Tweet
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
I am dying.
I am dying.
The Rules of Pacers Digest
Hello everyone,
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?"
In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.
A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.
Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.
Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.
Rule #1
Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:
"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"
"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"
"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"
"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"
"He/she is just delusional"
"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"
"I'm going to take a moment to point and
/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*""Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good?
"In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.
We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.
Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.
That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.
A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.
There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.
Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.
In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.
Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.
If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!
All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.
Rule #2
If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.
The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.
The right places to do so are:
A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.
B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.
If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.
Rule #3
If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.
When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:
A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.
B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.
To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!
Rule #4
Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.
Rule #5
When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.
An example:
If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:
http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star
Rule #6
We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.
The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.
Rule #7
Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.
It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).
We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).
However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.
Rule #8
We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.
Rule #9
Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.
Rule #10
We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.
Rule #11
Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less
-
You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?eref=T1
PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Wide receiver Hines Ward suspects the New England Patriots may have had some type of inside information on the Pittsburgh Steelers before at least one of the teams' two AFC championship game matchups since the 2001 season.
Ward is certain the Patriots, while known for the thoroughness of their scouting under coach Bill Belichick, had some kind of unusual help before their 24-17 upset victory in Pittsburgh in the January 2002 AFC championship game. The Patriots went on to win the first of their three Super Bowls.
"Oh, they knew," Ward said Wednesday. "They were calling our stuff out. They knew, especially that first championship game here at Heinz Field. They knew a lot of our calls. There's no question some of their players were calling out some of our stuff."
NFL security officers confiscated a video camera and tape from Patriots video assistant Matt Estrella while he was working on the New York Jets' sideline during New England's 38-14 victory on Sunday. The league has confirmed that it is investigating whether the Patriots were taping the Jets' defensive coaches as they signaled to players on the field.
On Tuesday, Steelers first-year coach Mike Tomlin, who wasn't around for those AFC championship games, said "when there's smoke, there's fire" of widespread suspicion some NFL teams use spying tactics.
The Patriots also beat the Steelers 41-27 in the January 2005 AFC championship game, though that victory was so convincing it would be difficult to pin it on cheating.
Still, Ward said he is disappointed there are allegations that any NFL team may have resorted to spying to gain an edge.
"You would hope that, during their run, when they were winning all their [three] Super Bowls, all that stuff wasn't going on," Ward said. "You look back in the past, and we played them in the championship games, and you kind of wonder. It seemed like they were a step ahead of us at all times, but those games are behind us. There's nothing we can do about it. You just look forward and see what the commissioner [Roger Goodell] will do."
Ward said any team caught spying should give up high draft picks.
"It's really hard to say [they should] forfeit games," Ward said. "Draft picks would hurt a lot of teams; take away their first or second-round pick -- that would be a stiff penalty to make sure nobody does it again."
Steelers cornerback Deshea Townsend also felt suspicious, if only for one play he didn't identify, during one of the AFC title games.
That led quarterback Ben Roethlisberger to joke, "If they cheated during our AFC championship game (in 2005), so we should get a Super Bowl ring."
Roethlisberger has given little thought to the possibility the Patriots may have had an unfair advantage against Pittsburgh.
"No, it's actually the farthest thing from my mind. I don't think it's been in the front of too many people's mind," he said.
Pro Bowl nose tackle Casey Hampton also downplayed the cheating talk, saying scouting is so through in the NFL that it's difficult to fool any team.
"In this league, everybody knows what everybody's going to run. It's just a matter of stopping it," he said. "The bottom line is you watch enough film and you know where guys are and where they're coming from."
Dick Hoak, the NFL's most tenured assistant coach before retiring this year after 35 seasons, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette the Steelers once received a suspicious video tape by mistake from an opposing team during a routine tape exchange.
