Patriot Compliance

[Mr. Scot]

From PFT: Injury Report Shenanigans Raise Eyebrows

We suspect that the Patriots, their fans, and possibly the league office would explain away the decision not to disclose running back Laurence Maroney’s broken shoulder in the Week Five injury reports on the basis that he fully participated in practice the entire week, and played in the game.

The league applied a similar interpretation to the Steelers’ decision not to disclose in the Super Bowl week report that quarterback Ben Roethlisberger had a lingering rib/back problem that required an X-ray several days before the game.

But the fact remains that Maroney had a broken bone in his shoulder. At a bare minimum, we think he should have been disclosed as fully participating in practice, with the word “shoulder” in parentheses after his name. And since the term “probable” means there’s a virtual certainty that the player will be available for normal duty, a broken bone in the shoulder would seem to reduce a player’s potential availability at least to that level.

Indeed, the fact that quarterback Tom Brady routinely was listed by the Patriots as “probable” with a shoulder that surely wasn’t worse than broken illustrates, from a common-sense standpoint, the fact that Maroney’s injury should have been disclosed.

The fact that Maroney apparently was told to “ix-nay on the oulder-shay” suggests that the team was taking affirmative steps to keep the opponents from knowing that Maroney’s shoulder was in a fragile state.

Even if the Patriots have a semi-plausible excuse for hiding Maroney’s injury, we’re told that their decision to dance on the line of propriety is raising eyebrows in league circles.

Here’s why. A league source tells us that every team was required to submit earlier this year a certification signed by the owner, the G.M., and the head coach that there were no known violations of any competitive rules during the 2008 season.

Among the rules included within the certification, we’re told, are the injury-reporting requirements.

For many teams, the process known in some circles as the “Patriot Compliance” (since it arises from 2007’s Spygate scandal) required hours of additional work, since many of the owners, General Managers, and head coaches wanted to obtain signed certifications from all key subordinate personnel before making the assertion that no rules were violated.

And so the mere possibility that the team whose actions have forced the other 31 teams to engage in this new certification process potentially violated the injury-reporting rules has prompted a strong negative reaction from at least one franchise — and it could make for some interesting discussion at the upcoming ownership meetings in Ft. Lauderdale.

We've discussed the Pats skirting of injury report rules here before.

[JakeFlake]

anything to gain an edge.

[Fireball77]

I don't understand the beef. He fully participates in practice and plays in the game and they want the fact he had a broken bone disclosed? Why? The whole point of it is to take the gamblers having inside knowledge of who will play or not due to injury out of the game. Had he NOT participated in practice or the game after being listed as "probable" or something like that then there would be an issue. If you argue that they should get in trouble for Maroney practicing in full and playing with an injury, you are also arguing for the Panthers to get in trouble for not disclosing the fact that their QB was doing the same thing for years. Again, I agree wholeheartedly with the Panthers for NOT disclosing it to the press or on any report. I hate injury reports though because I think they don't protect PLAYERS which is what I consider the utmost important thing to do. As far as I know, the specific nature of an injury doesn't have to be disclosed, only the general area it is in anyway. Teams who get specific do not have to. IIRC it was BR who disclosed all that on his own about his ribs.

[Fireball77]

I don't understand the beef. He fully participates in practice and plays in the game and they want the fact he had a broken bone disclosed? Why? The whole point of it is to take the gamblers having inside knowledge of who will play or not due to injury out of the game. Had he NOT participated in practice or the game after being listed as "probable", or something like that then there would be an issue. If you argue that they should get in trouble for Maroney practicing in full and playing with an injury, you are also arguing for the Panthers to get in trouble for not disclosing the fact that their QB was doing the same thing for years. Again, I agree wholeheartedly with the Panthers for NOT disclosing it to the press or on any report. I hate injury reports though because I think they don't protect PLAYERS which is what I consider the utmost important thing to do. As far as I know, the specific nature of an injury (i.e. missed practice, with BROKEN BONE in shoulder) doesn't have to be disclosed, only the general area it is in anyway (limited participation in practice, "shoulder"). Teams who get specific do not have to. IIRC it was BR who disclosed all that on his own about his ribs. I am sorry for this non-paragraphed reply. For some reason this post will not allow me to edit that to correct it.

