Point Blank. Is filiming opponents signals against the rules?

[VectorPrime]

Forgive me but I have always been under the impression, like most Patriots fans, that taping game signals is not against the rules. What was against the rules is taping them from the sideline past 2006. However, in the OTL article it reads

"IN AUGUST 2000, before a Patriots preseason game against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Jimmy Dee, the head of New England's video department, approached one of his charges, Matt Walsh, with a strange assignment: He wanted Walsh to film the Bucs' offensive and defensive signals, the arm waving and hand folding that team coaches use to communicate plays and formations to the men on the field. Walsh was 24 years old, a lifelong New Englander and Patriots fan. He was one of the few employees Belichick retained that season, his first as the team's coach. The practice of decoding signals was universal in football -- a single stolen signal can change a game -- with advance scouts jotting down notes, then matching the signal to the play. The Patriots created a novel spying system that made the decoding more dependable.

Walsh later told investigators that, at the time, he didn't know the NFL game operations manual forbade taping signals."

So does the game operations manual forbid the taping signals or is this factually incorrect like it says? If so how come we were under the impression it wasn't? And if not, what is the article referring to?

 

[scott99]

It wasn't illegal to tape signals from the sidelines until 2007.

 

[Kontradiction]

No. They have to be taped from an approved spot, though, which the Patriots did not do. Kraft could have came out and hammered ESPN on this in 2007 and them and the Herald on the false walk through report in 2008, but chose not to. So you can thank him for the ******** you're seeing today.

 

[VectorPrime]

I understand all that but again I quote

"Walsh later told investigators that, at the time, he didn't know the NFL game operations manual forbade taping signals.""

This was back in 2000 and implies that all taping of signals was against the rules. Now is this true, false, or an error in communication?

 

[aluminum seats]

I understand all that but again I quote

"Walsh later told investigators that, at the time, he didn't know the NFL game operations manual forbade taping signals.""

This was back in 2000 and implies that all taping of signals was against the rules. Now is this true, false, or an error in communication?

Thanks for asking that, because there is such a tidal wave of BS it's hard to keep it straight.

I'll go further, since I refuse to give ESPN a click on this: what exactly are they (or SI ) saying that's new today? And I don't mean suspicions about warm gatorade, I mean are there any actual concrete new things being reported?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The SI one has nothing new.

The ESPN one is mostly warmed-over stuff, but there are new details about how the tapes were actually used by NE.

 

[letekro]

To me, the most nefarious piece of alleged "cheating" is stealing the list of scripted plays. Yet, it is mentioned in an offhand way with no named sources. This says to me that the authors of the piece heard this and decided to throw it out there but weren't very confident in its veracity.

 

[RobertWeathers]

NO!!!! (Required Reading for All Who Defend the Pats on Spygate)

To summarize. Belichick knew the rules and Goody and Anderson did not. You can also argue that Goody tried to circumvent the the rules so that they did not need to wait until the competition committee discussed them the following spring. You could also say that he chose to interpret the Article a certain way so he can be right.

Sorry but when it comes to interpreting NFL rules, do you believe BB or Goody to be right?

A September 6, 2006 memo from Ray Anderson, the NFL head of game operations, adds to this. However, the rules don’t support this belief. Anderson’s memo reads, “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.”

Unfortunately, the memo misquotes the rules, and Anderson can’t change the rules. Rule changes must be proposed to and voted on by the teams. The NFL cited the misquoted rules against the Patriots from pages A105-A106 of the league’s Policy Manual for Member Clubs Volume II: Game Operations 2007 edition.

Miscellaneous Rules and Regulations, Section A. reads, “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.”

The league also cited a portion of section D against the Patriots. Section D reads, “To ensure the protection of equipment and employees of the teams’ video departments, please follow the guidelines listed for the video shooting booths at your stadium.”

The league quoted the first guideline against the Patriots, “All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.” The rules never prohibit filming coaches. The sections used against the Patriots only concern camera locations.

Anderson’s memo adds an emphasis on signals, which isn’t in the rules. Also, Anderson says that videotaping is prohibited from “any other locations accessible to club staff members.”

This isn’t in the rules either.

The rule mentions only three spots where teams can’t use video equipment during games—the coaches’ booth, the locker room, and the field. No rule bars teams from recording signals as long as they locate their cameras properly.

Despite this, Goodell and especially the media continue to portray signal taping as the problem when the only real issue is camera location.

Even the location technicality isn’t open and shut. Again, consider the differences between Anderson’s memo and the rules. We’ve already seen that Anderson’s any “location accessible to club staff members” isn’t in the rules.

(And if it were, how would staff film games as required?)

Of the three locations the rules actually mention, Anderson substitutes “sidelines” for “field.”

That’s important.

NFL rules seem to define “the field” as the area between the sidelines and the endlines. By that definition, a camera man standing out of bounds isn’t on the “field,” although the rule would stop teams from using helmet cameras like those which the networks sometimes use.

Also, using the Section D guideline about enclosed locations against the Patriots is disputable. The manual says the locations “ensure the protection of equipment and employees.” It doesn’t require teams to shoot from those locations. It only asks that teams provide them.

