Hacker News Reader

Comment by rrss1122 | Hacker News Reader

Why is it so unbelievable that another team did it? The Patriots have been caught many times engaging in shady activities, including outright spying once. If a football team can do it to another football team, it's conceivable a baseball team can spy on another baseball team too.

View on HN

> outright spying

The Patriots filmed the Jets' sideline during an actual NFL game that was happening in front of like 80,000 people. It isn't even illegal to film opposing coaches on their sideline, you just can't do it from your own sideline[1]. That's what Spygate was. Is that really spying? Is it outright spying?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_vide...

It's not illegal, but it was a violation of NFL rules. They sent out a memo to all coaches telling them to stop, but the Patriots continued. They were then fined for "use of equipment to videotape an opposing team’s offensive or defensive signals."

I mean, I agree. Spygate was a violation and they got fined. That seems pretty clear cut and I don't have a problem with it.

I'm just taking issue with the guy calling it "outright spying" which is a pretty exaggerated characterization when you're filming what a coach is doing in front of 50,000 people. If that's spying, then I spy on NFL games pretty regularly.

Filming sidelines was all they were punished for. But they almost certainly were filming opponents' practices, including the St. Lous Rams' "walkthrough practice prior to Super Bowl XXXVI"[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_England_Patriots_vide...

I'm a Bengals fan, so I don't know why I feel the need to constantly defend the Patriots, but let's do it.

> almost certainly

From the Wikipedia article you linked:

- "[The NFL] found no evidence to substantiate the Super Bowl XXXVI allegations or any other transgressions beside those the NFL had already penalized the Patriots for."

- "NFL investigators found practical limitations to the allegation; the Patriots' video equipment that was set up the day before the game had neither battery packs nor a nearby power supply in order to run." In other words, filming the walkthrough was not plausible on a technical level.

- "The Boston Herald [who initially published the story based on an anonymous source] published an apology to the Patriots and their fans for publishing the February 2, 2008, story ... alleging the Patriots had taped the Rams' walkthrough prior to Super Bowl XXXVI. ... They wrote, they should not have published the story, which they deemed to be false."

I'll be honest, I didn't even know about this aspect of Spygate before reading the Wikipedia article, but it seems like the allegation was investigated, the NFL found nothing, and the Boston Herald apologized for a story that was seemingly without merit. Where are you getting "almost certainly"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com