Bellicheat was a bad bad boy
- Thread starter vurbano
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 73
- Views 5K
Here's an interesting article on this topic:
September 18, 2007
Bill Belichick's Interpretation
I continue to wait for one of the many commentators who love to call Patriots' coach Bill Belichick a "cheater" to explain how his conduct differs from the common "cheating" evident during every sports contest. Is intentional breaking of the rules "cheating"? If it is, then here's a story describing how the New York Jets cheated last week against the Ravens. Last night I witnessed members of the Washington Redskins cheat, trying to draw movement out of the Eagles' offensive line. (TSLP is ready to testify in the commissioner's hearing.) I also saw another cheater this past weekend: a wide receiver for the Colts tried to convince the referees he had caught a pass when clearly he had not. What is the world coming to? How quickly will next year's first round of the NFL Draft go, now that the Colts and Redskins will join the Patriots in forfeiting their picks? Or, maybe "cheating" is the wrong word to use to describe these violations?
In his answer to the NFL's accusation, Belichick spoke about "my interpretation of the rules." Reading as much as we can into this reference, Belichick implied that the league rule prohibiting videotaping was a matter of some ambiguity, and implied further that his transgression, far from being willful, was more a matter of reasonable difference and misinterpretation. Some commentators, seeing no possibility for ambiguity or interpretation in the rule, have become so worked up over Belichick's conduct that they think the Commissioner's unprecedented punishment is too lenient. Even the usually reliable Gregg Easterbrook has overheated, "imagining" that this event (along with Belichick's failure to get as worked up over it as Easterbrook is) might lead to the coach's lifetime banishment.
This is what happens when people practice law without a license. Let's take a look at the rule and see if Belichick has a point. Does he?
Yes. Whoever wrote this rule left a few matters in doubt. Should Belichick be banned just because someone working at the NFL lacks a command of the language?
1. The NFL's "Game Operations Manual" states (according to the NFL press release; I couldn't find a copy of the Manual) that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game" and that all video shooting locations for club coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."
2. Start with the second clause of the sentence, after the "and." This statement implies, clearly to me, that some in-game video will be allowed for "club coaching purposes," and that video taken for this purpose, that is, for in-game use, must be video that originates from locations enclosed on all sides with a roof. Indeed, often we see players and coaches on the sidelines during NFL games examining photographs of formations and plays taken from vantage points presumably high in the stadium, from enclosed places.
3. Now look at the first clause. It says no video recording devices are permitted to be "in use" during the game. But we already know that some video recording devices (those from certain enclosed locations) may be used during the game for "coaching purposes." So, for in-game coaching, a coach may only use the "enclosed location" videos.
4. What about for "out-of game" coaching, like during the practice week? The rule says "no video recording" may be "in use" "during the game": they may not be used, as the rule says, "in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room," at least not "during the game." The rule implies, fairly if not unambiguously, that teams may in fact make video recordings from locations other than the "enclosures" as long as those video recordings are not used "during the game."
5. Indeed, that's the better interpretation of this rule. If the rule were "no video recordings allowed except those from the designated enclosures," then why do we need all the language concerning "in-game" use? Why the words about "the coaches' booth," "the field," and so forth? Under standards of legal construction, all words must be given a plausible meaning, if one is available. In other words, we are to try to avoid surplusage (wasted words). With respect to the NFL, the better interpretation of this mess of a rule is that some video recordings (those from enclosures) may be used during games, while other video recordings (from outside these enclosures) may not be used during games, but may be made and used otherwise.
6. Now, I realize that other, plausible interpretations of this rule are available. The rule may be intended to mean "no video recording except from enclosures" (if so, the rule has a lot of surplusage), or could mean "no video at all during games, but photographs are not video" (if so, even more surplusage), or perhaps "use" of video means "not only not watching video, but also not even making the video" (if so, then we need a lot more words defining "use"). I'm not saying Belichick didn't interpret the rules aggressively and in his favor. I'm also not saying taxpayers, lawyers and regulators don't do the same, every day. When one is dealing with a rule, what's not prohibited is impliedly permitted. Belichick took an aggressive position and paid the penalty for his interpretation. He admitted as much, and said he was punished for his interpretation. But please don't say the man had no leg to stand on here. Don't call him a cheater for adopting a plausible interpretation of a very ambiguous rule.
