That brings up something I've always wondered. Are the transmissions to the QBs helmet plain old analog? Digital? Digital spread spectrum with or without encryption?

I always figured that stealing signals was okay (except for the electronic transmissions, which was an honor system). Certainly when the MLB figures out the QB's audibles it's worthy of praise.

And extending to the guys on the sideline: Hey, if my guy with binoculars steals your signals, you should talk into your cupped hand more often. Otherwise, why do all those coaches call in plays while talking behind their play sheets or hands--they EXPECT the camera/binocular thing, no? Hell, they're probably doing it themselves!

In the immortal words of Louis Renault in Casablanca, I am shocked--SHOCKED!--to find that play stealing has been going on here.

I dont see how a camera man recording things would be able to relay what he'd recorded fast enough to the coaches for it to make any difference.

One more note: Let this guy try it in Indy this year and watch Bill Polian demonstrate the moves that got him an audition as Bruce Lee's stunt double way back when....

"Hey, fella, isn't that one of them new colonoscopy cameras?"

"No, it's a regular digital camcorder..."

"Not anymore it isn't!"

I guess that it's ok, well other than the fact that the article states it's against the NFL rules.

Also note that this apparently isn't the first time the Patriots have been caught doing this.

Rich,
I assume it's like reviewing the photographs from the overhead cameras. Even if it's not instantaneous, if they can review the first two series and get some feedback for the 2nd quarter, great. Even if they need 4 series and halftime to figure it out, that gives them a huge advantage for the 2nd half.

In a game like this, any sliver of an advantage helps.

I still don't know why it's so bad: If they weren't allowed to steal the signals, why not just put them on a total honor system and have the coaches call out plays in plain English and require the other team to not listen.... that's why it's "coded" in the first place.

New variable for DVOA: Team with the best code wins.

re 3:
While its probably useless for the game in progress, it could help in future games, particularly against division rivals such as the Jets.

As for whether we should care, this doesn't exactly seem like a particularly egregious offense, but it is pretty clear-cut and (if it did in fact happen) should be punished, esp since the article claims this isn't the first time.

If you were really intent on stealing signals why would you use a video camera at all? All that would do is create the possibility that you might get caught. Recording the signals to video would only help if you were preparing for the next time you met. But wouldn't you expect the team to change the signals by then? This whole accusation makes no sense. I suspect this is just more gamemanship in the Pats-Jets rivalry like the Caldwell/Dwight thing. Or maybe just an attempt by the Jets to deflect attention form the fact that they totally got their asses handed to them.

Remember last season when after the Fins shut out the Pats THEY were accused of stealing the PATRIOTS' signals?

Pot. Kettle. Black. That's all this DolFan has to say.

But wouldn’t you expect the team to change the signals by then?

I think it can give you an edge on determining (once you figure the code) how the coach wants to react to changes. It's one thing to send in a play and watch someone blow their read. It's another to know precisely how a coach will react to packages, personnel changes, etc.

DolFan316,

There was no accusation from the Pats about calls being stolen. In actuality, the Phin's bragged about it after the game on their own accord. I don't see any pot/kettle thing here.

With regard to the statements, I steal my take from a coach who posts on a Patriots message board:

Stealing Signals? A coach in the booth with a pair of binoculars can do the same thing while charting plays and actually have the information handy when needed. What possible good would some random camera man roaming the sidelines do? This is laughable. What's more laughable is that so many Jets' fans are willing to jump on this as gospel and the reason why the Jets did not perform well yesterday. It was just a football game.

I can see the rationale about using the signs in future games, but why use a press figure?

And since it clearly can have very limited use during a game, why use this against a team like Green Bay who wasn't very good last year and was an NFC team? You aren't going to see them again and they have limited affect on the playoff tiebreakers.

I will be shocked if this has any legs.

Apparently after stealing the signal, the Patriots kept sending the Jets the sign to suck at rushing the passer

Not only does it make no sense, it reeks of the unanswerable 'so when did you stop beating your wife' question.

A tape may or may not have been sent to NFL headquarters, but no one knows if there is anything on it, or if it has anything to do with the Jets Game.

Then there is somehow the concept of a repeated offense, accepted as gospel.

But if in fact they did something wrong before, why did we not hear about it, why was there no official action taken? Could it be that it was a big deal about nothing.

Could it be that the Jets are trying to deflect attention from their sad play, and have found an ally. Polian and the Competition Committee prepare to strike again ? Just a bit afraid of his Colts having to go up against the revitalized Pats, and unable to change the rules this time, but more than willing to use his position for their advantage ?

Wouldn't the best place to capture the opposing team's signals be from the other side of the field, just over the Pat's bench, or from the side, instead of from behind the Jets' bench, when all you're going to film most of the times is Mangini's ample behind?

And why send a guy with team credentials to do the rule-breaking deed, instead of buying a friggin' ticket on eBay for an anonymous "fan"? I know Belichick is cheap with multi-million dollar players' contract, but that's ridiculous.

Whatever the reason is that they don't do it all the other ways you could steal signals, the fact is that this is the way that the Pats seem to favor - and the fact is that it's still against the rules and spirit of the game.

Could it be that the Jets are trying to deflect attention from their sad play, and have found an ally. Polian and the Competition Committee prepare to strike again ? Just a bit afraid of his Colts having to go up against the revitalized Pats, and unable to change the rules this time, but more than willing to use his position for their advantage?

So I and several other people were indeed correct in predicting that Patriots fans, rather than simply denying the accusations, are using this as a chance to take unwarranted shots at the Jets and Colts (who aren't involved at all). Perfect example of that satirical (but nontheless true) headline: "94% of Boston sports fans have no idea how annoying they are."

1. If the Pats could lose draft picks (if the allegations prove to be true), that seems to go against Belicheck/Pioli philosophy.
2. I would think that you could do the same type of things with an inactive player on the sideline.
3. Remember the article on ESPN last week about Matt Hasselbeck (sp?) watching the Panthers on video before the 2006 NFC Champ('05 season), and seeing their defensive alignment/audible? Pats seem smart enough to do this.
4. Why wasn't this guy fired last year? Hope if there is any truth to this, he will be.
(This comes from a Saints fan.)

1. If the Pats could lose draft picks (if the allegations prove to be true), that seems to go against Belicheck/Pioli philosophy.
2. I would think that you could do the same type of things with an inactive player on the sideline.
3. Remember the article on ESPN last week about Matt Hasselbeck (sp?) watching the Panthers on video before the 2006 NFC Champ('05 season), and seeing their defensive alignment/audible? Pats seem smart enough to do this.
4. Why wasn't this guy fired last year? Hope if there is any truth to this, he will be.
(This comes from a Saints fan.)

The Pats got that I'm sick of them already 80s 49ner thing going for them now and any subject that that lets people express the hate is going to be a popular one. My guess is if there's anyone that knows how the Pats steal signs it's the JETS head coach and no doubt he tipped people off prior to the game. There's no doubt a secret NFL code that you don't talk to the press about this stuff after you leave an organization blah, blah, blah. ANYTHING to keep the AFC least interesting for us bottom feeder fans.

My take is that this is just another chapter in the ongoing pissing match between Mangini and Belichick. There must be some reason, however slight, that the Patriots prefer to have video shot from that angle. Mangini knows this, knows its a violation of some rule and publicly had it stopped. Does anyone really believe that if this violation is egregious enough to lose a draft pick over that Belichick would send the same guy who did it in Green Bay?

(This reminds me of how Jason Varitek's obsession with not having his signs stolen convinces me that the Red Sox are major sign stealers.)

#11: Bragged about it on their own? That's not the way *I* remember it.

In any case, the Pats have no business whining about any other team stealing their signals after this.

Last week: Rodney Harrison uses HGH
This week: Pats film opponents' defensive coordinators
Next week: Belichick caught sending prostitutes to opposing QB's hotel room
Two Weeks from now: Tom Brady caught xeroxing Peyton's stolen playbook

you get the idea

I thought the story last year was that someone (not sure if from the Dolphin's organization) claimed the Dolphins knew all of Brady's audibles before the game from studying available footage from previous games. Whether or not it was true, it's perfectly legal, and the Pats did not complain about it at all.

"In any case, the Pats have no business whining about any other team stealing their signals after this."

The way I see it, I'd say they would have had no business whining before this, since they were doing it too with impunity. If they now get punished, of course they would have the right to complain about other teams doing it.

Re: #20

Looks like the "border war" is back and hot.

In addition to all this, the Jets have reportedly filed a salary cap complain against the Patriots for Kraft flying Brady gratis out west to see his son just after the birth.

#22: All part of being the Evil Empire of the NFL.

I'm pretty sure Belichick wears hobnailed boots. You never see the cameras focus on his feet, do you?

I’m pretty sure Belichick wears hobnailed boots. You never see the cameras focus on his feet, do you?
He wears sneakers on the sidelines. Maybe they're the wrong brand?

I find myself fascinated by this sign stealing. Did you see in I believe it was the Eagles game, they were tryin to mask the coach (JJ wasn't relaying in the formations) with towels?

I am also fascinated with the response from the Patriots fans and media ( and we know there are a lot on this site).

Recording the signals to video would only help if you were preparing for the next time you met. But wouldn’t you expect the team to change the signals by then?

Two words: Bill Callahan

One of the signals the Pats must have stolen was the Jets' signal before the second half kickoff to not bother to tackle the kick returner. That would explain why Ellis Hobbs chose to return the kick even though it was eight yards deep in the end zone.

Perhaps Shanahan knows the Pats steal signals and calls decoy plays.

What else could explain the Broncos ownership of the Patriots in the Bellichick-Brady era?

"In addition to all this, the Jets have reportedly filed a salary cap complain against the Patriots for Kraft flying Brady gratis out west to see his son just after the birth."

Which is just more evidence that this is just more of a pissing contest between Mangini and Belichek.

Honestly, this is awesome. I for one, as a Patriots fan, look forward to having an Oakland/Denver style rivalry where the coaches want to stab one another.

re: #3

He could possibly have a direct line to Brady's helmet.
I don't think the Patriots would risk this unless they felt they were getting an advantage.

