Peter King again misses the point BB made

[upstater1]

Memo: "Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

Manual: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game ... All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

My "interpretation":

The Manual allows for videotaping if the locations is "enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead". The Memo doesn't allow for videotaping of ANY type. Either way Belichick broke the rule by having a cameraman on the field.

Some are trying to stress the "during the game" language in reference to WATCHING the recorded video, it actually refers to RECORDING the video itself.

You left the part out in which the manual states "gain advantage during a game."

I think Belichick was right on the rule in the manual. The memo prohibited all videotaping from the sidelines. This is why King wrote the article. King realizes that the manual rule gives Belichick leeway, but the memo doesn't.

 

[upstater1]

Read them in their entirety and maybe that will help you. Here, let me help. This is from Reiss:




The key issue is how one views "a game". For Belichick, it was referring to the game being filmed. For Goodell, it meant any game, present or future.

Goodell must not be very good at English. Belichick's interpretation is the correct one. In fact, I think the commish realizes this, and that's why the memo's language is different from the manual's language.

 

[SVN]

if misinterpreted this as he claims and ignored the memo doesnt it 'absolve' so to speak whatever happened before 2006 and the punishment stand for ignoring the memo ?

 

[upstater1]

if misinterpreted this as he claims and ignored the memo doesnt it 'absolve' so to speak whatever happened before 2006 and the punishment stand for ignoring the memo ?

Yes. It should. But Belichick had no tapes from before 2006 anyway.

 

[Eugene Chung]

I think my entire issue with the interpretations from the media (especially from King) is that everyone refers back to the memo sent out before the season. It's always qualified with some statement like "the memo that reiterated the rule"; but aren't the memo and the rulebook stating two different things? Why does the memo supersede the rulebook? If the memo was a new rule, wouldn't the rulebook be updated? By all indications, the rulebook still states that you can tape in an enclosed setting (roof, walls) as long as the contents aren't viewed during the game.

Maybe this is me being too much of an accountant here, but there is a certain hierarchy that applies to laws, rules, bulletins, memos, etc. in our industry. It's extremely rare for a discussion memo to supersede a rule unless it is specifically documented.

 

[HSanders]

It's almost like my former workplace with their rules on personal internet use. I am sure most workplaces frown on extensive personal use of company time and internet...but they don't have time/money/resources to prohibit it companywide, though they know it does go on and will likely continue to go on. So they have a personnel policy which gives a general "outlawing" of it that is quite vague. When they catch someone doing what they have deemed too much or too explicit usage of internet, they send some warning memo around that threatens punishment and makes it sound like they are going to monitor it, etc., etc. But in reality they don't...it is a scare tactic only designed to appeal to the guilty parties' self-policing instincts.

 

[richpats]

You left the part out in which the manual states "gain advantage during a game."

I think Belichick was right on the rule in the manual.

Uh no. The Pats' cameraguy didn't have a roof over his head that was enclosed on all sides. And it doesn't matter if the manual states the spirit of the rule, it still prohibits an action, and if the Pats perform this action, they are violating the rules.

 

[PatriotsReign]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/02/19/mmqbte/index.html


to quote king "its hard to believe he did not understand what BB was refering to as interpretation.
i wish if he had an email we could write to. he hides behind that form on the si pages.

The main point that should be made to Mr King is that Bill Belichik does not owe anyone any answers...especially someone like him. I just love how so many in the media ACT as if BB owes them answers. When you think about it, who TF do they think they are?

He doesn't owe the media, the fans, his children or God any answers. He has already answered to the people he had to answer to and that's the end of it. Personally, I agree 100% with that stance.

The best part about all this is that we know Belichik will NEVER give any of these a**h***s any answers...SWEET!

 

[upstater1]

Uh no. The Pats' cameraguy didn't have a roof over his head that was enclosed on all sides. And it doesn't matter if the manual states the spirit of the rule, it still prohibits an action, and if the Pats perform this action, they are violating the rules.

You're wrong yet again. The rule should be interpreted to mean you can't film from a place not enclosed if it gives you an advantage during the game. You're missing the key part of the rule. It doesn't issue a blanket statement against filming. It makes a statement against filming to give you an advantage during the game.

It's funny, even the fans of other teams, and the trolls also, acknowledge this is true about the rule in the manual. You're the only one that claims it says what you think it says. The trolls and other fans are arguing that the memo takes precedence over the manual.

Me, I don't care. It's a game. Goodell can do whatever he wants.

 

[patpatriot]

Goodell mishandled this from jumpstreet. He nailed BB because he wanted to prevent a revolt by the "brothers" over Pacman et al and show that his heavy-handed rules applied to a white coach. He then destroyed the material which is on him but somehow the Pats get blamed for doing what he says.

The Pats made a mistake by not fighting this tooth and nail right from the beginning. Hindsight...sigh. However, if this clown ever comes near them with *any* kind of sanction again, they should just say see you in court ******* and if you don't like that kiss your labor agreement goodbye and be known as the Commish who oversaw then destruction of the modern NFL.

I has spoken!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think Belichick was right on the rule in the manual. The memo prohibited all videotaping from the sidelines. This is why King wrote the article. King realizes that the manual rule gives Belichick leeway, but the memo doesn't.

That's pretty much the long and the short of it. The Manual alone is ambiguous, allowing for Belichick's interpretation thereof. However, the Memo is painstakingly unambiguous, no longer allowing for his interpretation.

The question I have asked myself repeatedly is, What could have possessed BB to think he could tape as he did during the Jets game?

