2020 Pats: Bengals Coach Implies Patriots Taping Play Signals

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
Seems like you’d be using film of the playing field for this purpose, or just pulling the right clips from the all-22 (assuming clubs have license rights to that footage). The scout might refer to something happening on the sideline a couple times, but that’s not where you’d expect his focus to be.

My view of what happened is basically the same as yours. But leaving a camera trained on something that they we allowed to film suggests that either the Pats failed to instruct the crew about the restrictions on filming or the crew deliberately blew off those instructions. The Pats will face sanctions either way; those sanctions will be materially worse if it turns out that they failed to instruct the crew, as that suggests a level of willfulness (i.e., reckless disregard for the rules).
Is there such an affirmative duty for the team in the league bylaws? I have not seen such a thing cited and you're treating it as if it exists. Did I miss it? If there is, they indeed would be in a lot of trouble, but I had not understood that to exist.

It will be very hard to show the legal standard of reckless disregard here based on what's been reported to date.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,895
Los Angeles, CA
Surprised that a few people here think the video makes things look worse. It’s exsctly how I imagined it would have played out after hearing their excuse. From the characteristics of the B roll footage to the camera man trying to salvage his job.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
Is there such an affirmative duty for the team in the league bylaws? I have not seen such a thing cited and you're treating it as if it exists. Did I miss it? If there is, they indeed would be in a lot of trouble, but I had not understood that to exist.

It will be very hard to show the legal standard of reckless disregard here based on what's been reported to date.
If the club isn’t allowed to send its employees to film something at a game, I’m sure the club can’t avoid the rule by contracting with an independent film crew and sending them to the game without instructing them as to the rules.

The Pats didn’t tell the crew to go break the rules, but they had to know there was risk that they would break the rules if they weren’t educated about them — the Pats, of all teams, certainly cannot claim to be unaware that there are many rules about who can film what and from where at an NFL game. So if that’s what they did, that’s reckless disregard of the rules, and I’d expect some sort of sanction.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
At some point we need to come to grips with the idea that this franchise either hires some shady, reckless, or just plain stupid people.

I love this team but at some point, when you know you are under the microscope you need to operate beyond reproach. Everything about this incident reeks of rampant stupidity and carelessness
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
If the club isn’t allowed to send its employees to film something at a game, I’m sure the club can’t avoid the rule by contracting with an independent film crew and sending them to the game without instructing them as to the rules.

The Pats didn’t tell the crew to go break the rules, but they had to know there was risk that they would break the rules if they weren’t educated about them — the Pats, of all teams, certainly cannot claim to be unaware that there are many rules about who can film what and from where at an NFL game. So if that’s what they did, that’s reckless disregard of the rules, and I’d expect some sort of sanction.
If that were the standard for reckless disregard the entire legal and criminal systems would fall apart. Fortunately, it is not. It is in fact a higher standard than negligence---what you've described is far short of negligence, to put it most simply---and when you say "they had to know there was risk that they would break the rules" that is where it seems like you leave the legal system behind. Not to mention that there is no evidence they didn't instruct the team (defined collectively) on the rules anyway.

I recognize the NFL, which has never been bound by legal standard or factual reality, is capable of most any interpretation or implied duty, but I don't think it's much of an argument. Frankly, the idea you're responsible for whatever your people do (in effect, strict liability) is far more reasonable and logical than getting into duties or 'reckless disregard' here. if the NFL thinks this is a thing---and I don't have any idea on that---it's what I'd expect to be the reasoning.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
If that were the standard for reckless disregard the entire legal and criminal systems would fall apart. Fortunately, it is not. It is in fact a higher standard than negligence---what you've described is far short of negligence, to put it most simply---and when you say "they had to know there was risk that they would break the rules" that is where it seems like you leave the legal system behind. Not to mention that there is no evidence they didn't instruct the team (defined collectively) on the rules anyway.

