Goodell takes step in right direction re: Cheating

[gollum]

So many things to respond to, I’m sure I’ll forget some of them:

proposals included a change in rules that would allow league officials to make unannounced inspections of locker rooms, press boxes and in-game communications equipment.

Press boxes, good…in-game communications equipment, good…locker rooms...as long as it is only on game day. At first, I interpreted it to mean team facilities away from the stadium, but I read it wrong. I think that is going too far.

The measure was among a series of stricter rule changes Goodell wants to enact before next season "to preserve the integrity of the game" and "maintain public confidence" in the sport, according to the memo.

I understand and I agree with. All sports are reactive. You can only do so much pre-emptive rule-initiating. There is no way to imagine every possible scenario that might occur in the nature of competition and what lengths an individual or organization will go to to succeed. You want to go back and punish sins of the past in a “fair” manner that will make everyone happy. As much as we think he went light on the Pats, as do the majority of the fans around the league, not everyone agrees or sees eye to eye with you. Should the commissioner have to take a poll of every fan, senator, owner, player, or housewife to make sure his punishment, an act that he alone has to bear the brunt of coming up with, is fair and just and fits the crime? I’m sure there are many people out there who thought the punishment was too severe, and not only Pats fans. Their real punishment came not from the league, but from the stigma they were labeled with… “CHEATERS”. That will live with them forever. Nothing the league did could harm them anymore than that, either in the short term or long term, save giving them the SMU penalty. Anyone really think that is the best solution? Why do you think SMU still has problems umpteen years after that occurred…people remember.

None of us know for certainty how many times the Pats did this, or what was said behind close doors between Goodell, Belicheck, Kraft, Tagliabue, or any other witness. Therefore, not a single one of us has all the information, but is just going by the gospel of the media who we abhor on one hand and bow down to with the other. We may not agree with the punishment, but we didn’t wear his shoes either.

Goodell pledged stricter penalties for competition-rules violations and proposed a plan requiring team employees to give the league reports of "actual or suspected" violations.

Good luck with that one Roger…I’ll rat my team out and even if you get me whistleblower protection, I’m sure I can get another job at my current level and opportunity for advancement with no fear of being black-balled.

Another measure would place each franchise's main owner, top executive and head coach under the threat of league discipline to stipulate that they have complied with the rules and reported violations.

You mean they aren’t already??? This is a business, right?

too often, competitive violations have gone unpunished because conclusive proof of the violation was lacking.

We are innocent until proven guilty aren’t we? There have always been and always will be accusations of cheating. No further needs to be said other than Commanders vs Cowboys vs Eagles. Not to leave the NYFG out of it, but I can’t recall off the top of my head an instance.

Last month, Sen. Arlen Specter questioned the quality of the NFL's investigation of the New England Patriots' videotaping practices and Goodell's decision to destroy video evidence uncovered by the league earlier this season……Specter, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also cited NFL officials indicating the Patriots taped Pittsburgh Steelers' coaches during AFC Championship games at the end of the 2001 and 2004 seasons, and during regular-season games in 2002 and 2004.

Hmmm, Arlen Specter, Senator from Pennsylvania…home of the Eagles and Steelers, both with huge losses to the Patriots in recent history. Who gets him elected into office? Conspiracy? He seems to be in the middle of it often.
For those interested in knowing more about the man:
http://specter.senate.gov/public/
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/Fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

For my thoughts, which sometimes agree with and sometimes conflict with some of the posts here, I initially thought the punishment was too weak. I thought the league should have forced the Pats to forfeit the game to the Jets. Wouldn’t that have made an interesting storyline for the Super Bowl…would be undefeated, but for the one loss coming in. That would have been a nightmare for the league.

I thought the amounts of the fines were ok(Wade Wilson’s % was too of salary was too high, but they were two different events and one was technically against the law). It wasn't a small chunk of change regardless.

The draft choices…I think they should have had to forfeit the higher of the two choices at the end of the season, not “theirs”. Technically, San Francisco’s became “theirs” in the draft of 2007.

Looking back in hindsight, I would have probably done about the same punishment except making the draft choice forfeiture be #7 instead of #31. The reason is this. I know there was a rule. I know there was a letter. I know there was a slimy excuse. But, what harm was really done big picture that could not have been done from a front row stadium seat or private suite. Do you think technology is not to the point where they couldn’t get a good view from that much further? There are satellites that can read a license plate from outer space for goodness sake. Stealing signs and verbiages has always been a part of the league; that won't change. It was pure stupidity and arrogance and they got caught.

