PDA

View Full Version : Football In defense of Belicheat's cheating


Ugly Duck
05-19-2008, 11:39 PM
Belicheat's explanation is: "I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule."

At first it seems like a wishy-washy poor excuse. Until you read how vague the wording of the rule actually is:

"Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

After reading that weak language, we can easily see how Belicheat could be led to believe that it was OK to videotape opponent's offensive and defensive signals from the sidelines.

I don't like the guy, but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt in his innocent misinterpretation. If the NFL doesn't want signals being taped, they gotta just spell it out in black and white. They can't leave the rule as grey and vague as the wording now stands or other coaches may fall into the same trap as Belicheat.

doomy3
05-19-2008, 11:41 PM
Seriously? That seems pretty easy to understand to me.

BigRock
05-19-2008, 11:45 PM
And even if he wasn't clear on the rules, didn't the league warn him after he got caught taping the Packers in 2005 or something? I think he knew by the Jets game.

Baconeater
05-19-2008, 11:47 PM
You're absolutely right. The NFL should award them several additional first round draft picks next year for their trouble.

BucEyedPea
05-19-2008, 11:58 PM
Belicheat's explanation is: "I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule."

At first it seems like a wishy-washy poor excuse. Until you read how vague the wording of the rule actually is:

"Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

After reading that weak language, we can easily see how Belicheat could be led to believe that it was OK to videotape opponent's offensive and defensive signals from the sidelines.

I don't like the guy, but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt in his innocent misinterpretation. If the NFL doesn't want signals being taped, they gotta just spell it out in black and white. They can't leave the rule as grey and vague as the wording now stands or other coaches may fall into the same trap as Belicheat.
That's not the one that BB was referring to:

It's this:

From the league's Constitution & Bylaws:

Quote:
"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."



http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/12/videotaping_rul.html


That's what he was referring to when he said he NEVER used the tapes "during the playing of a game."


There's another rule about being able to film in another location for game film that contradicts the above two as well.


If you're a smart coach and use a lack of clarity to push the envelope it's gamesmanship, imo. BB is supposed to be known for that type of thing. It's smart. It's just the haters that see it in the worst possible light.

Stealing signals isn't illegal either, just how it's done. Stealing signals in taught in to young kids and has been done since sports started. It could have been done other ways but this was easier. It was done openly while the videotographer was in full view. If you think you're cheatin' you'd hide it a lot better I'd think.

BucEyedPea
05-20-2008, 12:02 AM
And even if he wasn't clear on the rules, didn't the league warn him after he got caught taping the Packers in 2005 or something? I think he knew by the Jets game.

That's his arrogance right there. I think he thought it was invalid as stilo. But he really should have hesistated then. He paid for that move and admits now he was wrong and should have questioned the letter. I think because things were lax under Tags so he didn't really sweat it then either.

Guru
05-20-2008, 12:03 AM
"Videotaping of any type"

Seems pretty clear to me.

FAX
05-20-2008, 12:06 AM
I suppose it all depends on what your definition of including includes.

FAX

Guru
05-20-2008, 12:07 AM
I suppose it all depends on what your definition of including includes.

FAX

Damn that Bill Clinton.

BucEyedPea
05-20-2008, 12:09 AM
"Videotaping of any type"

Seems pretty clear to me.

Sure, when you take it out of context.

They can film in other areas for game tapes.

Ugly Duck
05-20-2008, 12:11 AM
"Videotaping of any type"

Seems pretty clear to me.

Are you serious? "Videotaping of any type is prohibited" could mean many things. In Belicheat's case, he was led to believe that it meant "videotaping is not prohibited."

Guru
05-20-2008, 12:12 AM
Sure, when you take it out of context.

They can film in other areas for game tapes.

Maybe they should just replace the entire thing with....
Video taping of any type of another team

AFter week number one, there is game film available of every single team to view.

Dylan
05-20-2008, 02:25 AM
Now Bill goes after Walsh the way Clemens went after McNamee. :rolleyes:

Goodell had no problem suspending players for doing wrong outside the game. Belichick cheated from 2000 to 2007, when he finally was caught Goodell slaps him on the wrist -- as Ernie Adams weeps.

