Misinterpretation

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

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.

My take is somewhere in the middle.

The rule is poorly written and agruable ambiguous.

The Patriots taped the Jets, when Mangini knew what the Pats did indicates that the Pats weren't overly worried about being caught.

However, the Pats did take some steps to hide what they were doing which suggest they did not want to be caught, which suggests BB thought it was an infraction.

So here is what I think. BB suspected that if he was caught, the league would buy his "the rule is ambiguous" argument and issues a memo clarifying the rule.

And the rule is ambiguous enough that in a criminal court BB could not be convicted if a law was so poorly written but the NFL is not bound by the 8th amendment.

 

[bradmahn]

My take is somewhere in the middle.

The rule is poorly written and agruable ambiguous.

The Patriots taped the Jets, when Mangini knew what the Pats did indicates that the Pats weren't overly worried about being caught.

However, the Pats did take some steps to hide what they were doing which suggest they did not want to be caught, which suggests BB thought it was an infraction.

So here is what I think. BB suspected that if he was caught, the league would buy his "the rule is ambiguous" argument and issues a memo clarifying the rule.

And the rule is ambiguous enough that in a criminal court BB could not be convicted if a law was so poorly written but the NFL is not bound by the 8th amendment.

If all we have to show that BB (or the organization) took measures to hide what they were doing because they knew it was wrong is Walsh's statement that he was instructed to be discreet about filming, I'm afraid that doesn't cut it. There are perfectly rational and plausible reasons why they would take due diligence to not make their actions obvious and they don't even involve recognition of wrongdoing.

If the opposition doesn't think they are being scrutinized highly (read: filmed), they may let their guard down. On the other hand, if they know they are being taped, they may add more signalers, more signals, include bogus signals inside the signals, etc., etc. Why advertise your intentions if it is beneficial if your opponent is in the dark?

We've also seen the Patriots escort a cameraman from the stadium for... well, we don't know the exact reason, but they didn't want him there. Who's to say the Patriots weren't afraid of some team doing this to them at a road game?

I'd also like some proponent of the "Walsh proved Belichick is a liar" cult to tell me why Matt Estrella was on the sidelines in Patriots garb with a big ass camera in front 70,000 New Yorkers when seven years prior they had told Matt Walsh, who was filming from a permissible location in some tapes, to be inconspicuous? Wouldn't seven years of experience and a 13-month-old memo have led them to believe they should be a little more covert, if they did indeed know what they were doing was illegal?

While it is a possibility that Belichick lied about his interpretation of the rule, all of the evidence I've seen suggests that his course of actions prior to September 2007 were dictated by his explanations after. Either he's a really good ******* storyteller, or he truly believed what he told Goodell. It doesn't change the fact that he broke the rule, but it shouldn't be accepted as the word of God that Belichick knew what he was doing was wrong.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

If all we have to show that BB (or the organization) took measures to hide what they were doing because they knew it was wrong is Walsh's statement that he was instructed to be discreet about filming, I'm afraid that doesn't cut it. There are perfectly rational and plausible reasons why they would take due diligence to not make their actions obvious and they don't even involve recognition of wrongdoing.

If the opposition doesn't think they are being scrutinized highly (read: filmed), they may let their guard down. On the other hand, if they know they are being taped, they may add more signalers, more signals, include bogus signals inside the signals, etc., etc. Why advertise your intentions if it is beneficial if your opponent is in the dark?

We've also seen the Patriots escort a cameraman from the stadium for... well, we don't know the exact reason, but they didn't want him there. Who's to say the Patriots weren't afraid of some team doing this to them at a road game?

I'd also like some proponent of the "Walsh proved Belichick is a liar" cult to tell me why Matt Estrella was on the sidelines in Patriots garb with a big ass camera in front 70,000 New Yorkers when seven years prior they had told Matt Walsh, who was filming from a permissible location in some tapes, to be inconspicuous? Wouldn't seven years of experience and a 13-month-old memo have led them to believe they should be a little more covert, if they did indeed know what they were doing was illegal?

While it is a possibility that Belichick lied about his interpretation of the rule, all of the evidence I've seen suggests that his course of actions prior to September 2007 were dictated by his explanations after. Either he's a really good ******* storyteller, or he truly believed what he told Goodell. It doesn't change the fact that he broke the rule, but it shouldn't be accepted as the word of God that Belichick knew what he was doing was wrong.

Just to clarify. I am not saying he lied. I am saying he understood the spirit of the rule forbid the contact, but thought the rule had a loophole and was technically legal.