This is no longer unchartered territory, so it is correct NOW to address it and be specific about punishments for transgressions. To say that this is a joke or is worthless or is too late is quite frankly an uneducated and thought out response. Do you suggest that nothing be done? Put some teeth to a policy, make sure that there is no confusion from all teams, and move forward.

Let’s play!

 

[cowboyeric8]

Arena League seems ahead of NFL on Spygate

LINK

The AFL does many things right. Its all about entertainment and the fans, and you have guys who just love to play football. And the different aspects of the game make it entertaining. But of course, I still love the NFL.

The AFL is also trying out new helmets that have sensors in them to detect concussions.

http://sports.espn.go.com/extra/afl/news/story?id=3269214

 

[tyke1doe]

You've got to establish guidelines somewhere. Goodell's tenure has been marred by his inability to establish firm punishments for offenses, opting rather to be guided by his personal judgement and whimsy. This at least is a step in the right direction. In hindsight, he should have established clear punishments when he sent the memo out in the offseason - ie "If you're caught filming anymore we do so-and-so", and he would have been fine.

He ***** it up, and he knows it. The only thing you can do from here on out is try and do better.

Even though I've disagreed with you previously, I agree with your post here.

He may have been feeling his way through and maybe he should have suspended Belichick also. But he's trying to deal with the issue and establish some guidelines.

Of course, one could argue that despite him ****** up, Tagliabue didn't do anything, even though the same thing occurred under his watch.

No action, no criticism.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

He may have been feeling his way through and maybe he should have suspended Belichick also. But he's trying to deal with the issue and establish some guidelines.

Of course, one could argue that despite him ****** up, Tagliabue didn't do anything, even though the same thing occurred under his watch.

No action, no criticism.

Maybe a suspension? You are getting better

Deal with the issue? He just wants it to go away.

What is it that Tagliabue didnt do? when presented with what? A team was caught cheating and he didnt do anything?

 

[gollum]

I knew I forgot something...
The destruction of the tapes...that bothered me more than anything. I list of the games of video tapes and notes turned in should have been turned into the owners of each team. That would further humiliate the organization...again...the worst punishment out of all of this. With that, a statement should have been made that publicly that said how many, but not who to the public and that no retribution for past occurences was feasible because it is not known beyond doubt that those tapes or notes affected the outcome of any game. It would be like saying we're going to make the Raiders forfeit every game that Tatum wore stickem and had an interception. You clarify the rule and move on. Probably a bad analogy, but a simple one.

 

[tyke1doe]

Maybe a suspension? You are getting better

And you're late to the party. I said way back when that I wouldn't have been opposed to a Belichick suspension, especially since Wade Wilson got suspended.

Deal with the issue? He just wants it to go away.

Which is why he issued his latest directive.

What is it that Tagliabue didnt do? when presented with what? A team was caught cheating and he didnt do anything?

You think Tagliabue didn't know that the Pats were cheating? You think Tagliabue didn't know cheating in general was practiced in the NFL?

Teams knew as far back as 2001 that the Pats were cheating. And Tagliabue - to my knowledge - didn't do anything about it. Nor did he issue any memos directing teams NOT to cheat this way - a memo, I might add, which suggests that Goodell knew it was going on otherwise why specifically clarify this violation of NFL policy.

Moreover, Tagliabue knew also of all the "bad" seeds within the NFL but did nothing about it. So it's easy not to criticism him because he didn't do anything.

Anytime you take a stand for something, you're going to get the second-guessers and those who call you a hypocrite because you appear to be unfair in your judgment. But Goodell took this assignment upon himself and had to start somewhere.

I cut him some slack because he's navigating uncharted waters.

 

[tyke1doe]

I knew I forgot something...
The destruction of the tapes...that bothered me more than anything. I list of the games of video tapes and notes turned in should have been turned into the owners of each team. That would further humiliate the organization...again...the worst punishment out of all of this. With that, a statement should have been made that publicly that said how many, but not who to the public and that no retribution for past occurences was feasible because it is not known beyond doubt that those tapes or notes affected the outcome of any game. It would be like saying we're going to make the Raiders forfeit every game that Tatum wore stickem and had an interception. You clarify the rule and move on. Probably a bad analogy, but a simple one.

You're advocating vengence not judgment.

Goodell wouldn't do that and neither would any sane boss.

The issue isn't humiliation. It's punishment. We may differ with respect to the punishment, but humiliation, in the way you've advocated, appears more a matter of juvenile vengence.

And, I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your analogy.

 

[gollum]

You're advocating vengence not judgment.

