NYT: Videotaping Could Influence Meeting

trickblue

Not Old School...Old Testament...
Messages
31,439
Reaction score
3,961
Link

Videotaping Could Influence Meeting

By JUDY BATTISTA
Published: March 27, 2008


N.F.L. owners will discuss everything from head (a proposal to prohibit a player’s hair from covering the name and number on his jersey) to toe (a measure to allow instant replay review of field goals) at next week’s annual meeting in Palm Beach, Fla.

But with the handling of the New England Patriots’ videotaping incident still drawing scrutiny, the undercurrent of much of the meeting will be about protecting the integrity of the game.

The most prominent piece of legislation, which is expected to receive approval after failing twice, will put a speaker into the helmet of a defensive player. That would essentially eliminate the need for defensive signals, which the Patriots were caught taping during the 2007 season opener against the Jets.

And owners will discuss — but will not vote on — a series of proposals by Commissioner Roger Goodell that will strengthen the league’s ability to unearth cheating, including spot checks of locker rooms, greater use of technology to monitor teams, reducing the burden of proof needed for a commissioner to impose discipline, and requiring team executives to certify their teams are in compliance with the rules. It would also allow whistle-blowers confidentiality.

The focus on rule breaking may make for some awkward moments: New England Coach Bill Belichick is expected to attend, and the Patriots’ Robert K. Kraft is one of the N.F.L.’s most powerful owners.

“It would be naïve to think that our house has been pure forever, but we are compelled to move forward,” said Ray Anderson, the N.F.L.’s executive vice president for football operations. He said the events of the past season created a sense of urgency about giving fans confidence “that we’re having a pure game and we aren’t tainted.”

Anderson added: “We are determined to make sure our game is clean and competitively fair. The main thing is accountability from top to bottom in protecting integrity and maintaining the confidence among our fans.”

Anderson and Jeff Pash, the league’s chief counsel, traveled to New England last season to oversee the investigation into the Patriots’ violations and the controversial destruction of the videotapes the Patriots had made. During a conference call Wednesday, Anderson again defended that decision.

“We felt it was prudent to destroy it,” Anderson said.

Rich McKay, the Atlanta Falcons’ president and a co-chairman of the Competition Committee, said he believed the defensive player headset rule had a good chance of passing. The proposal narrowly failed last year, but it has been revised this year to allow a helmet of a second player to have the headset, in case the first player goes out of the game. Only one defensive player with the headset would be allowed on the field at a time.

If spying remains a headline for fans, the collective bargaining agreement, which owners seem likely to opt out of later this year — setting up the possibility of the 2010 season being played without a salary cap and a work stoppage after that — will dominate the conversation among owners. Some of them, including Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys, have announced their displeasure with the deal that was made two years ago. Among the other measures owners will consider:
  • Reseeding the playoffs to allow the possibility of wild-card teams with better records than division winners being seeded above the division winners. The top two seeds in each conference would go to the teams with the best records, but all others would be seeded according to record, encouraging teams not to rest their starters in late-season games when playoff seeding is still in doubt.
  • Eliminating the 5-yard penalty for grabbing a face mask, but not the 15-yard penalty for grabbing and twisting or holding the face mask.
  • Eliminating the force-out rule for receptions on the sideline in all cases except when the receiver is held and carried out of bounds.
 

Big Dakota

New Member
Messages
11,876
Reaction score
0
I though this spygate 2 thing was coming to a head a few weeks ago, but nothing has come of it as of yet.
 

sacase

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,347
Reaction score
2,612
so by eliminating the force out rule you can push a reciever out of bounds?
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,871
Reaction score
11,570
Wow. Possibly eliminating force outs?

Why? Too tough to make a decision?

I think thats a bad move.

Getting rid of the 5 yard Facemask is awful too. Just inconsistent as all hell. The league bans tackles, blocks, head slaps and other maneuvers because they are too dangerous but they are going to lighten up on facemask rules?
 

trickblue

Not Old School...Old Testament...
Messages
31,439
Reaction score
3,961
Thehoofbite;2013934 said:
Wow. Possibly eliminating force outs?

Why? Too tough to make a decision?

I think thats a bad move.

Getting rid of the 5 yard Facemask is awful too. Just inconsistent as all hell. The league bans tackles, blocks, head slaps and other maneuvers because they are too dangerous but they are going to lighten up on facemask rules?

I agree... it's going to be very controversial should it pass...
 

theebs

Believe!!!!
Messages
27,462
Reaction score
9,207
sacase;2013923 said:
so by eliminating the force out rule you can push a reciever out of bounds?


In order for it to be challenged it has to be called a force out on the field anyway, it is very subjective and owens lost 3 receptions because of the officials not calling a clear force out on the field so it was not reviewable.

So I guess just getting rid of it would at least keep it consistent.
 

Hoofbite

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,871
Reaction score
11,570
theebs;2013967 said:
In order for it to be challenged it has to be called a force out on the field anyway, it is very subjective and owens lost 3 receptions because of the officials not calling a clear force out on the field so it was not reviewable.

So I guess just getting rid of it would at least keep it consistent.

Well they're already consistent. Consistently inconsistent.
 
Top