Relevant videotaping official rules and memo snippets

[richpats]

How is it that you are ignoring the rest of the language in a rule? I think it is clear that the kind of "aid" being contemplated is during the course of the actual game. Especially in light of the fact that certain taping that "might aid" IS legal.

Everyone that is defending Belichick is going off on the "intent". THE INTENT DOESN'T MATTER!

It says the use of these devices is prohibited........PROHIBITED!

 

[JoeSixPat]

(I haven't read through the entire thread so my apologies if I'm re-stating something)

The Constitution and ByLaws indicate that the Pats did break the rules. Belichick is arguing that he didn't use the tape during the game, but it doesn't matter if he used it or not because the C & BL says that it is prohibited to use equipment that "might aid" - intent is irrelevant. The action is prohibited.

RichPats - by your definition ALL taping should be prohibited. After all - while the miles and miles of videotape footage used for post game analysis is NOT used until post game analyis... it "might be". Intent or actual use is irrelevant, right?

Of course that's not the case. Taping is perfectly legal - and according to the Constitution/Bylaws/rulebook/memo - taping - even taping of signal calling from appropriate locations - continues to be legal today.

Post 2006 there is no question, nor any wiggle room for Belichick - that he did violate a rule... but there's also no question that before 2006 the rule was unclear enough that the NFL recognized a need to clarify it.

So the good news is that there's no blemish on any of the Pats Super Bowls, though most in the media remain purposefully ignorant on that subject.

I think the NFL Front Office also learned an important lesson when it comes to rules... language such as "might" has no place in a rule. Say what you mean and mean what you say - and if its a well written rule there will be no question as to what it does and doesn't apply to. If they leave teams with room for interpretation, guess what? Teams will interpret the rules as they see fit.

 

[richpats]

RichPats - by your definition ALL taping should be prohibited. After all - while the miles and miles of videotape footage used for post game analysis is NOT used until post game analyis... it "might be". Intent or actual use is irrelevant, right?

Of course that's not the case. Taping is perfectly legal - and according to the Constitution/Bylaws/rulebook/memo - taping - even taping of signal calling from appropriate locations - continues to be legal today.

Post 2006 there is no question, nor any wiggle room for Belichick - that he did violate a rule... but there's also no question that before 2006 the rule was unclear enough that the NFL recognized a need to clarify it.

So the good news is that there's no blemish on any of the Pats Super Bowls, though most in the media remain purposefully ignorant on that subject.

I think the NFL Front Office also learned an important lesson when it comes to rules... language such as "might" has no place in a rule. Say what you mean and mean what you say - and if its a well written rule there will be no question as to what it does and doesn't apply to. If they leave teams with room for interpretation, guess what? Teams will interpret the rules as they see fit.

While there is legal taping, Belichick is not validated under those conditions either.

I don't believe there is a blemish on ANY Pats win over the Belichick era, but he did break the rule all along IMO. He said himself that he made a mistake by not clarifying the legality of the practice with the league after the 2006 memo.

The "might" line is irrelevant really, if it weren't there then there wouldn't be a debate.

 

[JoeSixPat]

While there is legal taping, Belichick is not validated under those conditions either.

I don't believe there is a blemish on ANY Pats win over the Belichick era, but he did break the rule all along IMO. He said himself that he made a mistake by not clarifying the legality of the practice with the league after the 2006 memo.

The "might" line is irrelevant really, if it weren't there then there wouldn't be a debate.

Richpats - the point here is that you - or anyone - has to be consistent. You can't decide that the potential use of a tape on game day is irrelevant in one situation but relevant in another.

You stated that whether it is or isn't used on game day is irrelevant in the case of sideline taping - because it "might" be used that game, whether it is or not.

The NFL agreed that aspect was unclear when they moved to clarify it. In my mind that exonerates the Pats from any pre-2006 wrongdoing.

But to be consistent with your earlier statement, all of the legal taping should be declared prohibited, because it also "might" be used that gameday and "might" include shots of signal calling. Obviously that's not the case - the NFL does allow taping, and always will.

To be clear I think you've read the original pre-2006 rule a certain way - and what is clear now is that there was more than one way to read that - the NFL admitted as much when they clarified.

