Specter: Pats video practices dates to 2000, includes 2004 Steelers games

BB is the film study master. So obviously he sees utility in the films.

Maybe it has to do with the decision making process. For instance:

The defensive coordinator calls his defense quickly. Do you slow down, have plays ready and audible?

Maybe he takes a long time. Is it time to go hurry up?

Perhaps he has guys standing next to him to insert. If it's your dime and nickleback, can you figure what coming in the next couple of plays.

What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

Why does it matter if they did or didn't? It wasn't even a rule that you couldn't until 2006, so what's the problem if they did it from 2000-2006? THEY BROKE NO RULES!

Sob Sob Sob

Actually, a couple of points:

Haslett was on the Steelers after the SB years. However, he played college ball at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Just up the road. They got their steriods from the Steelers.

Webster was a combination of things. Including controlled substances. The name "patsfaninpittsburgh" has like "pittsburgh" in it. before making blanket statements about teams, someone should review the material.

sebman2112 said:

I thought this argument was hashed out during the initial spygate BS? Listen, was the Patriots video man on the sidelines taping the Jets and others? The answer is YES, therefore he wasn't even abiding by your paraphrase of the rules. I don't personally care about his videotaping defensive signals as I think you can gain the same knowledge with binoculars and a pad of paper, but it's fairly obvious the Patriots (and other teams) knew they were breaking the rule.

Like most Patriots fans I think the media and league office have blown this whole thing way out of proportion, and I get annoyed by their seemingly ignoring other offenders. But I'm not blind to the facts either.

Click to expand...

Sigh. Are we not talking about the rules as they were understood prior to 2006?

What is my paraphrase?

In your initial post, you referred to them breking the rules against filming the opposition sideline. I pointed out to you that prior to 2006, there was no such rule.

That's basically it.

JoePats said:

You guys are ignoring the operations manual...Wasn't there something in there about videotaping?

I agree there was nothing mentioned about stealing signals.

Click to expand...

Yes, no videotaping unless in a place enclosed by at least 3 walls.

That was it.

patsfaninpittsburgh said:

Sob Sob Sob

Actually, a couple of points:

Haslett was on the Steelers after the SB years. However, he played college ball at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Just up the road. They got their steriods from the Steelers.

Webster was a combination of things. Including controlled substances. The name "patsfaninpittsburgh" has like "pittsburgh" in it. before making blanket statements about teams, someone should review the material.

Click to expand...

Agreed, you should know the material before making a blanket statement, like "they got their steriods from the Steelers"

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

Run it up baby! said:

Why does it matter if they did or didn't? It wasn't even a rule that you couldn't until 2006, so what's the problem if they did it from 2000-2006? THEY BROKE NO RULES!

Click to expand...

people keep saying that, but I dont think it's true. all the articles back in September said something like this:

"NFL rules state “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” and that all video or coaching purposes must be shot from locations “enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.”

That was re-emphasized in a memo sent Sept. 6 to NFL head coaches and general managers."

you wouldn't RE-emphasize something that was never previously a rule, I think the letter was more like "hey everyone, you know this rule we have on the book? well, now we're going to take it very seriously"

exactly when that original rule went into the book...I don't know. but I'm pretty sure it was before 2006

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

It's always been a violation. What I don't get is that people all of a sudden are calling for more punishment.

Although the public doesn't know all the details about Spygate, Goodell knew everything before yesterday, and he punished us for everything. He knew that we were taping since 2000 from the analysis of the tapes and notes. However, he also knew that it had little, if any, bearing on gameplay. So he punished us for all the taping we've ever done since 2000. Unless Matt Walsh says we've been taping since 1960, there is little more that can be done.

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

BadMoFo said:

It's always been a violation. What I don't get is that people all of a sudden are calling for more punishment.

Although the public doesn't know all the details about Spygate, Goodell knew everything before yesterday, and he punished us for everything. He knew that we were taping since 2000 from the analysis of the tapes and notes. However, he also knew that it had little, if any, bearing on gameplay. So he punished us for all the taping we've ever done since 2000. Unless Matt Walsh says we've been taping since 1960, there is little more that can be done.

Click to expand...

Yes and no at the same time.

He knew we were taping signals from the sidelines since 2000.

The new implication was that we taped a walk thru which would be something new to Goodell as he says he has looked into it and found no evidence of it.