#16 Cripes, yes.

I brought up Polian in #4 as a clear joke (Bruce Lee's stunt double?) and because people here like to ridicule him after his inexcusable loss of temper at a Jets employee. (And Colt fans can make fun of their own with impunity; like nobody can pick on my little brother but me.)

Clearly not everyone thinks it's a joke and they have to rely on whining about non-existent rule changes taking away their rule-breaking advantage. From four years ago! In a season they won it all? Jeez, when you whine while winning the SB, when the hell do you do when you lose? (that sentence is NOT to be read out loud by people who have troubles with the letter W.)

This episode is clearly ridiculous and that NE employee is clearly stupid--having been nailed once he does it again. Any advantage they get from his film could be obtained legally with binoculars. The main advantage of film is its durability--it can be studied in its original form months later, but that is also the thing that gets you in trouble--it's physical evidence! They're not that stupid, are they?

Something not mentioned thus far: just last week the Jets picked up a player who had been cut by the Pats, who would in theory know their entire playbook. The Pats responded by doing the same.

As noted above, this seems like a stupid rule, if its intent is to stop signal stealing. A coach with binoculars could do the same thing. The curious thing is that the same cameraman was involved in a similar incident before.

The Pats should know what the rules are and should follow them. But there is no moral outrage here. It's just more of the Belichick-Mangini hostility.

Re 23
The Dolphins had a player miked up on the field, took the recordings of the line calls, and then synched them up with the video - none of it legal. They didn't complain for the same reason the Packers didn't complain about the Pats last year - not a factor in the outcome of he game.

Re 31:
This is standard Jets Pats hatred and has been going on LONG before Mangini went to the Jets. In fact, most of the Mangini tension last year was due to a "how could you go to THEM?" kind of thing. The Jets and Pats have been filing charges against each other going back before the Parcells defection.

23:

Although Brady did get a bit whiny in that post-game press conference.

34:

That doesn't always work; see the latest MMQB.

Using technology (as opposed to your eyes) to spy is rally quite serious. (Imagine what it would be like if your opponent can hear most of what's going on in your huddle and your sideline; I think this is manageable today.) This is why the use of a camera is significant.

Re 23
The Dolphins had a player miked up on the field, took the recordings of the line calls, and then synched them up with the video - none of it legal. They didn’t complain for the same reason the Packers didn’t complain about the Pats last year - not a factor in the outcome of he game.
Mmmm... do you have a reference for that?

This is kinda what I remember:
i.e. some Dolphin [player boasting they knew the audibles beforehand, and the Pats (Brady specifically) saying that, even if true, it was a bunch of bull that it made any difference.

re: 37
The point is that it's not a question of technology vs. no-technology. It's a question of using a recording device as opposed to a non-recording device that lets you see the same thing.

It's hard to see the justification for a rule that allows binoculars but not cameras. Of course binoculars have been used for decades.

re:36
I know using player info doesn't always work. But I've never quite understood why people get into a lather about "stealing signals", either in football or in baseball. I think it's sneaky but hardly immoral.

If it's against the rules, then yes, the Pats shouldn't be doing it. But the Pats didn't flatten the Jets because they stole signals.

What I find curious is that the exact same guy has been involved in two incidents. This could turn out to be much ado about nothing if, when the videotape is examined, the league finds that the cameraman was only taping the play on the field and not trying to steal signals.

In addition to all this, the Jets have reportedly filed a salary cap complain against the Patriots for Kraft flying Brady gratis out west to see his son just after the birth.

I haven't seen that reported. Can you post a link? Thanks.

For some more details on the Patriots v Packers incident, see link in name.

Earlier someone dismissed as 'concept-only' that this was a repeat offense, but this article brings to two the number of Packer officials who have confirmed the incident on the record. The team did not confiscate the videotape.

Whatever they wished to accomplish or whatever the gain might be, clearly the Patriots are credentialing someone who is not supposed to be recording the game.

Detroit sports talk radio is saying that Lions officials have also called league offices to report what they observed as "video cheating" by the Pats during their December 3rd game last year.

So unless you rationalization queens think that Mangini called the Packers and the Lions and asked them "narc" on the Pats...this isn't a "feud" between the Jets and the Pats, this is multiple example of the Pats violating league rules to gain an unfair advantage.

Especially since an "NFL Security" representative "caught" the Pats employee, not a Jets security employee.

And BTW...the rationalization and deflection from the Pats fans on this site...surprises NO ONE.

There are a *lot* of holes in this story. The NY ones have already been discussed, so I'll go into GB and Det.

Green Bay

[The camera man] retreated to the tunnel where the players exit the field, continued filming, and appeared to be communicating with the coaches via hand signals. At that point, he was escorted out of the stadium.

If the team could see his hand signals from that far away, why did they need him in the first place?

Detroit

Now that Detroit has thrown their hat in the ring, I believe this less than I ever did. This is a team that had a significant lead late in the game and went on to lose in the final minutes; a team that rarely wins at all, let alone against a good team on the road.

To top all of this off, they're offense is led by a guy who jumped on the 2003 AFCCG bandwagon and accused NE of cheating once before, who was also depantsed in front of the world in SB36.

Why in the world did we not hear anything about this before? I can see the GB thing were they just let it slide under the rug, but can anyone really see Mike Martz just walking away from this if they caught NE red handed?

Dammit!

THEIR, not they're.

Re: 43

You're doing it wrong.

The sainted Arnsparger in his book Coaching Defensive Football tells a story about an opponent stealing his signs. His solution was to have three guys on the sideline doing the chicken dance, but only his defensive captain knew which one was the real deal.

Coaches in this day and age don't still do this?

Apparently there's now a picture (linked in name). I really don't think this is a huge deal. If it's true, than it is hilarious how blatant it is. The way it was conducted just seems below Belichek. Not just the stealing of signs in the first place, but the manner in which it was conducted. However, I think coaches could easily use the video in the timespan of a game. They can decipher signs in the first few drives, then at halftime tell the QB what the playcall is either by the QB looking at signs or radio broadcast before 15 seconds are left on the clock.

Everyone else - remember these are Patriots fan here. If THEIR team does something scummy, it's just hard-nosed intelligent competition, and hey, everyone is doing it, no biggie. If YOUR team does it, it's a moral travesty, an outrage and a plot to deny the Patriots the respect and victories they require.

Ok, now that I've gotten my gratuitous shot in on Pats fans, many of whom are fine, wonderful human beings, in other
contexts; I do wonder if there's anything that can be done to stop this.

For those that don't think it's feasible to use the information, it is. I have a camera that records directly to hard disk. I could have a rough edit of the signals called and the play that resulted done within a half. (Very rough edit.) But it wouldn't need to be that elaborate - just scrubbing back and forth on the signals with a guy who has a playchart to find out what results from given signals.

#30 - Broncos advantage over Patriots

Bellichick = Mega Genius
Shananham = Super Mega Genius

Gotta love the header for ESPN's "Page 2":

"Page 2 -----> where there's a guy in a Patriots jacket filming us right now".

#48
And if, like with most teams, they use two signalers? And why would you need a camera for this when you could use binoculars? And if you did get the system down enough that you could predict the play, how realistic is it that the signal could come in, you could interpret the signal and relay the play to the coordinator, who could come up with the correct grouping and the correct play to take advantage of this scheme and get the play into the QB (and the radio cuts out with 15 seconds left on the clock) with enough time for him to huddle and set the play?

If it's true, it is poor sportsmanship and not worthy of a championship team. It would be just another example of the poor morality that has afflicted civilization forever. More unfortunate because it occurs in sports, which many of us hold to be a showcase of the virtues we should strive for as a society. But hardly surprising. Just shameful.

#48
Why don't you ask BB how they do it instead of speculating? Obviously it is advantageous or they wouldn't allegedly be doing it.

#51
If it is true it is cheating plain and simple, why vanilla coat it.

@#50

Perhaps you didn't think this through as well as you suppose. And I didn't make my point very clearly, either.

Your question is a good one, why a camera? And maybe we should also ask, if two people calling in plays is so great, why would anyone bother to film, as they pretty clearly did.

You're right, of course, a camera's no good for instantly reading and relaying signals, or no better than binoculars and a cell phone. But they did use a camera to film signals - why?

Based on my experience teams vary the person calling in the signals, and they vary the signals somewhat. But they don't typically vary them with true randomness. There's usually a pattern to who's calling what in a certain way at what time. If there wasn't then it's very easy for people on your own team to become confused and not know what the heck is being called.

I think it's pretty hard to figure out these signals if you're just sitting there watching, or trying to note things down with a pencil, and relay them over a radio.

BUT what if you've got video to review? Then a very clever group, like The Famous New England Evil Genius Association of The NFL, could perhaps discern the patterns in the signals and substitutions, and THEN pick up plays from binoculars during the second half.

Even if you just pick out something like, say, coverage calls, that's a big advantage.

I declare shenanigans!

BUT what if you’ve got video to review? Then a very clever group, like The Famous New England Evil Genius Association of The NFL, could perhaps discern the patterns in the signals and substitutions, and THEN pick up plays from binoculars during the second half.
Rrrrright. Because I am sure the Pats' coaching staff has nothing better to do at half time than painstakingly going through the synchronized (a breeze) bench and game footage (and can they even get the game footage before the end?) and trying to match schemes and signals, while the players sit back, relax and gorge on Doritos.

What sounds more difficult...

A. Taping signals, matching them to plays called, dispatching the information, hoping they didn't F up

B. Changing signals at halftime

How about:

c. Following the established rules and don't cheat.

Folks...it wouldn't be rocket science to use this as an advantage.

The teams already take multiple still pictures of each play as run and code them to determine tendencies...you make another copy and then have some assistant, assistant, quality control coach who makes $10 bucks an hour match the formations, the coverage drops and the calls going in and you will pick up patterns.

Anyway...our speculation doesn't matter...if it was a worthless exercise that had no value...they wouldn't be doing it...and their wouldn't be a league rule against it.