Bill Belichick’s full interview with CBS’s Armen Keteyian on Friday. He has no remorse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyg9BhqESxU&eurl=http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/?8dpc

The Fifth Down/The New York Times N.F.L. Blog

May 19, 2008, 7:01 am
The Unbelievable Bill Belichick
By Toni Monkovic

The transcript of the interview is available at the Reiss’s Pieces blog at The Boston Globe.

One passage:
Q: 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.
A: 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.

Belichick does not seem at all credible in this answer. Roger Goodell said as much in his news conference last week. Peter King isn’t buying. And neither is Bob Ryan (see below). You can judge for yourself by watching the interview. Belichick is fairly persuasive in the other points he makes, but his answer here invites this thought: What else may he be fibbing about?

Another thing comes across. Belichick seems to suggest that everyone in the coaching fraternity was winking at the rule. He probably never envisioned that Eric Mangini would have the guts to turn him in. Maybe no other coach in the league would have. In September, Michael Silver of Yahoo Sports explored the rift between the coaches.

Another issue exposed by Matt Walsh, albeit a lower-wattage transgression, was the improper use of players on injured reserve.
Excerpt from Ross Tucker’s article in SI.com:

Walsh’s comments to commissioner Roger Goodell earlier this week that New England had players on injured reserve participate in practice wasn’t news to me. I had heard the Patriots did this before I signed with them in 2005 and I saw it firsthand during my time there. I asked veteran receiver Troy Brown about it one time and he responded, “Every team in the league does that.” I quickly let him know none of the three teams I played for previously had done so.

The pattern is clear, and Ryan of The Boston Globe sums up the damage:
Here is what Bill Belichick has done: He has placed Patriots fans on the defensive for the rest of their lives.

He has been exposed as being monumentally disingenuous at best and utterly duplicitous at worst. There can no longer be any doubt that he engaged in a practice he knew was against the rules.

The big question we cannot answer is how important it all was, really. Did his illegal practice of taping opponents’ defensive signals aid his team’s chances of victory in certain games by 20 percent? Ten percent? Three percent? One-10th of 1 percent? Not at all? No one will ever know.
Right now, it doesn’t matter.

It doesn’t matter, because the only thing that does matter now is the image of the New England Patriots. The sports community now associates the Patriots with cheating. The three Super Bowl championships are, and forever will be, under suspicion. The thought will never go away.



"Sports do not build character. They reveal it." --- John Wooden

Skip Towne
05-20-2008, 06:58 AM
Well, it didn't say "THIS MEANS YOU". Gotta give him that.

Amnorix
05-20-2008, 07:21 AM
Let's be clear about this. As BEP posted, this was (and STILL IS) the rule that is in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws:

Quote:
"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."

When BB started taping in 2000, that was it -- nothing else to go on. It is **entirely** possible to read that rule as permitting taping as long as it doesn't help in that game.

Before 2006, the NFL sent around the clarification memo that was posted in the original post of this thread. AFTER that, it was perfectly clear, in my mind, that BB should have stopped taping. It was stupid of the NFL not to change their rules to better reflect what the memo said, but that doesn't absolve BB.

So, to me, what he did BEFORE 2006 has some degree of excuse. After 2006, BB has nothing to hang his hat on. The memo made it perfectly clear.

morphius
05-20-2008, 08:10 AM
I'd still be mighty interested to know if Indy was doing something similar, with them alway getting to the line so quickly it would give them the ability to relay to Peyton what the D called. Just one of those things that make me go, hmmmm.

BucEyedPea
05-20-2008, 08:18 AM
Here is the full interview of BB's explanation instead of the hatchet job on CBS who edited out big chunks.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hyg9BhqESxU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hyg9BhqESxU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Tuckdaddy
05-20-2008, 08:19 AM
Let's be clear about this. As BEP posted, this was (and STILL IS) the rule that is in the NFL Constitution and Bylaws:



When BB started taping in 2000, that was it -- nothing else to go on. It is **entirely** possible to read that rule as permitting taping as long as it doesn't help in that game.

