Patriots Fall From Grace

This picture is on a baseball blog I read daily: It IS very funny. However, the "spygate" scandal did tarnish the legacy of the team. More damning was the very recent allegations the team videotaped the Rams before the SuperBowl a few years back.

The old adage "where there is smoke there is fire" comes to mind. I'm a baseball fan, so my perspective is very skewed when it comes to football. In baseball stealing signs is gamesmanship and I've only heard criticism when the opposing team used video cameras to zoom in beyond the capacity of eyesight. Many of baseball's enjoyable quirks are done for the sake of hiding signals from other teams; the third base coach signals, the catcher signals, the shortstop signal to the second baseman behind the glove to tell who will cover on a steal, the series of motions from the dugout to call pitches in to the catcher, the pitcher hiding the ball in his glove as best he can, the fake bunt, the phantom throw to make a runner believe the hit ball never made it to the outfield, the phantom tag to make a runner think you have the ball, the replacements inserted by managers sometimes resulting in pitchers or batters never actually playing.

One of my favorite moments playing in youth leagues was teaching a pitcher to throw a curveball before a game I caught and telling him to signal to me when he would use it by tipping his cap. (This reversed the traditional mode of signalling entirely and no one ever deciphered the simple code.) Anyway, my proclivity is to assume anything I can see with my eye is fair game to exploit to my advantage. This includes anything one the field, which I can reasonably record and review. For whatever reasons, when it comes to football the defensive signal calling is a bigger issue. I suppose this relates to the relative rarity of scoring in the NFL and the massive difference in outcome given the abundant variations of positioning of players. This is the heart of the "spygate" allegations, that the team recorded the other team's defensive play caller. I still would hesitate to think much of anything of this because it would require a translator on the spot to interpret the other team's codes, who relays this in detail to the offensive coordinator, who must consider a new play and call it to the QB in a matter of seconds. I'm not sure if there is enough time between plays for that communication, nor what value it would bear given a defense's ease in shifting rotations, calling audibles, and reading the offense. More importantly, if there is any such threat and it is so valuable the defensive play calling needs sophistication. The easiest mode is a decoy caller. Another mode is multiple calls per play and a signalling system. In any event, this can be addressed on the sidelines by the team believing that threat is real. Given the relatively small price the Patriots paid (draft picks and some cash), in an industry with millions at stake, teams would be foolish not to attempt this supposed advantage. I would be shocked if teams were not already employing evasive tactics.

In the recent reports, however, there are claims the Patriots videotaped their opponents practice. I have heard it claimed that these tapes are not as much an advantage as it would appear given the wealth of game footage available to both teams. Come playoffs anyone would therefore also be served best by altering strategy and devising new plays. This is a serious offense and worth serious investigation. It feels on par to me with stealing the opponents playbook. Sure, you can get that information indirectly by observing their plays, but to take it beyond that does seem like cheating to me.