Reg

Posted by Michael David Smith on May 8, 2008, 6:19 p.m.

When NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell handed down his Spygate punishment during the 2007 season, the specific violation the Patriots had committed was taping opponents’ defensive signals.

So when we learned yesterday that Matt Walsh’s videos revealed nothing more than the Patriots’ practice of taping opponents’ signals, it sounded like good news for the Patriots. Walsh’s lawyer says he has no evidence of the much more significant accusation that the Patriots taped the Rams’ walk-through practice before the 2002 Super Bowl, and NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Walsh’s evidence was consistent with what the league already knew.

But Larry Weisman of USA Today suggests that because Walsh had a tape showing the Miami Dolphins’ offensive coaches — not the defensive coaches — signaling in plays, that could constitute a separate infraction that would lead to more league sanctions.

Based on what we know now, however, it sounds like a stretch to think that the league would view taping offensive signals as a separate violation from taping defensive signals. Does Goodell really want to change the headlines from “Patriots Cleared of Filming Rams’ Walk-Through” to “Patriots Fined for Taping Offensive Signals”?

Also, how much could a team really benefit from taping its opponents’ offensive signals? After all, offensive plays are generally sent in through the coach-to-quarterback communications device, which is why quarterbacks wear helmets with speakers on the inside and green dots on the outside.

And preventing future Spygates was supposed to be the reason the NFL finally approved helmets with radios for defensive players as well.

__________________