Matt Walsh will meet with the NFL

[Rambos]

I want draft picks! You never hear what the Rams should get if this is true. How about two frist rounders cheaters!

[Truth]

If a team in the NCAA is caught cheating, they generally forfeit any championships or Bowl wins for that year. They also lose scholarships. So, if there is any Truth to what Mr. Walsh has to say about taping the walk-thru, I think the Patriots should be stripped of the Lombardi trophy, and lose 3 years of 1st round draft choices. They should not be allowed to trade for 1st round choices either, as they did this year. The Rams organization should probably be compensated for lost revenues as well (OK maybe I'm just adding the revenue bit because I'm annoyed). The penalty for cheating needs to be very severe.

[moklerman]

You guys are on the right track but not quite there. There probably are tapes of the Rams' walk through but, so what? How is it going to be proven who actually watched it? So it will be acknowledged that the tapes exist but who's going to be penalized?

[Mooselini]

Originally Posted by Keenum

I also think Goodell may say some crap like "We did find a video tape showing the Rams walkthough, but I did not think it was sufficient enough to pursue further punishment for the New England Patriots and would not have given them an advantage. We will take no further action on this."

That would really tick me off...

Clan Ram assemble, to Goodell's house we go, with a dozen eggs each.

[HUbison]

Originally Posted by moklerman

You guys are on the right track but not quite there. There probably are tapes of the Rams' walk through but, so what? How is it going to be proven who actually watched it? So it will be acknowledged that the tapes exist but who's going to be penalized?

Mok, you make a good point, but if Walsh can show that he was a Patriot employee at the time, the franchise may have some legal responsibility for his actions. Did the organization tell him to tape or not? Don't know, but it may not matter if he was an employee at the time. But I ain't no lawyer either.

[laram0]

Originally Posted by Mooselini

Clan Ram assemble, to Goodell's house we go, with a dozen eggs each.

How do you like em? Sunny sideup, scrambled, overeasy? Hard Bolied??

[Rambos]

How is it going to be proven who actually watched it?

I don't think we will need to prove that, if they have tapes after saying they don't. I don't care if it did not impact the out come, that we wil never know. The fact the the Pats have been cheating for years has to be stopped.IMO

[Ferter]

:l



I think some fans are blowing this way out of proportion.

Granted this is probably some sort of rules violation, yet it is not very feasible to even attempt to make a case that it had anything to do with the outcome of the game.

It was a walkthrough, nothing more. In the world of competitive sports, for years, scouts have been sitting in the stands and taking notes. Besides that, these two teams played each other during the regular season. There really were no secrets about the Rams or how they would approach a game. And If you remember, at the time, the Rams had a cavalier head coach who often stated "It's not about what they do - It's about what we do"

Did video taping a walkthrough cause Warner to throw the ill fated pick? NO

Did video taping a walkthrough cause Prohel to fumble? NO

Did video taping a walkthrough allow pats WR david patten to make an incredible catch and tap dance along the back line of the end zone right before the end of the first half? NO

Did video taping a walkthrough cause Wilkens to miss a FG attempt? NO

Did video taping a walkthrough cause the officials to miss the facts, that redmond did not get out of bounds and brady intentionally grounded the ball, during the pats final drive? NO



:l

[Fargo Ram Fan]

Did video taping a walkthrough cause coach Rainman to under-utilize the greatest Ram weapon of all time with only 17 carries that day? NO

[Truth]

Originally Posted by laram0

How do you like em? Sunny sideup, scrambled, overeasy? Hard Bolied??

ROTTEN!?! (or is that WROTEN)

[Keenum]

But did the tape cause the Patriots to know the plays we were running near the redzone? YES.

If you know what play a team is going to run, is it easier to stop it? YES.

Is that cheating? YES.

Is cheating illegal? YES.

So the Patriots did something illegal? YES.

Don't teams that do something illegal get punished (we are not talking about the Jets spygate here, only the Rams Superbowl one)? THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO.

We played pretty bad at times, yes, but we still would have beaten them if they did not have that unfair advantage, I believe.


Even if they gained nothing from the tapes, the fact of the matter is that the TAPING WAS ILLEGAL, be it they used it or not.

[Pape]

Originally Posted by Keenum

But did the tape cause the Patriots to know the plays we were running near the redzone? YES.

If you know what play a team is going to run, is it easier to stop it? YES.

Is that cheating? YES.

Is cheating illegal? YES.

So the Patriots did something illegal? YES.

Don't teams that do something illegal get punished (we are not talking about the Jets spygate here, only the Rams Superbowl one)? THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO.

We played pretty bad at times, yes, but we still would have beaten them if they did not have that unfair advantage, I believe.


