Announcement

Collapse

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.
See more
See less

So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
    You might as well be a Barry Bonds fan saying that him using steroids is legit and excuseable as well.
    Backing someone taking substances specifically banned by the Federal government, whose distribution, possession, and use are all FELONIES, and lying about them under oath to a Federal Grand jury (another FELONY) and continuing to deny any responsibility at all for is own actions,

    is somehow equivalent to believing that the last six words of the taping law might be misinterpreted to mean "don't use tape within a game to help you make adjustments?"

    OK...
    Hmmm...


    The six words of the NFL taping law that were misinterpreted are BOLDED, to help you out:
    "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 realize there was a follow-up memo, and if you are interested in the exact language of all the laws, memo, etc. you can read them and see all the direct links here: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-...ad.php?t=82481

    BB explained the misinterpretation. You can accept it or not, and many do not. Even most Patriots fans suspect that he knew that he was operating in the gray area, being in his mind within the letter of the law but certainly not within the spirit and the intent of the law.

    Unlike you, apparently, I don't equate his "crime" to Barry Bonds knowingly committing actual felonies, never admitting his guilt, and lying about his criminal behavior under oath before a Federal Grand Jury.

    As a violation, this is just a bit below the level of the general managers of the Bronchos and 49ers being busted for circumventing salary cap rules. You can guarantee there was absolutely no misinterpretation there, and there was a direct benefit: extra monies freed up to add players to a team that could not possibly be there otherwise.

    Belichick deserved his harsh punishment back in September when he admitted to taping from 2000-2007, and everyone in the NFL seemed to accept his & Robert Kraft's more detailed apologies in the Spring 2008 NFL owners meeting. Now it is over and some people need to let it go and stop exaggerating the seriousness of his offense and pretending that taping defensive signals was at the very core of establishing a 7-year dynasty and he somehow "got off easy" after this long painful public humiliation.
    Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-16-2008, 09:48 AM.
    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


    • #62
      Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

      Why do I keep opening this thread?

      Here is what every conversation has said since it was announced:

      Pats Fans: They didn't do it.
      All other NFL Fans: Yes they did, they should burn in hell.
      Pats Fans: Oh, well I guess they did it, but they don't deserve that big of a punishment because they misunderstood the rules, and besides we will own everyone without the tapes anyways...
      All Other NFL Fans: BAN BILICHEAT!
      Pats Fans: The punishment was excessive, but ok, we'll take it, I mean we have another 1st round draft pick anyway.
      All other NFL Fans: THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT WITH A SLAP ON THE WRIST!
      Pats Fans: HAHA, We Roolz u, 18-0, We SMASH Giantz...
      (Story comes out)
      Pats Fans: ITS ALL LIES! We've already been punished, drop it, we still Roolz alls u's.
      All Other NFL fans: SEE WE TOLD YOU THEY WERE CHEATERS! BAN BILICHEAT!
      Pats Fans: DAMN, GIANTS KIX ***! SUXXOR!
      All other NFL fans: YES!!!! ROXXOR! GIANTS ROOLZ!
      Skip ahead 3 months of Matt Walsh and Attorney not wanting to get steam rolled by NFL attorney's.....
      Matt Walsh: I video taped Cheerleaders and Signals. Oh, and they cheated with IR list, etc.
      Goodell: ROXXOR, I will not punish Pats for same stuffs.
      ALL Other NFL fans: Pats still SUXXOR AND STILL CHEATERS! BAN BILICHEAT!
      Pats Fans: See, we ROXXOR and we will ROOLZ YOU FOR ANOTHER DECADE, WE ARE THE MOST DOMINANT TEAM OF ALL TIME!
      All other NFL Fans: YOU WILL ALWAYS BE CHEATERS!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!
      Pats Fans: NO we won't.
      All other NFL fans: YES You will!

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

        Originally posted by naturallystoned View Post
        And there's no proof saying otherwise, you guys are just bitter Colt fans...



        Yeah that's it we're bitter... I mean never mind there are tapes dating back to 2000 that clearly show the Patriots stealing other teams signals even though they claimed it was a one time thing.


        I mean we're just making that up right cuz we're bitter? Sure... and denial is a river in Egypt.


        And I really don't care about Spygate I would prefer it to just go away because I really doubt the Patriots are alone in this. Just dumb enough to get caught.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

          Originally posted by Moses View Post
          This is the central point where our opinions differ. I respect your opinion but disagree. Do you not consider athletes who juiced before it was against the rules to be cheaters?

