Don Shula calls Bill Belichick “Beli-cheat” | Page 6 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Don Shula calls Bill Belichick “Beli-cheat”

Jon Harbaugh is correct in stating that, once again, Belicheat used deception to gain an unfair advantage. The deception was not in the formation but rather in how they went about it. It was also just as much a fault of the referees (surprise) as they did not follow the protocol of informing the opposing team when the declaring team made the change.

Section 3 Changes in Position
REPORTING CHANGE OF POSITION
Article 1 An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50–79 and 90–99) is permitted to line up in
the position of an eligible pass receiver (1–49 and 80–89), and an offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass
receiver is permitted to line up in the position of an ineligible pass receiver, provided that he immediately reports the
change in his eligibility status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team.
He must participate in such eligible or ineligible position as long as he is continuously in the game, but prior to each play he
must again report his status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team. The game clock shall not be stopped, and
the ball shall not be put in play until the Referee takes his normal position.
RETURNING TO ORIGINAL POSITION
Article 2 A player who has reported a change in his eligibility status to the Referee is permitted to return to a position
indicated by the eligibility status of his number after:
(a) a team time out;
(b) the end of a quarter;
(c) the two-minute warning;
(d) a foul;
(e) a replay challenge;
(f) a touchdown;
(g) a completed kick from scrimmage;
(h) a change of possession; or
(i) if the player has been withdrawn for one legal snap. A player withdrawn for one legal snap may re-enter at a position
indicated by the eligibility status of his number, unless he again reports to the Referee that he is assuming a position
other than that designated by the eligibility status of his number.

https://www.nfl.info/download/2012mediaguides/2013 nfl rule book.pdf

I also find it absolutely hilarious (b/c all you can do at this point is laugh at the favoritism) that at this moment no one is showing the plays in question in their "highlights". NFLN is currently showing a replay of the game in which I am recording so it will be interesting to view in the morning.
 
I think the Don makes a great Steak .........just sayin
 
I bet Harbaugh would have been mad if a fake spike had scored for the Pats or an onside punt after a safety.
 
The referee did inform the defensive captain as per the rules, there is no stipulation that a team has to be given so much time to identify where the players or lined up or substituted.
The captain or the coach should have called timeout if so confused. Not sure why Harbaugh feels he should have time to make a substitution. Its like calling the wildcat an unfair play because you dont have time to substitute for the formation, thats the purpose of the wildcat.
Alabama used the same play versus LSU.
 
Why Don Shula said Bill Belichick was a Cheator!

I think we have all forgotten what all the Patriots did, they all must have known! So here is a refresher on their cheating!

Timeline of events and disclosures during Spygate Saga:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3392047

Sept. 9, 2007: NFL security officials confiscate a camera and videotape from 26-year-old Patriots' video assistant Matt Estrella on the New England sidelines when it was suspected he was recording the Jets' defensive signals during New England's 38-14 victory in the season-opening game at Giants Stadium...

Sept. 11, 2007: League sources tell ESPN's Chris Mortensen that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has determined that the Patriots violated league rules when they videotaped the Jets' defensive signals, and is considering severe sanctions in light of his earlier stern warnings to all teams about competitive violations...

[Consistent Pattern of cheating]:

… Reports surface that the Patriots had been caught videotaping once before. In November 2006 during a game in Green Bay, the Packers caught Estrella shooting unauthorized video and told him to stop...

Sept. 12, 2007: The New York Daily News quotes an anonymous source who says Jets coach Eric Mangini was aware of New England's surveillance methods from his earlier tenure as a Patriots assistant coach. …

Sept. 13, 2007: Goodell issues an "emergency" order mandating that New England must turn over all videotape and sign-stealing material in violation of league policy. At the same time, before receiving the requested tapes and materials, Goodell fines Belichick the NFL maximum of $500,000, and the Patriots are ordered to pay $250,000 for spying on an opponent's defensive signals. In addition, Goodell orders the team to give up its first-round draft choice in 2008 if it reaches the playoffs this season, or its second- and third-round picks if it misses the postseason...

[Most damning and frequently forgotten in the Spygate scandal]:

Sept. 14, 2007: On ESPN Radio's Mike & Mike show, Mortensen reports the league might not close the book on the controversy and might continue to "review" it. Mortensen suggests that the videotaping of the Sept. 9 game against the Jets could be the tip of the iceberg, and that the Patriots' practices could include jamming the radio frequency in opponents' head-sets, and miking the Pats' defensive linemen to hear the offense's audibles and the cadence between the center and the quarterback. … Mortensen also reports that Belichick has privately told Goodell he has been taping opponents' signals since he became the Pats' head coach in 2000.

