What, no talk of the Pats?

[DevilAlumna]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7222570

Record fine, confiscation of a first round draft pick... all for a little extracurricular videotaping. Sheez, some people are so sensitive!

It's curious to me how now folks are coming out of the woods and saying, the Patriots are known for this. (See the right sidebar of the linked article.) Was this just the straw that broke the camel's back, or is there something even more egregious about wrongful videotaping, than, say, messing with an opponent's communications electronics?

Oh, and anyone know the under/over on how long before that confiscated video ends up on YouTube?

[mapei]

I think they should have forfeited the game. Losing the draft pick won't mean much, since they have an extra in next year's first round. The money is significant, but does nothing for the opponents that they have been cheating.

[TNTDevil]

[url]...It's curious to me how now folks are coming out of the woods and saying, the Patriots are known for this. (See the right sidebar of the linked article.) Was this just the straw that broke the camel's back, or is there something even more egregious about wrongful videotaping, than, say, messing with an opponent's communications electronics?

The Patriots were known for this and the NFL passed a rule against this type of videotaping specifically due to their antics.

With that being the case, IMHO, the Pats got off easy.

[bluebear]

I think they should have forfeited the game. Losing the draft pick won't mean much, since they have an extra in next year's first round. The money is significant, but does nothing for the opponents that they have been cheating.

Forfeited the game? For a practice (in general terms) that is considered widespread throughout the league? As a Pats fan, I think it is fair that they be penalized..essentially because they were caught...but losing the game is extreme. No one has yet to show how this was any more likely to impact the game than players stealing signals directly while on the field..
People don't like Belichick because of his attitude and they don't like the Pats because of their former squeaky clean "image"...this is just a chance to pile on. Again I'm not excusing them, but a lot of other teams and coaches would not have been blasted as hard nationally for this..

[hc5duke]

pshhhh 750k? At least they weren't fined $100MM like these guys

[Mal]

I don't know - I kind of think this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. Other than cementing my perception of Belichick as sort of an egotistical jerk who thinks he's not subject to the rules, it's just not that big a deal to me. Videotaping signals? So what? Fans in the stands can see coaches flashing signals from the sidelines. This, to me, is hardly different than trying to steal signals in baseball. The NFL has a rule against this, so go ahead and punish for the violation, but it's sort of a dumb rule to me.

I'm in agreement with Bill Simmons and his co-author yesterday, too: this just isn't something that would give enough advantage to taint anything they've done on the field. If other teams were suspicious, it's easily combatted with fake signals or changing signals at halftime or between games or speaking with a playcard over your face like head coaches do. If there's more to it that comes out in coming weeks, or all the sudden Tom Brady's getting picked off left and right and they go 8-8 this year with all the talent they have, I'll put some credence into it (and my fantasy football team will be crushed). But for now, I think it's getting overplayed. The penalty seems commensurate with other rules violations in the past, and coaches never get suspended, so why is this so egregious that everyone's calling for Belichick to sit for a couple games or games be forfeited?

I don't want to sound like I'm condoning this sort of behavior (or heaven forbid sound like I'm a Pats fan!), but I guess I see this as an indiscretion rather than a capital offense. The fact it's New England, and they totally don't need to be pulling stuff like this, is the only thing that makes this surprising and keeps it in the news cycle.

It's not like spying on a private team meeting, which apparently recently happened at the women's World Cup.

[billybreen]

I don't know what the appropriate punishment should have been, but this certainly hasn't helped Belichick's image. I already thought he was a jerk, and now I also think he's nuts.

The oft-made comparisons to Nixon seem apt in this case.

[captmojo]

Dumb rules could be an entirely new thread. The infield fly rule is dumb too, but it's the rule. I think he should have been slapped with an 8 game suspension. This was blatantly spitting at the rulebook.

[Jumbo]

Dumb rules could be an entirely new thread. The infield fly rule is dumb too, but it's the rule. I think he should have been slapped with an 8 game suspension. This was blatantly spitting at the rulebook.

I'll bite. Why is the infield fly rule dumb?

[captmojo]

I'll bite. Why is the infield fly rule dumb?

To quote the Commander ...STRATEGERY

[-jk]

Dumb rules could be an entirely new thread. The infield fly rule is dumb too, but it's the rule. I think he should have been slapped with an 8 game suspension. This was blatantly spitting at the rulebook.

In North Carolina, after the drinking age was raised to 21, the law used to be that drinking while aged 18-20 was merely an infraction. Basically the same as a minor traffic violation, but without the points (or increase in car insurance).

Some rules were written to be broken. To appease someone high and mighty, perhaps, but with no real teeth.

-jk

[captmojo]

In North Carolina, after the drinking age was raised to 21, the law used to be that drinking while aged 18-20 was merely an infraction. Basically the same as a minor traffic violation, but without the points (or increase in car insurance).

Some rules were written to be broken. To appease someone high and mighty, perhaps, but with no real teeth.

-jk

When we were young, Spanky, Alfalfa and I used to go to Tennessee to buy booze legally at age 17.

