September 18, 2007

Patriots' Scandal: Tampering with a Reputation?

The fate of New England Patriots' head coach Bill Belichick seemed sealed. With 124 career wins and three Super Bowl victories in four years, he was set to go down as one of the best coaches in NFL history. That was, however, until the Patriots’ game against the New York Jets on Sunday, September 9, when the Patriots were caught using a video camera to spy on Jets' coaches. One of the video assistants for the Patriots had his camera confiscated while on the Jets’ sideline during the game. It was thought that the Patriots were stealing the opponent’s signs. After the game, the Patriots' head coach had little to say about the incident, saying only that he would comment when he had more information about it, and when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell came down with a ruling.

There was much speculation about the incident in the following week, because Commissioner Goodell has come down harshly with rulings against different infractions over the past year. For example, he suspended Tennessee Titans cornerback Pacman Jones for a year, just for multiple run-ins with the law. Goodell wants to show the NFL players, coaches, and teams that he is not going to tolerate unruly behavior that will bring negative publicity to the NFL. This is his first year as Commissioner, and he has sent the message that breaking NFL infractions will be met with harsh fines and punishment. This was demonstrated last Thursday, September 13, as the Commissioner again displayed his heavy fist and brought down a harsh punishment on Coach Belichick and the Patriots. Belichick was fined $500,000 and the team was fined $250,000 and a first day draft pick next year. According to a Fox News article, it was the “biggest fine ever for a coach and the first time in NFL history that a first round draft pick has ever been confiscated as a penalty.” As was expected, Coach Belichick was bombarded with questions surrounding the scandal at a Friday morning press conference. However, he did not address the penalties explicitly. Coach said, “It’s over and we are moving on. All my energy and focus and attention is on the San Diego Chargers and that game.” This past Sunday, September 16, the Patriots did focus on the game and beat the San Diego Chargers 38-14, but in today’s world scandals that question a person’s morals are not easily forgotten, especially when it happens to a well-respected coach.

After the penalties came down, and the media was addressed, the issue of Coach Belichick's morals came to light when he did not offer any apologies for the infractions. He dismissed the scandal, by just saying it was in the past, and accepted no wrongdoing; accept for the fact that he may have misunderstood the rules. Now, yes, America is a country founded upon the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty. However, in this case, Commissioner Goodell and his committee investigated the situation, and found the team guilty of videotaping opposing coaches. The rules are clear cut about video recording. NFL rules state, in part: "no video recording devices of any kind are permitted to be in use in the coaches' booth, on the field, or in the locker room during the game." This fact was re-emphasized in a memo sent Sept. 6 to NFL head coaches and general managers in which the league said: "Videotaping of any type, including but not limited to taping of an opponent's offensive or defensive signals, is prohibited on the sidelines, in the coaches' booth, in the locker room, or at any other locations accessible to club staff members during the game." When the Commissioner announced his decision and penalties, Coach Belichick should have taken full acceptance for all that happened. However, he did not respond in that matter. The only thing he accepted was that he should have understood the rules more clearly. Yet, if you look at the above rules from the NFL, they explicitly stated that no videotaping of any kind is allowed. Now both the NFL and the Patriots came out and said that the camera was taken before the end of the first quarter, and had no affect on the outcome of the game. However, it is the principle of the matter and that he did not take responsibility for his actions. It is a serious occurrence, and something that will always be in the back of peoples’ minds when they discuss the Patriots and the tenure of Bill Belichick. In fact, players, such as Philadelphia Eagle Reno Mahe,pictured to the right, with his NFC Championship ring, are already questioning the Patriots. Mahe was a member of the 2004 Eagles team which lost to the Patriots in the Super Bowl. He stated, “I think they [The Patriots] should forfeit, man.” The reality is that many people will be skeptical, and unfortunately after this occurrence, the morals of Coach Belichick, and the past winnings of the Patriots will be questioned.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I agree with you RKC, Belichick knew that he should not have videotaped. I think he's a jerk!!!

Anonymous said...

RKC, you're just a Patriots hater!

ERS said...

I definitely agree with you that we live in a time when "a person’s morals are not easily forgotten." The media has so much of an effect on how the public views different situations, such as this one, and can control reactions so easily. However, the Pats using a camera was blown wildly out of proportion. Actions had to be taken to show that the NFL was not going to stand for such blatant rule-breaking as this, and like you said, I feel they did a very respectable job of dealing with Belichick and the Patriots. However, Philadelphia Eagle Reno Mahe has no place to demand that the Patriots forfeit their Super Bowl win over them. That would be absurd, because there is no evidence that the Pats had done this in the past. There is definitely a possibility that this was a one time thing. I like what you said about the rulings that the NFL has been placing on wrongdoers in the recent months. It is something that needs to be done in order to gain some control back for the front office, and not allowing players and coaches to do whatever they want at their own discretion. Overall, I feel that the post had a fresh take on something that has been covered tirelessly for the past two weeks.

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 License.