Sal "Loser" Alosi

[Spider-Dan]

Hoodie, what do you have to say about the situation I outlined earlier with Sanchez and Mike Nolan?

The team sideline box is not some sort of lawless DMZ where anything goes.

[Brian Fein]

Good luck proving that they stood there with the intent of harming the player.

They're allowed to stand in the box.  They were standing in the box.  They are not allowed to impede the player.

What if their back was turned toward the play and the player ran right into them??  Its not their fault for not moving.  It makes no difference what direction they are facing.  I don't see anything in the rule you posted that requires them to move out of the way.  Its the player's job to go around them.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Hoodie, what do you have to say about the situation I outlined earlier with Sanchez and Mike Nolan?

The team sideline box is not some sort of lawless DMZ where anything goes.

Putting aside what Alosi actually did do.  I have no problem with "the wall"  Nolan was running where he is was not suppose to be running.  He had the power to avoid the wall.  So the wall being there to discourage him from going further past were he wasn't suppose to be wasn't really the problem.  However if a Jets player had pushed Nolan out of bounds and the wall did not try to avoid him, then that is a problem.  Them just standing there I don't have a problem with.   

[Spider-Dan]

Good luck proving that they stood there with the intent of harming the player.

They're allowed to stand in the box.  They were standing in the box.  They are not allowed to impede the player.

If they are repeatedly standing in the box, in the same formation, watching the gunner run into them without even attempting to move, then that does a pretty good job of proving their intent.  Particularly if they just happen to be there on, say, punts.

What if their back was turned toward the play and the player ran right into them??

What if Ray Lewis is trying to cover Gronkowski and he happens to collide with Wes Welker helmet-to-helmet when they both aren't looking?  I guess we can't possibly make any helmet-to-helmet rules, then!

If your back is turned toward the play and you aren't watching, that's probably a little different from a shoulder-to-shoulder phalanx of personnel standing with their toes on the borderline staring directly at a player (that's nowhere near the ball) while he's barreling toward them at full speed.

INTENT MATTERS.

[Spider-Dan]

Putting aside what Alosi actually did do.  I have no problem with "the wall"  Nolan was running where he is was not suppose to be running.  He had the power to avoid the wall.  So the wall being there to discourage him from going further past were he wasn't suppose to be wasn't really the problem.  However if a Jets player had pushed Nolan out of bounds and the wall did not try to avoid him, then that is a problem.  Them just standing there I don't have a problem with.

So if Sanchez voluntarily runs out of bounds, Sparano is 100% justified in bodychecking him the moment he crosses the plane of the sideline box?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

So if Sanchez voluntarily runs out of bounds, Sparano is 100% justified in bodychecking him the moment he crosses the plane of the sideline box?

No.  But Sparono is allowed to stand on the Dolphin's sideline at the white line at 1st down marker. What Alosi did was wrong.  The others were standing were they were allowed to be.  They did not make contact with the player. 

[Brian Fein]

Dude, I'm talking about guys just standing around.  Not body-checking, not kicking, punching, or helmet-to-helmet tackling.  Just standing.

No.  But Sparono is allowed to stand on the Dolphin's sideline at the white line at 1st down marker. What Alosi did was wrong.  The others were standing were they were allowed to be.  They did not make contact with the player. 

This is pretty much my point as well.

[Pappy13]

I think you are going too far with this.  The must stand behind the white line.  Purposefully standing on the whiteline  starting before the kick cause they know the Dolphins player like to run out of bounds is quite a bit different than purposefully getting in the way once the play is underway.   

No, it's not.  Not if their intent is to hinder a player.  There is a rule that a player who is blocked out of bounds must get back in bounds as quickly as possible and if they are standing there trying to keep that player from getting back onto the field of play, then they are interfering with the play.  You can't use that rule to your advantage by having players/coaches intentionally try to keep you out of bounds.  They can stand there if they want, but if a player is pushed out of bounds, he is obligated to get back in bounds as quickly as possible and they are obligated to allow the player to get back onto the field of play.  The player can't simply run down the sidelines out of bounds and you can't try to prevent him from running back onto the field of play either.  It's a 2 way street.

[Sunstroke]

I just love the term "phalanx" being used for coaches standing on the sideline...  Give me some extra gravy on them taters, please!

[Pappy13]

They're allowed to stand in the box.  They were standing in the box.  They are not allowed to impede the player.