Even if they gained nothing from the tapes, the fact of the matter is that the TAPING WAS ILLEGAL, be it they used it or not.

Illegal? how was it illegal? Doing something illegal implies that the laws governing society have been broken. So by saying its illegal, you imply that there is a law on the books which say taping a walk thru is prohibited. If thats the case, why wouldn't a high flying prosecutor with greater ambitions just subpeona Matt Walsh and then move forward with a prosecution of the Patriots? Hmmmm... I suspect that the answer lies with the fact that it wasnt "illegal". If they did film the walk thru, i is just another violation of NFL rules.

It will be interesting to see what Matt Walsh has to say. The agreement allows him to keep a copy of the materials turned over the the league. In the agreement, its called a "counsel copy". So whatever he says, the league will not be able to "sweep it under the rug". It will be interesting to see what he actually has to say. What we dont eed is more rhetoric and hyperbole splashed around about the Patriots past filming practices.

[RamOfDenmark]

Originally Posted by Pape

Illegal? how was it illegal? Doing something illegal implies that the laws governing society have been broken. So by saying its illegal, you imply that there is a law on the books which say taping a walk thru is prohibited. If thats the case, why wouldn't a high flying prosecutor with greater ambitions just subpeona Matt Walsh and then move forward with a prosecution of the Patriots? Hmmmm... I suspect that the answer lies with the fact that it wasnt "illegal". If they did film the walk thru, i is just another violation of NFL rules.

I think it's pretty well understood that in this context 'illegal' means 'against NFL rules' and not 'we'll haul your ass to jail'-illegal. When the refs call 'illegal contact' I don't think they're saying that it's against the law and the player will be put in front of a jury or anything. Might as well quit obsessing over the exact way it was worded - we all know what he meant and it's a common use of the word 'illegal' that the NFL itself uses too.

Originally Posted by Pape

It will be interesting to see what Matt Walsh has to say. The agreement allows him to keep a copy of the materials turned over the the league. In the agreement, its called a "counsel copy". So whatever he says, the league will not be able to "sweep it under the rug". It will be interesting to see what he actually has to say. What we dont eed is more rhetoric and hyperbole splashed around about the Patriots past filming practices.

I agree it will be very interesting to see what he has to say, a lot of people will be listening closely. I am surprised to hear that he will be allowed to keep a copy of the materials - that has not been my understanding up until now. But it sounds like you've either read the agreement itself or a more in-depth analysis than I've been able to see (got a link?) so I'm going to assume that you are right on that. That's a very positive thing because as you say that means it will be much harder for the NFL to let the tapes disappear as they did the first time around. Seems like we may get to hear the full story of what happened after all - I'm much more inclined to believe in the investigation now that Walsh is (apparently) allowed to keep copies.

[Pape]

I understand the context of the use of "Illegal". The phrase just doesnt sit right, and when emphasized like the op did in his post, the context does indeed go beyond the "violation of league guidelines". But enough about that.

As for your other point, I have read the agreement, and will provide a link to the agreement below. Section1, paragraph b indicates that Matt Malsh/his attorney has the right to keep a copy of the materials turned over to the league.

here is a copy of the agreement
--> http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/.../agreement.pdf

[RamOfDenmark]

Originally Posted by Pape

As for your other point, I have read the agreement, and will provide a link to the agreement below. Section1, paragraph b indicates that Matt Malsh/his attorney has the right to keep a copy of the materials turned over to the league.

here is a copy of the agreement
--> http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/.../agreement.pdf

Very nice find! I didn't think that was available to the public.

I just finished reading through the agreement. It seems to me that the agreement is actually very fair to Walsh, offers him the protection he needs while also being constructed in such a way that it will be very hard for the league to prevent the truth from coming out, should they attempt (the counsel copies help a lot in this regard). The fact that this document has been made available to public scrutiny also shows good intentions - it looks to me like the league has reversed their course and is no longer trying to cover things up.

The most interesting piece of information that can be found in the agreement IMO is the hint that Walsh may have audio recordings of his superiors in the Patriots organisation. That could potentially be a bombshell - if he has explicit orders to break league rules recorded on tape, or even a more passive acceptance and knowledge of breaking the rules by his superiors - that's clearly a smoking gun. And it is something that could have very serious consequences as it could undermine Belichecks (IMO) ridiculous defense of 'I thought it was legal' and lead to further punishment. Of course nothing is explicitly revealed about what material Walsh has, we'll have to wait to the meeting to hopefully find out. But several types of material is hinted at, audio recordings of superiors in the Patriots organisation being one of them, besides the actual recordings of other teams' signals.