I recognize the NFL, which has never been bound by legal standard or factual reality, is capable of most any interpretation or implied duty, but I don't think it's much of an argument. Frankly, the idea you're responsible for whatever your people do (in effect, strict liability) is far more reasonable and logical than getting into duties or 'reckless disregard' here. if the NFL thinks this is a thing---and I don't have any idea on that---it's what I'd expect to be the reasoning.
This is where the organization’s past sins come in — the Pats are painfully aware that the NFL has lots of rules about what can and can’t be filmed at a game. For them to send a film crew to a game without giving them any instruction on the do’s and don’ts, the Pats (at least arguably) consciously disregarded the risk that their film crew, unaware of the myriad rules restricting their activities, would break those rules. It’s that conscious disregard that makes it reckless rather than merely careless.

Hopefully they can persuade Goodell that they were just careless. I’m not optimistic.

Edit: Also, I thought the Pats’ initial statement tacitly acknowledged that no one instructed the crew about NFL rules, so I’m assuming that’s not in dispute.
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,433
Balboa Towers
DotB gets this right.

This whole story continues to be really dumb. Everything from the video to the cameraman's reaction to the producer's explanation is pretty much how I pictured it when the story came out.

I think the organization's only fault was selecting "Advanced Scout" as one of their Do Your Job subjects. Because this is exactly what I would expect that story and accompanying footage to focus on.
 

Oil Can Dan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2003
8,015
0-3 to 4-3
I believe there was more “more” there in Spygate than most of you, but there is nothing here at all and this whole thing is beyond stupid.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
I believe there was more “more” there in Spygate than most of you, but there is nothing here at all and this whole thing is beyond stupid.
you simply cannot get caught doing this. you cant do it. the history this franchise has, you cant do it. absolutely negligence and utter stupidity at best. brazen disregard and line crossing at worst
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
This is where the organization’s past sins come in — the Pats are painfully aware that the NFL has lots of rules about what can and can’t be filmed at a game. For them to send a film crew to a game without giving them any instruction on the do’s and don’ts, the Pats (at least arguably) consciously disregarded the risk that their film crew, unaware of the myriad rules restricting their activities, would break those rules. It’s that conscious disregard that makes it reckless rather than merely careless.

Hopefully they can persuade Goodell that they were just careless. I’m not optimistic.

Edit: Also, I thought the Pats’ initial statement tacitly acknowledged that no one instructed the crew about NFL rules, so I’m assuming that’s not in dispute.
As noted, that simply is not what the legal standard means. I am sure Goodell will be told this, though history suggests he may not care very much what the standard is (or what the facts are).

There should be no dispute they were dumb to end up here, though.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
I believe there was more “more” there in Spygate than most of you, but there is nothing here at all and this whole thing is beyond stupid.
Yeah, the deleting of the tapes wasn't the best look, but I always fall back on if RG really thought it helped them win all the games, he would have said that.
And to be fair, even including "Deflategate" as a past transgression is a joke as that one was completely made up.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
you simply cannot get caught doing this. you cant do it. the history this franchise has, you cant do it. absolutely negligence and utter stupidity at best. brazen disregard and line crossing at worst
"Caught" implies they were trying to hide something. Which they weren't. They did something wrong, but your language implies duplicity.

I still haven't heard a single time from a single person why they would do this in the way they did it if there was any nefarious intent at all.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
I believe there was more “more” there in Spygate than most of you, but there is nothing here at all and this whole thing is beyond stupid.
Yeah, I think Spygate is most likely a combination of two things: a library of technically legal but bad-looking videos which were promptly destroyed, and a hyper-technical interpretation of an event that exposed the former. I think one reason it is complicated is Pats fans gravitate to the second reality and say "it wasn't a big deal" (which is a fair interpretation of the specific event, imo) but there's plenty of evidence the first reality was there, and meaningful, too (which I think you are alluding to and many Pats fans disregard).

Deflategate was, in the end, I think recognized as a fraud on the public by a hyperactive NFL office which couldn't figure out a way out.
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
6,988
Pasadena, CA
The whole idea that SPYING is possible in a stadium full of people with cellphones, video cameramen and still photographers is completely stupid. The league pretending that there’s some sort of integrity to be maintained is absurd.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
Yeah, I think Spygate is most likely a combination of two things: a library of technically legal but bad-looking videos which were promptly destroyed, and a hyper-technical interpretation of an event that exposed the former. I think one reason it is complicated is Pats fans gravitate to the second reality and say "it wasn't a big deal" (which is a fair interpretation of the specific event, imo) but there's plenty of evidence the first reality was there, and meaningful, too (which I think you are alluding to and many Pats fans disregard).

