TripGate Breaks Wide Open: Cimini of ESPN-NY Alleges It Came From The Top

[Kontradiction]

I have no idea what the punishment should be. The league has officials who get salaries for making that determination.

I do believe, however, that lying to league officials deserves a penalty. Do you think the league should give them a free pass for lying to their offiicials?

I wouldn't do it. Not right now, anyway. That would be a complete disaster to any sort of investigation on the matter that you could put together. As I said before, I'd take that picture evidence and use it to try to blow open an investigation. Only after accumulating the evidence (or after a thorough investigation in which you're not able to accumulate evidence or statements damning the Jets on the matter), would I throw in an extra fine to Ryan for lying to the league.

 

[shmessy]

I think you guys are going to be extremely frustrated. The announcement that the league is going to issue a "memo" seems to me to be an indication that the league believes clarification is necessary.

The league is going to issue a memo on sideline positioning.

The league doesn't have to issue a new memo about lying to offiicials.

Many here (not you) are focusing on the wrong area. I have stated several times now that the gauntlet deal is a minor issue. The cover-up and deception to league officials is the issue.

Your third paragraph is the kernel of the issue.

(BTW, I don't want our 33rd pick to turn into a 32nd - - we get both anyway. Anyhow, the 33rd pick is more valuable than the 32nd)

 

[Haley]

I submit to you again that there is plenty wrong with this wall. Please tell my why not because I really find it hard to follow the logic that this obviously unsportsmanlike act with intent to cause harm is not wrong.

 

[Joker]

The league is going to issue a memo on sideline positioning.

The league doesn't have to issue a new memo about lying to offiicials.

You are focusing on the wrong area. I have stated several times now that the gauntlet deal is a minor issue. The cover-up and deception to league officials is the issue.

the answer has already been given by Mike Westhoff... obviously that team up north is responsible.....there goes the Oakland pick:bricks:

 

[sieglo]

And thanks for bringing politics into the matter. How are those two different? Let me count the ways.

My only point was to provide another example of how lying to legimitate authority when scrutinized is often worse than the initial offense.

Here, the initial offense by the Jets was trivial -- putting the wrong personnel in an area they weren't permitted to be in.

Then, it broke open because of the independent misdeed of one of those people. Not the Jets fault.

Then the Jets tried to cover it up. No, there isn't direct evidence of that because so far the NFL investigation has been cursory. But any rational thinking person can see Rex Ryan watching the whole incident from the sideline. His denial of all knowledge lacks credibility to any reasonable person.

The coverup is why this is a big deal. I am thinking $250k and a third round pick big.

 

[shmessy]

I wouldn't do it. Not right now, anyway. That would be a complete disaster to any sort of investigation on the matter that you could put together. As I said before, I'd take that picture evidence and use it to try to blow open an investigation. Only after accumulating the evidence (or after a thorough investigation in which you're not able to accumulate evidence or statements damning the Jets on the matter), would I throw in an extra fine to Ryan for lying to the league.

Kontra, by no means am I saying that the penalty should be handed down right away without an investigation. Further I have no idea how much any possible penalty should be. I am not the poster who is throwing numbers around here.

I DO believe that the league has to jump in and investigate - - something they publicly said they would not do at the outset because the Jets told them it was all contained at the Alosi level.

The investigation as to why Ryan lied about his knowledge of the incident has to take place first and in a fair manner.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

This is not true. Only certain personnel are allowed in the area that the Jets had people lined up. And the people they had lined up were NOT those authorized personnel.

Be careful here people!

Remember that these are Practice Squad players lined up in an illegal spot.
If we push for a league investigation, no doubt ex-Jet Roger Goodell will find that former Patriot Shawn Crable, a.k.a. "The Crab" is the instigator. Aliosi and the Jets org will be given immunity to testify that yes the Patriots did this and that the Jets' PS players were instructed in the details by The Crab. The recidivist Patriots will be fined again, this time losing both first round picks and Belichick suspended forever from the NFL.

 

[jmt57]

The latest opinion from Mike Reiss:

Jets, Patriots & integrity of game - New England Patriots Blog - ESPN Boston

As noted by Vic Carucci in this 2008 piece on NFL.com, the league's official web site, commissioner Roger Goodell was making a big "integrity of the game" push that year.

