Merged all things Brady, cheating, bellicheat, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YardRat

The text in any amendment is irrelevant, the rule the Patriots broke is the language I have pointed out, in place since the merger, which is what the discussion is about.

Just wave the white flag on this one Shiva. It's over.

---

You know he smells blood in the water now, right? You're dead on your feet on this one, you just don't know it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YardRat

The text in any amendment is irrelevant, the rule the Patriots broke is the language I have pointed out, in place since the merger, which is what the discussion is about.

Just wave the white flag on this one Shiva. It's over.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICRockets

You know he smells blood in the water now, right? You're dead on your feet on this one, you just don't know it yet.

---

:rofl:

I always love the part when people try to duck out of the discussion by announcing their own "victories". You can tell they're getting worried.

And the wording of the amendment is certainly relevant, as is the point in the timeline when it was ratified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartacus

:rofl:

I always love the part when people try to duck out of the discussion by announcing their own "victories". You can tell they're getting worried.

And the wording of the amendment is certainly relevant, as is the point in the timeline when it was ratified.

---

I was talking to him, not you. In what world is what I said relevant to your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartacus

I was asking about the text to the amendment, since we know that technology in the NFL isn't limited to polaroids and field telephones anymore.

But anyway, thank you for digging up this antiquated document and it's stone-age concerns that videotape "machines", like telephone tapping or bugging devices would use their witchery to figure out how to bamboo2le opposing coaches during games that were on their way to being losses.

Although I suspect their motivation for including "video-machines" was more cost than competition driven.

It was 1970 after all.

---

I believe you are right on this at least in part. The original rule specifically says "during the playing of a game". The Patriots weren't using the tapes during the game, they were using the tapes to prepare for future games. BB felt this meant they were not in violation of the original rule. The league was aware NE was taping games and had been for years, never did anything about it, maybe some teams complained. At which point I do think they sent out a memo preseason 2006 telling teams not to do this (not sure if any other teams besides NE were doing it). That's the reason NE got slapped when Mangini reported them, it was because they ignored the memo. The original rule is ambiguous at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YardRat

The text in any amendment is irrelevant, the rule the Patriots broke is the language I have pointed out, in place since the merger, which is what the discussion is about.

Just wave the white flag on this one Shiva. It's over.

---

Your whole back and forth with him is really starting to look like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICRockets

I was talking to him, not you. In what world is what I said relevant to your point?

---

You're allowed to talk about me in public but I can't comment?

Really? Doesn't sound particularly fair. Is there a rule that that I'm breaking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Cody

I believe you are right on this at least in part. The original rule specifically says "during the playing of a game". The Patriots weren't using the tapes during the game, they were using the tapes to prepare for future games. BB felt this meant they were not in violation of the original rule. The league was aware NE was taping games and had been for years, never did anything about it, maybe some teams complained. At which point I do think they sent out a memo preseason 2006 telling teams not to do this (not sure if any other teams besides NE were doing it). That's the reason NE got slapped when Mangini reported them, it was because they ignored the memo. The original rule is ambiguous at best.

---

The way I understood it, Belichick started taping under the old rule and thought it was okay because it wasn't for in game purposes. Them when Mangini went to the Jets and he didn't have the benefit of the database anymore, he told the league, and the league amended the rule and sent out a memo. Belichick thought it was unfair and decided to protest by BLATANTLY breaking the rule in the first game, INTENDING to be noticed. It was only then that the league took action.

In other words, the NFL knew the rule was antiquated. It hadn't been updated in over a third of a century, and by amending it, they de facto admitted that the rule was confusing and needed to be withdrawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartacus

You're allowed to talk about me in public but I can't comment?

Really? Doesn't sound particularly fair. Is there a rule that that I'm breaking?

---

No rules, just the fact that I said nothing about me winning any argument. I'm just a bystander on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartacus

The way I understood it, Belichick started taping under the old rule and thought it was okay because it wasn't for in game purposes. Them when Mangini went to the Jets and he didn't have the benefit of the database anymore, he told the league, and the league amended the rule and sent out a memo. Belichick thought it was unfair and decided to protest by BLATANTLY breaking the rule in the first game, INTENDING to be noticed. It was only then that the league took action.

In other words, the NFL knew the rule was antiquated. It hadn't been updated in over a third of a century, and by amending it, they de facto admitted that the rule was confusing and needed to be withdrawn.

---

There are a few things in your post that I can't say for sure are right but we do know that the league was aware NE was taping games for years and didn't call them on it. That says they didn't think it was illegal or at the very least that they didn't care about it. Was it Mangini that originally complained and caused the league to issue the memo? I don't know. I do know it was Mangini that turned the Patriots in after the memo was issued. BB claims to this day that despite the memo he felt the taping was not illegal as long as it wasn't used during the info the game, that's his story. I couldn't comment on whether he was being truthful about that or if he continued to tape in the Meadowlands as a protest or what. BB has never added to his reasoning to my knowledge. You're speculating on why and you could be right, I don't know.

Jimmy Johnson commented one time about the fact that BB wasn't the first to tape or to come up with the idea of taping signals. He said he considered it when he was at the Cowboys but didn't think it was worth the effort. BB started breaking down film for his father when he was barely a teenager. That was his 1st job in the NFL. It's not surprising really that he felt he could get an edge by having tape of opponents signals.