Romeo may cost Chiefs some draft picks (OR NOT)

[DaWolf]

INDIANAPOLIS -- Romeo Crennel could get fined and the Chiefs stripped of a draft choice for comments their head coach made at the NFL scouting combine.

Crennel may have run afoul of the league’s policy on tampering with his comments on two quarterbacks who play for other teams, Peyton Manning of Indianapolis and Chad Henne of Miami. During a news conference, Crennel was asked about possible Chiefs interest in both players.

On Manning, who is under contract with the Colts but soon could be released, Crennel said, “I’m not supposed to talk about anyone else’s players. He’s still a player with Indianapolis. But with a talent like that, I would be crazy not to consider it if he were available. I’ll leave it at that.”

Henne, a potential unrestricted free agent, played last season for new Chiefs offensive coordinator Brian Daboll. On Henne, Crennel said, “Because of his relationship with Daboll, I think that would be a consideration. To say right now that would be the case, I’m not ready to do that.”

The NFL’s policy on tampering covers public statements made by team officials. It reads in part:

“Any public or private statement of interest, qualified or unqualified, in another club’s player to that player’s agent or representative, or to a member of the news media, is a violation of this Anti-Tampering Policy. (Example of a prohibited comment: “He’s an excellent player, and we’d very much like to have him if he were available, but another club holds his rights.”)”

The Chiefs last year won a tampering claim against the Detroit Lions involving former safety Jarrad Page. They swapped draft picks with the Lions in the fifth round of last year’s draft, allowing them to move up 14 spots.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/02/26...#storylink=cpy


EDIT: NFL spokesperson says it isn't considered tampering (thanks for the find BigRock)
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...75988/34988765

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

The main difference I see is both the Gunther quote and the NFL tampering example include the individual stating they want the player. "I would like to be there to catch a lot of them" and "we'd very much like to have him if he were available" indicate wanting the player and signing him if available.

Crennel's quote didn't go that far. He said "I would be crazy not to consider it, if he were available" which is different than "I would like to have him, if he were available."

That makes some sense.

I certainly hope it works out in the Chiefs' favor but the arbitrary way the NFL applies these rules is ridiculously maddening.

[Rausch]

That's not tampering.

Complimenting a woman isn't the same as saying you want dirty seggs in the rain.

[htismaqe]

ESPN Radio is still reporting this as one of its main headlines during the Sportscenter breaks. Totally crazy that Twitter has made ESPN obsolete when it comes to breaking news.

[KurtCobain]

Originally Posted by Rausch

That's not tampering.

Complimenting a woman isn't the same as saying you want dirty seggs in the rain.

Why are you even acknowledging the bitch if you don't want dirty seggs in the rain?

[Chiefnj2]

Here is the big difference between the Lions and Chiefs tampering:

"The tampering charges stem from comments Lions defensive coordinator Gunther Cunningham made to the Detroit Free Press about unnamed Chiefs players still under contract. The Lions were also deemed to have made "impermissible contact" with Chiefs safety Jarrad Page or his agent."

It's the 2nd sentence that is key. "Impermissible contact" with Page or his agent. It was more than Gunther's comment.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Here is the big difference between the Lions and Chiefs tampering:

"The tampering charges stem from comments Lions defensive coordinator Gunther Cunningham made to the Detroit Free Press about unnamed Chiefs players still under contract. The Lions were also deemed to have made "impermissible contact" with Chiefs safety Jarrad Page or his agent."

It's the 2nd sentence that is key. "Impermissible contact" with Page or his agent. It was more than Gunther's comment.

Interesting. Thanks for posting this, Mr. Chiefnj2. I had never before heard of the "impermissible contact" part ... only the statement Gunther made regarding his interest in the Chiefs' defensive players.

I don't know if I feel good or bad about it, though. On the plus side, I'm glad there's no double standard. On the not-so-plus side, I still think that Romeo should defer any comments regarding his interest in contracted players during this period ... have there not been reports that the Chiefs have been in conversations with Manning's agent? I thought I saw that somewhere on the Planet.

FAX

[Simplicity]

Originally Posted by Satanic Goat

Did we ever lose draft picks because of "loose cannon" Haley?

I thought Romeo was supposed to be a "smart, safe hire?"

No, but we lost ****ing games because the idiot.

[Coogs]

Originally Posted by RUSH

No unless I missed a quote from someone from Dallas confirming their interest.

No one from the cowboys has publicly said that they want Brandon Carr. Those are just reports that they are interested.

