Ravens lose OTAs after NFL finds practice violations

CLEVELAND, OH - DECEMBER 17, 2017: Wide receiver Breshad Perriman
CLEVELAND, OH - DECEMBER 17, 2017: Wide receiver Breshad Perriman /

Will the Baltimore Ravens ever learn from their transgressions? Once again, they have violated NFL rules and will lose OTAs.

The Baltimore Ravens has a long and dubious history of violating NFL practice rules.

While, on the surface, it may not be as sexy of a scandal as, say, the New England Patriots constantly flouting NFL law, the Ravens, nevertheless, has exerted the premise that it doesn’t have to abide by the league’s rules when it comes to OTAs.

Once again, the NFL has found that the team put their players in pads for practice, which, under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, is explicitly prohibited during OTAs. The Ravens were practicing pass coverage contact, which ran afoul of the CBA.

The NFL stripped the Ravens out of their remaining OTA days, in which Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome responded that the team is “vigilant” about practice under the league’s CBA. Check out the full statement below:

As mentioned earlier, this isn’t the Ravens first foray into practice violations under the CBA.

Back in 2010, the NFL had to strip Baltimore of their OTA days because they found that the club’s “intensity and tempo of drills” were too much for an OTA drill. Also, the league found that the players spent more then four hours at the Ravens’ facility, which is a no-no under the CBA.

Next: Eli Manning will bounce back in 2018

Most thought that the Ravens would have learned their lesson after getting caught violating practice rules, but six years later, they were caught, again, violating OTA practice rules. This time, the team ran drills during rookie minicamp with pads on, which is not allowed during OTAs under the CBA. With the mishandling of the Ray Rice incident and “DeflateGate” fresh in their minds, the league came down hard on Baltimore, again canceling the team’s OTAs and fining them $343,057.

Will the Ravens ever learn? Apparently, the answer is no.