Point Blank. Is filiming opponents signals against the rules?

VectorPrime said:

Then is the article factually and in-arguably wrong with this statement then? Because its pretty important.

Walsh later told investigators that, at the time, he didn't know the NFL game operations manual forbade taping signals."

Click to expand...

Walsh said he taped the st louis walk through which was closed to everyone but team memebers prior to the super bowl. i think that would be illegal. As far as i know he is NOT the one who taped the jest signals from the sidelines.

Zeus said:

Honest question on my part- what rule prohibits filming coaches signals and what specifically does the rule say?

Click to expand...

I believe it's simply a rule prohibiting electronic devices on the sidelines.

I don't even care. All I know is it was already well known the Patriots had filmed a bunch of opponents from 2000-07. Whether the number is 40 or 100, why exactly does it matter? When fail to frame them, dig up an old story and pretend it's new.

So the September 2006 Anderson memo says:

It seems clear from the context here that the letter is talking about location, not what is being filmed. The "... including but not limited to ... signals" is a clarification of sorts. What is really being said is you can't film from "locations accessible to staff member during the game."

Who knows what Anderson meant to communicate. BB pointed out ambiguities elsewhere in the rules/guidelines. We're making things up as we go along here, so nobody should be surprised when you end up with hash instead of chocolate pudding.

robertweathers said:

NO!!!! (Required Reading for All Who Defend the Pats on Spygate)

To summarize. Belichick knew the rules and Goody and Anderson did not. You can also argue that Goody tried to circumvent the the rules so that they did not need to wait until the competition committee discussed them the following spring. You could also say that he chose to interpret the Article a certain way so he can be right.

Sorry but when it comes to interpreting NFL rules, do you believe BB or Goody to be right?



http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...pygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity

http://ryan-sawtelle.squarespace.co...son-you-hate-the-patriots-is-because-they-win

Click to expand...

Even if goodell/anderson decided to change the rules themselves with the 06 memo it was STILL legal even by their definition to tape from the sidelines up until 06. So all this about tainted victorys by the pats from 2000-2006 is Bull Sht.

Yet another example of Goodell not being a stickler for rules when he can just make them up as he goes. Guy is pathological I'm telling you.

Zeus said:

So the September 2006 Anderson memo says:

“Videotaping 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.”​

It seems clear from the context here that the letter is talking about location, not what is being filmed. The "... including but not limited to ... signals" is a clarication of sorts. What is really being said is you can't film from "locations accessible to staff member during the game."

Who knows what Anderson meant to communicate. BB pointed out ambiguities elsewhere in the rules/guidelines. We're making things up as we go along here, so nobody should be surprised when you end up with hash instead of chocalte pudding.

Click to expand...

Of course it's talking about location. That this thread even exists speaks to Kraft's failure as an owner to fight this thing tooth and nail in 2007-2008.

eom said:

I believe it's simply a rule prohibiting electronic devices on the sidelines.

Click to expand...

But that's not my question. Commissioner Scheisskopf says there is a rule saying you can't tape coaches' signals. That seems pretty clear and unequivocal to me (unlike almost anything else he ever says). So exactly what rule are we talking about?

I'm not expecting you to answer that. We all suspect there isn't an answer. I still wonder why the established media lets Scheisskopf skate on this given his documented history of public prevarication.

reflexblue said:

Walsh said he taped the st louis walk through which was closed to everyone but team memebers prior to the super bowl. i think that would be illegal. As far as i know he is NOT the one who taped the jest signals from the sidelines.

Click to expand...

Wait, what is this about someone outright admitting to tapping the St Louis walkthrough? Did I miss something?

reflexblue said:

Walsh said he taped the st louis walk through which was closed to everyone but team memebers prior to the super bowl. i think that would be illegal. As far as i know he is NOT the one who taped the jest signals from the sidelines.

Click to expand...

No. Walsh said he was in the building when they were doing the walkthrough. He explicitly said he didn't tape it, though he added he wouldn't be surprised if someone did. He had no proof of that though.

KontradictioN said:

No. They have to be taped from an approved spot, though, which the Patriots did not do. Kraft could have came out and hammered ESPN on this in 2007 and them and the Herald on the false walk through report in 2008, but chose not to. So you can thank him for the ******** you're seeing today.

Click to expand...

Kraft has failed as an owner on multiple occasions and the hate he gets from Patriot fans is well deserved.

However, to believe that if he had come out and "hammered" ESPN in 2007 it would prevent the **** we are still seeing to this day is just being naive.

Take Deflategate, for example. Brady denied involvement from the very beginning. He appealed Vincent's decision. He then went all the way to court after Goodell upheld the suspension, while continuing to maintain his innocence. He then WON in court, yet people still think he is guilty and that he blatantly broke the rules.

People who want to believe the Pats cheat and constantly break rules aren't interested in facts. They will continue to be steadfast in their uninformed and uneducated opinions, regardless of who in the organization speaks out against it and regardless of the facts. The media is trying to appeal to these people with these stories.

reflexblue said:

Walsh said he taped the st louis walk through which was closed to everyone but team memebers prior to the super bowl. i think that would be illegal. As far as i know he is NOT the one who taped the jest signals from the sidelines.

Click to expand...

