Football fan loses lawsuit over Patriots "Spygate"

[televisionarchives]

$184.8 million lawsuit? Give me a break here. It's up to the NFL to enforce the rules. Looking back at this I don't see any evidence that the Patriots used the information during the game. In fact they didn't .


Football fan loses lawsuit over Patriots Spygate | Reuters

 

[SandraC]

$184.8 million lawsuit? Give me a break here. It's up to the NFL to enforce the rules. Looking back at this I don't see any evidence that the Patriots used the information during the game. In fact they didn't .

What kind of evidence are you looking for?


Sandra

 

[televisionarchives]

What kind of evidence are you looking for?


Sandra

The man who was recording wasn't trying to hide it. In fact he could be seen during the game on the Sideline. He had no access to the team during the game.

 

[SandraC]

The man who was recording wasn't trying to hide it. In fact he could be seen during the game on the Sideline. He had no access to the team during the game.

I guess I'm not quite understanding your point. Taping the other team is a violation of NFL rules whether you try to hide it or not, and also whether you use the tape during that game or not.

If I remember correctly Belicheck and the Patriots were both fined, a lot, and they also lost a (first round?) draft pick. The points you are making are irrelevant to the penalties and fines imposed by the NFL.

Regardless whether you are correct that they did not use that particular tape in that particular game or not, it's still against the rules.


Sandra

 

[televisionarchives]

I guess I'm not quite understanding your point. Taping the other team is a violation of NFL rules whether you try to hide it or not, and also whether you use the tape during that game or not.

If I remember correctly Belicheck and the Patriots were both fined, a lot, and they also lost a (first round?) draft pick. The points you are making are irrelevant to the penalties and fines imposed by the NFL.

Regardless whether you are correct that they did not use that particular tape in that particular game or not, it's still against the rules.


Sandra

No. The point is about the lawsuit. Read about what the lawsuit said about the game being rigged. There was no evidence of that. If the man video taping had given information to the team during the game it could have been but that's also a stretch as well. You can look at the signals being called in many ways. Players on the other side can see them. Coaches can see them and could also pass that information down to the coach. It was a stupid lawsuit. They try to steal signs in baseball . Is that cheating?

 

[yaz96]

No. The point is about the lawsuit. Read about what the lawsuit said about the game being rigged. There was no evidence of that. If the man video taping had given information to the team during the game it could have been but that's also a stretch as well. You can look at the signals being called in many ways. Players on the other side can see them. Coaches can see them and could also pass that information down to the coach. It was a stupid lawsuit. They try to steal signs in baseball . Is that cheating?

Yes it is.

 

[Jimbo]

No. The point is about the lawsuit. Read about what the lawsuit said about the game being rigged. There was no evidence of that. If the man video taping had given information to the team during the game it could have been but that's also a stretch as well. You can look at the signals being called in many ways. Players on the other side can see them. Coaches can see them and could also pass that information down to the coach. It was a stupid lawsuit. They try to steal signs in baseball . Is that cheating?

Thats part of the "UnWritten Rules" in baseball ....

personally i don't see what would be wrong with a player looking over at the signal sender and if he figures out your code, good for him, change you signs ....
that why the football teams have 2 or 3 guys sending them in now.

as for the lawsuit being shot down ....

Imagine that
more frivolous lawsuits

 

[televisionarchives]

Yes it is.

Ok. How much of a fine do you get for doing it ? Where in the rulebook does it say it's cheating ? That's why a catcher has to try to throw off the man trying to read the signals.

 

[SandraC]

Ok. How much of a fine do you get for doing it ? Where in the rulebook does it say it's cheating ? That's why a catcher has to try to throw off the man trying to read the signals.

If the batter tries to look back at the catcher's fingers, the 'fine' he receives will be a 90+ MPH fastball to the ribs.


Sandra

 

[Rey]

 

[yaz96]

Ok. How much of a fine do you get for doing it ? Where in the rulebook does it say it's cheating ? That's why a catcher has to try to throw off the man trying to read the signals.

see here -

Thats part of the "UnWritten Rules" in baseball ....

if you didn't already know that, you're not really a baseball fan.

 

[televisionarchives]

Thats part of the "UnWritten Rules" in baseball ....

personally i don't see what would be wrong with a player looking over at the signal sender and if he figures out your code, good for him, change you signs ....
that why the football teams have 2 or 3 guys sending them in now.

as for the lawsuit being shot down ....