7. Now here's the rub: the NFL, apparently just before the season began, sent a memo from Executive Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson to the teams that "reminded" them that, “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.” Here's where all the overheated commentators get their "prohibition" idea, and conclude that Belichick violated a clear prohibition and thus is a cheater making up lame excuses about misinterpretation. Not so fast, please.
8. First, just what is the effect or significance of a memo from a league vice president? I can't find out, but I would imagine the NFL employs quite a few people who have the title of vice president. Does a memo from a league VP have the effect of law? Is it equivalent in significance to the NFL's "Game Operations Manual" quoted above? Can the NFL, through some memo from a VP, simply amend the Manual just like that? No committees, no notice, no deliberations: just a memo that adds words and gives the rule a particular meaning, and it's done? Can a memo create a new rule that is instantly binding on all teams?
9. But, you say, the memo didn't announce a new rule. By its own terms it was just "reminding" the teams of the present rule. So it's just a reminder, not an amendment, and if so then the rule itself (the one in the Game Operations Manual) hasn't changed. Just because Mr. Ray Anderson, Vice President for Football Operations, characterizes the rule as a "prohibition" doesn't make it so. Indeed, even interpreting the rule as a prohibition, Anderson's memo mischaracterizes it. The memo says "videotaping of any type," including an opponent's signals, is prohibited from certain locations, namely from "the sidelines, from the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or from other points accessible to club staff members during the game." In other words, a team may, legally, videotape another team's signals: they just can't do it from these certain locations, or any location "accessible during the game." How is that a prohibition?
10. Now the memo's rule that permits videotaping of signals but prohibits those videotapes from being made from the sidelines may be a good idea, and maybe that should be the rule, but that's certainly not the Game Operations Manual Rule that the memo merely purports to "remind" everyone about in the week prior to the start of the season. In other words, the memo seriously misstates the rule, because the rule prohibits the in-game use (but not the making) of videotapes, or at least that's one plausible interpretation of it.
11. Now which was the rule, the Manual or the Memo? If you're an employee at your job and a memo comes down from a company VP reminding you of a company rule, a rule that you already had in mind and had parsed through pretty carefully, and the memo's re-statement of the rule was at variance with what you had a right to believe the rule actually stated, which rule (the one in the authoritative document or the one in the memorandum) would you put your finger on as being the correct, binding rule? Which one would you follow? What if your job were a competitive one and money (or wins) was to be made by interpreting the rules in a plausible yet aggressive and self-interested way? Would you be a "cheater" for going by the rule in the official company policy manual instead of the inexact repetition by the company vice president? Would you choose to follow the Manual particularly when the VP's memo made it clear he was merely "reminding" you of the rule, not changing it? Isn't one entitled to think the rule hasn't changed when one sees the word "reminder"?
12. I'm not saying Bill Belichick didn't deserve a sanction. The league is entitled to interpret its rules, and even to do so after the fact, at a hearing in which discipline is the outcome. Courts do it all the time, especially in civil cases. My point is that the rule, the real one in the Manual, contains a lot of room for ambiguity and interpretation. My other point is that, no matter how one chooses to interpret the rule, there is no plausible interpretation consistent with the one given in the Memorandum issued pre-season. My final point is that our football commentators need to get off their high horse for a while and realize that people, be they taxpayers, lawyers, journalists or football coaches, need at times to interpret rules. That they do so in an aggressive way is actually a good thing, on balance: it makes us write better rules.
posted by TSLP at 9/18/2007
September 18, 2007
Bill Belichick's Interpretation
I continue to wait for one of the many commentators who love to call Patriots' coach Bill Belichick a "cheater" to explain how his conduct differs from the common "cheating" evident during every sports contest. Is intentional breaking of the rules "cheating"? If it is, then here's a story describing how the New York Jets cheated last week against the Ravens. Last night I witnessed members of the Washington Redskins cheat, trying to draw movement out of the Eagles' offensive line. (TSLP is ready to testify in the commissioner's hearing.) I also saw another cheater this past weekend: a wide receiver for the Colts tried to convince the referees he had caught a pass when clearly he had not. What is the world coming to? How quickly will next year's first round of the NFL Draft go, now that the Colts and Redskins will join the Patriots in forfeiting their picks? Or, maybe "cheating" is the wrong word to use to describe these violations?
