Quick Slants On Belichick's Comments
Hat doffage to young Mike Reiss of The Boston Globe for getting Patriots head coach Bill Belichick on the record regarding the so-called Spygate controversy.
This is the first defense/explanation the Patriots have offered on both their taping history and on former video assistant Matt Walsh who purportedly has compromising materials collected during his time with the team which ended in January of 2003.
Five Quick Hit Reactions ...
1. Belichick's interpretation of the taping rule was obtuse. The part of the rule (which Reiss cites in his story) Belichick leaned on was that, as long as the team didn't use any video on the day it was taken the team was all set. But while the rule can be interpreted that way, the league went to lengths to clarify that on September 6, 2006, sending the memo to all 32 teams saying ..."Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game."
3. Belichick's outright dismissal of the idea he ever authorized taping an opposing teams' walkthrough (specifically the Rams walkthrough prior to SB 36) gives him no wiggle room if it ever comes to light that there is indeed a tape of it out there. So it's going to come down to this: if former video assistant Matt Walsh has a tape of the Rams walkthrough - which some suspect he does - the Patriots are going to say he made it on his own. And the allegation from VP of Player Personnel Scott Pioli that Walsh was fired for taping conversations Pioli and Walsh had will help paint Walsh as a wannabe spy who had a history of taping stuff his bosses didn't want him to. That's if Walsh even taped that walkthrough.
4. This probably doesn't stop the hue and cry demanding to know why Roger Goodell allowed the Pats tapes be destroyed. Nor should it. And, since he's feeling forthcoming, it would be worth hearing from Belichick what was on those tapes and what the notes said. There's more to be explained, might as well do it and get it done with.
5. The efforts of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter to make the NFL and the Patriots sweat over the whole incident were absolutely successful, Whether his motives were dubious (and he told a Boston radio station that he likely wouldn't have cared if his Eagles didn't play New England in the Super Bowl in February 2005) or upright, he's the one that made the issue hit critical mass.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Slants On Belichick's Comments.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.nbcsports.com/system/mt-tb.cgi/9446
14 Comments
Leave a comment
About this blog
Drilling deeply into the mantle layer of America's Passion, NBCSports.com's Tom Curran offers up quick hits and insights on all things NFL.
"Winning is not everything, it's the only thing" (great words by a great coach) was meant to inspire the characters of players to compete at the highest levels possible. "Bilicheet" seems to have taken the quote to mean he can do whatever he wants to win, at whatever the cost.
Perhaps videotaping an opposing team's walk-through prior to the biggest game on Earth was just another "gray area" that Bilichick thought he could exploit with plausible deniability.
Regardless of how Boring Bill plays this one off, if the tapes are exposed and validate the claims, at least one (if not more)of the Patriots Super Bowl victories should be entered in the books with a big asterisk!
One more note: When, and if, Bill gets into the voting for the Hall, I hope the NFL voters don't forget the Pete Rose rule.
When you write about this stuff let the people know that Arlen Specter's largest campain contributor is Comcast cable. Specter doesn't care about whether the Patriots cheated or the quality of the product that the NFL is selling. He only cares about what Comcast wants him to care about. What Comcast wants is congressional pressure on the NFL's anti-trust exemption so they can get the deal they want on the NFL network. This is all about the money. Nothing less and nothing more.
About #3, it actually gives Belichick a TON of wiggle room, because now the burden of proof is on Walsh to:
1. produce the tape in question (yes, obvious, I know)
2. prove that he was actually the person that shot the tape and that he didn't pilfer it from anyone else...as he was able to stand around and shoot the walkthrough unnoticed by ANYONE (presumably wearing a fake mustache), then, theoretically, why couldn't someone ELSE have shot it?
3. (and most important) prove that Belichick or someone above him in the chain of command (there were a few) told him to do it. He's already being painted as a "rogue", so any taping, again theoretically, by Walsh could have been a rogue operation
Will those criteria exonerate Belichick in the court of public opinion? No, of course not. The ones that hate him and the Patriots will be unconvinced; likewise, the fans. However, those three things would be MORE than good enough in ANY court of law, which this case will never see anyway.
Just my two cents (minus inflation adjustment)...
Shouldn't all the teams in the NFL now come clean about their past taping/spying?
Ironically, the clarification issued by the league office in September of 2006 is just as ambiguous as the original rule when you put it in context. Now having read the rule in it's entirety, clearly coach Belichick is correct. However, I personally believe that coach Belichick did intended to exploit a deficiency in the language of the rule to his advantage. Nonetheless, his loose interprtation is legitimate; it is what it is, and it is the leagues responsibility to write better rules.
Furthermore, those who are quick to point a finger only at the Patriots are either naieve or very subjective (or both)in thier analysis. It is also very likely that teams who do cheat do not do so openly. Open taping is not an activity used by cheaters; in the same manner that bank robbers typically don't show thier faces or leave an address or phone number where they can be reached later for questioning.
As a former news/sports photographer, I can also attest that the level of sophistication of our equipment (5 -12 frames per second with motor drives), would permit cheating if that was what we wanted to do. Armed with a sideline press pass we could, if necessary,
film signals, reproduce those images instantly (digitally) and transmit them anywhere. My point is this: If anyone, including coach Belichick really wanted to cheat and not get caught, I assure you it would be relatively easy. No need for a Patriots employee (sans fake moustache), wearing a Patriots jacket, carrying Patriots equipment in broad daylight in front of 40,000 people and with security standing near-by to be taping the opposing team. Only an idiot would believe there was some clandestine operation taking place. It is more likely (just having fun here) that the Patriots vidiographer was actually caught by a Jets vidiographer in the act of doing the same thing. That might be one theory why the tapes were destroyed.
