The league just needs to release the tape. That’s the only way to really tell if this was b-roll, a camera just left on a tripod, or some information gathering scheme.
But they won’t.
But they won’t.
Between what Belichick has said -- about not allowing cameras even to be point toward the field and how they know the rules -- and what the Patriots have said, I have a feeling we won't like the answer with respect to what league policy actually is. And, as a matter of common sense, one would assume that after the league made a big deal out of spygate, the idea that you could effectively do what the Patriots had done so long as you did it from the right place would be a loophole they eventually would want to get rid of. All the evidence is pointing toward the idea that it is not permitted to do what the film crew did.This is fair. I remember vividly from 2007 what the rules were then, but if the Patriots are now saying they violated a league policy by filming from the press box, then perhaps it's changed since that time.
I'd very much like to see what the current league rules/policy are on this topic. We have a lot of hysteria and takes, but very little in the way of useful facts.
Exactly. And if they don't release the footage and/or "stomp" on it like they did during Spygate, then this entire episode, fairly or unfairly, will be based on subjective takes. Same old same old.The league just needs to release the tape. That’s the only way to really tell if this was b-roll, a camera just left on a tripod, or some information gathering scheme.
But they won’t.
Even if it's video of Cincy's coaches sending in plays - *which is part of what an advanced scout is looking at* and so exactly what B-roll film should be recording - that doesn't tell us whether the video is for the "Do your job" or part of an attempt to cheat. I mean, I am assuming that the film DOES show Cincy's coaches using hand signals. That doesn't really answer the question you posed above (though you didn't frame it as a question).The league just needs to release the tape. That’s the only way to really tell if this was b-roll, a camera just left on a tripod, or some information gathering scheme.
But they won’t.
Bolded is what I was wondering about all along.The league just needs to release the tape. That’s the only way to really tell if this was b-roll, a camera just left on a tripod, or some information gathering scheme.
If the camera incidentally catches signals from a tripod still location, it will possibly be obvious on video. If the camera was focusing on signals and appears to be documenting personnel or plays associated with those signals, we're absolutely and positively screwed. Even if you could make a case that "well, the documentary was going to be about how advanced scouts look at hand signals."Even if it's video of Cincy's coaches sending in plays - *which is part of what an advanced scout is looking at* and so exactly what B-roll film should be recording - that doesn't tell us whether the video is for the "Do your job" or part of an attempt to cheat. I mean, I am assuming that the film DOES show Cincy's coaches using hand signals. That doesn't really answer the question you posed above (though you didn't frame it as a question).
Right. An investigation should focus on whether this is a one-time thing this year with this crew, or whether they’ve been around other facilities doing the same thing. Choosing to use this method once, against the Bengals of all teams, would make no sense. I assume B roll footage would basically give you a first person view of what a scout is looking at, which in this case would be the sideline.Even if it's video of Cincy's coaches sending in plays - *which is part of what an advanced scout is looking at* and so exactly what B-roll film should be recording - that doesn't tell us whether the video is for the "Do your job" or part of an attempt to cheat. I mean, I am assuming that the film DOES show Cincy's coaches using hand signals. That doesn't really answer the question you posed above (though you didn't frame it as a question).
I'm gonna guess that what happened is this: The Pats were doing another in their "Do your job" series. This one on advanced scouting. They hire a non-Patriots crew to go in and film this. They clear it with the Browns, who say yeah no problem. The scout is there and the video crew sets up right there in the press box, in front of all kinds of people (not just fans, but personnel of other teams, media, etc.). The film crew starts filming. Part of the job of telling a video story is getting tons of B-roll. It's how these things are done. I get that not a lot of people understand this but it's how films and video news stories are done. Tons of B-roll, of all kinds of things. It makes 100% sense to film *what the advance scout is looking at* as part of the B-roll.
So the crew - who may not have any idea of the league rules, just knowing that they were given permission by the Browns to be there, and doing this in front of everyone wide open, just start doing their normal job. Someone from Cincy sees that they're filming various shots of the Bengals' sideline - you know, the thing the Patriots' advanced scout is looking at - and raises a concern. The film crew stops filming. That's that.