          The only difference between the two is that one uses a camera while the other uses people. So videotaping vs sitting up in the team booth with binoculars watching the sideline for signals they recognize. It really is close to the same thing in my mind. I understand that one is not against the written rules, but it really ought to be if videotaping is. They are both using different means to get to the same end. Again, I understand it is allowed, but I am asking you for your opinion..should it really be allowed? This is a forum after all..we aren't here to talk specifically about the rules..we are here to speak our minds as well.
          I'm stating the rules of what is and isn't allowed. If it's within the rules, it's fair game, as far as the league is concerned.

          Whether you agree or disagree with the rules is a moot point.

          To compare it back to Bonds, it would be like digging up a quote from another player who's talking about taking creatine. Steroids are banned, but creatine is allowed while both are performance enhancers.

          As long as the league allows it then it's fair game. Once it's against the rule's then it's cheating.

          As far as my personal opinion, I'm torn on the issue whether or not it should be allowed.

          On one hand I think it's fine because it's open to human interpretation at that very instant. You can't rewind the tape and see it again, to make sure you got it perfectly right. It would also be impossible to regulate. I think that's the biggest reason why it's not against the rules, and I think that's exactly why they're putting mics in defensive players helmets now.

          Which brings me to the other side.

          I'm against it because I think sports should be pure. I think the best thing about sports is the chess match between teams, using instinct and experience to react to what is happening. When you know what's coming, you don't have to react as much because it's like running a play in practice. You know what defense their going to run before you snap the ball, you know exactly where the soft spots are to exploit.

          I understand why it's not against the rules, but I would rather see it banned as well. But again, it really doesn't matter at this moment because it is within the rules. I may not like it, or agree with it, but teams have every opportunity to steal signals if they don't tape them.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

            PT, there is no perfect comparison to the situation. Find me a better one and I'll use it, but for right now can you take the actual federal law side out of it. Right now we're talking about what is and isn't allowed by the league, not laws.

            As far as the 'misinterpretation,' no one believes it but you. Since you want to dig up Walsh quotes, maybe you can find the one where he says that he knows BB knew exactly that it was against the rules because of the lengths they had to go to, to keep from getting caught.

            If a team can kick the guys who are doing it out of the stadium, then you know you're not allowed to be doing what you're doing.

            When that lame *** excuse came out, you actually said you didn't buy it.
            Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

              Originally posted by Since86 View Post
              PT, there is no perfect comparison to the situation. Find me a better one and I'll use it.
              I already did-- the fines and draft picks taken from the Bronchos and 49ers for knowingly circumventing the salary cap and hiding millions in payroll to beef up their rosters and win NFL championships.

              Both offenses are significantly worse than Belichick's, but it is as close as I can come. I also bet that without Google, nobody can name the 49ers and Brochos GMs who were punished (I can't either).

              It seems to me that if you are trying Bill Belichick for crimes against humanity, then you must also hold them in a similar position.

              Pats Fans: They didn't do it.

              ...they don't deserve that big of a punishment because they misunderstood the rules

              The punishment was excessive

              HAHA, We Roolz u, 18-0, We SMASH Giantz...
              These are all statements that I have never made (Moses either) and in fact I don't know anyone who would agree with any one of those statements, ever.


              ITS ALL LIES! We've already been punished, drop it
              If by "all" you are referring to the Super Bowl week controversy swirling around an alleged Rams walk-through tape ("spygate II"), then that characterization of my opinion is entirely accurate. If by 'all" you are referring to sideline taping of hand signals, then you are wrong since that has never been denied.

              The fact that "spygate II" is all lies has also been verified, by no less by the person who fabricated the story, John Tomase of the Boston Herald (some highlights of his article below):

              I could not have been more wrong. I regret it, and that’s something I’m going to have to live with for the rest of my life. There was no tape made of the walkthrough...

              On Feb. 2, I let you all down. Today I hope to begin the long road back...

              (addendum)I must apologize to the Patriots in general and the Kraft family in particular. My story contributed to much of the heat the organization has taken over the last three months, and my hope is that the message of their exoneration eventually receives the same attention as the presumption of their guilt.

              Secondly, I owe an apology to head coach Bill Belichick, his staff, and every player from that 2001 team and the two more Super Bowl champs since. They did not deserve to have their accomplishments falsely called into question, and I plan to apologize in person to as many of them as I can.

              Thirdly, I owe an apology to Patriots fans, over 1,000 of whom have e-mailed since Feb. 2 to express their displeasure at the story’s timing and content. I recognize the pall that story cast over Super Bowl Sunday and it’s something I regret deeply.
              Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-16-2008, 03:08 PM.
              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


              • #67
                Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                Its funny, I make a joke, and purposely over exagerate the statements and you still find the need to argue the statements that were clearly in jest.....

