Sources: Goodell determines Pats broke rules by taping Jets' signals

[gstelmack]

Punishment is harsh, but needed to be. I don't have a problem with it.

On the headset thing, one thing I don't get is why everyone is all of a sudden going after that. Every year there are 2 or 3 games not involving the Patriots where a visiting coach complains about the comms in the stadium. All of a sudden it's the end of the world? Where has the indignation been for the last decade or more?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Punishment is harsh, but needed to be. I don't have a problem with it.

On the headset thing, one thing I don't get is why everyone is all of a sudden going after that. Every year there are 2 or 3 games not involving the Patriots where a visiting coach complains about the comms in the stadium. All of a sudden it's the end of the world? Where has the indignation been for the last decade or more?

Yeah, seems like a pretty shaky case to me.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Punishment is harsh, but needed to be. I don't have a problem with it.

On the headset thing, one thing I don't get is why everyone is all of a sudden going after that. Every year there are 2 or 3 games not involving the Patriots where a visiting coach complains about the comms in the stadium. All of a sudden it's the end of the world? Where has the indignation been for the last decade or more?

1) Because of stupid, petty jealousy.
2) Because everyone remember "that one time. . . " Not much different than a poker player who remembers all of his bad beats and never remembers his suckouts.
3) Because the Patriots got caught cheating. You suspect the guy down the street of stealing your bike. You can't prove it so you let it go. (What can you do, you have no proof) Then he gets convicted for stealing a bike. Now you have your proof. Maybe you say something.

1 and 2 are basic human nature that the Patriots will get unjustly criticized for. 3 is their own doing and something they have to be prepared for. It'll also go away if this is the only incident and if they, as expected, keep winning. If they get caught again, there will be a hell of a lot more stories than we have now. If they go 3-12 the rest of the year they'd certainly get flack. They won't cheat again and they won't go 3-12. So sit tight for a few weeks and all three of the above will go away, except by some idiots.

[Pyser]

why dont they just go to a headset type communications device for defenses, too? why should qbs be the only one who can be fed a play?

[SirFozzie]

They're going to go to it next year. Barely got voted down last year.

[JPhillips]

It'll happen soon, but it's more complicated than with QBs. What do you do for defensive packages without a MLB? What do you do if the MLB is injured and his replacement is the SLB? There are a number of practical concerns that haven't been worked out enough to get the two thirds vote.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It'll happen soon, but it's more complicated than with QBs. What do you do for defensive packages without a MLB? What do you do if the MLB is injured and his replacement is the SLB? There are a number of practical concerns that haven't been worked out enough to get the two thirds vote.

As far as I understand it, the rule doesn't say the QB gets to wear a helmet with a comm device in it, but that one offensive player gets to wear a helmet with a comm device in it (It just doesn't make any sense to have anyone but the QB with the comm device).

The rule could be the same for defenses. Just allow one player on defense wear the comm helmet, regardless of position, and mark the helmet the same way the QB has his helmet marked with a sticker on the back of it.

[Galaril]

It seems like this won't hurt the Pats so much since they got two first rounders?
And apparently Clayton at ESPN thinks so as well

"Here's the problem with Goodell's decision. Whether by design or not, the Patriots had themselves covered for such a penalty because they are so good at what they do. They acquired the 49ers' first-round pick in a trade that enabled the 49ers to select Joe Staley. They have an additional third-round pick from the Raiders in a trade. They have enough draft choices to survive the loss of one first-round choice. "

NFL Penalty for Belichick,Pats far too light.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3018407

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Galaril

It seems like this won't hurt the Pats so much since they got two first rounders?

I think it is still pretty punitive.

They are obviously well-managed and fortunate to have acquired an additional first rounder, but taking one away still takes away a lot of the flexibility they could have potentially had.

[Deattribution]

I think as long as it is stiff enough that nobody tries to do it again (which I think it is/was) that it's fair enough - nothing is going to fix whatever happen in the past, and nobody really knows what impact it had anyway.

Although I do wonder what kind of backlog of video they have and if that would still be any use. Other than that, I have no problem with it.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by miked

This is not true. Especially since the league sent out a message emphasizing that videotaping of coaches booths, signal callers, etc was not allowed. Quit saying the same furor would be over taping the hot dog vendors because it's clearly not the same thing in the eyes of the league.

