Point Blank. Is filiming opponents signals against the rules?

[FourierSeries]

Well Kraft hammering Goody, bspn and the rest would have made ME happy.

True, that's why I think he should have done it. Not because it would have changed anyone's mind or because it would have stopped ESPN from lying about it. Because it definitely wouldn't.

 

[Kontradiction]

Have you ever brought up facts about Spygate to a group of people who believe the Pats performed nefarious acts during that time period in order to gain an advantage in order to try to educate them? Try it sometime and see how it goes.

As a matter of fact, I did just that today to my buddy Steve, who is a Giants fan. He was surprised that filming signals wasn't actually against the rules. He was even more surprised that filming signals wasn't actually what the Pats were punished for. But, that said, we're not talking your average Joe here. My original point was that Kraft should have hammered both ESPN and the Herald for pushing their BS because they would have had to have answered for it. He didn't and the result is that, to this day, the pundits at ESPN are still pushing fallacies.

Bountrygate is irrelevant because it did not involve NE. The Saints haven't been anywhere near as dominant and fans/other players don't have intense hatred/jealousy of that organization.

I don't see how the second biggest scandal in the NFL over the last 10 years that has had multiple years to pass and simmer down in the court of public opinion is irrelevant. You may want to think that it is, but it isn't. Especially when you consider the amount of sheer venom the Saints had directed toward them in the wake of that.

The minute the accusations were made, it gave all the ammunition the haters needed. Facts became irrelevant to them at that point.

I'll tell you what would have happened if Kraft came out and hammered ESPN. People would have called him a lying scumbag who supports cheating and they would have went on about how he should just take his medicine without fighting it. It would have been nice if he did hammer them, but it would not have changed anything in the big picture. And ESPN would continue to tell lies about it because there would still be people desperate enough to believe them.

Once again, we're talking about holding public entities accountable. Not Vinny Gumbatz from Flushing

 

[eom]

So the September 2006 Anderson memo says:

“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 seems clear from the context here that the letter is talking about location, not what is being filmed. The "... including but not limited to ... signals" is a clarication of sorts. What is really being said is you can't film from "locations accessible to staff member during the game."

Who knows what Anderson meant to communicate. BB pointed out ambiguities elsewhere in the rules/guidelines. We're making things up as we go along here, so nobody should be surprised when you end up with hash instead of chocalte pudding.

well, I think one of the issues is, and it's been a long time since I had to hash through any of this nonsense, is that there's a rule(s) in the book available to anybody who reads it regarding the commonplace taping of stuff.
I guarantee you belichick is as well versed as anybody in the rulebook, and what he can + can't do.
he feels that what he was doing was legal, as it probably was, and at the very least was common practice, like maybe driving 55 in a 50.
'league', or whichever specific person, issues a memo which is not supported by said rulebook --- changing rules is not a matter of memo, they need to go through the competition committee, so maybe belichick ignores memo + sticks to rulebook.
or maybe just interprets memo as not using tape during game, which he probably wasn't.

one of the issues here is that it's now clear what kind of person goodell is, and that kind of person has no regard for any process other than himself.
he has no regard for any kind of ethics or pov other than what he makes up for himself as he goes along, because he's convinced himself that he is the league.

 

[FourierSeries]

As a matter of fact, I did just that today to my buddy Steve, who is a Giants fan. He was surprised that filming signals wasn't actually against the rules. He was even more surprised that filming signals wasn't actually what the Pats were punished for. But, that said, we're not talking your average Joe here. My original point was that Kraft should have hammered both ESPN and the Herald for pushing their BS because they would have had to have answered for it. He didn't and the result is that, to this day, the pundits at ESPN are still pushing fallacies.



I don't see how the second biggest scandal in the NFL over the last 10 years that has had multiple years to pass and simmer down in the court of public opinion is irrelevant. You may want to think that it is, but it isn't. Especially when you consider the amount of sheer venom the Saints had directed toward them in the wake of that.