                I'm nominating you for most argumentative next year. You're arguing with a JOKE......

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                  Sorry Gyron.

                  I could see it as serious if one were to presume as genuine some of the "Patriots fans" who used to post at the old Indy Star forum. I'm talking about multiple people who took just crazy over-the-top pro-Patriot stances, intended to get everyone riled up, and then logged in on their main Colts ID (same IP addy) to argue with what they themseleves had posted posing as a fake Patriots fan.

                  ----
                  this is interesting though:

                  Jim Nance: this was a media feeding frenzy based upon a huge lie, and it may have been the X-factor that changed the outcome of the Super Bowl (aside: I'm not sure I'd go that far, frankly, but who knows?).

                  He then goes on the compare the irresponsible media to the same type of lie-fueled feeding frenzy seen in the Duke LaCrosse case.

                  http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80855f35
                  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


                  • #69
                    Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                    "I made a mistake," Belichick said. "I was wrong. I was wrong."

                    During Walsh's entire time with the team, Belichick said he operated under the belief that the NFL's bible - its constitution and bylaws - allowed taping as long as it wasn't used to aid a team during the playing of a game.

                    He says Walsh was instructed to shoot the game, including hand signals, in plain sight, wearing Patriots gear. And he provided the video to the league - and CBS News - as evidence.

                    "Why would Matt Walsh say he was told by his superiors to avoid detection, not wear Patriots clothing, and to lie about what he was shooting?" Keteyian asked Belichick.

                    "I never told anybody to do that," Belichick said. "All I can tell you is what the facts are. You look at the tape. You see him filming the game. You tell me how discreet it is."

                    There was no deception," Belichick said...

                    "I don't know what his agenda is, and again, he was fired for poor job performance," Belichick said. "There's not a lot of credibility. You know he's tried to make it seem like we're buddies and belong to the same book club and all that. And that's really a long, long stretch."

                    Belichick says Walsh was in no position to know.

                    "For him to talk about game-planning and strategy and play-calling and how he advised co-ordinators, is - it's embarrassing; it's absurd," Belichick said. "He didn't have any knowledge of football. He was our third video assistant."

                    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4104058.shtml
                    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


                    • #70
                      Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                      CBS edited out a bombshell: the source of the walkthrough tape rumor was indeed Matt Walsh, according to Bill Belichick himself. Belichick confirmed that Walsh told others in the organization that he had made such a tape.

                      hers's thefull transcript, which includes this news, details about his interpretation of the rules, how Walsh on multiple occasions has been caught in telling "revised versions" of his story, and specifics on how, when, and why the tapes were used.

                      http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal.../reiss_pieces/

                      The following is a transcript after listening to the full interview between Patriots Bill Belichick and Armen Keteyian of CBS during a 14-minute interview posted on CBS’ website:

                      What are your overall thoughts to Matt Walsh’s comments?
                      “I’m not really sure where to start. I think, first of all, go back to when he was here and was fired for poor job performance, and then for secretly audio-taping a conversation with his boss. More than one person has told me that he said, after Super Bowl XXXVI, that he had videotaped the Rams walkthrough practice. Now that story has changed. It seems like he has an agenda. I’m not really sure, I don’t know. Three-and-a-half months after that [Boston Herald] story was out, he could have said what he said last week [earlier]. But there was quite a bit – over 100 days had passed – so I’m not sure what the agenda is. He’s had a way of embellishing stories and that continues to be the case. I don’t know the answer to those questions.”

                      What is your personal feeling about Matt Walsh right now?
                      “Well, that things seem to be shifting, things seem to be embellished, and he’s made some comments relative to me that I don’t how, or why, he’d come up with those. We didn’t really have much of a relationship at all when he was here. He was in the opposite end of the building, on a different floor. We very rarely saw or talked to each other. For him to represent how I felt, what I thought, or what I did, I don’t know where that would possibly come from. The fact that he has tried to make it seem like we were buddies and belonged to the same book club is really a long, long stretch.”

                      In a statement, this organization questioned “the truthfulness of many of Matt Walsh’s statements.” What do you think he’s lying about?
                      “He’s changed a lot of things he’s said. Whatever his testimony was to the league, most recently, that is kind of the latest version of it.”

                      [B]Is there a specific example to what you think he’s lying about when he talks about how this organization was deceptive, and the way his taping was set up?
                      “That was never the case. He was in full Patriots gear. I can show you videos of him doing his job, during the game, shooting the shot that he shot in the end zone – the kickers, the tight [shot] on the quarterback, and at times [opposing teams’] signals. We weren’t trying to be discreet about it. Again, in all honesty, we felt like what we were doing was OK.”

