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

[Dino 6 Rings]

do you think bettis or someone will start talking like marshall faulk now ignoring all the facts you pointed out above. i think its coming soon.

I truly hope not. I know Ward said something about the Pats "knowing our signals" but if you watch the interview, he said it tongue in cheek, they got beat in 04, and they know it. He's probably just trying to forget crying like a baby for Bettis, which actually, turned out to be ok, since we did win the following season. I want my players to just shut up, man up, and play ball.

 

[makewayhomer]

I understand the problem, you just hate the Steelers and allow your hatred of the Steelers blury your perspective of fact and fiction.

Which I'm fine with. Be a hater. The world needs them.

And Webster had head injuries after playing center from 74-1990. Steriods weren't the problem in his life.

dino you seem like a good guy. put patsfaninpittsburgh on ignore, he's a troll with nothingi ntelligent to add

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I think the official rules banned the use during the game of videotaping on the field and the 2006 memo specified on the sidelines. My understanding is that Bill interpreted the rules to mean he could not use the video during the game, but he could record for future use. Goodell also mentioned in his press conference before the Superbowl that they could not determine whether all materials were obtained against league rules, so they destroyed them all. Goodell seems pretty clear about the 2006/2007 stuff being against his interpretation of the rules, so I think it is questionable whether the pre-2006 material was against that interpretation.

Unfortunately, I think Bill now has to come out and go through all of the machinations as to why this was obtained and how many others are doing it.

I think in game use of video tape to gain a competitive advantage was prohibited for however long (some intrepid mediot should ask Goodell for a date some time...). Bill never did that with his tape, as Goodell indicated his extensive data base actually backed up his contention that he was using it for future reference purposes only, i.e. documenting and tracking coaching trends by team or by individual coach who might someday have a team.

There is nothing illegal or prohibited in collecting or maintaining such data. But as a further punishment for violating the emphasis on interpretation, so to speak in the 2006 memo, the league requested ALL data gathered on defensive signals whether on tape or documented in print be turned over. Because we complied with that request, the penalty was not made more severe because of the totality but it encompassed the totality so that the team could not be further punished for anything it voluntarily turned over regardless of how it was collected. Only information retained or not turned over related to the same taping of signals (or later apparently conveniently or spinlessly interpreted as any proof of any type of wrongdoing) would result in revisiting the penalty.

Goodell has been clear that he has no idea how much of the printed material was collected via tape, and that is why it too was destroyed as opopsed to being returned to them after review because it in and of itself is perfectly legal to possess. The Pat's may well have videoed signals at every game, or just select games where they lacked information about coaches or had reason to believe substantive changes were being made.

The significant information here was always the existence of the extensive notes on the information. If you are collecting information for in game use, you aren't likely to archive it in written form because signals do change unless your opponent is a moron. Bill had less interest in the specific signals being used in any game than the continuing or developing or significantly changing trends in the way HC's or DC's called defenses situationally. That is nothing more or less than scouting. He likely used video tape for convenience and east of collection only. But as we now know you can be crucified for a lot less in todays 24/7 covered multi-billion dollar entertainment industry known as the NFL.

Good guys who hugged their players before tossing them under a bus and shmoozed with media for self serving purposes and played footsies with player agents to curry favor lost their jobs because this friggin' sour **** football savant out schemed them. That just can't be legal or ethical let alone grudgingly admirable. Waaahhhhhhhh!!!!!

Some of their supporters just can't get their empty heads wrapped around this, and they will torture us with it until they are forced to admit that their guy or their team lost because they didn't coach or play well enough to remain employed or win. And in the case of some of them it's becoming increasingly apparent hell will freeze over first.

 

[rabthepat]

One good thing about Spygate is that it takes my mind off the fact that we lost SB 42 to Hillbilly Manning and the Giants. Thanks Bill.....

 

[The Dog]

The thing is there have also been allegations of audio problems with the pats. Radio's not working at important times in games. Players wearing wires in games as well. People always say that other teams do the same thing. The problem I have with that is that the patriots were specifically targeted by the NFL. If so many other teams were doing the same "illegal acts" why weren't they specifically targeted as well.

 

[eom]

ahahahahaha....one comment about the steelers, ONE comment, and dino goes into a 'roid rage.

you're lucky you aren't a pats fan, dino --- I don't think you could take the heat.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

ahahahahaha....one comment about the steelers, ONE comment, and dino goes into a 'roid rage.

you're lucky you aren't a pats fan, dino --- I don't think you could take the heat.

HEY! I'm not on roids, all the things I use are purchased at the Local GNC over the counter. Well except that one bottle marked with the skull and crossbones that I got from the guy out back...but it isn't roids! Its Legit suppliments.

Joking aside,
The comment also took a pot shot at Mike Webster, that is really what set me off. He had a serious mental health issues. That shouldn't be mocked.