The tape focused on a coach making hand signals from the sideline, Hoak said, but the Steelers did not report the tape to the NFL.Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
Good article by SI's Dr. Z. Hard to find someone that loves football and cares less about individual teams than him.....(stupid font, go back to normal......)
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?eref=T1
Smooth criminals
Patriots bring cheating in the NFL into modern era
Posted: Thursday September 13, 2007 12:42PM; Updated: Thursday September 13, 2007 1:04PM
Sure, people cheat in sports. In baseball they steal signals. In football they bring in a guy for a week, someone who was just cut by the team they're going to play, pump him for information and let him go on Monday. They'll even plant spies at each other's practices.
But the things that make this Patriots flap so bothersome are the following:
• The arrogance of the organization, the smugness. We are the greatest, with the greatest coach, a genius, etc. What other team ever had its owner, Bob Kraft in this case, take the Super Bowl trophy overseas in the name of world peace. What'll he take this year, the videos of the defensive signals?
• The fact that this is nothing new. Stories are now coming out of the woodwork that cheating has been a normal modus operandi with this club.
• Good old street crime is one thing. It goes with the history of sports. But this video thing lifts it to a new level of electronic surveillance and into the realm of the hi-tech, white collar crime that we all hate. Put these guys on the business page, for God's sake. There's no place for them in sports.
Last year the Lions played the Patriots in Foxboro. At one point their coach, Rod Marinelli, phoned up to the press box, "There's a camera pointed right at our defensive coach making his calls. Is that allowed?" A Lions' employee called the NFL booth. No, it certainly was not. So the videotaper was stopped. Then after a while he began again. The same process was repeated and he was asked to stop again. Now that's dedication.
"You don't really know for sure," Marinelli said. "I mean you don't know whether he might be doing something for NFL Films or a coaches' show or whatever."
"At one point we had a good drive going against the Patriots," said one Lion who doesn't want his name involved in this mess, but was willing to talk about it. "Mike Martz really had 'em going. They were getting fouled up, lining up wrong, we were moving the ball. Then boom, the headset from the sidelines to the coaches' booth goes out.
"Next possession we were moving the ball again and the same thing happened. You know it only takes two or three plays to mess up a drive."
Matt Millen, the Lions' GM, was talking to Bengals' coach Marvin Lewis at the league meetings. He started telling him the story.
"Yeah, I know," Lewis said. "Headset went out. It happened to me in Foxboro, too."
Marinelli was the defensive line coach in Tampa Bay when the Bucs beat the Patriots in the 2000 regular season opener and did a good job controlling New England's offense. After the game the Patriots' offensive coach, Charlie Weis, was overheard congratulating the Bucs' defensive coordinator, Monte Kiffin.
"We knew all your calls, and you still stopped us," Weis said. "I can't believe it."
He couldn't believe it because the Patriots had videotaped all of the defensive signals in their last preseason game, which was against the Bucs.
The stories are all coming out now, but why hadn't all this been reported to the league office before this?
"At the time, you never know for sure," Millen said. "And if you don't know it at the time, then you don't feel right reporting it later."
As a former Patriots employee, Jets coach Eric Mangini must have known what was going on. So why didn't he have some kind of system of dummy calls set up to foul up the video surveillance?
"He did," says a former Patriots employee whose name cannot be used for obvious reasons. "He had three sets of signals being given, one real, two dummy. He had the same thing going when he beat the Patriots last year. But still, it means extra work, changing the way you prepare for a game. It means both clubs are not playing on the same level field, and that's what's wrong about it."
I asked the former Patriot, who knows the organization well, if Mangini could in any way be held responsible for being part of a system that encouraged cheating. He paused for a moment to decide how to get this right.
"You have to understand that organization," he said. "You have to understand how incredibly tight the ring is. Information is not just passed around. Even if you might be aware of something, you're not going to know exactly how everything works. Eric was an employee there. He was not privy to every decision. His own operation was clean. Sure, he knew other stuff was going on, but how was he supposed to handle it?
