upstater1
Hall of Fame Poster
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 26,620
- Reaction score
- 16,894
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.