No Proof that PATs Cheated

[emoney_33]

so what is the purpose of the rule? its in place for a reason

So the NFL can be in CONTROL of all video being taped from the field?

To reduce filming congestion on the sidelines and to make it easier for NFL videographers to have plain views from all angles?

 

[Sunqueen212]

Bottom line is, the media think fans are simple-minded. Calling the irascible son of a gun BB a cheater is sexier and sells more papers than telling the truth. That takes too long and requires actual fact-finding and reporting. There has been no substance to this matter. Just speculation and rumor coming from people with an axe to grind.

 

[pats_ftw!!1!]

Bottom line is, the media think fans are simple-minded. Calling the irascible son of a gun BB a cheater is sexier and sells more papers than telling the truth. That takes too long and requires actual fact-finding and reporting. There has been no substance to this matter. Just speculation and rumor coming from people with an axe to grind.

i couldnt agree more

 

[Sunqueen212]

so what is the purpose of the rule? its in place for a reason

Think logically about the question you just posed. Then get back to me. Just to remind you, we are talking about the angles captured from a camera on the field compared to the angles captured from a camera from, say, the stands. And remember, the subject of the filming is the signs from the DC.

I guess BB likes to see the DC in profile while that one mouths of his signals. :bricks:

 

[CheerforTom]

Okay, we break the rules WHY exactly?

All that matters is that we don't know anything about the question you ask there. The we includes me or you or any of the posters here (probably...). That makes ANYTHING ELSE an assumption. I really don't know why, whenever someone suggests what we're suggesting, someone always insists on us presenting a theory. Life doesn't work like that; we don't NEED something to believe until we find something better, we can just say that we don't know for sure. If you're comfortable judging anyone on an assumption, go right ahead, but don't act like I'm an idiot for not wanting to do so.

Like I've already said in a post, I'm not denying that we may have cheated. If it turns out that we did, then I will be saying the exact same things you do about dealing with it. Until then, I've also said that if you're comfortable labeling the Patriots as cheaters then feel free to do so. I'm going to wait till there's proof, at which point I'll be as comfortable as you. This is not unreasonable.

 

[JR4]

why[/B] the rule is written. So the rule says you just can't tape the signal. The reason for the rule is that you will gain an unfair advantage if you do. Breaking the rule is cheating by definition, unless you want to bring a confessional or perhaps lie detectors or CIA interrogators into play.

PFnV

But see you assume the "reason" PATs broke the rule was to get
an unfair advantage. That is where the problem is. Belichick did not
think he was breaking the rule.

He thought from the wording of the rule
" ... that might aid a team during the playing of a game."
that he could make a recording and use it later for whatever the reason.

From reading the rule you could see how it could be interpreted that way.

So the point is if you think he intended to use it during a game....
prove it. You can not because he never intended on using it during
a game.

so by his interpretation he did not break the rule and
he certainly did not cheat because he never intended or actually received
any aid from that video tape.
if you disagree ... prove it.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

so by his interpretation he did not break the rule and
he certainly did not cheat because he never intended or actually received
any aid from that video tape.
if you disagree ... prove it.

This is the bottom line of your whole line of reasoning: shift the burden of proof.

I have an idea. When you're out there on the borderline, as you suggest Belichick is, they should have an arbiter whose interpretation of the rule is considered the interpretation of the rule. They could call this individual a "commissioner." Then this "commissioner" could fine you or dock you draft picks if your behavior, which is out of step with the rest of the league's behavior, falls astray of the "commissioner's" interpretation.

By the way, as I recall, the rule reads something like "no cameras, videocameras, _____, ______, _____, or anything else that could convey an unfair advantage."

So the rule included, named and enumerated, the very equipment that BB has interpreted as not giving him the unfair advantage... when that addendum just applies to items not specifically enumerated.

Quote the rule again if you want, it's an interesting question. Ultimately, however, you don't get to decide whether you yourself cheated. There is typically an arbiter of such things, in this case the commish.

Belichik was wrong, and admitted as much. You want to split hairs about the word "cheating". Again, I am sure Barry Bonds would also like to split those hairs. Can you prove that Barry Bonds wasn't just using steroids to look better at the pool? Of course not. You don't have to. He broke the rule, and it is fine to "assume" that it was for purposes that gave him an unfair advantage.

