ThePhins.com "Call me crazy but this team is up to no good again"

[Ring 6]

I won't argue any of the posted information above Andy...but I WILL ask the question..if "Goodell punished for the perception, and given his job description probably had to. "..then why did he only "punish" Rex Ryan for repeated violations of league rules in the most lenient way possible?

The public profanities, the embarrassing sexual deviance, the orchestrated sideline tripping...on and on. A wrist slap every time. The Patriots organization gets robbed of a fundamental team building block because Goodell HAD TO?

As a former Jet employee he should have had an independent arbitrator decide BB's fate. Goodell just deferred to an independent arbitrator in the Dolphins/Incognito case. There has always been more to this issue than any of us have been privy to.

I'm not really arguing it from whether Goodell acted correctly or not, just from the perspective that what actually happened (and particularly the cries that BB should have gone public) didn't really mattered, because from the outset it was publicly perceived as cheating and the league (whether Goodell or someone else) had to deal with the perception becuase that was what it needed to protect itself against.

As far as Rex Ryan, I think that the perception of the league is harmed an awful lot less by the public perception that coaches use bad language (which actually is accepted almost everywhere in America today by anyone under 70 years old) than the perception that its games are not fair.
The sexual deviance is a funny story but there is no real smoking gun such a a Rex starring porno film. Hard to punish an employee on conjecture.

 

[Ring 6]

No need to rehash because your post has little to do with my point which was about Kraft using his business negotiating skills with GOODELL, not the media as you state, to have Goodell clarify precisely what and what not the Pats were being penalized for and to address the public perception via the Comissioner's offices' statements.

Well, you don't know that Kraft did not try to do that.
I think it is very reasonable to conclude that Goodell decided that the Patriots broke the rules, created the perception the product is tainted, and would receive a penalty based upon that perception and the fallout of BBs reputation was not nearly as important as the reputation of the shield.
I'm not sure what skills Kraft has that would convince the commissioner of the league to protect BBs reputation at the risk of enhancing the perception that games were tainted and the league looked the other way. It would be the most naive statement ever made on this board to think that would not have happened if a slap on the wrist and a public debate over the infraction and penalty ensued.
I'm not coming close to saying what happened to the Patriots was fair, but I am saying fairness to the Patriots was far down on the list of what mattered to the league in dealing with an accusation and perception that their games were tainted.

 

[Ring 6]

As for Bill - he had to have known other teams would have followed the letter of the memo, and he knew exactly what he was doing by ignoring it.

The letter of the memo was not for use in that game.
He DID follow the letter of the memo.

He was getting an edge for his team.

He taped signals to get an edge. Taping signals is legal.
He taped from a location that the memo said you couldn't do, and use in that game.
Please explain what edge he gained from the location of the camera?

That's a good thing...looking for an edge is his job... but in this case it would heave been best to just do what the memo said instead of thinking that if caught he could just lawyer-up the words of the memo, make it look like the gray area that it wasn't and embarrass the league.

He did what the memo said.
He didn't do what the memo wanted to say but did not.

 

[sb1]

The letter of the memo was not for use in that game.
He DID follow the letter of the memo.

Not exactly.

"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."

It's obvious to even a non lawyer what the wording and spirit of this memo meant...instead he used this to try and get an edge for his team.

He taped signals to get an edge. Taping signals is legal.
He taped from a location that the memo said you couldn't do, and use in that game.
Please explain what edge he gained from the location of the camera?

I know taping signals is legal. The edge was using this knowledge to his team's advantage: that other teams were following both the exact letter of the memo and the spirit of the memo and his team would gain an advantage by not doing so.

If he looked for an edge that wasn't at the same time a backhanded attempt to embarrass the league, there would be no story. Putting a lawyers hat on and finding a gray area in the rulebook isn't what Bill is paid to do.

 

[Ring 6]

Not exactly.

"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."

It's obvious to even a non lawyer what the wording and spirit of this memo meant...instead he used this to try and get an edge for his team.

Thats because you conveniently left out the part about for use during that game as well as the description of where such taping (evidently FOR use during the game is allowed)
Perhaps a non lawyer would make a conclusion from an excerpt but the entire document is required to make a correct one.

