an interesting new thought

[richpats]

One of these possibilities must be true:

1.) Belichick is among the stupidest spies in the annals of mankind

2.) Belichick is so arrogant that he felt he could thumb his nose at the rulebook for years and nobody would dare call him on it

3.) Belichick read a memo open to interpretation and interpreted it differently than the Commissioner ended up doing

When you realize that the most likely scenario is #3, hopefully you'll rejoin the world of the rational and come in off the ledge.

The memo says NO videotaping of signals. Belichick videotaped signals, and not in the specified locations (i.e. "enclosed area").

Just because the rule is in place to prevent one advantage (during the game) doesn't mean it can be ignored because Belichick is using it for other reasons.

 

[richpats]

Which brings me to the point of when did the rule go into effect?
The ambiguous, poorly written rule in question

These tactics have been going on in the NFL for a long time, but somehow the media would have the sheep believe that BB is the first, last, & only coach to ever act in such a way.

The last point made, was that he didn't say that Belichick shouldn't have been fined. That's the whole point. He DID break the rule. You can make excuses for Belichick all you'd like, but here's the question you need to ask yourself - if Belichick read the manual and memo, and still continued to film on the sidelines, don't you think he's just asking to get caught?

 

[Deus Irae]

The memo says NO videotaping of signals. Belichick videotaped signals, and not in the specified locations (i.e. "enclosed area").

Just because the rule is in place to prevent one advantage (during the game) doesn't mean it can be ignored because Belichick is using it for other reasons.

We know that the rule isn't enforced in the manner you're assuming, because the Jets situation which followed proved that. Here's some reading for you about interpretation. I posted it in another thread, but it looks like you would be helped by it, too:

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

 

[richpats]

We know that the rule isn't enforced in the manner you're assuming, because the Jets situation which followed proved that. Here's some reading for you about interpretation. I posted it in another thread, but it looks like you would be helped by it, too:

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

See my post above. Belichick gambled and lost on this one, and lost big. That "interpretation" says as much.

This is like telling your kid to make his bed before breakfast every morning and one day he decides to be a smart-alec and doesn't eat breakfast so he can get out of making his bed. Think the kid is going to get off scott-free?

 

[Deus Irae]

See my post above. Belichick gambled and lost on this one, and lost big. That "interpretation" says as much.

This is like telling your kid to make his bed before breakfast every morning and one day he decides to be a smart-alec and doesn't eat breakfast so he can get out of making his bed. Think the kid is going to get off scott-free?

Actually, it says nothing of the kind and it's nothing like your kid pulling that. Other than that I'm sure you have some point. However, I'll point out the obvious to you:

When you have a person who's the final arbiter, their interpretation takes precedence over yours no matter which interpretation is more valid, used or accepted. To use a parent analogy:

The family rule says no candy from 7pm - 1pm
The family lives in New York
The family takes a trip to California every year and every year, Junior eats a candy in California at 6pm California time
Junior eats a candy at 6pm California time
Daddy doesn't punish Junior
Daddy leaves the picture and Stepdaddy takes over
On the next California vacation, Junior eats a candy at 6pm California time
Stepdaddy punished Junior because he interprets the 7pm - 1pm time as referring to Eastern Standard Time.

The result is that Stepdaddy wins because he is Stepaddy. He doesn't win because his interpretation was correct. You could switch the time zone issues around and Stepaddy would still win, because he's daddy. Now, back to the real world...

In the real world, Tagliabue didn't punish the Patriots for this type of filming. To the best of my knowledge, the Patriots were never specifically contacted by the league regarding this type of filming, even though they were doing it in plain sight for years and a phone call could have stopped it without all the nonsense that's since happened. Goodell, essentially, pulled a 2004 Polian by instituting a 'change of emphasis'.

 

[chrisfx811]

See my post above. Belichick gambled and lost on this one, and lost big. That "interpretation" says as much.

This is like telling your kid to make his bed before breakfast every morning and one day he decides to be a smart-alec and doesn't eat breakfast so he can get out of making his bed. Think the kid is going to get off scott-free?

No but he should.

Critical thinking like that should be encouraged.

 

[Bella*chick]

No but he should.

Critical thinking like that should be encouraged.

I actually agree. That's the kid who's going to grow up to make the big bucks.

 

[chrisfx811]

I actually agree. That's the kid who's going to grow up to make the big bucks.

