NEW RULE is lame

NSPF said:

Holy **** guys, so I was thinking that this was a bull**** call that they never should have made, but it turns it's worse than that. A lot worse. Belichick was right, and that was only against the rules for players that started not on the line of scrimmage, but THE NFL CHANGED THE RULEBOOK AFTER THE GAME AND MODIFIED THEIR PAST ARTICLES IN ORDER TO COVER THEIR ASSES.

How the rule read prior to the game:


How it reads now:


THIS IS REALLY NOT OKAY.

Click to expand...

The first article you linked links to this one:

NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League

dated 9/3/13 that states the rule correctly. There is an editor's note:

"Editor's note: The rule proposal was amended before it was passed to ban pushing of any "Team B" teammate at the line of scrimmage."

But it was a great theory while it lasted.

SB39 said:

Hey guess what? THAT'S NOT THE RULE BOOK.

Here is a quote from way back in March by Jeff Fisher explaining the rule as it is.

NFL Rule Changes to be Discussed at Owners Meetings: The Sunday Five - Dawgs By Nature

"We’re going to add restrictions to the PAT rush and Field Goal rush teams from an alignment standpoint. Specifically, we’re going to require that no more than six defensive players, team ‘B’ players, be permitted to align on either side of the snapper. They will no longer permit defense rush players, team ‘B’ players, to push their teammates through the gaps and overload."

Please note the part in bold says nothing about what level the "pusher" is on.

Geez, when did Raiders fans take over this message board??!

Click to expand...

Someone just posted a link from Blandino, the director of officials, saying the pusher has to come from the second level. He said this in September.

I really don't think Belichick is an idiot.

Never forget Spygate, how what the referees and league said after the fact was different from the rulebook.

I was @ the game and was taken aback by this ruling.

That said, what pissed me off was that our O could have put the game away in the end of the first half itself by having at least a field goal. The debalce of the 3rd q just allowed the Jets to come back into a game that they had no business winning.

But hey, lame ruling or not, it is a legit ruling and irrespective of how it is strange that the refs blew it only for this game on OT, I put the loss purely on our O not being unable to put up more points on the board. We have lost our two captains on the D and to top it our top CB is missing. So, if there is a time for the O to step up (especially given the beautiful TD return by our D that put us up by 14), this was it.

That said, I am not going to be too harsh on our team. AFter all, this is the first game after Mayo, and Gronk's return. Plus, I am glad that the Fins lost and given the way we lost, T F Brady better be so angry so that he can feast on the Fins next week with one arm tied.

GO PATs!

Heh.... that's all I'm going to say.

» NFL Changed the Push Rule AFTER They Called It Against the Patriots Barstool Sports: Boston

crypto said:

my favorite part of all this is how boger said that "umpire's flag went up almost instantaneously as he observed the action," as if to allay late-flag suspicions or whatever.

because the umpire totally anticipated a 56-yard success story.

Click to expand...

If it's good, the penalty is declined.

nycdan said:

The first article you linked links to this one:

NFL.com - Official Site of the National Football League

dated 9/3/13 that states the rule correctly. There is an editor's note:

"Editor's note: The rule proposal was amended before it was passed to ban pushing of any "Team B" teammate at the line of scrimmage."

But it was a great theory while it lasted.

Click to expand...

I've been trying to explain that for several pages now, and also included quotes from months ago describing the rule as it eventually got passed.

Some people just need to feel the world is out to get them.

Anyone see this?

Do any of your tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists realize that if there was some sort of conspiracy to rig the game, then it would have been infinitely easier and infinitely less conspicuous to simply not call offensive pass interference on the Jets touchdown? A call which, might I add, was pretty borderline at best and could easily not have been called.

SB39 said:

Do any of your tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists realize that if there was some sort of conspiracy to rig the game, then it would have been infinitely easier and infinitely less conspicuous to simply not call offensive pass interference on the Jets touchdown? A call which, might I add, was pretty borderline at best and could easily not have been called.

Click to expand...

LOL. Are you BLIND? That was a blatant pass interference call and you need to get checked for mental issues and eyesight issues if you think otherwise.

Deus Irae said:

Line stunts are legal, so I don't think you're anywhere close to accurate here.