Goodell wouldn't do that and neither would any sane boss.

The issue isn't humiliation. It's punishment. We may differ with respect to the punishment, but humiliation, in the way you've advocated, appears more a matter of juvenile vengence.

And, I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your analogy.

Vengeance would have been giving them the death penalty, taking away all of their draft picks, or penalizing their salary cap limit(or lack thereof). I was merely suggesting that the throwing them to the wolves, aka the media, would serve to correct the problem. Remember when you were growing up, one of the biggest punishments you could ever get was not the paddle, but the humiliation for being pointed out that you did something wrong. The maladjusted children didn't mind this so much, but the normal, rational majority detested this treatment. It's like when you get the label of being a liar...it's hard to get rid of that tag. Roger is not the boss...just the moderator of this industry.

The analogy, I grant, was a poor one, but I knew that before I posted it. Just was hurting my brain too much to set work aside any longer to come up with a better one. The point was to contradict those people who think that there should be further punishment doled out for an issue that has already be addressed, albeit not to the satisfaction of some Salem residents.

 

[peplaw06]

The newspaper cited a memo sent to the league's competition committee Thursday in an article on its Web site and said the proposals included a change in rules that would allow league officials to make unannounced inspections of locker rooms, press boxes and in-game communications equipment.

Wha??

How they gonna do that without getting a search warrant???

 

[tyke1doe]

Wha??

How they gonna do that without getting a search warrant???

Yeah, I notice the league didn't include team offices and headquarters in the inspection in an attempt to find illegal tapes.

The league is merely monitoring its games. When it inspects locker rooms, it's not going through anyone's personal belongings. (Of course, you should know this as a lawyer.) It's merely monitoring whether teams are reviewing game film that may have been taken illegally. Or the league is checking press boxes to see if anyone is video taping or to see if equipment is misused for the purposes of cheating.

That doesn't require a search warrant. It's merely a simple observation.

Moreover, as I stated with the drug policy, if individuals consent to the drug test - which you must do if you want to play in the NFL, there isn't an invasion of one's privacy - at least not legally.
This new procedure will be vented through the competition committee and will be something that teams, I assume, will agree upon.

But you know this as a lawyer. You're just trying to segregate points from their context because you're smarting from our former debate.

I would suggest you just let it go. You'll feel better, believe me.

 

[tyke1doe]

Vengeance would have been giving them the death penalty, taking away all of their draft picks, or penalizing their salary cap limit(or lack thereof). I was merely suggesting that the throwing them to the wolves, aka the media, would serve to correct the problem. Remember when you were growing up, one of the biggest punishments you could ever get was not the paddle, but the humiliation for being pointed out that you did something wrong. The maladjusted children didn't mind this so much, but the normal, rational majority detested this treatment. It's like when you get the label of being a liar...it's hard to get rid of that tag. Roger is not the boss...just the moderator of this industry.

The analogy, I grant, was a poor one, but I knew that before I posted it. Just was hurting my brain too much to set work aside any longer to come up with a better one. The point was to contradict those people who think that there should be further punishment doled out for an issue that has already be addressed, albeit not to the satisfaction of some Salem residents.

I understand what you're trying to say, but I think you hit it on the head. When you were a child, humiliation was a fitting punishment. It's not so much when you're an adult. You let the circumstances bring humiliation. You don't work that into the punishment for an adult.

The Pats have suffered enough public humiliation. It didn't need to be a part of their official punishment.

 

[peplaw06]

Yeah, I notice the league didn't include team offices and headquarters in the inspection in an attempt to find illegal tapes.

The league is merely monitoring its games. When it inspects locker rooms, it's not going through anyone's personal belongings. (Of course, you should know this as a lawyer.) It's merely monitoring whether teams are reviewing game film that may have been taken illegally. Or the league is checking press boxes to see if anyone is video taping or to see if equipment is misused for the purposes of cheating.

That doesn't require a search warrant. It's merely a simple observation.

Moreover, as I stated with the drug policy, if individuals consent to the drug test - which you must do if you want to play in the NFL, there isn't an invasion of one's privacy - at least not legally.
This new procedure will be vented through the competition committee and will be something that teams, I assume, will agree upon.

But you know this as a lawyer. You're just trying to segregate points from their context because you're smarting from our former debate.

I would suggest you just let it go. You'll feel better, believe me.

No "smarting" here. I'm just showing you day by day, little by little, that I am right.

Good times.

 

[tyke1doe]

No "smarting" here. I'm just showing you day by day, little by little, that I am right.

Good times.

How by twisting facts?