 

[Dino 6 Rings]

The thing is there have also been allegations of audio problems with the pats. Radio's not working at important times in games. Players wearing wires in games as well. People always say that other teams do the same thing. The problem I have with that is that the patriots were specifically targeted by the NFL. If so many other teams were doing the same "illegal acts" why weren't they specifically targeted as well.

I remember the Vikings making statements about the Giants when they got crushed by them the year the Giants lost to the Ratbirds in the superbowl. Seems the Meadowlands is just a shady place to have to play. I guess with Hoffa's body in the visitor's endzone, that's to be expected in NJ.

 

[tombonneau]

Quite frankly, the fact taping was going on since 2000 works in the Pats favor. I mean, if BB had a freaking camera guy on the sideline for 6-7 years, why is it that just now it's become an outrage?

You'd think if it was such an unsporting advantage and NE was the only team doing it, that surely someone between 2000-2005 would have said something.

Yet it only came to light a few times in 2006 when a few teams *****ed, then the memo went out, and then of course there was the Jets game.

But from 2000-2005 not a soul had a problem with a dude with a video camera standing in the open taping signals.

 

[sebman2112]

Show me the rule. I have yet to see any rule which addresses the stealing of signals.

Here's my understanding of it. There's a rule that addresses videotaping from the sidelines. The rule says nothing about stealing signals. The first time the two were mentioned together was in the 2006 memo. Belichick, by his own admission, violated the rule. But only in 2006 did the league say that stealing signals was illegal (even though in that same year, the league said it was OK for the Dolphins to do it, long after it sent out that memo). To this day, there is no league rule against stealing signals.

Correct m if I'm wrong.

No, you're getting the point and rule confused, sorry.

I didn't say anything about stealing signals being illegal. It's in fact not illegal to steal signals, if you use legal methods (the naked eye and so on). However, it is illegal (and has been for a long time) to videotape the opposing coaches and apposing sideline. Therefore, it's obviously illegal to videotape their signals, as you can't videotape them period.

Really, I don't know why this needs to be explained, as it should be pretty well known info.

 

[sebman2112]

Then why was the use of videotape and audiotape by the Dolphins in 2006 against the Pats (unfortunately blanked 21-0 as a result) condoned by the NFL? By their own actions the NFL confused the issue, or is it a case of some videotaping is against the rules while other videotaping is not. Again an explanation is needed and still not forthcoming.

I thought the Dolphins should have received some type of punishment for their admitted use of audio and so on, but I'm not the commish.

Also, I think the dolphins might have obtained their tapes legally, right? My memory is a little shady on that situation, as I haven't bothered reading about it for some time now.

The better (and more relevant) question to ask is why are the Jets seemingly getting away with their videotaping? Mangini and the Jets claimed they had permission, but BB and the Patriots later came out and said they didn't give the Jets permission of any kind. So, why aren't they being investigated?

 

[upstater1]

No, you're getting the point and rule confused, sorry.

I didn't say anything about stealing signals being illegal. It's in fact not illegal to steal signals, if you use legal methods (the naked eye and so on). However, it is illegal (and has been for a long time) to videotape the opposing coaches and apposing sideline. Therefore, it's obviously illegal to videotape their signals, as you can't videotape them period.

Really, I don't know why this needs to be explained, as it should be pretty well known info.

I'll say it again: there is no rule in the books which makes it illegal to videotape an opposing sideline. I've read the rule book on this issue. It doesn't mention it at all. The link to the ENTIRE RULEBOOK was provided on this site a month or so ago. The actual rule in this case says that it's illegal to videotape from any part of the stadium that is NOT enclosed by at least three walls. That's all it says. It makes no mention of opposing sidelines at all.

Look it up for yourself, or at least cite wherever you are getting your source.

Look, we all know it's illegal to videotape. The point is, why? Is it obvious what the intent of the rule was? For me, it's not obvious because prior to 2006, the intent had never been spelled out. If I were reading the rulebook and it made no mention of opposing sidelines or stealing signals, I would have thought the NFL were trying to protect its product from being rebroadcast by unauthorized sources.

 

[patriotfan32]

This entire thing with Specter has to go away. If your going to investigate one team, then you have better investigate all the teams. Secondly, if Matt Walsh has evidence, as he claims,then get to bottom of it already. This entire idea of what he implies and what is real are two different things. The media has been following him for months, but it seems like a guy who is clamoring for attention. Goodell has to end it. Get to the bottom of what Walsh knows or discredit him. But don't continue this soap opera of we will leave the investigation open if any new evidence comes forward. If one team has the spotlight on them to this magnitude, then Goodell better expose the other teams as well.

 

[sebman2112]

I'll say it again: there is no rule in the books which makes it illegal to videotape an opposing sideline. I've read the rule book on this issue. It doesn't mention it at all. The link to the ENTIRE RULEBOOK was provided on this site a month or so ago. The actual rule in this case says that it's illegal to videotape from any part of the stadium that is NOT enclosed by at least three walls. That's all it says. It makes no mention of opposing sidelines at all.