Ok, you guys obviously know better than the guys who sent out a cameraman. Tell me then, why DID they do it?

@55 -Coaches review overhead stills, field stills and some film both during the game and at half time. They really do. It's their job. They actually have nothing better to do than that. So what's so hard to believe about reviewing signals film?

I'm not saying everyone drops everything, including dorritos, to do it, I don't know why you think I was suggesting that, but these staffs are pretty big, and it's a real advantage.

As for synching, it's not as mind blowing as you suggest. The coaching staff will already have a list of what plays were called, formations and the results. Will you at least grant that? So, if you simply note times, and have correct time on your video, there's not too much synching to do.

These are teams that pick up each other's dropped players to learn signals and plays. Why does video seem too much to you?

#56 - How much trouble is winning an extra NFL game worth to a team like the Patriots, do you think? Not that this one was in much doubt, but what if that game gives you homefield over the Colts? What do you suppose that is worth?

What if the play you suss out is a long TD pass because you knew the coverage in advance, no QB read necessary? How much trouble would that be worth?

As for your point #2 - why would you change up and possibly confuse things on your own team (the chance of this is very real) if you didn't think anyone was in the stands, breaking the NFL rules?

#57 You said it better than I did, OMO. - Hadn't seen your post when I wrote.

Personally, this Pats fan is disgusted at the thought that they would cheat like this, but not surprised. Remember the playoffs a few years ago when Belicheck asked for the field not to be covered to make the conditions horrible before the game? I believe they played the Colts, which gave them an advantage over the dome team. Belicheck has shown that he will take advantage of anything he can.

Now, as fan, it did cross my mind the Mangini, who used to be part of the organization, would know the Pats did this, and try to expose it to his advantage, but even if that's the case a) why wait this long? and b)if they've been doing it and getting away with it for that long, it's a problem.

However, if the Pats have been doing it, and for that long, I'd be surprised if they were the only ones. Since it took so long for these multiple incidents to be leaked to the press (though we knew about a few), why wouldn't there be other incidents hidden about other teams? Granted, I'm not sure if any of them were this blatant, or if there even were others.

I wonder what the fallout of this will be. Obviously, whether there are league consequences or not, teams will be watching the Pats more closely for this sort of behavior anxious to point the finger and result in punishment. I wonder if this will make teams more willing to point the finger at other teams, especially division rivals, in hope of sanctions.

Well, that settles it! Everybody grab a broom, it's Shenanigans!

Well, apparently I was wrong when I just shrugged this story off. I do stand by a few things, however:

1) Had the Jets won, no word of this would have come out. This is just another card being played in the Mangini/Belichick love-fest.

2) Every team does this in some form or another. I wouldn't be surprised if the Jets were using cameras to get NE's signs. They just weren't so brazen about it.

3) The footage from this camera had no impact on the game itself. I just can't see how anyone can synch up the plays with the signals and be able to gather anything meaningful. There isn't enough plays being called nor is there enough time to determine what the calls mean.

That being said, I do think that it is perfectly legitimate to quesiton whether NE had used this technique to get info from the three games last year.

Regardless, now all the fans that love to jump all over NE and their fans have a piece of ammo that I'm sure won't be lived down any time soon. So be it.

If it established that the Patriots have been breaking the rules than they should be severely punished. I think a second round pick would be a good start.

There are two schools of thought on this. One group of people, like me, think that poor sportsmanship and cheating should be severely punished. The other group feels that this is an example of gamesmanship and that people should be respected and rewarded for going outside the rules to get an advantage.

The problem with the latter is that results in a downward cycle that forces all teams to match the rule-breaking of the worst offender until you get an unwatchable mess of corruption and cheating. As exhibit A, I present Italian soccer.

Most Americans despise flopping in soccer. That is how it should be. It is cheating, pure and simple. Fans are reduced to hoping their star forward flops around like a harpooned fish in the penalty box attempting to draw a penalty kick even though he was never touched, just so it can match the penalty kick awarded to the other team from their flop.

Cheating destroys the game. Anyone who loves football should hope for a severe penalty from the NFL, including $10 million of Cap money donated to charity and a massive fine for the owner, who is responsible for the actions of his organization. Do we really want our favorite sport to destroy itself because every team is compelled to break the rules to stay competitive?

Ok, so let's review:

1) Apparently, everybody breaks the NFL rules and uses cameras to steal signals, it's just that the Pats are the only ones that get caught (twice). And because everyone else does it, it's not a big deal, and the Pats shouldn't be punished for it.

2) There's no way the Pats could possibly benefit from it, because apparently that level of technological sophistication is beyond them.

3) It had no impact on the outcome of the game, so it's not a big deal.

I'm not even going to bother addressing 1) and 3), but I will say this about 2): either they would benefit from it, or they at least thought they would benefit from it. Otherwise, they wouldn't have broken NFL rules to do it.

ESPN "sources" say that Goodell has determined that the Pats broke league rules and could be docked multiple draft picks. See link.

The more likely it is that there is a real benefit to this activity the less likely it is that only the Patriots are doing it. If it is a practice that is confined to the Patriots then why did a memo go out to all teams last year? That said, if they get a significant penalty for this then Belichick is guilty of gross arrogance by having the same GD guy who got caught previously doing it again.

If it established that the Patriots have been breaking the rules than they should be severely punished. I think a second round pick would be a good start.

For using a camera to steal signals? I think a second round pick is a bit harsh. A hefty fine (say, $100k, counted against the salary cap?) would probably be plenty for this, along with an understanding that subsequent offenses would yield more significant penalties.

Re 67
I understand what you are saying but am reminded of a case that came up in our BoA meetings recently. We have a sign ordinance in our town. A car lot decided to violate that ordinance to the tune of something crazy like 80 signs. They pleaded that the fine, $10,000, was too great for what they did. They made a business decision based on the benefits and costs of breaking the rule. If the costs of breaking a rule are just a slap on the wrist, than what you have is worse than no rule at all.

If you are going to have rules, they must be enforced with sufficient penalties to deter rule-breaking or you end up with organizations effectively punished for following the rules by losing games to teams that don't.

If the rule is stupid, and it might very well be, Kraft is the most influential and powerful owner in the league. He can have it changed to allow it. Instead, apparently, he chose to keep the rule to prevent other teams from doing it while his organization gained an unfair advantage.

Now the NFL has a problem. Their most successful franchise has been cheating, and all of their victories now are associated with this baggage. If a team will do anything to gain an advantage, irrespective of the rules, how far of a leap is it to bribing officials? It's a slippery slope.

I don't want my football to end up like our politics in which nothing is on the up and up. I say punish them severely and send a message to the entire league. Cheating will not be tolerated.

I agree, the punishment should be severe enough to deter further attempts from them or anyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if the league took away a first rounder, besides a hefty fine. The penalty is harsh, but on the other hand the Pats have two first round picks next year so it won't be devastating. And in the meantime, it will deter everyone else from trying the same.

I would also ask the Patriots organization to come clean as to how far back and how often they have been doing this, and review footage/pictures from various key games, besides playoffs and SB's, to ensure they are telling the truth. If they are caught lying on that, more severe punishments would be appropriate.

"The footage from this camera had no impact on the game itself."

Look knucklehead...it's real simple...the Jets call in defensive play #1.

The Patriots get two polaroid still shot of every play...once at lineup and once during the play...so they can see what the lineup is and what the Jets do once the play is in motion.

They see from the play from the stills (for example) that the Jets stacked the line to the right and the safeties dropped into deep zone.

They match up the play calls with the things learned on play #1. So far they have learned nothing...but here's where the process of elimination kicks in.

On play #10, (again, for example) the Jets do a bunch of other things, but also drop the safeties deep. The play call is different in all areas but one...thus this one particular call means "safeties drop deep"

You tell Brady at halftime (or if you are using hand gestures...at any time) when you see/hear "X" that means the safeties are dropping deep...the underneath stuff will be single covered.

If it happens again on play 15...there's your 3rd time to validate your theory. 3 for 3...that's pretty compelling evidence you know what that sign means.

Now, don't you think a smart QB like Brady will be able to use that?

Or heck...tell the o-line, the left tackle will be stunting when you see "y"...you don't think any o-lineman will be a better blocker when he knows what his man is going to do to get to the ball carrier/QB?

It's cheating...plain and simple...it's cheating and it's a HUGE unfair advantage.

Re: 67

They've already been warned via a letter from the league office last year.

It obviously didn't take.

OMO,

First off, you are a big, big man. You can insult a guy on a message board, even though you are completely off base. Now, the team that you have loathed for some time has proven to be the dispicable bunch of thugs and cheaters that you always knem them to be. Yes!

Now, back in reality. If someone wanted to steal signs for use during the game they are playing, why would they use a video camera? Then it adds in the tedious steps of going back through the data, linking it up with the plays that were called at the exact same time and then deciphering what it means. I quoted this earlier but I will do it again because you need to here it:

Stealing Signals? A coach in the booth with a pair of binoculars can do the same thing while charting plays and actually have the information handy when needed.

The only value that a video camera *does* add is the ability to catalog for future yes, ergo it has no bearing on that game. Plus, wasn't the camera in question confiscated? Think a little, man.

Now, I completely stand by the statement that every team uses some covert manner to steal other teams' signs. I knew that anti-fans here would mistake that as an apology which it is clearly not. It just means that the act of stealing signs is really not uncommon. The act of visually saving them for future use certainly is and NE should be punished for it. Not only did they break the rules, but they did so in an overt manner after being told not to. Fine them, suspend BB, dock them a couple picks, even reverse the outcome of the game for all I care. NE deserves to get what they get. Just stop acting as if this gives your team a higher moral platform.

Oswlwek: Actually, I heard Schlereth and Woodson on separate clips describe how you would use videotaped signals to figure out what plays were being called and they described it almost exactly as OMO did. I don't want to overplay this (the Jets played like crap regardless), but those two guys were clear that the videotape provides a definite competitive advantage.