Since other people could not do it, based on the content of the rule, any use of steroids confers this advantage, regardless of Bonds' intent. Similarly, since nobody else can use taped signals, use of them by BB confers such an advantage simply by dint of the illegality of the taping. ANY use of the tape is by definition an unfair advantage.

I know you aren't saying he throws all the tape away. All you can argue is he "didn't cheat on purpose." To me that looks weasily, actually. But you've put the whole argument into the province of telepaths and the like.

I can't read his mind. I don't know what he believed. I know he broke the rules, and he got an advantage, however slight.

It is what it is. Move on, dump the denial.

PFnV

 

[Sunqueen212]

Since other people could not do it, based on the content of the rule, any use of steroids confers this advantage, regardless of Bonds' intent. Similarly, since nobody else can use taped signals, use of them by BB confers such an advantage simply by dint of the illegality of the taping. ANY use of the tape is by definition an unfair advantage.PFnV

Correction: everyone can use recorded signals. The catch is you can not use signals taped fromt the field and during a game. So again, you are saying there is an unfair advantage if you tape a DC calling signals from the field as opposed to taping the signal from the stand? Team A would be "cheating" but Team B would not be? And this is because Team A has a better view of the DC? In other words, the two tapes would be different; tape from Team A somehow has a different content than tape from Team B, therefore providing this unfair advantage? What a load of crap. :bricks:

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Correction: everyone can use recorded signals. The catch is you can not use signals taped fromt the field and during a game. So again, you are saying there is an unfair advantage if you tape a DC calling signals from the field as opposed to taping the signal from the stand? Team A would be "cheating" but Team B would not be? And this is because Team A has a better view of the DC? In other words, the two tapes would be different; tape from Team A somehow has a different content than tape from Team B, therefore providing this unfair advantage? What a load of crap. :bricks:

I would need to know the NFL rule or policy about causing signals to be taped from the stands by a third party. It's a pretty shoddy rule book if it doesn't have a word to say about contractors to the team who are not on payroll. In fact, it may be that if I pay you to tape signals from the stands, you are considered a team employee... obviously, this is going to the Dolphins case from last year, as I've heard it mentioned here.

As far as the stands-versus-field distinction, the rules say exactly how your camera set-up is limited. That determines whether you can or can not use other configurations. The quality of the tape or its usefulness may or may not have been determinants in the writing of the rules. But the quality of the tape is not addressed in the rule. The set-up of cameras is addressed in the rules. That is what you are penalized for, not your talent as a videographer.

I fully expect that the Miami case will end up on the docket sooner or later, by the way, especially if the commish is digging as far back as possible to see what terrible things the Pats have done.

Finally, feel free to say "by your reasoning," but the formulation "You're saying" is just plain inaccurate. It's likely to lead to negative interactions and heated words, probably without appreciably benefitting your own original argument in the first place. This is particularly true if the formulation is followed by a hypothetical flight of fancy not in any way established as being the argument of one's "adversary," followed by the less-than-disinterested editorial comment "what a load of crap."

In case you feel the question marks on your hypotheticals are meant to seriously leave in doubt whether "I am saying..." such things, of course I'm not. If I were, I would have said them.

Just because we disagree, there's no reason to be crass.

PFnV

 

[sanvara]

Most pat fans continue to be in denial. Robert Kraft isn't.

That's true. Kraft flatly guaranteed this will never happen again. God help BB if he does this again under Kraft's ownership. There will be hell to pay from Kraft himself. No NFL needed.

 

[Sunqueen212]

I would need to know the NFL rule or policy about causing signals to be taped from the stands by a third party. It's a pretty shoddy rule book if it doesn't have a word to say about contractors to the team who are not on payroll. In fact, it may be that if I pay you to tape signals from the stands, you are considered a team employee... obviously, this is going to the Dolphins case from last year, as I've heard it mentioned here.

As far as the stands-versus-field distinction, the rules say exactly how your camera set-up is limited. That determines whether you can or can not use other configurations. The quality of the tape or its usefulness may or may not have been determinants in the writing of the rules. But the quality of the tape is not addressed in the rule. The set-up of cameras is addressed in the rules. That is what you are penalized for, not your talent as a videographer.

I fully expect that the Miami case will end up on the docket sooner or later, by the way, especially if the commish is digging as far back as possible to see what terrible things the Pats have done.

Finally, feel free to say "by your reasoning," but the formulation "You're saying" is just plain inaccurate. It's likely to lead to negative interactions and heated words, probably without appreciably benefitting your own original argument in the first place. This is particularly true if the formulation is followed by a hypothetical flight of fancy not in any way established as being the argument of one's "adversary," followed by the less-than-disinterested editorial comment "what a load of crap."