Since one of the few things of which we can be certain about Bill Belichick is that he is "Not Stupid," the only answer that I can come up with, other than "Supreme Arrogance," is that I have known very senior and highly successful corporate-types who get into such a zone that they disregard very important details of which they should be aware or of which they actually have been made aware.

Perhaps that's what happened in this case. Perhaps Belichick was so focused on beginning a new season with a new cadre of players, perhaps he was so taken up with the details of preparing for the season opener on the road against a Division Rival for which he used to work, that he just plain overlooked something that he actually knew and approved the taping. Please don't dismiss this out of hand. It's entirely plausible. Estrella is very junior, by all accounts a kid in awe of his surroundings. If BB mentioned taping to him (or if he asked BB about taping), it is highly unlikely that he would question what he heard or thought he heard.

In corporations, it's the job of a senior staff member to make sure things like that don't happen and, in effect, save the boss from himself. In this case, that kind of safety net was most likely not in place.

 

[richpats]

The rule should be interpreted to mean you can't film from a place not enclosed if it gives you an advantage during the game.

That's just an interpretation that would get Belichick off the hook. The Pats broke a rule, it doesn't matter if they gained an advantage from it or not. The rule is in place to prevent an action that could potentially lead to gaining an unfair advantage.

If the rules are interpreted the way you said, then there would be no need for rules against taping in the first place. They would have to write a rule against viewing recorded material , which would be impossible to enforce or determine guilt via evidence, basically an NFL official would have to be in the locker room while it is being viewed by a team.

The existing rule is designed to prevent an action and can be enforced and judged with evidence. In the Pats' case, the evidence was in the NFL's hands and the verdict was an obvious one.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Maybe this is me being too much of an accountant here, but there is a certain hierarchy that applies to laws, rules, bulletins, memos, etc. in our industry. It's extremely rare for a discussion memo to supersede a rule unless it is specifically documented.

You raise an interesting set of questions. However, this was not a "discussion memo," it was a directive. Your arguments might work in a complex corporate hierarchy, but it's hard to argue that the memo wasn't clear (right down to the bit about enclosed structures, etc.).

 

[Deus Irae]

You raise an interesting set of questions. However, this was not a "discussion memo," it was a directive. Your arguments might work in a complex corporate hierarchy, but it's hard to argue that the memo wasn't clear (right down to the bit about enclosed structures, etc.).

The memo has no authority. The rule is what matters.

 

[richpats]

The Manual alone is ambiguous, allowing for Belichick's interpretation thereof. However, the Memo is painstakingly unambiguous, no longer allowing for his interpretation.

The question I have asked myself repeatedly is, What could have possessed BB to think he could tape as he did during the Jets game?

I think if Belichick believed that sideline videotaping was within the rules, he knew he was taking a risk with his own interpretation. When you play with fire.....

 

[BPF]

I think if Belichick believed that sideline videotaping was within the rules, he knew he was taking a risk with his own interpretation. When you play with fire.....

It seems to me that other coaches interpreted the rule the same way BB did, since Magini was the only one to turn him in. BB has been coaching in the league a very long time and if this has been standard practice that means a lot of coaches allowed this videotaping to go on in their stadiums.

 

[richpats]

It seems to me that other coaches interpreted the rule the same way BB did, since Magini was the only one to turn him in. BB has been coaching in the league a very long time and if this has been standard practice that means a lot of coaches allowed this videotaping to go on in their stadiums.

Of course a coach would like that interpretation, because it circumvents the rule. Whether other coaches were OK with it or not, it was still a rule violation. I do suspect it was something that went on in the league though, probably why the league issued the memo.

 

[PatriotsReign]

That's just an interpretation that would get Belichick off the hook. The Pats broke a rule, it doesn't matter if they gained an advantage from it or not. The rule is in place to prevent an action that could potentially lead to gaining an unfair advantage.

If the rules are interpreted the way you said, then there would be no need for rules against taping in the first place. They would have to write a rule against viewing recorded material , which would be impossible to enforce or determine guilt via evidence, basically an NFL official would have to be in the locker room while it is being viewed by a team.

The existing rule is designed to prevent an action and can be enforced and judged with evidence. In the Pats' case, the evidence was in the NFL's hands and the verdict was an obvious one.

You're right richpats, Belichik did break a rule. And has paid the price for it. He never owed anyone any answers regarding his interpretation, his arrogance or his slyness...he owes answers to no one.

Goodell dealt with it and that issue is over and done with. Just becaus the media won't leave it alone doesn't mean it's not finished. the only reason the media has kept on this is because BB wouldn't give them any answers..."We've moved onto the Chargers...anyone want to talk about the Chargers?"

Why we're still debating if he broke a rule or if his interpretation was reasonable is irrelevant now...it's over. This issue can't be re-opened unless Walsh has something. If he does not, it's over... for good.

 

[upstater1]

The Pats broke a rule, it doesn't matter if they gained an advantage from it or not.

Your statement is a tautology. The rule the Patriots supposedly broke says it DOES matter if they gained an advantage during the game. It says so right in the very rule you're citing. Sounds to me like you haven't read it.

 

[richpats]

Your statement is a tautology. The rule the Patriots supposedly broke says it DOES matter if they gained an advantage during the game. It says so right in the very rule you're citing. Sounds to me like you haven't read it.

But how could the NFL prove if an advantage was gained OR how could the Pats possibly prove that an advantage was NOT gained? Since it's impossible either way, the only aspect that can be enforced is the action itself (i.e. videotaping).