I know taping signals is legal. The edge was using this knowledge to his team's advantage: that other teams were following both the exact letter of the memo and the spirit of the memo and his team would gain an advantage by not doing so.

What advantage? What is on tape from where he filmed it as opposed to where the memo directed it to be filmed from?
Answer: Nothing.
There was no advantage unless you consider the comfort of the cameraman to be an advantage.

If he looked for an edge that wasn't at the same time a backhanded attempt to embarrass the league, there would be no story.

That is plain stupid.
Your argument is that Bill Belechick decided to film from a different location than a memo stated, not because the memo was unclear (which it was) but because THAT would be a blatant attempt to gain some type of embarrassment for the league?
Are you kidding me? So he planned to get caught and have his season disrupted by an investigation so the league would be embarrassed?
Of course his singular mission of embarrassing the NFL is so obvious since he has made so many attempts to do so.

 

[Jackson 2]

So I take it you think the 90's Bills are a dynasty? Are the Peyton Manning Colts a dynasty?

No to both. A dynasty is about multiple championships and nothing less. Otherwise that word gets watered down.

The Pats won 3 of 4, then got drilled in Denver and haven't won since. They've been great for the last 13 years. But they haven't been a dynasty since January of 2006.

It all depends on one's definition of a sports dynasty, and there's more than one of those. Webster's defines a dynasty as follows: a powerful group which maintains its position for a considerable time. That fits the Patriots.

 

[sb1]

Thats because you conveniently left out the part about for use during that game as well as the description of where such taping (evidently FOR use during the game is allowed)
Perhaps a non lawyer would make a conclusion from an excerpt but the entire document is required to make a correct one.

From Reiss's post on this topic:
-----------
In the NFL's operations manual, it states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "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."
-------------
Like I said, it's pretty obvious to me what this memo was trying to achieve... ironing out any gray area in the rulebook. Bill tried to find one anyway.

What advantage? What is on tape from where he filmed it as opposed to where the memo directed it to be filmed from?
Answer: Nothing.
There was no advantage unless you consider the comfort of the cameraman to be an advantage.

Like I said, the advantage was the full knowledge that no other team would even try to make a gray area out of this memo. It's indisputable that this is an edge.

Your argument is that Bill Belechick decided to film from a different location than a memo stated, not because the memo was unclear (which it was) but because THAT would be a blatant attempt to gain some type of embarrassment for the league?

Except I never used the word blatant. But it most certainly was seen as an attempt to embarrass the league. Hence the punishment.

I guarantee that next time BB would make a different decision if he was faced with this again. Unfortunately this decision has already tainted the public perception of our team and their accomplishments. Maybe that's why I'm still a little sour on BB for this. It was totally unnnecessary in my opinion.

 

[sb1]

It all depends on one's definition of a sports dynasty, and there's more than one of those. Webster's defines a dynasty as follows: a powerful group which maintains its position for a considerable time. That fits the Patriots.

I agree that people have different definitions of the word. Although I'd say that definition sounds more like people in position of power or influence compared to a sports team.

For me a real dynasty is multiple championships in a short period of time and nothing less. The bar for what is a dynasty needs to be high, or it becomes meaningless.
That word gets thrown around too much these days and it's getting watered down. I like to think that the Pats were the first and last dynasty of the salary cap era.

Maybe my other post could have been worded a little better. It was a silly thing for those Fish fans to say anyway.

 

[Deus Irae]

From Reiss's post on this topic:
-----------
In the NFL's operations manual, it states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "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."
-------------
Like I said, it's pretty obvious to me what this memo was trying to achieve... ironing out any gray area in the rulebook. Bill tried to find one anyway.



Like I said, the advantage was the full knowledge that no other team would even try to make a gray area out of this memo. It's indisputable that this is an edge.




Except I never used the word blatant. But it most certainly was seen as an attempt to embarrass the league. Hence the punishment.

I guarantee that next time BB would make a different decision if he was faced with this again. Unfortunately this decision has already tainted the public perception of our team and their accomplishments. Maybe that's why I'm still a little sour on BB for this. It was totally unnnecessary in my opinion.