[Can you say clueless owner he is as dumb as he looks that's why Bill Bilicheck ignores him]:

Sept. 16, 2007: In an NBC television interview at halftime of New England's Sunday night game against the San Diego Chargers, Kraft says he didn't know his team was using a sideline camera in the game against the Jets.

Sept. 17, 2007: In an Associated Press report, Belichick says he will comply with league request to turn over notes and videotapes but refuses to confirm that there is additional video, saying it is a league issue. Within the next three days, New England turns over materials.

[This made the matter worse this will never die]!

Sept. 22, 2007: The AP reports that the NFL has received and destroyed all materials it requested from the New England Patriots concerning videotaping of opponents' sidelines, but discloses nothing about the contents.

[Rodger Godell ignores the Senate - Where there is smoke there is a cover-up!]

Nov. 15, 2007: Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., writes to Goodell, expressing concern about the league's destruction of tapes.


Dec. 19, 2007: After more than a month without a response, Specter writes to Goodell again.

Feb. 1, 2008: At his annual Super Bowl news conference, Goodell says the evidence from the Patriots destroyed by the league consisted of six tapes from the 2006 season and 2007 preseason. Asked twice how far back the Patriots began to tape their opponents' signals, Goodell doesn't give a specific answer. There is no mention from Goodell that the practice dated back to 2000...

{Patriots stole a Superbowl]

Feb. 2, 2008: The Boston Herald reports that an unnamed source has claimed a Patriots employee secretly videotaped the St. Louis Rams' walk-through the day before Super Bowl XXXVI. The Herald story doesn't name the employee.

[Evidence of the cover up]

Feb. 6, 2008: At the Pro Bowl in Hawaii, Goodell acknowledges that the league had heard about the alleged Super Bowl walk-through taping. "We were aware of this before," Goodell says.

Feb. 13, 2008: During a 1-hour, 40-minute meeting with Goodell, Specter says the commissioner told him Belichick had been taping the sidelines since 2000. "There was confirmation that there has been taping since 2000, when Coach Belichick took over," Specter says.

April 23, 2008: Walsh and the NFL reach an agreement for Walsh to meet with league officials and turn over any videotapes he might have to support his allegations. In a release announcing the agreement, the NFL wrote that Goodell had determined "the Patriots had violated league rules by videotaping opposing coaches' defensive signals'' throughout Belichick's tenure as head coach.


[-New Allegations ]

January 11, 2014

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ry/rumor-mill/

Harbaugh calls Patriots’ four-lineman shell game unprecedented


During Saturday’s thrilling, up-and-down, back-and-forth win over the Ravens, the Patriots created plenty of confusion on a key second-half drive by using four offensive lineman and playing hide-and-seek with one of the eligible receivers who would be ineligible in any given play.


The strategy worked — and it sufficiently upset coach John Harbaugh to result in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. After the game, Harbaugh elaborated on the source of sideline consternation not seen from him since the night that the lights went out in New Orleans.


t’s a substitution type of a trick type of a thing,” Harbaugh told reporters after the game. “So they don’t give you the opportunity, they don’t give you the chance to make the proper substitutions and things like that. It’s not something that anybody’s ever done before. The league will look at that type of thing and I’m sure that they’ll make some adjustments and things like that.”
Harbaugh said he simply hoped to have a chance to try to make a substitution based on who the eligible receivers would be.


“[W]e wanted an opportunity to be able to ID who the eligible players were, because what they were doing was they would announce the eligible player and then time was taken and they would go over and snap the ball before we even had the chance to figure out who was lined up where, and that was the deception part of it,” Harbaugh said. “And that was where it was clearly deception. So the officials told me after that they’d give us the opportunity to do that, which they probably should have done during that series but they didn’t really understand what was happening.”


Harbaugh explained that he deliberately provoked the flag.


“That’s why I had to go and take the penalty, to get their attention so that they would understand what was going on because they didn’t understand what was going on,” Harbaugh said. “And they said that that was the right thing, that they’d give us the chance to ID the eligible receivers so we could actually get them covered. That’s why guys were open, because we didn’t ID where the eligible receivers were at. So, that’s the nature of that particular thing they were doing, that’s what made it so difficult.”


It was an unprecedented tactic, in Harbaugh’s opinion. Asked whether he considers it to be cheap or dirty, Harbaugh stopped short.


“I’m not going to comment on that,” he said.