The plot thickens:

The league also was reviewing a possible violation into the number of radio frequencies the Patriots were using during Sunday's game, sources said. The team did not have a satisfactory explanation when asked about possible irregularities in its communication setup during the game.

Are we now going to hear about how every team is using multiple frequencies without legimate reasons?

Oswlek,
How exactly would definitive proof that another team is cheating give fans of other teams a higher moral platform? Oh yeah, because cheating is immoral. Also, videotape can definitely be used in game to determine calls and strategies. Teams have dozens of staff members on gameday so it's not unreasonable to think that they could assign 2 or 3 the task of deciphering signs in close to real time. Or at the very least they can take 3 or 4 drives worth of tape to find signs to give at halftime. The big effect that I see from this is that teams will switch their signs at halftime (the ones that weren't doing this already).

Here's a former Boston Herald sportswriter's take on Tapegate:

http://jmgee.blogspot.com/2007/09/this-is-signal-tap.html

"It just means that the act of stealing signs is really not uncommon."

Do you have ANY evidence that this is true?
Ever?
Can you name 10 teams that did this?

Kinda weird there is no new thread on this today with the news Mort broke.

This one is pretty burried, very hard to find.

Mark Schlereth was pretty fired up about this. I wonder how many picks the Pats will lose for cheating.

Wilbon thinks they will lose a 3rd and a 5th for cheating, Kornheiser thinks they will only lose a 7th for being cheaters.

The picks could be significant as the Pats essentially passed on the draft this year. Only 2 draftees are on the team and they more or less stockpiled for next year, no? (opposite end of the spectrum are teams like Indy with 6 or 7 out of 7 draftees on the team)

Goodell seems to be a bit of a hanging judge. I say a 2nd rounder and a 4th. A 1st? Good God that would be harsh. What that means is that instead of 14 young able bodies plus or minus that they could have had from the 07/08 drafts, they'll have about half as many, which could affect them quality-wise or cap-wise for a few years downstream. Those seven missing draft choices are cheap but decent quality players. (If they fill out the roster with more undrafted kids quality drops, or if they grab more veteran FAs, there is more cap pressure.....) Stay tuned.

68,69,71:
I see where you're coming from, and maybe a $100k fine wouldn't be enough, but I don't think the penalty should be too harsh. I mean, there are many possible violations that are far more serious and damaging to the sport than stealing signals with a video camera. If you punish this with such a harsh penalty, what do you do if, say, a team is caught stealing the other team's playbook, or doing something even worse than that? Take away their entire draft? I get that they were warned, and I don't think that they have anything to complain about if they do get docked multiple picks, but I just think that in the long term, it's wise to be careful in administering punishments that fit the crime.

Honestly, in this situation, I'd expect that taking away a 5th round pick and maybe a few million off their salary cap would be more than enough incentive for them, and everyone else, to not do this.

Of course, given Goodell's penchant for harsh punishments, he'll probably take away all of their 1st round picks for the rest of the decade. Well, actually, I think he might even think that's too harsh...or would he? ;)

I think it's a little simplistic to say change the signals at halftime. If the video analysis is good and your defensive signals are obvious, the Pats could have figured out a pattern after 2 or 3 drives, well before halftime.

While it seems that no ones knows the complete scope of this problem is looks a little desperate when people comment that 'everyone steals signals - the Pats were just unlucky to be reported because Mangini was sour about losing' or something to that effect.

As for potential punishments, I'd like to see loss of future draft picks for those offenses that can be proven from previous years and loss of wins - that's right, forfeits - for games in this season where obvious cheating took place. This is the kind of crap that needs to be stamped out - we shouldn't need a tribe of Windtalkers to be employed by each team just to be sure that the signals aren't being deciphered by whatever codebreaking devices have been invented.

Again, for all those that are saying that the camera helped in that game:

Stealing Signals? A coach in the booth with a pair of binoculars can do the same thing while charting plays and actually have the information handy when needed.

Adding the camera in only complicates the porcess *during* the game.

That said, I do think it is a far worse offense to use the camera. I see it like everyone else grabs change out of the penny jar when the opportunity arises, but NE set up a surveylence network to see when they would have the best opportunity - and multiple opportunites - to dip into the cash register. As I said before, the league could reverse the outcome of the game and I really won't be too upset about it. But I still think it is terribly naive to think that NE is the only team stealing signs out there. They just pushed the envelope off the table and out the door.

I should also say that if they are guilty of listening in on radio frequencies or jamming them, then that is as bad, or even worse, as everyone wants to make this. I have a hard time seeing it - yes, in spite of these proving to be true - but it could be just me being hopeful. That would be really, really bad.

re: 81

I mean, there are many possible violations that are far more serious and damaging to the sport than stealing signals with a video camera. If you punish this with such a harsh penalty, what do you do if, say, a team is caught stealing the other team’s playbook, or doing something even worse than that?

Is this the old "you can't give me the death penalty for killing one guy because then what will you give the murderer who kills three guys" excuse?

Anyway, the Patriots:
- Got caught video taping the opposing team despite a) having been caught before and b) being specifically warned not to do it
- Now have this business with radios where they are likely either listening in to the Jets' radios or broadcasting to their defense (I don't know what else you would do with extra radio frequencies)
- Had a player caught using HGH, which is "undetectable" and the pats are an organization known to be extremely secretive with injuries
- plus Belichick had an affair that ruined that one dude's marriage

Forget docking draft picks, I say we ban em from the playoffs like they do in the NCAA.

Re 39:
I thought the NFL and the purchaser of the rights were the only ones who could record NFL games? I remember last year the affiliates, etc. all got kicked out and can't record anything on their own anymore.

Re 45:
No, you are.

I write the songs.

Re 61:
Hey Farva, what's your favorite restaurant?

Re 66:
Because it's against the rules? I mean, stealing is great and really benefits the stealer but most people don't do it.

Re 81:
This is interesting given the arguments about Goodell's punishments for Adam Jones, et al. At least one person here was arguing that those stiff penalties make all penalties more severe since the bar had been raised. Sure makes this interesting.

Two additions:

1) Tiki and Ronde Barber admitted on the radio that "everyone does it and everyone knows it". Kind of knocks some of the anti-guys off a little. As I said before, NE deserves what they get for being so obvious about it, but the premise - stealing signs - is done by everyone.

2) Quoted from the NY post (link attached):

Matt Estrella, 26, a Patriots video assistant, was nabbed just before halftime of the Jets' 38-14 loss on opening day.

So that completely kills any possibility of them using the video during that game.

The only thing I really see wrong here is that the Pats were so brash and ridiculous about it....

I mean, theres really nothing you can do here that you couldn't do with binoculars and a notepad.

Will they get punished? Yeah. Should they? Most likely. Is there any chance in hell that the majority of the teams in the NFL aren't trying to steal signs? No.

I'd believe this was a lot more serious of an issue if the Colts or Chargers were reporting this, but c'mon, the lions, bills, jets, and packers? The packers are getting decent, but the rest of the teams aren't even competitive.

First thing, I can't believe nobody has yet mentioned the obvious solution to avoid having defensive signals stolen - let someone on the defense have a helmet receiver like the QB's. It's long past time for that anyway.

Someone asked why they'd bother doing it against teams like Green Bay instead of saving it for Indy or whomever. I dunno, practice? Do you really want to be figuring out how to code break (and rely on the suspect information a novice codebreaker would produce at first) during the key game, or would you rather have them prove they can do it first during a blowout?

I am truly amazed that Oswelk keeps saying that taping it can't help immediately. I understand your point that someone could do something similar with binoculars in real time. I can't understand why you can't see that they could do better - potentially a ton better - if they have the information saved for review rather than just going from memory. That you can potentially go back and pick up some pattern you'd previously missed should be fairly obvious, I would've thought.

Someone axed why Mangini wouldn't have blown the whistle sooner (since if this had been going on while he coached there, he should've known). Maybe he thought having them caught in the act would be more damning evidence than just his claims.

People early on questioned the validity of the Green Bay incident because this is the first we'd heard about it. But it's not like the NFL makes every violation or internal memo public. For example, pretty much every week they issue apologies to teams for incorrect calls, but we only hear about them when some team is really angry and leaks it. Perhaps the Green Bay incident was handled confidentially, with an undisclosed punishment and a warning.

I'm sure I have something else to say, but I can't think of it right now.

86: If its as commonplace as Tiki says, then why don't Schlereth and Golic know about it? Besides, this exact issue was specifically emphasized in the off-season, and yet Billy B. decides its a good idea to try it in week 1. Against an arch rival and former assistant no less. How incredibly stupid!!

Bottom line, this is brutally embarrassing for the Pats.

Dan,

of course they know about it. It is just easier to feign ignorance as a way to make yourself look more pious. Besides, I would think that they are mostly complaining about the use of the camera to steal signs, which I agree is a major offense.

Trogdor,

for the camera to have any value you would have to be doing both camera and some other form of sign stealing. Then you would need to have a few specific plays that you want to review. In those circumstances I could see the value, but that is really it during the game. Most here are making it sound as if you can break down the film and steal all the signs from earlier drives using the camera which just isn't possible. There isn't enough time.

90: Sorry, I forgot Tiki is the be-all, know-all. He is so NOW, as ESPN would say.

If you dont think taping could help during the game, then why do you think the guy with camera was trying to get into the Pats lockeroom during halftime? To use the bathroom?

If it's commonplace, then why hasn't Belichick blown the whistle on other teams? Someone as insistent on he is on controlling team information doesn't seem to be the type to shrug off other teams' attempts to steal his signals.

"That you can potentially go back and pick up some pattern you’d previously missed should be fairly obvious, I would’ve thought."
Which takes TIME. You can't notice secondary patterns on the fly.

"If it’s commonplace, then why hasn’t Belichick blown the whistle on other teams?"

Are you seriously asking that question? Seriously?

88: I've been wondering why they don't let a defensive player have a headset already. After all, during nearly every game the announcers describe some player as the "quarterback of the defense," and each team has a defensive player who calls the plays, just give him the helmet with the green dot.

"Which takes TIME. You can’t notice secondary patterns on the fly."

