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

Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

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

  • #31
    Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

    All the coaches misinterpreting the rule?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    EDIT: I'm done with this. We went in circles when you wouldn't believe that he did it more times than just the NY Jets game, and you won't believe otherwise that he just made an honest error and misinterpreted the rule. It's a waste of time.
    Last edited by Since86; 02-21-2008, 03:44 PM.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
      you won't believe otherwise that he just made an honest error
      I am not defending him, I am merely telling you verbatim what the actual operations guide says, and why he says was the grey area. In was in response to people saying "how in the world could he misunderstand this rule" and then citing the memo sent out to everyone, not the actual rule.

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

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


      • #33
        Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

        Now, as for the Goodell action, I understand why he says he had the tapes destroyed -- so that if any other tapes surfaced showing illegal video of a Patriots opponent hand-signaling defensive calls into the game, he would know the Patriots hadn't been truthful when they said they'd turned over all the tapes. You're right: At the very least, it looks improper and conveys the appearance that the league is trying to cover something up. Goodell says he doesn't regret his actions, but only he knows if deep down he believes that. I believe there is some logic to destroying the tapes, though, in retrospect, it's not the route he should have taken.
        http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...bte/index.html

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

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

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

        Good day.
        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

          Originally posted by Since86 View Post

          It wasn't done openly
          fabrication

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

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


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

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

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

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

          The new sheriff in town had some battles to fight that had been ignored under Tagliabue, and this was one of them. Moral: If you get a new boss, read all the memos that his underlings send out. There may be something there that will bite you.
          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-21-2008, 07:29 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


          • #35
            Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

            I don't even need to read this thread to know how it went...
            You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

              I hadn't read this before this morning, but its from an article on USAtoday.com.

              http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...=DailyBriefing

              "Every now and then I'd get a sheet, one hour before the game, with a list of audibles for our opponent. I don't know how, but they just showed up."
              -- Former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson to USA TODAY in November 2005


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

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                I was gonna post a long drought out rebuttal, but while I was searching I found this wonderful post, and I think I'll quote it and be on my way.


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

                Even though I'm a Pats fan, I kind of wish the commish could give him another slap just for the lameness of his so-called apology.
                http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-...t=33470&page=6

                You posted that on 9-14-2007. Since it's been found out they've been doing it for SEVEN years, you've changed your tune 180 degrees.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                  Originally posted by Gyron View Post
                  I hadn't read this before this morning, but its from an article on USAtoday.com.

                  http://www.usatoday.com/sports/footb...=DailyBriefing

                  "Every now and then I'd get a sheet, one hour before the game, with a list of audibles for our opponent. I don't know how, but they just showed up."
                  -- Former Patriots linebacker Ted Johnson to USA TODAY in November 2005


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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                    If it was that easy, then how would a NFL player not know how they got them?

                    He's been around football for how many years and he's stumped about how he was given a list of audibles for the other team?
                    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                      Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                      If it was that easy, then how would a NFL player not know how they got them?

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


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

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

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                        Originally posted by Adam1987 View Post
                        Good point. I mean, he only played for the Pats for a decade.

                        If a 10 year vet is "stumped" about how he got something, then that sounds like funny business to me. If it was something that could merely be obtained by watching game film, I doubt he would be stumped about it. But then again I could be wrong.
                        Yeah, but Ted Johnson is also a disgruntled ex-player of the Pats. He blames BB for concussions he sustained during his playing days. Says that BB forced him back into the games and probably wants BB to go down so I'm sure he's going to say anything he can to make BB look bad. If Ted Johnson didn't know any audibles of the other team, he must not have practiced all week. As a defensive player, you know just about every other play the team has..it's a matter of recognizing the play and stopping it.
                        Last edited by Moses; 02-23-2008, 06:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                          Ted Johnson was interviewed by ESPN radio and addressed these allegations:

                          Originally posted by Ted Johnson
                          It's irresponsible to link my comments about receiving audibles to spygate..."

                          "in my purest heart, I never got videotapes, never saw anything like that..."
                          In short, he dismissed all these allegations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                          Originally posted by Since86
                          You posted that on 9-14-2007. Since it's been found out they've been doing it for SEVEN years, you've changed your tune 180 degrees.
                          You just somehow refuse to get it, don't you?

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

                          I don't even buy Belichick's explanation as the whole truth! I posted it because people wondered how in the world there could even BE any explanation, so I provided the technicality.
                          That is not 180 degrees different.

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

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

                          End of story.

                          Go ahead with your unshakeable false beliefs that BB is the root of all evil in the world, and that all Patriots fans believe he can never do anything wrong.
                          Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-25-2008, 10:36 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


                          • #43
                            Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                              Originally posted by pacertom View Post





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

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



                              That is not 180 degrees different.

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

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

                              End of story.

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

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

                              Let's go back to your "technicality."

                              Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.
                              What you bolded, is no it italics. What 100% clearly defines what you're questioning is what I've bolded.

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

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

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

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

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

                              Yet I'm the distortionist and the, how did you say it? Outright liar, I think it was.
                              Last edited by Since86; 02-25-2008, 01:54 PM.
                              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Belichick denies taping before 2002 Super Bowl

                                Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                                That means that you CANNOT use anything other than a Polariod-type camera or field telephones, for communications or information gathering purposes, to aid a team during the playing of the game.
                                Fixed it for you, since again you forget the last part, which totally muddies the first part.

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

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

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

                                No Patriots fan thinks Goodell is doing a good job or was smart in the way he has handled things. He screwed this up royally from day 1.
                                Last edited by Slick Pinkham; 02-25-2008, 02:57 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

                                Working...
                                X