Imagine that
more frivolous lawsuits

That's why the taping didn't help the Patriots during the game. The lawsuit was silly for many reasons. NFL Coaches change the signs as well all the time. The Patriots were not fined for cheating. They were fined for breaking a rule about recording on the sideline. Big Difference.

 

[SandraC]

No. The point is about the lawsuit. Read about what the lawsuit said about the game being rigged. There was no evidence of that. If the man video taping had given information to the team during the game it could have been but that's also a stretch as well. You can look at the signals being called in many ways. Players on the other side can see them. Coaches can see them and could also pass that information down to the coach. It was a stupid lawsuit. They try to steal signs in baseball . Is that cheating?

I only read the article about the lawsuit, I didn't go through the court documents. The article states the guy who filed the lawsuit claims GAMES (note the plural) were rigged, not just that one game. In fact, he was asking to be refunded for cost of tickets (and a whole lot more), for seven years of tickets for Jets-Patriots games, not for one game only.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the lawsuit or anything, and if you want to say it's frivolous, you go right ahead. I won't argue that.

But you are talking about one game, and he was talking about videotaping in general. That's why I challenged your statement about there being no evidence.


Sandra

 

[SandraC]

The Patriots were not fined for cheating. They were fined for breaking a rule about recording on the sideline. Big Difference.

Why do you think videotaping is not allowed, and the NFL fined and penalized the Patriots? BECAUSE THEY CONSIDER IT CHEATING!!!

No difference


Sandra

 

[televisionarchives]

I only read the article about the lawsuit, I didn't go through the court documents. The article states the guy who filed the lawsuit claimes GAMES (note the plural) were rigged, not just that one game. In fact, he was asking to be refunded for cost of tickets (and a whole lot more), for seven years of tickets for Jets-Patriots games, not for one game only.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the lawsuit or anything, and if you want to say it's frivolous, you go right ahead.

But you are talking about one game, and he was talking about videotaping in general. That's why I challenged your statement about there being no evidence.


Sandra

His problem he would have to prove that the game was rigged. That the Patriots either used information from the taping to win or they used information from past taping to win. They didn't . It would have been impossible because a Coach would never use the same signals for the same play in another game . And the Patriots can still study tapes from past games and see signals being called .

 

[SandraC]

His problem he would have to prove that the game was rigged. That the Patriots either used information from the taping to win or they used information from past taping to win. They didn't . It would have been impossible because a Coach would never use the same signals for the same play in another game . And the Patriots can still study tapes from past games and see signals being called .

Forget the lawsuit, we can all agree it's frivolous.

You make it sound like the Patriots videotaping was no big deal. It was obviously a big deal to the NFL, the fines were huge and losing a first round draft pick is a VERY big deal.

Belicheck is a very smart guy, smarter than you and me. If taping the other team's signals would not have helped him in any way...he wouldn't have taped them.

Don Shula, Tony Dungy and others stated they were disappointed Belicheck did what he did.


Sandra

 

[vurbano]

Why do you think videotaping is not allowed, and the NFL fined and penalized the Patriots? BECAUSE THEY CONSIDER IT CHEATING!!!

No difference


Sandra

Yup
Its pretty cut and dry

 

[televisionarchives]

Forget the lawsuit, we can all agree it's frivolous.

You make it sound like the Patriots videotaping was no big deal. It was obviously a big deal to the NFL, the fines were huge and losing a first round draft pick is a VERY big deal.

Belicheck is a very smart guy, smarter than you and me. If taping the other team's signals would not have helped him in any way...he wouldn't have taped them.

Don Shula, Tony Dungy and others stated they were disappointed Belicheck did what he did.


Sandra

The thread is about the lawsuit. And the reason it was dropped is because the games were not rigged .

 

[yaz96]

The thread is about the lawsuit. And the reason it was dropped is because the games were not rigged .

Yes, but the discussion is regarding your commentary.

Looking back at this I don't see any evidence that the Patriots used the information during the game. In fact they didn't .

And where is the fact, BTW? How do you know?

Were you the camera guy?

 

[televisionarchives]

Yes, but the discussion is regarding your commentary.




And where is the fact, BTW? How do you know?

Were you the camera guy?

This is the best way to answer this question. How would they have used it? That's what the man who sued would have to prove. That's a fair question.