Defending himself, Bill Belichick said he interpreted the rules based on Article IX of The NFL Constitution and By-laws. Among other things, Article IX concerns videotaping. 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.”

This seems to ban all taping, but, as we’ve seen, the league has two pages of rules requiring teams to tape and exchange the recordings.

Isn’t that contradictory?

The NFL reconciles it by interpreting Article IX to mean that teams can film during games, but they can only use the recordings between games, not during them. Belichick applied this interpretation to ground level taping too.

Goodell disagreed.

Goodell’s ruling means he applies the Article IX interpretation to Sections B, C, E, and most of D in the Miscellaneous Rules, but to not Section A and the first guideline in Section D.

In contrast, Belichick applied it consistently.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...pygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity

http://ryan-sawtelle.squarespace.co...son-you-hate-the-patriots-is-because-they-win

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

No. Goodell tried to change the rules via memorandum which he didn't have the power to do, it had to go through competition committee.

Then he tried to justify it through operations manual on taping locations which didn't apply.

Then he tried to justify the punishment against using technology game day which wasn't done.

He just ad hoc'd the whole thing. As far as I know he never went through the proper procedures to change the rule. But Kraft threw BB under the bus so he had no recourse.

 

[DaBruinz]

No. They have to be taped from an approved spot, though, which the Patriots did not do. Kraft could have came out and hammered ESPN on this in 2007 and them and the Herald on the false walk through report in 2008, but chose not to. So you can thank him for the ******** you're seeing today.

How do you know that Kraft didn't hammer the Herald on the false walk-thru report? You seem to be forgetting that the Patriots weren't cleared of any wrongdoing regarding the walk-through until the middle of May. And as soon as the NFL cleared the Pats, the Herald issued their retraction..

 

[VectorPrime]

Then is the article factually and in-arguably wrong with this statement then? Because its pretty important.

Walsh later told investigators that, at the time, he didn't know the NFL game operations manual forbade taping signals."

 

[Kontradiction]

How do you know that Kraft didn't hammer the Herald on the false walk-thru report? You seem to be forgetting that the Patriots weren't cleared of any wrongdoing regarding the walk-through until the middle of May. And as soon as the NFL cleared the Pats, the Herald issued their retraction..

Why would he have done it privately?

 

[DaBruinz]

Why would he have done it privately?

Why would he do it publically after they apologized and issued a retraction?

 

[Biggs1221]

I believe in his interview with Bob Costas after "spygate," Goodell said that filming signals from anywhere is against the rules. Of course, thats Goodell spin, as I dont believe there is a memo, let alone rule, that says as much.

 

[Kontradiction]

Why would he do it publically after they apologized and issued a retraction?

Please don't be deliberately obtuse. I'm talking about before they issued it. He had to have known that the report was wrong just as he had to have seen the misinformation being peddled by ESPN and the like throughout the year and he did NOTHING. Want to know how I know Krafty didn't hammer the Herald? Because he had no reason to do it privately. The Herald only printed a retraction because that report being false directed a TON of venom at the paper from the fans. Not because of anything that chubby lawn gnome did.

 

[Zeus]

I believe in his interview with Bob Costas after "spygate," Goodell said that filming signals from anywhere is against the rules. Of course, thats Goodell spin, as I dont believe there is a memo, let alone rule, that says as much.

Honest question on my part- what rule prohibits filming coaches signals and what specifically does the rule say?

 

[Deus Irae]

Stealing signals is not illegal.
Filming your opponents is not illegal.

Take the obvious logical leap.

 

[VJ11]

Honestly, with the current state of technology, the NFL rules regarding videotaping and so on need a big overhaul. Every Jack and Jill with a smartphone can produce high quality video material from any location and vantage point inside a stadium or training facility.

 

[InRodWeRust]

NO!!!! (Required Reading for All Who Defend the Pats on Spygate)

To summarize. Belichick knew the rules and Goody and Anderson did not. You can also argue that Goody tried to circumvent the the rules so that they did not need to wait until the competition committee discussed them the following spring. You could also say that he chose to interpret the Article a certain way so he can be right.

Sorry but when it comes to interpreting NFL rules, do you believe BB or Goody to be right?



http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...pygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity

http://ryan-sawtelle.squarespace.co...son-you-hate-the-patriots-is-because-they-win

Thank you!

There's also this:
http://yourteamcheats.com/what-is-spygate

 

[eom]

Then is the article factually and in-arguably wrong with this statement then? Because its pretty important.

Walsh later told investigators that, at the time, he didn't know the NFL game operations manual forbade taping signals."

I haven't read the articles yet, so I can't specifically comment, but what you have posted here doesn't sound like any kind of contradiction of anything about legality of taping.
they interrogate this guy, interview, or whatever you want to call it, and maybe he assumes it's about taping signals, because the whole thing is convoluted and cooked up -- he claims ignorance.
he is not acting as any authority on game operations, or making any kind of authoitative statement on a rule, he's just assuming this is about taping signals + saying he didn't know it was illegal --- because it's not illegal.

if a cop pulled you over for having a lime green car, you might reply that you didn't know it was illegal to have a lime green car --- because it's not.