Deflategate was, in the end, I think recognized as a fraud on the public by a hyperactive NFL office which couldn't figure out a way out.
I think part of the issue with the original Spygate is that the Pats had been taping from the sidelines for quite some time. And for various reasons, it didn't even ever cross the league's radar when Tagliabue was commissioner. There were undoubtedly a lot of tapes; other teams may have done similar things as well, but the Pats may very well been the most aggressive. Belichick's biggest mistake was ignoring the memo, and the weakest defense I've heard is when people claim that the league's office doesn't have the right to issue memos clarifying game day procedures. Had he listened to the memo, no-one would have ever known about the library of tapes.

Still, this latest incident is completely unrelated, and the fact that football ops has nothing to do with should matter to anyone with any ability to perform a smidgen of critical reasoning.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
5,959
18 years. David Mondillo has been working for the organization for 18 years. He was here for Spygate. And he didn’t know the rules and has no affiliation with Belichick? Come on. I’m not trying to troll or anything, but the whole operation and their explanation stinks.
I was oddly singing along to Kanye West's "Gold Digger" reading this post. 18 years, 18 years...

Seriously though, if no other teams were filming AT ALL and technology was not allowed in the stadiums I could see a hardline reading of "he should have known better". And Spygate was all through Ops guys and I would believe if the NFL or team did not even approach the KSP guys back then not even thinking ahead to the possibilities. In some ways, such as Belichick press conferences, the Patriots act as a sufficiently paranoid organization, but sometimes the level of paranoia is lacking for whatever reason. This is one of those cases.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
8,457
I’ve always felt like that Spygate was a poor use of resources. The time you would have to spend researching and deciphering hand signals (especially in the pre-HD video era) and matching it up to the all-22 or broadcast footage would be a tremendous waste of time, especially for the top level staff.

In order for it to truly work, you’d have to have someone diagnose the personnel, defensive formation, hand signals etc, relay this information to McDaniels, who then has to relay the counter play to Brady before the headset turns off.
 

hunter05

Member
SoSH Member
May 29, 2006
7,659
Hokkaido
I’ve always felt like that Spygate was a poor use of resources. The time you would have to spend researching and deciphering hand signals (especially in the pre-HD video era) and matching it up to the all-22 or broadcast footage would be a tremendous waste of time, especially for the top level staff.

In order for it to truly work, you’d have to have someone diagnose the personnel, defensive formation, hand signals etc, relay this information to McDaniels, who then has to relay the counter play to Brady before the headset turns off.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2012/11/11/nfl-kraft-belichick-spygate/1697287/
"How much did this help us on a scale of 1 to 100?" Kraft reportedly asked Patriots coach Bill Belichick when the story came to light.

"One," Belichick replied.
"Then you're a real schmuck," Kraft said he told Belichick.

Jimmy Johnson said he used to taped signals as well, but stopped doing it because he didn’t think it helped.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
At some point we need to come to grips with the idea that this franchise either hires some shady, reckless, or just plain stupid people.

I love this team but at some point, when you know you are under the microscope you need to operate beyond reproach. Everything about this incident reeks of rampant stupidity and carelessness
They say a fish rots from the head. We know too much shit about Kraft, and that's where it all starts
 

hunter05

Member
SoSH Member
May 29, 2006
7,659
Hokkaido
I think part of the issue with the original Spygate is that the Pats had been taping from the sidelines for quite some time. And for various reasons, it didn't even ever cross the league's radar when Tagliabue was commissioner.
Teams had been taping from the sidelines for decades. I don’t know how common it was or how many teams stuck with it the way the Patriots did, but it wasn’t some obscure thing. John Madden talked about it during a game in the 90s between the Redskins and Cowboys. It was just a dumb “scandal.” The Patriots should have been heavily fined and everyone should have moved on. But here are. I’m expecting the NFL to throw the book at them, especially after the tape being shown.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,742
For what its worth, Peter King, in his column today, quotes Maske of the WP that not much will happen (fine, maybe a low draft pick), and based on his own sourcing doesn't think much more will come of it.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
For what its worth, Peter King, in his column today, quotes Maske of the WP that not much will happen (fine, maybe a low draft pick), and based on his own sourcing doesn't think much more will come of it.
This is consistent with Volin's reporting, fwiw:

