What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Goodell Proposes Crackdown on Cheating (1 Viewer)

David Yudkin

Footballguy
Goodell proposes crackdown on cheating

NFL commissioner vows to ‘maintain public confidence’ in the sport

By Mark Maske / Washington Post

updated 4:26 a.m. ET, Fri., March. 7, 2008

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wants the league to conduct unannounced inspections of locker rooms, stadium press boxes and in-game communications equipment, and to lower the standard of proof needed for him to impose penalties on a team or person for cheating, according to a memo obtained by The Washington Post.

The proposals were among a series of changes Goodell wants implemented before next season "to preserve the competitive integrity of the game" and "maintain public confidence" in the sport, according to the memo, which he sent to the league's competition committee yesterday. The memo represents Goodell's strongest response to the controversy stemming from the videotaping scandal involving the New England Patriots this past season and the league's handling of it.

"As the Commissioner and Competition Committee, we must take every appropriate step to safeguard the integrity of the NFL," Goodell wrote in the memo. "We have already taken some positive and significant actions this past season, but we must go further to ensure fair competition amongst our 32 teams and maintain public confidence in our game."

Goodell pledged to impose more severe penalties on teams and employees who violate rules governing competition. He also proposed a measure requiring team employees to report "actual or suspected" violations and another that would require each team's principal owner, top football executive and head coach to stipulate annually, under the threat of league discipline, that they complied with the rules and reported violations.

In addition, Goodell endorsed a proposal to connect one defensive player per team with a coach on the sideline via a wireless device during games, and urged the committee to conduct "a thorough review" of all competitive rules and policies.

"I think there are a number of steps that should be taken in advance of the start of the 2008 season to improve and strengthen the enforcement procedures designed to preserve the competitive integrity of the game," Goodell wrote.

The competition committee, which is the NFL's primary rule-making body, will convene for a week of meetings in Naples, Fla., beginning Wednesday. Ray Anderson, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, said that Goodell's proposals will be considered at those meetings.

"All of these are things we are going to explore more fully," Anderson said by telephone from the league offices in New York.

Said New York Giants co-owner John Mara, a member of the competition committee: "We're all concerned about the integrity of the game. My interpretation is, the commissioner is asking us to look at different ways to enforce the rules to make sure everyone is on a level playing field and our fans can be confident in the integrity of our game. I don't think there's widespread cheating going on, but when you're in such a competitive industry, sometimes there are suspicions out there."

Goodell wrote in his memo that the competition committee should not feel bound by his proposals. Any recommendations by the committee could be presented to owners at the annual league meeting that begins March 30 in Palm Beach, Fla. A proposed rule change must be approved by at least three-fourths of the owners. But Goodell could enact some of the administrative proposals in his memo unilaterally, and several people familiar with the issue said they don't foresee him encountering much opposition to any measure he deems necessary.

Goodell received widespread praise for his crackdown last year on player misconduct. However, he has received criticism for his handling of the New England scandal. In September, Goodell fined the Patriots $250,000 and Coach Bill Belichick $500,000 and stripped the team of a first-round draft pick after it was caught videotaping the defensive play signals of the New York Jets' coaches, in violation of league rules, during the opening game of the season. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) has been highly critical of the league's handling of the case and has threatened to reexamine the NFL's exemption from federal antitrust laws.

League officials said that after that incident, the NFL informed teams that they would be monitored more closely for violations of the rules governing fair play. Anderson said yesterday that included checks of the wireless communication equipment in stadiums used by teams during games. Goodell wrote in his memo that the previously undisclosed program will continue.

Goodell wrote: "This will include spot checks of club facilities, including team locker rooms; press boxes and coaches booths; coach-to-quarterback and other in-stadium communication systems . . . and enhanced monitoring of team practices. Many of these checks will be virtually unannounced and clubs would be expected fully to cooperate with this effort."

One person familiar with Goodell's proposals said the new threshold for imposing punishment for a rule violation would be closer to a preponderance of the evidence than beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Too often, competitive violations have gone unpunished because conclusive proof of the violation was lacking," Goodell wrote. "I believe we should reconsider the standard of proof to be applied in such cases, and make it easier for a competitive violation to be established. And where a violation is shown, I intend to impose more stringent penalties on both the club and the responsible individual(s). I will also be prepared to make greater use of draft choice forfeiture in appropriate cases. I believe this will have the effect of deterring violations and making people more willing to report violations on a timely basis."

The coach-to-defense communication proposal fell two votes shy of owner approval last spring. It would eliminate the need for coaches to use hand signals for defensive plays and it would put the defense on equal footing with the offense, because quarterbacks already use those devices.

LINK

 
How has this topic lasted 3.5 hours without a response?

I guess I will go first....