In his answer to the NFL's accusation, Belichick spoke about "my interpretation of the rules." Reading as much as we can into this reference, Belichick implied that the league rule prohibiting videotaping was a matter of some ambiguity, and implied further that his transgression, far from being willful, was more a matter of reasonable difference and misinterpretation. Some commentators, seeing no possibility for ambiguity or interpretation in the rule, have become so worked up over Belichick's conduct that they think the Commissioner's unprecedented punishment is too lenient. Even the usually reliable Gregg Easterbrook has overheated, "imagining" that this event (along with Belichick's failure to get as worked up over it as Easterbrook is) might lead to the coach's lifetime banishment.
This is what happens when people practice law without a license. Let's take a look at the rule and see if Belichick has a point. Does he?
Yes. Whoever wrote this rule left a few matters in doubt. Should Belichick be banned just because someone working at the NFL lacks a command of the language?
1. The NFL's "Game Operations Manual" states (according to the NFL press release; I couldn't find a copy of the Manual) that "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game" and that all video shooting locations for club coaching purposes "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."
2. Start with the second clause of the sentence, after the "and." This statement implies, clearly to me, that some in-game video will be allowed for "club coaching purposes," and that video taken for this purpose, that is, for in-game use, must be video that originates from locations enclosed on all sides with a roof. Indeed, often we see players and coaches on the sidelines during NFL games examining photographs of formations and plays taken from vantage points presumably high in the stadium, from enclosed places.
3. Now look at the first clause. It says no video recording devices are permitted to be "in use" during the game. But we already know that some video recording devices (those from certain enclosed locations) may be used during the game for "coaching purposes." So, for in-game coaching, a coach may only use the "enclosed location" videos.
4. What about for "out-of game" coaching, like during the practice week? The rule says "no video recording" may be "in use" "during the game": they may not be used, as the rule says, "in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room," at least not "during the game." The rule implies, fairly if not unambiguously, that teams may in fact make video recordings from locations other than the "enclosures" as long as those video recordings are not used "during the game."
5. Indeed, that's the better interpretation of this rule. If the rule were "no video recordings allowed except those from the designated enclosures," then why do we need all the language concerning "in-game" use? Why the words about "the coaches' booth," "the field," and so forth? Under standards of legal construction, all words must be given a plausible meaning, if one is available. In other words, we are to try to avoid surplusage (wasted words). With respect to the NFL, the better interpretation of this mess of a rule is that some video recordings (those from enclosures) may be used during games, while other video recordings (from outside these enclosures) may not be used during games, but may be made and used otherwise.
6. Now, I realize that other, plausible interpretations of this rule are available. The rule may be intended to mean "no video recording except from enclosures" (if so, the rule has a lot of surplusage), or could mean "no video at all during games, but photographs are not video" (if so, even more surplusage), or perhaps "use" of video means "not only not watching video, but also not even making the video" (if so, then we need a lot more words defining "use"). I'm not saying Belichick didn't interpret the rules aggressively and in his favor. I'm also not saying taxpayers, lawyers and regulators don't do the same, every day. When one is dealing with a rule, what's not prohibited is impliedly permitted. Belichick took an aggressive position and paid the penalty for his interpretation. He admitted as much, and said he was punished for his interpretation. But please don't say the man had no leg to stand on here. Don't call him a cheater for adopting a plausible interpretation of a very ambiguous rule.
7. Now here's the rub: the NFL, apparently just before the season began, sent a memo from Executive Vice President of Football Operations Ray Anderson to the teams that "reminded" them that, “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.” Here's where all the overheated commentators get their "prohibition" idea, and conclude that Belichick violated a clear prohibition and thus is a cheater making up lame excuses about misinterpretation. Not so fast, please.
