PDA

View Full Version : Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl



Moses
02-18-2008, 04:00 PM
BOSTON - Patriots coach Bill Belichick broke his silence on New England’s twin taping controversies, denying he told anyone to tape the St. Louis Rams’ walkthrough before the 2002 Super Bowl and apologizing for all the attention generated by Spygate.

Belichick also told the Boston Globe he “couldn’t pick Matt Walsh out of a lineup.” Walsh, a former Patriots employee, reportedly taped St. Louis’ walkthrough practice the day before the Patriots beat the Rams 20-17 in the championship.

“In my entire coaching career, I’ve never seen another team’s practice film prior to playing that team,” Belichick said in a story posted on the Globe’s Web site Sunday night. “I have never authorized, or heard of, or even seen in any way, shape, or form any other team’s walkthrough. We don’t even film our own.”

Patriots vice president of player personnel Scott Pioli also told the newspaper that part of the reason Walsh was fired in January 2003 was because he secretly recorded conversations between himself and Pioli.

Michael Levy, Walsh’s attorney, said Pioli’s account was a “complete fabrication.”

“This is a predictable and pathetic effort to smear Mr. Walsh’s character rather than confront the truth about the Patriots’ conduct,” Levy said in the Globe story.

Levy has said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action.

Commissioner Roger Goodell has said he offered Walsh a deal requiring him “to tell the truth and he has to return anything he took improperly” in return for indemnity, but Levy has said the deal doesn’t go far enough.

Goodell fined Belichick $500,000, the Patriots $250,000 and took away a first-round draft choice after the Patriots were caught taping New York Jets’ coaches in last year’s season opener, a 38-14 New England victory.

Belichick said he misinterpreted the rule, which he felt only prohibited taping that could be used during the same game.

He also apologized for the controversy the taping caused.

“I respect the integrity of the game and always have and always will,” he said in the Globe story. “I regret that any of this, or to whatever extent, it has in any way brought that into question or discussion or debate. The decision was made by the commissioner, the practice was immediately stopped, and we’re not doing it.

“Just going back over the whole taping incident, if I contacted the league and asked them about the practice, I’m sure they would have told me — as they have done — that it is not permissible. Then I could have avoided all of this.

“I take responsibility for it,” he said. “Even though I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule, that was my mistake and we’ve been penalized for it. I apologize to everybody that is involved — the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, for the amount of conversation and dialogue that it’s caused.”

The day before the Patriots’ 17-14 loss to the New York Giants in this year’s Super Bowl, the Boston Herald reported New England taped St. Louis’ walkthrough before the first of the Patriots’ three Super Bowl victories. In a walkthrough, teams practice plays at a slower pace than normal without pads or helmets.

Patriots spokesman Stacey James did not return phone calls or an e-mail seeking comment Sunday night.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/23216255/


ESPN Article:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3251081

Boston Globe(Original article):
http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2008/02/18/belichick_and_pioli_speak_out/

I think Belichick actually talking about this is LONG overdue. If he had said this 5 months ago, I don't think it would have been as big as it currently is. Needless to say, I hope they sort everything out quickly so we can put this behind us once and for all.

Gyron
02-18-2008, 04:12 PM
Is this the first time we've heard this?


"Levy has said his client is willing to turn over videotapes he made for the team if the NFL guarantees Walsh protection from lawsuits or other legal action."

So now they are confirming that Walsh does have video tape evidence.

I wouldn't return it if I were him either. I'd be calling Senator Spector and sending him copies of the tapes.

And if Goodell wants to keep his name clean in all of this he better offer the same. Otherwise it stinks of a big cover-up.

And I would also guess if Walsh was taping conversations with Pioli, Walsh must have thought there was something worthy of taping that may come in handy later that the Patriots wouldn't want the public to know. I bet those could be interesting tapes as well.

Gyron
02-18-2008, 04:15 PM
And you're right, its long overdue for Belichick to come out and talk about it.

For his sake, he better hope that Walsh is full of crap and doesn't really have what he claims to have.

Since86
02-18-2008, 04:20 PM
I thought this was interesting seeing how we know it's a direct lie because a LEAGUE wide memo was sent out.




I respect the integrity of the game and always have and always will, he said in the Globe story. I regret that any of this, or to whatever extent, it has in any way brought that into question or discussion or debate. The decision was made by the commissioner, the practice was immediately stopped, and were not doing it.

Just going back over the whole taping incident, if I contacted the league and asked them about the practice, Im sure they would have told me as they have done that it is not permissible. Then I could have avoided all of this.

The league contacted you buddy. The league contacted every team.

Quit the freaking excuses and man-up. You illegally taped the opposing team to get an advantage and were caught multiple times by different teams. Teams knew you did it and decided not to turn you in. If they can remove your camera then obviously it was against the rules.

ABADays
02-18-2008, 08:43 PM
The USA Today story said he apologized. Sorry, I happened to miss that part.

btowncolt
02-18-2008, 08:47 PM
"Now, I have to go back to work on my draft preparation. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not videotape that team, St. Louis. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."

Moses
02-18-2008, 09:25 PM
The USA Today story said he apologized. Sorry, I happened to miss that part.
Perhaps you should reread the article?

