JLC vs. Cerrato takes a new twist?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I know nothing about the situation other than what I have read in this thread. Clearly there is a dislike between LaCanfora and the FO and it runs in both directions. Based on your description of events, though, isn't calling the NFL office to ask a question reporting? It actually strikes me as kind of an interesting question. Given the unprecedented nature of having an NFL executive do a radio show, could conversations he has on the air become tampering and how much latitude does he really have to discuss issues that a normal radio host could obviously cover with ease. Seems like a legitimate question to me. Because the way you put it, he was not calling to tell the NFL office there was tampering, he was asking whether they considered it tampering. Reporters do ask questions.

Could it have been a harmless question? Sure, but I doubt it. It sounds more like "tattling."

JLC was highly critical of VC's appearance on the show and I would bet money that JLC said to himself, "It would be great if VC's appearance on the show resulting in tampering penalties. I could then say, 'See how stupid this whole idea, and VC, are?'" IMO, JLC was once again making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Could it have been a harmless question? Sure, but I doubt it. It sounds more like "tattling."

JLC was highly critical of VC's appearance on the show and I would bet money that JLC said to himself, "It would be great if VC's appearance on the show resulting in tampering penalties. I could then say, 'See how stupid this whole idea, and VC, are?'" IMO, JLC was once again making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If I'm correct they are talking about VC's new show called "IN THe Red Zone" which is on Mon. & Fri. for two hours. I also heard someone on one station talking about this issue and how easy the tampering rule could become an issue when talking about players from other teams.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Could it have been a harmless question? Sure, but I doubt it. It sounds more like "tattling."

JLC was highly critical of VC's appearance on the show and I would bet money that JLC said to himself, "It would be great if VC's appearance on the show resulting in tampering penalties. I could then say, 'See how stupid this whole idea, and VC, are?'" IMO, JLC was once again making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I do not care for the word 'tattling', but I agree that he was likely scrutinizing the VC show to a greater degree given the relationship. But I think it is an interesting question nonetheless. What are some possible implications of an NFL executive discussing NFL matters for four hours a week? It is a legitimate question for a reporter to ask. I think someone should ask the question. I also think that JLC has placed himself in a position where he can be attacked for asking what is a legitimate question. Carrying on sophmoric personal feuds in a public blog does not help his legitimacy as a reporter. I do agree with that.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I do not care for the word 'tattling', but I agree that he was likely scrutinizing the VC show to a greater degree given the relationship. But I think it is an interesting question nonetheless. What are some possible implications of an NFL executive discussing NFL matters for four hours a week? It is a legitimate question for a reporter to ask. I think someone should ask the question. I also think that JLC has placed himself in a position where he can be attacked for asking what is a legitimate question. Carrying on sophmoric personal feuds in a public blog does not help his legitimacy as a reporter. I do agree with that.

If the question had been asked of the NFL in such a fashion - a generic, non-specific "what are the boundaries" type of inquiry - then I would have no problem with it (An example could even be used analogizing it to coaching shows - how much can a coach, on a local radio show, say about player controversies?) But apparently, the question was pointed and accusatory. As others have said, the manner in which the "investigation" was done appears to be a way to create a story for JLC rather than to determine how VC's may or may not be affected by the NFL's tampering rules.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

If the question had been asked of the NFL in such a fashion - a generic, non-specific "what are the boundaries" type of inquiry - then I would have no problem with it (An example could even be used analogizing it to coaching shows - how much can a coach, on a local radio show, say about player controversies?) But apparently, the question was pointed and accusatory. As others have said, the manner in which the "investigation" was done appears to be a way to create a story for JLC rather than to determine how VC's may or may not be affected by the NFL's tampering rules.

Precisely.