Look it up for yourself, or at least cite wherever you are getting your source.

Look, we all know it's illegal to videotape. The point is, why? Is it obvious what the intent of the rule was? For me, it's not obvious because prior to 2006, the intent had never been spelled out. If I were reading the rulebook and it made no mention of opposing sidelines or stealing signals, I would have thought the NFL were trying to protect its product from being rebroadcast by unauthorized sources.

I thought this argument was hashed out during the initial spygate BS? Listen, was the Patriots video man on the sidelines taping the Jets and others? The answer is YES, therefore he wasn't even abiding by your paraphrase of the rules. I don't personally care about his videotaping defensive signals as I think you can gain the same knowledge with binoculars and a pad of paper, but it's fairly obvious the Patriots (and other teams) knew they were breaking the rule.

Like most Patriots fans I think the media and league office have blown this whole thing way out of proportion, and I get annoyed by their seemingly ignoring other offenders. But I'm not blind to the facts either.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I thought the Dolphins should have received some type of punishment for their admitted use of audio and so on, but I'm not the commish.

Also, I think the dolphins might have obtained their tapes legally, right? My memory is a little shady on that situation, as I haven't bothered reading about it for some time now.

The better (and more relevant) question to ask is why are the Jets seemingly getting away with their videotaping? Mangini and the Jets claimed they had permission, but BB and the Patriots later came out and said they didn't give the Jets permission of any kind. So, why aren't they being investigated?

The difference is that Goodell wasn't the commissioner yet. Tagliabue didn't feel the need to make everyone acknowledge how badass he was, so he, realizing how minor this crap really was, more or less swept it under the rug.

 

[JoeSixPat]

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.

Until 2006 the rule was very clear that only taping for the purpose of actual game day use of signals was prohibited.

The 2006 memo made clear that ANY videotaping of signals was prohibited.

Videotaping of games was and continues to be allowed. Mangini admits did it for the Jets, videotaping the Patriots - and although he claims he had permission, he clearly did not.

If there is a rule about videotaping PRACTICES I'm not aware of it. I know teams often close practices to the media and one assumes, non-team personnel. If they allow someone to be in there to watch - and videotape, I guess that's their call.

But again - I'm unaware of an NFL rule about taping practices.

Specter should make the following clear if all the above is the case.

1. The NFL has no rule against taping practices.
2. The NFL has no rule prohibiting teams from taping games.
3. Until 2006, the NFL only prohibited the game day use of video of sideline signal calling. In 2006 it prohibited all video taping of signal calling.
4. Even after 2006, the NFL continued to allow teams to tape games with permission of the opposing teams - with Mangini recently accused of failing to get permission to videotape a Patriots game. The NFL declined to request that tape to determine if Mangini was also taping sideline signal calling.
5. The NFL allows and encourages signal stealing in order to maintain an even playing field for all teams.

 

[allworldrussfrancis]

The significant information here was always the existence of the extensive notes on the information. If you are collecting information for in game use, you aren't likely to archive it in written form because signals do change unless your opponent is a moron. Bill had less interest in the specific signals being used in any game than the continuing or developing or significantly changing trends in the way HC's or DC's called defenses situationally. That is nothing more or less than scouting. He likely used video tape for convenience and east of collection only. But as we now know you can be crucified for a lot less in todays 24/7 covered multi-billion dollar entertainment industry known as the NFL.

I have thought the same thing all along. On WEEI the week after Spygate, Smerlas asked said "don't teams changes their signals every week?" to which Belichick responded "I know we do Fred". In other words, the signals themselves were of little value, but the situational coaching trends were of interest. You may get substantially similar material from the NFL game films, but not the specific plays called in every circumstance. As Keyshawn has said repeatedly, its no more than scouting.

 

[JoePats]

You guys are ignoring the operations manual...Wasn't there something in there about videotaping?

I agree there was nothing mentioned about stealing signals.

 

[CrazyDave]

In other words, the signals themselves were of little value, but the situational coaching trends were of interest. You may get substantially similar material from the NFL game films, but not the specific plays called in every circumstance. As Keyshawn has said repeatedly, its no more than scouting.

Now you're talking.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

the signals themselves were of little value, but the situational coaching trends were of interest.

You may get substantially similar material from the NFL game films, but not the specific plays called in every circumstance. As Keyshawn has said repeatedly, its no more than scouting.

Help me out here-- what does taping the signal help you with, then? You can chart the play tendencies by taping the plays themselves-- how often they blitz and from what positions, what the line stunts are, how often what DBs use inside vs. outside technique etc.

If you want to know about play-calling tendencies, why not just look at the plays?

I think taping the signals, in such an OBVIOUS way (look at the HUGE videocam in the Jets game!) was just a way to be irritating-- to let them know you are taping, so that they are constantly changing their signals and may at some point mess up, and have a communication issue.