During almost every game, we see shots of the QB on the sidelines, looking at the still shots of the defense from the last drive (available pretty much instantly), talking on the phone with the coaches in the booth. Why, while looking at these shots of defensive alignments and movements from previous drives, could someone not also be looking at the tape of the signals?

The hardest part would be getting that video to the coaches (or scouts, interns, whoever). I'm sure an NFL team that wanted to do this could find a way to get the video there pretty quickly - like record it on a cell phone video camera and call it in.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if all teams used the binocular method or whatnot. And I wouldn't doubt there are others using video to do so (but maybe a bit more subtle about it!). I'm not particularly outraged that the Pats were stealing signs. But they apparently did something that was explicitly against the rules, which they apparently had been caught doing before, and they'll be punished for it. I'm just having trouble understanding some of the dismissals and rationalizations being offered here.

With one exception, I agree with King Kaufman's take in Salon (linked). Brief excerpt:
NFL security officials confiscated a video camera and tape from a Patriots employee who had been pointing the camera at the Jets bench. The league has a rule against teams having video recording devices in the coach's booth, the locker room or on the field during games.

Why does the league have that rule? For the same reason it has a rule governing the length of players' socks. The NFL likes rules.
And his conclusion:
Punish the Patriots if that's what it takes to keep the suits -- and various Pats haters around the world -- happy. Then get rid of that rule.
Read the whole thing to see his reasoning.

My exception? (I know you're all curious.) Nothing will make the Patriot-haters happy. Using OMO as an example, they're a very, very, very bitter lot.

This is so awesome. Pats fans are as desperate as their head coach. This just makes my day. Go ahead Rich, Oswlek and all the others. Make all the excuses you want, but deep down you know this hurts. It hurts bad. Someday maybe you and Billy B. will learn the value in admitting when your wrong and being contrite. In the meantime, continue to hold up Tiki Barber and NASCAR as your shining lights of respectability. What a joke. Bostonians defending their position by citing NASCAR examples. The apocalypse cant be far behind.

"ake all the excuses you want, but deep down you know this hurts. It hurts bad. Someday maybe you and Billy B. will learn the value in admitting when your wrong and being contrite"

Could you please point out where one of us said it wasnt wrong? Why dont you stop making shit up?

Exhibit B: Don Booza

Re 95:
They voted on it in the offseason - it received 22 of the 24 votes it needed.

This is all part of BB's plan to get the Pats back to disrespectability. Pure genious and all you haters have taken the bait. Muhhahahahah!

I'm amazed at the people who are making claims they can't possibly defend. The NFL teams put in the rule for a reason. They know what advantage, if any, the video offers. If it was of no value, no one in the league would care.

Now it is possible that they are all incredibly stupid, but it seems more likely that they have good reasons for insisting on the rule.

BTW-- those who suggest that it is a simple matter to change signals at halftime have obviously never coached or played the game.

This is Belichick's statement, which is the first thing you see on the Patriots.com website:

"Earlier this week, I spoke with Commissioner Goodell about a videotaping procedure during last Sunday's game and my interpretation of the rules. At this point, we have not been notified of the league's ruling. 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."

I have a ton of commentary on this, but at this point, I'm going to wait until we see what the commissioner does. I'm torn, on the one hand, as a fan, I'm devasted, not only by this, but by the off-season's course of conduct of the team. On the other hand, I found that Salon article quite compelling. We'll see what Goodell does.

"Would I be saying this if the team in question was the Jacksonville Jaguars?"

I would post this, especially if the Jaguars were the most successful team of the decade.

I am not a Pats hater, but the fact that it is the Pats who have been pulling this stuff is (I beleive) relevant to the discussion. This is a team who have won a lot of games (including playoff games and Superbowls) by playing very well at the end of games. Any use of artificial means to break codes in the signals to the opposition players is going to be more useful towards the end of the game as more information about the opposition's calls is revealed. Whether Pats fans like it or not this casts a shadow over their teams acheivements this century. I really wish it didn't as it has to damage football as well, but until this turns out to be a much smaller deal than it currently appears it could become, sorry but that is how this observer feels. I Aaron wants to pull this post off the site then I understand.

Thinking about how this could work, one guy films the defensive signals, the video is transmitted to some guy sat in front of a computer (using one of the unauthorised radio frequencies) who looks through each signal and tries to seperate each component of the 'semaphore' and logs each set of signals against the play. Meanwhile one or two guys in the coaches box enter what happened in the defensive scheme onto a database, ie 43over, sam blitz, man cover, dl slnt rht, safeties 2over (or some other set of parameters that would actually apply to football) or just compared the plays to previously identified plays form the weeks scouting. Then you have approx 90mins to match up parts of the signals to the plays run. If you got good at it 90 minutes would be a long time. After two and a half hours you could probably have most of the signals down. Bear in mind you can prioritise which parts you want to decipher first, and that there are only so many things you can do with your arms while keeping each part of the signal distinct and each action has to be performed quickly to have any point at all. Also the information would only be arriving when one team has the ball. You might get 10 to 15 minutes between drives.

It really is time to put radios in a defensive player's helmet.

Is this the old “you can’t give me the death penalty for killing one guy because then what will you give the murderer who kills three guys� excuse?

No, I was going for the old "you don't give a guy the death penalty for robbing a store, or else it gives him an incentive to shoot the cashier, and leave no witnesses." But I get your point. Still, I think that this is more akin to robbing a store than killing a guy.

Anyway, the Patriots:
...long list of bad things Patriots have done
Forget docking draft picks, I say we ban em from the playoffs like they do in the NCAA.

I guess if you look at it holistically, then that punishment seems more reasonable. But keep in mind, the HGH use by Harrison has already been punished with a 4 game suspension, and Belichick's affair is kind of his own business. So really, it's "just" the sign stealing and the radio frequencies, which, if proven, should (and will, if Goodell's previous actions are any indication) result in a pretty strong punishment.

This is interesting given the arguments about Goodell’s punishments for Adam Jones, et al. At least one person here was arguing that those stiff penalties make all penalties more severe since the bar had been raised. Sure makes this interesting.

I was arguing that wrt Adam Jones. And let me be clear: I have little sympathy for Jones, or for others who got suspended, or for teams that get punished for breaking rules. They knew what they were doing, and freely chose to break the rules.

That said, I think that the punishment should fit the crime, for several reasons. First, having inordinately harsh or lenient punishments confuses those who are being governed/(whatever Goodell is doing to players). If people don't know what to expect when they do break the rules (because punishments are applied inconsistently/illogically), they either become afraid of being severely punished for minor violations, or brazen in committing whatever violations they want.

Second, and in my mind more important, is that I believe the only purpose of punishment should be to prevent future violations. And as long as a punishment is severe enough to make not committing the violation a clearly and significantly better option for the would-be violator, it need not, and should not, be any greater. The object here isn't to get vengeance, it's to stop bad things from happening again.

It's all well and good to go into "Wrath of God" mode whenever somebody gets caught stealing a cookie, but who does that help? If it doesn't make future violations any less likely, it doesn't really help law-abiding people. And it sure as hell doesn't help the person being punished, so what's the point?

The Patriots should get punished for breaking the rules, just like Adam Jones should've been (and was) punished for breaking the rules. But whatever punishment would be enough to stop people from breaking those rules in the future should be all the punishment given. There's no reason to multiply it by a "pious outrage" factor.

"BTW– those who suggest that it is a simple matter to change signals at halftime have obviously never coached or played the game."

Then how come quite a few teams in the league change signals at half time?

re: 107

You make some good points. The only issue I would have is the rationale of "The object here isn’t to get vengeance, it’s to stop bad things from happening again."

Not handing out punishment for the Pats' breaking the rule this time merely their transgression goes unpunished, and indirectly says "its ok to break this rule once." Thats not a great precedent to set.

Regardless, from what we've seen from Goodell so far, I don't think he'll err on the side of being too lax.

re:
"From now on, before you post, simply ask yourself this question: Would I be saying this if the team in question was the Jacksonville Jaguars?"

I'd suspect that if the Jags were involved, there would be a lot less rationalizations & "every team does it" posts.

re: radios in defensive players' helmets
This idea makes perfect sense and I echo everybody who said it's about time it get implemented. I think that from whatever else happens from this whole scenario, getting radios in MLB's helmets will be a plus.

Note: I believe what the Patriots did was wrong and stupid. It makes me far less interested in continuing to call myself a Pats fan (I have been one since the early 80's).

Now, I am curious if anybody knows the exact wording of a rule that the Patriots have violated. Here is a summary of (some of?) the relevant rules from a John Clayton story on ESPN:

"The "Game Operations Manual" states 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." The manual states that "all video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead."

So the Patriots did not use a camera in the coaches' booth or in the locker room. They also did not use one on the field (as far as anyone knows the cameraman stayed on the sidelines).

The filming location (The Meadowlands) is enclosed on four sides. It does not, however, have a roof. So is that the rule they explicitly violated - they filmed in a location that did not have a roof?

Clayton also mentions that it is illegal to tape signals, but he doesn't quote the rules that explicitly forbid it.

Note: I still believe that what the Patriots did was wrong. It clearly violated the intent of the rules, even if the rules were poorly enough written to have some glaring loopholes.

110 - I assume that that "on the field" includes not only the field of play itself, but also the sidelines. That's the most reasonable interpretation of the rules, IMO.

Kaufman's argument is stupid. Spectators aren't permitted to bring video cameras into the game. And teams are prohibited from taping opposition coaches on the field on in the coaches box. Therefore, coaches have the expectation that they won't be taped and don't need to change their signals every 5 minutes. Sure you can steal signs with binoculars, but videotape lets you do it more effectively. Just like creatine helps you build muscle mass, but steroids and HGH help you do it more effectively. The NFL makes the rules and gets to draw the lines. Teams and players needs to stay within the lines or they are cheating.

111: That was presumably the intent, but if the manual doesn't define "field" for purposes of that rule, then it isn't exactly explicit.

