#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[Boris Badenov]

Yup, a mere five days after the first real positive Deflategate news the Pats have had in the 9 months of the scandal's existence, the Deflategate thread has suddenly morphed into a "bad things the Pats did during Spygate" thread.

Someone somewhere is, at this very moment, unfurling a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

[fairweatherfan]

I gotta say, after almost 200 pages this has arrived at a very satisfactory conclusion.  Fans that don't like the Patriots get to call them cheaters, fans that do like the Patriots get to call themselves victims, and everybody gets to agree that the league office sucks.  And nobody has to change their mind on anything of note.  Seems like a best-case scenario to me.

[D.o.s.]

Be sure to tune in on Thursday.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?

Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy?  C'mon.......

This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. 

No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs.  I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for?  Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.

The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization.  It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality.  when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.

You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this.  Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation?  And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.

stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing.  The Steelers never illegally videotaped.

Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006.  Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it.  Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007.  Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?

except Cowher didn't actually say that.  He said

“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”

According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.

Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.

I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.

Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.

There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals.  One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not.  That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals".  One is against the rules and one is not.

In practical terms, yes, there's a difference. But ethically? No, there's no difference—if you're trying to steal signals, you're trying to steal signals. Period. But as I've said before, if you're doing things out in the open, where anyone can see it ...

except you could argue that you aren't really stealing signals if you see them live because everyone can see them.  The stealing comes from taping and then analyzing over and over again to actually learn what each signal means. 

Or you know stealing playbooks like has also been alleged.  Or by bugging the opposing locker-room (like the Patriots have been rumored to have done and that the Saints were punished for doing).

What about people who have great memory—photographic, even? They can remember what they saw, which is equivalent to having it taped. And we don't necessarily know who those people are, so how can they be policed?

As for the other stuff, those are all allegations yet to be proven.

Bottom line: We all know that Belichick pushes the envelope, and I'll concede that it's more probably than not that he sometimes even cheats—which I wouldn't condone—but he's hardly alone in this regard across the NFL. The Pats are really good, so they get targeted—I get that. But the pettiness towards the Pats has reached epic proportions, so much so that a report about decade-old behavior conveniently comes out right after Brady is cleared in another "scandal."

[footey]

So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?

Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy?  C'mon.......

This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. 

No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs.  I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for?  Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.

The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization.  It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality.  when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.

You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this.  Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation?  And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.

stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing.  The Steelers never illegally videotaped.

Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006.  Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it.  Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007.  Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?

except Cowher didn't actually say that.  He said

“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”

According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.

Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.

I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.

Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.

There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals.  One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not.  That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals".  One is against the rules and one is not.

This is an excerpt from article going into history of video-taping of signals. (Why do you keep insisting that only the Patriots did this??)

"It’s not known when someone first filmed coaching signals. It goes back at least to 1990 when Marty Schottenheimer coached Kansas City. Both on a Fox pregame show and on WFAN, a New York radio station, Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl Championships, said he also had staffers tape opposing coaches.
 
Johnson said teams could tape signals from the press box, but sometimes the press box was on the wrong side of the field. In that case, the cameraman filmed from the sidelines. Johnson, who also had interns search other teams’ trash for discarded notes and game plans, said taping coaches wasn’t worth the effort and abandoned it.
 
Johnson learned the procedure in 1990 from Mark Hatley, a Kansas Cityscout, who taught him how Marty Schottenheimer’s Chiefs did it. Johnson praised one Schottenheimer assistant, Howard Mudd, as “the best in the entire league at stealing signals.”  During much of the current decade, including their Super Bowl year, Mudd worked for the Indianapolis Colts.
 
One of Belichick’s fiercest Spygate critics and Mudd’s boss from 2002-2008 with the Colts, Tony Dungy, also served on Schottenheimer’s Kansas City staff. Other notable Schottenheimer assistants in Kansas City include Herm Edwards, who later served as the Jets' head coach before returning to the Chiefs in that capacity.
 
Edwards was so familiar with taping tactics that he waved to the Patriots' camera recording him. Long time Steelers' coach Bill Cowher also worked for Schottenheimer in Kansas City. During his career,Schottenheimer also coached the Cleveland Browns, Washington Redskins, and San Diego Chargers.
 
