Cheating Your Way to the Super Bowl

Over on the Tony Isabella board I have been involved in a heated discussion regarding this weeks revelation that the New England Patriots have been cheating for years by videotaping the opponents defensive coaches signals. The NFL fined Patriot head coach Bill Belichick $500,000 and the team $250,000 and a draft pick. I contend that that is too lenient of a punishment. Others on the board disagreed with me. Pat O'Neil responded...

Maybe it's from not being a sports fan at heart, but I've never understood why trying your damnedest to get the other team's secrets is "cheating." It's not like they physically stole a copy of the playbook--that would be theft and it would be a crime. But using a camera or binoculars to read the other team's signals? Isn't that a bit like telling one side or other in a war that it's "cheating" to break the other guy's codes?

So if you don't agree with the rule it is OK to break it? The league rules are very, very specific about the use of video; you are strictly forbidden to aim a camera at the opponents sidelines. Period. As the LA Times asked today, how many other quarterbacks could have a league-leading 146.8 passing rating (like the Patriots' Tom Brady does) if they knew every defense they were facing on every play?

But addressing Pat's question in specific, it is not against the rules to read lips or to in any other way watch what the coaches on the other team are doing, with the sole exception that it is against the rules to video tape or otherwise record what they are doing so that you can replay it over and over at your leisure and know for certain what movement by a coach is a signal for what offensive or defensive play. To do so is to cheat; there is absolutely no "gray area" here. They cheated and they have been doing it for years and the result of their cheating is they won three Super Bowls in four years. Pat thought I missed his point...

I think you missed the essence of my question. I understand that it's a rule and breaking it should be punished. My question is more along the lines of "why does the rule exist in the first place"? Why did someone decide that using technology to better understand how your opponent is communicating is wrong? Binocs are OK but a camera isn't?

Why then do teams trade game film (I guess it's game tape these days)? Would it be OK for a team to tape the network coverage of an opponent and then use THAT in an attempt to break the signal code?

I think it is the difference between thinking you might have figured out some of the defensive plays and knowing that you know them all. The Patriots knew what defense they were facing on every play. In that, they had an unfair advantage that they came by illegally.

Now if they really want to fix this all they have to do is put a radio in the defensive captain's helmet and call the play in like they do for offense. It would require a defensive huddle every time if hand signals are not used, and the defensive coordinator would need to cover his mouth like the coach or offensive coordinator does today, but it would end the problem. But Pat thinks that the rule is irrational and that there is a simple solution.

But it's only "illegal" because of what I see as an irrational rule--you're not allowed to even TRY and see what signals precede what plays.

Why not go the way baseball does with batting and baserunning signals--simply make them so complicated that figuring them out is worthy of a CIA cryptographer. "The signal for steal is I run my left hand across my letters. But it's only the right signal if it comes after I've touched my cap twice. And if I then touch my cap again, it means the steal is off but it's a hit-and-run."

A baseball coach makes SO many gestures in the course of signalling his players that it's almost impossible for the opposing team to know which gesture is meaningless and which signals a play.

Yeah, but the signal in baseball is "steal or don't steal," not a very complex bit of information to pass along. There are dozens of defensive formations in football that could be called in and I don't see the baseball solution as viable. Here is a much simpler solution; don't cheat and if you do you're out of the game for good, your contract is immediately null and void and you must pay back any money you have been paid for the current season. If you cheat the league should tell you "Adios mother fucker! Hope you enjoyed your career" And how you feel about the rule it moot; it is illegal to video tape or otherwise record the defensive coaches on the sidelines. Period.

My good friend Tony Isabella also agreed with Pat.

I have to agree with Pat on this, Barry, but I'll add that I don't give a rat's ass about the NFL. I think professional football is a disgrace. I don't think it's sufficiently regulated, and I think it's an abomination how badly players are provided for when they suffer career-ending and life-threatening injuries. I think it's moronic how some fans act in so-called support of "their" teams.

Now if you put the fat-ass owners, coaches, and fans on the field...now that I would pay to see.

I of course disagreed with Tony on the major point, and on football being a disgrace, but everyone has their own likes and dislikes. Football is pretty much the only sport I can stomach to watch.

Tony's point about injuries did resonate with me though. Baseball and basketball players are paid way too much money for me to ever care about any of them. On the other hand, NFL players can make huge sums of money, but they will pay for it for the rest of their lives in physical problems. The league makes an obscene amount of money and a good portion of that should be spent of free long-term medical care for all who choose to sacrifice their bodies for the game. If you step out on that field, the league should guarantee your health care for the rest of your life.