I'm partially just curious about what might be behind BB's statement that he explained his interpretation of the rules to Goodell. As far as I am concerned, BB's track record is one of parsing rules very carefully and exploiting any loopholes until explicitly instructed otherwise.

Note: I still think what the Pats did was wrong and stupid.

"Therefore, coaches have the expectation that they won’t be taped and don’t need to change their signals every 5 minutes."

If they have that expectation, why are they always talking into their clipboards on TV?

On Sportscenter yesterday John Clayton said they vote every offseason on putting radios in defenders helmets, and the Pats always vote against it. He said it was odd because normally the "defensive" teams all vote for it, except for the Pats.

As the competitive advantage gained by the Pats was knowledge of the Jets' defensive signs, I think it would be an appropriate, and not contrary to the CBA or owner, merely to disallow the Patriot's use of the in-helmet microphone for 2-5 games.

Alternatively, take a page from the colleges and ban them from Bowl games :)

Re 110, 111:
That would contrast with previous reports that every team is actually allowed to record footage of players from their sideline, provided the staff doing it carry proper identification.

The sticking point is that they should not be filming coaches. If that is the case, it may boil down to whether the taping of any signals could be considered incidental (the signaling coach being in the same frame as the players being filmed) or not (the signaling coach being the focus). The worst-case scenario is that it will turn out to be a subjective decision, which means that there's not going to be a clear resolution and this thread will replace the Manning-Brady threads of yore. (That is, unless the NFL wants to go through every other existing game tapes from last week from other teams, and make some statistical analysis on the presence of signaling coaches in each one, which I doubt).

117

It sounds like they confiscated the tape, which would in theory provide very clear cut evidence (ie zooming in on Mangini talking or whatever)

How long till some low level NFL peon leaks it to YouTube?

from espn:

NEW YORK -- A story in Wednesday's New York Daily News claims that Jets coach Eric Mangini, a former New England assistant under Bill Belichick, came armed with keen knowledge of the team's surveillance methods -- and finally decided to act.

"[The Jets] knew they did it," the Daily News wrote, citing a person with knowledge of the situation, who sent the newspaper an e-mail. "They caught the guy a year ago, but couldn't do anything about it. When Eric came, he said that's what they used to do. Bill is going to be [ticked] at Eric. He kissed and told."

Sunday's game was the fifth time Mangini has coached against Belichick since joining the Jets.

-- ESPN.com news services

linked in my name

Re: 114 -- umm, so an opposing coach with binoculars or watching the broadcast on TV can't see the play you called. Same reason the OC doesn't just yell the name of the play to the QB. What does that have to do with videotaping hand signals?

re: 102

"Would I be saying this if the team in question was the Jacksonville Jaguars? If the answer is “no,� then DON’T POST IT."

Mr. Schatz: If that's the standard, then it is - IMO - a very poor one. The Patriots have been - also IMO - the most sucessfull franchise of the new century. If cheating, to an extent, contributed to that success, then it is an interesting and worthwhile topic of discussion.

I found the points and counter-points in this thread to be well worth reading, including: The Everyone-Does-It defense, the How-Useful-Is-It? defense, the Salon article, etc ...

I didn't find the personal attacks and broad generalizations regarding a particular fanbase (Pats fans) to be terribly useful or interesting though.

I couldn't believe Kraft's comment on this. His team is caught cheating (after being warned about this specific behavior previously), and he wants to dismiss it as other teams trying to tear down the Pats because they're jealous of their success. Unbelievable. Really, that requires a special kind of arrogance to claim with a straight face.

"Mr. Schatz: If that’s the standard, then it is - IMO - a very poor one. The Patriots have been - also IMO - the most sucessfull franchise of the new century. If cheating, to an extent, contributed to that success, then it is an interesting and worthwhile topic of discussion."

Will, I'm not sure I agree. The fact that Barry Bonds broke the home run record doesn't make his being on steroids any worse than Jose Canseco being on steroids, or some random pitcher being on steroids.

Cheating and losing isn't any better than cheating and winning, its just less noticible.

"John Tomase, of the Boston Herald, reports San Diego Chargers RB LaDainian Tomlinson is not surprised by allegations the New England Patriots used a camera to steal signs. Tomlinson said, "I think the Patriots actually live by the saying, 'If you're not cheatin, you're not trying.' I mean, I think that's the way … they live off that statement. You keep hearing the different stories of people complaining about stuff that they do. So I'm not surprised.""

I'm just amazed how classy Ladanian is. How the hell did he get the reputation anyway? Like everything he says is a shot at someone else.

I don't suppose the rule book ("Game Operations Manual") isn't online for all of us to examine, is it?

Is there any rule forbidding teams from trying to understand their opponents' signals (both players and non-players, and both visual and auditory)?

Do the rules allow the use of binoculars and still cameras?

Is the prohibition on video equipment to prevent stealing signals or to prevent unauthorized video or audio recordings of NFL games that only the NFL has rights to?

124

If the shoe fits...

A comment thread on news reports that the Patriots were caught breaking rules in a game against the Jets now includes a comment questioning Ladainian Tomlinson's class.

We're through the looking glass on this one people.

Some things I know I know...

* The rules ban it, so they should be punished. Commensurately with the crime. So something less than the 1998 Broncos were penalized for for cheating on the salary cap for the whole season, for example.

* I'm still trying to figure out what advantage you get from it. I have to believe DCs are smart enough to use dummy signals and to change the "hot" signal/indicator/activator each series, let alone from game-to-game.

* According to the Boston radio stations, the NFL said in the preseason that the anti-videotaping rule would be a "point of emphasis" this year.

* Awfully stupid of Belichick to use the same guy that he used back when Mangini was on the staff. And doing it in the first game. And doing it in the NFL's headquarters city.

* No one (not even stan or OMO) is doing to convince me that the other 31 teams don't also do this. In fact, I'd be shocked if all 32 stadia don't have fixed, hidden cameras pointing at the road team's sideline.

* Again, since they violated the rule they should be punished. But what's the point of the rule?? There's no rule against stealing signs, just using tape when stealing the signs. It seems like a rule that's there for the sake of being a rule. So going forward, why not just eliminate the rule? What's the intrinsic harm in stealing signs? Or if you really do want to eliminate stealing signs, give a defender a radio helmet.

I'm trying to figure out just what competitive advantage the Patriots gained that they couldn't have achieved by technically legal means. Isn't it the case that it would be legal to use a digital camera, located in the coaches box, to take a series of still photos of coaches giving signals? If this is perfectly legal then I don't think that what the Patriots did provides a significant competitive advantage.

Yes, it was cheating and should be punished harshly, especially since Goodell recently addressed the issue w/the teams. Further, BB has permanently tarnished his reputation and is guilty of arrogance bordering on stupidity. All that said, I don't think that there has been a big competitive advantage by using video technology over technology that would be deemed legal.

This is an excerpt from MDS, a regular contributor to this website, (link in name) commenting on the most recent apology by Belichick, posted on PFT:

POSTED 2:48 p.m. EDT, September 12, 2007
WILL BELICHICK APOLOGIZE TO OPPONENTS? by Michael David Smith
*****
"Overall, Belichick's statement doesn't go far enough. No one who knows anything about Belichick expects him to send a sincere "I'm sorry" to Jets coach Eric Mangini, but when he talks to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, he needs to show that he understands that he's not above league rules. So far, he hasn't done that."

This post is the most asinine thing I have read written on this subject, and that includes these ridiculous comments about banning the Patriots from the playoffs.

I was just about to get down on Belichick and agree the Patriots should be docked their entire draft class or something similarly overreactive, and then I read this, and realized that people have taken this way too far and are vastly overreacting.

First of all, it's stupid sensationalism by Adam Schefter to say that people lost jobs because Belichick maybe had a camera on the sidelines. The degrees of separation between such things are so remote as to be meaningless, and, as lots of people have noted, the camera, while the technical violation, is just a tool, its the stealing of signals that matters, and everyone does that.

Second, Belichick may be extremely contrite in private with the commissioner but be extremely stoic on camera in a press conference. He doesn't have to do anything to appease a bunch of rumor mongers on profootballtalk.com. Or even to anyone else around the league, all of whom have, to one degree on another, admitted stuff like this goes on, and none of whom have said "I have never done that and never will." So this high and mighty approach of MDS's that Belichick is the only bad guy on this and everyone else is innocent and is owed an apology is a bunch of bunk. All he has to do is appease his ownership, players and fans. And to some extent, not even the latter two groups. Just because he got caught doesn't mean he's the only guilty one, and acting like he is responsible for people losing their jobs just makes me believe -- what I had previously rejected as sour grapes -- the conspiracy theorists who suggest (like Florio did in fact) that this was all a big sting to nail Belichick both because everyone's jealous of the Patriots and to get a change made on the competition committee to the radio rule.

Overall, this whole approach of "Belichick isn't contrite enough for me" is foolish internet arrogance.

Terrible, terrible post.

re: 102

I don't remember you ever posting anything like this in any of the Michael Vick threads. Wonder where that reputation of a FO Patriots bias comes from?

Besides there's a big difference between the best team of the decade doing this and the Jacksonville Jaguars.

"Besides there’s a big difference between the best team of the decade doing this and the Jacksonville Jaguars."

No, theres not. They're not anymore guilty because they're good.

More from other mouths:

Parcells basically said, "Whatever" when the subject was broached, and said that all teams do it.

Michael Holley - yes he is not the most objective but he did basically live with the team as an outsider for two years so objectivity is not crucial, information is - talked about how he feels that it is a safe bet that the majority of home teams have cameras doing the same thing. He also said that he knows for a fact that every team steals signs. He stopped just short of saying, "I have the information, but I just can't say it on the air" but walked right up to the door.

Steve DeOssie talked about how he was actually one of the guys commissioned, as a backup LB, on the Cowboys to specifically try to steal signs. He also said that every team does it and it is likely that NE is not the only team using film to do so.

DeOssie was also adamant that there is no midgame value to this practice. He said that the possibility existed that they could get something at home when the cameras could possibly feed the live signal to someone monitoring it live, but not at an away game. Not only do they not have the time, but the don't have the resources. Security isn't going to let them bring in what they would need.