[Mr. Scot]

I had previously thought it was just about the gambling aspect, but I read somewhere else that, as cutthroat as it sounds, it also can have an effect on gameplanning.

Bottom line though: Regardless of reasoning, non-compliance with league rules is generally going to bring about an issue with the league office.

[Fireball77]

Sure it can affect gameplanning (meaning letting your players target the guy's injured parts I assume you are implying, among other things), hence why I am in favor of protecting players by not having to disclose it at all. I have no problem with NON COMPLIANCE being an issue, I have an issue with hypocrisy. Scrutinize everyone and be fair. Now, of course the league office hasn't done anything about this, it isn't they who have been hypocritical . It's the media (ie Clayton). Florio himself isn't the issue since he has brought it up about Favre's injury not being disclosed, the Fins not having anyone on their report all year, etc. I still can't make paragraphs on here. I think I am going to have to assume it's my problem and try to figure out what about my browser is making this happen.

[Kurb]

Cheaters Cheaters Cheaters Cheaters Cheaters

[CharlotteBeer.com]

The fact that Maroney apparently was told to “ix-nay on the oulder-shay” suggests that the team was taking affirmative steps to keep the opponents from knowing that Maroney’s shoulder was in a fragile state.

Go figure that the Patriots would speak in pig Latin.

[Mr. Scot]

Another perspective from former player Ross Tucker (found in PFT).

Players pissed over injury report ruses

The latest disclosure in this regard came from Patriots running back Laurence Maroney, who admitted that he played in a game last year with a broken shoulder, even though he wasn’t on the injury report for the game in question.

Yes, he played. But, no, he was far from 100 percent.

Since Maroney was told not to say anything about the injury, he was stuck with the perception that he was soft.

And, recently, he snapped.

Also, Chargers cornerback Antonio Cromarties had to keep quiet about a hip injury that he suffered in Week One last year – and that hampered him all season.

“I remember the play it happened, in the very first game, and I knew about it all year long,” Cromartie’s agent, Gary Wichard, told Tucker, “but it is taboo for anyone outside the organization to discuss it, which really can serve to put that player on an island.”

Tucker, a former NFL player, says that players are becoming increasingly frustrated by the manner in which some teams approach the issue of hiding injuries.

“Players like Maroney would prefer the fans and media knew what they were going through injury-wise so that evaluations could be made with all of the information available,” Tucker writes. “To the detriment of many players, however, some coaches are adamant about the information not getting out and thus they are only going to provide the league with the minimum required information, if that.”

Tucker's full article can be found here: SI.com

[Skew]

I hear what you are saying scotty, but it's kinda hard to care when the league and the player's union doesn't care.

[Fireball77]

Look, if the players care what the fans and media think, that's certainly their prerogative. However, if they think the fans'/media's evaluations of their play mean jack squat to the coaches who are the ones privy to all the info and making the decisions, they are just being silly.

[mantal]

Wow, as much as I love you, and I do, I can't believe how big of a Patriots apologist you are? It's not a big deal, just an interesting observation...

[Fireball77]

I'm not being an apologist from what I understand the definition to be. An apologist tailors their opinion to one team/person, etc regardless of what they do. IE the media being Favre apologists but not extending that same level of excuse making to other players. I am saying that for all players & all teams, I feel that way. I don't care what they do with that report, whether they follow it or not because I hate that report. The public nature of an injury report is a bad thing for players IMO. I don't like players who want to whine publicly about injuries to try to make themselves look better to fans. I have said above that I have no issue with bringing up non compliance ) since it is a rule, but scrutinize everyone and be fair. I don't think their case or the Chargers is one of non compliance however. I thought the report was to indicate who did not practice due to injury and subsequently their game participation projection/status due to that. If a player practices and plays, how is that non compliance at all? I am not getting the where you are coming from with the apologist comment, Mint, sorry.

[Mr. Scot]

Look, if the players care what the fans and media think, that's certainly their prerogative. However, if they think the fans'/media's evaluations of their play mean jack squat to the coaches who are the ones privy to all the info and making the decisions, they are just being silly.

Can't agree there.

A perception of being "soft" could have an effect on a player's future (free agency and such). It can't be expected that other coaches and GMs will just know that injury reports were fudged.