This has been gone over about a million times. Your claim of advantage is a fantasy. The Patriots had been taping from the sidelines already, so your argument doesn't even make sense.

Belichick interpreted a single word differently than did Goodell, chose to do so instead of just calling for clarification, and that pissed Goodell off enough that Der Roger lost his freaking mind and decided to way overpunish the Patriots in return. That's what cameragate came down to:

One word
One unmade phone call
One overreaction


Laisse tomber

 

[Ring 6]

From Reiss's post on this topic:
-----------
In the NFL's operations manual, it states that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." Furthermore, all video shooting locations for coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

In a memo to NFL head coaches and general managers on Sept. 6, 2006, NFL executive vice president of football operations Ray Anderson wrote: "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."

In the league's Constitution & Bylaws, it reads: "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."
-------------
Like I said, it's pretty obvious to me what this memo was trying to achieve... ironing out any gray area in the rulebook. Bill tried to find one anyway.

Very obvious if you ignore some of the words.
I think I will try that, surely laws won't apply to me if I explain that only the words I want to should count.
A memo reminding people of a rule does not change the rule.

Like I said, the advantage was the full knowledge that no other team would even try to make a gray area out of this memo. It's indisputable that this is an edge.

It is indisputable that this is NOT an edge.
Please explain how when in your own stadium filming from one location is an advantage over another. Don't use that they wouldn't know where he was to hide from the camera, because there is film of Jets coaches waiving to him, and in your own stadium you could put them in so many locations that hiding would be impossible.

There is absolutely no way that BB knew how other teams interpeted the rule, or cared.

Except I never used the word blatant. But it most certainly was seen as an attempt to embarrass the league. Hence the punishment.

So your argument is that since he was punished, said punishment is proof that the reason for the punishment is what you want to say it is?
The punishment was for the actions, not some perceived attempt to embarrass the league.

I guarantee that next time BB would make a different decision if he was faced with this again.

Of course because the league has now REDEFINED the rule.

Unfortunately this decision has already tainted the public perception of our team and their accomplishments. Maybe that's why I'm still a little sour on BB for this. It was totally unnnecessary in my opinion.

Anyone who feels the team is tainted is wrong and doesnt understand the facts.
This is such a minor thing that was blown out of proportion that blaming BB is silly. But go ahead, I'm pretty happy that we hired him.

 

[scout]

I agree that people have different definitions of the word. Although I'd say that definition sounds more like people in position of power or influence compared to a sports team.

For me a real dynasty is multiple championships in a short period of time and nothing less. The bar for what is a dynasty needs to be high, or it becomes meaningless.
That word gets thrown around too much these days and it's getting watered down. I like to think that the Pats were the first and last dynasty of the salary cap era.

Maybe my other post could have been worded a little better. It was a silly thing for those Fish fans to say anyway.

The run of the Patriots which includes 3 world championships makes them a dynasty. I lived in Dallas at the time of their great run (3 out of 4). That team could have been the first to win four in a row had not Jerry Jones got drunk and mouthed off in a bar. Michael Irvin became an announcer and was indignant when the Patriots were compared to his Cowboys. That was years ago, and the Patriots are "still" dominant. That is without taking into account the free agency era.
Taking all that history into account and this year's set of circumstances makes this run intriguing.

 

[sb1]

Very obvious if you ignore some of the words.
I think I will try that, surely laws won't apply to me if I explain that only the words I want to should count.
A memo reminding people of a rule does not change the rule.

The memo didn't change the rule it clarified it to prevent a bunch of Bill Belichicks around the league from trying the same thing.

It is indisputable that this is NOT an edge.
Please explain how when in your own stadium filming from one location is an advantage over another. Don't use that they wouldn't know where he was to hide from the camera, because there is film of Jets coaches waiving to him, and in your own stadium you could put them in so many locations that hiding would be impossible.

Why do you keep going back to this? I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about Bill knowing other coaches wouldn't try to liberally interpret that memo so he thought it was a good idea to do so. Hence, they had an edge.

