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