IMHO, if the charges are true, the Pats should be punished pretty harshly. The cheating represents a management failure by the team, not the players. The team itself should be fined, Coach Belichek should be suspended for at least a game, the camera wielder should also be suspended, and the Pats probably should lose a draft pick. Cheating should have consequences, and management should be personally accountable for its bad behavior. It's Belichek's sideline, and his coaching staff that knowingly broke the rules. I would also like a public apology from Bob Kraft and Bill Belichek.
The Pats' actions are exactly the kind of behavior that causes ordinary people to grow cynical about all the major institutions in their lives, and to come to the conclusion that it's OK to cheat to succeed. Politics, sports, taxes and school all become fair game for cynicism.
I'm sorely disappointed in a team I used to respect a lot. I really don't care whether any other team is doing the same thing. I don't expect the Pats to cheat.
Harrison was a bigger disappointment, but this doesn't sit well with me.
The punishment should reflect the seriousness of the crime, of course. I'd like to hear a good debate about how much this impacts a game, from a few people who know. I know if it's against the rules it's against the rules, but is it closer to murder or jaywalking?
And why video tape? Can't you just watch and take notes?
… This is a non story blown out of proportion.
<
p>
Kaufman (Free with add)
Cheating about what?
The offense
<
p>
The apology
Mr Lynne and JohnK downstream.
<
p>
I was about ready to make a snide remark about rules against steroid use.
<
p>
It strikes me that this rule is about as enforceable as any rule against steroid use, though. Put a couple of “fans” in the stadium with videocams and and they can “steal” any signals they want.
Where caught having a cameraman record the defensive coaches signals during the game last Sunday. NFL Security confiscated the video from the person and the commissioner deemed that the Patriots violated NFL rules in doing so. In essence, in places the Patriots recent success into question and it is the first known instance of the NFL naming an organization for cheating.
Many people in this area believe that it's a common practice that NFL teams do to get an edge and that the Patriots organization have been unfairly treated or media has made this out to be a bigger offense than it is. Teams hire lip readers, coaching booths have people with binoculars, etc. to watch the opposing team. Many teams have multiple people giving hand signals from the sidelines to make it difficult to determine who is giving the sign. Someone could write a book about signals, there's normally a signal that means the next signal is the actual sign etc. All this to hide the play calls, gamesmanship is part of the history of the NFL, I posted an article from ESPN from a few months back in the post that discusses some stories.
Here's the link, what's gamemanship and what's cheating:
Edwards said the same is true today.
that there’s a low level of what might technically be called “cheating,” but is really part of the game. Like in baseball, a runner on second trying to steal the catcher’s signs and tip off the batter as to what pitch is coming — that’s just baseball. But this videotaping business seems to go well beyond that.
… check out the Kaufman article
There are rules which were emphasized in the off-season regarding the use of video cameras. The Jets coach Mangini who was a one time Patriots defensive coordinator probably knew what they would do in game 1 while playing against the Patriots knowing the new NFL emphasis. Good move by the Jets, their goal is to weaken a competitor and they did so.
<
p>
But this whole thing about cheating, I’m not as convinced. I’m a fan but not a ya hoo, they have always drove me nuts.
no lenses.
If you can steal a signal with the naked eye, go for it. If you use a lens — binocs, cameras, etc. — you're cheating.
<
p>
Generally, I agree with the overkill argument. Rule says “no videotaping.” Pats were warned on it in past. All teams were warned on it in offseason. Pats flaunt it. Fine. Some reasonable penalty, a 4th round draft pick confiscated, move on.
<
p>
2. Pattern A: Coach
<
p>
Belichek: his Achilles heel: ego. Rules are rules unless not rules. Players must practice to play — unless Randy Moss. Tom Brady on injury report each week though not injured. Players accountable unless Rodney Harrison, then no comment beyond “hope to get him back on field.” I agree the personal stuff is none of our business, but since it’s out there, it exacerbates image — cheated on wife, with married Giants secretary who then left her husband.
<
p>
Pattern B: Owner
<
p>
The Patriots Way. I buy it. I like it. Team first. All for one. No personal introductions at the Super Bowl, we’re a team. We draft players for character, not just for athletic ability. Accountability. Cut people who talk a good game but don’t get it done. Classy.