That year, Goodell sent a memo to all NFL clubs that was detailed in this San Francisco Chronicle piece. The memo warned team owners and officials that making false claims against other clubs leaves them open to NFL-imposed sanctions:

"Any club or individual reporting a violation is expected to do so in good faith, to have a reasonable basis for believing a violation occurred, and to produce (or to identify) evidence to substantiate the claim. In the event I determine that a claim is made in bad faith, is frivolous or that the club or person making the complaint is unable or unwilling to produce evidence to support the charge, I will impose appropriate sanctions."

At this point, the NFL has not levied any "integrity of game" fines on the Jets.

 

[Section103]

The issue is quite simple and breaks down like this:

1 - 'The Wall' is perfectly legal. There is a large white line that is considered out of bounds. Players and coaches can not be on it during a play. The players were not on it. The gunner is allowed to go out of bounds, i.e. the big white line, and even beyond, but must make every effort to get back quickly. This assumes they are directed out by the coverage. If this wall is 'bad', then the rule needs to change and/or that thick white line needs to be thicker.

2 - The trip was wrong. No one on the sidelines is allowed to intentionally interfere with the play. If the player is allowed to be out of bounds during a play, then the fact that the player was that far out is irrelevant. He is live and is not to be interfered with INTENTIONALLY. Again, modify the out of bounds rule if the league does not want to police the intentions of any contact made by sideline personnel.


**WARNING - SLIGHTLY OFF-TOPIC RANT**
Now, let's pretend that this wall was in fact illegal and widely practiced. IF that's the case, then the crime is far worse than videotaping signals. This is directly influencing the play of the current game. It is not some vague notion that some play in some future game, maybe even years down the road, might be influenced by recognizing a signal that was once videotaped. Even in that case, player execution is key. You can have the right play called, know what's coming and still fail. Having a reasonable idea of what the play might be only improves your chances on that single play. It doesn't guarantee anything. Heck what if your analysis was wrong? Directly influencing the play with personnel other than the 11 players you have assigned to the field is far worse than using stale information to influence strategy on a couple plays in the future. But again, unless tripping people is regular practice (lol of course not), there was nothing done wrong here outside of Alosi's knee-jerk or jerk knee or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Haley]

1 - 'The Wall' is perfectly legal. There is a large white line that is considered out of bounds. Players and coaches can not be on it during a play. The players were not on it. The gunner is allowed to go out of bounds, i.e. the big white line, and even beyond, but must make every effort to get back quickly. This assumes they are directed out by the coverage. If this wall is 'bad', then the rule needs to change and/or that thick white line needs to be thicker.

There is such a thing is hedging outside the spirit of the rule. It would seem to me that this would apply here.

It is one thing to have people hanging out on the sideline that could potentially be in the way. It is another thing entirely when you have an organized, year-long effort at being in the way and refusing to move. While there might not be a typed up rule under section 3948248, part J, subsection XXVII, I would argue that building a wall of people on the sideline with the intent to block and even injure is outside a code of conduct that should exist among coaches in the NFL. If ANY other teams in the NFL are doing this, they shouldn't be. The fact remains that the jets DO participate in this and have admitted it publicly. IMO that does need to be dealt with.

 

[shmessy]

The issue is quite simple and breaks down like this:

1 - 'The Wall' is perfectly legal. There is a large white line that is considered out of bounds. Players and coaches can not be on it during a play. The players were not on it. The gunner is allowed to go out of bounds, i.e. the big white line, and even beyond, but must make every effort to get back quickly. This assumes they are directed out by the coverage. If this wall is 'bad', then the rule needs to change and/or that thick white line needs to be thicker.

2 - The trip was wrong. No one on the sidelines is allowed to intentionally interfere with the play. If the player is allowed to be out of bounds during a play, then the fact that the player was that far out is irrelevant. He is live and is not to be interfered with INTENTIONALLY. Again, modify the out of bounds rule if the league does not want to police the intentions of any contact made by sideline personnel.


**WARNING - SLIGHTLY OFF-TOPIC RANT**
Now, let's pretend that this wall was in fact illegal and widely practiced. IF that's the case, then the crime is far worse than videotaping signals. This is directly influencing the play of the current game. It is not some vague notion that some play in some future game, maybe even years down the road, might be influenced by recognizing a signal that was once videotaped. Even in that case, player execution is key. You can have the right play called, know what's coming and still fail. Having a reasonable idea of what the play might be only improves your chances on that single play. It doesn't guarantee anything. Heck what if your analysis was wrong? Directly influencing the play with personnel other than the 11 players you have assigned to the field is far worse than using stale information to influence strategy on a couple plays in the future. But again, unless tripping people is regular practice (lol of course not), there was nothing done wrong here outside of Alosi's knee-jerk or jerk knee or whatever you want to call it.

Section 103, you missed the issue by a mile (or several thousand sections )

How many times in this thread have I or someone else written that the gauntlet was not the issue?

There are two issues:

1) Minor Issue, Minor Potential Penalty: WHO is allowed to stand in what proscribed area - - you've seen the diagrams, I'm sure. Did Ryan know and give his permission for NON-ELIGIBLE personnel to be in an area where they are prohibited from standing (no matter HOW they behave). In your post, you call them "players". These were not "players" in that game. They were at least one strength and conditioning coach and several NON-ACTIVE players.

2) Major Issue, Major Potential Penalty: LYING to NFL OFFICIALS during the initial, cursory inquiry after the game.

You are addressing a strawman argument in your post. You're in good company however - - Mike Westhoff (in fingering the Patriots for allegedly having ACTIVE GAME PLAYERS in that area) makes the same confused mistake. That makes his interview even more ludicrous - - he accuses the Pats of doing something 100% legal (eligible players making a wall in the appropriate area), without understanding how it is DIFFERENT from having Sal Alosi and Practice Squaders (i.e. non-essential canon fodder) in the same area.

 

[fair catch fryar]

let me get this straight, its allright for us to get punished for doing something b/c we were using an incorrect location for it, but not for the jets for this? nope, i dont think so

all should b fair, and fair says an NFL punishment is required

I'm with you. At first, I could've cared less, but all this media attention has brought flashbacks to '07 and reminded me of all the witch-hunting that happened. All for a strategy everyone in the NFL knows was "common-practice", but wanted to crucify the Pats. Well you know what, "those who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones!" I hope they bring the house down on the Jets and make a pitiful example of them. **** the Jets!

 

[fair catch fryar]

Section 103, you missed the issue by a mile (or several thousand sections )




2) Major Issue, Major Potential Penalty: LYING to NFL OFFICIALS during the initial, cursory inquiry after the game.




DING DING DING DING DING

Winner, winner...chicken dinner! This is precisely why.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm with you. At first, I could've cared less, but all this media attention has brought flashbacks to '07 and reminded me of all the witch-hunting that happened. All for a strategy everyone in the NFL knows was "common-practice", but wanted to crucify the Pats. Well you know what, "those who live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones!" I hope they bring the house down on the Jets and make a pitiful example them. **** the Jets!

You do realize this is the Jets, and the Commish is a former Jet employee. Nothing will happen to the Jets. The Commish's office is probably studying film to see if the Pats did it, so they can fine us and take away Oakland's pick that we own. Hey, if the Jet's Special Team's coach said we did it, it must be true right ? The NFL will always try to find a way to f*ck the Pats any way they can. First the Broncos try to deflect blame on the Pats for their video issues, and now this. F*ck the Jets and F*ck the NFL.

 

[PlainOldEd]

I understand, and agree with your premise, but here's the problem with your position. The Jets (from Tannenbaum to Ryan to Westhoff) IMMEDIATELY after the game stated to the media (no big deal) and then to the league officials (BIG deal) that they didn't see the incident, and had no knowledge of it until told about it after the game.

The CBS video CLEARLY shows Ryan 5-7 feet to the left and BEHIND the LOS (line of sight) of the gauntlet. The video clearly shows that Ryan is focused on one thing and one thing ONLY - - Nolan Carroll. His eyes are directly on Carroll and his walks right over to him after the play and stands over him.

The issue at this point (though it could become later) is not whether it was ordered by Ryan, westhoff, etc. The issue is the clear lie that at least Ryan perpetrated when he told the league that he didn't see the incident or notice the gauntlet formation. THAT is the smoking gun. Everything else right now is just conjecture.

If Ryan stated to the league officials that he never saw the incident and had no knowledge of a concerted gauntlet being formed (RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS LINE OF SIGHT), then he abjectly lied to the league and its officials.

I'm sorry, Kontra, but that is a major problem for him right now.

I'm sure he'll say he saw Carroll fall, but assumed that he had tripped. He mean't he didn't see that he was tripped by a Jets employee.

 

[shmessy]

I'm sure he'll say he saw Carroll fall, but assumed that he had tripped. He mean't he didn't see that he was tripped by a Jets employee.

What about the part about not minding that 5 practice squaders (no offense, Ed) were lined up shoulder to shoulder impeding the HEAD COACH's line of sight vision?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

You want me on that wall... You need me on that wall

Sorry if it's been done... Posting on the phone at lunch

 

[DaBronxPats14]

* Jets *

Living In NY I Read NY Post Everyday And In Sports Page Section Writer Hondo In 2007 Season Put An Asterek Next To Patriots Name In Standings " Caught Cheating" Well His Choirboys Are Really Doin A Good Job Of Taking Over So-Called Villian Label. So I Wrote To Post & Hondo And Said Why Don't You Put An Asterek Next To Jets Name Titled " Caught Tripgating" Rest Of Season. I Love It When Haters Get Right Up Their ASS'terek!

 

[Metaphors]

2) Major Issue, Major Potential Penalty: LYING to NFL OFFICIALS during the initial, cursory inquiry after the game.

This is where people need to focus. All the other stuff is just a distraction. High-ups in the Jets administration are lying through their teeth. People always lie for a reason. That reason is what needs to be uncovered. I see only 2 viable answers (please add more if you have them):

1) The Jets GM, coach and staff are idiots. Lying to cover up a petty offense (or no offense at all). They would rather risk the credibility of the whole organization than admit involvement in a situation that would have gone away quickly and resulted in a hand-slap at worst.

2) The Jets coaching staff directed the "wall" to take down Carroll. He had a pick earlier in the game and is the Fins kickoff returner. The team was struggling and could have used a big return on that play (having a gunner go down would help that) and eliminating the Fins nickel/dime back would help Sanchez get on track.

I see no other reasonable answers. I would vote for #1 but the specter (pun intended) of #2 will haunt the Jets until they come clean.

 

[Section103]

Section 103, you missed the issue by a mile (or several thousand sections )

How many times in this thread have I or someone else written that the gauntlet was not the issue?

There are two issues:

1) Minor Issue, Minor Potential Penalty: WHO is allowed to stand in what proscribed area - - you've seen the diagrams, I'm sure. Did Ryan know and give his permission for NON-ELIGIBLE personnel to be in an area where they are prohibited from standing (no matter HOW they behave). In your post, you call them "players". These were not "players" in that game. They were at least one strength and conditioning coach and several NON-ACTIVE players.

2) Major Issue, Major Potential Penalty: LYING to NFL OFFICIALS during the initial, cursory inquiry after the game.

You are addressing a strawman argument in your post. You're in good company however - - Mike Westhoff (in fingering the Patriots for allegedly having ACTIVE GAME PLAYERS in that area) makes the same confused mistake. That makes his interview even more ludicrous - - he accuses the Pats of doing something 100% legal (eligible players making a wall in the appropriate area), without understanding how it is DIFFERENT from having Sal Alosi and Practice Squaders (i.e. non-essential canon fodder) in the same area.

There is a difference between 'missing the issue' and not addressing one aspect (lying to officials) of the whole thing. Perhaps my point was better served in a different thread that was not attached to Cimini's article. The lying and possible sanctions against the Jets for calling out the Pats publicly and without evidence are hearsay and part of the drama that comes with the conspiracy theories that abound in the coverage of the NFL. We all know that with or without evidence the NFL will act in a way that appears fair to the masses and covers their own ass and they will do so without regard to what is actually fair or relevant to the issue.

My overall point is the wall itself is not an issue and the ordering of the wall is not an issue based on the rules. 'Spirit' of the rule is a notion people use to make baseless arguments against an action they find unfair. If the rule allows it and you don't like it, change the rule. (The Colts do it all the time) The true transgression, the trip, was dealt with as part of existing rules. Now, I happen to agree that regardless of whether Alosi acted alone or not, the NFL should sanction the Jets in some manner for his actions (the trip). A fine would be sufficient as I don't think the trip is a pattern of behavior that warrants anything further.

Two other minor points, you mention 'non-eligible personnel' and make mention of my referring to these people as players.
1 - You will see that I refer to the sideline personnel as players and coaches initially and then omit the coaches from my second reference. At no point did I make a reference to active/inactive status. At other points I refer to them collectively as personnel. For consistency I concede that a generic 'personnel' would have been more clear, but in the context of my text I think it was obvious that I was referring to any team member on the sideline, including active/inactive players, coaches, doctors, interns, trainers etc. That was weak to include it in the discussion and did not serve a point.
2 - What are 'non-eligible personnel'? I have never heard this term. Eligible for what? They are on the sideline, what do they need to eligible for? What makes that area prohibited? They were off the white line. There are no separate zones or layers of eligibility beyond that white line that I know of. But I sincerely concede I may not know that. This is a genuine question. If I am wrong and the area was prohibited, then the issue is even more cut and dry. They should not stand there and they were standing there. That's a problem regardless of a trip. But as far as I know there is no such rule.