Fine is possible for presence of bluetooth device on Ravens sideline

Mike Florio
Pro Football Talk
December 24, 2019

Twitter is a-flutter regarding an image broadcast by CBS of a Ravens employee wearing a bluetooth headset on the sideline on Sunday, while standing behind coach John Harbaugh.

It’s technically a violation of the rules for team personnel other than doctors and training staff to have such devices in the bench area. (It’s believed that the person wearing the headset is Ravens director of security Darren Sanders.) Earlier this year, for example, Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was fined $5,000 for wearing an Apple watch in the bench area during a game.

Of course, having it and using it are two different things. And it will be easy for the league to determine whether the person actually utilized the device while in the bench area, or whether he simply had it in his ear and forgot to remove it, for example. If the device was used, a major fine could be imposed.

If he wasn’t using it, it’s a non-issue. But it still could/should result in a fine, given the bright-line rule that the league has adopted regarding such devices.


https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20...eline/#comments

I wonder what it was used for and if there were any possible integrity of the game issues involved.

Even if not, The Ravens should expect a large fine from the NFL. Teams know (or should know) they are only to use electronic equipment from manufacturers who pay enormous sums of money to the NFL for the privilege of showing off said manufacturer's logos on TV.

I try not to be tinfoil hat guy, but you wonder if they could somehow have tapped into Freddie or Baker's communications.

As far as any league sanctions, I would guess they might be substantial, since this is the Ravens' 2nd violation of communication device rules in the last two years. Last year they had multiple players on the field with microphones in their helmets (only allowed to have one), and were fined $200K.

https://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/rav...ation-violation

It's a bluetooth device not a crayola decipher ring...

That's funny ... but it could be a means of relaying info from another source. Note the guy's proximity to Harbaugh. I didn't say it was likely, just conceivable.

I'm not sure I understand why this isn't allowed to start with. So they have a communication pathway from the sidelines, they've had a communication pathway from the sidelines for years. They have phones and headsets, wired vs bluetooth doesn't really matter, at least to me.

I don't know either, unless the NFL has the ability to monitor typical communications from either team, while the Bluetooth would be beyond their ability to monitor.

I think the Browns should start taking advantage and start cheating by using blue tooth devices or , taping sidelines of other teams for research videos,
and deflate game balls and anything else.

What is the league going to do, take a draft pick away?
Would that be any worse than using #6 overall on Justin Gilbert,

to not have had a #6 overall.

Depends on the the fine vs #6's salary.

Must be an ex Belichick employee.

Just to follow up, I found the following info, which indicates a strong NFL presence - including monitoring - with regards to communications, on an NFL Operations site:

On the field, the NFL has contingency plans to provide fail-safe operations of the Coach-to-Coach (C2C) and Coach-to-Player (C2P) communications systems. The frequency coordinators play an important role by monitoring the environment and identifying any interference issues that could threaten the successful operation of these systems.

https://operations.nfl.com/the-game/game-day-behind-the-scenes/nfl-event-frequency-coordinators/

Maybe there was a undisclosed security threat and the head of security needed to be in communication.

I don't know why he needed to be at field level...maybe to tell the refs to pull the players from the field.

I doubt it was some effort to cheat.

Didn't Ray Farmer get suspended 4 games for texting during a game to the sideline? Shouldn't the same-ish rules apply to this?

How much range does bluetooth actually have?

You would think

Those Patriots are everywhere! Cheating again is the question. Just kidding. But not in Foxboro.

How do you find this stuff out?

The latest version (Bluetooth 5) has a range up to 800ft. Earlier versions' ranges are a lot less.

https://www.macworld.com/article/3262664/bluetooth-5-faq-everything-you-need-to-know.html

I don't know?

In Farmers case it was from a complaint from his own coach about Farmer sending messages to the sideline. Farmer was clearly in violation.

If this guy was there to provide some advantage, then yes. If he is the head of security, I think it important to his job to be in communication with his staff. No?

Thanks. I thought BT was strictly for short range device pairing.

Not that we could have won, but this was totally looked disregarded by the entire media!!!