Author Bryan O’Leary Talks Spygate: The Patriots Scandal


http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/0...riots-scandal/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks CPU...Not sure why your other post pointing this out got moved out so quickly but its a good read and makes you realize its not all "natural" circumstances keeping NE at the top. The NFL allows them plenty of rope to stay there and it makes for boring decades of the SAME team winning...season after season.
 
johnson said it was a norm in the league.
Not sure who cares in reality. The NFl caught NE doing something wrong and punished them. Games are won on the field and if that impacted the game so much for NE how are they still winning.
Went 14-2 last year and 12-4 this year.
Almost went undefeated the year the were penalized.
People can believe what they want but the reality is the Pats win regardless so the tapes must not factor as much as one thinks.
You and i disagree on the importance or necessary truth in what Johnson says. But I find your wording below that interesting. You say "Almost went undefeated the year the were penalized". But if we actually call it like it is and say it this way, "Almost went undefeated the year they cheated" we realize how ridiculous it sounds. So I guess if you want to excuse the cheating, it's best to say "penalized", as if the poor cheatriots managed to overcome an obstacle thrown at them by the league. Makes that 18-1 even more amazing when we see that they overcame the distraction of an impending (and not severe enough IMO) penalty, does it? But remember, even that year, they still had the signals and it probably had at least a bit of an echo effect for the rest of the year as teams could not revamp their defensive signals.

I give the pats credit for remaining a winning team since though. But they still seem to get too much credit for being a "dynasty", when that "dynasty" completely occurred within the 7 year span of cheating. And you say the cheating probably didn't help much, but if it doesn't help, why cheat? Why run the risk of doing it all those years? Belli-cheat says he misunderstood the rule, but I read the rule back in 2007 and it was very basic. And this guy is a mastermind in some eyes? I'd say more likely a liar and a cheater.

BTW, they won all 3 SB's by 3 points or less. If you are cheating and it isn't helping you to gain a 3 point advantage, I mean come on...again, why risk it? The answer is that you don't needlessly risk it. Knowing the other team's defensive call has to be a big advantage. If it wasn't, teams would not have been using signals and the NFL would not have bothered to put head sets in 2 defenders' helmets to make the league a little more Belli-cheat proof. And of course, as I said, Belli-cheat would not have bothered / risked cheating.

I agree the guy can coach, because his team has remained competitive year in and year out since. But no way can I excuse, or even diminish the importance of that major cheating operation like Roger Goodell did for his good buddy Kraft who pushed to get him in as commish. If I did, I would only be rationalizing.
 
You and i disagree on the importance or necessary truth in what Johnson says. But I find your wording below that interesting. You say "Almost went undefeated the year the were penalized". But if we actually call it like it is and say it this way, "Almost went undefeated the year they cheated" we realize how ridiculous it sounds. So I guess if you want to excuse the cheating, it's best to say "penalized", as if the poor cheatriots managed to overcome an obstacle thrown at them by the league. Makes that 18-1 even more amazing when we see that they overcame the distraction of an impending (and not severe enough IMO) penalty, does it? But remember, even that year, they still had the signals and it probably had at least a bit of an echo effect for the rest of the year as teams could not revamp their defensive signals.

I give the pats credit for remaining a winning team since though. But they still seem to get too much credit for being a "dynasty", when that "dynasty" completely occurred within the 7 year span of cheating. And you say the cheating probably didn't help much, but if it doesn't help, why cheat? Why run the risk of doing it all those years? Belli-cheat says he misunderstood the rule, but I read the rule back in 2007 and it was very basic. And this guy is a mastermind in some eyes? I'd say more likely a liar and a cheater.

BTW, they won all 3 SB's by 3 points or less. If you are cheating and it isn't helping you to gain a 3 point advantage, I mean come on...again, why risk it? The answer is that you don't needlessly risk it. Knowing the other team's defensive call has to be a big advantage. If it wasn't, teams would not have been using signals and the NFL would not have bothered to put head sets in 2 defenders' helmets to make the league a little more Belli-cheat proof. And of course, as I said, Belli-cheat would not have bothered / risked cheating.

I agree the guy can coach, because his team has remained competitive year in and year out since. But no way can I excuse, or even diminish the importance of that major cheating operation like Roger Goodell did for his good buddy Kraft who pushed to get him in as commish. If I did, I would only be rationalizing.

They did not go 18-1 the year they cheated because they were caught videotaping prior to 2007 season and were penalized sept of that season.
I disagree the impact that its has and of course believe as Johnson said that it was prevalent througout the league. The only true issue was where they were video taping from that got them in trouble.
We as dolphin fans can say the only reason the Pats have won is because they at one point were video taping but still doesnt explain why they are still at top of AFC 7 years later.
 
I can't believe he got away w it again last night - cheating. IMO the Ravens were the better team last night - they won the LOS until the pays took the pass rush away w the illegal subs. But to only have 14 rushing yards and win is weird.
 
The referee did inform the defensive captain as per the rules, there is no stipulation that a team has to be given so much time to identify where the players or lined up or substituted.
The captain or the coach should have called timeout if so confused. Not sure why Harbaugh feels he should have time to make a substitution. Its like calling the wildcat an unfair play because you dont have time to substitute for the formation, thats the purpose of the wildcat.
Alabama used the same play versus LSU.

