In defense of Belicheat's cheating

[Ugly Duck]

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]

Seriously? That seems pretty easy to understand to me.

[BigRock]

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.

[Bugeater]

You're absolutely right. The NFL should award them several additional first round draft picks next year for their trouble.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Ugly Duck

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/footbal...aping_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]

Originally Posted by BigRock

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.

[007]

"Videotaping of any type"

Seems pretty clear to me.

[FAX]

I suppose it all depends on what your definition of including includes.

FAX

[007]

Originally Posted by FAX

I suppose it all depends on what your definition of including includes.

FAX

Damn that Bill Clinton.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Guru

"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]

Originally Posted by Guru

"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."

[007]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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]

Now Bill goes after Walsh the way Clemens went after McNamee.

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=Hyg9B...imes.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]

Well, it didn't say "THIS MEANS YOU". Gotta give him that.

[Amnorix]

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.