RE: [patriotzip] Re: "Cheating"
It is a known fact that most NFL and MLB teams work hard to observe signals of the other team and it has gone on since the inception of both sports. How many times has the runner on 2b tried to tell the batter what pitch was coming? Anyone remember the accusations leveled at the Red Sox for someone using binoculars from the left field score board? The Jets were identified as filming the patriots in 2006. Most NFL teams have done it. The rule violation was where the Patriots were doing it from on the Jets sidelines. I am not sure I understand the reason for the rule, the exact rule, nor the reason why the Patriots felt they had to violate the rule when they could have been sitting high up in the stands with telephoto lenses and it would not have been illegal. Maybe it was the combination of audio and video? Film the team but don’t record and film the team?
Chat room and Forum Posting at: www.NewEnglandSportsCountry.com
From: email@example.com [mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org ] On Behalf Of Jan Smyth
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [patriotzip] Re: "Cheating"
Has any infraction of rules like this ever happened before? I mean, in the area of illegal taping, spying, stealing info, playbooks, etc? And if so, do you happen to know what the penalty was?
Frank <frank.dana@comcast. net> wrote:
Couldn't agree more, Jan. Ethics do indeed matter. What was done was
against the rules, they were caught and (I think) severely penalized.
The only way to judge the penalty is relative to prior penalties. This
was by far the most severe in NFL history. So be it. In my opinion it
should end there. I sincerely hope we don't continue to try to
circumvent the rules.
--- In patriotzip@yahoogro ups.com, Jan Smyth <jansmyth001@ ...> wrote:
> Good for Collinsworth and Shula. Ethics matter.
> Frank <frank.dana@ ...> wrote: The only
argument one might have with the analogy is that running in
> the halls doesn't help you pass the test. Some would claim
> (incorrectly, in my opinion) that what they did gave them a
> significant advantage over their opponent.
> As I've stated before, they don't know which coach is giving the real
> signals, they don't know what the signals are, and there is no time to
> stop and analyze the signals or the tape during the course of a game.
> Clearly there is no "in game" advantage. This information may provide
> some insight into how the opponent deals with certain situations, and
> what signals correspond to certain defensive sets and execution. But
> that can only be determined with a careful study of the tape, in
> conjunction with the game films and the polaroid stills, at some point
> after the game is over. Of course, next time we play the same team,
> the signals would all have been changed.
> Why do it then? Competition is so keen that coaching staffs will
> collect as much information as possible, in hopes that a few seconds
> of film, or a certain phrase in some assistant's notes will give them
> an edge at some point in some future game. Why do you think BB refuses
> to give injury information (or anything else, for that matter) in
> press conferences. He knows other coaches are collecting as much
> information as they can, as well.
> Did Bill go too far? Obviously, yes. He went over the line. Rather
> than filming from a legal location (such as the coaches booth) he had
> his camera on the sideline. They were caught and penalized. As far as
> I'm concerned, case closed.
> Mountain out of mole hill; and most former coaches and players agree
> (except Collinsworth and Shula).
> --- In patriotzip@yahoogro ups.com, "David Price" <castsashadow@ > wrote:
> > I want to address the "Cheating" issue. Here's how I heard one
> football analyst describe it, and I'm sorry, I don't remember who
> > It is "against the rules" to run in the halls at most schools,
> correct? If a child is caught doing that, he is not accused of
> cheating. It's not the same thing. The Patriots broke a rule, they
> did not cheat.
> > Now depending on whether you are talking to a fan or a hater, you
> believe the Patriots were punished too severely, or not nearly
> > If you believe the Patriots were punished too severely, I would say
> it was because Roger Goodell just sent a memo out a couple weeks
> before the incident instructing clubs not to do what the team was
> caught doing. It's the same as punishing a child. I told you
> specifically not to do that, now I have to punish you.
> > If on the other hand you believe the punishment was not severe
> enough, such as a year-long suspension of Belichick and banning the
> team from the playoffs this year (believe it or not, I saw this
> suggested on message boards time and again), then I would say to you
> it was because the crime is not nearly as severe as you somehow
> believe it to be.
> > The Patriots were caught running in the halls. They were doing 79
> when the speed limit was clearly marked 55. That's it. They got
> their detention, their speeding ticket. Everybody else really needs
> to get over the hate.
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.
Try it now.
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.