"The amazing thing is the incredible arrogance they showed, coming into Giants Stadium, facing an organization with all those ex-Patriots employees, and still trying to cheat."
Here's a hard question. How tainted does Tom Brady now become, as the quarterback who was the recipient of stolen goods?
"That's a tough one," my source said. "Tom also is an employee there. He does what he's told. I'll say this about Tom Brady. Not only is he an employee, but he's a damn good quarterback and a fine person."
Everyone is secretly enjoying seeing the mighty Patriots being brought to earth.
"Irony, that's what my father loved best," said Art Rooney Jr., the Steelers' former player personnel director. "This would have been perfect for him."
Just as much fun is speculating about the severity of the penalty the league will issue, from a slap on the wrist -- such as a fine -- to a loss of draft choices, to a punishment in the old style. How does a public flogging and some time in the stocks sound?
"What the league ought to do," Raiders owner Al Davis once said about an earlier infraction, "is create its own jailhouse, the Official NFL Prison, out in the Mojave desert somewhere, like Barstow. Then if someone is really guilty of something, they can say, 'OK, two weeks in the joint for you.'"
Davis once was considered the king of the cheaters. As a beat reporter covering the Jets, my trips to Oakland were like a journey to a war zone. One widely believed story was that the visiting teams' locker room was bugged.
"Nah, I don't believe that," said Ron Wolf, who was Davis' personnel man for a number of years. "I mean what would he really find out? But there was a feeling around the place that all the offices were bugged."
Then there was the suspicion that the field, which was below sea level to begin with, was secretly watered to slow down the speed teams. That one never was proved, either, but on one Saturday, when the Jets were going through their workout, a maintenance crew started rolling a tarp across the Oakland Coliseum field.
"Take one more step," defensive coach Walt Michaels said, raising his cleats, "and I'll punch a hundred holes in this thing." The workmen backed off.
And some years later, when Michaels was the Jets' head coach, his team was facing the Raiders in a playoff game in Oakland. At halftime a goofy fan somehow got through to Michaels on the Jets' locker room phone.
"I knew who it was and his name was Al Davis," was the way the coach began his postgame press conference.
Then there was the trip -- when Joe Willie was the Jets quarterback -- during which the Jets found some extra company on their bus from practice to the hotel, the Edgewater Hyatt in Oakland. I was sitting up front, talking to Weeb Ewbank. All of a sudden the coach's face froze. His jaw started quivering in anger.
"Schleicher ... Schleicher," he growled. "Damn you Schleicher, get off this bus. Driver, stop the bus!"
Sitting in the seat right across the aisle from me was gigantic Maury Schleicher, an ex-Chargers linebacker, one of Al's boys. He had planted him on the Jets' bus.
"Weeb, we're right in the middle of the highway," he pleaded.
"Off, get off! Now!"
My last vision of Maury Schleicher was him standing by the side of Route 17, trying to thumb a ride.
"Coaches get paranoid," Rooney said. "Chuck Noll always used to worry that the other team had spies in the crowd at our training camp. So he took the numbers off all the rookies. I'd say to him, 'Coach, I'm not going to know who they are.' He'd say, 'Nah, we know all those guys.'
"I swear, there were times when I think we kept the wrong player."
Still unanswered in this controversy is the question of how the Patriots' videotaping system really worked. The cameraman, whose name is Matt Estrella, would have had to have worked fast, recording hand signals and matching them with his own down and distance comments, which were recorded, thereby establishing a little glossary before they could be used. Then, after he'd gotten the signal, he'd have to make contact with the offensive coach, who would have to get the message to the quarterback, all in the space between plays.
"You have to wonder how much all this really would help," Millen says. "If you've done your film study, you should have a pretty good idea, from the personnel on the field and the tendencies they've shown, what they're going to be in."
"What it does," said our ex-Patriots source, "is give the other team extra work, and as I said, that creates a playing field that's not level for both teams."
