Sources: Camera confiscated after claims of Pats spying on Jets

[traderumor]

It's just a matter of interpretation, folks. It seems that they were looking for a hand model and the sidelines was the best place to get a really good camera angle. The rule book didn't explicitly forbid that activity, so, sorry.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070912/...fbn_nfl_spying

Pats' coach speaks with NFL about spying By JIMMY GOLEN, AP Sports Writer
1 hour, 37 minutes ago



FOXBOROUGH, Mass. - New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick apologized to his team on Wednesday and confirmed that he has spoken to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell about his "interpretation" of league rules that ban videotaping of the opposing sideline.

It was not clear what Belichick was apologizing for, and the coach repeatedly refused to elaborate on a one-paragraph statement issued 10 minutes before a regularly scheduled news conference to discuss Sunday night's game against the San Diego Chargers.

"At this point, we have not been notified of the league's ruling," Belichick said in a statement. "Although it remains a league matter, I want to apologize to everyone who has been affected, most of all ownership, staff and players. Following the league's decision, I will have further comment."

The statement said Belichick spoke with Goodell this week about a "videotaping procedure" during last Sunday's game and "my interpretation of the rules."

After about 15 minutes discussing Sunday's game, Belichick was pressed harder on his "interpretation of the rules," and the coach walked out of the room.

NFL security confiscated a video camera and tape from a Patriots employee during New England's 38-14 victory over the New York Jets on Sunday. The employee was accused of aiming his camera at the Jets' defensive coaches as they signaled to players on the field.

ESPN.com, citing league sources, reported Tuesday that Goodell has determined the Patriots violated league rules that ban videotaping of defensive signals. The report also said the Patriots have not yet presented their case to the league.

The Web site's report said Goodell is considering severe sanctions, including docking the Patriots "multiple draft picks." A league spokesman said only that an investigation is under way, and both teams said no decision has been made.

Asked repeatedly to elaborate on the statement and the effect it might have on his team, Belichick was left begging for football questions. But few in the media workroom had come to hear about San Diego.

"Any questions about the Chargers?" he pleaded in his standard other-things-to-do monotone. "Want to talk about the football game? If not, I think that statement pretty much covers it."

It appeared that he might find no takers, before one reporter asked about defending against Chargers running back LaDainian Tomlinson.

The coach smiled.

"Whatever happens out there Sunday night, out there on the field, that's where everybody will make their statement," he said.

[MaineRed]

The only thing that SMU and the Patriots have in common is the fact that Craig James played for both teams. Thanks for the irrelevant history lesson though.

As for your assumption that I am a Pats fan. WRONG. Die hard 49ers fan if you must know. Do you really think only a Pats fan would defend them against what YOU are saying?

I already told you I would be fine if they took away the win. No Pats fan is going to tell you that.

[Caveat Emperor]

WV, there's a difference between levying a penalty for a rules violation and handing down a death penalty. I find the calls for Roger Goodell to play the role of Hammurabi more than a little amusing.

Why he should he treat the organization, which has been previously warned about this sort of behavior, any differently than he does players who are repeat offenders?

[M2]

Why he should he treat the organization, which has been previously warned about this sort of behavior, any differently than he does players who are repeat offenders?

As with most things, it depends on the offense. Like I said, there's a lot of folks playing Hammurabi around here, arguing that the minimum penalty here ought to be chopping off a hand. Seems to me that if this were the sort of thing that draws a finger wag the first time, then the penalty is probably a nominal fine (money, draft picks, whatever). If this were the football equivalent of armed robbery then it wouldn't have registered only a stern talking to beforehand and retroactively removing a team's championships for an offense committed seasons later is just patently ridiculous. Hell, that's like giving you and everyone related to you the death penalty for some garden variety fraud. I mean is there anyone who thinks that teams haven't forever had folks with binoculars or keen eyesight looking to pickup the signals from the other sideline?

It's the "They did something wrong! Kill them!" response that I find over the top.

[Betterread]

Like I said, there's a lot of folks playing Hammurabi around here, arguing that the minimum penalty here ought to be chopping off a hand.

Since you used a reference to Hammurabi twice, I thought that I would point out that (to me) he is more well known as one of the earlier codifier of laws - the Code of Hammurabi. In recognition of his stature, his bust is on the US house of representative and the Supreme Court Building.
Draco, the Athenian law-giver, while also famous for his codification of laws and the penalties for breaking them, is more commonly associated with (what seems to us in the 21st century) very harsh penalties "Draconian" laws.
It seems as though Draco, rather than Hammurabi, would be more applicable for your example.