During Schottenheimer’s first few seasons in Kansas City, offenses still used hand signals too, meaning his defense also benefited from deciphering signals.
 
The media reports as if filming opposing coaches is a violation of NFL rules. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shares this belief and apparently based his punishment on it."

But that is why the NFL cracked down on it and issued the mandate in 2006 which the Patriots clearly violated.

OK, but my original point, I think it got lost, is that many, if not all, teams, were video taping the opponent's signals for many years until 2006. Today's ESPN article states that the Patriots were found to have done this, but neglects to mention that other teams did this as well, at least until 2006.

the article you have there talks about the 90's, not the 00's.  The league in fact started cracking down on it at the end of the 90's, they just reiterated the policy in 2006

The logic of your argument has digressed to the level of that submitted by the NFL in its court filing with Judge Berman. 

Let's call it a day, and start talking about something we can agree upon, the Celtics. Have a good one.

[Moranis]

So the NFL...cough...I mean ESPN is really going to dredge up something from 8 years ago that the organization was punished for?

Oh, and it comes up less than a week since the NFL got defeated in court involving a member from that same team in a different high profile controversy?  C'mon.......

This just reeks of trying to save face or, even worse, a simple smear job. 

No question it does that, but it also might answer the question as to why the NFL came down so hard on the Patriots for some deflated footballs.  I mean that is a pretty common theme throughout this thread, why punish the Patriots so harshly for something that other teams get a slap on the wrist for?  Well now you have your answer, those other teams weren't undergoing widespread cheating for years.

The Patriots have always played fast and loose with the rules, so any rule violation, no matter how minor, is going to be looked at differently with the Patriots than any other organization.  It is the whole live by the sword die by the sword mentality.  when you skirt the line, you had better [dang] well make sure you don't cross it.

You are completely ignoring the fact that Bill Cowler, coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers during the period all of this time during which video taping occurred, says that every team was doing this.  Why don't you acknoweledge this? What does Cowler have to gain by making his observation?  And certainly he is quailifed to make it, he coached one of our biggest competitiors vying for Super Bowls during that era.

stealing signals and illegally videotaping aren't the same thing.  The Steelers never illegally videotaped.

Every team was video taping signals from 2001 through 2006.  Every team. That is what Cowler said. The ESPN article (and you) mislead others by saying only the Patriots were doing this. This widespread practice caused the NFL sent out a memo to teams saying that they must stop it.  Belichick disingenuously interpreted the memo by claiming it only applied to real time usage, and in so doing, was reprimanded (I would argue, severely) for this in 2007.  Do you really want to continue to claim that other teams were not video taping other team's signal calling during 2001-06?

except Cowher didn't actually say that.  He said

“The only thing they got caught (was) doing it with a camera,” Cowher said, referring to the Patriots. “We had people that always tried to steal signals. Stealing someone’s signals was a part of the game, and everyone attempted to do that.”

According to Cowher, his team used wristbands to try to identify opponents’ verbal signals that were being yelled out on the field.

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way.

Ethically speaking, I don't see any difference. Either way, you're "stealing" signals—which, for the record, I think is fine; I don't think there should be some "unwritten rule" (as there seems to be in baseball, too) where teams can openly give signals but opponents are supposed to, what? Look away? It's stupid. Of course teams are going to try to figure out the opposition, and they should be able to try to do that.

I'm guessing that Belichick looks at some of these rules, sees the lack of logic behind them, and figures, "Ah, what the heck, let's give this a shot." And I completely agree. There's no ethical difference between seeing signals and taping them. Both are examples of "stealing" signals. But if you're going to rely on signals that opponents can see, it's your own dang fault if they get "stolen." Similarly, what's the logic of the NFL's psi range of 12.5 to 13.5 (or whatever it is precisely)? Why not 12.4? Or 13.7? Or 12, or 14? Is there science behind that? Seems arbitrary to me.

Besides all this, if Belichick and/or the Patriots weren't punished severely enough for some folks' liking, that's Goodell's fault. And when are people going to realize that NE was just as successful (maybe more so) after Spygate as before? Just like they were more successful against the Colts in the second half with "legit" footballs.