There is absolutely no way that BB knew how other teams interpeted the rule, or cared.

Clearly Bill thought there was an edge to be had here so I would suspect he had a very good idea what other teams were going to do.

So your argument is that since he was punished, said punishment is proof that the reason for the punishment is what you want to say it is?
The punishment was for the actions, not some perceived attempt to embarrass the league.

Yes, and an attempt to embarrass the league by trying to expose a gray area or flaw in the sacred rules of the game. I believe this is why the punishment was way over the top.

Anyone who feels the team is tainted is wrong and doesnt understand the facts.

That may be so, but we all know what the public perception of this team has been since the incident. Facts and logic don't seem to change that perception.

Claiming I'm not happy we hired him is a strawman. I just wish Bill just stuck to his job as head coach instead of a lawyer wannabe trying to poke the rulebook and league memos with a sharp stick. Like I said the "risk" was completely unnecessary and brought a lot of grief on this team and us fans for no good reason.

 

[sb1]

The run of the Patriots which includes 3 world championships makes them a dynasty. I lived in Dallas at the time of their great run (3 out of 4). That team could have been the first to win four in a row had not Jerry Jones got drunk and mouthed off in a bar. Michael Irvin became an announcer and was indignant when the Patriots were compared to his Cowboys. That was years ago, and the Patriots are "still" dominant. That is without taking into account the free agency era.
Taking all that history into account and this year's set of circumstances makes this run intriguing.

All good points. Then again - is there such thing as a 13 year dynasty? Is this team a "dynasty" if just about every aspect of the team other than HC and QB has changed?

I just think for any team to be called dynasty titles must be involved, and many of them in close proximity.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

So your argument is that since he was punished, said punishment is proof that the reason for the punishment is what you want to say it is?
The punishment was for the actions, not some perceived attempt to embarrass the league.

Yes, and an attempt to embarrass the league by trying to expose a gray area or flaw in the sacred rules of the game. I believe this is why the punishment was way over the top.

I think that was part of it, but I think the real reason the penalty was so harsh was a combination of the following:

1. It was Goodell's rookie year and he felt (probably reasonably) that he could not look like someone who could be walked over.
2. Related to that, Kraft is a very powerful owner and Goodell knew that if he stood up to Kraft the other owners would believe he could stand up to them as well.
3. He knew he wouldn't get flak from the other owners because of jealousy of the Patriots on the part of the many of the other owners.
4. By doing that the NFLPA couldn't say he always let owners off the hook and only disciplined players.

I really do think that if Cameragate happened in Goodell's, say, 5th year, or after the first time his contract was renewed, that the penalty would have been a lot less because he wouldn't have felt he had something to prove.

 

[scout]

All good points. Then again - is there such thing as a 13 year dynasty? Is this team a "dynasty" if just about every aspect of the team other than HC and QB has changed?

I just think for any team to be called dynasty titles must be involved, and many of them in close proximity.

I would look at the 49'rs run and call them a dynasty regardless of who the players were. Walsh would let players go before their time as BB does. I don't think a dynasty is based on players remaining with the team. The Boston Celtics were a dominant dynasty and Russell would be the only player that stayed during that run.
I'm on the fence on championships. If the Patriots bookend the 2001 Championship, then I'm sold.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Well, you don't know that Kraft did not try to do that.
I think it is very reasonable to conclude that Goodell decided that the Patriots broke the rules, created the perception the product is tainted, and would receive a penalty based upon that perception and the fallout of BBs reputation was not nearly as important as the reputation of the shield.
I'm not sure what skills Kraft has that would convince the commissioner of the league to protect BBs reputation at the risk of enhancing the perception that games were tainted and the league looked the other way. It would be the most naive statement ever made on this board to think that would not have happened if a slap on the wrist and a public debate over the infraction and penalty ensued.
I'm not coming close to saying what happened to the Patriots was fair, but I am saying fairness to the Patriots was far down on the list of what mattered to the league in dealing with an accusation and perception that their games were tainted.

