A Non Patriots Fan Put Together An Amazing Video On Why The Pats Never Cheated

[RelocatedPatFan]

Well...technically we did break the rules* right? It's illegal to film from the sidelines, and we did it.

The argument is that it's an incredibly minor violation, it played no role in our success, other teams have done it, other teams have cheated far worse than we did and got punished less, etc.

I know I'll get dislikes for that, but I think it's important to be precise about the argument, even if the haters aren't.

*edited; previously used the word 'cheat'

Right, but then there's the whole bit about not being able to change a rule through a Memo either.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

That's a lot of "romance explosion".

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Right, but then there's the whole bit about not being able to change a rule through a Memo either.

That's a whole other discussion.....That also proves they wanted to go after the Pats.

If they put that to a vote, I doubt anyone would care enough to force a road team's video coordinator to the specified location to film from....It was never an issue, no one cared, except the fraud owner who hired the new fraud commissioner from NY.

I have a theory that no other NFL team took their video coordinators on the road....Only BB. It's part of his obsessive due diligence and people were jealous of how hard he works.

So, this rule adjustment was targeting the Pats and BB/Kraft knew it.

If the Gary Myers quote about Kraft calling BB a "schmuck" is real, that means Kraft had prior knowledge of owners/Goodell scheming behind his back prior to Sept of 2007, and was ticked off BB took it upon himself to mock Mangini anyway.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I'll take it a step further and suggest that the NFL panders to the insane and the stupid because they're the only ones who'll buy the crappy products produced by the NFL's sponsors. Just look at the list:

Papa John's-crappy pizza;
Anheuser-Busch-crappy beer;
Ford- Found On Road Dead;
Dannon- sugary yogurt falsely claiming to be healthful;
Fast food, soda, etc. . . .

Smart/sane people don't consume this stuff . . . at least they shouldn't.

LMAO

Yep. Pretty much. I mean, eat bad food from time to time, but in general, yeah, knowledge is important.

I do keep light beer in the house, though. I'd weigh 15 lbs more if I only drank good beer.

Gotta keep that for special occasions, or when I am out at a brewery, etc.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Well, not really. A rules violation doesn't mean there was in intent. Goodell proved there needs to be intent because Carolina/Minny were caught warming balls, but it was decided the players didn't know any better. Same deal with walkie talkies and the Giants.


Again, 1 set of rules for 31 NFL teams, one SPECIAL set just for NE.

But, Goodell knew it was in retaliation for the Jets cheating at the back end of 2006, so BB was sort of mocking the new portion of the rule and the memo, because Godell did nothing for the Jets using 2 cameras in Foxborough.

The only way the Jets were within the rules is if NE had 2 cameras going at the same time.

The whole point is, it needs to be even. Same deal with the ball prep or headsets. Teams thought the home team shouldn't be the only side of the ball playing with broken in balls, which the road QB uses brand new ones. Makes sense. If one team's headsets go out, the the team's is shut down, and so forth.

I'd hardly call a tiff between two franchises and BB mocking Mangini, wanting Estrella to be seen like that to mock Mangini (and the Jets), as "cheating".

That word gets thrown around in our society way, way to frequently. If all teams film, and film another, it cannot be cheating. That wasn't why BB had Estrella on the sidelines. Note how the Pats weren't in violation in 2006, the very year the rule was adjusted.

It's a minor rules violation, maybe a small fine for both teams engaging in it, and a conference call with a very stern warning and a cease and desist.

Instead, Goodelll used as a tool to steal a draft pick. He did it again with Deflategate.

If anyone is actually "cheating", it's some owners and how they use Goodell.

The bottomline is, Goodell allowed lies to be said, sold it to the public, used it and it made it look like it was a real thin, AND that NE's brilliance was magically tied to filming, just because.

It's honestly one of this country's greatest purported myths. There are people out there that still believe it.

lmao

Yeah I edited it to say 'broke the rules' since that feels different than saying 'cheated', which is more nefarious.

Technically we also broke the rules by playing with underinflated footballs, although it was an unintentional rule breaking that happens to every team every time it gets cold out.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

A minor quibble: the football that the Colts intercepted was not the one football reading 2 psi below 12.5. So blame the Colts for their paranoia, for their stupidity, for starting the whole mess, for lies about what went on (the player never said that the ball felt soft, for example), and for feeding crap to the media and to the NFL. But I don't think that they leaked any air out of that ball (other than a minute amount, when they illegally tested it).

