NFL: Refs Banned From Using All Social Media; Press Can't Live Tweet
from the free-speech-ain't-so-free dept
While it doesn't go nearly as far as the ridiculous policies put in place recently by college's Southeastern Conference (SEC) regarding "tweeting" on gameday, Ben alerts us to the news that the NFL has instituted its own social media policy that applies to players, referees and the media. There had been lots of talk about how the NFL was working on such policies, and they seem problematic. They ban players from doing any tweeting or sending any kind of social media message from 90 minutes before the game starts until well after the post-game press conference ends. I'm not sure why it's so troubling that players might want to communicate with fans...Even odder is that the rules now prohibit NFL referees from using social media, ever. Apparently, some of this is in response to a ref who apologized online for a blown call in the week after it happened. In that case, the ref is an attorney during the week, and apologized via his work email. But that raises all sorts of questions. What if the ref's job during the week requires the use of social media? And, honestly, what's so wrong with letting refs communicate?
Finally, the new rules tell the credentialed media that they can't provide any sort of live "play-by-play" info via social media, though, I can't see how that's enforceable (other than kicking the reporter out of the stadium). Once again, this seems like part of the league's misguided belief that it can control how reporters report on a game. The first link above notes how ridiculous it is that someone sitting in the stands can easily live tweet a play-by-play, while the professional reporters cannot. The whole idea, of course, is that the NFL wants to "protect" its broadcasting contracts, that get sold for a ton. But the idea that a live tweet somehow replaces a TV broadcast is ridiculous. Personally, as someone who follows a bunch of sports reporters on Twitter who do tweet info during sporting events, I find it a useful reminder that I wish I had the time to watch a game...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadcast rights, football, journalism, referees, reporters, social media
Companies: nfl
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Frakin' frakers!
But no, it's a source of shame, and cause for punishment, in the NFL. Hello? We're not stupid, we see blown calls ALL THE DAMN TIME. At least Ed's wasn't a pattern of punishing one team (we see that too, no mistake.)
Getting really tired of the NFL, and the season hasn't even started.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Frakin' frakers!
http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Hochuli-Decapitates.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Frakin' frakers!
Well yeah. Like you needed another reason not to piss Ed off...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh oh...
That guy is huge. When he was walking near Urlacher this past Sunday, I was amazed at how close in size they are. Oh well, I'll just have to double up on the WMDs....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh oh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh oh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh oh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Uh oh...
That may be, but it a well known fact that when Chuck Norris does pushups, he's not actually pushing himself up.
He's pushing the world down...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh oh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Put your team and the opposing team in a large field and build a high wall round them.
The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not actually being able to see what's going on leads them to imagine that it's a lot more exciting than it actually is. A crowd that has just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life-affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the most dramatic event in sporting history."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It actually might. Ed is, as far as I can tell, considered an eminently fair referee. The fact that he owns up to what he considers, in retrospect, blown calls only reinforces that. I can't see how the NFL is thinking this gambit is a win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boycott Professional Sports
Give me a "R"!
Give me a "E"!
Give me a "E"!
Give me a "D"!
Give me a "Y"!
What is the NFL.... STUPID!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an Official...
As an official everything you say is scrutinized on the field and items on social networks could lend fuel to the fire. Think of innocuous statements such as "Can't believe I have to go to Oakland this week" and how people could construe that statement to mean the official has something against the Raiders and that he will make calls against them. Then you combine that statement with a blown call and you could see the NFL with a PR nightmare on it's hands not to mention a high chance of being sued (knowing it may not go far).
Now that being said, I think an outright ban on using social media is wrong. There are certain things that shouldn't be talked about (interaction with coaches, players, dislikes of certain areas or teams, stuff like that) but a lot of what can be said on a social network could be beneficial and certainly couldn't hurt the NFL. I update my facebook and twitter regularly with the games I am going to (i.e. "off to work XXX vs YYY 8th grade game) but I never make commentary about what happened in the game, with coaches, players or even other officials.
As for Hochuli's apology, the NFL should be applauding him for that. Due to their policies of keeping officials away from the press and fans, the officials are the most insulated members of the NFL. For him to come out and admit he was wrong adds a human face to the official and allows people to remember that the officials are human and maybe let people cut them a bit more slack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try and Stop the Fans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try and Stop the Fans
That sounds like a sustainable business model, sue you customers until you lose them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Try and Stop the Fans
Evidence Eliminator
This would prevent investigators from digging up any evidence out of your hard disk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is EXACTLY the kind of free speech that should be protected, for the purpose of having free speech is to explore and express what we believe to be true so that we can more effectively arrive at the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something worth striking over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something worth striking over
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Free speech = prohibiting the legislative branch from putting forth laws limiting reasonable free speech that is not directly endangering others.
NFL != The Legislative Branch.
