You've got to be kidding Clark Judge!!!

According to Walsh he lied. Goodell believes he lied. I guess that evidence is only as good as Walsh's credibility which has been portrayed as not very high (at least by the Patriots organization), but it is not a good thing for the Patriots that the commissioner of foot ball thinks of him as being less than honest.

Essentially, when Belichick confessed to videotaping last season he told the league office he "misinterpreted" the rules; that he didn't believe he was acting improperly or illegally because he wasn't using videotapes in the game where they were shot. <o:p> </o:p>

OK, fair enough. You take someone at his word until you hear or see something contrary, and something contrary is what Matt Walsh offered. <o:p> </o:p>

But when Goodell probed into the tapes in Walsh's possession -- six of which were shown to the media before Goodell's news conference -- he asked if the former Patriots' employee believed he was doing something wrong and if he thought he was acting in violation of league rules. <o:p> </o:p>

Walsh nodded.

Walsh saying he lied.

This hinges on two things: Belichick's explanation that he "misinterpreted" the rule and Walsh's credibility. Let's deal with the second one first. Goodell said, "I think [the Patriots] were well aware of the fact that, at least according to Matt, he believed they were well aware of the fact this was something that shouldn't be done." We have to accept that Walsh is telling the truth and that his perception was correct. Also, his instructions on this matter came from an assistant coach, not from Belichick, so it is impossible for Walsh to know what Belichick though about the subject. Also, any impression on Walsh's part that the taping should be kept secret may have been because the competetive advantage of the practice would have been lost if teams were aware that the Patriots were doing it.

As for the "misinterpretation," this was a poor choice of words and Belichick should have been more forthcoming about what he meant. The rule about videotaping states that videotaping is permissable so long as it is not used to gain an advantage in that game. When asked about using tapes during the game in which tapes were made, Goodell said, "He [Walsh] in fact said very specifically that they did not.  He was very specific that the tape remained in his possession the entire game, and that they were not used in the game.  He specifically addressed that issue at our request." By the letter of the rule, the Patriots were not in violation.

They were in violation of the memo that was issued by the league prior to the beginning of last season, which stated that videotaping from certain positions on the field was not permissable in any case. Belichick chose to ignore the memo and continued to apply the letter of the rule.

Don's read this as a justification of his actions. He ignored the memo, broke the rule, and was duly punished. He deserved it for his arrogance. I have said that many times. But everything since then has been geared to discredit him, frame him as a pathalogical cheater and liar, and that characterization is untrue and unfair.

Do you have a source for the information you have given that an assistant coach gave Walsh instructions and not BB? Do you have a source saying BB was just ignoring the memo (the one that says taping signals is illegal from any location that club members are allowed)? These sound more like possible theories that you have come up with that could explain the situation without BB being a liar. The statement from Goodell saying he has never accepted BB explanation and that he still doesn’t to this day seems to say that he believes BB is not telling the truth.

I Googled for the full text of Goodell's comments, but can't find it, so I am working partly from memory and partly from this article: http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10826043. Walsh reported directly to an assistant coach named Brian Daboll, who is now the quarterbacks coach for the Jets. When asked by Goodell if he had much contact with Belichick, he answered no and described Belichick as the "man behind the curtain." Here's another person who heard the same thing: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=82569

As far as the "misinterpretation," I am not the only one with this interpretation of what Belichick meant: http://blogs.nbcsports.com/home/archives/2008/02/belichick
-gives-taping-interpr.html.

So, no, these are not theories that I came up with. I take no credit for having an original thought.