Well the other side also has boatloads of money and lobyists. Mainly the cable companies. I never said it was the only reason I said first and I am sure the reason he has not produced legislation yet is he is waiting to see what the NFL does with the latest batch of tapes.
dude if you are going to bold a sentence don't leave out the modifier that comes right behind it just because it conveniently supports your train of thought. is says, right after you stopped bolding, : 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. If taping were prohibited period they would not have specified locations. They would have just said it was prohibited. Period. Instead they list out where it is prohibited. and the line: or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game. is there meaning that the coaching staff, for instance, can't come up to joe videotaper and have access to what he is videotaping during the game. It's not accessible to be viewed by the club staff. By your account no videotaping would be allowed by either team for any reason during the game and everyone knows that's not true.
Chris66, Just answer this question: If you are correct, then why is the NFL paying any attention at all to what Senators Specter and Leahy are saying if its lobbyists are going to just "squish" it all?
I dont know your talking about 32 pretty powerful men, compared to one cable company in comcast. the other cable companies dont seem to have a problem with the contract
From your post: <2. A memo from Ray Anderson, NFL head of football operations, to head coaches and GMs on Sept. 6, 2006 said: "Video taping 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."> Hey man, it does have to do with what they were taping. Why did Anderson specifically mention signals if it has - in your words "nothing to do with what they were taping"? From your other post: <Is says, right after you stopped bolding, : 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. If taping were prohibited period they would not have specified locations. They would have just said it was prohibited. Period. Instead they list out where it is prohibited.> I disagree. The locations are there so scumbags like Belly can't say, "oh we misinterpreted the rule because it didn't specifically say we couldn't tape from there." It is spelling it out so there is no confusion or grey area.
Lets add Time warner, Charter Comm., Cablevision, Bright House, Suddenlink and Mediacomm to that list. Those are the number 2,4,5,6,7,8th largest cable companies in the US. You don't think it would benefit them greatly to have an open competetion for NFL games? And some of them already do have lawsuits going on with the NFL network right now for other programming reasons.
Theres your answer right there "including but not limiting to" which means you can't tape anything. hence the breaking of the rule. even if they were just taping down and distance . It still would be a rules violation
So you're telling me that this: Video taping 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. Would be more definitive than this: Video taping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent’s offensive or defensive signals, is strictly prohibited at any time during the game. If they would have not wanted any taping to take place they wouldn't have went on to specifically list out a few select areas. Also by your account no taping is allowed, but lets take a look at the rule. The actual rule not just a memo: 1. Page 105 of the Game Operations manual: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." It later says: "All video shooting locations must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead." Read that last sentence. It tells where you can shoot video, but by your account they would contradict each other, because the club staff could certainly have access to a location that "must be enclosed on all sides with a roof overhead" (aka a press box) and would make that location improper. It's clear that, from the rule, taping is allowed, but only a matter of where. No question that BB broke the where rule. But that's the only rule he broke.
If there was nothing to see the NFL would release the tapes and ESPN, the NFL Network and other independent news sources could show the tapes to the public with a hired analyst to explain the tapes and how they could be used or not used to gain an advantage. Since the tapes were burned and the league and Pats released a phony story on Walsh having a walk through tape to gain control of Walsh's tapes, it appears the cover up will continue. Don't interpret this to mean I don't think the Pats didn't tape the Rams walkthrough, just that they knew that Walsh didn't do it or have the tape. There is only nothing to see as long as the league is afraid to release the tapes. When evidence is held and contained or destroyed there is something to see. That?s why you have a cover up to hide the something to see. If there was nothing to see the tapes would have been publicly released a long time ago rather than destroyed and the league and Pats would not have gone through all the legal shenanigans to gain control of Walsh?s tapes.
Yes, I am telling you that the locations specified makes it more definitive regarding the videotaping of signs. That's what the league was trying to stop in what you are quoting below. And whoever said that teams couldn't shoot their own video of plays from a bird's eye view (i.e. an enclosed box)? So the location was the broken rule. Because the Pats videoed from the sideline, Belly got fined 750k and the team lost a first round pick. Again, because he didn't film signals from an enclosed box. Gotcha.
So if you were the Pats' lawyer and had to face Goodell and company, you would argue that it was/is LEGAL to intentionally record an opponent's signals if from a coaches' box and that the Pats' only violation was recording from the sideline? Did you read GreenMachine's post here? http://forums.theganggreen.com/showpost.php?p=844741&postcount=38 I'll excerpt it for you: <1. Page 105 of the NFL Game Operations Manual States: "No video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." 2. On September 6, 2007, the NFL sent a letter to NFL head coaches stating: "Video taping 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 received the letter and has a copy of the NFL rulebook. 4. An employee of the New England Patriots was caught on the Patriots sideline videotaping defensive signals, by opposing coaches, in their first game of the NFL season. A review of the tape by the NFL confirmed this.> Nowhere does the Manual or the letter say that a team can tape signals. Further, no reasonable reading of the rules would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it does. I'll give you the last word in all of this. I stand by what I have posted here.
If my memory serves right, GreenMachine posted that (Sit Down & STFU) post in the "belicheat again!" thread. Once it was posted, both guys chris66 & NotACheesehead didn't bother to comment on such post and looked to escape that thread and continue their discussion on here. So, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't bother to comment on that post.
Yeah, they both showed up here to troll for the Pats in an effort to defend the indefensible. Everyone be sure to watch Walsh on HBO tonight. :beer:
Well I think we all know which group of writers loves BB's cock in their mouth more than any others now. Scouts Inc
Bill Belichick strikes me as someone who would meticulously hide a videotaping method that would give him absolutely no competitive advantage for the better part of a decade... suuuuuure. The people arguing that there was no competitive advantage are shills that have no idea what they are talking about.
Oh deep down they know damn well that it gave the Pats a competitive advantage. They're just so adamant about keeping the pride of supposed "clean" championship trophies, that they'll convince themselves of anything...even if it means defending cheating. It's sad.