Although it'd be kind of fun if it did.
"I, Brian Urlacher, the representative from Illinois do yield the floor to Senator Ocho Cinco..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Uh, no. The government needs to keep it's hands out of the affairs of private firms so long as those firms are not breaking the law. The anti-trust exemption of the NFL makes the waters a tad murkier, but not enough. Employers have the right to restrict activities when players are at work, for instance, and to restrict speech with regard to informaton about the inner workings of the company and/or speech detrimental to the company's public image.
The NFL can do this. Whether they SHOULD do it is another question entirely...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, what anti-trust exemption? I think you're thinking of MLB.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, yeah, you must be right. I must be....wrong? Can this be? Must I consider that my world view that in all my helmetiness I am always right?
....wait for it.....
Ooooooh wait, I guess I was talking about the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961. You know, the one that not only gave the NFL an antitrust exempt status, but also has been interpreted to give them certain powers, like determining coverage of games, broadcasting rights, and allowance of home teams to blackout games from television. You know, the very heart of the matters that have been discussed about the NFL on Techdirt over the past several days.
Phew. Here I thought I was in trouble when it turns out you were just incredibly, fantastically wrong.
(Pssst, hey there sports fan, here's a little reading material for you. If you were a football fan, you'd have remembered all that hoopla over the past two years about home towns not having their games on the NFL Ticket network, and certain members of Congress discussing it on your dime as the tax payer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying that the SBA covers Twitter? That's an interesting interpretation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Very interesting, and stupid actually, but it isn't MY interpretation, it's the NFL's. They've been pointing to the overturning of that one TV package to CBS as giving them carte blanche reign over realtime broadcasting rights of their product. THEY are including Twitter in this interpretation, not me.
None of which is the point. You asked "Um, what anti-trust exemption?" as if one did not exist, at which point in trounced your ignorance of the subject in what I will now be referring to as "being Helmeted" :)
You, my friend, have been Helmeted....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is it? That article sorta implies it, but are they actually claiming that, or just the standard "you work for us, do what we tell you" line? If the former, it would be stretching an already stretched interpretation.
"You, my friend, have been Helmeted...."
That just sounds... wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, this is exactly the kind of speech that should not be restricted. If I'm a consumer I want to know what activities a corporation does and so that I can avoid buying stuff from such corporation if it does something I deem unethical. I have every right to know the activities my money directly supports when I buy from a corporation and freedom of speech enforcement could help protect such rights. A corporation has no right to control its public image by restricting the free speech of employees or anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but you don't. Believe me, I wish you and I did, because with such laws I would have what I believe are some very interesting lists regarding who actually owns several large companies, who sits on their boards, what banks they borrow from and have reps sitting on their boards, etc. etc. etc. Unfortunately, corporations are allowed to hide that information in layer upon layer of bullshit.
"and freedom of speech enforcement could help protect such rights."
Again, that isn't true. Freedom of speech in the constitution only says that CONGRESS can't limit your speech. It has NOTHING to do with private corporations or individuals. I'm sorry, because your ideals sound good, but you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have every right to know the activities my money directly supports when I buy from a corporation/I SHOULD have every right to know the activities my money directly supports when I buy from a corporation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Since this isn't the government, it's not a free-speech issue, but an employment issue.
However, you could change this, if you wanted to: good luck getting a constitutional amendment saying that using social media is a fundamental right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And restricting our freedom of speech to criticize the corporation should be unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you want that extended to employers, lobby your congresspersons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can you say conspiracy..
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This does apply to fans
"Longstanding policies prohibiting play-by-play descriptions of NFL games in progress apply fully to Twitter and other social media platforms," the National Football League said in its statement. "Internet sites may not post detailed information that approximates play-by-play during a game."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This does apply to fans
We're not, it's just a silly statement. They may as well mandate that we all walk in slow motion to simulate being on the moon.
Hochuli, OTOH, they can really clamp down on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about fans..
Will they then sue or eject these fans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about fans..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What about fans..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are already very strict rules regarding injury reporting. This is in the same vein.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are already very strict rules regarding injury reporting. This is in the same vein."
Bollocks. Why would banning refs from using twitter (or whatever) have anything to do with gambling. Do you think a zebra is going to twitter "Pittsburgh is going down!?" They don't even know what games they're refereeing, until a day or two beforehand.
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concentrate on the Game
Banning the refs from ever using social media is more problematic, but is not a "free speech" restriction. If they don't like it, then they don't have to work for the NFL.
As for journalists, again, more problematic, but the NFL does have the right to put restrictions in place for credentialed journalists.
None of these seem especially "bad" moves by the NFL, as in moves that are going to "hurt" them with fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Concentrate on the Game
Shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Concentrate on the Game
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Had enough of this years ago
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hate to admit it, but there's something in that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]