Knee-jerk reaction by the NFL

Nearly a million bucks in fines and a first-round draft pick for stealing signs in the NFL?

Stealing signs is such an integral part of baseball that, well, that's why they have signs in the first place. Trying to get an edge in NASCAR is so prevalent that cheating's considered standard equipment.

But in an effort to overprotect the NFL's image, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell might have overreacted by lowering the boom on New England and coach Bill Belichick for filming opposing coaches recently.

Goodell's paranoia is predictable, perhaps, considering the damage done to Major League Baseball by steroid abuse and the recent gambling scandal involving an NBA referee.

His monetary message is meant as a stern warning that cheating will not be tolerated in pro football. He clearly thinks the way to get the attention of overpaid owners and coaches is to hit them in the wallet.

But if it's that serious, why wasn't somebody suspended? Or fired?

The only commodity of value in the super-competitive world of professional sports these days is playing time. If money is the penalty, then the risk might still be worth the reward.

Reach Ken Burger at kburger@postandcourier.com.

---

Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.

---

Comments

This article has  0 comment(s)