"I apologize to everybody that is involved the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, for the amount of conversation and dialogue that its caused.

Shade
02-18-2008, 10:10 PM
1) Why is Belichick just now speaking out on this?
2) Why has Walsh not shown his evidence to the senator?
3) Why do teams tape other teams if they have no intention of ever using the tapes?

Shade
02-18-2008, 10:10 PM
"Now, I have to go back to work on my draft preparation. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not videotape that team, St. Louis. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."

Where the hell have YOU been?

btowncolt
02-18-2008, 10:47 PM
Where the hell have YOU been?

School. Killing mice. Sobbing occasionally.

Moses
02-18-2008, 10:53 PM
1) Why is Belichick just now speaking out on this?
2) Why has Walsh not shown his evidence to the senator?
3) Why do teams tape other teams if they have no intention of ever using the tapes?
My personal speculation:
1) He said that he didn't want to get his focus off of winning football games..and that sounds like classic Belichick to me so I can at least give him that.

2) Walsh hasn't shown the evidence because he either doesn't have it, or if he does, he is still awaiting legal protection because he knows he violated his contract by stealing property from the Pats. Not to mention, if what Pioli says is true regarding him recording personal conversations, I'm betting he could get into quite a bit of trouble.

3) You've got me. Many ex-players, coaches, and even the Steelers organization have come out and said that the tapes have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the game..but if they don't, then why did the Pats do it? My guess is that it gives a minor advantage in some instances..but sometimes it could cause more harm then good. The risk/reward ratio there isn't favorable for any team who is trying to steal signals which is why it annoys me that the Pats did it.

That is all in regards to stealing signals. Taping a walk through is much more significant in my mind.

Gyron
02-19-2008, 08:59 AM
The one thing that realy bugs me is that if Goodell really wanted to get to the bottom of this and prove that the Pats did nothing, he wouldn't put all the conditions on Matt Walsh bringing the stuff in. If he truly wanted to get to the bottom of it, he would ensure nothing be held against Walsh bring the guy in and see what he's got. But instead he puts conditions on getting the evidence and essentially threatens the guy. Thats whats really fishy about the way Goodell is treating this.

The conspriacy theroist in me says Goodell knows something that he doesn't want out to the public and is doing his damnedest to discredit walsh before he ever ponies up the evidence.

Slick Pinkham
02-19-2008, 12:48 PM
The one thing that really bugs me is that if Goodell really wanted to get to the bottom of this and prove that the Pats did nothing, he wouldn't put all the conditions on Matt Walsh bringing the stuff in.

According to the NFL, the main condition that Walsh won't accept is that his immunity is dropped if he is proven to be lying.

Don't expect that to be resolved, if it is the issue. Telling the truth should be the ONE thing you MUST do to get any protection.

I have a feeling that the REAL hang-up, unspoken by either side, is that the NFL wants clauses in the agreement that preclude him from making a living off of this and keeping it in the news for years: No books, no further interviews on Sixty Minutes, no ESPN movie, no Larry King Live, no mini-series, basically no dollars flowing into the pockets of Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Walsh is presumably strongly in favor of dollars streaming into his pockets.

Since86
02-19-2008, 01:09 PM
3) You've got me. Many ex-players, coaches, and even the Steelers organization have come out and said that the tapes have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the game..but if they don't, then why did the Pats do it? My guess is that it gives a minor advantage in some instances..but sometimes it could cause more harm then good. The risk/reward ratio there isn't favorable for any team who is trying to steal signals which is why it annoys me that the Pats did it.

That is all in regards to stealing signals. Taping a walk through is much more significant in my mind.

If it doesn't help, then why do it? Then why have a rule in place not allowing you to do it?

Common sense is a wonderful thing.

It makes a lot more sense that a team would benefit from taping the other teams signals, if they were willing to do it knowing it was against league rules.

Slick Pinkham
02-19-2008, 01:42 PM
I think the fact that the Patriots were doing this so openly, with a guy standing on the sidelines holding some huge 20-year-old camera, is telling.

They were fully aware that the other team would usually KNOW that they were being taped. The purpose would be to annoy and distract the other team, to force them to change their signals more often than they normally would anyway (even in-game), wasting time and possibly resulting in miscommunication.

Why do it, for such a small gain? They didn't think the NFL would enforce a rule it had never enforced before, that they considered minor, that they has seen other coaches use against them, a rule that the coach (stupidly) misinterpreted anyway, a coach who also ignored the 2006 memo clarifying the rule.

Besides the annoyance/make them waste time/make them make a mistake angle,

Since everybody changes their signals game-to-game anyway, the chance of linking a signal to a particular play and having the signal be UNCHANGED in a later game seems remote.

So if "stealing play calls" is out, there are still other types of information you could find out, tendencies such as:

1) do they send in play calls late, in response to offensive personnel/ formation, or early?

2) do they always call in different plays in response to something the offense does, like having a player going in motion?

travmil
02-19-2008, 02:57 PM
:laugh: pacertom, If I ever need a lawyer because I've done something stupid and indefensible, remind me to call YOU!

Since86
02-19-2008, 03:05 PM
So now the excuse is they illegally taped the other team to annoy them?