The intercepted ball was tested not once but three different times, using the same pressure gauge, by refs and they obtained these values: 11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi. Right in the range where it should have been, given the temperature. This testing was separate from that on the other footballs.

But look at the range of those readings: 11.45, 11.35 and 11.75 psi. This was one of the key points that I made at the time, that the gauges were not just different from one another but they were also pretty crappy gauges that gave variable results.

Is a reading of 11.35 different from 11.75? In this context, obviously not, since they are both measurements that made on the same football by the same person! There is clearly some inherent variability / error in the measurement: the “error bar” for any pressure gauge reading was quite high, and at least 0.4 psi! Yes they make grandiose cheating allegations on differences far far smaller than the error bar. Make no mistake, the readings as a whole were entirely within experimental error of where they should have been, considering the temperature.

A couple of the many dead giveaways were this:

1. This only came to be AFTER Brady suggested Harbaugh "check the rule book."

Which is in direct contradiction to Indy's equipment guy, Sean Sullivan, saying
"everyone knows" NE deflates the balls.

2. Sean Sullivan supposedly offered up a proactive email to Grigson, saying that. But, if that were true, why wasn't this dealt with before, if "everybody knows"?

What "everyone knows" is that Goodell is completely open to bagging the Pats for literally anything, so that would have been used a long time ago.

Grigson clearly asked Sullivan to send him that email and say it just like that as part of a framejob.

Sean Sullivan wouldn't even know who Jim McNally is, since McNally doesn't travel with the team, and there is no way in hell, NE would try to pull off what the claim was, on the road anyway.

And, if NE was trying to get away with something like that, why would Jastremski tell Sean Sullivan about what Brady wants done?

It doesn't make sense.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Yeah I edited it to say 'broke the rules' since that feels different than saying 'cheated', which is more nefarious.

Technically we also broke the rules by playing with underinflated footballs, although it was an unintentional rule breaking that happens to every team every time it gets cold out.

Exactly. See? In each case, NE was framed. Intent needs to be there and in each case, Goodell lied.

There was no intent ever proven.

At worst, BB was guilty of "conduct unbecoming", but when Tomlin trips a guy to cheat in a game, it's only a 100K fine per Goodell.

It's just absolutely unreal what Goodell has done and the corner he's painted himself into here.

 

[condon84]

That soft-porn background music does it for me.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

If the Gary Myers quote about Kraft calling BB a "schmuck" is real, that means Kraft had prior knowledge of owners/Goodell scheming behind his back prior to Sept of 2007, and was ticked off BB took it upon himself to mock Mangini anyway.

I believe there was a video of that exchange with Kraft/BB. Kraft was asking if it had any effect on their planning or outcomes of the games and BB said no.

That's when Kraft said, "then you're a Schmuck" (because knowing it was frowned up by the league and it didn't provide any more information than he already had...even if a slightly slower pace).

 

[Chris Stevenson]

I believe there was a video of that exchange with Kraft/BB. Kraft was asking if it had any effect on their planning or outcomes of the games and BB said no.

That's when Kraft said, "then you're a Schmuck" (because knowing it was frowned up by the league and it didn't provide any more information than he already had...even if a slightly slower pace).

I don't know about that...The quote is in gary Myers's book, which I am not sure I completely believe....But, let's say it's true...

BB said it might help "1/100 games"...Kraft then called him a schmuck, which, again would lead one to believe BB and Kraft knew tj=hey were already targets of Goodell and some owners, but clearly BB in particular had no idea they would be framed in such a way.

We know now, and ti's one more reason the millisecond I heard what they were trying to sell with Deflategate, it was made up.

BB made a real generic comment after Spygate about "doing everything to the exact T and then then some" (paraphrasing), as sort of an indirect shot (IMO), at Goodell and Co, knowing he was being held to a different set of rules and subsequent potential punishments.

It's pretty clear BB bringing the coordinator on the road to film games, is classic BB due diligence, but Goodell didn't care. He still wanted to lie and frame.