???
I never asked that Kraft protect BB's reputation.
In fact I agree that his job was to protect the perception of the league.
That did not mandate destroying the brand of one memo defying team by being unclear in the perception of the customers as to what exactly did and did not happen.

Instead I suggested that Kraft use his well known business negotiating skills to convince Herr Kommisar to be clear and precise as to what specific violation the Pats were being punished for and to better clarify that they were not being punished for secret tapes of walk thrus, practices, etc.

 

[Ring 6]

The memo didn't change the rule it clarified it to prevent a bunch of Bill Belichicks around the league from trying the same thing.

Sending a memo to remind people about a rule does not change the rule. The part about for use in that game was not removed, repealed or overridden.

Why do you keep going back to this? I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about Bill knowing other coaches wouldn't try to liberally interpret that memo so he thought it was a good idea to do so. Hence, they had an edge.

You act as if reading and interpreting that memo was his only focus that season. It was an insignificant memo from the league office about a rule he was certain he clearly understood.
You are talking about this as if there was some giant conspiracy and BB saw an opening that a letter came out so everyone will stop doing and then he can hatch his master plan of doing and having an excuse.

Once again, if there is no advantage gained from breaking the rule, there is no edge.
There is no competitive advantage from taping there vs in the allowed area.
Please give me one single advantage that could be culled from this practice. BB can be the only coach to stand on his head and call plays, and no other teams will do it. That wouldn't give him an edge, and neither did this.

Clearly Bill thought there was an edge to be had here so I would suspect he had a very good idea what other teams were going to do.

No he did not. He thought the spot of filming wasnt an issue. Why would he care how others read a memo?

Yes, and an attempt to embarrass the league by trying to expose a gray area or flaw in the sacred rules of the game. I believe this is why the punishment was way over the top.

That is ridiculous. He interpreted a rule differently.
You are just making things up now.

That may be so, but we all know what the public perception of this team has been since the incident. Facts and logic don't seem to change that perception.

Who cares.

Claiming I'm not happy we hired him is a strawman. I just wish Bill just stuck to his job as head coach instead of a lawyer wannabe trying to poke the rulebook and league memos with a sharp stick. Like I said the "risk" was completely unnecessary and brought a lot of grief on this team and us fans for no good reason.

So he should not interpret rules?
What should he have done when he read the rule to state what he was doing was fine?
Again you have a gross misunderstanding of these events.
Contrary to your belief there was no conspiracy to chose a silly rule, misinterpret it on purpose to gain no competitive advantage in order to thumb your nose at the league and tell them you didn't like their memo.
You are just out in left field on this.
I think its pointless to discuss further because we have reached the point now where your entire argument is based upon your unsubstantiated hunches and feelings.

 

[Ring 6]

???
I never asked that Kraft protect BB's reputation.
In fact I agree that his job was to protect the perception of the league.
That did not mandate destroying the brand of one memo defying team by being unclear in the perception of the customers as to what exactly did and did not happen.

Instead I suggested that Kraft use his well known business negotiating skills to convince Herr Kommisar to be clear and precise as to what specific violation the Pats were being punished for and to better clarify that they were not being punished for secret tapes of walk thrus, practices, etc.

It was clear what they were being punished for. It was clear that if anything else came to light they would be punished further.
The fact that people don't take the time to learn the facts isn't Bob Krafts fault, and its obvious no matter what happened people would believe what they want to believe.
You yourself are sitting here saying you don't know what they were punished for when it was clearly stated at the time. The John Tomase debacle couldn't have been handled before it was invented.

 

[captain stone]

I think that was part of it, but I think the real reason the penalty was so harsh was a combination of the following:

1. It was Goodell's rookie year and he felt (probably reasonably) that he could not look like someone who could be walked over.
2. Related to that, Kraft is a very powerful owner and Goodell knew that if he stood up to Kraft the other owners would believe he could stand up to them as well.
3. He knew he wouldn't get flak from the other owners because of jealousy of the Patriots on the part of the many of the other owners.
4. By doing that the NFLPA couldn't say he always let owners off the hook and only disciplined players.

And number 5: his hatred of Bill Belichick & his love of the Green Beans.

 

[Joker]

conflict of interest.read signature