Before 2006, the NFL sent around the clarification memo that was posted in the original post of this thread. AFTER that, it was perfectly clear, in my mind, that BB should have stopped taping. It was stupid of the NFL not to change their rules to better reflect what the memo said, but that doesn't absolve BB.

So, to me, what he did BEFORE 2006 has some degree of excuse. After 2006, BB has nothing to hang his hat on. The memo made it perfectly clear.

He's a liar and a cheat. He and his staff that new of it have no integrity.

Amnorix
05-20-2008, 08:25 AM
I'd still be mighty interested to know if Indy was doing something similar, with them alway getting to the line so quickly it would give them the ability to relay to Peyton what the D called. Just one of those things that make me go, hmmmm.

Maybe, maybe not, but their OLine coordinator, Mudd, is one of the best sign-stealers in the NFL. Because he does it with the naked eye, of course, it's perfectly legal.

Don't ask me to explain why that's legal but videotaping isn't, but that's how it is.

morphius
05-20-2008, 08:35 AM
Maybe, maybe not, but their OLine coordinator, Mudd, is one of the best sign-stealers in the NFL. Because he does it with the naked eye, of course, it's perfectly legal.

Don't ask me to explain why that's legal but videotaping isn't, but that's how it is.
LOL! I'm looking forward to the speaker in the helmet rule to see how good some of the O's are going to be without being able to see any signs.

jidar
05-20-2008, 08:52 AM
That's not the one that BB was referring to:

It's this:




http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/2007/12/videotaping_rul.html


That's what he was referring to when he said he NEVER used the tapes "during the playing of a game."


There's another rule about being able to film in another location for game film that contradicts the above two as well.


If you're a smart coach and use a lack of clarity to push the envelope it's gamesmanship, imo. BB is supposed to be known for that type of thing. It's smart. It's just the haters that see it in the worst possible light.

Stealing signals isn't illegal either, just how it's done. Stealing signals in taught in to young kids and has been done since sports started. It could have been done other ways but this was easier. It was done openly while the videotographer was in full view. If you think you're cheatin' you'd hide it a lot better I'd think.

And in truth folks, this is what's really wrong with America. This win at all costs mentality, even at the cost of your dignity and honor, If there is wriggle room or some way to get one over on somebody then take it, and the rest of us who don't see it that way are just suckers. It's the difference between people who would find a wallet and give it back compared to the ones who would keep it, or the people who would keep money from a bank error because it's the banks fault.

Everybody wants to blame a lot of things for Americas ills but I really think the decline of honor, dignity and honesty are the true root causes of all the problems from all types and classes of people. From the petty ghetto street criminal, and the money grubbing minister, to the backroom dealing white collar criminals and the corrupt politicians and finally to the cheating pro sports athletes and coaches. It's all the same.

Amnorix
05-20-2008, 09:34 AM
And in truth folks, this is what's really wrong with America. This win at all costs mentality, even at the cost of your dignity and honor, If there is wriggle room or some way to get one over on somebody then take it, and the rest of us who don't see it that way are just suckers. It's the difference between people who would find a wallet and give it back compared to the ones who would keep it, or the people who would keep money from a bank error because it's the banks fault.

Everybody wants to blame a lot of things for Americas ills but I really think the decline of honor, dignity and honesty are the true root causes of all the problems from all types and classes of people. From the petty ghetto street criminal, and the money grubbing minister, to the backroom dealing white collar criminals and the corrupt politicians and finally to the cheating pro sports athletes and coaches. It's all the same.

Give me a break. There are all kinds of stories about Halas and other great NFL coaches who did all kinds of sneaky stuff to try to gain an edge.

FAX
05-20-2008, 10:44 AM
America was built on stealing, lying, and killing, and stuff. No problem there.

This was stupid, though. The Pats organization has enough money that they could have used concealed, spy cameras and never been caught.

FAX

Skip Towne
05-20-2008, 10:46 AM
America was built on stealing, lying, and killing, and stuff. No problem there.

