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.