You clearly can't read my post that you quoted. I said it wasn't the same thing in terms of punishment. The rule is no video equipment period. If you filmed the hot dog guy, you would break the rule. That's what I was saying. I then went on to say that the punishment should in fact be more for filming the signs because it created a competitive advantage where filming the hot dog wouldn't. You clearly can't understand the difference between degrees of punishment.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Galaril

It seems like this won't hurt the Pats so much since they got two first rounders?
And apparently Clayton at ESPN thinks so as well

"Here's the problem with Goodell's decision. Whether by design or not, the Patriots had themselves covered for such a penalty because they are so good at what they do. They acquired the 49ers' first-round pick in a trade that enabled the 49ers to select Joe Staley. They have an additional third-round pick from the Raiders in a trade. They have enough draft choices to survive the loss of one first-round choice. "

NFL Penalty for Belichick,Pats far too light.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3018407

Clayton's an idiot on this.

Basically, his point is "The Patriots should get a much stiffer penalty then say, the Raiders, because the Patriots are so much better then the Raiders"

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Surtt

I am not sure how you can say this.
At the very least you can use the lens to get a close up view. In addition you can study them at leisure and match them up to the defensive play. It would not help real time. but the next time they played it would.

You are correct. I was only looking at it in terms of that particular game. Clearly, the more I think about it, there would definitely be an advantage for the next game. Judging by Belichick's second apology, this is clearly what was happening. It was providing an advantage for the next game -- mostly division rivals and teams they met later in the playoffs. To me now, this makes it worse than I originally thought. Only video would enable you to really make a go of the future game thing.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think it is still pretty punitive.

I think so too. There's enough talent in the drafts that having 2 1st rounders gives a team a ton of options (take a risk on one of the picks, various trade options, etc.), but taking one away takes all of those options away and is pretty close to them just handing over their pick in this year's draft to San Fran and getting nothing in return* (what they will get is basically trading up several or many spots, unless SF finishes with a better record than New England....hey, stop laughing!).

And while the $250,000 is pocket change to the Pats organization, that $500,000 fine to BB will hurt him a lot personally. I think the punishment the commish handed down was good enough.

* If the Pats make the playoffs.....just throwing that in for technicality issues since they will unless they have a monumental collapse this year.

[Young Drachma]

I don't think it's harsh enough. Screw Goodell.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by John Clayton

Whether by design or not, the Patriots had themselves covered for such a penalty because they are so good at what they do.

Sorry, including this sentence makes him sound like a complete fucking moron.

[SirFozzie]

And now, the other side.

http://www.chicagosportsreview.com/i...w.asp?c=200810

(One of the only reasons I'm posting this is cuz.. I thought New Englanders hated New York. This guy.. just.. wow)

[Logan]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

And now, the other side.

http://www.chicagosportsreview.com/i...w.asp?c=200810

(One of the only reasons I'm posting this is cuz.. I thought New Englanders hated New York. This guy.. just.. wow)

I saw the words, but that was too stupid to interpret.

[Greyroofoo]

Definitely not harsh enough.

I've lost faith in Goodell.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by TroyF

1. It's very important to realize that the Pats did nothing wrong in trying to decipher signs. This is allowed and EVERYONE does do it - both during the game and in looking at pre-game video. It's been going on for decades.

STOP IT. Stop justifying it. I don't care if every team does it. Irrelevant. I'm on a highway going 75 with the flow of traffic and I get caught, I WAS speeding. There is no defense or justification. I CHOSE to speed and I got caught. I deal with the price of that mistake. Period. End of discussion.

2. It appears (as I am sure the commish will rule) the Pats did break a rule by using video equipment to do it.

A rule they had been suspected of breaking before. A rule that the commish wanted to enforce so much so that he sent a memo to every team TELLING THEM NOT TO DO IT before the start of this season.

3. I don't think you can claim that the use of video equipment was a huge advantage over ordinary sign stealing techiques -- and that's the valid comparison here, not sign stealing vs. no sign stealing. Those claiming anything else are fooling themselves. This is a no-video rule breaking, not a no-sign-stealing rule breaking. With that said, it is an advantage. By the way, if the Pats had used the camera to video tape the hot dog vendor, the same rule would have been broken.

This is the most asinine thing in this post. It's ridiculous. Of course there is an advantage. If there wasn't, they wouldn't have done it. Nobody is saying Beli is an idiot. He's a smart man and that's a smart coaching staff. It was videotaped and not photographed because the video HELPS in a big way. If you truly believe what you wrote above, your coaching staff is a group of moronic jack asses who wear velcro because they can't tie their shoelaces. They knew what they were doing, they knew the risk if they got caught and they still did it. That tells me they think it's a pretty damned big advantage.