The Jets beat the Patriots with an exotic blitz package in their first meeting last season. In the next game, New England attacked it by going with a no-huddle, which, combined with the Jets' concern about running their dummy signals, put an undue strain on the New York defense. This time New England went with a maximum security package to control the feared blitzes.
Max security was brought about in most dramatic fashion by the old Greatest Show, the St. Louis Rams, coordinated by Martz. It was, in fact, my favorite play that this high-powered offense ran. Bring in the big guys, 290-pound tight end Manumaleuna, and 270-pound fullback Hodgins, build a wall around Kurt Warner, send only two guys out, Bruce and Holt, each running like hell downfield, and, fortified by plenty of time to throw the ball, let 'er fly. Never mind how many people were covering downfield. A real schoolyard play, but terrific to watch.
And that's what New England had prepared for the Jets. They loaded up with 280-pound tight end Kyle Brady or 330-pound extra tackle Ryan O'Callaghan, gave Brady an hour to throw the ball, which also allowed his receivers to clear any kind of coverage. What does the defense do in a situation like this? Well, Arizona beat the Giants one year by outguessing them when they max-protected. Rather than wasting blitzers on a wall like that, the Cardinals rushed fewer people and dropped everyone into coverage and had them popping up in odd lanes -- two receivers, in other words, trying to beat the coverage of eight people. Warner, who was the Giants' QB in those days, and his receivers were overmatched. The Patriots weren't because they had Randy Moss.
The showpiece play of the day was his 51-yard TD, which has been described as a one-man pattern, although there probably was some minimal action taking place on the other side. It was a freak play. Moss blew by a half-hearted bump by rookie corner Darrelle Revis and ran a gliding, meandering, crossing pattern that took a while to develop -- past LB Jonathan Vilma, who said a quick hello and goodbye, past safety Erik Coleman, who got a good look at the number on Moss' back, past the corner on the other side, David Barrett, who came over to see what all the excitement was about, and in for six. To old subway riders it was like the A train on the express track between 59th and 125th ... past 72nd, click, past 81st, click, 86th, click ...
Was this the result of sign-stealing? Maybe that's what the Patriots will argue about when they face Sheriff Goodell, that this was just normal, not abnormal, strategy, and spectacular individual effort.
Everyone has stories about picking up tips and hints. Mike Reinfeldt, who's now the Titans' GM, once figured out the Bengals' run or pass tendencies when he was a Raiders safetyman.
"He told me," Ron Wolf said, "that he could tell by the way Bob Trumpy, their tight end, put his hand on the ground before the snap. He could see by the pressure."
Once I was involved in one of these things myself. I covered Houston's victory over San Diego in the 1979 Divisional Playoff. An Oilers safetyman named Vernon Perry intercepted four Dan Fouts passes that afternoon, and my story was that Houston had stolen the Chargers signals. A Cincinnati writer ripped me to shreds in print, saying that I'd gotten together with Houston's defensive coordinator Eddie Biles and cooked up the story in an effort to get the head coaching job for Biles.
Actually it was Gregg Bingham, an Oilers linebacker, who had told me about it, in the locker room, without spelling out how it worked. I found out when I ran into Bingham in a bar in the off-season.
"Very simple," he said. "We read Fouts' feet before the snap. When they were square, he would hand off on a running play. When one was behind the other, it was going to be a pass. Worked every time."
A simpler era. A happier one. No fancy electronics. No white collar NFL crime.Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
Douches. That whole organization.Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
Originally posted by Moses View PostHaven't we learned many times before that some guys are perfect for the backseat?
Romeo is doing awful in Cleveland, but so did Bill, so what's the difference? Bill was actually ran out of the city.
Charlie is trying to win with Ty's last recruited players, all of whom suck to the tenth degree. He's landed one of the best recruiting classes, and continues to sign big name players. The jury isn't even close to giving a decision on the job he's doing.