:rolleyes: How annoying is it to have security walk over to them and kick them off the sidelines? It isn't. You stop it as soon as he's located which would take all of 5mins real time.

Now you're saying they did it openly after MONTHS of trying to tell us that they only did it one time and that was the Jets game this year?

Teams don't change play signals from game to game. You know how confusing that would be?

Playbooks are literally hundreds of pages long. They have hundreds of plays in them that are supposed to be known by each player. They have to identify which play from which signal.

Doug
02-19-2008, 03:50 PM
"I apologize to everybody that is involved the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, for the amount of conversation and dialogue that its caused.

So, he apologized that everybody is making a big fuss over it?

That's not much of an apology, is it?

That's like telling your wife "I'm sorry you're so annoying" to make up after a fight.

Or telling the Judge, "Yes, Your Honor, I am very sorry about this, very sorry I got caught."

I'm not saying he should apologize for something he (claims) he didn't do. But lets not confuse the above statement with some statement of remorse.

He continues to hold the line of "I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule".

What he was doing was wrong, and IMO he absolutely knew that. He's not stupid. And continuing to pretend that WE are isn't helping.

travmil
02-19-2008, 04:05 PM
What he was doing was wrong, and IMO he absolutely knew that. He's not stupid. And continuing to pretend that WE are isn't helping.

And for me, that's the rub. Pats fans act like Belicheat is some super genius, and then expect us to believe that he didn't know that rule, or that they didn't understand the specific memo that the NFL had sent regarding this very subject in the same breath.

Shade
02-19-2008, 04:32 PM
I think the fact that the Patriots were doing this so openly, with a guy standing on the sidelines holding some huge 20-year-old camera, is telling.

Yes. It tells us that one of the most openly arrogant people on the planet is...well...openly arrogant.

He assumed that because prior teams didn't turn him in, the Jets wouldn't either. He was wrong.

Slick Pinkham
02-19-2008, 04:32 PM
So now the excuse is they illegally taped the other team to annoy them?.

I'm not making an EXCUSE.

For the 1000th time: It was incredibly stupid and wrong for him to do it, and he deserved getting the largest punishment ever handed out by the NFL. It is completely inexcusable.

How in the world can that be deemed an excuse? It is instead a possible EXPLANATION for the idiotic thing that he did. (my explanation-- I don't claim to speak for anyone else).

I was pointing out that this was not done secretly, so the was no "spying" in "spygate". Opposing coaches being taped "waved at the camera" and the still photos of the guy on the sidelines in the Jets game show him carrying this big huge videocam about 10 times larger then anything you see on the shelves at Best Buy. They weren't trying to not be noticed, they seemed to want the other team to notice.

Why do you call a timeout to ice the opposing kicker? It's a head game. It rarely works, if you look at the statistics, but if it reduces the chance of a made kick from 70% to 68%, then it's worth the shot. It's also like waving your arms in front of the free throw shooter in basketball. Yes, I realize these 2 examples are LEGAL behaviors. The illegality of the act makes it so STUPID and unforgivable, and, yes, INEXCUSABLE.

It think Belichick was playing a head game with the other coach, but screwed up because he didn't understand the rule or thought the rule was never enforced.

For the 1001st time: It was incredibly stupid and wrong for him to do it, and he deserved getting the largest punishment ever handed out by the NFL. It is completely inexcusable.

Shade
02-19-2008, 04:34 PM
I'm not making an EXCUSE.

For the 1000th time: It was incredibly stupid and wrong for him to do it, and he deserved getting the largest punishment ever handed out by the NFL. It is completely inexcusable.

How in the world can that be deemed an excuse? It is instead a possible EXPLANATION for the idiotic thing that he did. (my explanation-- I don't claim to speak for anyone else).

I was pointing out that this was not done secretly, so the was no "spying" in "spygate". Opposing coaches being taped "waved at the camera" and the still photos of the guy on the sidelines in the Jets game show him carrying this big huge videocam about 10 times larger then anything you see on the shelves at Best Buy. They weren't trying to not be noticed, they seemed to want the other team to notice.

Why do you call a timeout to ice the opposing kicker? It's a head game. It rarely works, if you look at the statistics, but if it reduces the chance of a made kick from 70% to 68%, then it's worth the shot. It's also like waving your arms in front of the free throw shooter in basketball. Yes, I realize these 2 examples are LEGAL behaviors. The illegality of the act makes it so STUPID and unforgivable, and, yes, INEXCUSABLE.

It think Belichick was playing a head game with the other coach, but screwed up because he didn't understand the rule or thought the rule was never enforced.

For the 1001st time: It was incredibly stupid and wrong for him to do it, and he deserved getting the largest punishment ever handed out by the NFL. It is completely inexcusable.

I like your posts a lot more when I just read the bold print. :D

j/k ;)

Since86
02-19-2008, 04:46 PM
It's not a head game when you can take away the other team's timeouts before you get to a icing spot or if you can kick out anyone sitting behind the backboard.

All you have to do is get security and boot them off the sidelines. WOW what a head game.

It wasn't done openly, they hid the fact that they were doing it which is the reason you DENIED it happened more than once til you were blue in the face.

It wasn't done in public or the public would have known. GB and MIA had heard they were doing it from other teams so they had the camera man kicked out.

