To wit:
sports medic
Lincoln Kennedy was talking about it on Fox Sports Radio last night and as a former player he said that the procedure is for the player to ask the trainer to call or send a text. The trainers have the contact numbers of the players wives in case there is an emergency. The league doesn't want players taking/making calls during the game because of broadcast rights (players doing in game interviews with non-NFL partners) or worse, point fixing. The NFL tends takes those things seriously.
[Mr. Shin’s ESPN Handle]
I realize what the procedure states. The problem with the NFL, and especially the current Goodell regime, is the persistent refusal to apply a nuanced enforcement of its rules. A situation in which the player was merely assuring his concerned wife about his safety should not warrant a $10,000 fine. Few rules are clearly black and white (a guy stepping out of bounce, a made field goal, for instance) and a silly rule like this should have been reviewed and fine revoked once the NFL gathered the facts.
sports medic
The rule isn't silly. If the players don't make calls from the field then the commissioner doesn't have to spend time investigating what each call is about. Having the trainer call let's the player's wife know he is OK. When I was in Iraq, we didn't call family members when they got shot or hurt by IED's. There was a notification system for family members and we let it work. The family members didn't get their panties in a wad about it.
[MSEH]
My point is that while the letter of the rule states "thou shalt not use a cell phone on the sidelines", the spirit of the rule is to prevent cheating and other activities that you've mentioned. For an extraordinary circumstance like this, the NFL has plenty of manpower to make two phone calls: "Hi Troy, what was the call about?" followed by "Sir, he was just telling his wife he's okay"
As for your war analogy, battles in Iraq aren't broadcast live on national television. The family members would surely have, as you described, gotten their panties in a wad had they watched the soldiers get shot or hurt by IEDs.
Goodell's predictable knee-jerk reaction has already been widely criticized by several other folks. I am more curious about the reaction of Mr. sports medic and his ilk. Forget sports medic’s thinly veiled attempt to play military experience as the moral trump card in a mostly unrelated context. Why would someone that presumably has no personal connection with the NFL or its Draconian commissioner throw a blanket support to a literal enforcement of a bureaucratic code over a most petty offense? How does a rule that seeks to address a risk that is both monopolistic (lest Jesus weep that a player breaks broadcast exclusivity embargo) and paranoid (only the dimmest of fools would risk their livelihood and engage in such direct, public communication with gamblers) not be interpreted with even the faintest shade of gray? And at the risk of practicing amateur psychoanalysis, does military experience often lead to fervent obedience to authority, even one that exerts no real influence to or hold domain over the average fan? I am at once confused, disillusioned and, most of all, curious.
