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

By: mrbigass

mrbigass — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:53:39 +0000

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

By: thatswhatimsayin

thatswhatimsayin — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:16:29 +0000

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

By: stampnhawk

stampnhawk — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:04:03 +0000

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.

By: georgebrett

georgebrett — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:14:17 +0000

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

By: thetwilightsown

thetwilightsown — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:04:19 +0000

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?

By: beedubyatoo

beedubyatoo — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:30:19 +0000

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.

By: greg2geez

greg2geez — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:17:38 +0000

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.

By: hscorpio

hscorpio — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 23:02:58 +0000

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.

By: keeponhating

keeponhating — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:32:24 +0000

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

By: bleed4philly

bleed4philly — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:22:46 +0000

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

By: thraiderskin

thraiderskin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:12:22 +0000

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.

By: thankheavenfornumberseven

thankheavenfornumberseven — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:11:42 +0000

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

By: donttazemebro

donttazemebro — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:11:39 +0000

the Raiders play by their own rules baby!!!

By: tdk24

tdk24 — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:46:09 +0000

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

By: jimmysee

jimmysee — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:26:51 +0000

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.

Darn!

By: Tarkus

Tarkus — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:25:49 +0000

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.

By: bearsstillsuck

bearsstillsuck — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:22:25 +0000

What would the punishment be for tampering?

By: jedicurt

jedicurt — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:20:57 +0000

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.