What worries me is the lower standards part of this. I would not want to see a team unfairly punished. This is why the Gov't has to PROVE criminal charges. I am not certain that the Commish ought to prove a team cheated beyond reasonable doubt, but nonetheless it has be something more than just the preponderance of the evidence IMHO.

 
How has this topic lasted 3.5 hours without a response?

I guess I will go first....

What worries me is the lower standards part of this. I would not want to see a team unfairly punished. This is why the Gov't has to PROVE criminal charges. I am not certain that the Commish ought to prove a team cheated beyond reasonable doubt, but nonetheless it has be something more than just the preponderance of the evidence IMHO.
By preponderance of evidence do you mean the multiple times opponents claimed that the Pats were taping their signals? Or the multiple times they kicked Pats videotaping personnel out of their stadiums? Because that evidence in no way meant the Pats were cheating, I mean they never got caught actually cheating, did they?If the Commissioner had been able to penalize the Pats back when those claims were first made, then their likely would be less of a mess than there is now about the Pats cheating.

 
So does this mean that they're finally going to do something about all of the rampant tampering that goes on every single February?

 
All this means is Goodell is trying to save face with this crap. He handled it wrong by destroying the evidence. It's pretty damn clear. I believe the Patriots gave them 6 tapes? That's it? Been doing this for years and 6 tapes? Either they got rid of the rest, kept them, or were destroying them on their own (which I doubt) because they knew they were wrong. I want to see BB suspended for what he did. And I won't be happy until that happens. Who was the Dallas QB coach that got suspended for substance tests when it was clear it was his medication for his illness/disease? He gets suspended. BB cheats and doesn't. But the league doesn't play favorites.

If the Commissioner had been able to penalize the Pats back when those claims were first made, then their likely would be less of a mess than there is now about the Pats cheating.
Or he would of brushed it under the rug like before.
 
GroveDiesel said:
So does this mean that they're finally going to do something about all of the rampant tampering that goes on every single February?
:confused: Especially since, as Peter King reported, the league sent out a memo in January specifically warning teams not to do it. Yet a number of large contracts were signed, sealed and delivered in the first hours of free agency.
 
BILLIEVE said:
All this means is Goodell is trying to save face with this crap. He handled it wrong by destroying the evidence. It's pretty damn clear. I believe the Patriots gave them 6 tapes? That's it? Been doing this for years and 6 tapes? Either they got rid of the rest, kept them, or were destroying them on their own (which I doubt) because they knew they were wrong. I want to see BB suspended for what he did. And I won't be happy until that happens. Who was the Dallas QB coach that got suspended for substance tests when it was clear it was his medication for his illness/disease? He gets suspended. BB cheats and doesn't. But the league doesn't play favorites.

switz said:
If the Commissioner had been able to penalize the Pats back when those claims were first made, then their likely would be less of a mess than there is now about the Pats cheating.
Or he would of brushed it under the rug like before.
:goodposting:At this point I think Goodell is full of crap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
switz said:
By preponderance of evidence do you mean the multiple times opponents claimed that the Pats were taping their signals? Or the multiple times they kicked Pats videotaping personnel out of their stadiums? Because that evidence in no way meant the Pats were cheating, I mean they never got caught actually cheating, did they?If the Commissioner had been able to penalize the Pats back when those claims were first made, then their likely would be less of a mess than there is now about the Pats cheating.
BILLIEVE said:
All this means is Goodell is trying to save face with this crap. He handled it wrong by destroying the evidence. It's pretty damn clear. I believe the Patriots gave them 6 tapes? That's it? Been doing this for years and 6 tapes? Either they got rid of the rest, kept them, or were destroying them on their own (which I doubt) because they knew they were wrong. I want to see BB suspended for what he did. And I won't be happy until that happens. Who was the Dallas QB coach that got suspended for substance tests when it was clear it was his medication for his illness/disease? He gets suspended. BB cheats and doesn't. But the league doesn't play favorites.
This is about the league as a whole, not about the Patriots. If you guys want to continue sitting on your high horses thinking your teams don't do anything questionable, then go ahead. Just be ready to get run over when you fall off.And BILLIEVE, how many tapes would you want the Patriots to have had to fulfill your Dr. Evil fantasy?
 
switz said:
By preponderance of evidence do you mean the multiple times opponents claimed that the Pats were taping their signals? Or the multiple times they kicked Pats videotaping personnel out of their stadiums? Because that evidence in no way meant the Pats were cheating, I mean they never got caught actually cheating, did they?If the Commissioner had been able to penalize the Pats back when those claims were first made, then their likely would be less of a mess than there is now about the Pats cheating.
BILLIEVE said:
All this means is Goodell is trying to save face with this crap. He handled it wrong by destroying the evidence. It's pretty damn clear. I believe the Patriots gave them 6 tapes? That's it? Been doing this for years and 6 tapes? Either they got rid of the rest, kept them, or were destroying them on their own (which I doubt) because they knew they were wrong. I want to see BB suspended for what he did. And I won't be happy until that happens. Who was the Dallas QB coach that got suspended for substance tests when it was clear it was his medication for his illness/disease? He gets suspended. BB cheats and doesn't. But the league doesn't play favorites.
This is about the league as a whole, not about the Patriots. If you guys want to continue sitting on your high horses thinking your teams don't do anything questionable, then go ahead. Just be ready to get run over when you fall off.And BILLIEVE, how many tapes would you want the Patriots to have had to fulfill your Dr. Evil fantasy?
ONE MILLION!!!
 
