Misinterpretation

[dante828]

Why is it so hard for everyone, especially Peter King, to buy Belichick's explanation that he misinterpreted the rule. I think it is extremely reasonable to think that Belichick aggressively interpreted the rule for his advantage and put the letter of the rule before a league memo that does not use the same language as the rule itself. The best explanation of this I have seen is here:

http://thesportslawprofessor.blogspot.com/2007/09/bill-belichicks-interpretation.html

As a lawyer myself, I liked his analysis. The thing is, when I first read the rule, after Belichick said he misinterpreted the rule, I could see clearly why how he did, its completely ambiguous and could be read a number of ways. Other evidence supports that Belichick misinterpreted the rule:

The Patriots never used the film during the game, meaning they thought this type of tape was for postgame use only. This behavior is totally consistant with the interpretation Belichick said he used.

The Patriots did not hide their camera man on the sidelines. The Pats were not hiding what they were doing because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong.

I know it might be scary for the media to admit, but Belichick and the Patriots might just have been telling the truth all along. Of course, that is far too simple of an explanation for anyone to believe, you know, except reasonable people.

 

[bbabin]

Another problem is that Goodell repeated that he still does not believe BBs explanation of his misinterpretation. Why should we be punished because he thinks that BB wasn't following the 'spirit' of the rule? If the Patriots' actions were indeed technically allowed under a certain interpretation then they are not against the rules... right?

What this entire issue comes down to is:

1) Goodell's acceptance (or lack thereof) of BBs explanation.
2) Goodell's decision on the severity of the infraction.

If he's an idiot, this is a big problem.

 

[basement zombie]

I think the full context and portion of that quote is important here:

Q - "On Belichick’s explanation that he thought it was legal to videotape as long as he didn’t use the info in the same game….did you believe him?"...

A - "I didn't accept Bill Belichick's explanation then, and I still don't today."

Goodell seems to be saying that he does not accept Belichick's explanation as an excuse or justification which would preclude him and the Patriots from punishment.

 

[Solaris]

Why is it so hard to believe that Bill lied? I certainly don't buy the agrument either. Hey, he got caught and that's that. It's fine and it is what it is.

 

[rj8806]

Why is it so hard to believe that Bill lied? I certainly don't buy the agrument either. Hey, he got caught and that's that. It's fine and it is what it is.

I agree. I don't believe BB's explanation either. Then again, it's not my place to believe it or not. The man is a freakin genius and to play "dumb" like that just doesn't work in my book.
It doesn't matter anyhow, I have always been and will always continue to be "A FAN".


Richard

 

[JoePats]

Why is it so hard to believe that Bill lied? I certainly don't buy the agrument either. Hey, he got caught and that's that. It's fine and it is what it is.

If he believed he was breaking the rule, he would have tried to hide the camera man. There is no evidence the cameraman was hidden, or any evidence of deceit at all. Again, if he knew he was guilty, he would have tried to cover it up.

1) He was wearing Patriot apparel
2) He was holding the camera on the sideline
3) He was in full view of 80,000 people
4) Those people include other coaches (who were waving at the camera), NFL security, and security from other clubs

Anything else?

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I agree. I don't believe BB's explanation either. Then again, it's not my place to believe it or not. The man is a freakin genius and to play "dumb" like that just doesn't work in my book.
It doesn't matter anyhow, I have always been and will always coninue to be "A FAN".

I agree with you, I dont think he thought the punishment would be as severe, in fact, I know he didnt think it would be that severe.

 

[dante828]

Why is it so hard to believe that Bill lied? I certainly don't buy the agrument either. Hey, he got caught and that's that. It's fine and it is what it is.

He may very well be lieing, my point was to say that there is some, if not a significant amount of evidence to suggest he was telling the truth, and it shouldn't be ignored. Most people assume he was lieing and ignore the facts and the possible interpretation I pointed out. Everyone has refuse to give Belichick the benefit of the doubt, I have not seen one article, save the blog I posted, that attempted to defend Belichick. Why is that? If anyone in the media wanted to take a controversial stand, defending Belichick and his justification would have been it. That suggest to me that the media is more driven by hatred then making a story.