The league investigation into the matter is still pending, but the Patriots could reportedly receive a fine in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and the loss of a low-level draft pick once it culminates.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,714
LaCanfora is on the ass end of the NFL insiders totem pole for a reason. Baltimore guy right? Bisciotti feeding him bullshit to try and steer the USS Goodell toward the "significant fine" iceberg? The NFL needs to wrap this bullshit up asap.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
When are we going to stop blaming the reporters for our own fuckups?
I'll give you that spygate was a fuckup that the football operations side was involved in, but this fuckup seemed to have nothing to do with football operations.
 

drbretto

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 10, 2009
12,075
Concord, NH
The thing I hate the most about these is seeing all the self righteous social media posts. People who don't understand what even happened, what the rules are, etc, just spewing sanct like their opinion means literally anything. I couldn't care less what people think of the pats, but man, the dumb pouring out of my Facebook feed is nauseating.
 

shawnrbu

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
39,695
The Land of Fist Pumps
Shannon Sharpe on Undusputed today:

NFL Security should have raided Patriots facilities last Sunday and confiscated all tapes.

Belichick should be suspended a minimum of 1 year (compares it to the punishment for BountyGate). $10 million fine. As a repeat offender, Belichick should be fired.
 

bohous

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2005
4,420
Framingham
Shannon Sharpe on Undusputed today:

NFL Security should have raided Patriots facilities last Sunday and confiscated all tapes.

Belichick should be suspended a minimum of 1 year (compares it to the punishment for BountyGate). $10 million fine. As a repeat offender, Belichick should be fired.
Suspending him after he's been fired seems a bit harsh.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
When are we going to stop blaming the reporters for our own fuckups?
The problem (well, one of the problems anyway) is that these things build on themselves. Spygate...ok that was blown out of proportion, and other teams actually caught taping (see: Jets, New York) received NO penalty whatsoever. But the fact is, the Patriots broke a rule. They were hammered for it - huge fine, loss of a first round draft pick, plus the forever "stain" of "Spygate" - but they did it. Ok, fine, whatever, move on.

Then comes Deflategate. Which was quite literally about the laws of physics being in operation. The NFL didn't understand it. The Mort tweet set this thing ablaze, and in every single report or television talking head, it was about the Patriots caught cheating *again*. That this established a culture of cheating. The penalty they received was in large part due to Spygate, so it built on the previous infraction. But now in people's minds - and in the NFL's mind - this is the second major cheating scandal. I can't tell you the number of people I run into that still believe the Patriots deflated footballs illegally and scoff at the laws of physics. It's unreal. But the REPORTING of that made that story. If Mort hadn't F-ed up and hadn't sent that horrific tweet, this thing probably goes nowhere. If the reporting right off the bat was fair and correct, that thing had no legs. So it's fine to blame the reporting.

So now we come to this, and it's all "the Patriots are serial cheaters". The reporters aren't just reporting facts - good god no. They're driving the narrative, which impacts public opinion, which, as we all know, impacts the NFL's response.

So the Pats screwed up on this tape, but an objective look at it would show that it was just a screwup, nothing more. Ok fine, that deserves a fine. But the media-driven narrative is going to quite possibly make the penalty much worse than it should be, and it's because they're not *reporting*; they're *opining* and driving the story.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,742
When are we going to stop blaming the reporters for our own fuckups?
Maybe because this, as with many things, is often being reported for clicks rather than for clarity. The NFL has a rule in place which literally makes no sense...no filming, of "signals", yet there are (1) virtually only electronic signals in today's NFL, and (2) any team can secretly film from anywhere in the stands with "technology" that every American owns. As was stated upthread, this a rule in search of a problem, a problem which does not exist. If any of the other 31 teams were "caught" doing this the immediate reaction by the media and the league would be to sweep it under the rug, as they should. Pretending that this is anything other than what it is, is beyond hypocritical.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
Shannon Sharpe on Undusputed today:

NFL Security should have raided Patriots facilities last Sunday and confiscated all tapes.