Once again, we're talking about holding public entities accountable. Not Vinny Gumbatz from Flushing

I stated "a group of people" for a reason. It's a much bigger sample size that just a single person. That's great that your friend is rational and can objectively look at facts. It probably also helps that he's a Giants fan and has no reason to hate us. The majority of people are not like your friend.

ESPN is just like any other sports or news network. They're accountable to shareholders and have a mandate to maximize profit (by drawing in viewers.) It's a nice dream to hold these companies accountable and to force them to report the truth, but more often than not that is not their objective. Kraft coming out and hammering them won't change that. There have been far wealthier and influential people who have spoken out against such networks without any success. So long as there are viewers who will cling to the story that the Patriots are cheaters and that they've broken every rule in the book, they will continue to report it.

 

[Kontradiction]

I stated "a group of people" for a reason. It's a much bigger sample size that just a single person. That's great that your friend is rational and can objectively look at facts. It probably also helps that he's a Giants fan and has no reason to hate us. The majority of people are not like your friend.

ESPN is just like any other sports or news network. They're accountable to shareholders and have a mandate to maximize profit (by drawing in viewers.) It's a nice dream to hold these companies accountable and to force them to report the truth, but more often than not that is not their objective. Kraft coming out and hammering them won't change that. There have been far wealthier and influential people who have spoken out against such networks without any success. So long as there are viewers who will cling to the story that the Patriots are cheaters and that they've broken every rule in the book, they will continue to report it.

Really? Then why that midnight retraction without Kraft or his group even making so much as a peep? Now take your response and/or logical conclusion to that and apply it to Kraft coming down on them publicly for reporting a heaping helping of false info during the 2007 campaign.

 

[DaBruinz]

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.

Clearly you need to get over yourself and get your facts straight. After the report was issued by Tomase, it took 3 months for the NFL to clear the Patriots. And it took that long because of Walsh and his hinting that he had stuff. And he DID have video tapes, though nothing that the league hadn't already seen.. But how did the Patriots know that? They didn't. So, like everyone else, they were strung along until Walsh coughed up the truth.

So, tell us again how Kraft was supposed to know that an former employee who was in possession of stolen tapes was supposed to know what was on said tapes?

You thinking that the Herald printed the retraction ONLY because of the fans ire and not out of fear of a lawsuit from Kraft shows you to be the obtuse one. Not me..

BTW, I don't know where you've been during Kraft's entire ownership, but they rarely do things to large fanfares beyond the SB Parade. There is no large fan fare to the different charities they help. There is no large fan fare to the over-seas trips.. What makes you think they'd make a big deal over going to the Herald and telling them to print the retraction or face a lawsuit?

 

[DaBruinz]

Walsh said he taped the st louis walk through which was closed to everyone but team memebers prior to the super bowl. i think that would be illegal. As far as i know he is NOT the one who taped the jest signals from the sidelines.

Matt Estrella is the one who taped the Jets signals from the sidelines.. Matt Walsh was no longer with the team by this point.

 

[RayClay]

 

[reflexblue]

Matt Estrella is the one who taped the Jets signals from the sidelines.. Matt Walsh was no longer with the team by this point.

Thanks for the info.

 

[raduray]

All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.

The practice was to shoot the signal, the play and the time clock. The shooting location now has sides and a roof overhead so teams can't see the time clock while filming the signal and the play. That's my understanding of why that was done.

I don't understand the big deal about Spygate. Even with the new restrictions which don't allow you to record the clock, how big a deal is it to have an intern correlate the individual coaches signals recording with the televised game footage or the all 22 footage which includes everything you need to know about the play. This seems so petty.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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

Take the obvious logical leap.

Stealing your opponents is legal?

 

[Deus Irae]

Stealing your opponents is legal?

It seems to be, if you're the Jets stealing Revis, doesn't it?

 

[Canuck]

I think I might be getting paranoid. Looks like another NFL propaganda campaign is under way. It wouldn't surprise me if another investigation is launched into some so called infraction. No player will be targeted after Goodell's last debacle but look for Belichick to be under investigation for illegal tactics that undermine the integrity of the game. The current propaganda campaign seems to be targeting Belichick.