 

[Shockt327]

Filming one's hands signals or anything else you want, is completely legal.....What wouldn't be legal is USING what you captured in the game that day, which is WHAT the rule is really for.

Thank you. *^This^* is the crux of Belichick's own argument against Spygate; and it's a genuinely solid argument that I've always felt Patriots fans really overlook when arguing against the spygate accusers. Belichick's point directly addressees the key issue at hand: is taping signals illegal? This is what the league is accusing the Patriots of doing wrong. This is what Belichick argued against.

Instead, the common defense among fans has always been claiming it was strictly due to the *location* of the camera. I've never liked this argument. Why? Because, (1) it was standard operating procedure for visiting teams to ask, and get, permission to allow a second camera to film the game from the end-zone viewpoint (and NE asked and got permission for a 3rd camera too). (2) The NFL never disputed the permission for teams to allow the 2nd camera. (i.e. getting the endzone camera angle has always been fine). So, (3) "location" was never the issue at hand (NE had permission), and it's simply not what the league was accusing NE of doing wrong in the first place (i.e. Goodell's ruling is still implying that filming signals is wrong even when from the proper location). So it's almost like fans are unintentionally side-skirting the main issue by going down this particular road of defense.

Here's Belichick's defense:
"As the commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game," Belichick's statement continued. "We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress."

Here' the rules/memo:
“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.”

"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."

Ray Anderson's memo: "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."[/I]

This is now flipped around with haters claiming they were destroyed, when in reality, the Walsh tapes were showed to us, edited mind you, by Goodell himself, so the whole "destroying the tapes" claim makes no sense in terms of trying to "protect" the Pats. The Pats did nothing wrong other than not take the new additions to the brand new adjustment of the rule, more seriously.

Also, the one good this about the ESPN hit-piece on on the Patriots was how it pointed out that the NFL didn't have the legal right to acquire "proprietary evidence" that was owned by a franchise (i.e. tapes/notes); so both sides simply agreed to side-step the legal issue of setting any type of precedent; and instead, simply let Goodell watch the tapes and see the notes, and then destroy it so that it cannot be used any further by NE. Which is a perfectly fair move by both sides, yet, somehow gets turned into a shady conspiracy-theory by the media.

There was a reason why Woody Johnson hired Goodell, made him change the rule to include "sidelines" for filming and why it was literally the first order of business on 9.6.06, Goodell's first official day as commissioner.

Do you have a link on this? I've never heard about this, but I always wondered how/why the memo sort of re-worded the rule itself.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Thank you. *^This^* is the crux of Belichick's own argument against Spygate; and it's a genuinely solid argument that I've always felt Patriots fans really overlook when arguing against the spygate accusers. Belichick's point directly addressees the key issue at hand: is taping signals illegal? This is what the league is accusing the Patriots of doing wrong. This is what Belichick argued against.

Instead, the common defense among fans has always been claiming it was strictly due to the *location* of the camera. I've never liked this argument. Why? Because, (1) it was standard operating procedure for visiting teams to ask, and get, permission to allow a second camera to film the game from the end-zone viewpoint (and NE asked and got permission for a 3rd camera too). (2) The NFL never disputed the permission for teams to allow the 2nd camera. (i.e. getting the endzone camera angle has always been fine). So, (3) "location" was never the issue at hand (NE had permission), and it's simply not what the league was accusing NE of doing wrong in the first place (i.e. Goodell's ruling is still implying that filming signals is wrong even when from the proper location). So it's almost like fans are unintentionally side-skirting the main issue by going down this particular road of defense.

Here's Belichick's defense:
"As the commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game," Belichick's statement continued. "We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress."

Here' the rules/memo:
“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.”

"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."

Ray Anderson's memo: "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."[/I]


Also, the one good this about the ESPN hit-piece on on the Patriots was how it pointed out that the NFL didn't have the legal right to acquire "proprietary evidence" that was owned by a franchise (i.e. tapes/notes); so both sides simply agreed to side-step the legal issue of setting any type of precedent; and instead, simply let Goodell watch the tapes and see the notes, and then destroy it so that it cannot be used any further by NE. Which is a perfectly fair move by both sides, yet, somehow gets turned into a shady conspiracy-theory by the media.