Belichick should be suspended a minimum of 1 year (compares it to the punishment for BountyGate). $10 million fine. As a repeat offender, Belichick should be fired.
Aww, he’s gone soft. Already down from lifetime ban.

Also, pretty sure Robert Kraft owns that stadium and the NFL cannot trespass onto his property and steal things to satisfy a bunch of talking heads, but maybe that’s wrong. Would the NFL have such authority?
 
Last edited:

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
Shannon Sharpe on Undusputed today:

NFL Security should have raided Patriots facilities last Sunday and confiscated all tapes.

Belichick should be suspended a minimum of 1 year (compares it to the punishment for BountyGate). $10 million fine. As a repeat offender, Belichick should be fired.
We should make illegal procedure a 50 yard penalty while we're at it.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
Shannon Sharpe on Undusputed today:

NFL Security should have raided Patriots facilities last Sunday and confiscated all tapes.

Belichick should be suspended a minimum of 1 year (compares it to the punishment for BountyGate). $10 million fine. As a repeat offender, Belichick should be fired.
I love Sharpe's logic. Belichick a "repeat offender"? He did Spygate, yes. But he had NOTHING to do with Deflategate (neither did anyone else, but even if you believe that Brady had dorito dink tamper with footballs, BB was not anywhere near that) and had nothing to do with THIS one either. So how in the world should Bill Belichick be fired or suspended?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,559
Here
Reminder that Shannon Sharpe was on the Broncos championship teams that circumvented the salary cap an extra 20 million when it was 80 million dollars, for a whopping extra 25% of cap space than the rest of the league. He can eat shit.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,769
Hartford, CT
From Peter King’s Monday column:

‘One club official asked me Sunday: “The NFL has told us that anyone on our sidelines doing anything illegal or wrong—that falls on the head coach. So why doesn’t this fall on Bill Belichick?” It might, though Mark Maske of the Washington Post reports it seems the league is leaning toward a softer punishment of a stiff fine and also a loss of a lower draft choice or reduction in value of a draft choice. That would seem to say the league believes the Patriots when they say video crew had nothing to do with the football-ops side of the building. We’ll see how that goes.

New England suspended the videographer, Dave Mondillo, a full-time employee of the over-arching Kraft Sports and Entertainment group, but that probably won’t have much meaning in the investigation. At the league meetings last week, I’m told there wasn’t much angst from club officials over the taping, but some sticklers—nothing wrong with sticklers—think the Patriots should get the book thrown at them. It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.’

Some bizarre takes he’s reporting, especially the first one re: BB (what?), but King notably seems to characterize the ‘throw the book’ at the Pats sentiment as a minority sentiment.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
From Peter King’s Monday column:

‘One club official asked me Sunday: “The NFL has told us that anyone on our sidelines doing anything illegal or wrong—that falls on the head coach. So why doesn’t this fall on Bill Belichick?” It might, though Mark Maske of the Washington Post reports it seems the league is leaning toward a softer punishment of a stiff fine and also a loss of a lower draft choice or reduction in value of a draft choice. That would seem to say the league believes the Patriots when they say video crew had nothing to do with the football-ops side of the building. We’ll see how that goes.

New England suspended the videographer, Dave Mondillo, a full-time employee of the over-arching Kraft Sports and Entertainment group, but that probably won’t have much meaning in the investigation. At the league meetings last week, I’m told there wasn’t much angst from club officials over the taping, but some sticklers—nothing wrong with sticklers—think the Patriots should get the book thrown at them. It doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.’

Some bizarre takes he’s reporting, especially the first one re: BB (what?), but King notably seems to characterize the ‘throw the book’ at the Pats sentiment as a minority sentiment.
Well, to that club official's point..... this didn't happen on the Patriots' sidelines. It didn't even happen at a game that Belichick was AT. It didn't even happen with anyone connected to the actual football part of the team. That club official's "logic" is, to be perfectly charitable, utterly moronic.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,192
By that logic----whatever a team employee does elsewhere is the fault of the head coach---John Harbaugh should be suspended because Ray Rice hit his girlfriend.