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

According to Gooddell, Billy B thought it was OK to tape, as long as you don't use it during the game you are taping. Interesting interpretation.

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

I guess it's time for Goodell to look at the Jets, taping of the Patriots incident, as well as other teams.

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

Iron Helmet said:

According to Gooddell, Billy B thought it was OK to tape, as long as you don't use it during the game you are taping. Interesting interpretation.

Click to expand...

yeah, well, seeing as how that's the rule I don't get how 'interesting' an interpretation it is.
to each their own, I guess.

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

signbabybrady said:

Yes and no at the same time.

He knew we were taping signals from the sidelines since 2000.

The new implication was that we taped a walk thru which would be something new to Goodell as he says he has looked into it and found no evidence of it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it depends on what happened as far as taping that walkthrough. Who knows, maybe taping from the sideline was only illegal from 2006 on (probably not, but not a big deal). But taping during a game from the sideline is different from taping a practice. The latter case has probably been illegal for a while.

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

The new implication was that we taped a walk thru which would be something new to Goodell as he says he has looked into it and found no evidence of it.

Click to expand...

though he never talked to Walsh.

I guess it's time for Goodell to look at the Jets, taping of the Patriots incident, as well as other teams.

Click to expand...

the NFL released a statement this year saying that it was approved.

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

eom said:

yeah, well, seeing as how that's the rule I don't get how 'interesting' an interpretation it is.
to each their own, I guess.

Click to expand...

Its interesting, because if you look at the rule “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”, Billy really reached with the "during the game" part. Taping of a game is LEGAL. If you read the rule with this in mind, Billy B's interpretation makes a bit more sense. He is saying: I can do this legally, as long the video taken is not "in use"..."during the game".

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

(via Pats Pulpit via Mike Riess)
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.

The key sentence for me is where it says 'during the playing of a game'. Just my opinion but that is probably what led Bill to interpret the sideline taping as legal, since he was not using the tapes during the actual game.

However the memos that came out from the NFL FO regarding sideline taping saying 'don't do this' were pretty clear so.. there you go. Rule broken. Price paid. The end.

Really the fact that this is still a story is kind of silly if you ask me. It was determined that the tapes never affected the outcome of any games but nobody wants to hear that part. :-/

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

Iron Helmet said:

Its interesting, because if you look at the rule “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”, Billy really reached with the "during the game" part. Taping of a game is LEGAL. If you read the rule with this in mind, Billy B's interpretation makes a bit more sense. He is saying: I can do this legally, as long the video taken is not "in use"..."during the game".

Click to expand...

yeah, and that's pretty much why it was done for so many years.
then the commish got a bug up his ass about it, for whatever reason, and issued a memo further defining said rule.
BB violated the memo and mangina made an issue out of it.

what everyone's various motivations were for all this, I have no idea, and nobody else does, either.

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

Specter said that we were "TAPING" since 2000. He never says anything about "ILLEGALLY TAPING DEFENSIVE SIGNALS" since 2000. His quote is being twisted to "sexy up" the story.

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

yeah, and who's to say we even watched the tapes?

until they show me a tape of them watching the tapes this is all bs.

Re: What's all the fuss about taping since 2000?

mrbandw said:

(via Pats Pulpit via Mike Riess)
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.

The key sentence for me is where it says 'during the playing of a game'. Just my opinion but that is probably what led Bill to interpret the sideline taping as legal, since he was not using the tapes during the actual game.

However the memos that came out from the NFL FO regarding sideline taping saying 'don't do this' were pretty clear so.. there you go. Rule broken. Price paid. The end.

Really the fact that this is still a story is kind of silly if you ask me. It was determined that the tapes never affected the outcome of any games but nobody wants to hear that part. :-/

Click to expand...

With the length of those sentences they use, I can see where confusion might happen. But if you break it down, the first part of the sentence essentially says "Any use...[during] any game...of information-gathering equipment...shall be prohibited..." Then it goes on to give examples.

As far as not affecting the outcome of any game, I'm not sure how anyone can prove one way or another. It's hard to prove a negative. Sort of like - prove to me that if Barry Bonds hadn't taken steroids, he would never have set the home run record. Pretty much impossible. Note: I'm not comparing the spygate to Bonds' steroid situation, just showing a similar example of trying to prove a negative.

I obviously don't think it affected the outcome of the game against the Jets because those tapes were confiscated before they could be used. But other games? I really have no idea how they decided that.