Peter King again misses the point BB made

[upstater1]

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).

The rule uses the conditional tense. You don't have to gain an advantage. The possibility has to exist that you MAY gain an advantage during that game.

In other words, Belichick very clearly read the rule (and I think he's correct) to refer to filming AND using the film to make adjustments in the very same game.

Even the NFL realizes this, because otherwise why wouldn't the memos simply have referred to the rule? Instead, the memos went out of their way to restate and attempt to clarify the rule, with a bunch of new language that isn't there in the rule.

For instance, there's no mention of filming the oppositions sidelines or stealing signals in the original rule.

 

[richpats]

The rule uses the conditional tense. You don't have to gain an advantage. The possibility has to exist that you MAY gain an advantage during that game.

That proves my point.

 

[upstater1]

That proves my point.

No, it completely undercuts your point.

 

[richpats]

No, it completely undercuts your point.

No, you said the possibility has to exist that you MAY gain an advantage, and if a team videotapes, they are creating that possibility.

BTW: Pardon me for playing devil's advocate, but how do you know that Belichick did NOT use it during the game?

 

[PatriotsReign]

Bill Belichik can use any reason he wants in his explanation as to "Why" he video taped from the sideline. That is his explanation and it was accepted by the league. It can't be proved wrong or questioned and it is final.

The media can question his reasoning, but Belichik does not owe them any answers. He has already been held accountable...end of story. The media can keep covering this issue, yet it is still "end of story" regardless.

Yet we have people debating the validity of his explanation.

If I said I robbed a bank to give money to the poor, then that is my reason and it is final. Any discussion of my reason would truly be a waste of time.

 

[richpats]

Yet we have people debating the validity of his explanation.

Kinda early to be pickin' fights, eh?

 

[PatriotsReign]

Kinda early to be pickin' fights, eh?

lol...good point! I'll give a few hours!

The other guy is just as bad though.

 

[richpats]

lol...good point! I'll give a few hours!

The other guy is just as bad though.

I agree that it doesn't matter what his explanation is. Once his staff started taping, it was a violation. I don't think there is a loophole that prevents gaining an advantage during one game and then allows it in a future game.

 

[PatriotsReign]

I agree that it doesn't matter what his explanation is. Once his staff started taping, it was a violation. I don't think there is a loophole that prevents gaining an advantage during one game and then allows it in a future game.

Obviously there isn't otherwise BB would have been exonerated. I can see how it may read that way to some, but the rule is as stated by Goodell not by Belichik.

If I violate a tax law because I didnt read it correctly, they are not going to say "Oh ok, now you know but next time you're in trouble"

But I don't see the relevance toward anything going on right now. BB gave his reason and no one can change that.