switz said:
By preponderance of evidence do you mean the multiple times opponents claimed that the Pats were taping their signals? Or the multiple times they kicked Pats videotaping personnel out of their stadiums? Because that evidence in no way meant the Pats were cheating, I mean they never got caught actually cheating, did they?If the Commissioner had been able to penalize the Pats back when those claims were first made, then their likely would be less of a mess than there is now about the Pats cheating.
BILLIEVE said:
All this means is Goodell is trying to save face with this crap. He handled it wrong by destroying the evidence. It's pretty damn clear. I believe the Patriots gave them 6 tapes? That's it? Been doing this for years and 6 tapes? Either they got rid of the rest, kept them, or were destroying them on their own (which I doubt) because they knew they were wrong. I want to see BB suspended for what he did. And I won't be happy until that happens. Who was the Dallas QB coach that got suspended for substance tests when it was clear it was his medication for his illness/disease? He gets suspended. BB cheats and doesn't. But the league doesn't play favorites.
This is about the league as a whole, not about the Patriots. If you guys want to continue sitting on your high horses thinking your teams don't do anything questionable, then go ahead. Just be ready to get run over when you fall off.And BILLIEVE, how many tapes would you want the Patriots to have had to fulfill your Dr. Evil fantasy?
I think we have all had enough with the SpyGate talk...this is not the place to rehash it. As stated earlier, this is a way for Goodell to save a little face and get the Gov't out of investigating football. As for the 'tampering' during the week prior to the start of Free Agency, I'm not so sure they will ever be able to prevent it. If an agent contacts a team with 'questions' about 'interest' without the organization having direct contact with the player, I'm not so sure they can ever put an end to it. Agents are pretty sneaky weasels, and the players are more often than not after the 'Almighty Dollar'. But please, lets not turn this into a Pats bashing thread, this is something completely different.
 
I think we have all had enough with the SpyGate talk...this is not the place to rehash it. As stated earlier, this is a way for Goodell to save a little face and get the Gov't out of investigating football. As for the 'tampering' during the week prior to the start of Free Agency, I'm not so sure they will ever be able to prevent it. If an agent contacts a team with 'questions' about 'interest' without the organization having direct contact with the player, I'm not so sure they can ever put an end to it. Agents are pretty sneaky weasels, and the players are more often than not after the 'Almighty Dollar'. But please, lets not turn this into a Pats bashing thread, this is something completely different.
Agreed on all points. I'm sick of rehashing SpyGate. It's over. Move on.Goodell wants to show he's a good watch dog on matters of cheating so the Govt. stays out. No industry wants the govt nosing around. So he has to come out with some sort of 'get tougher' plan. It's the smart thing to do.And as much as we'd like to avoid tampering, there are so many ways around them, and they are so hard to prove, that it will continue to go on.
 
I think we have all had enough with the SpyGate talk...this is not the place to rehash it. As stated earlier, this is a way for Goodell to save a little face and get the Gov't out of investigating football. As for the 'tampering' during the week prior to the start of Free Agency, I'm not so sure they will ever be able to prevent it. If an agent contacts a team with 'questions' about 'interest' without the organization having direct contact with the player, I'm not so sure they can ever put an end to it. Agents are pretty sneaky weasels, and the players are more often than not after the 'Almighty Dollar'.

But please, lets not turn this into a Pats bashing thread, this is something completely different.
Agreed on all points. I'm sick of rehashing SpyGate. It's over. Move on.

Goodell wants to show he's a good watch dog on matters of cheating so the Govt. stays out. No industry wants the govt nosing around. So he has to come out with some sort of 'get tougher' plan. It's the smart thing to do.

