12/03/24
December 15, 2010
Zach Thomas: Jets Formed Wall Before Sideline Incident: Former Miami Dolphins linebacker Zach Thomas says the New York Jets formed a wall before assistant coach Sal Alosi tripped Dolphins gunner Nolan Carroll. "They had to be ordered to stand there because they're foot to foot," Thomas said Tuesday on Miami radio. "I'm telling you, the only thing [Alosi] did wrong was intentionally put that knee out there. ... He was ordered to stand there. No one is foot to foot on the sideline in the coaches' box."
Yeah, it has looked suspicious from the time it took place. Those guys were in more perfect formation than soldiers at reveille.
It's really something the league needs to clamp down on more. So many people who have no reason to be on the sidelines during the actual game. All it does it make things more difficult to monitor.
posted by dyams at 11:59 AM on December 15, 2010
Either it was planned or it's common for the Jets coaches and players to play "footsie" with each other.
Rex can take his pick on 'fessing up on which it is.
Taylor is not the only current NFL player making the allegation ... heard a Houston O lineman with a similar take on the incident yesterday.
posted by cixelsyd at 12:17 PM on December 15, 2010
If it is true that someone ordered the wall, the Jets should just admit it. They would not have been doing anything illegal if Alosi had not extended his knee. The refusal to 'fess up just lets the issue linger for a team that can't afford any more disarray.
posted by rcade at 12:46 PM on December 15, 2010
Alosi moved his knee just slightly without ever moving his feet. It seem obvious that the entire line of guys where there to not budge or give one inch of space more than they were required to by their position. Notice how not one guy moves when the Dolphin player is dangerously close to making contact.
Not only does it appear to be planned by the Jets but now that I think about it , it seems that the Jets were very quick to take action against Alosi and coincidentally fine him $25,000 the exact same total that the league has been handing out lately for player infractions. Maybe the Jets are guilty as hell and are using Alosi as a convenient fall guy while sending a subliminal message to the league. I mean if you are standing in a legal spot to stand how can you really interfere with play by moving a knee only two inches. I am not saying he did not do it intentionally, I am saying regardless of what he did intentionally with his body position the fact that he was even allowed to stand in a place where a slight movement without changing position can affect play means to me the place he is standing should be considered illegal.
posted by Atheist at 01:07 PM on December 15, 2010
Best of the comments on bostonsportsmedia.com:
Tom Cruise - Rex Ryan did you order a Code Red?!
Rexy - You're GD right I did!
posted by wfrazerjr at 01:44 PM on December 15, 2010
Now Alosi is taking the fall for setting up the formation as well. Suspended indefinitely.
posted by yerfatma at 02:16 PM on December 15, 2010
If that is true, he can hardly pretend that he had one moment of thoughtlessness that caused him to put his knee out there.
posted by bperk at 02:40 PM on December 15, 2010
If that is true
... it should be considered a planned act and both the coach and team deserve harsher penalties.
posted by cixelsyd at 03:29 PM on December 15, 2010
Jets special teams head: "It's no big deal. Lots of teams do it. But I had nothing to do with it. Oh yeah, the Patriots do it. And they're way worse."
[my interpretation, not his exact words - ed.]
posted by yerfatma at 04:10 PM on December 15, 2010
For 14 years Westhoff was Special Teams Coach for the Dolphins.
Maybe he misses us and was just trying to find out why we don't call any more.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 04:16 PM on December 15, 2010
You sure that ain't Gary Busey?
posted by wfrazerjr at 04:57 PM on December 15, 2010
Ok, you know, I didn't swallow the "everyone else does it" argument when it was my Patriots saying that about Spygate and I certainly don't swallow it when it comes from the Jets.
It doesn't matter what every else does - if you its against the rules and you do it and you get caught, well Nelson Muntz "ha ha" on you.
And as much as I love the Patriots, if they break this rule, too, well, they're shitty for breaking it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 08:12 PM on December 15, 2010
I don't think forming a wall should be illegal. As long as they don't actively interfere with a player, they are standing where the rules permit them to stand. Players need to stay in the field of play.
posted by rcade at 08:22 AM on December 16, 2010
All it's going to take is one player knocked out of the field of play into this wall who gets injured as a result, and this bullshit puffery wall-forming -- by teams who can't seem to figure out how to win a game ON the field without sneaky crap like this on the sidelines -- will come to an end.
Either that, or take someone like Alosi out on medical leave with a real solid hit. You stand that close to the field of play, you take the risk of serious injury as a result. Or start wearing pads while you stand there.