 

[bradmahn]

Just to clarify. I am not saying he lied. I am saying he understood the spirit of the rule forbid the contact, but thought the rule had a loophole and was technically legal.

Duly noted.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

If you honestly believe that belly-cheat misinterpreted the rule, you have bigger problems than football.

If anyone is gullible enough to believe you have ever been a Pats fan and are not a Jets or Colts troll, then they have really big problems.

Don't preach honesty when your very name is a lie.

 

[Metaphors]

One of the tragedies of this whole situation is the ability of the media types to suspend disbelief when spewing their opinions. Anyone who believes that the tapes were used in the same game to derive benefit in the 2nd half (Schlereth) should first try to draw out a timeline. It is physically impossible to process the tapes and come up with a useful output (cheat sheet) in a reasonable time window. That is even if the Pats had access to the necessary equipment on gameday...which by all indications they don't.

Now I chose not to return the favor regarding Belichick's interpretation. As noted, Belichick does have a legal leg to stand on. But you have to suspend disbelief to come to the conclusion that he believed the practice would be considered legal by the NFL. Multiple times he had film crew removed from the field (Detroit and Green Bay IIRC). Why would they leave if they believed they were operating on the up-and-up? How could Belichick see the 2006 memo and at least not question whether the league was explicitly disapproving of his practices?

Belichick knew what he was doing just as sure as I knew what I was doing when I jaywalked today. I believe my actions were harmless, affected nobody else and I made no effort to hide them. Nobody ever gets a ticket for jaywalking anyway.

Lucky for me I didn't have a bastard ex-employee with an ax to grind and his cop friend watching me. Belichick wasn't so lucky. If I did get busted, I surely wouldn't tell the cops that I believed crossing outside the crosswalk was OK as long as I didn't run.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Just to clarify. I am not saying he lied. I am saying he understood the spirit of the rule forbid the contact, but thought the rule had a loophole and was technically legal.

This has always been my guess at what was closest to the truth. I posted as much when this story first broke. He thought -- hmm, there's some ambiguity, I'll keep doing it, and if I get caught or someone makes an issue, I have an argument. I suspect he never anticipated that, even if the league thought his interpretation was baloney, that the team would be fined as it was.

If you read the NFL's memo punishing BB and the Patriots, this is pretty much what the league determined. That BB knew he was taking advantage of the rule and circumventing it. Was this judgment incorrect by Goodell? My hunch . . . no. Goodell met with BB in a meeting the details of which have never been revealed, other than Goodell acknowledging that he heard enough to understand that this had always been BB's "interpretation," leading to the confiscation of the other tapes and subsequent broohahas. Contrary to what most people who watch a lot of television shows think, most people are horrible liars, and most decent lawyers or business men know pretty quickly when they are being lied to -- particularly if the person being deceptive doesn't do it that often.

My guess is that BB wasn't totally convincing in that meeting. Goodell asked some tough questions, BB maybe didn't give the best answers or some of them were inconsistent, and Goodell formed his opinion.

This thing was a perfect storm of misinformation, hubris, and outrageously over the top media coverage. There are so many places this could have gone a different direction, but, unfortunately, the story simply kept -- very predictably -- taking the path of least resistance.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

One of the tragedies of this whole situation is the ability of the media types to suspend disbelief when spewing their opinions. Anyone who believes that the tapes were used in the same game to derive benefit in the 2nd half (Schlereth) should first try to draw out a timeline. It is physically impossible to process the tapes and come up with a useful output (cheat sheet) in a reasonable time window. That is even if the Pats had access to the necessary equipment on gameday...which by all indications they don't.

Now I chose not to return the favor regarding Belichick's interpretation. As noted, Belichick does have a legal leg to stand on. But you have to suspend disbelief to come to the conclusion that he believed the practice would be considered legal by the NFL. Multiple times he had film crew removed from the field (Detroit and Green Bay IIRC). Why would they leave if they believed they were operating on the up-and-up? How could Belichick see the 2006 memo and at least not question whether the league was explicitly disapproving of his practices?

Belichick knew what he was doing just as sure as I knew what I was doing when I jaywalked today. I believe my actions were harmless, affected nobody else and I made no effort to hide them. Nobody ever gets a ticket for jaywalking anyway.

Lucky for me I didn't have a bastard ex-employee with an ax to grind and his cop friend watching me. Belichick wasn't so lucky. If I did get busted, I surely wouldn't tell the cops that I believed crossing outside the crosswalk was OK as long as I didn't run.

