I think you may be buying into the media hype going on and the
tons of jealous lynch mobsters out there.
Acutally Belichick may have been right but the Comish was really being pushed into this outcome.
Here a response from a JETs fan who also a Tax Lawyer
-------------------------------------------------------
The argument, I take it, is that (1) the rule's reference to "a game" is the SAME game in which the taping occurs, and (2) so long as the information is not used during such game the gathering of such information is not prohibited.
I actually don't think it's that absurd an interpretation. Indeed, that's the kind of distinction on which many tax positions (I'm a tax lawyer) are based. Indeed, it's interesting to note that the rule only applies to a game in which the team gathering the information is a participant. Presumably it's clear that the rule is not violated if the Pats send an assistant to a Jets-Ravens game and videotape the Jets coaches relaying signals for use in a later game. So, this supports the conclusion that the rule was designed solely to prevent teams from using certain devices to gather information to gain a SAME-GAME advantage.
The real focus, I think, should be on the term "might". The rule prohibits the use of certain devices to gather information that "might" be used to gain an advantage during the game. The Pats presumably contend that, because they didn't actually gain such a same-game advantage, the rule wasn't broken. (Whether they actually did get such an advantage is unknowable, but the Commissioner can't assume they did.) I think the Commissioner properly took the view that the rule is designed to prevent the gathering of information (through certain devices) that potentially COULD be used for a same-game advantage and that the rule was drafted in this way so that it would not be necessary to resolve the difficult factual question of how, and when, a team actually used the information.
Nevertheless, it is not all that outlandish for the Pats to take the position that the rule is ambiguous and, therefore, pending clarification, they should not be punished for taking a reasonable view.
(Of course, if the Pats actually gained a same-game advantage, there's no interpretation that could help them. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did; but since I understand that hasn't been proven, it's not appropriate to simply assume it.)
And for anyone here who thinks I have some obligation to take the party line, or "get their back", or not side with "them" against "us", sorry: I have the right to offer my honest opinion.
---------------------------------------