That's like saying a runner on second base steals the catchers signals to play headgames with the pitcher. No it's not.

When you know the signals, you know what's coming and you can adjust for it. Plus they documented how long it took teams to get in the signals to get an advantage that way too.

Like it's already been pointed out. He didn't apologize for doing it, he apologized for getting caught.

Your excusing his behavior by giving fifteen other reasons for doing it instead of just saying he was blantantly cheating. If you would like me to substitute the word 'condoning' in for 'excusing' I can, but it's the same difference.

Slick Pinkham
02-19-2008, 05:18 PM
He didn't apologize for doing it, he apologized for getting caught.

I've never seen anybody else spin his remark that way. I can see it, once you lift it out of context, but in was in the flow of a conversation where he

-accepted full responsibility for not knowing the rule
-explained what his (mis)interpretation if the rule was
-expressed regret that he had not gotten clarification on the rule
-expressed regret to have done something that people have interpreted to mean he doesn't respect the integrity of the game.

By all accounts, Robert Kraft absolutely ripped into Bill Belichick behind closed doors back in September. He is on ZERO TOLERANCE. He is fully aware of how wrong he was.

Yet he publicly expresses regret and people tear apart his words looking for sinister meanings.

If he said that the sky was blue, I'm sure that some here would find a problem with that.

Doug
02-19-2008, 07:11 PM
-accepted full responsibility for not knowing the rule
-explained what his (mis)interpretation if the rule was

That is what I think most people have the problem with the scenario, or at least what bothers me.

I think he knew with 100% certainty that what he was doing was wrong. Maybe or maybe not wrong as far as the "letter of the law" went, but 100% wrong as far as the "intent of the law".

I can't prove that he knew. He can't prove he didn't. Is it fair that a great season, and the past championships, are "tainted" without solid proof in the minds of many? Nope, not fair at all. But that's how things stand right now, and I'm not sure what will change it.

Since86
02-20-2008, 02:38 PM
Misinterpretation?

You read this and see if there's any grey area to where you thought you could tape the other team's signals.


Video taping 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
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/02/19/mmqbte/index.html

That was in the league wide memo. Then we have this gem from the Game Operations Manual that the NFL uses:

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 ... All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/02/19/mmqbte/index.html

Look at his apology if you think I'm stretching.


I take responsibility for it,” he said. “Even though I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule, that was my mistake and we’ve been penalized for it. I apologize to everybody that is involved — the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, for the amount of conversation and dialogue that it’s caused.”

I apologize for the amount of conversation and dialogue that it's caused. I take responsbility for it EVEN THOUGH I thought there was a grey area in which I could get by on it.

His first apology wasn't sincere and neither is this one.

Slick Pinkham
02-21-2008, 12:27 PM
You are correct in that there is no room for misinterpretation of the memo. The memo clarified the rule in the operations manual.

It is the rule in the operations manual that was misinterpreted-- presumably the entire reason for the memo was that teams interpreted the rule incorrectly.

this is the original rule:


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.

I have bolded the last 6 words for a reason.

Belichick and others stupidly took this to mean that things not studied "during the playing of the game" were OK. He and others misinterptreted the original rule, which was the reason for the clarification in the memo (which you quoted), that he must have ignored.




Hmm... we can use Polaroids to determine what the other team is doing and make adjustments in a game. This rule says that you can't use other more sophisticated means, like video cameras, for the same purpose.

I am not defending him, I am merely explaining his position. He made a lame-brained stupid dumb mistake and was punished severely for it, and deservedly so. The commisioner made a stupid dumb lame-brained decision to destroy everything. But he had the authority, and did it.

Now it's time to move on unless there is actual new evidence.

Slick Pinkham
02-21-2008, 12:32 PM
most people in the entire world took his quote to mean

"I apologize to everybody that is involved — the league, the other teams, the fans, our team, (long pause) [and I'm sorry] for the amount of conversation and dialogue that it’s caused.”

he's not a speechwriter, an orator, or even a politician so I'm sure that you can always have a field day picking apart every clause looking for evil intent. Again, in the context in which he said it (taking responsibility, expressing regret for not knowing the rule) I think the above interpretation makes sense.

Since86
02-21-2008, 01:56 PM
There was no grey area in which you bolded by anyone with common sense. Even if there was it went out the window with the first sentence you quoted which went like this:

Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant,

No, he's not a speechwriter. His first apology recieved heat from sportswriters as being insincere, and his second is just as bad. When a pattern emerges it makes you think a little more about what he's actually saying.

Plus he's a known as an arrogant *******. The apology just smells of more of the same.

Slick Pinkham
02-21-2008, 03:31 PM
Even if there was it went out the window with the first sentence you quoted

That just means, in the mind of all the coaches misinterpreting the rule, that from the start to the finish of any game I can't use videocameras the same way I would use still photos, to make in-game adjustments.

Add Bill Polian to the list of people who think it is time to move on:

Colts president Bill Polian shared his opinion on the NFL’s investigation of the Patriots:

“From my perspective, that was a thorough, fair, efficient process with lots of integrity,” he said. “I think it’s fair to say we [as a committee] were satisfied with the explanation, satisfied with what was done, and at least I am anyway. It’s behind us. It’s time to move forward.”

