The flap over the Pats "spying" on something that takes place in plain sight on the sidelines has brought big fines, and some big questions: is it cheating or gamesmanship?

Now there are those who'll say that rules are rules.  True enough.  The Pats got caught breaking the rules, and should be fined for behavior banned across the board, which we may assume gave them an unfair advantage over opponents (assuming, too, that their opponents were following the rules, and not just that the Pats happened to get caught doing what came naturally).

But the rules themselves may be a bit antiquated.  Technology already plays an enormous role in professional sports.  Coaches have access to video feeds from above the field during play.  They wear microphone headsets, and their players have headsets in their helmets.  They study video from every conceivable perspective between games.

So this seems a bit dainty a distinction.

If the "spies" were merely in the stands without cameras, but with cell phones, they could still study the opposition and relay information back to the coach.  So, as the Globe has put it, while the Pats clearly broke the rules (and I am sure they aren't the only ones who have), this is really more an instance of "cutting corners," if we grant that the rule in question is outdated, which I think it is.

But The Globe does have an interesting slideshow poll about the "fine line" between cheating and gamesmanship in modern professional sports (mostly baseball, as it happens). 

Some of the questions they raise:

Is faking an injury during play to stop the clock or "gain the upper hand when penalties are called on opposing teams" cheating or just part of the game?

Clearly cheating. 

Or, in baseball, is "yelling 'I got it!' to confuse a fielder while running the bases... cheating?"

Part of the game.

"What about when a second baseman fakes out a runner on an extra-base hit by pretending to be receiving a throw from the outfield?"

Fair play.

"Or when an outfielder tries to convince an umpire he caught a sinking liner when in reality he knows full well he trapped it."

Cheating. No brainer.

The next is more to the point. "Is stealing signs to know what pitch is coming in baseball cheating?"

Setting aside the bias in the question ("stealing" is usually considered bad), no, bitches, it is not. They use secret signs and change them constantly because they know the other team can see them.  Why not make a rule that everyone but the pitcher, catcher and ump has to cover their eyes before the wind-up? 

Because this is but one of the multitude of challenges that make the game what it is.

If you can see the catcher signaling it's fair game. Is it different now that we have newfangled cameras and wireless headsets and microphones? Well, it takes it to a new level, but part of the problem here is that professional sports aren't la-tee-dah for shits and giggles no-stakes fun. Winning is a multi-billion dollar business.

The Globe poll, unscientific as it is, shows sports fans almost evenly split on this last question, by the way, which just goes to show that people can be totally absorbed in something and know nothing about how it really works. (The Globe did not have a breakdown of poll numbers along gender lines, but might that have something to do with it?) I mean, what do people think is going on down there on the field and in the dugout? 

The real issue here is not the "stealing of signs," which all teams try, using various methods with varying success, to do.  The issue here is that the Pats used a method that is presently forbidden by the NFL.  Period.  To argue that coaches should avert their eyes and never try to read their opponents' signs shows an appalling ignorance of the game itself, and a naïveté about the stakes involved.

The line is clear.  If you lie to the ump or referee, or fake an injury to gain advantage, it's cheating.  If you cork your bat, it's cheating.*

But if you find a way to read the signs and signals of your opponent which are clearly visible on the field of play and from the sidelines, that's strategy. 

Doing so with the aid of technology is the issue here.  But the argument against utilizing technology to do what used to be done with the naked eye, albeit less efficiently—but that's precisely what technology's for, innit?—is a bit disingenuous.  Since we're already so far down that road. 

If the NFL really wants to make a point, they should ban headsets and mics, and all recorded and televised games while they're at it. 

Golly, wonder why they haven't thought of that?
_________________________________
*The line is fuzzier with "performance-enhancing drugs."  If we're going to get into that, shouldn't we regulate diet and work-out regimens as well, then?  And what about "performance-enhancing" equipment like specially-designed perfomance-enhancing shoes for basketballers, or bikes for cyclists, or those vile shark-skin bodysuits for male swimmers?

Download | Duration: 00:04:48