Fun read: Michael Hurley destroys Spygate article in NY Post

Gwedd said:

Umm.... I can see from your post that reading comprehension isn't one of your major skill sets.

This part should jump right out at you: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant......." What that says is that you can't use anything but a polaroid or field telephone to relay the opponent's signals to your coaching staff DURING THE GAME IN WHICH THEY ARE COLLECTED. The Patriots never did that. They collected video of opponents signals (just like every other club does.did) for use in a data file of known signals, FOR FUTURE USE.

Click to expand...

Calm down. I'm citing Article IX, Section 9.1(c)(14) as a response to the common fan-assumption that there is no rule against spying and it's only about camera location. Even if you think Belichick could've argued his way around it, it's still a rule about spying. Even if you think Belichick is 100% right....it's still a rule about spying. My criticism is against people who frequently argue that Spygate was about camera placement and not spying. It's an argument that just isn't true.

Gwedd said:

The Patriots never used this system in-game, and were never accused by the league of doing such a thing. The only people who have claimed such a thing are trolls from losing franchises, and repotards/mediots who are trying to hack their way to some sort of name recognition.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. Again, I'd point to the Scouts Inc article which does the best job of pointing out how the tape is simply used to stream-line the film breakdown process so you can identify coverages. It's not about knowing anything pre-snap, in-game.

So, nice try, and thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I must really hate the Patriots just because I think the "camera placement" argument is a weak response to Spygate criticizers.

Oh, and apparently I also support mob lynching, too.

Shockt327 said:

Article IX, Section 9.1(c)(14) of the NFL constitution and 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."

Yeah, this fan-rumor that illegal-filming is only ever addressed in the operations manual (and only deals with the the location of the camera, at that) is just not true. And you don't need the above bylaws quote to understand this either. Taping signals is illegal. Everyone knows it.

Click to expand...

that is what the argument is, that the tape wasn't looked at till after the game

Every cheater in sports has a whistleblower. Steve Courson blew the whistle on the Steelers PED cheating in the 70's. Lance Armstrong's masseuse. The US track coach on Balco. The documentary cameraman hearing Gregg Williams talk about bountygate. And so on.

With that said it's interesting that for all the cheating accusations that get thrown the Patriots way, and for all the employees that left this organization, many on less than good terms... and for all the people that would love nothing better than to bring the Patriots and especially BB down.... not one person has stepped forward and blown the whistle on the Patriots. Not one ex employee has written a tell all book. Not one has come out and claimed they either knew about cheating in the organization, witnessed cheating, or asked to participate in cheating.

Not one.

Go figure.

Shockt327 said:

Calm down. I'm citing Article IX, Section 9.1(c)(14) as a response to the common fan-assumption that there is no rule against spying and it's only about camera location.

Click to expand...

Here you're conflating two arguments, and you're getting them both wrong.

1.) "spying" a/k/a stealing signals, is absolutely legal. From one of the articles I've already linked to:

Another current assistant coach said the legal stealing of signals is just "good coaching.

Click to expand...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3017423

2.) Camera location is, in fact, the problem. You can film games. You have to film them from specific locations, although you can also get permission from the other team to film from other locations. The disagreement hinges on "In a game" (or whatever that first word is, since I'm not going back to look it up again.

Here are the Jets, openly talking about filming games:

"We do it every time we go on the road," Mangini repeated. "We ask for permission to do it. It's within the league rules, and when people ask us to do it, we grant it, as well."

Click to expand...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3151217

In other words, put down the shovel and stop digging, because you just don't seem to know the topic.

sb1 said:

I think the problem was BB stuck to the status quo after the memo came out, because he was arrogant enough to think he could wordsmith/lawyer his way out of it when caught. Which is what he tried to do.

Arrogance can be a good trait but in this case it did him in. Playing lawyer is not something he is paid to do. I'm sure he wishes he just fell in line on this with every other team, as we all do.

Click to expand...