Just so you know, I caught your jay walking on video tape, and it has been handed over to the district attorney. And you didn't think I would ever get you back for that wedgie in 3rd grade. Who is laughing now. Revenge is sweet.

 

[pao]

Can someone explain why the Patriots should have taken the NFL seriously?

I bet they take them seriously now, eh?

sdfan

 

[upstater1]

My take is somewhere in the middle.

The rule is poorly written and agruable ambiguous.

The Patriots taped the Jets, when Mangini knew what the Pats did indicates that the Pats weren't overly worried about being caught.

However, the Pats did take some steps to hide what they were doing which suggest they did not want to be caught, which suggests BB thought it was an infraction.

So here is what I think. BB suspected that if he was caught, the league would buy his "the rule is ambiguous" argument and issues a memo clarifying the rule.

And the rule is ambiguous enough that in a criminal court BB could not be convicted if a law was so poorly written but the NFL is not bound by the 8th amendment.

What steps did the Patriots take?

Estrella was on the sidelines with a huge camera wearing Patriots garb.

 

[upstater1]

One of the tragedies of this whole situation is the ability of the media types to suspend disbelief when spewing their opinions. Anyone who believes that the tapes were used in the same game to derive benefit in the 2nd half (Schlereth) should first try to draw out a timeline. It is physically impossible to process the tapes and come up with a useful output (cheat sheet) in a reasonable time window. That is even if the Pats had access to the necessary equipment on gameday...which by all indications they don't.

Now I chose not to return the favor regarding Belichick's interpretation. As noted, Belichick does have a legal leg to stand on. But you have to suspend disbelief to come to the conclusion that he believed the practice would be considered legal by the NFL. Multiple times he had film crew removed from the field (Detroit and Green Bay IIRC). Why would they leave if they believed they were operating on the up-and-up? How could Belichick see the 2006 memo and at least not question whether the league was explicitly disapproving of his practices?

Belichick knew what he was doing just as sure as I knew what I was doing when I jaywalked today. I believe my actions were harmless, affected nobody else and I made no effort to hide them. Nobody ever gets a ticket for jaywalking anyway.

Lucky for me I didn't have a bastard ex-employee with an ax to grind and his cop friend watching me. Belichick wasn't so lucky. If I did get busted, I surely wouldn't tell the cops that I believed crossing outside the crosswalk was OK as long as I didn't run.

As I wrote earlier, the actual rule from 2000 on was ambiguous. The memo in 2006 was not. That being said, the NFL--after issuing the memo--said, That's football!! So given that, what would you think if you were Belichick?

I would think, Hey, the NFL memo says it's wrong, but the NFL says it doesn't matter. Ah, what the hell. The Jets are doing it, the Phins are doing it, why not us?

AND, here's the big question: WHAT IF Belichick had stopped filming after the memo came out. But after seeing that the NFL didn't give a damn about filming in the Jets/Phins incidents, he said, OK, guess we should do it too!

 

[upstater1]

I bet they take them seriously now, eh?

sdfan

So, what you're saying is, the NFL and Patriots haters such as yourself are hypocrites because they ignore then rules in one instance and apply them in another.

That's pretty pathetic.

 

[upstater1]

This has always been my guess at what was closest to the truth. I posted as much when this story first broke. He thought -- hmm, there's some ambiguity, I'll keep doing it, and if I get caught or someone makes an issue, I have an argument. I suspect he never anticipated that, even if the league thought his interpretation was baloney, that the team would be fined as it was.

If you read the NFL's memo punishing BB and the Patriots, this is pretty much what the league determined. That BB knew he was taking advantage of the rule and circumventing it. Was this judgment incorrect by Goodell? My hunch . . . no. Goodell met with BB in a meeting the details of which have never been revealed, other than Goodell acknowledging that he heard enough to understand that this had always been BB's "interpretation," leading to the confiscation of the other tapes and subsequent broohahas. Contrary to what most people who watch a lot of television shows think, most people are horrible liars, and most decent lawyers or business men know pretty quickly when they are being lied to -- particularly if the person being deceptive doesn't do it that often.

My guess is that BB wasn't totally convincing in that meeting. Goodell asked some tough questions, BB maybe didn't give the best answers or some of them were inconsistent, and Goodell formed his opinion.

This thing was a perfect storm of misinformation, hubris, and outrageously over the top media coverage. There are so many places this could have gone a different direction, but, unfortunately, the story simply kept -- very predictably -- taking the path of least resistance.