The biggest problem with that logic in this particular example is that Alosi is actually the person who is supposed to be telling his players to "get back" when they could be in the way.  He was in fact the person designated to watch the gunner and let other players know they could be in the way and let them know they need to move.  So it's not simply a case of him not seeing the player, he was actually supposed to be watching for the gunner and moving people out of the way if need be.  It's clear in the video he had no intention of moving, nor getting anyone else out of the way.  The intent is crystal clear even if he didn't put his leg out.  He was trying to disrupt the play as were the rest of the players.  The only thing not known is whether or not they did it on their own or were instructed to do it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/news/story?id=5915776

"There was speculation that Alosi may have been instructed to form a human wall on the sideline, a show of force to deter the Dolphins' gunners. Early in the game, another gunner was penalized for running out of bounds by the Jets' bench.

A close examination of the TV replay shows Alosi, backup defensive tackle Marcus Dixon (inactive) and four others in Jets garb, side by side. Alosi, Dixon and an unidentified third person were almost in a wedge formation, their feet practically touching.

Curiously, none of them flinched as Carroll approached at full speed. Alosi leaned forward, extending his left knee as Carroll ran by. Carroll went flying and appeared to be hurt. He got up slowly, but returned to the game. Alosi is the Jets' "get-back" coach. In other words, it's his job to instruct the sideline personnel to stay a safe distance from the action.

Two coaches from teams outside the AFC East, the Jets' division, said such an alignment has been "coached" or "encouraged" by certain clubs. They did not specifically identify the Jets as a known culprit of such practice."

[Spider-Dan]

I also already quoted an article saying that the league is investigating whether "Alosi and the Jets' inactive players were instructed to station themselves on the extreme edges of the sideline to inhibit Carroll from using that area to cover a punt."  I am curious as to what Brian, Hoodie, et al think the league is investigating, exactly, if they believe that it's perfectly reasonable to intentionally try to impede players as long as they are out-of-bounds.

The rule is crystal clear: non-player personnel are required not to engage in unnecessary physical contact with players.  In any situation, a coach "blocking" a player headed for the sideline area (when he clearly sees him coming) instead of making a reasonable effort to get out of the way would be a violation of this rule.  But a formation of coaches intentionally positioning themselves so as to CREATE this situation?  What possible example could there be of a MORE blatant violation of this rule?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

^^^ sounds like they are more looking into if the rules need to change than if the Jets broke any rules.  Big difference. 

[Sunstroke]

^^^ Then I somewhat disagree with the sounds you're hearing...

Key being that "Sounds like" and "Is" =  Big difference

If I were dropping a dollar on a bizarre NFL investigation prop bet, I'd bet that the NFL is probably looking at all facets of this situation, from the rule itself and how it's worded to the intent of coaching staffs in manipulating that rule. If I've learned anything about Goodell since he took over, I'd bet the NFL's response to the situation will be lukewarm...and slightly off target.

[Brian Fein]

If they don't want people to stand there, then move the box.  Don't tell players "you can stand anywhere inside this line" and then point out instances where its not allowed.

If that's not what you want, move the line. 

Coaches are always going to push the envelope as far as they can to gain an advantage.  In the general case, ALL PLAYERS AND PERSONNEL can be standing anywhere they want inside the boundary.  If a player is running towards them, its their own prerogative to move or not.  Standing there is not against the rules, in general.  Again, I'm speaking IN GENERAL.  Clearly in this case, there was a breach, and the punishment has been dealt.

[Dolphin-UK]

I'm with Spider Dan on this one, as has been mentioned before the difference is intent.

Are the coaches/players allowed to stand there....yes.
Is the Gunner allowed to go out of bounds on a punt....yes, as long as he makes an effort to get back in bounds at the earliest oppurtunity.

The coaches/players are expected to get out of the way they don't have to that is one issue BUT....

The inactive players are allowed to stand there however, if they choose to do it only on punting downs and when the opposition gunner are being double teamed, then they are deliberately setting out to influence the ability fo a player on the field to their job, in so much as they are trying to confine the space with which the gunner can work in.

If those players disperse for normal plays then they are essentially using more than 11 players on a punt return team to block the gunners path. IMHO the league needs to clarify that, by either telling teams not to do it, by moving the box back from the sideline or to say that gunners cannot go out of bounds (i do find it odd that gunners can go out fo bounds to beat a block but the blockers aren't allowed to continue blocking out fo bounds)