Maybe - though I agree with you in hindsight I'm sure BB would prefer that he didn't have to deal with Goodell's attempts to delude NFL fandom that signal stealing is illegal and will not be tolerated

Of course it's not only tolerated but the rule book states where it can be conducted legally.

I for one don't blame Mangini on this anymore. He did what BB likely would have done - noted a rule violation and pointed it out

How was he supposed to know that Goodell would react the way he did - fostering the perception that the Patriots were doing something unholy?

My take is that BB's interpretation is STILL correct - that the rule prohibited sideline taping for the purposes of that game day. It was impossible for Belichick to get the tape, break it down, interpret the signal calls and integrate the intel and revamp his game plan all during half time. Belichick wanted the films for post-game analysis to support future games against the teams or coaches. Film study is what Belichick loves to do.

Belichick STILL won't fully comply with Goodell's injury reporting scheme. Why? Because Belichick knows that Goodell is doing what's right for mafia bookies who need an accurate Las Vegas Line. Injury reporting only undermines player safety - and Belichick's players know that he's got their backs.

I think if Kraft and Belichick had to do it all over again I would hope they would publicly call "BS" on Goodell. I think someday Belich0cik may do exactly that.

Deus Irae said:

Here you're conflating two arguments, and you're getting them both wrong.

1.) "spying" a/k/a stealing signals, is absolutely legal. From one of the articles I've already linked to:



http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3017423

2.) Camera location is, in fact, the problem. You can film games. You have to film them from specific locations, although you can also get permission from the other team to film from other locations. The disagreement hinges on "In a game" (or whatever that first word is, since I'm not going back to look it up again.

In other words, put down the shovel and stop digging.

Click to expand...

1) That's a moot point because you are now referring to stealing signals without a camera. Stealing signals with a camera is absolutely illegal. The headline of that very article you posted makes a discrepancy between the two. The rule I previously quoted addresses the idea of using a camera to illegally tape signals. Even if you think the wording is open for criticism, that's great. But it's still de-bunks the fan-theory that I've been criticizing: this fan-rumor that illegal-filming is only ever addressed in the operations manual (and only deals with the the location of the camera, at that) is just not true.

2) Camera location is the problem? As in singular? No. The much bigger part of the problem is that the camera was being used to film signals. Again, there would be no real criticism if the Pats simply filmed All22 without permission. It's the fact that the camera is being used for signal stealing; that's the much, much, much bigger issue.

Shockt327 said:

1) That's a moot point because you are now referring to stealing signals without a camera. Stealing signals with a camera is absolutely illegal. The headline of that very article you posted makes a discrepancy between the two. The rule I previously quoted addresses the idea of using a camera to illegally tape signals. Even if you think the wording is open for criticism, that's great. But it's still de-bunks the fan-theory that I've been criticizing: this fan-rumor that illegal-filming is only ever addressed in the operations manual (and only deals with the the location of the camera, at that) is just not true.

Click to expand...

Now you don't understand "moot" and you don't bother to read your own posts, because you used the word "spying", more than once, rather than filming. This is getting ridiculous. There's no sense discussing this further, because you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Shockt327 said:

1) That's a moot point because you are now referring to stealing signals without a camera. Stealing signals with a camera is absolutely illegal. The headline of that very article you posted makes a discrepancy between the two. The rule I previously quoted addresses the idea of using a camera to illegally tape signals. Even if you think the wording is open for criticism, that's great. But it's still de-bunks the fan-theory that I've been criticizing: this fan-rumor that illegal-filming is only ever addressed in the operations manual (and only deals with the the location of the camera, at that) is just not true.
.

Click to expand...

That's not true. Look at the rule from the Bylaws again:

"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."

Click to expand...