At some point, you need to be clear on the duties and the obligations in an organizational sense. That is why I pushed back earlier in the thread on the creation of an affirmative duty for the team around subcontractors/employees.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
By that logic----whatever a team employee does elsewhere is the fault of the head coach---John Harbaugh should be suspended because Ray Rice hit his girlfriend.

At some point, you need to be clear on the duties and the obligations in an organizational sense. That is why I pushed back earlier in the thread on the creation of an affirmative duty for the team around subcontractors/employees.
That's not the logic he mentioned. I'm legitimately confused as to how you read that and got there. It specifically says "on our sidelines". Unless you are being deliberately uncharitable to the term "sidelines".
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850

leftfieldlegacy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
1,005
North Jersey
Just caught Mort on ESPN. He was much more measured than I thought he would be. I was pre occupied with other things and only half listening so paraphrasing: he said that this was a feature for DYJ similar to others done on trainers and eqipment manager and that looking at the field is something advance scouts do. But went on to say that given the Pats history it was still bad optics and the severity of the punihment will depend on whether the investigation can tie this filming to football ops. If not, it will likely be a light penalty. SC runs again at 4pm and Mort's report is currently being promoted for that show.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Just caught Mort on ESPN. He was much more measured than I thought he would be. I was pre occupied with other things and only half listening so paraphrasing: he said that this was a feature for DYJ similar to others done on trainers and eqipment manager and that looking at the field is something advance scouts do. But went on to say that given the Pats history it was still bad optics and the severity of the punihment will depend on whether the investigation can tie this filming to football ops. If not, it will likely be a light penalty. SC runs again at 4pm and Mort's report is currently being promoted for that show.
This may be just my interpretation, or because you were only half listening, or whatever, but when you say "the severity of the punishment will depend on whether the investigation can tie this filming to football ops", it makes it sound like the NFL is actively trying to tie it to football ops... which of course would not be surprising in the least, and which means that they are likely to find (or make up) something that somehow ties it to football ops. I mean they already used the term "more probable than not he was generally aware"... I could absolutely see the league going there again.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,943
Silver Spring, MD
That's not the logic he mentioned. I'm legitimately confused as to how you read that and got there. It specifically says "on our sidelines". Unless you are being deliberately uncharitable to the term "sidelines".
As stated above, whose sidelines? Bengals? Browns? Pats weren't even in the stadium.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
This may be just my interpretation, or because you were only half listening, or whatever, but when you say "the severity of the punishment will depend on whether the investigation can tie this filming to football ops", it makes it sound like the NFL is actively trying to tie it to football ops... which of course would not be surprising in the least, and which means that they are likely to find (or make up) something that somehow ties it to football ops. I mean they already used the term "more probable than not he was generally aware"... I could absolutely see the league going there again.
That's how I read it too. It's almost as if Goodell and Vincent are TRYING to see this in the worst light possible.

But maybe we're both misreading it. Heh.
 

jtn46

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 10, 2004
9,757
Norwalk, CT
I think the Patriots did not cheat and that haters are leaping to a conclusion that if true would make the Patriots the dumbest cheaters in the history of cheaters. They aren't the dumbest cheaters, but they are obviously quite dumb to put the team on the field at risk over something so low stakes. Top down there should be a sensitivity to the perception of something like this. Frankly, if any of these shows require taping other teams in any way they probably are not worth the risk, but if somehow they are, there is no excuse for not getting permission from the Bengals and the NFL. I come away from this thinking from Kraft on down they need to do a lot better.
 

leftfieldlegacy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
1,005
North Jersey
This may be just my interpretation, or because you were only half listening, or whatever, but when you say "the severity of the punishment will depend on whether the investigation can tie this filming to football ops", it makes it sound like the NFL is actively trying to tie it to football ops... which of course would not be surprising in the least, and which means that they are likely to find (or make up) something that somehow ties it to football ops. I mean they already used the term "more probable than not he was generally aware"... I could absolutely see the league going there again.
I'll check it out on the upcoming SC but, I think my post made it sound worse than was my intent. It seemed more of "this is a minor infraction of the rules and the only thing that could make it into something more would be a connection to football ops". I did not get any sense that he had info to that effect or even that he was hoping for more to come of it. Unlikely as it might seem, he seemed to treat this, y'know...objectively.