Just like I have been saying all along, the only value that he can see is using the film to prepare for future games.

DeOssie also discussed the supposed listening in and jamming of frequencies and discussed how all those signals are set up and monitored by the NFL, not the teams. And they are constantly monitored throughout the game by an NFL rep. It seems very unlikely that those accusations have any base.

These are not apologies for what NE did. They are just the facts. If I get pulled over for speeding, I fully expect to get a ticket even if everyone else does it. But just because I am pulled over does not mean that I am less honorable than anyone else.

Kinda weird there is no new thread on this today with the news Mort broke.
This one is pretty burried, very hard to find.

:: Mitch — 9/11/2007 @ 11:41 pm
___________________
I wonder? Must be that fans are just clamoring for that 6 day old 'why Harrington won't fail' article.
_____
Would I be saying this if the team in question was the Jacksonville Jaguars? If the answer is “no,� then DON’T POST IT.
-better question "if this happened to the Colts would this thread be buried?

With such great proprietary information that every nfl fan would want to read, the partisan bias will start to turn people off quicker than dem's trying to watch fox news. You might not have to kick people off, they'll be leaving in droves.

Re: 128

1. We don't really know how long this has been going on (perhaps that is part of the NFL's investigation) so comparison's to the Bronco's may not be appropriate.

2. I can't explain the mechanics either. But I do know that if the offense knows the defensive playcall it gives them a big advantage. Am I certain the Pats were able to achieve this as a result of their cheating? Nope, but I can't be sure they didn't either.

4. Yep, that was stupid.

5. Absolute certainty in the absence of evidence is the definition of faith. May your faith sustain you. :-)

6. The implication is that absent the use of this technology, effectively stealing signals would be much more difficult. I don't know that's the case , but that's the obvious implication. I'm inclined to believe it because if there was a legal way to achieve the same thing, you certainly would think that the Pats would have gone that route rather than expose themselves to the wrath of Roger. The suggestion being that if you don't violate the rules you are unlikely to achieve a competitive advantage. By the way, earlier in the thread someone said that the Pats voted against allowing radio communication for defensive players.

131: You do see the difference between this and electrocuting dogs, right? Otherwise, I might have to question your biases.

As a Colts fan, I cannot comment without my points being justifiably viewed through that lens. So, I won't expect to be taken too seriously, though I am trying to be fair in coming to these thoughts:

1) This is really bad for football. I don't mean the actual videotaping, I mean a team directly violating a rule emphasized by the NFL in the off-season in an attempt to put all teams on a level playing field. One can debate whether it's worse for football that the team in question is the dynasty of the decade. Even if it were not, this would be bad for football.

2) Let's not mince words, meanings, intents. A team cheated. They should be punished enough to make no team ever do this again. Sure, change the rule next year, or add defensive radio signals in the off-season, but you must treat this as a direct violation of the rules governing competitive balance.

3) I, personally, have no idea how much time it would take to decode football signals. I do, however, use a lot of video as a track coach, and in a complicated event such as the triple jump or high jump, it's amazing how much you can see when you review video, especially in slow-mo. We do it all the time in practice. In track and field, looking at video during a meet is an automatic scratch -- that athlete is gone from that event and the rest of the meet. In other words, coaches can watch with the naked eye and talk to their athletes all they want, but they cannot video and watch then coach, or video and show the athlete. I have, therefore, no problem seeing the immediate benefit of video over binoculars in regards to decoding complicated signals.

4) Even if other teams are doing this secretly (with hidden cameras), the fact that NE did this so overtly seems to mean one of only a few possibilities: A) they were arrogant, B) they derived such an advantage over the binocular route that it was worth the risk, C) everyone really is doing it. If C is correct, why haven't we heard of that?

Anyway, I'm bummed. I mean, what if it turns out that the Colts last year in the AFCCG figured out the NE defensive signals by halftime, and that's why the Colts could score 30+ on NE in the second half. Not nearly as interesting of a game that way, if they cheated.

re: 132

How do you know they're not good because they've been cheating this whole time? It's different if this could mean Superbowls have been tarnished.
Quite a reach at this stage, but that's why it's different from if it was Jacksonville.

"“Besides there’s a big difference between the best team of the decade doing this and the Jacksonville Jaguars.�

No, theres not. They’re not anymore guilty because they’re good."

Rich I think the point peole are making is that how much of how good the Pats are/were is down to using underhand means to steal the other teams plays as they are called in. At this point no one knows how far this is going to go, and purely speculating, it could go pretty far.

re: 131

yes, I do see the difference between irrelevant off-field incidents which have nothing to do with football and something which threatens the very integrity of the game. Do you?

By 131 I meant 136.

Re: #135, (6)

You're missing my point. Sure, video makes it easier. But what's the big deal about stealing signs at all? (And again, for some of the more self-righteous here, I agree that the Pats violated the rule and should be punished for it, even if there's no intrinsic reason for the rule to exist).

"Rich I think the point peole are making is that how much of how good the Pats are/were is down to using underhand means to steal the other teams plays as they are called in. At this point no one knows how far this is going to go, and purely speculating, it could go pretty far."

Which is only valid if

1) This goes back that far, which, as far as we know, theres no evidence for.

2) Other teams aren't doing it.

If other teams are doing it, then it doesn't matter if the patriots are doing it, because the playing field is still level.

The weird thing is,with the rules posted above, it would be legal to have a hidden camera, as long as its under a roof and 4 sides, and isnt on the field or in the coaches box...

140: Really? Well, all right then. Please stay away from my pets.
142: It's my understanding that stealing signs is ok, but using video to steal them is not. I don't really think it's an arbitrary distinction, as using video makes it much easier to slow down/pause and figure out the code.

PatsFan:

You ask what is the big deal about stealing signs? Are you serious?

Let me ask this question, how much money would you bet on the Pats or on Indy or on Cincy if you could place your cash on a team whose elite QB knew every single time the opponent would blitz, play man defense on the outside, or sit in cover 2, or ...?

Re: 142 "But what’s the big deal about stealing signs at all?"

The big deal is that it gives one team an unfair competitive advantage over the other. If everybody were allowed the same opportunity to steal signs then you could argue that it's part of the overall game. But if some teams are attempting to 'steal' within the rules and others are cheating to 'steal', there's an obvious competitive imbalance.

It seems to me the NFL by their rules is trying to make stealing signs less a part of the game. You can argue that point, but I tend to support their position and would rather the players on the field have more influence on the outcome and the decoders on the sidelines less.

"You ask what is the big deal about stealing signs? Are you serious?"

Purds, thats a strawman. The issue isnt that the pats are stealing signs, as we've said, EVERYONE STEALS SIGNS.

The issue is that the method they used is not allowed.

Rich:

Those rules are too brief. Here's the rub, from an SI article (linked):

"The league said in a statement from spokesman Greg Aiello, "Clubs have specifically been reminded in the past that the videotaping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals on the sidelines is prohibited.""

Re: #147:

Rich:

That everyone steals signs is not what PatsFan said. I took him at his word, which I'll repeat: "Sure, video makes it easier. But what’s the big deal about stealing signs at all?"

No strawman in my argument (and, I don't even know what that term means!). I was responding to PatsFan's specific inquiry, not anything else.

As to your point, questioning the difference between stealing with versus without video, my only comment is above in #137. I have no idea how fast video decoding could be done. I do know as a track coach that when watching complicated movements, it's much, much easier to understand what you're seeing when you can watch it multiple times, and in slow motion.

Does everyone video signals? I hope not, and I hope this was the first and last time the Pats did it.

It is expressly forbidden to film the oppositions coaches. It doesn't matter whether you film them from a sealed box or are not. You are not supposed to do your own filming at all.

Right, my big issue is that people are going after the

"stealing signs"

as being some big ethical thing, when every team does it.

its the fact that they taped something they weren't supposed to, not the stealing of signs thats bad.

Bitter Pats Haters.
Everyone does it.
Can't see the benefit.
It's like a speeding ticket.
Video technology...where's the advantage.
The rule has no point, eliminate the rule.
They talk to their clipboards anyway.
They should have changed their signals at halftime.
Have we mentioned LdT isn't classy.
Oh no...we never said it wasn't WRONG...just that there is no advantage for it.
There's no TIME to take advantage for it.
Did we mention the Polian Competition committee?
Jets Hate Pats.
Pats Hate.
Success Hate.
Belichick Hate.

And we wonder why accountability for one's actions have taken a nose dive in this country.

This is truly a pathetic display of grown men (and women?) rationalizing behavior that has no place in sportsmanship, honor or fairness...and I hope your children and the children that are observing like behavior are are able to distinguish the "my team rationalization homerism" that's (for example) on this board vs. the lack of enforcing accountability for ones actions.

Gees, OMO, nothing like taking it to another level!

Of course, I agree. And, I hope I'd agree if it were Peyton who had gotten signals, or Clark who had taken HGH (an analogy I suggested in an earlier thread). I'm sure something like that will surface sooner or later, and then my character will show; I hope I acquit myself well. I'm not so confident that I will, however.

Wow OMO. Overreact much?

BTW, my children are just fine, thank you very much. Amazingly enough, I can instill proper values *and* keep this situation in its proper perspective. Shocking but true.

152:

I think you are out of control over-reacting, but I like the poem. Very interesting. You should call into a talk radio show and rap it to them or something.

Ivan Boesky upon leaving the courtroom after being convicted of insider trading, a law that was both little enforced and running rampant on wall street at the time "I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself."
-change greed and insert cheat and Boesky suddenly becomes Belichick.

It hasn't been discussed as much, but I'm personally pretty interested to find out more about the "anomalies" in the Patriots' audio setup. Were they blatantly intercepting Chad Pennington's headset, or is there another theory?

Perhaps there's not enough information disclosed yet, but that would seem to be an even more outrageous and unfair infraction.

OMO
Long diatribe
Scroll down
Nothing missed.

(Wad of text, detailing just how much better I am than you.)