Seriously, the pop fly rule was good enough for Grandpa and it was good enough for me. Sometimes you might want to drop the ball to attempt a double play. Many is the time I've seen outfielders purposely not make a play on a foul fly to keep baserunners from advancing.

[hurleyfor3]

In North Carolina, after the drinking age was raised to 21, the law used to be that drinking while aged 18-20 was merely an infraction. Basically the same as a minor traffic violation, but without the points (or increase in car insurance).

Some rules were written to be broken. To appease someone high and mighty, perhaps, but with no real teeth.

-jk

Actually the old drinking age in NC was 19. The fine for a 19-20yo for possession of beer or wine was $15, with no court costs. It was higher for hard liquor, or for people below the age of 19. Even back then, most parking tickets were more expensive.

It was far more lucrative for ABC to focus its efforts on stuff like unlicensed restaurants than kids drinking. Probably still is. That, of course, was precisely what lawmakers intended.

[-jk]

Actually the old drinking age in NC was 19. The fine for a 19-20yo for possession of beer or wine was $15, with no court costs. It was higher for hard liquor, or for people below the age of 19. Even back then, most parking tickets were more expensive.

It was far more lucrative for ABC to focus its efforts on stuff like unlicensed restaurants than kids drinking. Probably still is. That, of course, was precisely what lawmakers intended.

Um.. No. In the halcyon days of FDA and Wednesday night kegs, the drinking age was 18 for beer and wine (I was buying at 14, but that was a different age entirely). The feds extorted the increase for highway dollars.

My younger brother's freshman year, they raised it from 18 to 19 without grandfathering anyone in. He was legal for three months. The following year they raised it to 21. And didn't grandfather anyone in again. He was legal for another three months and then not for almost two more years. Poor guy.

-jk

[cato]

My younger brother's freshman year, they raised it from 18 to 19 without grandfathering anyone in. He was legal for three months. The following year they raised it to 21. And didn't grandfather anyone in again. He was legal for another three months and then not for almost two more years. Poor guy.

-jk

Really? I distinctly remember my brother hitting bars in Durham that his friends one year younger couldn't go to -- for three years. He was grandfathered in.

[Jumbo]

To quote the Commander ...STRATEGERY

Sorry, I don't see it as "strategic" to hit a pop up with the bases loaded and no outs and watch an infielder intentionally drop the ball to start a surefire double play and probable triple play.

[Bostondevil]

Really? I distinctly remember my brother hitting bars in Durham that his friends one year younger couldn't go to -- for three years. He was grandfathered in.

I may be completely wrong on this, but my recollection was that if you had a North Carolina ID you were grandfathered in but out of staters were not. (I had just turned 19 when the age was raised so I didn't pay too much attention, but that's how I remember it.)

How did a Pats thread turn into the drinking age discussion? GO PATS, cheat away, just don't get caught anymore! Belichick might be an egotistical bastard, but he's my egotistical bastard.

I'm sorry, but I just can't get worked up about this issue. I don't care. I wouldn't care if it were the Jets doing it either or the Colts. I don't care that Gaylord Perry is in the Hall of Fame. Sammy Sosa used a corked bat too. And steroids, forget the past, make them illegal now, go after them if you want to, but if steroids were the only think that mattered there would've been more people chasing Aaron's record. (Funny, but I do care when it comes to track and field. But that's probably because I came to like Marion Jones and she's a Carolina grad and it was hard for me at first but I did come around. Then post steroid use she was butt naked slow. It pissed me off, you made me like you, Tarheel scum!) Professional sports? Don't care. They all try to cheat in some way, TPTB try to catch them, sometimes they do. Scandal! Next.

[captmojo]

Sorry, I don't see it as "strategic" to hit a pop up with the bases loaded and no outs and watch an infielder intentionally drop the ball to start a surefire double play and probable triple play.

I guess I probably see it as compared to the intentional pass by the pitcher. The rules still make him throw 4 pitches. He can't just look at the ump and say "pass". Dropping an infield fly may not be part of the strategy but I still believe it should be played out. You can't assume a double play and I don't think you should be allowed to assume a single play.

I am old enough to remember Johnny Bench getting burned by Dick Williams in the World Series assuming, after a couple of purposeful far outside pitches to a standing catcher, ( I think it was a 1-2 count ) that he was getting intentionally walked, only to see strike 3 fired right down broadway. What a scene. Never seen it since.

[mapei]

I don't even know what the inflield fly rule is, but I agree with Boston on steroids. It's just that, from my perspective, if we're going to go all ballistic on one form of "cheating," let's be consistent and do the same when it's another form and the supposed saints of sport that are doing it.

[snowdenscold]

Sorry, I don't see it as "strategic" to hit a pop up with the bases loaded and no outs and watch an infielder intentionally drop the ball to start a surefire double play and probable triple play.

Exactly. I'm not sure the person who originally brought this up realizes what a HUGE advantage it would be for the defense if it weren't there.