Exactly, and the parent who gets mad and punishes their kid is too insecure to avoid the kneejerk reaction.

 

[richpats]

Actually, it says nothing of the kind and it's nothing like your kid pulling that. Other than that I'm sure you have some point.

Uh, yeah it did:

"I'm not saying Belichick didn't interpret the rules aggressively and in his favor. I'm also not saying taxpayers, lawyers and regulators don't do the same, every day. When one is dealing with a rule, what's not prohibited is impliedly permitted. Belichick took an aggressive position and paid the penalty for his interpretation."

And how is it not like the 'making the bed' scenario? 2 rules, both with clear intentions. The intentions are "don't videotape signals" and "make the bed". If you are responsible for not meeting that intention, then you pay the price. And the penalty is never worth the risk because there is no advantage to be gained.

 

[richpats]

I actually agree. That's the kid who's going to grow up to make the big bucks.

And have to pay $500,000 in fines when he gets too playful with his interpretations.

 

[richpats]

Exactly, and the parent who gets mad and punishes their kid is too insecure to avoid the kneejerk reaction.

The kid deserves the punishment. It will teach him a lesson about using common sense and making better choices. And you bet his bed is going to be made from then on out.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I would add that in people vs bucky stevens, 1979, it was established that "you're not my real dad" is not a valid defense in questions of time-regulated candy-eating breaches.

 

[Deus Irae]

Uh, yeah it did:

"I'm not saying Belichick didn't interpret the rules aggressively and in his favor. I'm also not saying taxpayers, lawyers and regulators don't do the same, every day. When one is dealing with a rule, what's not prohibited is impliedly permitted. Belichick took an aggressive position and paid the penalty for his interpretation."

And how is it not like the 'making the bed' scenario? 2 rules, both with clear intentions. The intentions are "don't videotape signals" and "make the bed". If you are responsible for not meeting that intention, then you pay the price. And the penalty is never worth the risk because there is no advantage to be gained.

The actions had been done and not punished for years. That's the difference and it's why your arguments don't apply. In fact, had this been looked at in a civil court, the doctrine of estoppel would likely have been applied and there probably would have been no punishment at all.

 

[richpats]

I would add that in people vs bucky stevens, 1979, it was established that "you're not my real dad" is not a valid defense in questions of time-regulated candy-eating breaches.

I'll admit it's better than some of your other contributions.

 

[chrisfx811]

The kid deserves the punishment. It will teach him a lesson about using common sense and making better choices. And you bet his bed is going to be made from then on out.

The punishment would have been doled out by a parent who was embarrassed by his/her own loophole being exposed.
And you can bet, the kid will grow up to be a sheep and not a leader.

Like the lawyer says in the link provided about surplus words, having all the qualifiers in the rule leaves it open to interpretation.

 

[richpats]

The actions had been done and not punished for years. That's the difference and it's why your arguments don't apply.

You can't just assume something and use it to refute an argument. Even if it has been done at a widespread level, how do you prove it? Name each time a team used sideline videotaping, I'm talking specific games. Not just "Jimmy Johnson did it".

 

[Deus Irae]

You can't just assume something and use it to refute an argument. Even if it has been done at a widespread level, how do you prove it? Name each time a team used sideline videotaping, I'm talking specific games. Not just "Jimmy Johnson did it".

What the hell are you talking about? The PATRIOTS had been doing it for years, and it was widely known. That is, in fact, one of the reasons that's been put forth for the issuance of the memo in the first place. Or, to put it more bluntly:

THE VERY TEAM WHO WAS FINED FOR FILMING WAS KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN FILMING IN THE SAME MANNER FOR YEARS. This is, in fact, consistent with Goodell's later comments about what was on the tapes.

 

[richpats]

The punishment would have been doled out by a parent who was embarrassed by his/her own loophole being exposed.
And you can bet, the kid will grow up to be a sheep and not a leader.

I think the parent would have been more embarrassed realizing his kid is acting like a dumbass.

 

[Deus Irae]

I think the parent would have been more embarrassed realizing his kid is acting like a dumbass.

Sort of like how most of us are feeling about you at this time....

 

[Hardboiled]

I think the in game use part of that section is the untold story.
I heard that mentioned last September, but rarely since. Thanks for the reference.


2 questions for now.

I've never heard a clarification on what video isn't for "coaching purposes"
Why is there a distinction?

Why doesn't the operations manual p 105 apply to teams taping from end zones and 50 yard lines with permission from the home team?