4. It needs to be cleared up that the Pats guy was NOT on the same side of the field as the Jets - as has been misreported. Although that does not really matter in the analysis. Likewise, the rumors about radio frequencies is unsubstantiated at this point, but I believe what people are talking about is the video guy using a microphone to talk to the staff -- NOT THE INTERCEPTION OF THE OTHER TEAM'S COMMUNICATIONS.

Who gives a crap where he was? He was filiming, in direct violation of league rules and a Goodall memo, their signals. I don't care if he was doing if from a bleepin blimp above the stadium. I don't and never did think there was interception of other teams communications. I thought and still believe the Pats had multiple streams for their own use. This entire thing is about using technology to streamline your communication better. From stealing signals to dissemenating information about those signals.

5. I am still puzzled by the use of a guy decked out in Pats gear, standing there with a camera pointed at the opposing sideline. It's so blatantly obvious, especially after getting warned. The only explanation I can come up with is that Belichick thinks the rule is stupid. He was going to flaunt it just to show how stupid it was. Which was a mistake if true -- see observation number.

The justification continues. It's amazing the level you are going to make it seem like the Pats did nothing wrong. In this justification, it's that Belichick is just a defiant guy who wants to rub Goodall's face in the dirt because he thinks it's a stupid rule. Then, after the game, he was going to flaunt it and show the NFL what was happening. Is this like those guys on "To Catch a Predator" who show up and say they were just trying to warn the 13 year old about the dangers posed online? BS. He knew what he was doing and that it was against the rules. He did it because he was getting an advantage. Period.

6. This is huge public relations disaster for the team and Belichick. And it will hurt them in the pocketbook because of it.

Yes and no. I'm sure Goodall will issue a fine, but it won't be that debilitating. They'll still sell out the stadiium every week. They'll still have thousands of people buying Brady jersies. The NFL shares a lot of the league revenue and they won't lose any of that. It's a PR disaster and Beli, but it isn't going to cost them much more than the fine that Goodall levies.

7. As a Pats' fan, my feeling is sort of like hearing your little brother punched some guy in the face and you later find out he did it for no reason. You still love the guy, but you're thinking "geez, did you really have to do that, I mean you were kind of acting like a jerk there."


Your brother would have punched the guy in the face for a reason. The Pats cheated for a reason. They did it to get an edge. It may not have even been for just this game. There was a purpose behind what they did.

It's fine to still be a fan. I'm still a fan of the Broncos and I know they cheated. I hated it then and still do, but you get over it. The one thing I'm happy about is that I never tried to justify the action with excuses. It was wrong then, it's still wrong and I'm ashamed the team did it. There is no justification for the Broncos actions and there is no debate as to why they did it. It gave them a competitive edge on the field. Period.

8. As stated, people calling for forfeitures, etc. are way off base. A rule was broken (a no video taping rule) - I'd call it neither a major one nor a minor one. I don't think it even compares to the secretive systematic circumvention of the salary cap by the Broncos or the 49ers; and in which it was PROVEN TO HAVE OCCURRED WHEN THE TEAMS WERE ACTUALLY WINNING THEIR CHAMPIONSHIPS. It deserves punishment. I think a 3rd round pick is about right. And a hefty fine.

More justification. Different time, different commish. Those teams paid their price. If the Broncos or Niners violated the cap this year, I think we can all agree Goodall would lay down a very, very large hammer. There is no question in my mind those teams would lose multiple first round picks for their actions. Goodall can't control what happened in the past. What he's shown, is that he will not take someone breaking his rules lightly. Players who do are gone for a long length of time. Teams that do have to be treated in the same way. (How many games did Ray Lewis get suspended for after his Super Bowl after party? That would be NONE. He was fined 250k. Should Pac-Man and Henry be upset that they were suspended for a conduct violation when a guy who was involved in a homicide got none? Again, different time, different commish.)