In case you feel the question marks on your hypotheticals are meant to seriously leave in doubt whether "I am saying..." such things, of course I'm not. If I were, I would have said them.

Just because we disagree, there's no reason to be crass.

PFnV

Rather than "you are saying...?" I should have written "Are you saying...?". Thought the question mark would indicate that it was a question being posed on my part, not my putting words in your mouth. My bad.

In any case, I see where you are coming from. But, IMO, at the end of the day both tapes have the same content. Once there is proof that they are different, and that one had more info that would lead to an unfair advantage, then I may change my mind. Moreover, once there is proof on the intent of the usage of the tape, then we can speak conclusively.

Can I ask you a question?

Team A films DC signals in the stands, to be used in post-game analysis, etc.
Team B films DC signals on the field, to be used in post-game analysis, ect.
Team C films DC signals in the stands, to be used during game.
Team D films DC signals on the field, to be used during game.

Which team(s) broke the rule, got an unfair advantage, and/or cheated?

 

[Deus Irae]

Okay, we break the rules WHY exactly? As one other poster suggests, to get fashion tips? It looks pretty much open and shut -- you tape the other team's D. coaches. You pan up to the score board and tape down and distance. you tape the play. Rinse, repeat.

What is wrong with you guys? You're like ostriches putting your heads in the sand. It is really obvious that one day, this looks like savvy advance work, a way to compile a library that's useful to get other team's "tendencies" at the coaching level, while getting a possible edge based on the vocabulary of symbols. The next day, the league tightens up. Lo and behold, you've been pissing people off back when the league was loose about the same practice. If "everybody knows" you won't get busted for drinking a few beers then driving, and then they toughen up enforcement the next day, it doesn't make your drunk driving okay. Making that claim in front of a judge might, however, prompt the question "how often do you drive drunk anyway?"

I'm not going to go off into the realm of guesswork here, which you evidently believe is necessary to determine whether breaking the rules is cheating. It is obviously cheating. You're trying to require such guesswork to set the bar of evidence high enough that it can never be proven. You redefine "cheating" to suit your agenda. Require knowledge of the private state of another's thoughts. Require knowledge of the non-public details of the team's operations. Poof, problem gone.

By the same argument, I can say Barry Bonds merely intended to look better in the mirror, not provide a boost to his power hitting stats. Based on my private knowledge of Barry Bonds' personal state of mind -- which you have done nothing to disprove -- I can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that his use of steroids was not cheating. Reasonable to me, that is.

WAKE UP. This is a monumental "DO'H" moment, not some moot court exercise. We did it, we got busted, we took the fine. Now they're going to be dragging out more crap about the radio frequencies, etc. etc. etc. You're going to need to toughen up over the course of the season.

I know and you know that the cameragate thing was thrown in with a lot of little things the Pats do that are perfectly legal, that make the Pats typically better than other teams. Our Pats need to stop throwing these little things in. I'm hoping this incident does it, because of the consequences to the Pats, not because I think this is a huge deal based on the actual impact of the practice.

But it does absolutely no good to run around in some delusional world where it never happened, or just "wasn't what it looked like."

Rules are written without regard to moral content, so you can judge behavior by behavior rather than intent. But the intent is why the rule is written. So the rule says you just can't tape the signal. The reason for the rule is that you will gain an unfair advantage if you do. Breaking the rule is cheating by definition, unless you want to bring a confessional or perhaps lie detectors or CIA interrogators into play.

PFnV

That's a reasoned and well-thought out argument. It's also wrong. Both sides of this argument are actually debating the wrong aspects of the situation. It's not whether or not your interpretation says there was cheating, because your interpretation doesn't mean a damned thing. The only interpretations that mattered were BB's and Goodell's. Both can be fairly and legitimately argued as being the correct interpretation. Not surprisingly, Goodell, who's the one who gets to make the final ruling, decreed that Goodell's interpretation was correct.

The question of "cheating" versus merely violating a rule is valid, but unimportant in the end. The Patriots should have taken this case to court, where they would likely have won, at least in regards to the loss of the first round pick. However, they decided to roll over and play the submissive dog, so the rest is just fighting over a definition made essentially meaningless by that concession and submission.