<
p>
That’s why we fans feel frustrated when Pats mess up, it’s non-apology apology — with Harrison, with this thing. The only sincere apology is for losing. Pats Way criticizes those who indulge star players, but then Pats ownership unwilling to criticize star coach.
<
p>
3. Posturing
<
p>
NFL Commissioner has really nailed some players recently. Image as law and order guy. Will feel huge pressure to nail a coach — THE coach — to be perceived as “balanced.” May overpunish Pats as a result.
… How about just a $200,000 fine?
Its not like this really had any affect on the integrity of the game. If anything it really is just a bad wrap for the reputation of the team, at least in the way it is being played out in the media.
This is the whole reason play calls are coded in the first place. Everyone knows others will try and figure you out.
Everything I have read on the matter suggests that this or practices like it are fairly common in the NFL. I don't think it has an extreme impact on the results. If the probe determines they were in violation, they should certainly be punished, but let's remember that if this was any other team (outside possibly the Colts) this would be a non-story. There is a lot of animosity towards the patriots around the league and there are certain people with vested interests in seeing the pats in trouble. Consider the fact that Bill Polian, the Colts president, is on the competition committee. This is the body charged with making a recommendation to the commissioner on this matter, so you can see where bias may exist. Polian has used this power before to favor his team, most notably with the instruction of strick enforcement of the 5 yard chuck rule, which led to the explosion of illegal contact calls (http://www.msnbc.msn…). My point here is that Polian, an influential member of the competition committee, has used this position to the advantage of his team in the past, and he might do so again.
If the pats are determined to have violated a rule, there should be an appropriate punishment, but some of the suggestions coming from the comments at ESPN.com, such as forfeiture of the game, stripping of titles, and a postseason ban are just ridiculous. Make the punishment fit the crime. I doubt videotaping caused Brady to throw to Moss when he was triple-teamed, only to have Moss pull it down for 51 yds.
I don't buy the “they're all haters” argument. The Pats cheated, and I believe that any team caught cheating would elicit outrage within the NFL. The media at large? Irrelevant — they won't choose the penalty the Pats will face.
The media is all the free advertisement the NFL could ever want; if people are calling for Patriots blood, a large contingent of that group will be fans of certain media personalities and be because of the treatment the Pats have gotten in the press. The NFL will choose the punishment, but the media certainly will influence the punishment the NFL chooses.
Are you referring to the free media that the NFL is getting from this story? The idea that the NFL needs free media is pretty funny — with the sports media industry whether it be magazines, tv news, or talk radio, the NFL has all the free media it needs. And the fact that one of its top teams is stained by this story isn't exactly good media.
That the NFL gets lots of free media, be ESPN or magazines, etc. The fact that this isn't exactly “good media” will weigh into the NFL's reaction. Things that are free often have hidden costs associated with it; if the media riled up the masses, that wouldn't be good for the NFL.
There ought to be a punitive repsponse, but I have no idea what.
Punishment ought to fir the crime, but I can't tell if this was more like capital murder or more loike jaywalking.
I think the patriots are charged with 'breaking a rule' which, IMHO, is not the same thing as 'cheating'. And the rule, frankly, seems downright silly.
Insofar as the game is played in secrecy, the onus (willingly accepted, it seems) is on the coaches and players to obfuscate the communications. That's what 'signalling' is all about: a clear attempt to avoid disclosure of intent and communication. That's why they do it with hand gestures and that's why they hold the playsheets in front of their faces when giving orders. It seems to me the act of signalling is an admission that the other team is watching you. That they are attempting to find out what you are planning, and that you are attempting to do the same to them. So far, so very good, no? So the rule protects what?
In addition, every modern sports team in every modern sport prepares with film of the other team. It's a time-honored tradition in high-school football for coaches to share game films with each other… So what? How does filming the game stop with just the players on the field? Aren't the coaches part of the team? What happens if, in the course of 'ordinary' game film the opposing coach catches signals and figures out to which plays they align?
I think the NFL is walking a very thin line here… And I think Mangini and the Jets are just sucking on sour grapes with this complaint.