There's no language whatsoever about signals. It references "videotape machines", but that rule can't possibly mean no videotaping can occur, else it's in conflict with all the passages in the Policy Manual giving very detailed instructions on videotaping games, including the "enclosed on all sides" location instruction and instructions on how to package and ship videos after games. It even included guidelines to scoreboard operators to quickly update after plays because videographers would be shooting the scoreboard after every play.

In the league letter announcing punishment, they didn't quote the bylaws. Why is that? They quoted the memo, with its added language specifically about signals, and they quoted the policy manual with the language about "enclosed on all sides", but not the actual league rulebook. You quote the bylaws, thinking there's signal prohibitive language there, but the league never did. Why wouldn't they, unless there's nothing there they can cite?

Deus Irae said:

Now you don't understand "moot" and you don't bother to read your own posts. This is getting ridiculous. There's no sense discussing this futher, because you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Click to expand...

"I'm citing Article IX, Section 9.1(c)(14) as a response to the common fan-assumption that there is no rule against spying and it's only about camera location."

No, you simply looked at my casual use of the word "spying" -- and totally ignored its use within the context of my post about camera location and rules against spying with a camera (not to mention the half dozen other posts I had about the use of cameras for spying). All of which make it blatantly obvious that I'm talking about spying with a camera. What's your reaction to such a minor flaw in my post? You decide to get intentionally dense and pretend like you thought I was just talking about spying in general, and couldn't possibly know the difference in the rules between the two. All so you could conveniently correct it, and pretend like as I couldn't possibly even know what my own argument is. How clever.

Hey, you misspelled the word "futher." Maybe I'll play your game and pretend that I simply cannot understand what you are trying to say, and declare that you are incapable of making a point. Yeah, real clever.

Shockt327 said:

No, you simply looked at my casual use of the word "spying" -- and totally ignored its use within the context of my post about camera location and rules against spying with a camera (not to mention the half dozen other posts I had about the use of cameras for spying). All of which make it blatantly obvious that I'm talking about spying with a camera. What's your reaction to such a minor flaw in my post? You decide to get intentionally dense and pretend like you thought I was just talking about spying in general, and couldn't possibly know the difference in the rules between the two. All so you could conveniently correct it, and pretend like as I couldn't possibly even know what my own argument is. How clever.

Hey, you misspelled the word "futher." Maybe I'll play your game and pretend that I simply cannot understand what you are trying to say, and declare that you are incapable of making a point. Yeah, real clever.

Click to expand...

1.) I didn't ignore its use. I covered all bases, which is something you can't seem to grasp.

2.) I fixed "futher" long before you made your post (approximately 25 minutes earlier, as a matter of fact), and the failure to push the "r" button firmly enough is much different than making a significant word choice. Your decision to point to it, while failing to note that I CORRECTED MY MISTAKE, WHICH REQUIRED ACKNOWLEDGING ONE, does you no credit.

3.) Pretty much everyone is trying to get you to grasp some pretty obvious stuff, to no avail. It's certainly hasn't just been me pointing out your errors.

Take a good, long, look in the mirror, because, yes, you are coming off as someone who simply doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

well, it's obvious what this guy's issue is....filming with a camera from the approved enclosed area...legal. He HAS to agree with that because that is the ONLY reality. Filming from an unapproved sideline position is "spying" using the exact same camera, however. So the tape that is later on used by the staff is NOT spying if taped from the enclosed area but IS spying if it's not even though the camera is recording the exact same second by second, minute by minute in game action.

Obviously, he's got a biased agenda that precludes him from seeing the idiocy of his opinion.

BTW, the Patriots to this very day are STILL taping games with cameras, so....let me use a hackneyed .gif to explain it to the hackneyed opinion holder...

Joker said:

well, it's obvious what this guy's issue is....filming with a camera from the approved enclosed area...legal. He HAS to agree with that because that is the ONLY reality. Filming from an unapproved sideline position is "spying" using the exact same camera, however.

Click to expand...

This is why I mentioned spying as well as filming. He just doesn't seem to be able to wrap his mind around the obvious.