I'd tend to agree that Belichick aggravates other team coaches and the league by going out of his way to find loopholes to rules that would give him some advantage, but I'll continue to put the onus on the League - not the teams - to make sure their rules are crystal clear and cannot be interpreted in multiple ways.

I agree that they did that in 2006 - but before then, they clearly left the door open for different interpretations.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Joe6Pat has a great point. Rulemakings are not supposed to have gray areas.

Belichick AND OTHERS played with the gray areas. By a strict interpretation, many teams are guilty, by easily obtained evidence or by their own statements. By admission of a gray area, if you exonnerate other teams you have no choice but to exonnerate the Pats.

Better rulemaking fixes this. But how are we to expect better rulemakings when Goodell goes in front of cameras and "clarifies" on the fly? All he's saying is "stealing the signals [is what I will enforce]" when he says "stealing the signals is the illegal part" (quoting from memory - you guys saw it too.)

I wish I could find it again. In some of my research I saw a regulatory lawyer with no dog in the fight just ripping the NFL a new one for the sloppy language in its rulemakings.

The language reflects the true nature of the timeline:

- Once, there was gamesmanship, a "boys will be boys" attitude (or Steve Alic of the League office put it, referring to the Dolphins' use of tape outside the rules, "that's football")

- The Pats worked within that paradigm, and using what I believe BB knew was a "gray area" interpretation

- The Pats got busted and used as an example to just stop ALL this sh**. At the outset, it was a "clean up the league" move, and of course it did not bother Goodell to whack a rival from his Jets days first.

- The calculus supporting Goodell's decision went like this:

* It WAS the case that the hearsay around the league was that the Pats were the best-known "spies" in the league (i.e., the fuss in Green Bay, the Jets' allegations, etc.)

* Other teams were known to be doing the same thing, i.e., Jets, Dolphins

* The Patriots mattered. The Jets, Dolphins, et. al., did not. The calculation was this will play as "We will EVEN enforce this against the mighty Patriots!"

- Goodell miscalculated press reaction, whiny player reaction, and fan reaction. He thought he could point to the Pats and have it understood he meant nobody could do it. What it turned into was tarnished this, asterisk that, blah blah blah.

* News flash: regardless of his upbringing or earlier employ, Goodell's job is as commissioner. Though stinging the Pats as an EXAMPLE is within his de facto power (since he works for all league owners,) bringing down the franchise, and lowering the value of the NFL brand or the value of its most coveted trophy, is NOT a Goodell resume builder. He effed up.

The details all the fans and media are pursuing stem from the fact that the NFL bylaws, operation manual, and memo, are meant to be understood by all parties. They are things we all do to get along, not legal formulations. But by opening up the Pandora's box, he took these relatively informally drafted documents and raised them to quasi-legal status.

Now we have armies of amateurs involved, trying to decide whether BB's interpretation is laughable (usually they decide yes without looking,) etc.

But the real question is where was all this "legality" for the years and years that other teams have been doing the exact same thing?

The same place the "legality" of the 5-yard bump zone was before the Colts decided to whine to their buddies in the Competition Committee... that is to say, nowhere. Non-issue. Football is football. Let 'em play. Let 'em coach.

What is infuriating to me is the armies of marching morons crowing about asterisks, when they had never heard of videotape before outside of pornos they bought from online wholesalers. We all watched Gruden cover his mouth with his play chart in the 2002 super bowl. The on-air guys had fun with how paranoid he was. Well, we also see that every sunday now.

So yeah, "stealing signs by video is the issue." Because we've selectively CHOSEN for it to be the issue. And it's only the issue for the PATRIOTS, despite the fact that other teams have done it.

I'm not one who takes a stand against the fines and draft pick. That is the NFL's right.

What I hate is that the posture taken to prevent this (continued) behavior THROUGHOUT THE LEAGUE is being used as a rallying cry for Patriot-haters throughout the media and the rest of the fans in the league.

It is their "get out of sucking free" card. Well Runo, Donovan, Bettis, you guys really DID suck. You're evidently of the belief that Spygate "explains" why you sucked. It does not.

Ditto fans of the 1-15 Dolphins who believe the wittiest thing ever said is "18-1". Wow, that hurts. I wonder if they cried when their perfect defeated season went down the tubes. They must have been popping the champagne in Tampa Bay that day.

Okay, rant over. For now.

PFnV