That's not what Walsh said. Walsh was the NFL's star witness and he talked to the league only after receiving assurances that no legal action would be taken against him. The irony of all ironies that that Walsh essentially corroborated BB's assertion that the tapes were never used during the game when they were taken. He also said he was present for the walk-through but did not film anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_videotaping_controversy

I CAN'T BELIEVE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPYGATE. I HATE THEM ALL SO MUCH.

FourierSeries said:

Kraft has failed as an owner on multiple occasions and the hate he gets from Patriot fans is well deserved.

However, to believe that if he had come out and "hammered" ESPN in 2007 it would prevent the **** we are still seeing to this day is just being naive.

Take Deflategate, for example. Brady denied involvement from the very beginning. He appealed Vincent's decision. He then went all the way to court after Goodell upheld the suspension, while continuing to maintain his innocence. He then WON in court, yet people still think he is guilty and that he blatantly broke the rules.

People who want to believe the Pats cheat and constantly break rules aren't interested in facts. They will continue to be steadfast in their uninformed and uneducated opinions, regardless of who in the organization speaks out against it and regardless of the facts. The media is trying to appeal to these people with these stories.

Click to expand...

Comparing Spygate to Deflategate is folly. Let some time pass. The only other scandal that you can compare it to is Bountygate. Heard about that recently? And yes, coming out and hammering ESPN and the Herald would have helped tremendously. To this day, very simple facts about that scandal are either being misreported or aren't being reported at all because nobody from this organization bothered to hold their feet to the fire.

aluminum seats said:

I CAN'T BELIEVE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPYGATE. I HATE THEM ALL SO MUCH.

Click to expand...

Well, the NFL got their asses handed to them in Deflategate, and the Patriots are about to unveil their new Superbowl banner. Had to create a smear job from somewhere. Why not something almost a decade old.

Zeus said:

That's not what Walsh said. Walsh was the NFL's star witness and he talked to the league only after receiving assurances that no legal action would be taken against him. The irony of all ironies that that Walsh essentially corroborated BB's assertion that the tapes were never used during the game when they were taken. He also said he was present for the walk-through but did not film anything.

The NFL reached a deal with Walsh on April 23, 2008 and arranged a meeting between Goodell and Walsh.[9] Prior to the meeting, Walsh sent eight videotapes, containing opponents' coaches' signals from the 2000 through 2002 seasons, in accordance with the agreement.[10] Goodell and Walsh met on May 13, 2008, at which time Walsh told Goodell he and other Patriots employees were present at the Rams' walkthrough to set up video equipment for the game but that there was no tape of the walkthrough made; as a result, Goodell told the media no additional penalties would be brought against the Patriots.[11] Less than 24 hours later, the Herald issued an apology for the article about the alleged walkthrough tape.[12]
​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_videotaping_controversy

Click to expand...

OK, my mistake

wahwho said:

No. Walsh said he was in the building when they were doing the walkthrough. He explicitly said he didn't tape it, though he added he wouldn't be surprised if someone did. He had no proof of that though.

Click to expand...

I must be mistaking walsh for the guy tomase told him he had taped the st louis walk through.

KontradictioN said:

Comparing Spygate to Deflategate is folly. Let some time pass. The only other scandal that you can compare it to is Bountygate. Heard about that recently? And yes, coming out and hammering ESPN and the Herald would have helped tremendously. To this day, very simple facts about that scandal are either being misreported or aren't being reported at all because nobody from this organization bothered to hold their feet to the fire.

Click to expand...

Have you ever brought up facts about Spygate to a group of people who believe the Pats performed nefarious acts during that time period in order to gain an advantage in order to try to educate them? Try it sometime and see how it goes.

Bountrygate is irrelevant because it did not involve NE. The Saints haven't been anywhere near as dominant and fans/other players don't have intense hatred/jealousy of that organization.

The minute the accusations were made, it gave all the ammunition the haters needed. Facts became irrelevant to them at that point.

I'll tell you what would have happened if Kraft came out and hammered ESPN. People would have called him a lying scumbag who supports cheating and they would have went on about how he should just take his medicine without fighting it. It would have been nice if he did hammer them, but it would not have changed anything in the big picture. And ESPN would continue to tell lies about it because there would still be people desperate enough to believe them.

FourierSeries said:

I'll tell you what would have happened if Kraft came out and hammered ESPN. People would have called him a lying scumbag who supports cheating and they would have went on about how he should just take his medicine without fighting it. It would have been nice if he did hammer them, but it would not have changed anything in the big picture. And ESPN would continue to tell lies about it because there would still be people desperate enough to believe them.

Click to expand...

Well Kraft hammering Goody, bspn and the rest would have made ME happy.

The answer is yes and no. It's illegal to film the signals from a non approved spot as of 2007.
All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.

The practice was to shoot the signal, the play and the time clock. The shooting location now has sides and a roof overhead so teams can't see the time clock while filming the signal and the play. That's my understanding of why that was done.

Ray Anderson's memo 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

If he had just said " Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited" Then taping the signals would be illegal no matter the location.

So yes you can tape the signals but only from the approved enclosed video shooting location. Previous to the revisions in 2007 you could tape the signals from the sideline but you couldn't review the tapes during the game. Belichick was going by the old interpertation but was in violation of the revisions to the Game Day Manual and was punished.