The stupidity of the 'cheating' argument

[Ring 6]

The answer probably lies somewhere in the middle.
We are speaking in rhetorical examples.
In reality:
1) You read a rule or law
2) You recognize how abiding by it will have a negative impact on you
3) You try to find a loophole
4) You either steer clear, because you fear the penalty, and cannot rationalize your interpretation, or you do what you want believing your interpretation gives you a plausible explanation, i.e. "I was wrong, but this is why I thought I was right"

I have no doubt that BB read the rule, decided that he didn't like it. He attempted to find an interpretation that would allow him to continue taping, while giving himself an out of why he read it to say what he was doing is OK.

I think one thing lost in this is there are MANY NFL rules that BB and many other coaches do not like. And it goes all the way up the ladder to ownership. I think the NFL, not unlike almost any organization, creates a situation where rules are handed down that are not rounded enodrsed and agreed with, and those being held to the rules make a living out of bending them without breaking them. Just start with the interpretation of penalties, and the understanding that you will never get called every time for every literal on-field rule violation. In a culture where bending the rule to the just South of breaking it is almost a job description, I dont think we need to look any further than that to understand the 'motives' behind BBs interpretation.

I just think the commentary has gotten out of control.
I am perfectly willing to accept saying that BB broke a rule, explained why he didn't think he had, and his explanation was reaching for a loophole. That he tried to bend the rule as far as he could and crossed the line and broke it.
I am not willing to categorize it as cheating, unless we also consider every decision a coach makes, include instructing a corner what to do when he is beaten deep, or showing an OL how to legally hold, to be cheating.
I would go so far as to say that the "illegal pick" strategy of Bill Walsh and the WCO is much better described as cheating that this episode.
Walsh knew that picks were illegal, and designed and called plays that hinged upon picks. His gamble was that it wouldn't be called and cost him 10 yards. BBs gamble was that WHEN the NFL saw him taping (it is not if, because he would not have done it so wide open if he was afraid of them seeing it) he could talk his way out of it with 'interpretation' or face whatever unknown penalty he would get.

If the SF offense was designed to break and on field rule, and they won SBs because th ereferees didn't call it, that is more tainted that the Patriots winning SBs, with the unknown (and not really understandable) benefit of sometimes filming opposing sidelines.
I am not saying the SF titles are tainted, just putting into perspective another example of willful rule breaking and its impact on winning and losing vs the manufactured idea that this type of filming had an impact.

 

[captain stone]

This thread is a terrific example of why I visit this site. If anyone has seen stories presented by the drive-by media that are as thoughtful, well-written and reasonable as these posts are, please show me.

My (perhaps final?) take on Cameragate:
It is not illogical to believe that one of the purposes of a cameraman filming the opposing coaches, while standing on the opposing sideline, is to record those coaches as they signal formation assignments to their team.
The formations that an opponent uses can easily be acertained by studying the coaches' tape, incl. down/distance and time remaining. Therefore, for what other purpose could employing a cameraman on the opposing sideline be of better use?
I also believe that the recording of opposing coaches probably does no good during that particular game. The logistics required to render this information useful appears to be insurmountable. This fact is, to me, the "cheat"-breaker. My definition of cheating, as it pertains to football, includes actions that result in a more immediate benefit to the cheater. What BB had done was obtain information that could prove useful later that season.
If, for instance, the NEP had obtained the Steelers signals during the Halloween afternoon '04 loss, they could look for similar signals, resulting in similar formations, early in the AFCC three months later. Maybe one day I'll put that tape in the VCR, and count the number of times that TB audibled. If he averaged more than one audible/series of downs, then I'll have my answer.
The question that, to me, the drive-by media have answered incorrectly is: does the acquisition of information during one game, which may or may not prove to be useful in a future game, constitute "cheating"? They are reading the letter of the law, and answer "yes. If they were to read the spirit of the law, as most knowledgeable and experienced football men, with no axes to grind, have, then they would answer "no".

Now, having written all that, I am still left to ask: why would BB place a cameraman, well-known to Manjudas and Daboll, on the jesters' sideline, in full view, and barely 3 days after a memo had been sent by league HQ specifically forbidding such cameras to be used?
The word that comes to mind is "hubris". And like another authority figure, R. Nixon, BB's hubris got the better of him. In his zeal to cross all "t"s and dot all "i"s, he started writing on someone else's paper - the commissioner's. And the commish has made BB - and Kraft - and us - pay for it.
Does BB owe us, or the press, an apology, or even an explanation? Nah; being a student of history, BB understands, better than others, the words of Abraham Lincoln: Better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak out, and remove all doubt.

 

[rabthepat]

Good points by all.

 

[JJDChE]

It's hard to believe that not a single national or local writer has gone through the logical progressions that a few fans here have to come to the conclusions that have been presented by Andy and a few others.

I really think that a few people here should put together an article and submit it to a national outlet. Just to know that these ideas are out there.

