Specter: Pats video practices dates to 2000, includes 2004 Steelers games

[upstater1]

it may have been reported, but I don't think it was "known fact" (unless my memory is failing me). for the difference between "reported" and "fact", just see the Tomase/Rams story.

Goodell said it back in September, Mortenson reported it.

 

[BelichickFan]

Doesn't bother me a bit. Even now the wording is questionable about it being illegal and it's not something, to me, that's way above and beyond what it completely legal. It's a tweak above regular sign stealing and nothing more. You'd think we had the other huddle mic'ed up and all the defenders could listen in.

 

[makewayhomer]

The equivalent is the after the 2003 AFCCG, when our lil friend from Indy cheated by forcing the Rules Committee to change.. ( I mean interpret) illegal contact for the benefit of one team

what?? you say stuff like this, then call ME a ******? please tell me how Indy 'cheated'.

I look forward to your response which ignores my question and just flames me

 

[makewayhomer]

Goodell said it back in September, Mortenson reported it.

ok, thanks, I didnt realize that

 

[Watson's IQ]

Wake me up when someone proves that the other 31 teams weren't doing this or something very similar back then. I'm willing to believe that everyone but the Patriots stopped after the memo, and for that they're idiots, but if they were the only ones doing it before that than I will eat my hat.

 

[makewayhomer]

I generally agree with the point that we were far from alone in doing this, but....

Wake me up when someone proves that the other 31 teams weren't doing this or something very similar back then.

you can't prove a negative. how would you prove that the Chiefs weren't doing this back then? you could go and ask everyone on the team if they were, and you could search their offices, but even when all that looks clean it doesn't prove they weren't doing anything, it just means there is no evidence to support that they are guilty. we're innocent until proven guilty here.

 

[Julius]

On a good note I was watching the Daily show with John Stewart and he was lambasting Specter for this whole thing. They showed the clip where Specter said he didn't know if this thing rose to the level of destruction of the CIA torture tapes. They also showed Specter saying he became interested because the Eagles lost to the Patriots in the superbowl. John Stewart then showed a pitcure of the Philly fanatic in jail in Guatanimo bay and suggested that this might be what it takes to interest Specter in investigating that issue. The end of the piece showed Specter saying he was concerned that the NFL was hurting the integrity of the game. Stewart's sarcastic retort was "Yes senator we know how it feels when the institutions(Congress) we have faith in let us down.
It was good to see someone out side of sports point out how stupid this is.

 

[goz421]

The simple fact is it's not illegal to use tape as long as it was not produced by the Pats. Second remember the Dolphins use of this in which no wrong doing occured. Specter needs to be educated on the facts. The only thing the Pats did wrong was where they made video on the field. If this was done from the stands no wrong doing. No that is ludicrous. This is a marked attempt to take down one of the most succesfull sports franchises because of money. The other owners are all pissed because NE making all the money. So they want parody , so this is what you get. A crooked world. If this goes further and sinks the Pats I'm boycotting proffesional football for life. I suspect this in the long run is going to cost them more then it helps.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Logic is a tough one eh?

Pass interference has always been against the rules.
If you break the rules, you are "cheating"
"Cheating" should be punished.
In the 2003 AFCCG, the Dolts complained about pass inference. The Dolts feel it wasn't called so the Patriots were "cheating".
Napolian goes to the rules committee and through "point of emphasis" has the long standing "interpretation" changed to benefit one team- They are called the Dolts.
The definition of unilateral benefit at the detriment of others is "cheating".
Carrying the new "point of emphasis" back means that in the past the Pats violated the future "point of emphasis".

Why is this important?

makewayhomer comes on a Pats board to claim the Pats "cheated" by taping in 2000-2004. The only way this claim can be made is because it violated the future 2006 memo outlining taping, you know the clarifying "point of emphasis".

Was "taping" against the rules in 2000-2004? Maybe
Is it specified? Obviously not because if it's obvious you don't need a memo in 2006 to "specify" what is supposedly "specific".

 

[Watson's IQ]

I generally agree with the point that we were far from alone in doing this, but....

you can't prove a negative. how would you prove that the Chiefs weren't doing this back then? you could go and ask everyone on the team if they were, and you could search their offices, but even when all that looks clean it doesn't prove they weren't doing anything, it just means there is no evidence to support that they are guilty. we're innocent until proven guilty here.

I'm not asking for it to be proved in a court of law or even to the NFL. I'm talking about for my own opinion in all this, right now I am 100% convinced that this practice was widespread, and until someone were to PROVE that the Patriots were the only one doing this (I initially said it knowing full well that is a near impossibility) I'm not going to get up in arms about it.

 

[makewayhomer]

Napolian goes to the rules committee and through "point of emphasis" has the long standing "interpretation" changed to benefit one team- They are called the Dolts.

No, you are wrong. the rule wasn't changed to benefit 1 team - otherwise the competition committee (comprised of reps from many teams) wouldn't have voted to change it. you think other teams wanted to benefit the Colts at their own expense? ok.

if you don't understand the difference between "lobbying to have a rule changed" and "breaking a rule" then you're just an idiot.

 

[BelichickFan]

if you don't understand the difference between "lobbying to have a rule changed" and "breaking a rule" then you're just an idiot.

And you're just as much of an (name calling not allowed) if you don't understand the difference between murder and speeding.

