they worried about videographers being exposed to crowd noise? I am being silly of course, but I still don't "get" the spirit of that rule unless it is meant to prohibit taping of the field during games.

It depends on your interpretation of the rule. If you're in a glass cube then you're enclosed but you cans till see. Clearly, the NFL allowed taping from the end zone angle. This is still legal according to the NFL.

 

[Fixit]

Maybe this isn't the proper forum to debate the rules (again ), but the rule does not state that the taping location must be enclosed on three sides as suggested by Marko in an earlier post which I responded to. Since posting I have looked it up. The rule states, "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/sports/20080511_NFL_DOCUMENTS.pdf

Why would the NFL bother having a rule which requires video shooting locations to be (in essence) fully enclosed, if they wanted teams to be able to video the field from that location? Are they worried about videographers being exposed to crowd noise? I am being silly of course, but I still don't "get" the spirit of that rule unless it is meant to prohibit taping of the field during games.

According to the NFL rules, it's supposedly to protect the equipment and cameraman.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=82481

 

[NEPatriot]

5. Mangini says the Pats gave him permission to tape after they told him to move the first time. If this is true, would the Pats give up such a devastating advantage to their opponent? Why didn't he extend the courtesy back the following year? (This is a much more troubling than after the memo, they really said screw you we'll do it anyway!)

Pats said they didn't. They asked Jets' camera man to leave.

8. If Arlen Specter is really concerned about the integrity of the game wouldn't he want to know how widespread this is around the league, and what other type of things are being done(maybe even by his beloved Eagles)?

If anybody thinks that Specter does it because he 'cares' about his team or the integrity of the game, he is a FOOL. Specter is full of ballony and a pathetic liar.

His NFL 'Eagles' has not done well in the past few years. Have you seen Specter do anything to improve his team performance.? Not in a million year.

Our Senators had a hearing about baseball drug scandal 3 or 4 months ago and it did not get any personal attention from any Senator including Specter. Suddenly, Specter personally involves in Spygate incident.? Something is not right here. If he really wants to be fair, he should ask Goodel to investigate every team.

When his Eagles team is on the list, he will STFU. He uses Pats as his pawn to make Goodel 'look' bad.