Giants co-owner John Mara also shared his thoughts of the Patriots’ taping procedures.

“I can’t speak for everybody else, but I’m just tired of hearing about it,” he said. “I think we’re all satisfied that it was thoroughly investigated.”

link: http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

scroll down to "Competition committee on Patriots"

Since86
02-21-2008, 03:42 PM
All the coaches misinterpreting the rule?

What other coaches have there been? NONE! Not a single damn one.

He LOOKED for it. He started doing it when he came there in 2001. Right away he was doing it. I would be surprised if that meant he wasn't doing it prior at other stops.

Your opening statement isn't a misinterpretation of the rule. You said exactly what the rule says. You can't video record during the game. Period.

He didn't take it that way. He took it that he could. There is zero wiggle room in it because it specifically says you can't.

He cheated for 6 years and a game. He got busted. He knowingly cheated, so just admit it. A misinterpretation? Come on.

It's not a misinterpretation when teams kick your video guy off the sidelines because he's doing something illegal and when the league sends out a memo reminding you that you can't do it.

The whole league wants it to go away, not because it's not a big deal but because it makes the league look bad. Why do you think Goodell destroyed the tapes? Because he didn't want them leaked and the actual severity known.

Every team is going to toe the company line in public regardless of what they think privately. I could have told you that 4mons ago.

EDIT: I'm done with this. We went in circles when you wouldn't believe that he did it more times than just the NY Jets game, and you won't believe otherwise that he just made an honest error and misinterpreted the rule. It's a waste of time.

Slick Pinkham
02-21-2008, 04:55 PM
you won't believe otherwise that he just made an honest error

I am not defending him, I am merely telling you verbatim what the actual operations guide says, and why he says was the grey area. In was in response to people saying "how in the world could he misunderstand this rule" and then citing the memo sent out to everyone, not the actual rule.

I never called it an honest error. In fact I called it "a lame-brained stupid dumb mistake" for which he "was punished severely for it, and deservedly so."

Tell me some more lies about Peter King saying the commish swept this under the rug. You are good at making stuff up and putting words in people's mouths.

Since86
02-21-2008, 05:02 PM
Now, as for the Goodell action, I understand why he says he had the tapes destroyed -- so that if any other tapes surfaced showing illegal video of a Patriots opponent hand-signaling defensive calls into the game, he would know the Patriots hadn't been truthful when they said they'd turned over all the tapes. You're right: At the very least, it looks improper and conveys the appearance that the league is trying to cover something up. Goodell says he doesn't regret his actions, but only he knows if deep down he believes that. I believe there is some logic to destroying the tapes, though, in retrospect, it's not the route he should have taken.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/02/19/mmqbte/index.html

I just gave him the benefit of writing that statement a couple months in advance.

The NFL is doing everything in it's power to get this off the radar as quickly as possible. Why you wouldn't be so niave to see that when you've changed your stance fifteen other times, is beyond me.

That's my mistake and won't happen again.

Good day.

Slick Pinkham
02-21-2008, 07:25 PM
It wasn't done openly



fabrication


you DENIED it happened more than once til you were blue in the face.

distortion


MIA had heard they were doing it from other teams so they had the camera man kicked out.

fabrication


That's just one of your posts! You provide a wealth of distortions and fabrications, well... I should say it like it is...OUTRIGHT LIES, on a semi-regular basis.

For the 1002nd time, I do not excuse or condone the coach of the years' former practice of taping defensive signals. If I did, then I would be upset at the punishment, which I instead think was fair and just.

I don't even buy Belichick's explanation as the whole truth! I posted it because people wondered how in the world there could even BE any explanation, so I provided the technicality (the presence of those 6 words "during the playing of a game")

I see the supposed logic, but think that he probably knew the intent of the law. He thought that lots of teams hadn't followed it, including his mentors when he was an assistant coach, so it must not be too important, like the NBA never called "palming the ball" for about 30 years until it suddenly became a point of emphasis.

The new sheriff in town had some battles to fight that had been ignored under Tagliabue, and this was one of them. Moral: If you get a new boss, read all the memos that his underlings send out. There may be something there that will bite you.

SoupIsGood
02-21-2008, 09:13 PM
I don't even need to read this thread to know how it went...

Gyron
02-22-2008, 08:54 AM
I hadn't read this before this morning, but its from an article on USAtoday.com.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-02-21-competition-committee_N.htm?csp=DailyBriefing

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD class=vaText colSpan=2>"Every now and then I'd get a sheet, one hour before the game, with a list of audibles for our opponent. I don't know how, but they just showed up."
-- Former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson to USA TODAY in November 2005
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Wouldn't that seem to tell us that they were doing this long before the Jets game? Or I guess its possible that they were using the manual method without the tapes....

Since86
02-22-2008, 02:40 PM
I was gonna post a long drought out rebuttal, but while I was searching I found this wonderful post, and I think I'll quote it and be on my way.



I can't believe that Belichick is still maintaining that he had just a "misinterpretation" of the rules.

Even though I'm a Pats fan, I kind of wish the commish could give him another slap just for the lameness of his so-called apology.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=33470&page=6

You posted that on 9-14-2007. Since it's been found out they've been doing it for SEVEN years, you've changed your tune 180 degrees.