                      Walsh said it was arrogant of you to say you misinterpreted NFL rules, and that you said that this illegal taping was of little value – 1 out of a scale of 100 – and that his feeling was that it may very well be the reason you won three Super Bowls.
                      “First of all, I’ll start it back first – the reason you win football games is because of players. Players make plays on the field to win games, and that’s how you win them. They’re the ones that win games. But there are a lot of things that go into preparation for a game – it’s a mosaic. There are hundreds of things. In our case, sometimes signals are involved, sometimes they’re not.”

                      Let me go back to the specific thing that Walsh said. He said it was arrogant of you to say you misinterpreted NFL rules.
                      “My interpretation of the NFL rules came from the Constitution & Bylaws. I think it’s paragraph 14 there, the Constitution & Bylaws states, very clearly, that you can not use any type of videotaping device or anything like that, from the start of the game, to the conclusion of the game. That was never done. We never ever, ever used any of the videotaping in any way during the course of any game. That’s what I felt like I was in compliance with, and that’s what my basis for really everything that we’ve done in terms of competing in the National Football League.”

                      I have a copy of those Constitution & Bylaws. It’s article 9, 14b, 14. It ends with “during the playing of a game”. So that’s what you base your defense on – that the taping was legal under NFL bylaws and constitution as long as you were not using it during the playing of a game?
                      “It was never used during the playing of a game. Never. Now, subsequently, there was a memo that Ray Anderson sent out at the beginning of the 2006 season, and that was an error on my part. I take full accountability for that. At that point, I feel like I should have gone to the league. I made a mistake. I should have gone to the league and said ‘Look, are we OK doing this, even though we’re not using it within the game?’ I didn’t do that. We continued to do what we had done previously, at times. It wasn’t every game, but it was a significant number, and did it based on the Constitution – and feeling that as long as we weren’t using it during the game that it was OK.”

                      When you say it was a significant number – from September of ’06 to when you were finally caught in September of ’07 – how many games?
                      “I don’t know. Probably more than half, I would say.”

                      That September of 2006 memo states “videotaping of any kind, including but 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 members during the game.” That seems pretty crystal clear to any kind of misinterpretation.
                      “Yeah. Again, during the game.”

                      It says “during the game”. But it does not say “during the playing of a game.” Different.
                      “Right. Clearly it was a mistake.”

                      Some people would say that mistake is just flat out cheating.
                      “Again, I go back to the Constitution & Bylaws. That overrode it. I interpreted it incorrectly. I was wrong and we were penalized for it.”

                      Heavy penalized in your mind? Unfairly penalized in your mind?
                      “It doesn’t really make any difference. It wasn’t my penalty. It was the commissioner’s decision. Whatever it was, that’s what it was.”

                      Others have argued that you chose to gamble, to risk breaking the rules, and got caught – and that it wasn’t a misinterpretation of any kind.
                      “I can’t control what other people think out there. I’m telling you what happened, and that’s what happened. I think if that was our intent then we would have done it in a more discreet way. We were open about it. We had instances where opposing coaches actually turned and waved at the camera. They saw it. There were other teams that we felt like were doing it. Again, look, in preparation for a game, the signals that a coach gives out there, everybody can see. We’ve had coaches in the press box take notes of those signals. We videotaped them. It wasn’t anything that wasn’t visible or wasn’t available. We did it in a way that was more convenient and in a way that we could study a little better. But those signals are available to anybody that wants to see them.”

                      Can I go back to Matt Walsh and his departure? Do you feel what he is saying, in any way, is payback for being fired by this organization?
                      “You’d have to talk to him about that. I don’t know what his…”

                      You have to have an opinion.
                      “Again, I had very little contact with Matt. I didn’t know him personally. As I said, I don’t know if I could recognize him, and I don’t think I could have prior to his recent publicity. So what his agenda is, what his reasons are and so forth, that’s something you’d have to ask him.”

                      Can you clarify what happened with those tapes once they went to Ernie Adams?
                      “Yeah, absolutely. He looked at them and it was, again, a mosaic. It was compiled, it was put in together with a lot of other information about what the team did, and our preparation for the game. But I met with the quarterbacks twice a week. When Charlie [Weis] was the offensive coordinator, Josh [McDaniels] was the offensive coordinator, [Tom] Brady – there were not quarterback/Ernie Adams/Bill Belichick/offensive coordinator meetings where we sat down and looked at signals and made up game-plans based on that. That didn’t happen. It didn’t happen. Ernie looked at them. At times there was some information that came out of it, he used it. That’s how it was done. It was one part of a very broad – hundreds of things that are put into preparation and game-planning. So there was no ‘OK, we’re going to sit down here on this day and have this meeting, and there are the signals, and here are the plays we’re going to run and all that’. That never happened.”