Again, I don't buy this.

There was a history here.

We already know there was.

We already know that in 2006, the NFL and the Patriots had had multiple run ins over spying issues. Green Bay had accused the Patriots as had the Lions. Meanwhile, the NFL backed the Jets and Phins when they admitted to videotaping. There is a lot more going on than meets the eye. Why was Belichick so blatant about it? Because the NFL had hypocritically allowed the Jets and Phins to tape.

That's why.

 

[pao]

So, what you're saying is, the NFL and Patriots haters such as yourself are hypocrites because they ignore then rules in one instance and apply them in another.

That's pretty pathetic.

Boy, you sure put alot of words in my mouth. None of them at all reflective of my beliefs but an objective person such as yourself meant nothing by them, right? Maybe I just "misinterpreted" them...or vice versa.

sdfan

 

[upstater1]

Boy, you sure put alot of words in my mouth. None of them at all reflective of my beliefs but an objective person such as yourself meant nothing by them, right? Maybe I just "misinterpreted" them...or vice versa.

sdfan

Didn't you write they take them seriously now, eh?

What's that supposed to mean?

I made the point that the NFL can't be taken seriously because they are a bunch of hypocrites because they backed the Jets/Phins taping after issuing a memo. You come back by saying they should now be taken seriously.

For what? Being hypocrites and inconsistent?

How in the world am I supposed to interpret what you wrote?

 

[pao]

My respect for you just went up a notch...or three. You could have just flamed me, which is what I expected. I tip my cap to you.

Didn't you write they take them seriously now, eh?

What's that supposed to mean?

I really only meant that they would NOT make the mistake of not taking every little thing VERY seriously from here on out, as should EVERY team in the NFL. If it's in the book and you don't get it, you better get clarification from the league....now. I read somewhere that the Patriots were doing exactly that. And I hope the Chargers are too.

I made the point that the NFL can't be taken seriously because they are a bunch of hypocrites because they backed the Jets/Phins taping after issuing a memo. You come back by saying they should now be taken seriously. For what? Being hypocrites and inconsistent?

Yes, right or wrong, teams better watch out, the Goodell hammer is swinging freely if not consistantly.

How in the world am I supposed to interpret what you wrote?

Well, you could have asked I guess. But I apologise, I can see how you might have got the wrong idea. I am on your board after all, and with a sig like mine my posts ARE open for interpretation as a hostile.

sdfan

 

[Joker]

you'll have to excuse pao...you see, after posing all afternoon in front of 13 year old girls down at the wall on Mission Beach, he runs to the tofutti stand for his favorite flavor..avocado...and wolfing it down too quickly makes his brain freeze up...it's a pretty kewl trick, if you go in for that left coast, lah-dee-dah,I could care less Ladainian schtick.

 

[pao]

you'll have to excuse pao...you see, after posing all afternoon in front of 13 year old girls down at the wall on Mission Beach, he runs to the tofutti stand for his favorite flavor..avocado...and wolfing it down too quickly makes his brain freeze up...it's a pretty kewl trick, if you go in for that left coast, lah-dee-dah,I could care less Ladainian schtick.

Now that's funny! LOL.

sdfan

 

[upstater1]

My respect for you just went up a notch...or three. You could have just flamed me, which is what I expected. I tip my cap to you.
I really only meant that they would NOT make the mistake of not taking every little thing VERY seriously from here on out, as should EVERY team in the NFL. If it's in the book and you don't get it, you better get clarification from the league....now. I read somewhere that the Patriots were doing exactly that. And I hope the Chargers are too.

Yes, right or wrong, teams better watch out, the Goodell hammer is swinging freely if not consistantly.



Well, you could have asked I guess. But I apologise, I can see how you might have got the wrong idea. I am on your board after all, and with a sig like mine my posts ARE open for interpretation as a hostile.

sdfan

Well, I think it's obvious that we are blasting the NFL here for being inconsistent. That's what all the complaints are about on this board. I'm just taking it for granted that the vast majority here believe the NFL is completely off its rocker on this. If we had been the only ones doing it, and if the NFL hadn't defended other teams that were caught doing it, maybe I'd understand.

But that's the point.

I can't take a league seriously when they are purposely going after one team and one team only, especially when the President was an employee of the Patriots' archrival.

 

[okterrific]

NFL security literally had to wrestle the camera away from Matt Estrella. They knew what they were doing, BB knew. It doesn't make a difference anyway, so who cares.