But whatever, neither matters. Some people are coordinators, and great ones at that, but can't run their own team worth a lick.“Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
Originally posted by Since86 View Post
That is a great point. And look at our own Tom Moore, for example.
Brilliant offensive coordinator. Would he make a great head coach? I really don't know. I doubt he would be as effective a head coach as he is brilliant offensive coordinator.
Romeo and Weiss were great in NE. And I think Weiss will be fine at ND.Last edited by Sollozzo; 09-13-2007, 03:05 PM.Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
Originally posted by naturallystoned View Post
You stole
motto.
Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
Because being a great coordinator automatically means being a great head coach.Originally posted by Moses View Post
Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
Who said anything about great?Originally posted by Indy View PostBecause being a great coordinator automatically means being a great head coach.
They aren't even average at this point in time. I agree that the jury is still out on both of them, but don't use them as the main references as to why we won 3 SBs. If you haven't noticed, the Pats have been fine without them. We've had a depleted secondary overachieve for the past 2 years and we had one of the worst WR tandems in the league last year look pretty good...and thats mainly due to Belichick. You can't deny Belichick is a great coach. And whether you like it or not, he will be going into the hall of fame when he retires.Last edited by Moses; 09-13-2007, 06:25 PM.Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
If it makes you feel better,Originally posted by grace View PostYou stole motto. probably stole the motto first.
Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
Cleveland hated the team because they were leaving the city. They hated Belichick because he decided Bernie Kosar couldn't play anymore. They had little talent, Bill had no control over the roster, they had no home field advantage to speak of and went 7-9Originally posted by Since86 View Post
Bill was fired, they moved to Baltimore, and put up 4, 6, and 6 wins.
Bill says he learned a lot by not succeeding in Cleveland (mainly to have input on roster decisions), but to paint it as a colossal failure is a stretch.The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
And the 80's era Bengals had the two best ever - Lindy Infante on offense and Dick LeBeau on defense.Originally posted by Since86 View Post
I just wish Dick hadn't gone back to the Bengals in the late 90s, the Steelers might be working on winning ring #8 or #9 by now.
As for the 2001 AFC championship game, that was all Kordell Stewart throwing away several chances to tie the game in the fourth quarter.
The 2005 Championship, they just plain kicked our *** but with a rookie QB and relatively young team, 15-1 and the AFC Title Game was probably the right outcome for that team.Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you
Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...=98126&id=3237The NFL is reportedly considering suspending coach Bill Belichick two or three games and stripping the organization of a first-round pick after the Patriots were found to be videotaping Jets defensive coaches in Week 1.
Sources tell SI.com's Don Banks and Peter King that the league will hand down disciplinary action on Friday. The NFL has reportedly ruled out forcing the Pats to forfeit their 38-14 win over the Jets, but will "definitely" strip them of a first-day draft choice. If Belichick is suspended, he'll be banned from games and practices until the suspension is up, and will not be paid. Sep. 13 - 7:03 pm et
Ouch on the first rounder. Hopefully Belichick is suspended after the San Diego game..if he is suspended at all.
Also, did anyone happen to catch what LT2 said about the Pats cheating? Who is he to condemn the Patriots when his teammate was juicing? What a joke.Last edited by Moses; 09-13-2007, 08:03 PM.Comment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
UPDATE:
http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...=98133&id=3237NFL fined Patriots coach Bill Belichick $500,000, the maximum amount according to league policy, for the use of equipment to videotape the Jets' defensive calls in Week 1.
The Patriots will also lose a first-round pick in 2008 and be forced to pay $250,000 if they make the playoffs. Sep. 13 - 8:33 pm etComment
-
Re: Pats suspected of stealing Jets' signals
Fines mean nothing to the fans or the other teams. The loss of a first-rounder is good, but there should have been at least one more pick forfeited, and Belichick should have been suspended 1-2 games.Comment
Comment