Moses
02-22-2008, 10:12 PM
I hadn't read this before this morning, but its from an article on USAtoday.com.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-02-21-competition-committee_N.htm?csp=DailyBriefing

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2></TD></TR><TR><TD class=vaText colSpan=2>"Every now and then I'd get a sheet, one hour before the game, with a list of audibles for our opponent. I don't know how, but they just showed up."
-- Former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson to USA TODAY in November 2005
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Wouldn't that seem to tell us that they were doing this long before the Jets game? Or I guess its possible that they were using the manual method without the tapes....
I'm pretty sure you can get a list of other teams audibles simply by watching the actual game film..every team knows a ton of the other teams plays..it's more a matter of stopping them.

Since86
02-23-2008, 11:33 AM
If it was that easy, then how would a NFL player not know how they got them?

He's been around football for how many years and he's stumped about how he was given a list of audibles for the other team?

Sollozzo
02-23-2008, 11:41 AM
If it was that easy, then how would a NFL player not know how they got them?

He's been around football for how many years and he's stumped about how he was given a list of audibles for the other team?



Good point. I mean, he only played for the Pats for a decade.

If a 10 year vet is "stumped" about how he got something, then that sounds like funny business to me. If it was something that could merely be obtained by watching game film, I doubt he would be stumped about it. But then again I could be wrong.

Moses
02-23-2008, 06:34 PM
Good point. I mean, he only played for the Pats for a decade.

If a 10 year vet is "stumped" about how he got something, then that sounds like funny business to me. If it was something that could merely be obtained by watching game film, I doubt he would be stumped about it. But then again I could be wrong.
Yeah, but Ted Johnson is also a disgruntled ex-player of the Pats. He blames BB for concussions he sustained during his playing days. Says that BB forced him back into the games and probably wants BB to go down so I'm sure he's going to say anything he can to make BB look bad. If Ted Johnson didn't know any audibles of the other team, he must not have practiced all week. As a defensive player, you know just about every other play the team has..it's a matter of recognizing the play and stopping it.

Slick Pinkham
02-25-2008, 10:33 AM
Ted Johnson was interviewed by ESPN radio and addressed these allegations:


It's irresponsible to link my comments about receiving audibles to spygate..."

"in my purest heart, I never got videotapes, never saw anything like that..."

In short, he dismissed all these allegations.

Not that taping defensive signals would give you offensive audibles anyway.

Miami has experience buying tapes with offensive audibles, and the NFL seems to think it is not an issue:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2696227


NFL has ruled that the Miami Dolphins violated no league rules in the Tapegate affair associated with the team's 21-0 victory over the New England Patriots last Sunday.

Teams are always trying to steal signs and signals off other teams. That's just football. The incident spawned considerable attention on Tuesday after some Dolphins players suggested to the Palm Beach (Fla.) Post that the team "purchased" tapes of the New England offense that provided audio of quarterback Tom Brady making audible and line-blocking calls.

Those players strongly hinted that the tapes were critical in preparing for the game and provided the Dolphins inside information about New England's offensive audible system.

"I've never seen so flustered," middle linebacker Zach Thomas said.

[B]The league's response? Pretty much a stifled yawn, since there is no rule prohibiting such film study.

"Reaction around the league office was, 'That's football,' " AFC spokesman Steve Alic said.

Patriots coach Bill Belichick, speaking Wednesday at his news conference, doubted that Miami gained an advantage...

Despite the attention garnered by the story, most league observers dismissed the importance of whatever the Dolphins did and chose to attribute the shutout victory to superior execution.



You posted that on 9-14-2007. Since it's been found out they've been doing it for SEVEN years, you've changed your tune 180 degrees.

You just somehow refuse to get it, don't you?

I didn't like his explanation then, and while I understand it now since it was finally fully explained, I days ago posted:


I don't even buy Belichick's explanation as the whole truth! I posted it because people wondered how in the world there could even BE any explanation, so I provided the technicality.

That is not 180 degrees different.

Back then I could not imagine his (then unknown) explanation being adequate.

Now that I understand his explanation, I still find it lacking. But his explanation had never been described here, so I posted it.

End of story.

Go ahead with your unshakeable false beliefs that BB is the root of all evil in the world, and that all Patriots fans believe he can never do anything wrong.

Moses
02-25-2008, 01:21 PM
Funny thing about Miami is that they were so awful back when they would miraculously beat the Patriots every season..I remember watching some of those games in disbelief..The freaking Dolphins QB'd by Gus Frerotte just led a game winning comeback against us. Their defense would stop Brady every single play and force him into uncharacteristic ints (not to discredit all their pro bowlers because they did have a talented defense) But forget that..nobody cares if the horrible Dolphins are using audio recordings to get an advantage because they aren't a good team to begin with. It wont make headlines. The Patriots on the other hand, now this is a story we can really run with....

Since86
02-25-2008, 01:51 PM
You just somehow refuse to get it, don't you?

I didn't like his explanation then, and while I understand it now since it was finally fully explained, I days ago posted:



That is not 180 degrees different.

Back then I could not imagine his (then unknown) explanation being adequate.

