Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Phokus, Sep 18, 2007.
Someone told me that it has only been since the 2005 season that it was illegal, is that true?
GREAT question.....I have been wondering all through this myself.
I think I understand where you're going with this: if videotaping wasn't illegal before 2005, then our three Super Bowls are not tainted.
However, even if it turns out to be case, it will not silence the doubters and the revisionists. They will still be able to claim that if we were cheating in 2007 then we were probably cheating all along.
This question has been asked numerous time since this all began and we have yet to get an answer.
I wonder if one of our Pats media friends could use whatever connections they have and look into this for us?
I think I might head over to the BPL and pick up pre-2005 Official NFL rulebooks and see when the rule was introduced.
does anyone know?
I agree, in the world of public opinion, it doesn't matter. Fact, logic, reality play very little basis in public opinion. People want to hate the Pats and disrespect BB, and they are going to go out of their way to do that.
true, but it would be nice to be able to say
"hey moron, it's a new rule that was put in place after the pats won 3 rings, so stfu":singing:
I would really really like to know the answer to this
Exactly, we need ammunition to shut up the people from other parts of the country giving us the business.
Someone on this board posted the rulebook section mentioning the prohibition of "in game" use and lined it up with the Goodell memo. I tried but couldn't find it to link to it (too many threads)The Goodell memos seem to have started firing up over the summer. I'd love a definitive answer.
Goodell kept referring to the Patriots actions as being unprecedented. The same day I hear Jimmy Johnson say he was trained to do the same thing 30 years ago. Unprecedented? Shanahan bragged two years ago about using lip readers to steal signs.
I wish Costas had asked Goodell, "So Mr. Commissioner, stealing signs is not "cheating," but using videotape to do so is?"
" Mr. Commissioner, we understand that stealing signs is "fair play" and "honest" but no one should use videotape because that takes the "fair play" and "honesty" out of it. Is that correct? Mr. Commissioner?"
I think there's been a rule about "game time" use for awhile... the Dolphins broke the same rule taping audibles last year I believe of course no one made this big a deal about it.
However since its looking increasingly inplausible that videotaped signals could be analyzed, plays reassessed and new calls given to a QB in mere seconds, it seems more and more clear that the videos were for later game analysis, perhaps even going so far as BB's personal analysis of all coordinators in the NFL for future use. Let's not forget, BB loves that stuff and always has.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the audio in the QB's helmet even turned off 15 seconds into the playclock?
So at that point no QB could even be relayed the calls, even if they were analyzed and ready, no?
I believe it's 10 seconds. But part of the Bourne Identity conspiracy was that the Patriots were bypassing that frequency and somehow still relaying information to the QB while he was at the line and barking the snap count and signals.
How Brady would be able to hear over the crowd noise and his own yelling given virtually every QB has to cover his ear holes to make out the call from the sideline at the start of the play clock is beyond me.
Anybody wonder whether perhaps Goodell, who is a PR guy not a football coach, actually had no clue that sign stealing is a routine part of a staff's assignments? Farfetched, I guess, but his statements made it sound like he was aghast at the sign-stealing itself, not the camera placement violation.
The coach-to-quarterback communication shuts down with 15 seconds left on the play clock, or when the ball is snapped. If all the stars were aligned, and the coaches processed the defensive signal with the defensive personnel on the field, I do think it's possible there could be time to relay that information to the quarterback. But you also have to account for the fact that one pre-snap shift could change everything. On the whole, I think the on-field impact is minimal. But my feeling is that the Patriots were doing it with the idea that if it works once, and it works on the one play that often decides a game, it was worth it. The premise is that the more information you have at your disposal to make a decision, you increase your odds to make a better decision.
This may be when the policy was started or reenforced. I'm not sure:
Here's the NFL policy, from a memo sent to all head coaches and general managers Sept. 6, 2006: "Videotaping 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."
Here is a question- Are the stands considered "accessible" to staff members? I know the answer seems to be yes, but Cowher and Jimmy Johnson both admit to having someone in the stands with a videocamera doing their thing...
Yup, at least in the short term. It's like what they say about the stock market - it's irrational in the short term and rational in the long term. Except that I wouldn't say that public opinion is exactly rational in the long term - it's just a bit less irrational.
Bump since we still don't know.
Anybody know what year videotaping was deemed illegal?
Here's a question: would it be wrong for Belichick to buy videotaped footage shot by someone in the stands?
Nobody knows. I've asked this question lots of times ...
I've spend hours looking for an answer but ....nothing.
There were two memos apparently about this rule.
One was on Sepember 6, 2007 three days before the Jets game
( which I find rather coincidental )
and another has no date specified and no idea what was in it.
The famous quote is taken from for the Sept 6th Memo just
three days before the game.
The person who sent September 6th memo was Ray Anderson
and it was sent to head coaches and general manager
Question? Did BB/SP even see it? if it was sent Thursday it may been
sitting in someones Inbox.
Green Bay event happened in November of last year and it was called
an "unauthorized video" and the cameraman was asked to stop.
Why didn't he say illegal video? Let's say rule existed then.
We have no other teams complaining about an unauthorized video.
We have memo this year and maybe one after the Green Bay incident.
If this rule had been ineffect for 2 or more years you would think complaints
and memos would have shown up years ago, after the rule first came into being.
I have a hard time believing this rule was has been in existence for more than 2 years.
I would expect shiva was right ... it came into existence
right after Goodell came into office, August of 2006.
I wish some media person would ask this question ... it could end all this
stuff about cheating in the Superbowls. If no rule .... no cheating.
I posted on this a couple of days ago, but I don't have any links to the official documents. My understanding is that there is a specific rule in the NFL by-laws that prevents the USE of video DURING GAMEPLAY to obtain a competitive advantage. I am not sure how long it has been part of the NFL corporation by-laws but I believe it has been there for sometime. I believe the memo preventing videotaping on the field (and in general in certain areas other than the field) was released last year for the first time. Furthermore, my take on Belichick's defense is that the memo just provides guidance on a pre-existing rule and thus prohibits videotaping on the field for use during gameplay.
Since the Patriots have claimed that they never use video during game play to obtain a competitive advantage (further supported by Brady's statement that transmitting the defensive signals to his headset was "ludicrous"), and this is basically supported by the commissioner in noting that the videotaping at the Jets game had NO IMPACT on the outcome of the game, the only rule the Patriots broke was the 2006 memo and one could say they just misinterpreted it (although I wish they sought clarification).
Yes, I agree, unless they come up with some other smoking gun, no rules were broken pre-2006 and the titles are not tarnished. Theroetically, the only games in which the video could have had any impact were games against teams the Patriots have played more than once since 2006, and only if these opponents used the same defensive signals again.
Separate names with a comma.