Do you have a link on this? I've never heard about this, but I always wondered how/why the memo sort of re-worded the rule itself.

Don't have a link handy, but I am pretty sure the emphasis on the locations was why a memo needed to be sent out in the first place.

People just assume incorrectly, only NE got the memo. Not true. ALL teams got it, which leads one to believe this was a shotgun management style approach, but since all teams were notified, it would lead one to believe a change of wording of the rule on the books, was made. Otherwise, why not just pick up the phone and tell BB to knock it off, or just quietly fine him or the team?

Otherwise, what changed/why send out a memo? No change was made by 25 teams voting through a change in the offseason, so all teams would technically need to know if a rule had been altered.

Who knows, maybe NOTHING changed, it was only a reminder of sorts, but why would you need to issue a new memo, regurgitating what everyone knows the rule to be for the last 50 years, especially after you just publicly blessed Miami buying CBS audio to steal Brady's audibles in December of 2006?

Which is it? Can technology be used for future scouting or not?

So, maybe I am wrong, but I am pretty sure from memory, they changed the wording similar to how they've done some "wordsmithing" on a whim in more recent years with regards to rules or in the Wells Report.

PS I also think part of the punishment's severityy for the Pats was BB pointing out that very rule's wording you just cut and pasted, and Goofdell not liking being proven wrong with his assertion.

Article 46, baby! Just do whatever, whenever..The Goodellian Way!

 

[Mr. Objective]

Well...technically we did break the rules* right? It's illegal to film from the sidelines, and we did it.

Umm, no. If you take a look at the memo that the Patriots supposedly violated you'll see that Belichick's interpretation of the memo--that it's legal to videotape signals from the sideline during a game provided you don't use the videotape for that same game--makes more sense than the interpretation that the NFL gave to it--that it's illegal to videotape signals from anywhere on the sideline. Before and after the memo at issue was sent out it was perfectly legal for the home team to videotape the opposing team's signals from a videotape room at its stadium. And every team did it. The memo was needed to address the possibility that the home teams--and road teams videotaping signals from the sidelines--might be using that videotape for an advantage during that game.

Belichick's interpretation of the memo also made more sense from the point of view of competitive fairness. Why should the home team but not the road team be able to videotape signals? It gives a slight advantage in intra-division games to whichever team has the first home game. It also gives a slight advantage to whichever team had a home game when those same two teams meet again in the playoffs. I'm not sure that there ever was any evidence presented that the Patriots videotaped signals from the sideline when the Patriots played the Steelers in Pittsburgh in the regular season in 2004. However, even supposing that they did, when you hear Steelers fans complain that the Patriots defeated the Steelers in the AFC Championship game that season because they cheated, they are in effect complaining that it was unfair for the Patriots to have the same kind of videotapes of the Steelers signals that the Steelers had of the Patriots signals. Goodell docked the Patriots a 1st round pick and fined Belichick because the other owners wanted him to, not because of any considerations of logic, fairness or proper memo interpretation.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Umm, no. If you take a look at the memo that the Patriots supposedly violated you'll see that Belichick's interpretation of the memo--that it's legal to videotape signals from the sideline during a game provided you don't use the videotape for that same game--makes more sense than the interpretation that the NFL gave to it--that it's illegal to videotape signals from anywhere on the sideline. Before and after the memo at issue was sent out it was perfectly legal for the home team to videotape the opposing team's signals from a videotape room at its stadium. And every team did it. The memo was needed to address the possibility that the home teams--and road teams videotaping signals from the sidelines--might be using that videotape for an advantage during that game.

Belichick's interpretation of the memo also made more sense from the point of view of competitive fairness. Why should the home team but not the road team be able to videotape signals? It gives a slight advantage in intra-division games to whichever team has the first home game. It also gives a slight advantage to whichever team had a home game when those same two teams meet again in the playoffs. I'm not sure that there ever was any evidence presented that the Patriots videotaped signals from the sideline when the Patriots played the Steelers in Pittsburgh in the regular season in 2004. However, even supposing that they did, when you hear Steelers fans complain that the Patriots defeated the Steelers in the AFC Championship game that season because they cheated, they are in effect complaining that it was unfair for the Patriots to have the same kind of videotapes of the Steelers signals that the Steelers had of the Patriots signals. Goodell docked the Patriots a 1st round pick and fined Belichick because the other owners wanted him to, not because of any considerations of logic, fairness or proper memo interpretation.