 

[upstater1]

Why is it so hard for everyone, especially Peter King, to buy Belichick's explanation that he misinterpreted the rule. I think it is extremely reasonable to think that Belichick aggressively interpreted the rule for his advantage and put the letter of the rule before a league memo that does not use the same language as the rule itself. The best explanation of this I have seen is here:

http://thesportslawprofessor.blogspot.com/2007/09/bill-belichicks-interpretation.html

As a lawyer myself, I liked his analysis. The thing is, when I first read the rule, after Belichick said he misinterpreted the rule, I could see clearly why how he did, its completely ambiguous and could be read a number of ways. Other evidence supports that Belichick misinterpreted the rule:

The Patriots never used the film during the game, meaning they thought this type of tape was for postgame use only. This behavior is totally consistant with the interpretation Belichick said he used.

The Patriots did not hide their camera man on the sidelines. The Pats were not hiding what they were doing because they didn't think they were doing anything wrong.

I know it might be scary for the media to admit, but Belichick and the Patriots might just have been telling the truth all along. Of course, that is far too simple of an explanation for anyone to believe, you know, except reasonable people.

Peter King is a liar on this rule.

He repeatedly states that there's no way Belichick misinterpreted a rule from 2000-to-2007. He then elides the argument by not mentioning the rule. And finally he comes up with the killer quote saying that Ray Anderson even issued a memo highlighting the rule unambiguously. King then precedes to give the memo verbatim, and finally he says, "How could that possibly be interpreted."

That's King's intellectual dishonesty right there because he knows he's conflating the rule in the rulebook with the memo. The rule in the rulebook from 2007 on is completely ambiguous, and in fact, I WOULD interpret it Belichick's way. The memo is UNAMBIGUOUS, IMO, and only then does King have a point. Of course the question is, how seriously did the Patriots take the memo? Especially after Mangini was caught filming and the NFL shrugged? Especially when the Dolphins admitted taping and the NFL said, "That's football!" Given that, how seriously should the Patriots have taken the memo, and how many memos does the NFL send in any given month? Again, the memo went out in pre-season of 2006. The Phins and Jets were caught taping after the memo went out. The NFL said, "That's football!"

Can someone explain why the Patriots should have taken the NFL seriously?

 

[Hoodie]

I think BB intentional misinterpreted the rule. In other words he read the memo decided to do it anyway and if they got caught use misinterpretation as an excuse.

What I don't understand is the outrage that has caused. It's as though all these fans and media types obey very rule all the time. Ever cheat on your taxes? Run a red light? USe your work computer for personal business? Jay walk? Fail to mention that a clerk has just given you too much change?

DeOssie just said something that I can believe I'm going to quote but he said that the Patriots were punished, not for videotaping because that is legal and done all the time. Rather the Pats were punished for where the cameraman was standing.

All the haters and media types are as guilty as BB. They are deliberately misinterpreting the situation.

 

[upstater1]

Why is it so hard to believe that Bill lied? I certainly don't buy the agrument either. Hey, he got caught and that's that. It's fine and it is what it is.

If you read the article that Dante is linking to, then perhaps you can refute the law professor's argument.

I think it's pretty solid. The NFL is going through great pains to describe filming inside an enclosure with a roof. If they had banned filming altogether, they wouldn't have bothered going into the architecture of structures. Clearly, filming is sometimes permissable according to the rule.

Then we have the quotes about "coaching purposes" and "in game use." Again, if filming is totally forbidden even for uses AFTER the game, which is Belichick's supposed misinterpretation, then why make mention of "in use" at all? Why not just forbid it completely, for use DURING the game and AFTER the game.

The professor is completely right that this rule is BETTER interpreted the way that Belichick interpreted it, and that it's less valid to interpret it any other way.

 

[upstater1]

I think BB intentional misinterpreted the rule. In other words he read the memo decided to do it anyway and if they got caught use misinterpretation as an excuse.

What I don't understand is the outrage that has caused. It's as though all these fans and media types obey very rule all the time. Ever cheat on your taxes? Run a red light? USe your work computer for personal business? Jay walk? Fail to mention that a clerk has just given you too much change?

DeOssie just said something that I can believe I'm going to quote but he said that the Patriots were punished, not for videotaping because that is legal and done all the time. Rather the Pats were punished for where the cameraman was standing.

All the haters and media types are as guilty as BB. They are deliberately misinterpreting the situation.

I would point out that the memo was sent out in 2006. After that memo was sent, the Phins and Jets were both caught taping against the Patriots. In both instances, the NFL dismissed it and said, "That's football." If you're Belichick, then how much weight do you give the memo after the NFL undercuts the rule in the memo by saying, "That's football!"