Stealing signals - OK
Filming - OK
Stealing signals by filming from the sidelines - Not OK

Deus Irae said:

Take a good, long, look in the mirror, because, yes, you are coming off as someone who simply doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm really going to have to take a long look in the mirror over my criticism of the theory that it was really just about the placement of the camera, and not spying with it...

As far as your All-Caps rant goes; I point to my quote of "What's your reaction to such a minor flaw in my post?" So, I certainly did acknowledge the flaw in my post. And I pointed yours out just to lightly mock your serious attempt at doing the same thing with me.

Deus Irae said:

This is why I mentioned spying as well as filming. He just doesn't seem to be able to wrap his mind around the obvious.

Stealing signals - OK
Filming - OK
Stealing signals by filming from the sidelines - Not OK

Click to expand...

Are you still seriously trying to play this game?

"No, you simply looked at my casual use of the word "spying" -- and totally ignored its use within the context of my post about camera location and rules against spying with a camera (not to mention the half dozen other posts I had about the use of cameras for spying). All of which make it blatantly obvious that I'm talking about spying with a camera."

On that note, I guess I should seriously ask you what the word "futher" means....

Shockt327 said:

Yeah, I'm really going to have to take a long look in the mirror over my criticism of the theory that it was really just about the placement of the camera, and not spying with it...

As far as your All-Caps rant goes; I point to my quote of "What's your reaction to such a minor flaw in my post?" So, I certainly did acknowledge the flaw in my post. And I pointed yours out just to lightly mock your serious attempt at doing the same thing with me.

Click to expand...

No, you have to take a good long look in the mirror because you were clowning yourself, and you continue to do so. This is yet another example. I never said you didn't acknowledge the 'flaw' in your post. I noted the difference between a failure to push the "r" button strongly enough and the decision to use the broad term "spy" if you didn't mean it (which, obviously, you did anyway).

Shockt327 said:

Are you still seriously trying to play this game?

"No, you simply looked at my casual use of the word "spying" -- and totally ignored its use within the context of my post about camera location and rules against spying with a camera (not to mention the half dozen other posts I had about the use of cameras for spying). All of which make it blatantly obvious that I'm talking about spying with a camera."

On that note, I guess I should seriously ask you what the word "futher" means....

Click to expand...

I'm not playing any game. You're clowning yourself. While that's amusing, it's also distracting me from some work. So, please, either learn the topic or go be wrong posting about this with someone else.

Deus Irae said:

No, you have to take a good long look in the mirror because you were clowning yourself, and you continue to do so. This is yet another example. I never said you didn't acknowledge the 'flaw' in your post. I noted the difference between a failure to push the "r" button strongly enough and the decision to use the broad term "spy" if you didn't mean it (which, obviously, you did anyway).

Click to expand...

And I'm commenting on your vain attempt to totally ignore the context of a word's use, and go on to take in such an obnoxiously literal manner; to the point that you are actually still trying to infer that I just can't understand the difference between spying with and without a camera.

Shockt327 said:

And I'm commenting on your vain attempt to totally ignore the context of a word's use, and go on to take in such an obnoxiously literal manner; to the point that you are actually still trying to infer that I just can't understand the difference between spying with and without a camera.

Click to expand...

See, here's the problem. I didn't ignore context. You, on the other hand, have ignored pretty much everything. Now, either learn the issue, or stop bugging me about it.

The only thing that upsets me about Spygate at this point is that Belichick tried so little to defend his integrity. We think it's great that he has such a disdain for the media and doesn't care what anyone thinks about him, but he showed poor judgement in his handling of the matter. This story affects his integrity around the football world, and worse, subjects us fans to a lifetime of this nonsense. This story will never go away. Twenty-five, fifty years from now, people who dislike the Patriots are going to bring this up. Winning in '07 or '11 wouldn't have changed it, either. And it's Belichick's fault. A supposed minor infraction has destroyed your reputation around half of the football world. Congrats.