 

[Bella*chick]

Now, having written all that, I am still left to ask: why would BB place a cameraman, well-known to Manjudas and Daboll, on the jesters' sideline, in full view, and barely 3 days after a memo had been sent by league HQ specifically forbidding such cameras to be used?
The word that comes to mind is "hubris". And like another authority figure, R. Nixon, BB's hubris got the better of him. In his zeal to cross all "t"s and dot all "i"s, he started writing on someone else's paper - the commissioner's. And the commish has made BB - and Kraft - and us - pay for it.
Does BB owe us, or the press, an apology, or even an explanation? Nah; being a student of history, BB understands, better than others, the words of Abraham Lincoln: Better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to speak out, and remove all doubt.

I thought, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, that the memo was sent out September 6, 2006?

I agree this is a terrific thread and a perfect example of why this is the best Pats MB.

 

[captain stone]

I thought, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, that the memo was sent out September 6, 2006?

Maybe I'm wrong, BC, and I only saw the MM/DD, and glossed over the YY.
If 2006 is correct, then BB's act would seem a little less brazen.

 

[Bella*chick]

Maybe I'm wrong, BC, and I only saw the MM/DD, and glossed over the YY.
If 2006 is correct, then BB's act would seem a little less brazen.

I remember reading it somewhere on this site...it's hard to remember where because of the sheer volume of stuff that's been said. It definitely puts a different light on brazenness of the act, if true.

 

[Mangold74]

If it wasn't helping the Pats why were they doing it?

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

If it wasn't helping the Pats why were they doing it?

Gives Ernie something to do.

He's so damn fast with the film break down, you just gotta keep feeding him more film or he gets bored.

 

[Metaphors]

If it wasn't helping the Pats why were they doing it?

Of course Belichick thought filming the opposing coaches (and potentially other stuff) would be helpful...or at least have the potential to be helpful in the future. Better to have the film and not need it, than not have the film and want it.

The problem is with the train of logic:

Film + Stealing Signs = Competitive Advantage = Cheating

This thread and many others give lots of reasons for filming the opposing sideline other than stealing signs...all of which are not helpful during the game in which the film is taken. Stealing signs is just not an effective use of in-game video.

So if the logic becomes:

Film = Competitive Advantage = Cheating

then there is less to argue about. Film was taken which was against the rules. If you want to call that "cheating" then that's fine with me. But when you remove the "stealing signs" aspect of the equation, the issue of "competitive advantage" becomes a little murkier and a lot less emotional.

The film allowed Belichick to have information for later film study that other coaches didn't have (that we know of). For a film junky like Belichick, video like that may provide a slight benefit very infrequently...but he is willing to work hard enough to squeeze every last ounce of information out of the film available to him. The more film (on everyone) he has, the greater the chance he will be able to derive some benefit later.

So why does the NFL restrict the ability of coaches to gather information? If you don't put limits somewhere, it is possible technology could take "scouting" to places the NFL never anticipated and where league integrity could be threatened. Belichick touched this nerve and didn't realize the backlash would be so severe.

Does the NFL want to allow as much information (within boundaries of fair play) as coaches want? It doesn't seem like it. There are ways to do that (league sponsered video crews) which wouldn't threaten the integrity of the league...but that would give the teams with hard-working, type A, details-oriented coaches even more of an advantage than they already have. Think NASCAR without regulations on the car specifications.

That kind of a world would be great for the Pats. Not so much for about 20+ other teams.

 

[Deus Irae]

We know that the 'cheating' argument is a bunch of crap. How do we know?


The league STILL hasn't made it against the rules to steal signs.

 

[bishbash]

From today's Globe:

"The videotape was seized in the first quarter and Goodell later said it had no impact on the result of the game, a 38-14 Patriots victory. .....

In a statement released following the NFL's ruling, Belichick indicated that his "interpretation of a rule in the Constitution and Bylaws was incorrect."

The rule to which Belichick was referring was: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."

Seems contradictory to me!
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2007/09/21/patriots_wont_be_hit_harder

 

[DarrylS]

I have believed from the onset that the Estrella tape had no use in this game, but was part of a volumnous library of stuff that BB studies... not sure what he would see, but might see something that would at least tip him off as to who the actual signal caller is for future reference. Other than that, he did violate a rule, but in reality it is much ado about nothing. Made hysterical press and filled the airwaves with vitriol, but BB handled it well and has moved on.

 

[Metaphors]

The league STILL hasn't made it against the rules to steal signs.

I'm sure they would if they could. How do you regulate eyeballs, pencil and paper?

If you are insinuating that the NFL implicitly or explicitly supports sign stealing as a practice, I have to disagree with you there. I think it is a matter of the difficulty of enforcement and the urgency of the problem. NFL teams complained about the Pats stealing signals, but immediately followed the complaints with:
1) We don't try to steal signs since they wouldn't be of much use to us.
2) Nobody can steal our signs since we have a system in place to prevent it.

Regulating electronics is easy...that is why the NFL did it.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm sure they would if they could. How do you regulate eyeballs, pencil and paper?

If you are insinuating that the NFL implicitly or explicitly supports sign stealing as a practice, I have to disagree with you there. I think it is a matter of the difficulty of enforcement and the urgency of the problem. NFL teams complained about the Pats stealing signals, but immediately followed the complaints with:
1) We don't try to steal signs since they wouldn't be of much use to us.
2) Nobody can steal our signs since we have a system in place to prevent it.

Regulating electronics is easy...that is why the NFL did it.

Miami bought tape to match up with signals and the league said that was fine. The league has no problem with stealing signals.