 

[Solaris]

If you read the article that Dante is linking to, then perhaps you can refute the law professor's argument.

I think it's pretty solid. The NFL is going through great pains to describe filming inside an enclosure with a roof. If they had banned filming altogether, they wouldn't have bothered going into the architecture of structures. Clearly, filming is sometimes permissable according to the rule.

Then we have the quotes about "coaching purposes" and "in game use." Again, if filming is totally forbidden even for uses AFTER the game, which is Belichick's supposed misinterpretation, then why make mention of "in use" at all? Why not just forbid it completely, for use DURING the game and AFTER the game.

The professor is completely right that this rule is BETTER interpreted the way that Belichick interpreted it, and that it's less valid to interpret it any other way.

Every rule has an interpretation...if not we wouldn't have lawyers. My point is the most reasonable explination to me is that he was lying. It's fine..it's okay...we all do it...I personally don't care about that. Ambiguity is one thing, and so is building an argument on it, but common sense goes along way too.

 

[Marko]

Well we know that the NFL makes rules to apply especially to the Pats! I found it funny that Goodell completely understood that they weren't taping for the current game, yet completely scoffed at BB's interpretation.

 

[upstater1]

Every rule has an interpretation...if not we wouldn't have lawyers. My point is the most reasonable explination to me is that he was lying. It's fine..it's okay...we all do it...I personally don't care about that. Ambiguity is one thing, and so is building an argument on it, but common sense goes along way too.

That's exactly what I was asking you.

Common sense tells me and the professsor that Belichick was correct in his interpretation.

That's the whole point of this thread.

That's why I was asking you to use your common sense to tell me how Belichick should have interpreted it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Every rule has an interpretation...if not we wouldn't have lawyers. My point is the most reasonable explination to me is that he was lying. It's fine..it's okay...we all do it...I personally don't care about that. Ambiguity is one thing, and so is building an argument on it, but common sense goes along way too.

Common Sense:

- stealing signals is legal
- taping the opposing team is legal
- taking polaroids of the opposing team is legal
- teams ask permission of other teams to film games
- the Jets filmed the Patriots game AFTER spygate and were held blameless by Goodell
- even under Goodell's interpretation of the rules, a coach could set up a dozen polaroid cameras on the sidelines and have them snapping pictures in rapid sequence to steal the signals and that would be allowable


Now, how the hell does common sense than tell you that the smartest way to interpret the rule is to assume it makes all videotaping of opponents' signals from the sidelines illegal?

 

[JoePats]

- the Jets filmed the Patriots game AFTER spygate and were held blameless by Goodell

I think the Jets taping game in question was in 2006 at the Razor, where they won in the mud.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think the Jets taping game in question was in 2006 at the Razor, where they won in the mud.

Thanks for catching that... I meant after the memo was issued.

 

[JR4]

I think BB intentional misinterpreted the rule. In other words he read the memo decided to do it anyway and if they got caught use misinterpretation as an excuse.

I agree with the above

What I don't understand is the outrage that has caused. It's as though all these fans and media types obey very rule all the time. Ever cheat on your taxes? Run a red light? USe your work computer for personal business? Jay walk? Fail to mention that a clerk has just given you too much change?

DeOssie just said something that I can believe I'm going to quote but he said that the Patriots were punished, not for videotaping because that is legal and done all the time. Rather the Pats were punished for where the cameraman was standing.

All the haters and media types are as guilty as BB. They are deliberately misinterpreting the situation.

The reason this is such a big deal is because it is the Patriots .... winners.
It's Belichick .... who has always given the media a hard time.
It was their chance to make a mountain of a mole hill and get the man
that never bowed to them.
There is a lot of jealousy and venting that is envolved here. By both the
media and fans of other teams.

 

[fgssand]

I would point out that the memo was sent out in 2006. After that memo was sent, the Phins and Jets were both caught taping against the Patriots. In both instances, the NFL dismissed it and said, "That's football." If you're Belichick, then how much weight do you give the memo after the NFL undercuts the rule in the memo by saying, "That's football!"

Why was it that not one single member of the media had the balls to ask Goodell that very question??? If not asking that question, when Goodell noted that Walsh mentioned "maybe one other team" again, where was the wonderful media then to ask about the Jets & Dolphins??

Does that right there not prove anti Patriot bias???