This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spygate (NFL) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 730 days |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
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)
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)
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)
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. [2]
The final ruling can be found here: [3]. It is another one of our sources used.
DubsOnly (talk) 22:20, 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)
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 [4]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)
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)
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.[1] Slasher405 (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
References
== 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)