Talk:Spygate (NFL)

The ESPN story
I came over here after reading the recent ESPN story about the connection between this and Deflategate to see how the article has handled it.

I'm glad that the article does mention it, but a brief section near the end of the article does not serve readers well. It captures the gist but is just short of being superficial in doing so. Frankly, it changes the whole narrative of this incident, and thus the article should be revised from beginning to end to reflect that.

We should have:


 * A background section stating that there had been continuing allegations of, shall we say, improperly obtained knowledge of other teams' game plans and indeed specific plays on the part of the Patriots since 2001, to the point that it was allegedly a regular topic of discussion at Competition Committee meetings. Also, it should mention the relationship between Belichick and Ernie Adams (the Patriots' "football research director", a job title unique to that franchise) going back to their days in Cleveland, where Art Modell reportedly offered $10,000 to any other employee who could explain to him what, exactly, Adams did. The article is pretty balanced in its depiction of Adams—some of the unnamed sources say he's reasonably good at what he does (i.e., decoding other teams' signs), others say he's overrated (great quote we have to use in some way: "Ernie is the guy who you watch football with and says, 'It's going to be a run!' And it's a pass. 'It's going to be a pass!' And it's a run. 'It's going to be a run!' It's a run. 'I told you!"). And, of course, we should make clear that allegations of similar illegal intelligence-gathering are not unique to the Patriots or Belichick.
 * The account of the investigation needs to mention probably the most stunning bit in the whole story: that the league, very early on, found in the Patriots' offices a whole room full of videos and notes allegedly going back at least six years that only Belichick and Adams had access to ... and then destroyed all that shortly afterwards on Goodell's explicit instructions, reflecting the beliefs of some of the old-school owners that the league shouldn't let its dirty laundry get out of the house (but alienating others who felt that a treasure trove proving their allegations had just been pissed away).
 * While a fair amount of the article rests on the say-so of either named or unnamed sources, it relies on Specter's archived papers, pretty solid documentary evidence there, to show that although he never said so publicly he didn't believe Goodell's version of events and thought the commissioner was trying to cover something up (i.e., making sure that the tapes and notes found in Foxborough could never be subpoenaed by any investigative body).
 * There are also, for the first time that I'm aware of, specifics on why the Patriots' early 2000s Super Bowl opponents believe that New England had inside information on their games plans (Mike Martz finds it odd that one play he designed that the Rams had never ever run was, when he called it during the actual game, met by three defenders in exactly the right spot; the Eagles found the Pats unusually well-prepared for their rarely-used dime package late in the first half, and the Panthers found their performance improved when they changed game plans at halftime). We should discuss these in the article.

In fact, for those who have been suggesting the article needs to be renamed, this would probably be the catalyst for that ... it could be something more like "Allegations of cheating against the 2000s New England Patriots" or something like that.

I suppose if no one takes this up, I might consider doing it myself. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Legality of videotaping
We have an edit war brewing over the following edits. My understanding is that videotaping is legal (heck, the game is based on watching tape of opponents before playing them), but the bylaws changed in the offseason before Spygate to prohibit doing so from the sidelines - which is what the Patriots violated. I reverted the edits and left a message on the editors talk page telling him to discuss it here. He didn't, he simply re-instated the edits. Rather than initiate a full-blown edit war, I'll bring it here before re-reverting him.

Does anyone agree with his edit comments that the text is simply incorrect? His claims are counter-factual from what I understand, but I don't have time today to dig up citations. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 20:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tarl. This is actually a very common misconception about spygate (I live in New England so I have had to debunk quite a few). It stems from a memo released that was supposed to make the rule more clear. However, it just made it more confusing. If you would like, I can write a bit on the page about it. I was thinking about making a common misconceptions section of the page regardless, so I can point my friends here when we get into arguments. 9:14 PM Thursday, February 21, 2019 Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DubsOnly (talk • contribs) 21:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's more than you personal knowledge. We'd need a citation from a WP:RS that says videotaping is illegal. That's counter-factual, as best I know, videotaping opponents is part of the game.
 * In the meantime, please read WP:BRD. When you are reverted, you MUST discuss the changes before re-instating them. Simply re-instating your changes with an edit history comment is called edit-warring. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 21:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I just reinstated the changes without discussing them first. My bad. The article that we provide as a source back up my knowledge.  If you want me to add the misconceptions, I will.  Of course I plan to use reliable sources in that if I do.