[M2]

Since you used a reference to Hammurabi twice, I thought that I would point out that (to me) he is more well known as one of the earlier codifier of laws - the Code of Hammurabi. In recognition of his stature, his bust is on the US house of representative and the Supreme Court Building.
Draco, the Athenian law-giver, while also famous for his codification of laws and the penalties for breaking them, is more commonly associated with (what seems to us in the 21st century) very harsh penalties "Draconian" laws.
It seems as though Draco, rather than Hammurabi, would be more applicable for your example.

Either would applicable. You're not going to find anyone lining up to live under either system. Hammurabi was big on throwing folks in the river.

[MWM]

I think taking away anything from past seasons would be ridiculous. I don't think forfeiting the game where they had proof they were using it to cheat is too much. Personally, I think that if it's found out to be what it appears to be on the surface, they should forfeit that game and Bellechick should face some kind of suspension. I don't think the rest of the year is too steep. I'm against going backwards to punish, but I'm not against dropping the hammer for blatant cheating. Personally, I don't think losing draft picks hurts the Pats that much.

[oneupper]

I think taking away anything from past seasons would be ridiculous. I don't think forfeiting the game where they had proof they were using it to cheat is too much. Personally, I think that if it's found out to be what it appears to be on the surface, they should forfeit that game and Bellechick should face some kind of suspension. I don't think the rest of the year is too steep. I'm against going backwards to punish, but I'm not against dropping the hammer for blatant cheating. Personally, I don't think losing draft picks hurts the Pats that much.

You're advocating for a forfeit of the game and a year suspension for the coach?

Sounds harsh (not that I disagree). Is there any precedent?

[MWM]

You're advocating for a forfeit of the game and a year suspension for the coach?

Sounds harsh (not that I disagree). Is there any precedent?

I don't think there's a precedent for someone getting caught for something like this. At some point, there wasn't a precedent for anything. Precedents have to be set initially.

My rationale is that if you have solid evidence that they cheated in a specific game, then they shouldn't have the benefit of that win. They probably win anyway, but if they cheated, they should be forced to take a L.

And I take cheating VERY seriously. That's why I think the individual responsible should be held accountable with a severe penalty. But I woudn't want the fans or the players punished for something that's not their doing. So I'd penalize the coach who was behind the cheating. That seems fair to everyone, IMO. Punish the cheater, but don't make everyone else suffer.

[MaineRed]

If you want precedent in sports, look at NASCAR. They find a blatant rules violation on Jimmy Johnson's car, Chad Knause the crew chief gets suspended and a new crew chief has to take over.

Suspend BB from contact with the Pats for 2-3 weeks if this is deemed serious enough. That is up to the commish. Not sure why anyone would be worried about him handing out too soft of a penalty. The guy could double for Putin.

[Roy Tucker]

I'm a little curious what using the video camera was achieving.

Were they taping the signals so that they could analyze the signals vs. game films after the game to figure out what signals meant what defense and use it in the future?

Or was it displaying the signals to a monitor somewhere? And how is that different from binoculars?

[WVRed]

I don't think there's a precedent for someone getting caught for something like this. At some point, there wasn't a precedent for anything. Precedents have to be set initially.

My rationale is that if you have solid evidence that they cheated in a specific game, then they shouldn't have the benefit of that win. They probably win anyway, but if they cheated, they should be forced to take a L.

And I take cheating VERY seriously. That's why I think the individual responsible should be held accountable with a severe penalty. But I woudn't want the fans or the players punished for something that's not their doing. So I'd penalize the coach who was behind the cheating. That seems fair to everyone, IMO. Punish the cheater, but don't make everyone else suffer.

It depends on who was complacent. If Robert Kraft knew this was going on, wouldn't you want more done? If they were sending the plays to Tom Brady through his helmet, wouldnt you want to see him suspended?

I think this goes much deeper than Belicheck, but I hope i'm wrong.

[M2]

If they were sending the plays to Tom Brady through his helmet, wouldnt you want to see him suspended?

So Tom Brady should be penalized because he's gets the plays relayed to him?

From the Code of Hammurabi:

"If any one steal the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death, and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death."

[bucksfan2]

Why break the rules if it doesn't help. Obviously this helped the Pats out or they wouldn't continue to do it.

On another note the Super Bowl is one of the most televised event each year. There are countless cameras and camera angles that are available each year. What if it comes out that the Pats had an illegal camera at each super bowl victory? With the advance in technology in today's game defensive play calls can be turned around and translated to the qb very very quickly.

[HumnHilghtFreel]

The league office is requiring the Patriots to change their logo.

http://bogp.com/recordingits.gif