                      So there was no calculated, deliberate system put in place to take advantage of this illegal taping?
                      “No, because you can’t take advantage of signals. You don’t know whether they are ever going to be available or not. They can change them. They can use wristbands. They can have somebody stand in front of the person that is signaling them. We signal all the time. We’re always protective of our signals. We change them on a regular basis. We have people screen the signal-caller and we use wristbands. We protect them, just like a third-base coach does. I think most teams in the league do that.”

                      Some might argue that in a game of inches – putting that type of information, where you can decode signals, come up with specific plays to use in real-time during a game, is pure gold in the NFL, and could be the difference between winning and losing.
                      “Again, you can get those same signals by sitting up in the press box and writing down what the signal is, and what the play was, and doing it that way. Those signals are available to anybody who wants to see them.”

                      Then why do it from the sidelines?
                      “It was a more convenient way to study them. It wasn’t any information that isn’t available to anybody else. Anybody can sit up in the press box and watch a coach give signals.”

                      But they don’t have them on tape, where they can go back and analyze them and they can decode them. Writing them down on a piece of paper…
                      “We’re not talking about DNA. You’ve seen the signals on the sideline. You can sit there and watch them. We’ve done it without tape. We’ve done it, and every team takes an advance scout, or they have people that look at the other teams’ signals. Sometimes you can get them, sometimes they change them. Signaling defenses and personnel, and all that, that is part of football. And everybody is available to see those signals. It’s not like the other team, or the other sideline, or the press box or anybody else -- that they’re not visible. They’re available to 70,000 fans.”

                      If they weren’t of such great value to you and this organization, then why would Matt Walsh say that he was told by this superiors to avoid detection, to not wear Patriots clothing on the sidelines, and to lie if he was asked about what he was shooting?
                      “I don’t know of anybody that would have told him that. I never told anybody to tell him that. I don’t think his superiors told him to do that.”

                      You don’t think, or you don’t know, whether [video director] Jimmy Dee, his superior, told him that?
                      “He was never instructed to do that. Jimmy said that he never did that. But you can see the tapes of Matt filming the games. You can see him in the end-zone camera, shooting them. He’s as open as you can be. He’s standing there behind the camera in full Patriots gear, shooting the tapes. You can make a judgment on that, Armen. You can see him standing there in the end zone shooting it. It’s not anything discreet.”

                      Since I’m here, is there anything else you’d like to say about this to put this to rest, so to speak?
                      “Yeah, two things. I think that the players and the assistant coaches have no involvement in this whatsoever. For them to be dragged in or questioned at all on it is totally out of the scope and the realm of what this is about. I think our players and our assistant coaches work hard and they prepare hard, and they go out and do their best to win. That’s why I respect them. That’s why they’ve done as well as they have. On a going-forward basis, I think what we’ve taken from this as an organization is that we have learned from the problems we had in the fall. We’ve looked at really every single area of our operation. We’ve tried to tighten it down. We’ve tightened down our accountability. We’ve streamlined some things. We are certainly taking the extra step in every situation that we can, to make sure we are in full, complete compliance with everything we have to do, at every level. And believe me, there are a lot of things that we need to be. There is a very broad spectrum of things that you need to be in compliance with in the National Football League. Commissioner Goodell has instituted kind of an integrity and [reporting requirement] of doing it, and we’ve gone well beyond that to try to make sure we’re doing things in the right way, and I think that has been a positive step for our organization. There is more communication, there is better understanding, and we’re making sure everything is done in a totally proper and consistent way with what the league expects to be done. I think that has strengthened our organization and certainly Robert and Jonathan Kraft have gone a long way to not only supporting me and the football team, but also making sure that going forward, we’re in complete compliance with everything we need to be doing.”
                      Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 05-17-2008, 01:45 PM.
                      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


                      • #71
                        Re: So spygate ends in a wimper, not a roar

                        Can you tell me why we should believe anything Bill Belichick says? I mean, Roger Goodell himself doesn't believe Belichick's explanation for the events.

                        Belichick acknowledged that he violated NFL rules prohibiting filming opponents signals but insisted there was no intent to hide what he was doing.

                        "I made a mistake," he said in the interview. "I was wrong. I was wrong."

                        That rationale has already been rejected by NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who fined the coach $500,000 and docked the Patriots $250,000 and its first-round draft pick.

                        "I didn't accept Bill Belichick's explanation for what happened," Goodell said Tuesday, "and I still don't to this day."

                        http://sportsline.com/nfl/story/10829490

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X