Lastly, for those who want to take the time to do some research, the taping rule was actually intended to prevent teams from using taped offensive and defensive signal information during the actual game.
Just my take. Enjoy!!
No mention of the ties between the Honorable Senator from Pennsylvania to Comcast, Tom? I sincerely doubt Spector's intentions in this go way beyond a folksy man of the people playing to the Eagles fans in his constituency.
Spector + Comcast + Congress= you do the math
..."Videotaping of any type,....blah, blah blah, .....at any other locations... blah blah blah...is prohibited at other locations.....during the game." The operative phrase here is...."DURING THE GAME"....it CAN be interpreted that the film being obtained will not and should not be used 'DURING THE GAME'...so Belichicks explaination and interpretation is valid. If the NFL wants to reprimand anyone for violating its rules and regulations, then it is responsibility of the NFL to write those rules so as not be be MISINTERPRETED....like this one.
Additionally, Walsh is a disgruntled former employee who is looking for his five minutes of fame....and since he is looking for TOTAL indemnity, he could lie through his teeth and not be held accountable....as far as I'm concerned, his credibility is zero.
While the premise that Belichick actually did misinterpret the wording of the rule is possible, I think there's as much chance that he just didn't care, not thinking it was a big deal. As far as Walsh goes, I wouldn't want to be him. They have set the stage. I doubt Pioli would have stated the reasons for Matt's dismissal if he couldn't prove it. This shows proof of a motive to either tape the Rams without his superiors' knowledge, and/or intend to slander the orginization. And by him asking for indemnity for any lies he might report also shows his credibility (or rather lack thereof). My personal thought is that these tapes provide no significant advantage. Eleven guys still have to go out there and execute. As for Senator Specter, I believe his status as an Eagles fan is only a cover for his first interest...Comcast. When someone in power makes a mountain out of a molehill, 99% of the time the motivation is money. I just think Congress has a lot more pressing issues to address. At least in the MLB hearings some law was actually broken. A hearing over a rule infraction for the benefit of a cable company is a pure waste of my tax dollars (and everyone else's)!
As a taxpayer, I would like to suggest that the Honorable Senator from Pennsylvania is not duing my tax dollars any justice. I would like to suggest that he spend my tax dollars, and everyone elses for that matter, on more important issues - Issues that affect the daily lives of Americans, especially those who put him in office !
10 billion dollars unaccounted in Iraq... Milltary can't account for 25% of what it spends... Energy and Oil prices through the roof... Recession... Job growth... Senator don't you have more important things to worry about... the lives of our soliders and our citizens and government waste? Quit this fOcking dog and pony show and get back to the work we elected you to do!!! IT A FREAKING GAME..
Football will never be the same. Pay big money for a ticket...is the game fixed or is someone cheating which will no doubt be a win for them? Goodell distroys the evidence for a reason and one reason only. People who distroy evidence are only trying to hide the truth. Truth that is damaging to the NFL.
This is a solid article, but I do disagree with one of Curran's points: I don't believe it's possible to interpret the rule in question as permitting videotaping so long as the tape wasn't used until after the game during which the taping occurred.
The rule really doesn't leave any room for "interpretation" on the subject of videotaping. The rule states: "Any use by any club at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which such club is a participant, of any communications or information-gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, shall be prohibited, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping, or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game."
This is an unconditional prohibition on videotaping. Nowhere is there any suggestion that taping is ok if only x,y, and z factors exist. It simply states that clubs may not use videocameras at any point during a game. Period.
For Belichick to claim that all he was guilty of was a "misinterpretation" is completely disingenuous.
Just a few follow-up points:
I was struck by two other comments Belichick made. First, I think he correctly points out that "if I contacted the league and asked them about the practice, I'm sure they would have told me - as they have done - that it is not permissible." So why didn't he? He did admit on record that part of his job as head coach is to ensure that his club is following the rules. Yet he chose to rely upon his own "interpretation" over simply asking the NFL whether videotaping was permitted. At worst this is duplicitous, at best intellectually arrogant and reckless. And it was downright foolhardy not to ask after the commissioner went to the trouble of sending each head coach a memorandum specifically designed to explain that videotaping of any kind was prohibited.
Why take a needless risk? And if he was so sure he was in the right, why didn't he raise some formal objection with NFL officials when security staff at various games last year forced his cameraman to stop filming, once multiple times in one game? The reason he didn't request an official interpretation in the first place, or after the memo, or complain about opposing teams' interference with his taping, is because he knew it was wrong.
One final point: I love Belichick's "apology," don't you? "I apologize to everybody that is involved, - the league, the other teams, the fans, our team for the amount of conversation and dialogue that it's caused." Is this an apology? Look carefully - he's not sorry that he broke the rules, or that he betrayed a trust as the person responsible for upholding the rules. He's sorry for all of the hooplah made of it. He's sorry, essentially, that everyone is talking about it. That's not an apology - that's anyone's natural reaction to how uncomfortable it feels to be caught red-handed.