9. Belichick is not a nice man. He'll do everything he can to win. He won't make any friends doing it, and he'd just as soon as steal $10 buck from his mom's wallet if it guaranteed him an extra first down the next Sunday. But what he does is win games - by hook or by crook, and by most of the very same hook or by crook methods used by every coach. Every great coach does it. Guys like Jimmy Johnson, Bill Parcells, George Allen -- they all did it. As an example, if you think someone like Mangini is beyond slipping Reche Caldwell a few thousand bucks for tips on the Pats' gameplan, you are sadly mistaken. I find that unseemly too (and I am sure Belichick does it too), but perhaps not a technical rule violation. These guys are getting paid several millions of dollars to win football games. They're going to do it.

Yet more justification. There is none. He cheated. He disregarded a direct memo for the league office. He got caught. I don't care if Mangini, Johnson, Parcells or Allen did what they did. (To my knowledge none of them were hit with a league memo asking them to stop whatever it was they were doing) Belichick probably paid Tim Dwight the same amount of dough to dish on the Jets the same week BTW. It's irrelevant to the discussion because we don't know that money was exchanged and until we do there is no proof a league rule was broken.

10. Now, can we talk about the Chargers game? I have no idea on how the Pats are going to win that one without being able to use a video camera. I guess a couple of guys with binoculars sitting next to the Chargers' guys with binoculars will have to suffice.

I feel for you man. It must be horrible to be a Pats fan. All the titles and all just have to suck. And God forbid anyone talks about a major rules violation that your favorite team was caught doing. Let's just sweep it under the rug and move on. It's so not a big deal that Belichick defied the league to do it. (I'm sorry, I forgot, he was just showing his disdane for a stupid rule, my bad.)

My advice? Deal with it. It's going to be a story for awhile and it isn't going away. You as a fan didn't make that choice and don't need to try to defend them for doing it. They made a mistake and if it wasn't a mistake and it wasn't cheating, they'll explain it all away to Goodall and show him how they didn't defy his orders. Then it's all cleared up and we move on. If they can't do that, they are cheaters. Cheaters that were caught. If they didn't want to deal with the consequences, they shouldn't have done it.

Stop justifying what they did. Stop pretending everyone saying they are cheats are wrong. (we aren't, they did what they did). Just say "we were wrong, we got caught, we have to pay the price, I'm still a fan" That's it.i'm good with it. They have a talented team, stealing signs of not. But they got caught and they can deal with the PR fallout for it. Life will go on.

FWIW, I think a first round pick should be taken away and given to the Jets. Harsh? Hell yeah. Very harsh. That's the price you pay for openly snubbing your nose at the rules. This was a calculated decision by an organization. That cannot go without severe punishment unless Goodall wants to start going easier on the players. Don't worry, I'm not the commish, they won't lose a 1rst. Likely a 3/5/7 and then move on would be my guess.

I appreciate the vigor with which you responded to my post. Let me say a few mean things first. You really have no clue about proportionality in punishment. Second, you can't read. I think I must have admitted at least 3 times in my post that the Pats broke the rule and cheated, and yet you claim I didn't and I am just making excuses. I was making a justification for the level of punishment, not that there should be no punishment. You should take the stick out of your you know what.

Now for some nice things. I have rethought my position. I still believe and know that the video taping was the rule that was broken, not sign stealing . . . BUT I have now come to realize that the advantage was greater than I thought. I only focused on the current game being played. I believe the real advantage gained was for the next game, something that the use of video really made possible. It also looks bad (which I said originally) for the league. Originally, I thought a 3rd rounder and big fine. In all honesty, before hearing the verdict, I would have upped the punishment to second rounder, $500k, and a one-game suspension for Belichick. I would have come pretty close. The 32nd overall pick next year is close to a second rounder.

And I am disappointed. It's hard to argue there's not some taint to the Pats' more recent victories. Not 2001 though. That was too early for the video library to take effect. Anyways, what the hell can you do about it now? I think all you can accept is that your team won 2 SBs but kind of did it like Lance Burkhart (Laird Hamilton) in North Shore (1987) [vague 80s movie reference].

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

And now, the other side.

http://www.chicagosportsreview.com/i...w.asp?c=200810

(One of the only reasons I'm posting this is cuz.. I thought New Englanders hated New York. This guy.. just.. wow)

"Let's put this on the table right now. Eric Mangini is a straight punk. Don't get me wrong, he's smart - but he's a straight punk. Now, why would I say this about a guy who's guested on the Sopranos? Cause the Sopranos ain't shit either, that's why."