There is a fairly big difference between taping signals and just observing signals.  One allows you to watch it over and over again to learn patterns, one does not.  That is why the rule is in place and that is why "stealing signals" is a lot different than "taping signals".  One is against the rules and one is not.

This is an excerpt from article going into history of video-taping of signals. (Why do you keep insisting that only the Patriots did this??)

"It’s not known when someone first filmed coaching signals. It goes back at least to 1990 when Marty Schottenheimer coached Kansas City. Both on a Fox pregame show and on WFAN, a New York radio station, Jimmy Johnson, who coached the Dallas Cowboys to two Super Bowl Championships, said he also had staffers tape opposing coaches.
 
Johnson said teams could tape signals from the press box, but sometimes the press box was on the wrong side of the field. In that case, the cameraman filmed from the sidelines. Johnson, who also had interns search other teams’ trash for discarded notes and game plans, said taping coaches wasn’t worth the effort and abandoned it.
 
Johnson learned the procedure in 1990 from Mark Hatley, a Kansas Cityscout, who taught him how Marty Schottenheimer’s Chiefs did it. Johnson praised one Schottenheimer assistant, Howard Mudd, as “the best in the entire league at stealing signals.”  During much of the current decade, including their Super Bowl year, Mudd worked for the Indianapolis Colts.
 
One of Belichick’s fiercest Spygate critics and Mudd’s boss from 2002-2008 with the Colts, Tony Dungy, also served on Schottenheimer’s Kansas City staff. Other notable Schottenheimer assistants in Kansas City include Herm Edwards, who later served as the Jets' head coach before returning to the Chiefs in that capacity.
 
Edwards was so familiar with taping tactics that he waved to the Patriots' camera recording him. Long time Steelers' coach Bill Cowher also worked for Schottenheimer in Kansas City. During his career,Schottenheimer also coached the Cleveland Browns, Washington Redskins, and San Diego Chargers.
 
During Schottenheimer’s first few seasons in Kansas City, offenses still used hand signals too, meaning his defense also benefited from deciphering signals.
 
The media reports as if filming opposing coaches is a violation of NFL rules. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell shares this belief and apparently based his punishment on it."

But that is why the NFL cracked down on it and issued the mandate in 2006 which the Patriots clearly violated.

OK, but my original point, I think it got lost, is that many, if not all, teams, were video taping the opponent's signals for many years until 2006. Today's ESPN article states that the Patriots were found to have done this, but neglects to mention that other teams did this as well, at least until 2006.

the article you have there talks about the 90's, not the 00's.  The league in fact started cracking down on it at the end of the 90's, they just reiterated the policy in 2006

The logic of your argument has digressed to the level of that submitted by the NFL in its court filing with Judge Berman. 

Let's call it a day, and start talking about something we can agree upon, the Celtics. Have a good one.

uh huh.  I'm sure your tune change has nothing to do with the strength of my argument.  I mean you do the classic insult your opponent when you have nothing else left.

[Cman]

Yup, a mere five days after the first real positive Deflategate news the Pats have had in the 9 months of the scandal's existence, the Deflategate thread has suddenly morphed into a "bad things the Pats did during Spygate" thread.

Someone somewhere is, at this very moment, unfurling a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

It's pretty simple. "Resurface Spygate" was the fall back plan for the NFL in the event that it lost its case against Brady. I'd read all the "new" "allegations" with a grain of salt. A grain of salt the size of Salt Lake City.

[manl_lui]

Yup, a mere five days after the first real positive Deflategate news the Pats have had in the 9 months of the scandal's existence, the Deflategate thread has suddenly morphed into a "bad things the Pats did during Spygate" thread.

Someone somewhere is, at this very moment, unfurling a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

It's pretty simple. "Resurface Spygate" was the fall back plan for the NFL in the event that it lost its case against Brady. I'd read all the "new" "allegations" with a grain of salt. A grain of salt the size of Salt Lake City.

the NFL and Goodell is just salty that they lost this whole deflategate thing...the point that this resurfaced a week after the ruling makes it very suspicious on their part. This happened 8 years ago, and they're bringing this up, NOW? 2 days before the game opener?