Quick addition: because of Spygate the NFL made a rule that says one defensive player on the field may have a headset which is why it is not a big deal anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DubsOnly (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Put a pointer to your source here, so we can discuss it. By the way, please use a quadruple tilde ( ~ ) to sign your message properly. I fixed the above for you. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 21:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the article I am referring to:, as you can see it says nothing about location. DubsOnly (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That does not contradict the statement that you removed. That's simply an apology for violating the rules. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 22:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * that was the source provided our page. DubsOnly (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's what the rule was: Constitutional Bylaws article 9.1 section C14 no member shall: "Use at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which a club is a participant, any communications or information gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.”

The memo was sent out to teams in 2006, it was ment to clarify the rules. Now it is said this was ment to change the rules. This is not the case. 

The final ruling can be found here:. It is another one of our sources used.

DubsOnly (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We good? DubsOnly (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

No. None of those say it is illegal to videotape. The final ruling does not specify the rule violated. It says "he broke the rules". The rule 9.1 section C14 is specific to "during the game", and at no time was it alleged that the videotape was used during the game. The "patriots apart" article simply says that the other owners were pissed at the Patriots. It doesn't say videotaping is illegal. It says "caught on the sideline, illegally videotaping". That was illegal - doing so from the sideline, which is the piece you removed. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 02:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I've restored the original text while this discussion is in progress, per WP:BRD. My understanding, which you reinforced with your references, is that the penalty was for filming from the sidelines. I.e., "an unauthorized location", which you deleted. My further understanding is that it is not illegal to videotape the opposing team, the citation you provided said it was illegal to do so and use the information during the game - as best I know, there was no allegation of use during the current game. If you can find a rule that says it's illegal to videotape the opposing coaches (which is how you had changed the text), please give us a reference. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 02:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, changing "all" to "any and all" is not correcting a typo. Don't say something like that in the edit history when making changes like that. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 02:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Tarl, here's what the rule was: Constitutional Bylaws article 9.1 section C14 no member shall: "Use at any time, from the start to the finish of any game in which a club is a participant, any communications or information gathering equipment, other than Polaroid-type cameras or field telephones, including without limitation videotape machines, telephone tapping or bugging devices, or any other form of electronic devices that might aid a team during the playing of a game.”

Furthermore, I used one of our references to show this was the final ruling of spygate: "NFL Constitution and By-Laws for violating league policy last Sunday on the use of equipment to videotape an opposing team’s offensive or defensive signals."

Also, while we discuss this, please leave our article how I had it as we have no source backing up your claims.

Lastly, this is why videotaping is not a big deal today: "The rumors and speculation reached a fever pitch in 2006. Before the season, a rule was proposed to allow radio communications to one defensive player on the field, as was already allowed for quarterbacks. If it had passed, defensive signals would have been unnecessary. But it failed. In 2007, the proposal failed once again, this time by two votes, with Belichick voting against it. (The rule change passed in 2008 after Spygate broke, with Belichick voting for it.)" Source: The ESPN article DubsOnly (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Tarl, I would like to resolve this quickly and you are not making that easy. Please resume our discussion, or I will have to report this to Wikipedia. I have seen your are from New Hampshire and I believe this may present an unconscious bias. If you do not respond, I will be forced to present this on those grounds see WP:NPOV. DubsOnly (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Your citations are about information gathering equipment that might aid the team during the playing of the game. I do not know of any assertion that the videotapes were used during the game. Your citations do not say that videotaping the opposing team is illegal. The problem was not the videotaping, it was that the assistant coach doing so was on the sideline. Nothing you have presented has denied that, but your changes to the article (and your assertions) were such as to claim that the videotaping was illegal from anywhere. That is factually incorrect.
 * As for reporting me to Wikipedia, feel free. The usual way to do so is complain on the talk page, which is here. There are a variety of other methods of conflict resolution, which you could resort to - but since your citations do not support your edits, they won't help. If you think my behaviour is out of line, you should approach an admin or complain on an admin forum. Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss ) 05:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump)
There is currently a move discussion going on at Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory by Donald Trump) related to this article. You're invited to participate. R2 (bleep) 16:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The only applicable concern seems to be disambiguation, where they are talking about renaming the other article (about an entirely different spygate). Rename away... <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 19:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Scandal relapse
This is not the first time that the Patriots have been in trouble taping on other teams' sidelines. We reveal that in the 2019 season, the Patriots were filming the Cincinnati Bengals' sideline. The Patriots organization has been fined $1.1 million and will be required to forfeit a 3rd round pick in 2021. Slasher405 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

== Garbled Sentence

This sentence is garbled, and I'd fix it but am not sure how it should read: "The Patriots would also sometimes bring in former players of the team they were playing ask them if they accurately had recorded the signals, they would later cut the player." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:22F1:7010:A4F8:5D05:AE11:B794 (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)