Ok, maybe I'm missing something. Is this an actual sports news site/publication? And this guy is supposed to be an actual, professional writer?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by Galaril

It seems like this won't hurt the Pats so much since they got two first rounders?
And apparently Clayton at ESPN thinks so as well

"Here's the problem with Goodell's decision. Whether by design or not, the Patriots had themselves covered for such a penalty because they are so good at what they do. They acquired the 49ers' first-round pick in a trade that enabled the 49ers to select Joe Staley. They have an additional third-round pick from the Raiders in a trade. They have enough draft choices to survive the loss of one first-round choice. "

NFL Penalty for Belichick,Pats far too light.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3018407

Clayton's a moron on that one. A first round pick is a first round pick. So what if they got an extra one. They got that for giving up something this year -- a first round pick, dumb ass. So, what does he want, 2 first round picks? And if the Pats had happened to have 3 first rounders, then the punishment should be 3 first rounders, and so on? The guy makes no sense on that one.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

For those of you wondering what was actually going on, I think a part of BB's second apology puts it into perspective:

"As the Commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress."

It's clear the video is used for future games. Like the player DNA library already discussed. Let me say a couple of things on this.

First, wow. Talk about an in-depth approach to coaching. Meticulous. I'm sorry, but a guy like Herm Edwards ain't in the same zip code.

Second, you're not allowed to do it if you're using your own video to do it.

Third, while obviously the Pats' players benefitted, I don't believe they had a clue it was going on. That would be one conspiracy over quicker than you can say Ty Law just signed with another team.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

And now my last word on this, as I will prepare to actually start watching football again.

I still am searching for the answer to why the Pats did it in open view after being warned. It's still hard to fathom. I mean, BB is not dumb. But this appears to be nothing but dumb. I've thought arrogance, but I really think BB only cares about winning games, period. I'm open to suggestions. Here's the best I could come up with.

BB simply calculated that the penalty for getting caught was outweighed by the benefit received for video taping (and in opposing stadiums, you just wouldn't be able to do a good job of it without having the guy doing the video from field level. I don't think he ever thought the penalty would be a 1st rounder and $500k of his own coin. He might have rethought it, knowing the punishment would be so steep (especially with the arrival of Goodell after Tags). I don't think he believed it would raise such a big stink if caught. Maybe a little blip -- couple lines in a few newspapers. Nothing to worry about.

A classic miscalculation.

[TroyF]

please. You said they made a mistake and then spent point after point justifying or making excuses for it. When it comes to the punishment phase, it's VERY SIMPLE. Goodall sent out a memo saying don't do it and they did.

What happens if you openly defy your boss? My guess is you won't have a job tomorrow. (I know I wouldn't) From the moment When they chose to defy the commish's explicit warnings, that pretty much ends the debate on punishment. It can be as stiff as the commish wants it and be ok.

As far as my post, I went point by point and voiced my problems with your points. If you have an issue with any of those, let's hear it and tell me why I'm wrong. If not, saying "You are an idiot and you hate the Pats" is just a way to avoid challenging the true discussion at hand. I didn't slam the Pats or make generalizations. I did read your points and responded to them in kind. If you don't want to have a discussion, don't write a tome and not allow it to be challenged.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

One more. You thought the handshake at mid-field last season was the most anticipated moment. Just wait until December 16. That game is going to be one Battle Royal. Holy sh$t. Grab the popcorn. And then what will happen after the game. Mangini might want to wear a flak jacket.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

For those of you wondering what was actually going on, I think a part of BB's second apology puts it into perspective:

"As the Commissioner acknowledged, our use of sideline video had no impact on the outcome of last week's game. We have never used sideline video to obtain a competitive advantage while the game was in progress."

It's clear the video is used for future games. Like the player DNA library already discussed. Let me say a couple of things on this.

First, wow. Talk about an in-depth approach to coaching. Meticulous. I'm sorry, but a guy like Herm Edwards ain't in the same zip code.

Second, you're not allowed to do it if you're using your own video to do it.

Third, while obviously the Pats' players benefitted, I don't believe they had a clue it was going on. That would be one conspiracy over quicker than you can say Ty Law just signed with another team.

Help me here. Tell me how it's making a player DNA library when you are video taping the coach calling the defensive signals. If this were a case of the Patriots shooting the entire sideline and not focusing on the coaching staff before every play, I can buy it. When the video is pointed right at the defensive coach calling out the signals, it's doing that for a purpose. Maybe I'm just missing something. . .

[korme]

Late to the party:

Goodell drops the hammer!