And as much as we'd like to avoid tampering, there are so many ways around them, and they are so hard to prove, that it will continue to go on.
This stance reminds me a bit of the more strict drug testing and penalties in football, which ( IMO ) are a large part of why the govt is nosing around baseball and leaving football alone. Perception of taking care of your own house will keep the media whore politician/wolves at bay. Much smarter PR move than destroying tapes.
 
switz said:
By preponderance of evidence do you mean the multiple times opponents claimed that the Pats were taping their signals? Or the multiple times they kicked Pats videotaping personnel out of their stadiums? Because that evidence in no way meant the Pats were cheating, I mean they never got caught actually cheating, did they?If the Commissioner had been able to penalize the Pats back when those claims were first made, then their likely would be less of a mess than there is now about the Pats cheating.
BILLIEVE said:
All this means is Goodell is trying to save face with this crap. He handled it wrong by destroying the evidence. It's pretty damn clear. I believe the Patriots gave them 6 tapes? That's it? Been doing this for years and 6 tapes? Either they got rid of the rest, kept them, or were destroying them on their own (which I doubt) because they knew they were wrong. I want to see BB suspended for what he did. And I won't be happy until that happens. Who was the Dallas QB coach that got suspended for substance tests when it was clear it was his medication for his illness/disease? He gets suspended. BB cheats and doesn't. But the league doesn't play favorites.
This is about the league as a whole, not about the Patriots. If you guys want to continue sitting on your high horses thinking your teams don't do anything questionable, then go ahead. Just be ready to get run over when you fall off.And BILLIEVE, how many tapes would you want the Patriots to have had to fulfill your Dr. Evil fantasy?
My point was in reference to a comment about how much evidence was needed. As the Pats were likely the big reason this whole comment from Goodell came up, I think it was perfectly legitimate to reference their situation. And I would think yourself as a Pats fan also would have been happier if 3 years ago the Pats were fined for "taping" and it stopped, and then this season you could have enjoyed their performance without being taunted with "cheater" and "*" responses in the billion Pats threads. Honestly a fine back then, would be on par with the cap fines that SF and Den took.
 
BILLIEVE said:
Who was the Dallas QB coach that got suspended for substance tests when it was clear it was his medication for his illness/disease? He gets suspended. BB cheats and doesn't. But the league doesn't play favorites.
I outlined this before back when it was more newsworty, but part of the difference is the penalty for the what the Coyboys coach did is CLEARLY outlined in the CBA (basically spelled out as 4 games and then some for being a coach). And IIRC, there were a lot of questions as to whether he had any business using the medication.As for the Pats situation, there are no hard and fast rules outlined by the league as to how best to penalize NE for what they did, and that is where all the fuss has stemmed from. Some feel the penalty was stiff (it was the harshest ever assigned to a team or a coach). Yet others felt it was a joke and no more than a slap on the wrist. So the penalty phases for the two infractions were completely different.
 
BILLIEVE said:
Who was the Dallas QB coach that got suspended for substance tests when it was clear it was his medication for his illness/disease? He gets suspended. BB cheats and doesn't. But the league doesn't play favorites.
I outlined this before back when it was more newsworty, but part of the difference is the penalty for the what the Coyboys coach did is CLEARLY outlined in the CBA (basically spelled out as 4 games and then some for being a coach). And IIRC, there were a lot of questions as to whether he had any business using the medication.As for the Pats situation, there are no hard and fast rules outlined by the league as to how best to penalize NE for what they did, and that is where all the fuss has stemmed from. Some feel the penalty was stiff (it was the harshest ever assigned to a team or a coach). Yet others felt it was a joke and no more than a slap on the wrist. So the penalty phases for the two infractions were completely different.
Has the voting for a defensive leader headset taken place yet? IIRC last year it was close to being passed and missed by only a few votes, but I can't remember if it has been voted on yet and what the outcome was. I still think it makes a great deal of sense, but I doubt it will end all signals used. OL, LB, and DB coaches will still use signals even if the play is called into the Def. Captain regardless.
 
Sorry Roger. You had your chance to show you had integrity, and instead you insisted on protecting one team at the cost of the league. I hope bad things happen.

 
why do they have a bunch of rules they can't enforce, here are some new rules

defence gets to use radio to communicate with the huddle just like offence

you can video tape anything you want, just no monitors to view the video on the field

that should pretty much solve all their problems

 
Bump to update:

Rules Changes proposed by Competition Committee

The NFL's competition committee has crafted a proposal that will require each team's senior management executive to report violations by their own club or other teams......

.....Under the proposal, any violation discovered by any team employee is to be reported to the league office. Each year, the team's lead executive will sign an affidavit testifying that his club conformed to the league's rules and regulations.
That's it.
 
Opinion from PFT:

Both measures seem to be little more than window dressing. And for good reason. Since the owners have shown over the years a willingness to reject the recommendations of the Competition Committee, the worst thing that the Competition Committee could have done would have been to craft a stringent set of rules regarding cheating that the owners would have failed to adopt.

That would have been a dream come true for folks like Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who would have had a field day with the notion that the league’s rule-making body has recommended sweeping changes to the rules regarding cheating (and thus implying that the current rules are inadequate) only to have those rules rejected by the owners.

So if meangingful change is going to occur, it’s going to come from the owners themselves, without the involvement or recommendation of the collection of coaches and execs who don’t want to have their own careers undermined by alienating the 32 folks who control the industry.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top