This was stupid, though. The Pats organization has enough money that they could have used concealed, spy cameras and never been caught.

FAX

Why didn't they?

FAX
05-20-2008, 10:48 AM
Why didn't they?

To me, that speaks in his defense. They could have used gatorade-cam, or ballboy-cam, or even cheerleader's maxipad-cam, but they went instead with a numbskull out in the open with a Circuit City special.

If they knew it was ultra-bad, I think they would have been sneakierish.

FAX

RedNeckRaider
05-20-2008, 11:01 AM
Give me a break. There are all kinds of stories about Halas and other great NFL coaches who did all kinds of sneaky stuff to try to gain an edge. All I want is my fair advantage "Weeb Ewbanks" (sp)

beach tribe
05-20-2008, 11:24 AM
Belicheat's explanation is: "I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule."

At first it seems like a wishy-washy poor excuse. Until you read how vague the wording of the rule actually is:

"Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

After reading that weak language, we can easily see how Belicheat could be led to believe that it was OK to videotape opponent's offensive and defensive signals from the sidelines.

I don't like the guy, but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt in his innocent misinterpretation. If the NFL doesn't want signals being taped, they gotta just spell it out in black and white. They can't leave the rule as grey and vague as the wording now stands or other coaches may fall into the same trap as Belicheat.

Thing is, noone believes that Belichick has the reading comprehension skills of a RaiDURs fan. Clear as a bell to me, and BB too, I'm sure.

smittysbar
05-20-2008, 11:30 AM
Belicheat's explanation is: "I felt there was a gray area in the rule and I misinterpreted the rule."

At first it seems like a wishy-washy poor excuse. Until you read how vague the wording of the rule actually is:

"Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."

After reading that weak language, we can easily see how Belicheat could be led to believe that it was OK to videotape opponent's offensive and defensive signals from the sidelines.

I don't like the guy, but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt in his innocent misinterpretation. If the NFL doesn't want signals being taped, they gotta just spell it out in black and white. They can't leave the rule as grey and vague as the wording now stands or other coaches may fall into the same trap as Belicheat.

Are you dense? It gets no more black and white then that.

RedNeckRaider
05-20-2008, 11:34 AM
Are you dense? It gets no more black and white then that.
You do know he is joking right? Raider fans hate the Patriots almost as much as they hate their AFC West rivals

FAX
05-20-2008, 11:44 AM
Poor Mr. Ugly Duck. Misunderstood once more.

But, maybe he'll grow up someday to be a beautiful swan and take his revenge by purchasing some camo, sneaking through the neighborhoods at night, and biting off the penile skin of all the doubters.

FAX

chasedude
05-20-2008, 12:08 PM
What part of "Cheating" is so hard to understand? Just like a homicide, you can't take it back so you find any and all excuses to get out of it.

BIG_DADDY
05-20-2008, 12:23 PM
I don't like the Patriots either but this story is so overblown it's ridiculous. Kind of reminds me of the the roids story that just never goes away. It's all just a big pile of dung they keep throwing at us. Almost enough to stop you from watching sports all together. ALMOST

jidar
05-20-2008, 12:54 PM
Give me a break. There are all kinds of stories about Halas and other great NFL coaches who did all kinds of sneaky stuff to try to gain an edge.

which has absolutely nothing to do with my point at all.

Ugly Duck
05-21-2008, 02:13 AM
it was perfectly clear, in my mind, that BB should have stopped taping.

Clear in your mind maybe (mighty harsh on your own coach), but its still a grey area.

Just because the NFL sez videotaping the opposition signals is prohibited doesn't neccesarily mean that videotaping the opposition signals is prohibited. Anyone could confuse those two principles.

"The signals that a coach gives out there... We videotaped them." - Bill Belicheck

"Videotaping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals is prohibited" - The NFL

cadmonkey
05-21-2008, 07:04 AM
wow, people are still dwelling on this?

Pasta Giant Meatball
05-21-2008, 10:17 AM
wow, people are still dwelling on this?

well it is kind of a big deal and the offseason so that is what people are going to discuss.