I know what you are saying, but for some publication (PFW) to be reporting this, someone within the orginazition must have relayed some info to a reporter (again from PFW). Only difference I really see here is this was not on camera/radio.

[DaWolf]

Originally Posted by philfree

What about Miami? What Romeo said about Henne was more tampering then what he said about Manning IMO.

Let's just hope it goes away.

Pioli and Ireland are both Parcells guys. Would be surprised if anything happened on that front...

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

Here is the big difference between the Lions and Chiefs tampering:

"The tampering charges stem from comments Lions defensive coordinator Gunther Cunningham made to the Detroit Free Press about unnamed Chiefs players still under contract. The Lions were also deemed to have made "impermissible contact" with Chiefs safety Jarrad Page or his agent."

It's the 2nd sentence that is key. "Impermissible contact" with Page or his agent. It was more than Gunther's comment.

Right. The Lions weren't charged with tampering because of Gunther's comment alone.

[FAX]

So ... what is "impermissible contact", gentlemen?

Again, there are reports (in a thread right here on the Planet) that the Chiefs and Manning's agent have had discussions. I'm just curious about where they draw the line. If the player's agent rings you on the phone, are you supposed to hang up on the guy and immediately report the call?

I guess they could establish some kind of double standard for Manning, though. It wouldn't be the first time the league did that for him.

FAX

[Mr. Laz]

Colts not inclined to file tampering charges against Chiefs

Posted by Mike Florio on February 27, 2012, 3:31 PM EST

Getty Images
Chiefs coach Romeo Crennel committed an apparent violation of the tampering rules by telling the media on Friday that he “would be crazy not to consider [Peyton Manning] if he’s available.”

Given that the tampering rules prohibit at page 3 “[a]ny public or private statement of interest, qualified or unqualified, in another club’s player to that player’s agent or representative, or to a member of the news media,” and that the NFL’s anti-tampering policy provides as an example a very similar remark (“He’s an excellent player, and we’d very much like to have him if he were available, but another club holds his rights.”), the Colts could make a tampering claim, if the Colts choose to make a tampering claim.

Bob Glauber of Newsday reported on Monday via Twitter that the Colts are “not inclined” to pursue tampering charges against the Chiefs. As Glauber points out, the league can pursue the matter on its own, if the league so chooses. (As we pointed out in an earlier item, that’s precisely what the NFL did after Albert Haynesworth signed as a free agent with the Redskins.)

The league won’t comment, and its precedent of investigation and enforcement in past situations sheds no light on whether action will be taken.

[Mr. Laz]

sounds like Crennel did screw up and better just keep his mouth shut

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Laz

Colts not inclined to file tampering charges against Chiefs

Posted by Mike Florio on February 27, 2012, 3:31 PM EST

Getty Images
Chiefs coach Romeo Crennel committed an apparent violation of the tampering rules by telling the media on Friday that he “would be crazy not to consider [Peyton Manning] if he’s available.”

Given that the tampering rules prohibit at page 3 “[a]ny public or private statement of interest, qualified or unqualified, in another club’s player to that player’s agent or representative, or to a member of the news media,” and that the NFL’s anti-tampering policy provides as an example a very similar remark (“He’s an excellent player, and we’d very much like to have him if he were available, but another club holds his rights.”), the Colts could make a tampering claim, if the Colts choose to make a tampering claim.

Bob Glauber of Newsday reported on Monday via Twitter that the Colts are “not inclined” to pursue tampering charges against the Chiefs. As Glauber points out, the league can pursue the matter on its own, if the league so chooses. (As we pointed out in an earlier item, that’s precisely what the NFL did after Albert Haynesworth signed as a free agent with the Redskins.)

The league won’t comment, and its precedent of investigation and enforcement in past situations sheds no light on whether action will be taken.

Good.

But there's still a chance the NFL could do something and we still haven't heard anything from the Dolphins, right?

I tend to agree with Petro - the NFL makes these coaches and GMs available to the media at the scouting combine. If they don't want these kinds of things to happen, don't make them available. As it is, if they get asked a question, they should be able to answer.

They've put guys like Romeo in a no-win situation - if he doesn't answer or says "no comment" he's being an asshole to the media. If he does answer, he's tampering.

[ChiefRocka]

Only RAC didn't say we'd like to have him if available...he said we'd be crazy not to consider him if available"

RAC may have saved face with his opening statement acknowledging the tampering rules. Believe you me Pioli and RAC discussed and rehearsed what was to be said.