Now that I understand his explanation, I still find it lacking. But his explanation had never been described here, so I posted it.

End of story.

Go ahead with your unshakeable false beliefs that BB is the root of all evil in the world, and that all Patriots fans believe he can never do anything wrong.


You're the one that doesn't get it. Your "technicality" is done away with in the very first freaking sentence of the quoted material you're trying to use.

Let's go back to your "technicality."


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.

What you bolded, is no it italics. What 100% clearly defines what you're questioning is what I've bolded.

During the playing of the game is defined as from the start to the finish of the game.

That means that you CANNOT use anything other than a Polariod-type camera or field telephones, during the game for comminucations or information gathering purposes.

What you say is the grey area becomes black and white in the sentence directly proceeding it.

He knew the rule, you know the rule, I know the rule. It's not open to intrepretation because it clearly states what is and isn't allowed to be used from the beginning of the game til the end of the game.

Before even seeing the rule you thought him saying it was a 'misintrepretation' was a load of crap. Now after seeing it you understand, especially when the rule is written so straight forward?

Yet I'm the distortionist and the, how did you say it? Outright liar, I think it was.

Slick Pinkham
02-25-2008, 02:54 PM
That means that you CANNOT use anything other than a Polariod-type camera or field telephones, for communications or information gathering purposes, to aid a team during the playing of the game.


Fixed it for you, since again you forget the last part, which totally muddies the first part.

Again, I am pointing out that this is merely the official Patriots explanation. I believe it ito be true that Bill Belichick likely knew the rule and knew its intent, but he chose to ignore the rule and has paid a high price.

I think that it is most likely that the real reason is not so hard to understand: Belichick felt that the rule had never been enforced. He also knew and could prove that several teams had used similar or even the exact same taping methods against the Patriots, and under Tagliabue the response to any taping complaints had always been "That's just football". He did not factor into his thoughts the likelihood that the "new sheriff in town" was about to get tough on a previously unenforced rule.

One of the main theories as to why Goodell so stupidly destroyed the information provided by the Patriots has always been that perhaps Belichick presented his specific video evidence of several other teams taping the Patriots. Goodell did not want a half dozen spygates on his hands, so both he and the Patriots are falling on the sword and keeping quiet. Sooner or later though, if Specter doesn't give up, then the Patriots may be inclined to reveal what they know about other teams doing this, though Goodell probably destroyed the evidence that they had.

No Patriots fan thinks Goodell is doing a good job or was smart in the way he has handled things. He screwed this up royally from day 1.

Since86
02-25-2008, 03:00 PM
Your now saying that video taping the other teams signals isn't for 'information gathering purposes'?

What the hell is it for, to practice the art of video recording?

Or how about to do their part in fighting unemployment?

Or better yet is it connected some way in helping fight global warming?

If you knew he knew the rule, then why waste all this time saying it was a misinterpretation? If he blantantly knew that he was breaking the rule, then why aren't you blasting him for it?

Gyron
02-25-2008, 03:28 PM
One of the main theories as to why Goodell so stupidly destroyed the information provided by the Patriots has always been that perhaps Belichick presented his specific video evidence of several other teams taping the Patriots. Goodell did not want a half dozen spygates on his hands, so both he and the Patriots are falling on the sword and keeping quiet. Sooner or later though, if Specter doesn't give up, then the Patriots may be inclined to reveal what they know about other teams doing this, though Goodell probably destroyed the evidence that they had.


WOW, That theory must have been developed by a Patriots Fan......

I'm not getting in the middle of you and Since86, you guys can have your little spat, but I must say, that particular theory is hilarious.

Now back to your regularly scheduled:girlfight

Slick Pinkham
02-25-2008, 04:43 PM
WOW, That theory must have been developed by a Patriots Fan......

No, it has been proposed many times by national sportswriters. Here's a recent column by Mike Florio at profootballtalk.com:

http://profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm



POSTED 11:30 p.m. EST, February 23, 2008

TAPING PRACTICES IS NOTHING NEW

Regardless of whether the Patriots did or didn't videotape the Rams' walk-through practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI, it's not the first time that such allegations have been raised.

As Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports wrote in the days following the discovery that the Pats were taping defensive coaching signals during a Week One game against the Jets, the Broncos were suspected at one time of secretly videotaping Chargers practices.

Wrote Cole: "The San Diego Chargers increased their security several years ago at a hill overlooking the practice field at the team facility during weeks when they played the Denver Broncos. Why? It turns out Broncos coach Mike Shanahan had been hiring spies to videotape the Chargers practices. The NFL had been aware of it for several years (at least one NFL official had seen one of the tapes), but didn't step in because it was considered a team issue."

Such stories tend to support the rumor that Patriots coach Bill Belichick included with the materials surrendered to the league extensive evidence of cheating by other teams.

Further bolstering the belief that the Pats weren't the only team doing what they were caught doing are the comments of former Cowboys and Dolphins coach Jimmy Johnson. The Boston Herald has posted the transcript of a WFAN interview that we first mentioned on September 29, during which Johnson said that the videotaping of defensive coaching signals was a widespread practice.

"I did it with video and so did a lot of other teams in the league," Johnson said on September 28. "Just to make sure that you could study it and take your time, because you're going to play the other team the second time around. But a lot of coaches did it, this was commonplace."