And I don't fault the Pats a bit.
… to the tune of some kind of fine. Again, this isn't something that actually affected a game (at least not any more than any other game).
So its a rules infraction… fine them and be done with it. They hype is overly played out and I don't doubt that has something to do with national 'anti-Pats' media markets.
are you proclaming that theft is OK? By keeping a password on your computer, are you proclaiming that other people reading your email is OK?
The act of protecting your interests doesn't mean you're suggesting that the behavior of a person with antithetical interests is acceptable.
What are you talking about? Theft isn't OK. Where did I say anything remotely like that? I lock my door because people steal. I put a password on my computer because I don't want them reading my email. Absent these actions I don't think I have an expectation of privacy and/or safety. Should they occur, I have recourse with the courts and/or other options but that's neither here nor there…
A sentiment with which I whole-heartedly agree. What's your point? My point, to put the discussion back on the subject, is that encoded signalling is an admission that you have no expectation of privacy at a football game that is televised nationally: it is a recognition that there are antithetical interests in situ… and a willingness to act accordingly. So, I ask, what does the rule protect? Nothing. Stupid rule. If NFL coaches really believed it was A) righteous and 2) effective, they wouldn't feel the need to encode their signals.
Nor do I think it 'cheating', at least no more so than looking at game film.
“Stealing” signs is legal. Using cameras to do it is cheating. It's not about an expectation of privacy since real-time non-technicologically assisted observing of signs is legal. This is why the signs are obfuscated — to make it far more difficult for legal stealing of signs.
You imply that obfuscating signals legitimizes what the Pats did, and it doesn't in the same way that locking your door doesn't legitimize someone trying to steal your stuff.
The rule is simple — and a willful decision to break a rule to gain an advantage is cheating. It's the grandmother test, or in this case the commish test. Would the Pats have done it with the commisioner standing next to the camera man? If yes, it's a misunderstanding of the rules. If no, it's cheating, plain and simple.
You may think it's a dumb rule, but that's a wholly different argument. Personally, I think the rule [and MLB's counterpart] is elegant. The signals are obfuscated enough to make real time codebreaking difficult. By allowing technology to assist in codebreaking, we'll end up cheering teams full of MIT and CalTech graduates. I save those cheers for speed chess deathmatches.
…don’t use hand signals.
<
p>
Coach and quarterback have radio links (such as cell phones) and the communications between the two are scrambled or even encrypted. It isn’t that complex to do. Actually, all of the players on the team could have radio links, so that they know what the coach is telling the qb.
<
p>
If the communications are encrypted, it would take an eternity for the opposing team to figure out what was going on. And the encryption keys can be changed from game to game.
… all kinds of colleagues and bosses browsing the internet at work, I proclaim that its ok for me to read a blog a work, even though the IT practices form I signed when I was employed, in the strictest sense, makes it ‘rule violation’.
I'm not impressed with this from the Patriots. Just like I wasn't impressed with the Jets “interviewing” a wide receiver purely to pick his brain about his former team, which just happened to be the Patriots.
Lose a fifth round pick, if that. I think this is more about “proving” that even the Patriots will be punished. Robert Kraft is beloved of the NFL, and the Pats are the top pick to win the SuperBowl. This is Goodwin's Sister Souljah moment.
As if the Jets would have won had they kept their secrets. That defensive line couldn't have threatened Brady given a five second head start and a tank.
… for something that didn't effect the game?
It was a team offense, and the fact that didn't affect the outcome doesn't change the fact that it was a cheat.
If somebody tries to mug somebody, but gets no money, do we not charge him/her for a crime?
wasn't decided by the Pats 'spying'. The camera was confiscated at the beginning of the game, so I don't see how that helped the Pats. Hobbs TD was probably the key play of the game and it had nothing to do with 'spying'.
That said, the Pats broke the rules, so they should pay the penalty and move on. Mangini takes his revenge.
One other thing. Last year the Pats got their asses kicked by the Dolphins in Miami. The Fins defense was all over Brady. After the game, Miami players acknowledged that they somehow got a hold of a recording of Brady's audibles and check offs at the line, from previous games. They used it to anticipate the changes the Pats would be making, and it worked great.