 

[Wotan_the_Wanderer]

Excerpts from Goodell's SB week press conference:

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story;...0d5d8066dfee&template=with-video&confirm=true

I believe there were six tapes and in fact, in one of the tapes, one of the coaches was waving at the camera, indicating that they understood that they were being taped. I think as far as the actual effectiveness of taping signals, as you all know, taking signals from opposing football teams or in other sports is done and it is done quite widely and teams prepare for that. There isn't a team that doesn't go into a game prepared for that because of the complex nature of the way they handle either their wristbands, different coaches sending signals in live or not. They all protect against that. I think it probably had a limited effect, if any effect, on the outcome on any game.

Also:

Was there any indication that the confiscated tapes may have benefited the Patriots in any of the Super Bowl victories that they had?

"No, there was no indication that it benefited them in any of the Super Bowl victories. I think I've said before and I've repeated here, I'm not sure that there is a coach in the league that doesn't expect that their signals are being intercepted by opposing teams. That's why they go to great lengths. I think it was coach (Bill) Parcells earlier this season who said, 'Any coach that doesn't expect his signals to be stolen is stupid.' It's pretty simple but teams understand that it's a risk and they prepare for that. I don't believe it affected the outcome of any games."

Memeo to Sen. Specter...in the name of integrity and in the best interest of the American public, I wish you had been as vigilant and as dogged in your pursuit to get to the bottom of the destroyed CIA tapes.

 

[makewayhomer]

And you're just as much of an (name calling not allowed) if you don't understand the difference between murder and speeding.

of course I understand the difference, and I'm not sure I've said otherwise. I don't think this is some grave offense that we've committed - have I said so? I said that we broke a rule, and this can LOOK very bad.

but to equate what we did with the Colts lobbying in 2003 is just lol

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Uhhhh Biff

The "rule" wasn't changed, the "point of emphasis" was changed. So Napolian does stuff to benefit everyone else? The ruling has long standing precedence and interpretation and Napolian changes the "point of emphasis" to benefit everyone else?

How many aliens were found at Roswell?

 

[makewayhomer]

Uhhhh Biff

The "rule" wasn't changed, the "point of emphasis" was changed. So Napolian does stuff to benefit everyone else? The ruling has long standing precedence and interpretation and Napolian changes the "point of emphasis" to benefit everyone else?

of course he thought it would benefit his team...and various other reps from teams thought the same, and thought the league would benefit from the change. That is why the COMPETITION COMMITTEE and COACHES SUBCOMMITTEE were in favor of thee change, it wasn't just Polian.

it included Rich McKay and Jeff Fisher and Mike Martz. Polian wasnt even the chair of that committee.

here is the current committee, which I know is pretty similar to the group that voted the 'point of emphasis' in. I know Charlie Casserly was on the group back then instead of Millen, I'm not sure what else has changed

Co-Chair: Rich McKay (Atlanta Falcons)
Co-Chair: Jeff Fisher (Tennessee Titans)

- Matt Millen (Detroit Lions)
- Marvin Lewis (Cincinnati Bengals)
- John Mara (New York Giants)
- Ozzie Newsome (Baltimore Ravens)
- Bill Polian (Indianapolis Colts)
- Mark Richardson (Carolina Panthers)

but yeah, I'm sure the real goal was to help just the Colts.

 

[sebman2112]

from what Goodell is saying, it was "illegal" before 2000

Yes, it's been illegal for a long time, this is why I never understood why some posters had the idea it only became illegal after that 2006 memo.

No, that memo was only issued because he wanted to make sure teams stopped violating a rule that was already on the books. For some reason a number of teams believed there was a loophole in the rule, and they used that perceived loophole in an attempt to circumvent the rules.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

So is our point that the rule wasn't defined, it's only "illegal"?

Enforced a sodomy law lately?

 

[Welker83]

Is videotaping signals illegal?

Yes. You don't get the largest punishment in NFL history unless you did something wrong. It gives you an unfair advantage.

Why is congress sticking it's nose in the NFL?
THe nfl operates under an Anti-trust exemption granted to them by congress.

Why is an anti-trust exemption so important?

because the nfl basically runs a monopoly on proffesional football. If they piss of congress it will be revoked and the league will be forced to split into at least 2 separate entities.

Why does Arlen Spector care?
Arlen spector is bought and paid for by COMCAST. They are his second largest contributer. You can bet that this has something to do with the NFL network fiasco with comcast. If the NFL concedes to them spector will back off.

Why won't other lawmakers stand up for the pats?

The world at large veiws the pats as "tainted" and anyone that defends them will get the same treatment. There is no political advantage to help them so none will.

Did other teams video tape?

Doesn't matter. OJ killed somebody and got away with it. That does not mean i can get off just because he did. (i'm not eqauting this to murder. I am merely using a well known analagoy for the sake of a clear message)

If other teams did then punish them...

*********

Doesn't matter. Spygate will ALWAYS be a side note to the patriots dynasty. some will want one, others will deny. BUT it will always be a point of contention.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

Seriously...I wish Spector never named my team in his statement.

The Pats beat the Steelers in 04 because Burress couldn't catch an effing fade pass and Ben through to a TE he thought was open, but his rookie eyes didn't notice the very good veteran D-back sitting on the play who then takes the pick to the house to seal the game away.

Also, I'm pretty sure Bettis got stuffed on a 4th and short early in the same game, which was a huge boost to the Pats defense and helped swing momentum their way.

Knowing our defenisive signals did Not give the Pats the win. Better execution did.