[Boris Badenov]

Yup, a mere five days after the first real positive Deflategate news the Pats have had in the 9 months of the scandal's existence, the Deflategate thread has suddenly morphed into a "bad things the Pats did during Spygate" thread.

Someone somewhere is, at this very moment, unfurling a "Mission Accomplished" banner.

It's pretty simple. "Resurface Spygate" was the fall back plan for the NFL in the event that it lost its case against Brady. I'd read all the "new" "allegations" with a grain of salt. A grain of salt the size of Salt Lake City.

Yup. That was my point.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

[manl_lui]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

it's ok though, if it's about the Pats, sources are not needed 

[Moranis]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named.  Very different.

[Donoghus]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named.  Very different.

That ESPN article is full of holes (see Reiss' thing on the Martz comment) and a lot of speculation.  It's mostly a regurgitation of stuff from 8 years ago with some new, mostly unconfirmed rumors by nameless individuals.

For the most part, that article is a hatchet job.  **** for those with a thirst for some Pats blood but that's about it.  It's pretty clear.

[Moranis]

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/09/08/patriots-cheating-suspicions-bill-belichick-tom-brady

Just a small sampling of the article is below. 

The rest of the league has been on high alert in other ways too. The NFL has changed several rules over the last decade in response to issues raised about the Patriots or to close rule-book loopholes exploited by them, according to three people familiar with the competition committee’s decisions. In 2007, after the Patriots were accused of manipulating coach-to-quarterback radio systems and game clocks, the league mandated neutral operators for both in playoff games. After the Ravens complained about New England’s deployment of ineligible receivers in a playoff game last January, the NFL declared that in the future a formation the Patriots used will be illegal. (The Patriots say they confirmed the legality of the formation with the league before the Ravens game.) “[The Pats] were mentioned [in competition committee meetings] way more than anybody else,” one source familiar with the committee’s discussions in recent years said.

These suspicions may help explain why NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was so determined to investigate the Patriots for Deflategate. SI spoke with dozens of people throughout pro football: team presidents, general managers, head coaches, assistants and players; some are still in prominent positions and others no longer work in the league. While they were mostly reluctant to talk on the record, most believe the Patriots have played fast and loose with league rules for years—breaking them or looking for ways around them—and they want to see the organization held responsible.

In some cases there is no rule explicitly banning the alleged actions. One example: Another AFC team has brought its own sports drinks because the ones the Patriots supply are often late, warm or both. Unethical? Or just gamesmanship? “They’ve created a culture where that type of behavior is encouraged and rewarded,” one team executive says. “Everybody there is supposed to make the visitor uncomfortable—do everything that is borderline against the rules, but clearly against the principles of good sportsmanship.”

Home teams are supposed to provide certain communications equipment, but opponents often don’t trust the Patriots to do it. One team griped to SI that New England supplied a corroded battery pack. Another current head coach brings his own equipment because he doesn’t trust the Patriots to supply anything of quality. A representative of a third team says the Pats provided headset gear that looked “like it had been run over by a lawn mower. Frayed wires, the speaker is all chopped up.?.?.?.” James says that it is league policy for all headset batteries to be changed 30 minutes before a game, and that the team has “always complied with that.” He adds, “We’ve never been cited by the league for doing anything wrong as it pertains to communication device violations.”

Another team executive says, “Anybody who has gone in there in the last five years will tell you some sort of problem or snag they never hit any other place. They are the worst hosts in football.”

One person who knows Belichick well says he does not consider the coach “a cheat.” But he acknowledges that, while others might simply obey a rule, Belichick will search for loopholes and gray areas to exploit—he’ll “study it and take it to the nth degree.

“This guy is two steps ahead of everybody because he is so brilliant. If you’re going to walk the line, every once in a while you’re stepping over. Sometimes somebody has to pull him back in. In his mind, he thinks: I’ll get an advantage and somebody else can figure out if it’s illegal. My job is to coach a football team.”

[knuckleballer]

Funny that every source in these reports is anonymous. When I was getting my journalism degree, one of the things I learned was that using anonymous sources was a very weak journalistic practice, and to be avoided if at all possible.

I don't think they were anonymous they just asked not to be named.  Very different.