Patriots accused of taping Rams before the 2002 Super Bowl

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

The following is an excerpt from PFT.com:

IF WALSH HAS VIDEO, BELICHICK DONE FOR A YEAR

ESPN's Sal Paolantonio reports that, if it turns out that former Patriots employee Matt Walsh has in possession video of the Rams' final walk-through practice from Super Bowl XXXVI, New England head coach Bill Belichick will be suspended.

For a year.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The following is an excerpt from PFT.com:

IF WALSH HAS VIDEO, BELICHICK DONE FOR A YEAR

ESPN's Sal Paolantonio reports that, if it turns out that former Patriots employee Matt Walsh has in possession video of the Rams' final walk-through practice from Super Bowl XXXVI, New England head coach Bill Belichick will be suspended.

For a year.

I was just over there checking their coverage as well. God I hope this guy has the tape. I hope he kept it and mailed it to himself registered mail. Please God!

Of course the Patsys have issued an unequivocal denial, so if the tape exists, doesn't Kraft have to send Belichik down the road?

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

The following is an excerpt from PFT.com:

IF WALSH HAS VIDEO, BELICHICK DONE FOR A YEAR

ESPN's Sal Paolantonio reports that, if it turns out that former Patriots employee Matt Walsh has in possession video of the Rams' final walk-through practice from Super Bowl XXXVI, New England head coach Bill Belichick will be suspended.

For a year.

Merrill Hoge was even stronger last night on ESPN. He said that if the evidence turns up, The Pats should be stripped of their first Super Bowl. At minimum, it would always carry an asterisk.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I personally think that Belichick should be banned for life if these recent allegations are true. Admittedly, I hate Belichick, so I am a little biased but hear me out.

Belichick already used videotapes to gain an unfair competitive advantage, despite being repeatedly forewarned that using videotapes to steal opponents' signals was against league rules. Belichick was sanctioned only with regard to the 2007 "spygate" incident (e.g., videotaping the Jets signals). Belichick was NOT sanctioned for all espionage activities involving "illegal" us of videotapes. Moreover, Goodell warned Belichick that he would face additional, draconian sanctions if Belichick did not disclose all incidents/evidence relating to the "illegal" use of videotapes.

If these recent allegations are true, Belichick defied the Commissioner. Moreover, Belichick will have used videotaping to gain a competitive advantage in the most important game in the league. In short, the guy cheated and gave a big middle finger to Goodell. If Pete Rose gets a life ban for gambling on games because such gambling MIGHT lead to cheating, why shouldn't Belichick get banned for life for actually cheating and defying the Commissioner's orders?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SouperMeister

Merrill Hoge was even stronger last night on ESPN. He said that if the evidence turns up, The Pats should be stripped of their first Super Bowl. At minimum, it would always carry an asterisk.

Sal was reporting what will happen to the Pats, not what he'd like to see happen to the Pats.

[DynamiteRave]

Surprise, surprise.

Being stripped of the their first Super Bowl win would be pretty damaging to say the least.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Surprise, surprise.

Being stripped of the their first Super Bowl win would be pretty damaging to say the least.

I bet we will never know the truth and will be left with speculation. Can you imagine what would happen to the NFL if the public learned that the Pats cheated in the Super Bowl? Professional sports hasn't had a scandal like that in decades. The NFL and Pats would be wise to bury this thing fast.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Cap'nChaos47

I've watched my opponents game film since I was 10 years old.... I'm having a hard time understanding what type of filming is not allowed and if that's the case - why is other filming permitted??

I think there is a big difference from Little league, High school and possibly College and the NFL. The rules in Little league and High school are such that the coach's have to send to the next opponant the last game played so they can evaluate film(plays). I'm not sure if Colleges do this but I do not think Pro teams do.

Also, It would be no big deal if they were taping the whole game to see the plays used. Heck teams can tape from the Direct tv sports package if they wanted. Where the problem comes in is when they are taping the had signals and the plays being run from the hand signals. Which is what the issue was with the Jets. That gives the opposing teams somewhat of an advantage in possibly knowing the next play. This is what cost them a first round pick and $500,000.

Now if they did tape a walk through which is supposed to be closed then they need to be hammered. Now that a name is out there it will be interesting to see if the person feels he has to prove his statement or can the Patriots buy him off and not have the tape surface. lol.