Those who resort to this sort of tactic clearly haven't mastered the art of playing the game well enough to win legitimately. Own up to your failure and work harder in the offseason and during practice so you don't have to figure out ways to get around your own incompetence on the field of play.
posted by evixir at 09:05 AM on December 16, 2010
After reading Westhoff's comments yesterday I went and pulled up a couple of punts by Patriot opponents and 10-15 yards down from the line of scrimmage there's a bunch of Patriot players. However it looks a lot like a collection of players standing around and not like the all-Ireland line-dancing team we saw holding hands on the Jets' sideline.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 09:58 AM on December 16, 2010
Those who resort to this sort of tactic clearly haven't mastered the art of playing the game well enough to win legitimately.
I'll just point out that players that run out of bounds and then back into the field of play to avoid blockers are actually breaking the rules and haven't "mastered the art of playing the game well enough to win legitimately."
posted by grum@work at 10:30 AM on December 16, 2010
Why don't we just install hockey boards around the field, like in arena football?
Honestly, we're actually going out of our way to practically protect the "rights" of a bunch of non-players? Coach or not, the strength and conditioning coach shouldn't be on the sideline, and neither should the practice squad players. There are markings on the field dictating where all personnel are supposed to be, and that is often ignored.
There are officials employed to deal with the issues of going out of bounds, and it's up to them, or the league, to enforce the rules, not a bunch of clowns who should be in the stands.
posted by dyams at 10:54 AM on December 16, 2010
I'll just point out that players that run out of bounds and then back into the field of play to avoid blockers are actually breaking the rules and haven't "mastered the art of playing the game well enough to win legitimately."
You know, that's an excellent point and I don't know why it's allowed. I didn't realize it was allowed, actually. That's bush league too. If you run out of bounds you shouldn't be eligible to return to the field of play until the play in question is over. Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.
posted by evixir at 11:03 AM on December 16, 2010
There are markings on the field dictating where all personnel are supposed to be, and that is often ignored.
The wall was within those lines.
posted by rcade at 11:09 AM on December 16, 2010
You know, that's an excellent point and I don't know why it's allowed.
The rationale is that gunners are routinely blocked out of bounds -- they don't choose to be there.
(now, whether they're using the fact that they're routinely blocked out of bounds to just run out of bounds without waiting to be blocked, and all that that implies, that's a different discussion)
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:09 AM on December 16, 2010
The wall was within those lines.
You keep making insinuations like this, but I think you're factually incorrect. See the thin white line BEHIND the wall of idiots? It's my understanding that all players are supposed to be behind that line. Only coaches (which a strength-and-conditioning coach is a stretch, especially during an in-game situation) are to be in the green area immediately past the thick sideline.
Even if we forget the bush-league and clearly-not-in-the-spirit-of-the-game nature of this, this coach and players (at the behest of the coach) are breaking a rule. What's worse, even if we forget about the knee extension, while they maintain they're doing it to force a gunner around them, they full well know that injury could easily come to everyone involved. If they want to be reckless with their own bodies, fine, but this has moved from "what a goofy spur-of-the-moment act by the coach, but the crime fit the punishment" to a realization of "holy shit, these guys are morons and are dangerous".
posted by littleLebowski at 11:50 AM on December 16, 2010
"You know, that's an excellent point and I don't know why it's allowed. I didn't realize it was allowed, actually."
It isn't allowed. Gunners running out of bounds under their own steam are flagged for Illegal Participation. Gunners who are blocked out of bounds and then don't return quickly enough to the field of play are flagged for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
As mentioned in the other thread, just two punts before the Carroll incident Miami's Reshad Jones is flagged for unsportsmanlike Conduct for sprinting down the white strip and not giving enough effort to returning to the field.
I am sure there are some Gunners who allow themselves to be blocked out of bounds because it widens the area in which they can escape their defenders, (Jones seemed very keen to get to the sideline on the play he was penalised for), but Carroll actually splits his double team inside, is shoved out going full speed and is angling back toward the field when Alosi decided to get involved.
For those with access, NFL Rewind has put up the "All-22" tape, (the camera angle coaches use because you can see every player), for the punt.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:04 PM on December 16, 2010
You know, that's an excellent point and I don't know why it's allowed. I didn't realize it was allowed, actually. That's bush league too. If you run out of bounds you shouldn't be eligible to return to the field of play until the play in question is over. Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. s.
Except, it is a 15-yard unsportsmanlike for a gunner to run down the sidelines out of bounds when they're unimpeded. The rule is there- it just gets rarely called. It is not up to those not of the field to enforce it.