That's, I'm pretty sure, what happened. But it's obviously being spun as "The Patriots are cheating again". The ESPN article I linked to said, "The incident was similar to the league's findings in 2007 that led to multiple penalties in an incident that what was dubbed "Spygate."" even though it was nothing at all like it. The Pats didn't cross every T or dot every i, so this looks bad. I don't think it WAS bad, but it LOOKS bad, and ANY film where the Pats (not really the Pats, but this independently contracted crew, but people won't make the distinction) are taping opposing sidelines is going to raise all kinds of hell.
I think this is a totally stupid thing, and clearly NOTHING. But here's the key: THAT. DOESN'T. MATTER. It never has mattered. Spygate: other teams were doing the same thing. The Jets, *the year before*, were caught doing the same exact thing and the NFL did NOTHING. Deflategate: omg it was the laws of physics, and even that year, the Panthers were caught ON LIVE TELEVISION tampering with footballs in a cold game to warm them up (and, duh, increase air pressure) and the league did NOTHING. But the Pats? Both cases they got frigging HAMMERED.
So while I hope the optimists here are correct, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that the rational, optimistic scenario will play out. I thoroughly expect a loss of draft picks (single or plural) here.
There are up to 45 seconds between plays, so eight minutes of footage would cover 6-8 plays factoring in for normal stoppages.If it's the first 8 minutes, that would cover 15 plays according the game log. Of those 15, one would be the Bengals FG try, one would be the subsequent kickoff, and then 5 or 6 plays of the Bengals on defense, possibly ending with the Mayfield INT.
This is an excellent point and explains why the Bengals are so bad. They're hiding their hand signals behind their backs so that the opposing coaches don't see them, but the video production contractors could. Of course, it also effectively hid the signals from their own team...Do you think they’re flashing gang signs at chest height?
Chris Simms, on the other hand, will likely call for the protection of America's children from this menace.Peter King, as I've said a bunch of times, is my tell on this. He always seems to be pretty tapped into 345 and the Mara family. So we shall see where the winds are blowing.
The press box is on the visitors side of the field. There's no magic camera angle that allows them to see the front of the Bengals bench. You can look at the photo from the press box on page four.Again, the press box is at an angle not directly behind the bench.
To me, it’s always been ESPN. There’s clearly some influence at Park Ave over there. Schefter going on TV to mitigate it, along with tempered reactions of Screamin A and Max, is hopefully a positive here.Peter King, as I've said a bunch of times, is my tell on this. He always seems to be pretty tapped into 345 and the Mara family. So we shall see where the winds are blowing.
Agreed.So the crew - who may not have any idea of the league rules, just knowing that they were given permission by the Browns to be there, and doing this in front of everyone wide open, just start doing their normal job. Someone from Cincy sees that they're filming various shots of the Bengals' sideline - you know, the thing the Patriots' advanced scout is looking at - and raises a concern. The film crew stops filming. That's that.
Schefter also went on ESPN and said that the league was having a hard time finding anyone to actually pin anything on during MisunderstoodPhysicsGate.To me, it’s always been ESPN. There’s clearly some influence at Park Ave over there. Schefter going on TV to mitigate it, along with tempered reactions of Screamin A and Max, is hopefully a positive here.
In other words, if it shows the Bengals playing football, we're screwed.
That's a very pragmatic take, but I hate it.
Exactly. If they have video of the field, but nobody uses it to try to gain a competitive advantage then what does it matter? It can be both a violation of league rules and not an intent to cheat.That's a very pragmatic take, but I hate it.
The issue should be about intent. Maybe that's too hard for the league. But if the video shows something that was out of the frame of the coaches tape, so what, if it wasn't intended to cheat.
And who knows what the heck one can deduce from a tweet anyway but I guess if they are focused solely on figuring out whether there is a technical violation by comparing what was available and what was filmed, that's not really the precursor to calling us cheats in the draft pick sense. A fine for a technical violation would be fine with me. Even if it's a lot.