Fair enough, but the common argument around these parts, and in the video in the OP, is that the violation was the location of the video, and not what you're saying it is.

 

[Wheelman]

Who the hell does this Cardinals fan think he is! Oh no he didn't. He didn't just use sound common sense...

We will not be having any of that here! Only thing I want to hear is how those cheating patriots* keep getting away with crap! I want more salt! I want more tears that I can lick up.

 

[TB_Helmet]

@Former Fan Can you elaborate on why you disagree?

 

[Former Fan]

@Former Fan Can you elaborate on why you disagree?

BB didn't break the rules as they were written, and as they were enforced prior to 2006. Not even the commissioner can change the rules just by issuing a memo. Only by ignoring the written rule and the prior interpretation was Goodell able to create a violation. Kraft jumped right on the bandwagon.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Umm, no. If you take a look at the memo that the Patriots supposedly violated you'll see that Belichick's interpretation of the memo--that it's legal to videotape signals from the sideline during a game provided you don't use the videotape for that same game--makes more sense than the interpretation that the NFL gave to it--that it's illegal to videotape signals from anywhere on the sideline. Before and after the memo at issue was sent out it was perfectly legal for the home team to videotape the opposing team's signals from a videotape room at its stadium. And every team did it. The memo was needed to address the possibility that the home teams--and road teams videotaping signals from the sidelines--might be using that videotape for an advantage during that game.

Belichick's interpretation of the memo also made more sense from the point of view of competitive fairness. Why should the home team but not the road team be able to videotape signals? It gives a slight advantage in intra-division games to whichever team has the first home game. It also gives a slight advantage to whichever team had a home game when those same two teams meet again in the playoffs. I'm not sure that there ever was any evidence presented that the Patriots videotaped signals from the sideline when the Patriots played the Steelers in Pittsburgh in the regular season in 2004. However, even supposing that they did, when you hear Steelers fans complain that the Patriots defeated the Steelers in the AFC Championship game that season because they cheated, they are in effect complaining that it was unfair for the Patriots to have the same kind of videotapes of the Steelers signals that the Steelers had of the Patriots signals. Goodell docked the Patriots a 1st round pick and fined Belichick because the other owners wanted him to, not because of any considerations of logic, fairness or proper memo interpretation.

Right. The locations are listed in the way they are listed because they don't want people with decision making power seeing something recorded on a tape during the game, using it to help during that game itself, which I am completely agree with and I am in 100% agreement.

I am actually surprised MLB allows players to go into the tunnels to rewind their at-bat and see how a pitched pitched them.

 

[TB_Helmet]

BB didn't break the rules as they were written, and as they were enforced prior to 2006. Not even the commissioner can change the rules just by issuing a memo. Only by ignoring the written rule and the prior interpretation was Goodell able to create a violation. Kraft jumped right on the bandwagon.

Gotcha. Yeah changing the rules via memo is flimsy. But still most people (including the OP) think that the violation was that the filming was on the sideline, and you're saying that it was still legal to film on the sideline because a memo doesn't constitute a rule change.

I don't have a strong opinion on the technicalities but am interested to know as much as possible about it since I'm still learning new things 10 years later.

Interestingly, NOBODY in 2007 that I saw said anything about the location playing a role (i.e. I never heard the defense 'it was legal to tape from the stands'). And I read a ton about it in 2007. I wasn't on PatsFans then, but read a lot from sports media members who are usually homers and they never made the location defense. Seems like it became more prevalent the past five years.

 

[NYCPatsFan]

Not all the camera-gate (I refuse to call it Spy-gate because framing IMO is very crucial; by using the word 'spy', we unconsciously give the issue a negative context even before any conversation starts) tapes were destroyed. Glazer (Fox? reporter) has at least one in his personal collection and also bragged about it in an interview.

This youtube video in which BB gave an extensive interview to CBS should have set the record straight. Or so I naively thought when I first saw this. And this realized that a good % just don't care about the truth.



As BB says, it is what it is.

OP - thanks for the video!