Don't blame your opponent because you have lousy encryption
Wherein also don't see this as a problem
About Belichick.
I guess if it's in the rule book it's a violation; however, my reaction is pretty much what Old33 said at Volokh.com:
About Belichick.
I guess if it's in the rule book it's a violation; however, my reaction is pretty much what Old33 said at Volokh.com:
“What strikes me about all this is that the defensive signs, etc., are all in plain sight. Anyone on the opposite side of the stadium can watch the signs with binoculars.
If we were talking about stealing an actual playbook, or intercepting the headset communications of the opposing team, I can see how that's a problem.
But where is the expectation of privacy in defensive (or offensive) signs being relayed by hand signal with 75,000+ witnesses?
posted by bill at 3:05 PM
6 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
The difference is that by videotaping the signals one can go back and reference which signals led to which plays and audibles. If someone does it by eye alone they will not be able to match everything up that easily, or at all on a consistent basis.
Also, not only is this in the rule book, it was specifically added to the rule book because of past issues with the Patriots, and the rule was communicated to all teams explicitely before the season began. The league put a big emphasis on this, and Evil Little Bill made a point of violating the rule. That's like downing half a case of beer before driving through the drunk driving check-point.
Are the USA Patriots still allowed to intercept international signals ?
Only if they do it at least five yeards from the border.
Yes, not allowing videotaping makes it harder, not impossible. If the league seriously thought a coach was gaining a competitive advantage by cheating he should have been suspended for about hald the season.
Goodell can't do that: The owner of the Patriots was one of his biggest backers for the job of Commissioner.
Post a Comment
<< Home