8. First, just what is the effect or significance of a memo from a league vice president? I can't find out, but I would imagine the NFL employs quite a few people who have the title of vice president. Does a memo from a league VP have the effect of law? Is it equivalent in significance to the NFL's "Game Operations Manual" quoted above? Can the NFL, through some memo from a VP, simply amend the Manual just like that? No committees, no notice, no deliberations: just a memo that adds words and gives the rule a particular meaning, and it's done? Can a memo create a new rule that is instantly binding on all teams?
9. But, you say, the memo didn't announce a new rule. By its own terms it was just "reminding" the teams of the present rule. So it's just a reminder, not an amendment, and if so then the rule itself (the one in the Game Operations Manual) hasn't changed. Just because Mr. Ray Anderson, Vice President for Football Operations, characterizes the rule as a "prohibition" doesn't make it so. Indeed, even interpreting the rule as a prohibition, Anderson's memo mischaracterizes it. The memo says "videotaping of any type," including an opponent's signals, is prohibited from certain locations, namely from "the sidelines, from the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or from other points accessible to club staff members during the game." In other words, a team may, legally, videotape another team's signals: they just can't do it from these certain locations, or any location "accessible during the game." How is that a prohibition?
10. Now the memo's rule that permits videotaping of signals but prohibits those videotapes from being made from the sidelines may be a good idea, and maybe that should be the rule, but that's certainly not the Game Operations Manual Rule that the memo merely purports to "remind" everyone about in the week prior to the start of the season. In other words, the memo seriously misstates the rule, because the rule prohibits the in-game use (but not the making) of videotapes, or at least that's one plausible interpretation of it.
11. Now which was the rule, the Manual or the Memo? If you're an employee at your job and a memo comes down from a company VP reminding you of a company rule, a rule that you already had in mind and had parsed through pretty carefully, and the memo's re-statement of the rule was at variance with what you had a right to believe the rule actually stated, which rule (the one in the authoritative document or the one in the memorandum) would you put your finger on as being the correct, binding rule? Which one would you follow? What if your job were a competitive one and money (or wins) was to be made by interpreting the rules in a plausible yet aggressive and self-interested way? Would you be a "cheater" for going by the rule in the official company policy manual instead of the inexact repetition by the company vice president? Would you choose to follow the Manual particularly when the VP's memo made it clear he was merely "reminding" you of the rule, not changing it? Isn't one entitled to think the rule hasn't changed when one sees the word "reminder"?
12. I'm not saying Bill Belichick didn't deserve a sanction. The league is entitled to interpret its rules, and even to do so after the fact, at a hearing in which discipline is the outcome. Courts do it all the time, especially in civil cases. My point is that the rule, the real one in the Manual, contains a lot of room for ambiguity and interpretation. My other point is that, no matter how one chooses to interpret the rule, there is no plausible interpretation consistent with the one given in the Memorandum issued pre-season. My final point is that our football commentators need to get off their high horse for a while and realize that people, be they taxpayers, lawyers, journalists or football coaches, need at times to interpret rules. That they do so in an aggressive way is actually a good thing, on balance: it makes us write better rules.
posted by TSLP at 9/18/2007
You're all caught up in the media hype. It was by no means the biggest loss in history. Try Super Bowl III, or Greg Norman at the 1995 U.S. Open, Or the ball between Buckner's legs in the World Series. Granted, it was big, but not the biggest. IMHO Norman's was the biggest choke/loss ever.
You really think the Giants won that game straight up? You don't think it was unusual that the best O line in football forgot how to block and the best coaching staff forgot how to leave tight ends in and backs to chip block? And this all occured as an investigation was announced. IMO, Kraft and Goodall ordered the Pats to lose to hopefully get the heat off of them. They knew the jig was up and they knew Spector was gonna hang them even higher if the Pats won again.
Look at the date of this article (3 months before spygate), and then check out the #1 method teams use to gain an advantage.