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by TroyF

please. You said they made a mistake and then spent point after point justifying or making excuses for it. When it comes to the punishment phase, it's VERY SIMPLE. Goodall sent out a memo saying don't do it and they did. When it comes to the punishment phase, it's VERY SIMPLE. Goodall sent out a memo saying don't do it and they did.

What happens if you openly defy your boss? My guess is you won't have a job tomorrow. (I know I wouldn't) From the moment When they chose to defy the commish's explicit warnings, that pretty much ends the debate on punishment. It can be as stiff as the commish wants it and be ok.

As far as my post, I went point by point and voiced my problems with your points. If you have an issue with any of those, let's hear it and tell me why I'm wrong. If not, saying "You are an idiot and you hate the Pats" is just a way to avoid challenging the true discussion at hand. I didn't slam the Pats or make generalizations. I did read your points and responded to them in kind. If you don't want to have a discussion, don't write a tome and not allow it to be challenged.

Are you actually reading my posts? Because I'm thinking you can't be. I never called you an idiot or told you that you hated the Pats. I simply can't respond in like kind - that was way too long of a post. But it's clear you simply don't understand the concept of proportionality. So, I will do my best to explain it briefly on one point you just raised. It should hold true for all of your points.

Troy quote: "when it comes to the punishment phase, IT'S VERY SIMPLE. Goodall sent out a memo saying don't do it and they did."

Your quote actually doesn't speak to punishment at all. It only speaks to determination of the rule breaking, and that's it. When deciding on punishment, you look at culpability, prior offenses and punishments, custom and practice. You didn't address these issues at all. I did. I put forth an argument as to what the punishment should be (it's called mitigation, not excuses) - I already agreed that the rule was broken. You still didn't address it the second time around even though I raised the issue. The best you could come up with was that the penalty should be whatever the commish says. While this is technically true, your comment adds nothing to the discussion on what a just punishment should be.

And you wonder why other people call you a Pats' hater? For some, that's an inescapable conclusion from your lengthy post that said the same thing over and over again but never really address the main point of my entire "tome."

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Help me here. Tell me how it's making a player DNA library when you are video taping the coach calling the defensive signals. If this were a case of the Patriots shooting the entire sideline and not focusing on the coaching staff before every play, I can buy it. When the video is pointed right at the defensive coach calling out the signals, it's doing that for a purpose. Maybe I'm just missing something. . .

Who's saying playcalling signals wouldn't be part of the DNA library? I don't think I ever said they weren't videotaping the signals.

[st.cronin]

VFP, you just have to accept that Troy loses his mind when it comes to the Pats. We all have our flaws.

[stevew]

Looking back on it, man, I still can't believe they only took a 3rd from the Broncos and 9ers back in the day for all of their cap shenanigans. I mean, shit, they took 5 first rounders from Minnesota for that kind of impropriety in the NBA.

Hopefully they pass a new rule to allow defenders to have a mic in their helmet next year.

[Yossarian]

There must be something in the water.

McLaren have been stripped of their points in the 2007 Formula One constructors' championship after the outcome of the "spygate" row.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/6991147.stm

Oh, and this is how you enact a punishment.

The team were also fined a record $100m

[stevew]

Bengals fan working here....

[Deattribution]

That video is great.

[k0ruptr]

Lmao , might be my new favorite song.

[Northwood_DK]

Originally Posted by Yossarian

There must be something in the water.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/6991147.stm

Oh, and this is how you enact a punishment.

And it gets even worse. Spying in women’s soccer is just sad…

But I love this.

'The next day there were people behind a glass wall at our hotel as we were making preparations,' Nielsen said.

This is old-school spying.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...462630&cc=5901

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

Clayton's a moron on that one. A first round pick is a first round pick. So what if they got an extra one. They got that for giving up something this year -- a first round pick, dumb ass. So, what does he want, 2 first round picks? And if the Pats had happened to have 3 first rounders, then the punishment should be 3 first rounders, and so on? The guy makes no sense on that one.

Agreed. Asinine to even bring this up. The punishment is a 1st round pick, not eliminating all 1st rounders this season.

Edit: And a 1st rounder hurts, no matter how many other 1sts you have. In essence, they lose whatever they traded to get the extra 1st (i think a 2007 1st?)