And enough with the 'outplayed' stuff. They played a 27-27 tie, including each QB giving up a pick-6, right up until the officials gave the game to the Jets with that call.

Click to expand...

Well unfortunately the refs did not see it as a line stunt, I was watching it on TV and not on the field, also I do not have the training of an NFL ref so as much as I would like to clearly say it was a bad call it would not be logical for me to make that assertion. For the record the post I was replying to was that the new rule was lame, it was not whether or not the Patriots violated the rule or not, my response was that many rules in life are lame, but that doesn’t change the repercussions of breaking them.

As far as us being outplayed we were, that was clear in the fact the Jets had the ball for almost 23 more minutes, gained nearly a hundred more yards, completed 52% of their 3rd downs to our 8% and they won the game; if that is not being outplayed what is it?

PATRlOT said:

Anyone see this?

Click to expand...

From the mouth of Boger

“Any push. It could be with the body, not necessarily with the hand, but with the body into his teammate, into the formation. It’s any type of pushing action,” Boger said.

Click to expand...

PATRlOT said:

LOL. Are you BLIND? That was a blatant pass interference call and you need to get checked for mental issues and eyesight issues if you think otherwise.

Click to expand...

It was the type of pushoff we see WRs get away with all the time, with an little added embellishment by the Patriots defensive back. If the ref kept his flag in his pocket, it would not have received any attention or any complaints (outside the incessant whiners on this board).

SB39 said:

It was the type of pushoff we see WRs get away with all the time, with an little added embellishment by the Patriots defensive back. If the ref kept his flag in his pocket, it would not have received any attention or any complaints (outside the incessant whiners on this board).

Click to expand...

Embellishment? Are you serious? He had an interception. Why would he purposely flop when he's going for an INT?

Hard to believe you actually wrote that

Brady6 said:

if that is not being outplayed what is it?

Click to expand...

27 to 27 at the end of regulation says otherwise.

upstater1 said:

Never forget Spygate, how what the referees and league said after the fact was different from the rulebook.

Click to expand...

So go buy a hardcopy of the 2013 rulebook and prove to us that this "player not on the line of scrimmage" clause you claim the NFL changed after this game was really in the rulebook all along.

The NFL's got so many little nuances in their rule book. It's almost crazy to think about. They can just pull the most unconventional rule during the course of the game...only in the NFL.

upstater1 said:

Embellishment? Are you serious? He had an interception. Why would he purposely flop when he's going for an INT?

Hard to believe you actually wrote that

Click to expand...

We must be talking about different plays because the one I'm talking about was accurately described by Deirdorf as a little bit of an acting job.

Hey, I'm not saying it was a bad call, I think it was the right call. I'm just saying that that play would have been verrrrrrrrrrrrrry easy for the ref not to throw a flag on if there was some sort of conspiracy against the Patriots - which there wasn't, despite a couple local idiots in here thinking there was.

SB39 said:

We must be talking about different plays because the one I'm talking about was accurately described by Deirdorf as a little bit of an acting job.

Hey, I'm not saying it was a bad call, I think it was the right call. I just saying that that play would have been verrrrrrrrrrrrrry easy for the ref not to throw a flag on if there was some sort of conspiracy against the Patriots - which there wasn't, despite a couple local idiots in here thinking there was.

Click to expand...

Dierdorf? That's a leave-your-brain-at-the-door moment, when you agree with him. It kind of describes many of your posts in this thread too.

There were qa lot of calls all game. I mean, do you agree with the Gronk pick penalty--that everyone is making fun of, including Mariucci and haters like Eric Allen? Heck, Dobson was interfered with on the back shoulder throw.

I can believe anyone could even possibly say that McCourty embellished that. He had position. Why would he embellish? Answer that. Bizarre comment from you.

rlcarr said:

So go buy a hardcopy of the 2013 rulebook and prove to us that this "player not on the line of scrimmage" clause you claim the NFL changed after this game was really in the rulebook all along.

Click to expand...

Again, you think Belichick must be an idiot. I don't. I think he was told what the director of referees is on record as saying this September 2013.

And you still haven't explained why the refs are calling this a n unsportsmanlike penalty. Rulebook doesn't say that.