Well, then we're OK (you said if it shows the Bengals playing football).In other words, if it shows the Bengals playing football, we're screwed.
Agreed. Glad you got the implied sarcasm.Well, then we're OK (you said if it shows the Bengals playing football).
I agree the Pats acted pretty stupid here. Given their history, they should be dotting every i and crossing every t. But I mean isn't this also the exact things people see when they, you know, watch football? The tv account of the game shows this exact stuff every single game. Now if they are zooming in on certain things and then zooming out at key moments I am right there with you. But the accounts of what is actually on the tape could be spun to sound way worse than it is.It doesn't say 6-8 consecutive minutes. It says 8 minutes of the sideline, hand signals, and player groupings headed to the field
In two weeks, the popular version of the story will be that it was a mustachioed man in a black top hat and black over coat laughing maniacally as he pointed his camera directly at the Bengals' sideline. When asked about is suspicious behavior, he disappeared into a cloud of smoke, only leaving behind the burnt silhouette of the flying Elvis on the ground where he once stood.Setting up a camera in the press box, by a logo'd Patriots employee, and overtly filming the Bengals sideline seems the exact opposite of spying.
From that angle you could definitely see signals. Whether they're useful or not who knows. ESPN, The Athletic, and Yahoo have reported you can see signals, so maybe there was a magic camera.The press box is on the visitors side of the field. There's no magic camera angle that allows them to see the front of the Bengals bench. You can look at the photo from the press box on page four.
The plays are radioed in. If there are any signals, they may have something to do with personnel groupings for the skill guys depending on the formation teams want to run. Without knowing the playcall, it's tough to do much with those. Even if this copy does show signals of some sorts(and they aren't plays), you should be able to see the coaches on the sideline from each angle of the all-22.From that angle you could definitely see signals. Whether they're useful or not who knows. ESPN, The Athletic, and Yahoo have reported you can see signals, so maybe there was a magic camera.
[B]Jeff Howe[/B]Verified account @jeffphoweThe plays are radioed in. If there are any signals, they may have something to do with personnel groupings for the skill guys depending on the formation teams want to run. Without knowing the playcall, it's tough to do much with those. Even if this copy does show signals of some sorts(and they aren't plays), you should be able to see the coaches on the sideline from each angle of the all-22.
Sure, if they were signaling behind their backs.From that angle you could definitely see signals. Whether they're useful or not who knows. ESPN, The Athletic, and Yahoo have reported you can see signals, so maybe there was a magic camera.
If the Bengals are one of those teams, OK. In my experience being on football sidelines both at the college and NFL levels(albeit mine was before plays were radioed in) teams that signal plays or coverages in also tend to have multiple signal callers as to confuse the other team to what signal is the actual one. So if that is the case with Cincinnati and there's a potential competitive advantage to gain, they'd have to know which signal is the right one. This all comes down to one fact that we don't know: did the video crew tape the sidelines specifically for the football ops personnel/coaching staff to see and did they see it? There's a lot of jumping to conclusions both inside and outside of this thread.[B]Jeff Howe[/B]Verified account @jeffphowe
I asked an NFL coach who I can confidently say has no axe to grind against the Patriots: Coach said there’s a competitive advantage to gain for teams that still signal coverages, substitutions. The coach noted some teams still do signal coverages.
Yes, but not in the way you think. One of these things is one knucklehead sending threatening DMs and texts. The other thing is an entire organization that, despite its brilliance on the field, manages to consistently trip over its dick when it comes to scandals and "integrity of the game" questions.Antonio Brown sent threatening texts to someone that accused him of sexual assault. One of these things is nothing like the other.
Or maybe they make signals with their arms out stretched or over their heads. Crazy, I know.Sure, if they were signaling behind their backs.
Well, that's like, just your opinion FASFA man.This bullshit is a large reason why I don't watch the NFL anymore, even if it did inspire my username and fantasy football team in 2002.