It's about as allowed as a holding penalty- it's technically against the rules, but I surmise that unless you cheat, you're not playing to win.
edit: Ok, beat to it. I need to stop leaving my comments in preview mode forever.
posted by jmd82 at 12:59 PM on December 16, 2010
You keep making insinuations like this, but I think you're factually incorrect.
I'm not insinuating anything; I am saying it directly. But looking at it again, if the map here is correct, Alosi could be there with some players -- if they are "situation substitution players" -- but practice squadders don't meet that criteria and must be behind the line you mentioned.
As for the notion that it's dangerous for players to line up on the sideline, I think they're capable of handling that risk. Any NFL player knows what could happen to them standing on the sideline. It's not like that wall was at exceptional danger compared to any other play.
posted by rcade at 01:43 PM on December 16, 2010
You keep making insinuations like this, but I think you're factually incorrect. See the thin white line BEHIND the wall of idiots?
See the link I posted before. The diagram suggests the area immediately behind the thick white out-of-bounds line is for "Coaches and Situational Substitution Players Only". So the coach could be there and the wall could be there, it just couldn't be formed by players on IR. So you're both kind of wrong, but I can't see refs bothering about enforcing that restriction. You'd be throwing 100 flags a quarter.
posted by yerfatma at 01:44 PM on December 16, 2010
but I can't see refs bothering about enforcing that restriction. You'd be throwing 100 flags a quarter.
It would take only one or two before the offenders got the message.
posted by Howard_T at 03:03 PM on December 16, 2010
It's not like that wall was at exceptional danger compared to any other play.
I couldn't give two shits about the fools who chose to be part of the wall - the concern would be for the gunner or active players not expecting the sidelines to suddenly become a human obstacle course. Yeah, we see plays carry into the sidelines areas and even the benches, but that is a natural continuation of the play that is unavoidable ... this situation is wholly avoidable and again, is absolutely outside of any gamesmanship. And, you're repeated point is that noone was breaking any rules ... but THOSE guys ARE.
So, guys in track suits can be "situational substitutions"? And, I don't care who they are - head coach, last coach on the totem pole, active players, inactive players, my aunt ... I'm betting that the NFL doesn't allow someone to be in that area with the intent to interfere with the play of the game. And it seems like something very easy to regulate. I would imagine that teams would adjust right quick after a handful of 15-yard penalties over such an avoidable infraction. Heck, why not have the replay official or some other lackey, who's in the booth playing solitaire for a good chunk of the game, phone down to an on-field official , "hey you got a bunch of knuckleheads on the Home team hanging around at the sideline - may want to warn or flag 'em".
posted by littleLebowski at 03:04 PM on December 16, 2010
So, guys in track suits can be "situational substitutions"?
Obviously not.
I'm betting that the NFL doesn't allow someone to be in that area with the intent to interfere with the play of the game.
Wow, you're killing it today. That straw man never saw it coming. Me neither for that matter.
posted by yerfatma at 03:18 PM on December 16, 2010
I couldn't give two shits about the fools who chose to be part of the wall - the concern would be for the gunner or active players not expecting the sidelines to suddenly become a human obstacle course.
The "sidelines" aren't some narrow stripe on the field.
It's a wide line that the gunner knows he shouldn't be running towards/on/over.
Anyone standing behind that line (either right on it, or a step back) should not be worried about a player coming charging through there, unless that player already has the ball and is being pursued/tackled.
Considering the line judges, camera men, chain gang, and down indicator guys are also standing on the same sidelines, shouldn't the gunner be worried about them too?
posted by grum@work at 04:27 PM on December 16, 2010
I'm betting that the NFL doesn't allow someone to be in that area with the intent to interfere with the play of the game.
But if they are behind that line, they aren't interfering with the play of the game. If the gunner runs PAST that sideline and into people standing behind it, he is sure as f*ck not "in the game" any more.
If the coach doesn't stick out his knee, and instead the gunner just runs right into him, then the coach hasn't done anything wrong, and the gunner is to blame.
posted by grum@work at 04:28 PM on December 16, 2010
Hopefully from now on any player actually playing in the game will be prepared when near the sideline to come in and give a forearm or shoulder to these non-players. Since they're obviously part of the action, let them really earn it.
The map rcade linked to seems to describe it perfectly. These individuals were standing in a area they were not supposed to be.
posted by dyams at 04:49 PM on December 16, 2010
Some more on the wall.