(November 9, 2015 at 1:50 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: I do know that stealing defensive signals absolutely can change the outcome of games. And after all the reports that have come out, it is beyond doubt that they did just that.
"Stealing" is a pretty big and inaccurate word for what actually happened. I wasn't a Patriots (or a football) fan when the incident went down, so what I know I got from Wikipedia mostly. The scandal seemed to surround the Patriots filming the Jet's defensive signals from the sideline during the game. Whilst against the rules, I don't see how it's stealing when the Jets were doing their signals during a game, in full view of everyone, including the Patriots. If the Patriots had instead hired a savant who could memorize all the signals, would that have been stealing?
One of the first sentences of the Wikipedia article on the issue reads "videotaping opposing coaches is not illegal in the NFL per se", so again, it's not stealing because the action wasn't against the rules, just the location of the action. It seems that if the Patriots had filmed the defensive signals from a legal location, there would be no rule violate and no scandal.
Honestly, if you watch the opposing coach signal in a specific way, and the defense on the next play is Cover 1, and then you see them signal in the exact same way on a later play, why should it be wrong to tell your offense that Cover 1 is likely being used? Besides, when watching the game on the TV, you see coaches all the time. If a coach records the game at home and watches it, and figures out some defensive signals from that recording, is that also wrong?
The scandal really confuses me, because as much as I agree that the Patriots shouldn't have broken any rules, most people who seem to talk about Spygate seem to think that it's about filming the signals rather than where the signals were filmed from. If filming the signals was against the rules, then the networks which broadcast the games are likely helping multiple coaches "cheat" every week.