I guess you missed that discussion we had about clearly stating policy before engaging in certain activity.

You know, how a drug policy can be an invasion of privacy unless you do it a specific way. How even if you have random drug testing, you have to spell out the policy clearly so as not to infringe on players' rights.

Yeah, of course you forgot that because you're more interested in proving that you're "right" than actually considering the facts of the issue.

But such is the way of internet debaters.

 

[burmafrd]

And your post is the perfect example of what is wrong in so many ways in this country. You are so worried about the players "rights" that your way of thinking insures that they never get caught.
Your way of thinking puts so many obstacles in the way of trying to find out the truth that it never happens.
Your way is that of someone who has lost sight of the goal by becoming fixated on the process.
Its like the so called justice system. It was supposed to be about finding out the truth; now its so bogged down in the process that that goal has been all but lost.

 

[peplaw06]

You know, how a drug policy can be an invasion of privacy unless you do it a specific way. How even if you have random drug testing, you have to spell out the policy clearly so as not to infringe on players' rights.

Is it really less of an infringement on "players' rights" if it's spelled out in a policy? How adorably naive.

 

[tyke1doe]

Is it really less of an infringement on "players' rights" if it's spelled out in a policy? How adorably naive.

Uh, it's called consent. You know, if you've agree to a particular policy, then you give up a certain amount of your rights. If you don't like said policy you don't give your consent.

It happens all the time. You know, uh, you can't take pictures of students at a public school unless you have consent because otherwise you'd be violating his rights.

You know, when a television show blocks out a person's picture, even if he's in a public area because he didn't give his consent.

Similarly, you can't tell a player to piss on the spot or anywhere you so desire if it's not spelled out in policy. Otherwise, you'd be violating his rights.

Come on. You're the lawyer. You should know this. Then again you offered an example of "inadmissible" evidence when we were arguing the legality of proper search procedures.

 

[tyke1doe]

And your post is the perfect example of what is wrong in so many ways in this country. You are so worried about the players "rights" that your way of thinking insures that they never get caught.
Your way of thinking puts so many obstacles in the way of trying to find out the truth that it never happens.
Your way is that of someone who has lost sight of the goal by becoming fixated on the process.
Its like the so called justice system. It was supposed to be about finding out the truth; now its so bogged down in the process that that goal has been all but lost.

You do know why those procedures and obstacles are in place don't you?

It's because we had a frontier justice system in this country which lynched and executed people before they had their right to a trial.

And being black, this type of vigilanteeism was particularly odious in African-American communities, when our rights were disgarded, and we were tried and executed on the spot.

Don't blame me. Blame those who had the same mentality you seem to have.

Let's just remove all the obstacles and find them guilty. Procedures are mere formalities.

Sorry, I just don't see it the same way.

 

[peplaw06]

Uh, it's called consent. You know, if you've agree to a particular policy, then you give up a certain amount of your rights. If you don't like said policy you don't give your consent.

It happens all the time. You know, uh, you can't take pictures of students at a public school unless you have consent because otherwise you'd be violating his rights.

You know, when a television show blocks out a person's picture, even if he's in a public area because he didn't give his consent.

Similarly, you can't tell a player to piss on the spot or anywhere you so desire if it's not spelled out in policy. Otherwise, you'd be violating his rights.

Come on. You're the lawyer. You should know this. Then again you offered an example of "inadmissible" evidence when we were arguing the legality of proper search procedures.

Your analogies need work.

Question: Did each player personally give his consent to the drug policy?

 

[tyke1doe]

Your analogies need work.

Question: Did each player personally give his consent to the drug policy?

They do when they enter the league. They are made aware of the drug testing policies when they enter the league, as well as other league policies, just like employees of any company are made aware of the company's policies.

Don't like the policy. Don't want to submit to a drug test. Don't work for the company or play in the NFL.

Come on, you know this. You're the lawyer, remember.

 

[peplaw06]

They do when they enter the league. They are made aware of the drug testing policies when they enter the league, as well as other league policies, just like employees of any company are made aware of the company's policies.

Don't like the policy. Don't want to submit to a drug test. Don't work for the company or play in the NFL.

Come on, you know this. You're the lawyer, remember.

So it was a "sign this or don't earn millions" type of consent? Gotcha. How is that consent again?

And did each player personally sign off on it before it became the policy?

You may wanna rethink taking those little shots at me. Usually when you do that it's after some simpleton remark by you, where you think you've "got me." Problem is I'm about 18 steps ahead of you. I guess you could say I've been giving you just enough rope to hang yourself.