Not handing out punishment for the Pats’ breaking the rule this time merely their transgression goes unpunished, and indirectly says “its ok to break this rule once.� Thats not a great precedent to set.

Right, that's why the Pats do need to be punished. But only enough so that people stop doing this. As long as the punishment is necessary to give teams a strong incentive not to cheat, it's ok. But it shouldn't be increased just to vent someone's outrage, something that I think happens far too often.

Whatever punishment is needed to set the precedent that this sort of cheating isn't ok, even once, is the right amount of punishment. But any more punishment would be unnecessary, and IMHO, unwise.

Regardless, from what we’ve seen from Goodell so far, I don’t think he’ll err on the side of being too lax.

No, he most certainly won't. Which is why I was far more concerned with the possibility of the punishment being too harsh, than not harsh enough.

Re: 159

Alex, I can't figure out what would be a just and thorough penalty. Draft picks seem too light -- a team can always go the FA route for one year, and the Pats kept only 2 drafted guys this year, for example. Forfeiting the game seems too harsh. Fines seem like nothing. Suspending BB? Maybe, but on the one hand it seems to harsh if the coach doesn't have any contact, and on the other hand the coach would most likely work around it, like managers do in baseball when they're thrown out of a game.

Not sure what I think would be a good penalty.

Re: #145, #146

You are again missing my point. Again, what is the intrinsic harm of allowing sign-stealing?

I'm not talking about one evil team doing it while the rest of the pure-white teams abstain because it is illegal under the rules.

I'm talking about if the rules were changed to allow videotaping of signs (the rules already allow doing it without tape). So now both the evil and pure teams are can tape with a clean conscience. What's the problem with it? Like I said, the rule seems to be a rule for the sake of being a rule. I want to know if there's a real reason for the rule.

160

They should make Belichick dress like Nolan for the rest of the season.

The proper penalty is a third round draft pick, since that's what they hit Denver with. But because it was more specific to coaching, it should also include a one week suspension of Belichick. And because it was organizational, it should include a $1 million fine, which, while payable, is significant enough to get noticed.

The trick for Goodell is that he has to do something severe enough to be taken seriously, but he doesn't want this coming up over and over again or harming one of the league's most important teams for years. He doesn't want this coming up at next year's draft in April more than a footnote (which I why I doubt he takes a first rounder); he doesn't want it discussed every week this season (so it can't be a long term suspension for Belichick). But he doesn't want just a slap on the wrist that feels like a good trade off for the Patriots.

Enough to hurt but not to last. That's why I think a late first day pick, a short but thorough suspension, and a big money hit, is about right.

The proper penalty is a third round draft pick, since that’s what they hit Denver with. But because it was more specific to coaching, it should also include a one week suspension of Belichick. And because it was organizational, it should include a $1 million fine, which, while payable, is significant enough to get noticed.
Sounds reasonable.

Re: 163, 164

Agreed.

No one is going to be happy no matter what he does. The Patriots fans will think it's too severe, and the Patriot-haters will think it's too lenient. I think his goal will be to make sure the competition committee and the owners think it's reasonable, though, and for them, they want a fair game but they also want this to go away so people can get back to enjoying football and spending money.

163 - I'm with you on all three counts.

Typical NFL team revenue is a little under 200 mill, making 1 mill a meaningful and appropriate fine in my opinion.

3rd round pick feels about right to me, with Denver and Pittsburgh as precedents. Wouldn't be too surprised to see it be a 2nd though.

One game suspension of the HC is a serious punishment without being vindictive, and it's a way to punish the team in the present, which I think is reasonable. I can't remember the last time a HC was suspended (ever?). It's a meaningful gesture.

A million bucks, a first day pick, and a week without your coach. That's a serious package. Only a strident Pats hater could say that's not enough.

Correcting myself - average team revenue WAS about 200 mill under the old TV deals. It would now be closer to 300 mill.

Still think one million is an appropriate fine in this case.

A couple of quotes from an article in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (linked on my name):

"Steelers assistant coaches say privately that New England coach Bill Belichick has illegally used cameras to spy on opposing coaches flashing signals from the sideline for years, even when he was coach of the Cleveland Browns."

"Dick Hoak, a former longtime Steelers assistant coach, said the Steelers once received a video from another team by mistake in their exchange with them. The video focused on an opposing coach using hand signals along the sideline. Hoak could not remember the team, but said the Steelers did not file a complaint."

So, if Belichick is suspended 1G as HC of the NEP, does he sit out the Bills game, or appeal until the Browns game? :D

#160:
Here's an idea: make it a fine that comes out of their salary cap next year. That way, you can make it exactly as harsh as you think it should be, and I guarantee that a team will take notice if you take away a significant amount from their cap.

It would only affect them for one year, it wouldn't cripple the team, but it would put them at a competitive disadvantage relative to other teams, so that the unfair advantage they got by cheating is negated. Adjust the fine to whatever amount you think will be a sufficient, but not overly harsh, punishment, and you're done.

#162: "They should make Belichick dress like Nolan for the rest of the season."

That would be way too harsh. I mean, it's not like Belichick killed somebody! And really, I wouldn't want to live in a world where Bill Belichick coaches from the sidelines in a three piece suit. ;)

FWIW, I think JJcruiser has a good solution in 163. Nothing too harsh or longlasting, but definitely a significant, meaningful punishment.

I hope Goodell takes that path, instead of going overboard with the whole "I'm going to instill the fear of the almighty NFL in you, sinner!!" thing that he usually does. It's just so damn theatrical.

A separate note:

Anyone watch ESPN's SportsCenter tonight at 6 pm? Talk about bad journalism. They were so proud of interviewing Patriot players about the flap, but who did they interview? Izzo, Colvin, Hobbs, Vrabel & Faulk. 4 defensive players and then a back up running back.

Where's Brady's reaction? Maroney? The O-line.

Terrible work by ESPN

171: The players union would never allow a reduction in the salary cap.

172: You are perhaps right, but there are comments around if you look. Brady skipped his press conference, but was interviewed by the San Diego press. Basically he repeated the "we're focused on the Chargers" mantra. Matt Light was interviewed, too. Check out Reiss' pieces blog link my name:

You lot have to be kidding of you think a 3rd round pick is appropriate.

Firstly the Pats had a third this year and didn't even keep him on the roster. How is depriving them of a player they don't want punishment?

Secondly the Broncos cheated the cap. A device that is supposed to create roster parity. The allegations are that the Pats cheated in a game. Cheating the cap vs cheating. Not the same thing.

Thirdly Alex and others make the point that the union will not agree to a reduction in the cap so that is out of the question.

Now what punishment is appropriate? There are a few options; suspending Belichick, removing draft picks (probably a first, at least) or seriously restricting team practice time for the Patriots either for the remainder of this year or heavily next year. Personally I would take a little from all the piles and add spices.

Yeah -- cap cheating is a lot worse, because it means you're cheating in every game, by having a roster you wouldn't have had if you didn't cheat.

171: The players union would never allow a reduction in the salary cap.

Easy solution to that problem:

When you fine the Pats x dollars off their cap, increase every other team's cap by x/31. Same exact amount goes to the players, it just doesn't go to the Pats players, and so the Pats won't be able to get quite as many of the quality FAs that they want to sign.

Secondly the Broncos cheated the cap. A device that is supposed to create roster parity. The allegations are that the Pats cheated in a game. Cheating the cap vs cheating. Not the same thing.

Roster parity has a direct affect on competitive balance, and cheating the cap gave Denver a competitive advantage. The Pats got an unfair competitive advantage in a different way, but it still had the same end result: cheating made it easier for them to win. Cheating is cheating is cheating.

"You lot have to be kidding of you think a 3rd round pick is appropriate.

Firstly the Pats had a third this year and didn’t even keep him on the roster. How is depriving them of a player they don’t want punishment?"

I would suggest you check the draft, as NO, the patriots did not have a third round pick this season. That pick was traded to Oakland.

"Secondly the Broncos cheated the cap. A device that is supposed to create roster parity. The allegations are that the Pats cheated in a game. Cheating the cap vs cheating. Not the same thing."

yes, they are. I would think that cheating the cap is MUCH more insidious, as it allows you to have more talent than an opposing team.

"Now what punishment is appropriate? There are a few options; suspending Belichick, removing draft picks (probably a first, at least) or seriously restricting team practice time for the Patriots either for the remainder of this year or heavily next year. "

Removing practice time? What the hell? All that does is make the NFL product worse, make the players more likely to be injured, and negatively impact players future careers. Not only would the NFLPA never stand for it, but its a stupid idea.

A 1st? Thats absurd.

#175

But the Pats seem to have been ACTUALLY CHEATING in every game. (sorry about the caps but I don't know how to do bold)

They have only been caught red handed in one game, other teams (Packers, Lions and a few others) say they think they were cheating. For heavens sake think about it:

If Mangini knew exactly what the gig was then they must have been doing this for three seasons because he hasn't coached for them since 2005. So it is at least three years including this year, and probably more (why would it only be three).

OK Rich you are right. Goodell should just ruffle Belichick's hair, clip him around the ear and send him on his way with a cry of, "Oooh you cheeky scamp!"

"Removing practice time? What the hell? All that does is make the NFL product worse"

No Rich it makes the Pats worse. Most NFL fans (like of the other 31 teams) would quite enjoy that one. I can hear the cries of 'serves the cheating F***ers right from here'. Furthermore there is precedent, many teams have penalised by removing team practises.

It doesn't suprise me at all that you think that a 1st is inappropriate, I am not actually a Pats hater, just a neutral observer and from where I am standing a first just looks like a good start.

What the hell do you think the other owners think about this? Their teams have been placed at a competitive disadvantage by the Patriots cheating. Try to think outside your 'patsbox'.

BTW, if the Commish wants to take the 32nd pick in the draft away from the Pats, I'll be fine with that.

Goodell should just ruffle Belichick’s hair, clip him around the ear and send him on his way with a cry of, “Oooh you cheeky scamp!�

You know, I think that would make a pretty funny commercial. At the very least, it'd be better than hearing "This is our country" for the 10 millionth time.