SI.com - Writers - Don Banks: Cheating in the NFL a matter of mind over matter - Wednesday July 25, 2007 2:02PM
Why is all of the Main Stream Media acting like Bill was some lone wolf, equating him to a KGB operative during the Cold War? He did not create this idea, nor was he the only one using it. Don Banks is considered a respected journalist, and I’m sure he did a fair amount of research for this article. Let me quote a line from his article, "The most common practice is for a team to videotape an opponent's signal-givers on the sideline, and later marry up those indications to the game tape in order to identify tendencies or patterns.” I’m guessing since he called this the “most common” type of cheating, he interviewed several teams that use this practice. Why is the commissioner not going to Don Banks and asking him who he talked to?
Clayton was on ESPN radio about two weeks after sypgate broke, when all the talking heads were starting to backtrack a tad, and he told the host that he had spoken with sources who knew for a fact that at least three teams in the league were currently (2007) using video taped defensive signals in game. He said those teams synched up the video to the polariods taken pre snap at halftime and made exceptional second half adjustments - that was one of the keys as to who was doing it.
The host challenged him that he didn't see how it could possibly be done. Not enough time at the half. Clayton said one team had two dedicated defensive assistants on computers in a training room waiting for the information which was burned onto a CD in less than 6 seconds. As familiar as they were with the information it took them about 20 minutes to have it all decifered, and the information was in the hands of the DC on the field roughly 12 minutes into the second half (in real time, not game clock time).
He made a point of telling the host that the Patriots were NOT one of the teams.
I hope Spector keeps this up, I hope we get some kind of "mitchell" report on NFL "spying". I hope they drag Belichick , Jimmy Johnson, reporters all in front of these pinheads in the senate, than these idiot fans who think their team is clean can STFU!
SI.com - Writers - Don Banks: Cheating in the NFL a matter of mind over matter - Wednesday July 25, 2007 2:02PM
Why is all of the Main Stream Media acting like Bill was some lone wolf, equating him to a KGB operative during the Cold War? He did not create this idea, nor was he the only one using it. Don Banks is considered a respected journalist, and I’m sure he did a fair amount of research for this article. Let me quote a line from his article, "The most common practice is for a team to videotape an opponent's signal-givers on the sideline, and later marry up those indications to the game tape in order to identify tendencies or patterns.” I’m guessing since he called this the “most common” type of cheating, he interviewed several teams that use this practice. Why is the commissioner not going to Don Banks and asking him who he talked to?
Clayton was on ESPN radio about two weeks after sypgate broke, when all the talking heads were starting to backtrack a tad, and he told the host that he had spoken with sources who knew for a fact that at least three teams in the league were currently (2007) using video taped defensive signals in game. He said those teams synched up the video to the polariods taken pre snap at halftime and made exceptional second half adjustments - that was one of the keys as to who was doing it.
The host challenged him that he didn't see how it could possibly be done. Not enough time at the half. Clayton said one team had two dedicated defensive assistants on computers in a training room waiting for the information which was burned onto a CD in less than 6 seconds. As familiar as they were with the information it took them about 20 minutes to have it all decifered, and the information was in the hands of the DC on the field roughly 12 minutes into the second half (in real time, not game clock time).
He made a point of telling the host that the Patriots were NOT one of the teams.
I hope Spector keeps this up, I hope we get some kind of "mitchell" report on NFL "spying". I hope they drag Belichick , Jimmy Johnson, reporters all in front of these pinheads in the senate, than these idiot fans who think their team is clean can STFU!
Ahhh yes, another conspiracy. Explain how they lost the previous two years ..... hmmm?
Last edited:
Oh yea at first NE was 14 point favorites! 18-0 Against NYG.. Who's team usually falls apart. Oh yea no doubt about it!:up
Should the cowboys of the 90's have their's stripped also?
Here is what Jimmy Johnson said during superbowl week.
“The only thing I can say is so many people made such a big to-do about it, and everybody – and I mean everybody – went to the edge on rules in one form or fashion. That’s just part of the game, that’s stealing the signals in baseball. This stuff has been going on for so long. When I came into the NFL, back in ’89, I talked to a Kansas City scout and he said here’s what we do ‘we videotape the opposing team’s signals and then we synch it up with the game film.’ So I did it.