Wrong. The rules specifically state that the defense is to be given time to substitute and the ref shall prohibit the snap by standing over the ball and give the defense time to do so.

DEFENSIVE MATCHUPS FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTIONS
Article 10 If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has
been permitted to respond with its substitutions.
While in the process of a substitution (or simulated substitution), the
offense is prohibited from rushing quickly to the line of scrimmage and snapping the ball in an obvious attempt to cause a
defensive foul (i.e., too many men on the field). If, in the judgment of the officials, this occurs, the following procedure will
apply:
OFFICIAL NFL PLAYING RULES 23 RULE 5, SECTION 2, ARTICLE 5 (a) The Umpire will stand over the ball until the Referee deems that the defense has had a reasonable time to complete its substitutions.
(b) If a play takes place and a defensive foul for too many players on the field results, no penalties will be enforced,
except for personal fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct, and the down will be replayed. At this time, the Referee will
notify the head coach that any further use of this tactic will result in a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Also...

Section 3 Changes in Position
REPORTING CHANGE OF POSITION
Article 1 An offensive player wearing the number of an ineligible pass receiver (50–79 and 90–99) is permitted to line up in
the position of an eligible pass receiver (1–49 and 80–89), and an offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass
receiver is permitted to line up in the position of an ineligible pass receiver, provided that he immediately reports the
change in his eligibility status to theReferee, who will inform the defensive team.
He must participate in such eligible or ineligible position as long as he is continuously in the game, but prior to each play he
must again report his status to the Referee, who will inform the defensive team. The game clock shall not be stopped, and
the ball shall not be put in play until the Referee takes his normal position.
RETURNING TO ORIGINAL POSITION
Article 2 A player who has reported a change in his eligibility status to the Referee is permitted to return to a position
indicated by the eligibility status of his number after:
(a) a team time out;
(b) the end of a quarter;
(c) the two-minute warning;
(d) a foul;
(e) a replay challenge;
(f) a touchdown;
(g) a completed kick from scrimmage;
(h) a change of possession; or
(i) if the player has been withdrawn for one legal snap. A player withdrawn for one legal snap may re-enter at a position
indicated by the eligibility status of his number, unless he again reports to the Referee that he is assuming a position
other than that designated by the eligibility status of his number.

https://www.nfl.info/download/2012mediaguides/2013 nfl rule book.pdf


Also after the play and formation in question (which was an illegal formation by either not having enough players on the LOS or by having too many players on the LOS, depending on how the refs view the offset of the offensive lineman and how all players but two where in the backfield or on the LOS) TE Hoomanawanui leaves the field but Vereen does not. Since Shane Vereen does not leave the field and none of the other factors listed above come into play, he is then still considered an ineligible receiver. Yet, on the following play he lines up in the backfield (illegal) and release out for a pass route (illegal) which then should have been called by the refs an illegal formation (again) and as an illegal man down field.

Considering Shady and Belicheat were informing everyone to go look into the rule book, I find it ironic just how many rules they broke in these assholes broke.
 
https://www.nfl.info/download/2012mediaguides/2013 nfl rule book.pdf


Also after the play and formation in question (which was an illegal formation by either not having enough players on the LOS or by having too many players on the LOS, depending on how the refs view the offset of the offensive lineman and how all players but two where in the backfield or on the LOS) TE Hoomanawanui leaves the field but Vereen does not. Since Shane Vereen does not leave the field and none of the other factors listed above come into play, he is then still considered an ineligible receiver. Yet, on the following play he lines up in the backfield (illegal) and release out for a pass route (illegal) which then should have been called by the refs an illegal formation (again) and as an illegal man down field.

Considering Shady and Belicheat were informing everyone to go look into the rule book, I find it ironic just how many rules they broke in these assholes broke.
purley disgusting. We looked at the rule book last night that you reference rhe section 3 article 1. I can't believe they got away w this. Balt was the better team last night so I believe it took the cheating to win.
 
So what NE did was legal but the refs failed by not telling the Ravens who was ineligible since NE was snapping it too fast?
 
So what NE did was legal but the refs failed by not telling the Ravens who was ineligible since NE was snapping it too fast?

Not sure what type of justification you're looking for here, but it ALWAYS lies within the power of the refs to call the penalties and maintain the integrity of the rules. Considering Tom Shady and Belicheat were prompting others to "check the rule book" in post game conferences, they knew the limiting factors in the stunts/deception they were trying to get away with. Again the substitutions were legal, but they're execution of it was not. Especially Vereen being an eligible receiver in the very next play. The fact that the Cheatriots act like they knew the rule book better than everyone else but somehow they were not responsible for their knowledge of the defensive substitution protocol or Vereen's participation in the following play would be acceptable only by a fool. They knew so, but disregarded the rules and cheated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom