Skip to content

Tampering rules apparently should have prevented Raiders’ interview of Winston Moss

On Sunday, ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported that the Raiders interviewed Packers assistant head coach/inside linebackers coach Winston Moss the day before Green Bay’s division-round loss to the Giants.

If accurate, the interview conflicts with the plain terms of the league’s Anti-Tampering Policy.  From page 8 of the document, “For clubs that have byes in the Wild Card weekend, interviews of its coaches must be conducted prior to the conclusion of Wild Card games.”

The presence of the word “must” indicates that there’s no discretion or exceptions.  Since the Packers had a bye, any interview of any of its assistant coaches could have occurred no later than the Sunday, January 8.  According to Schefter, however, the Moss interview occurred six days later.

And for good reason, given that, as of January 8, the Raiders still had a head coach.

So how did the Raiders get around the Anti-Tampering Policy?  “The scheduling structure for interviews is intended to minimize the conflicts for the employer club while still providing a meaningful interview opportunity for the candidate,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT via email on Sunday.  “The rules impose a structure but don’t operate as a straitjacket.”

In other words, the league believes that teams like the Packers can choose to do a favor for a team like the Raiders (whose new G.M. had been employed by the Packers), notwithstanding rules that seem to prevent the Packers from allowing any team to interview any of its assistants after the conclusion of the wild-card round.  That’s fine, but if the league is going to allow teams to do things that the rules seem to prohibit, the league should revise the rule to remove words that, if applied as written, would indeed operate as a straitjacket.

Permalink 18 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Green Bay Packers, Home, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill
18 Responses to “Tampering rules apparently should have prevented Raiders’ interview of Winston Moss”
  1. jedicurt says: Jan 23, 2012 4:20 PM

    or perhaps they didn’t actually have an interview…. seeing as Winston Moss on that monday after the alleged interview said that he had not been contacted by the Raiders yet, and had not interviewed.

  2. bearsstillsuck says: Jan 23, 2012 4:22 PM

    What would the punishment be for tampering?

  3. Tarkus says: Jan 23, 2012 4:25 PM

    As long as the current team is on board with it, I don’t see the problem. “Tampering” implies something underhanded. But if the Packers gave permission, then they obviously didn’t mind.

  4. jimmysee says: Jan 23, 2012 4:26 PM

    I’m shocked, shocked to discover tampering going on in the NFL!

    The Packers should get the Raiders first round draft pick as compensation for this “tamper.”

    Oh — wait — the Raiders don’t have one.


  5. tdk24 says: Jan 23, 2012 4:46 PM

    Lots of on-field rules need to be fixed before that.

  6. donttazemebro says: Jan 23, 2012 5:11 PM

    the Raiders play by their own rules baby!!!

  7. thankheavenfornumberseven says: Jan 23, 2012 5:11 PM

    Why would they want Moss anyway? Wasn’t he involved in the worst defense in NFL history?

  8. thraiderskin says: Jan 23, 2012 5:12 PM

    They only need to rewrite the rules if you are going to cry about it. By definition, this is not tampering, for that implies some obfuscation from one club to another, that did not happen here.

  9. bleed4philly says: Jan 23, 2012 5:22 PM

    What is the NFL gonna do? Penalize them by taking their first round pick? Oops

  10. keeponhating says: Jan 23, 2012 5:32 PM

    Seriously when are people going to quit listening to Adam Schefter? ESPECIALLY when it concerns the Raiders.

  11. hscorpio says: Jan 23, 2012 6:02 PM

    Well, that’s clear as mud.

    Maybe the league needs a complaint for tampering to apply. But if their intention with the use of the imperative “must” was to provide cover for teams that didn’t want to allow those interviews but didn’t want to be seen as bad employers, they ought to have a friendly chat with Mark Murphy about not undermining that cover in the future.

    It’s not a big deal. It’s not like I’d lay the egg the Packers laid at Moss’s feet even if the interview was the Saturday before the game. But just because there isn’t a problem in this instance doesn’t mean the league shouldn’t clear up the mud.

  12. greg2geez says: Jan 23, 2012 6:17 PM

    This really shouldn’t be so hard for a lawyer to understand. There’s a difference between league rules within the franchise and law.
    But even if league rules equated law the Raiders are protected from culpability by the Packers consent.
    In other words there are laws against rape, but not against consensual sex. The Packers don’t feel they are injured by allowing McKenzie to interview Moss, whenever, so there is no violation and no blog story.
    If McKenzie interviewed Moss without Packers consent and they pressed the claim, you’d have a story.
    Sometimes where there’s smoke there’s no fire, just a lawyer playing with matches.

  13. beedubyatoo says: Jan 23, 2012 7:30 PM

    The NFL rules are so stupid, I don’t know how anyone can understand them, much less comply with them.

    Or, understand Adam Schefter, for that matter.

  14. thetwilightsown says: Jan 23, 2012 8:04 PM

    Oh, and while we’re discussing rules that should actually be discussed: What is the definition of the penalty called “Holding” – and why are the New England Patriots the only team never called for it when the game is still in question?

  15. georgebrett says: Jan 23, 2012 8:14 PM

    Well, since Moss himself said there was no interview then Adam Scheffler should go away.

  16. stampnhawk says: Jan 23, 2012 10:04 PM

    Wouldn’t be an NFL offseason without the Raiders bending some league guidelines. Wouldn’t be surprised if that was explicitly written in Al’s Will to carry on the tradition.

  17. thatswhatimsayin says: Jan 23, 2012 10:16 PM

    Tampering is grandfathered in in Greenbay. Just like The Lambeau leap, publicly owned football team, not overturning obvious fumbles with the benefit of super slow mo. etc etc etc

  18. mrbigass says: Jan 24, 2012 8:53 AM

    Tamponing is not a rule violation. But tampon on tampon crime will not be tolerated…….or allowed to be posted.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!