“I know when I went to the Dolphins and they talked about how you’re supposed to have a 15-second cutoff [in communication] to your quarterback, but here is what we do [to circumvent that],” Johnson said. “They said they’ve always done this. So I said, OK let’s go ahead and do it. Then the league said ‘hey, we hear you’re doing that, so don’t do it any more.’
“The point I’m making – I’m not trying to say everybody is cheaters – is that you have a rulebook that is so thick and you say ‘how far can you go without breaking the rules.’ … When I coached the Cowboys, we didn’t have this kind of scrutiny. We didn’t have this kind of visibility. Thirty years ago, they really didn’t have this kind of scrutiny. But now, the scrutiny, every little thing we do – that’s why I said the media blew it so far out of proportion.
“Would the commissioner have fined them and taken a draft pick if it had been the Arizona Cardinals? There is a lot of jealousy in this league. The high profile, it’s almost making statement that ‘I’ve got to do it because of who it is.’ I know Bill Belichick very well, I know how he loves the NFL, he loves the history of the NFL, he loves the integrity of the NFL, that’s why it irritates me that anyone would ever question that.”
so your saying the giants couldnt beat them on there own? hmmmmm or could it be the giants did just beat them ? the fact is on that one day the giants were better then the pats simple as that
"Commissioner Roger Goodell fined Bill Belichick $500,000 -- the biggest fine ever for an NFL coach -- and the team $250,000 after determining New England violated league rules by videotaping defensive signals from Jets coaches in the teams' regular-season opener. The Patriots also will have to forfeit their first-round draft choice in the 2008 draft." The rules that Goodell is using above. I would think the commissioner would know.
I thought you didn't believe in conspiracy theories?
What matters is he was caught, not that everyone is doing it. In the real world if you were a drug dealer and got caught. Even if you knew other people were doing it you would still be prosecuted.
Cheating in this manner is breaking league laws, But could result, as Specter said, in NFL losing there Monopoly exclusion. SI.com - NFL - Goodell tells Specter that Pats have taped since '00 - Wednesday February 13, 2008 10:25PM
So the NFL has to really make an example out of them. And Jimmy and the rest of these coaches best just shut their traps. Because you know what if they get evidence against them, then they should be slammed as well.
Rules in this case are there to protect the league. Rest of you have to realize that we won't have the NFL if the league just ignores this.
The Government will Anti-Trust bust them back into the AT&T days so fast the Oil companies will feel it.
See you make the most important point about the "everybody else was doing it" defense when you say they only caught the Pats and then follow it up with this?
All 53 men on the Pats were ordered to tank and not one of them will speak up about it? oh please.
The bottom line is this sucks all the way around. Its sucks if youre a Pats fan it sucks if youre a fan of the teams that played the Pats in the Super Bowls. It casts doubt across the board and questions the integrity of the sport.
The tapes were damaging and did contain "bad stuff" in there otherwise they wouldnt have been destroyed.
Lest we forget the Pats were punished already! Many consider it the harshest fine in the NFL yet. Whether or not you agree with that is another story.
Why are we arguing over the same thing. The Pats broke the rules, the Pats were punished for it. What more it there?
The United States Congress needs to get involved because of what? The Pats were punished already!
So when an umpire or ref of a sporting event makes a bad call Im gonna what? call my senator and order an ivestigation on why the call wen that way?
Belicheck cheated he was caught and he and the team was punished.
But we live in a society that LOVES to tear things down. Now look what we do, once we catch the Pats, we question the Cowboys championships, and what any game that KC played in when Jimmy came into league?
The world is stomping on us and laughing at us and our government is worried about HGH and spygate.
Because this is tampering with evidence and would get you a 5 year minimum sentence, and is illegal period.
Just because some things are destroyed, doesn't make them evidence. For instance, I shred things on a daily basis. Where do you get the 5 year minimum sentence? There's no way that spoliation of evidence in a civil matter would get you 5 years.
That was for the Jets game. Not the rest, which he was trying to sweep under the carpet. Now he is busted and when Walsh talks to Specter it will be a real problem.
He needs to be more proactive here and bust some heads, to prevent the league from suffering, and to send a message to the rest of the teams to knock it off.
Similar threads