 

[nowayback]

first..i read half the posts..

cheating..i dont need any media or definitions to tell me what cheating is. every team cheats in broad daylight. for me any stealing of signals is cheating. p olaroids is cheating when done during the game. looking over at the other sideline is cheating. when i play cards i try not to look at the others cards, if they are holding them badly(yea ok i look sometimes )..but that is cheating. signing a player from other team a week before game to see what he knows is cheating. changing th rules of the game is cheating ala polian PI call.

BB broke the rules plain and simple...there is no doubt in my mind the reason he did it in plain view, is he thought he was not! yes he knew he was playing with the interpretation. but that is football and pro sports. comp advantage.

they decided he was wrong..and the pats payed the price.


if he really thought it was illegal he would have hidden the camera.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Rather than "you are saying...?" I should have written "Are you saying...?". Thought the question mark would indicate that it was a question being posed on my part, not my putting words in your mouth. My bad.

In any case, I see where you are coming from. But, IMO, at the end of the day both tapes have the same content. Once there is proof that they are different, and that one had more info that would lead to an unfair advantage, then I may change my mind. Moreover, once there is proof on the intent of the usage of the tape, then we can speak conclusively.

Can I ask you a question?

Team A films DC signals in the stands, to be used in post-game analysis, etc.
Team B films DC signals on the field, to be used in post-game analysis, ect.
Team C films DC signals in the stands, to be used during game.
Team D films DC signals on the field, to be used during game.

Which team(s) broke the rule, got an unfair advantage, and/or cheated?

Oh don't make me out to be such a hairsplitter. I was saying I preferred "by your reasoning..." to "you are saying," either with or without a question mark.

I would have to have the full rule book in front of me, and some familiarity with it (beyond the casual fan's), to really accurately answer the question. For example, I'm familiar with some wording about how the cameras must be enclosed in a structure. I don't remember what exceptions have been mentioned. So I can say that by my own lights, all of them seem like they would break the rule, but it hardly matters - the media's only mentioned the specific parts they've mentioned; possibly, not all exceptions have been mentioned. You only figure out that there are exceptions by Madden pointing to cameras and saying "see, these are legal cameras."

I do not, however, think that the NFL went after the Pats just because they don't like us. I think they went after the Pats because the Jets' case was strong.

I do not think the Pats were, thus far, the only team shown to be doing this week in and week out, because the league hasn't looked hard enough at other teams. I think the Pats were, for the most part, the most enthusiastic users of this technique, and that's why Mangina was so confident he could tweak us with this.

I think the league has made its ruling, and it's time to move on. Saying "We shoulda sued" (the next post down) is like McNabb wanting "his" ring. (the sack of &$^% can't even beat the Redskins and he wants his ring.) Well, maybe not quite. Maybe it is still an option in the long run. But I really don't think so.

We're the ones busted breaking the rules. We were the ones caught cheating. It is what it is.

PFnV

 

[PatsFanInVa]

That's a reasoned and well-thought out argument. It's also wrong. Both sides of this argument are actually debating the wrong aspects of the situation. It's not whether or not your interpretation says there was cheating, because your interpretation doesn't mean a damned thing. The only interpretations that mattered were BB's and Goodell's. Both can be fairly and legitimately argued as being the correct interpretation. Not surprisingly, Goodell, who's the one who gets to make the final ruling, decreed that Goodell's interpretation was correct.

I think you just told me I was wrong, and then restated my argument (minus all the clutter meant to persuade rather than proclaim.)

The question of "cheating" versus merely violating a rule is valid, but unimportant in the end. The Patriots should have taken this case to court, where they would likely have won, at least in regards to the loss of the first round pick. However, they decided to roll over and play the submissive dog, so the rest is just fighting over a definition made essentially meaningless by that concession and submission.

We might differ here, but to coin a phrase, it's unimportant, unless the Pats do decide to do a 180 and sue the league. I suppose the possibility exists based on how deep the asterisk-finding mission goes, and what they find. After all, if they publicize unsupportable results, the Pats could claim they're being defamed/slandered/libeled.

I think they know thus far that, contrary to your conclusion, they would not win the case in court, and they are better off using Goodell as the "arbiter" he's typically thought to be.

Now if he nails a half dozen other teams, all the "Hatetriots" bullcrap will suddenly stop. But for now, we're in the position of being singled out as the "dirty" team.

So toughen up. We'll be hearing this until further notice.

And that's another thing where it doesn't matter what you believe to be true - that'll be the real world.

PFnV