I did not belive it when they said the only team they taped was the Jets. I'm would bet they have other tapes on other teams as well. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if they produced all the tapes they had they would have looked bad and the coach would have been suspended for a while. I could be wrong maybe there was only one team and thats it. I also have problems with the Commish. If the tapes did not have any value to them then send copies to the media and allow them to show the public so we all can say "oh this is all crap." I would have liked to have seen him also give the film to the team that was filmed and allow them to evaluate what was being filmed and if it was pertinant or not. Instead he immediatly destroys the film within what 2 days. I have issues in how all this was handled.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think your wrong. If the tape was of no value, then why bother to go the trouble of acquiring it. It's like someone breaks into a house, steals a load of stuff and then says, "But this stuff isn't even worth that much!" Knowing what plays a team runs in a walkthrough and the order they run them in would be a huge advantage for someone calling a defense.

The Fox article states, "It was not known whether the cameraman was told by the Patriots to film the practice or what he did with the tape, the Herald said."
So the Herald that made these allegations with unidentified sources and a lot of rumors goes even further and says 'it is not known what he did with the tape."
When you or any credible source has actual facts then punishment should be considered, until then it is premature.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

The Fox article states, "It was not known whether the cameraman was told by the Patriots to film the practice or what he did with the tape, the Herald said."
So the Herald that made these allegations with unidentified sources and a lot of rumors goes even further and says 'it is not known what he did with the tape."
When you or any credible source has actual facts then punishment should be considered, until then it is premature.

You stood up and defended the Pats and essentially said that, even if true, this is much to do about nothing. So, I'm not sure why we can't speculate about what should happen if the allegations prove true.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

The Fox article states, "It was not known whether the cameraman was told by the Patriots to film the practice or what he did with the tape, the Herald said."
So the Herald that made these allegations with unidentified sources and a lot of rumors goes even further and says 'it is not known what he did with the tape."
When you or any credible source has actual facts then punishment should be considered, until then it is premature.

Before you were saying it was okay for them to look at the tape because it was of little value. Your new position is that they never looked at the tape at all. I would suggest that if the tape was made, then Belichik almost certainly watched it personally, made notes, and adjusted his gameplan accordingly.

[SBXVII]

Well lets just for safety sake say the team never told the camera man to film. Lets say he filmed the practice under cover and went to the Patriots and said "Hey I got this film and the Patriots paid him to get the film. Maybe they didn't pay him maybe he is a fan of the Patriots and gave it to them. It's still illegal. The Pat's had a duty to notify the League about the individuals actions and have the individual sent packing from the SB.

I guess the big question will be if there is a film was it given to the Patriots or were they allowed to view it. If someone randomly filmed and held the film for a few yrs but never showed it to anyone and then all of a sudden claims to have given it to the opposing team would be crappy also. Way to many questions floating around Bellichik and the Patriots.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I guess the big question will be if there is a film was it given to the Patriots or were they allowed to view it. If someone randomly filmed and held the film for a few yrs but never showed it to anyone and then all of a sudden claims to have given it to the opposing team would be crappy also. Way to many questions floating around Bellichik and the Patriots.

Good post. That's yet another reason why we will never know the truth. I highly doubt there will be ANY evidence that Belichick directed the employee to tape the walkthroughs, watched the tape, or used the tape to his advantage (assuming it exists). But, even if these rumors are false, to that I say, "The Pats made their bed...."

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Before you were saying it was okay for them to look at the tape because it was of little value. Your new position is that they never looked at the tape at all. I would suggest that if the tape was made, then Belichik almost certainly watched it personally, made notes, and adjusted his gameplan accordingly.

It is not a new position.
They are two totally different subjects:

1) Did they get an advantage by watching practice tape?
2) Did this tape really exist and what was done with it after it was recorded? Can it be proved?

If you need more explanation let me know.
I never said they did or did not watch the tape. I was referring to what can be proved and how this so called revealing article is nothing but scuttlebutt. .

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Not to get too off topic, but Defensewins, I believe your first post addressed whether it would be a big deal if the Pats did procure, watch and use the tape of the walkthrough. Your second post stated that any speculation about what should happen to the Pats is premature since they haven't been caught.

70Chip's point seemed to be that you can't tell people they shouldn't speculate about what should happen to the Patriots if these latest allegations are true when, in your first post, you did the same thing (and merely came to a different conclusion).