 

[RobertWeathers]

It seems to be, if you're the Jets stealing Revis, doesn't it?

Only costs you $100k to sign an All-Pro away from your division rival.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Point blank anything the Patriots do or do better than the 31 other teams becomes against the rules.

 

[goz421]

This whole new thing makes my blood boil.

If you remember back this news was all hashed out back then without the new spin. The rule was set about where they could film signals and then the Patriots were hit in the Jets game. Everything before was legal.

Belichick sniped back, "What did we do. Film signals before 80,000 people", in which he showed a small glimpse of how one day he will shred this thing to pieces. In the age of high tech cameras in which you can film from any place and any angle how stupid is this rule.

I think Pash and Goodell probably destroyed these tapes out of embarrassment.


Second how stupid is this thing about spies going into the locker room. Players are laughing about it. How irresponsible is it of espn to drag up old sting piece sand try and repackage them. Noting of any of this cam back then because there are no sources.

Think about it. Someone out there has been silent for 8 years. What is the CIA?

The NFL is desperate and embarassed.

This is what happens when you cater to the court of public perception. When you go the way of the mob. The mob is fickle. Come on Boston fans. Defend the wall and make this new report nationally loook as stupid and as vindictive as it really is.

 

[Joker]

this crap is all archived with all relevant notations and links right here...why? what drives people to drag out this garbage again and again, trying to make true what has been proven false?

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

this crap is all archived with all relevant notations and links right here...why? what drives people to drag out this garbage again and again, trying to make true what has been proven false?

Repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it to be true. It's been a formula for brainwashing the masses for quite some time.

If they wanted to get into some fun, they should get all the "gamesmanship" that goes on with every team. Funny how it's only the Patriots that are targeted time after time. And it serves up that if the Patriots retaliate with their own stories, it would be considered sour grapes (which is what we have hear with the other 31 teams).

It used to be history was written by the victors. What we have he is history being muddied by the sore losers and people who can't understand what BB has done to make this a winning organization. Did the original article cite any named resources other than Martz (who oddly enough made Goodell look bad).

 

[hovis]

Maybe I misinterpreted ESPNs report, but it sounded like the real reason why the tapes were destroyed was to prevent the Patriots or anyone else from using them.

As to Ray Anderson's memo, regulation through interpretative guidance regarding a law or rule is commonplace. He wasn't right because he was right because his job said so. I love BB with all my heart, but he didn't fight the power the right way and earned A punishment; although it was way the **** overboard.

I actually wish there was a true independent investigation done at the time, because it would have put all of these questions to rest. Nothing from 2000 to 2006 was illegal; hence there was no need to review.

 

[Kontradiction]

Clearly you need to get over yourself and get your facts straight. After the report was issued by Tomase, it took 3 months for the NFL to clear the Patriots. And it took that long because of Walsh and his hinting that he had stuff. And he DID have video tapes, though nothing that the league hadn't already seen.. But how did the Patriots know that? They didn't. So, like everyone else, they were strung along until Walsh coughed up the truth.

So, tell us again how Kraft was supposed to know that an former employee who was in possession of stolen tapes was supposed to know what was on said tapes?

You thinking that the Herald printed the retraction ONLY because of the fans ire and not out of fear of a lawsuit from Kraft shows you to be the obtuse one. Not me..

BTW, I don't know where you've been during Kraft's entire ownership, but they rarely do things to large fanfares beyond the SB Parade. There is no large fan fare to the different charities they help. There is no large fan fare to the over-seas trips.. What makes you think they'd make a big deal over going to the Herald and telling them to print the retraction or face a lawsuit?

So your position is that Kraft believed the Patriots did tape the walk through? Because that would be the only reason for Kraft to remain silent and not hammer the Herald until the Patriots were officially cleared. Otherwise, there's still no excuse for an owner to remain silent while his team and coach get dragged through the mud if he knew and believed they were innocent. Face it. You're grasping at straws here and you're doing it out of some misplaced sense of loyalty to a man that, in the last decade, has left his HOF coach and QB holding the bag over two mostly manufactured scandals so he could continue hobknobbing with the other 31.