And this kind stuff is nothing new. Way back in 1967, Lee Grosscup wrote an item for Sport magazine that delved into the issue of spying in football.

The bigger issue with what the Patriots did against the Jets is that the Pats continued to do something that the league had specifically told teams not to do, and that the Jets decided to make a sufficiently big deal about it that it set off a media firestorm.

The staggering penalty applied to the Patriots ($250,000 fine and loss of a first-round pick) and coach Bill Belichick ($500,000 fine) created the impression that this really was a big deal, regardless of the fact that it had been going on for an extended period of time.

And by hitting the Pats so hard, the league backed itself into a corner. If the videotaping of defensive coaching signals compels such a harsh sanction, evidence that such things have been occurring on a widespread basis would potentially shake public confidence in the sport.

But at a time when folks are chasing (as we think they should) the question of whether the Patriots cheated in connection with Super Bowl XXXVI or any other postseason game since 2001, we think that resources and effort also should be devoted to exploring whether and to what extent there has been cheating by other teams.

Maybe that's why teams like the Steelers and Eagles aren't willing to blame spying on losses to the Pats in the 2004 AFC title game and Super Bowl XXXIX, respectively. Maybe the problem in both cases isn't that either of the teams within Senator Arlen Specter's territory were the victims of skullduggery. Maybe the problem is that they didn't take enough steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by practices that were an open secret prior to Week One of the 2007 regular season.




If he blantantly (?)knew that he was breaking the rule, then why aren't you blasting him for it?

Gee, Forrest, reading is fundamental. Catch this high praise from me:


He made a lame-brained stupid dumb mistake and was punished severely for it, and deservedly so.

Gyron
02-25-2008, 04:53 PM
Ok, I hadn't read that one.

Point to you. I'll go back to the counting thread now....

Since86
02-25-2008, 05:05 PM
If not believing in his supposed misinterpretation, or atleast not believing it yet pushing the case for it, makes me mentally retarded, then I'll take it.

Gyron
02-25-2008, 05:07 PM
Since 86, I have to agree here, he did day that bellicheck was an idiot for doing it. What else do you want?

Since86
02-26-2008, 12:38 PM
He's tried pushing the case on how he could have read the rule wrong now for weeks.

If I think someone intentionally cheated, how in the world do I defend them and try to find a way to justify it. (Justify isn't the right word, but it will work for now.)

Every negative piece that comes out on them, he refutes. Every single one. What BB has done for the past seven years is undefendable IMHO. He knowingly broke the rule, was caught more than once by other teams, had his camera-man kicked off the sidelines, recieved a memo from the league reminding teams the rule, and then got busted for it afterwards.

There is no 'but,' in this situation and that's exactly the position he's been taking. Yes he did it, and shouldn't have done it, BUT this is why.......

I think the biggest thing is when he started calling me an outright liar. Everyone who reads this board knows he tried telling us that they only did it once, and that was during the NY Jets game when they got caught. Now he says they did it in the open, where everyone knew about it.

Before, I made the assertion, and mistakingly attributed it to Peter King, that the league is trying to sweep the controversy under the rug. Now he brings links about the league destroying the tapes because it implimented other teams and he didn't want the media to find that info out.

So basically, now he's pushing that the league is sweeping it under the rug.

He goes from one stance to the next, whichever benefits NE, and personally I find it insulting, especially when he takes it to a personal level.

grace
02-26-2008, 03:47 PM
He's tried pushing the case on how he could have read the rule wrong now for weeks.

If I think someone intentionally cheated, how in the world do I defend them and try to find a way to justify it. (Justify isn't the right word, but it will work for now.)

Every negative piece that comes out on them, he refutes. Every single one. What BB has done for the past seven years is undefendable IMHO. He knowingly broke the rule, was caught more than once by other teams, had his camera-man kicked off the sidelines, recieved a memo from the league reminding teams the rule, and then got busted for it afterwards.

There is no 'but,' in this situation and that's exactly the position he's been taking. Yes he did it, and shouldn't have done it, BUT this is why.......

I think the biggest thing is when he started calling me an outright liar. Everyone who reads this board knows he tried telling us that they only did it once, and that was during the NY Jets game when they got caught. Now he says they did it in the open, where everyone knew about it.

Before, I made the assertion, and mistakingly attributed it to Peter King, that the league is trying to sweep the controversy under the rug. Now he brings links about the league destroying the tapes because it implimented other teams and he didn't want the media to find that info out.

So basically, now he's pushing that the league is sweeping it under the rug.

He goes from one stance to the next, whichever benefits NE, and personally I find it insulting, especially when he takes it to a personal level.

'86, the :ignore: option is a wonderful thing.

Slick Pinkham
02-27-2008, 05:29 PM
I find it insulting, especially when he takes it to a personal level.

It got personal because you continually attributed to me comments and ideas that I had not expressed on this or any other forum and insisted that they were true.

I don't plan to post on this forum again.

The Colts used to be my second favorite NFL team, and it isn't the rivalry that has changed that, it is instead the hostility of their fan base that has dropped the entire franchise several notches in my eyes. You are now just like Raiders fans, Eagles fans, Lakers fans...