No word on where Miami 'aquired' the recording from, but they weren't punished for it as far as I know.
…I presume that any and all high-pressure sportlers will try to circumvent the rules. I made note of that fact a couple of years ago on an American web site when American Floyd Landis appeared to have won the Tour de France, but was thereafter accused of engaging in performance-enhancing techniques. I was pounced upon for opining in such a manner.
<
p>
But what I actually wrote, was that I am not disapointed to find out that they did make use performing enhancing techniques, because I presumed that they all did. And, I work backward from there. Regardless of whether or not they did, I didn’t give a tinker’s damn.
<
p>
Same with cameras. Recall Michael Richards’s outbreak a while ago? Cell-phone cameras picked it up. Do the NFL officials really believe that they will be able to control cell phone transmissions in a stadium? It’s a Wahnsinn–an idiocy. They should recognize it for what it is–a hazard of doing business.
Their egos and competitiveness lead them to do it. Once in college, I got into a pick-up game of basketball against a starting varsity player. Even though my opponent was obviously taller, more talented, and more experienced at the game, I was stymied with all kinds of tricks like stepping on my toes, pulling on my jersey so I couldn’t get my balance, etc. This stuff was completely unnecessary for my opponent to win, but people who are super-competitive do not see rules the same way less competitive people do. If most college starters have that attitude, what kind of attitude does it take to win a professional championship?
You don't care if every other team is doing it, yet the Pats should lose a draft pick? Why the special treatment?
I don't really even view what the Pats have allegedly done as cheating: stealing signs is part of pretty much any game. You always have to be guarded with your secrets. Cy-Young Calibre pitchers – possibly including the Sox's own ace – have become less than mediocre during seasons in which they were “tipping” their pitches. Were players cheating, by taking advantage of another team's sloppiness (pitchers tipping)? No, those players were being smart. How is it any different than if teams aren't being careful in making their calls?
Performance-enhancing drugs are different: they're dangerous and most-definately a bad influence on younger players. I don't even think it's just young kids looking up to the stars and wanting to take steroids, it's the fact that so many very-good-but-not-quite-stellar players want that leg up to get them to the next level, especially when 1,000 other people just like them are doing the exact same thing. Many players in the MLB, NFL and other leagues – who aren't exceptionally good – wouldn't have made it there without the enhancing drugs to begin with.
So, I do agree that what Harrison did was wrong – although, I sympathize with (and believe) the reasons he stated for taking HGH to begin with. By doing something other players couldn't, he indeed was taking a competitive advantage. However, if what the Pats were doing is done by most other organizations (and isn't even viewed as cheating in many other sports), I don't think they deserve any especially harsh punishments. A stern warning and a fine, added to the very public embarrassment, ought to do.
Kevin Everett was nearly paralyzed as a result of a routine play. Many retired players can barely walk. Ted Johnson is permanently disabled from concussions. Yet, the biggest problem with the NFL is that the Pats taped Eric Mangenius's defensive signals?
Short of switching to flag football, what shuold the NFL be doing about the injuries, both sudden and time induced? As far as I know, the NFL is working hard to mitigate damage from injury, particularly from the kind like Everett, since it's a financial loss to the NFL every time a current player goes out with injury.
Let me see if I've got this right. It's OK to steal signals as long as you don't use certain equipment to do so. The stealing of signals can't be labeled cheating if it's allowed. The “cheating” here would be doing it with a video camera. We're all stealing signals, no problem, but those nasty Patriots are using equipment, to do it – that's the cheat.
… its perfectly legal to use the equipment (cameras),… they just have to be NFL or NBC or ESPN cameras shot by others.
I agree to some extent. But the NFL has essentially ignored the concussion problem for years and is only now moving slowly to acknowlege the fact that players cannot be trusted to take themselves out if they have been “dinged” in the head. The rules on helmet to helmet contact need to be more consistently enforced.
I didn't watch football much after Darryl Stingley got paralyzed during an exhibition game. As the team improved, I got drawn back in to watching, but its becoming a guilty pleasure. The league can do a better job of protecting the players. They should, too.