[Thomkal]

Well I'm glad the Commisioner went tough on the Patriots, but I think the penalty should have been a 1st rounder regardless of whether they made the playoffs or not. And the 1st rounder taken from them should have been which ever was the higher pick at the end of the season, rather than taking just what will likely be a late 1st rounder away than a potential Top Ten pick with the Niners pick they have. Actually has the Commish said it will be their own pick they lose rather than the 49ers? And it definitely should be a second rounder should they not make the playoffs.

And I'm thinking the Patriots ownership is going to pay Belichick's fine if they can get away with that.

[Raiders Army]

Tuck rule.

[Noop]

[Noop]

That video was great.

[Fidatelo]

I like the punishment, I like the fact that they personally hit Belichick pretty hard because that is really the only way to make a coach think twice. However, I think they should have suspended him without pay for the length it would have taken to get to that 500k, rather than just the straight fine.

Otherwise the penalty seemed pretty appropriate and now hopefully we can go back to just watching football again.

[Fidatelo]

Dola

In regards to the helmets with receivers, why can't teams put receivers in as many helmets as they want?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Vinatieri for Prez

BB simply calculated that the penalty for getting caught was outweighed by the benefit received for video taping (and in opposing stadiums, you just wouldn't be able to do a good job of it without having the guy doing the video from field level. I don't think he ever thought the penalty would be a 1st rounder and $500k of his own coin. He might have rethought it, knowing the punishment would be so steep (especially with the arrival of Goodell after Tags). I don't think he believed it would raise such a big stink if caught. Maybe a little blip -- couple lines in a few newspapers. Nothing to worry about.

A classic miscalculation.

I think this is probably correct. Also, looking at how they specifically said his defense was "giving his interpretation of the rule" I'd guess he also thought he could at least make it appear that what he was doing was simply a misunderstanding of the rule and that any punishment would be minimal.

[Mike1409]

I think Belicheck took PR advice from Mark McGwire.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/cheat/news/story?id=2957893

When Marty Schottenheimer coached the Cleveland Browns in the late 1980s, he routinely sent a scout to watch the signals opposing teams used to relay messages from coaches to players. When the scout returned, Schottenheimer's staff would watch the game film and match the signals to the plays that followed.

Edwards said the same is true today. It's common for coaches to watch standard game tapes (which include shots from the press box and end zone angles), sideline tapes (which usually wind up on highlight shows and include footage of players and coaches talking on the sidelines) and even the television shows of opposing coaches for tips.

These men then watch the footage with the same scrutiny FBI agents reserve for reviewing a wiretap recording.

"We want to hear what's being said in case you hear an audible or a [defensive] check," Edwards said. "Coaches have a saying: "Anything you say can and will be used against you.'"

August 9.

Look, Patriots were told not to do it, did it anyway, got caught, and are paying a fair price. I'm just tired of the huge public outcry over this particular incident, and why now as opposed to when stories like the above are revealed.

[VPI97]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Look, Patriots were told not to do it, did it anyway, got caught, and are paying a fair price. I'm just tired of the huge public outcry over this particular incident, and why now as opposed to when stories like the above are revealed.

One reason is probably because the commissioner sent out a memo last week to specifically tell teams not to do something...then Belichick goes and does it the very first chance he gets. To me, that's the equivalent of walking up to Goodell and flipping him off right to his face.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by VPI97

One reason is probably because the commissioner sent out a memo last week to specifically tell teams not to do something...then Belichick goes and does it the very first chance he gets. To me, that's the equivalent of walking up to Goodell and flipping him off right to his face.

Okay, THAT part I can understand. And FWIW, it's a key reason I'm ticked at the team for this. And glad Goodell sent the message. I think this could be a rough season for the NFL "that's the way it's always been" crowd.

[King of New York]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

August 9.

Look, Patriots were told not to do it, did it anyway, got caught, and are paying a fair price. I'm just tired of the huge public outcry over this particular incident, and why now as opposed to when stories like the above are revealed.

The outcry is so big, I think, not so much because it involves the remarkably successful Pats (although that is a part of it), but because it involves Belicheat, I mean Bellycheck.

Belichick, as even most (all?) Pats fans will admit, is not a nice guy. That's fine, up to a point--he is not paid to be a nice guy, he is paid to win. But Belichick also cultivates a certain aura--he likes to project an image of being a football god whose knowledge of the game surpasses that of anyone else.

The taping of signals, after being told to stop it, suggests that the self-annointed football god is more human than he would have us mere mortals believe. That is why so many people are so into this story, I think.