Welcome to PatsFans.com

2 rule changes pass, 1 voted down (so far)

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by pats1, Mar 27, 2007.

  1. pats1

    pats1 Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    13,259
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

    http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/?p=1072

     
  2. zippo59

    zippo59 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,072
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    The 15 yard unless flagrant PI would have been a good rule.
     
  3. mgcolby

    mgcolby Woohoo, I'm a VIP!!! PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2005
    Messages:
    5,610
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +14 / 0 / -0

    Why would anyone in their right mind vote against instant replay?

    Oh, nevermind it was the Bengals and Cardinals...that explains a lot.
     
  4. Pat_Nasty

    Pat_Nasty Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Personally, I'm with BB on this one:

     
  5. zippo59

    zippo59 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,072
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I am just so sick of seeing 60 penalties being called because a DB brushes up against a WR. That's what makes it so controversial. Really, the refs don't screw up on PI anymore than they do on roughing the passer, holding, etc., its just that while those penalties are 10 or 15 yards, PIs go for 40 or 50 yards. The refs need to be held to a higher standard when that much is at stake.

    I think my biggest problem is that I think refs allow WRs a lot more contact than they do DBs. They forget that they each have the same right to the ball and it should not be viewed as a DB and WR but instead two WR's.
     
  6. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I think THAT the votes make sense...having another windown for ast coaches helps and really is NOT a big deal...needed..in fact. The D helmet radio is logistically a nightmare..and not really helpful...not all the trouble it is worth. Replay?? At least that passed..makes sense.. I also agree that the 16 yarder and a distinction will be hard...what would be flagrant and what not...ratther have PI reviewable...
     
  7. zippo59

    zippo59 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,072
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Actually I think having PI be reviewable would be my first choice, but really I just want to see something, anything done about it.
     
  8. zippo59

    zippo59 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    5,072
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    No wonder those two franchises have been so bad over the years with those two backwards thinkers running them.
     
  9. Pat_Nasty

    Pat_Nasty Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    It's amazing. It seems like everybody I've talked to brings up the exact same two rules -- roughing, offensive holding -- when trying to argue that PI isn't called particularly poorly.

    These are, by far, the three worst-called rules in the NFL. In all three situations, the problem comes from a disconnection between the way the rule is written and the way it is, or has been, called. The answer isn't to make things vaguer, but, rather, more specific.

    Refs know that if they call offensive holding by the book, there will be flags on every other play -- so they leave them in their pockets for the most part. The result? Incredible inconsistency in what is and isn't called offensive holding. Either the NFL needs to start having the refs call every hold until o-lines stop holding (like they did with defensive holding in '04) or they need to narrow the definition of offensive holding so that the refs are applying a real, explicit rule, not trying to satisfy a vague feeling of what has the "spirit" of a hold.

    When it comes to the PI rules, you've hit the nail on the head by saying the problem is that refs allow the receiver to get away with too much. This creates a real incentive for the receiver to initiate contact downfield when the DB is in tight coverage. If the NFL instated a rules emphasis wherein the refs started calling offensive PI more, and called "incidental contact" whenever the receiver is impeded through contact he initiated himself, I think you'd see a dramatic improvement, rather quickly.

    In other words, the NFL needs to give the refs more explicit instructions, not more discretion.
     
  10. SaCaCh

    SaCaCh Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,178
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -0

    #87 Jersey

    Bidwell voted against it because he didn't want to pay for new equipment...
     
  11. BradyManny

    BradyManny Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    10,018
    Likes Received:
    93
    Ratings:
    +320 / 4 / -1

    Co-sign. Bogus PI calls...and the resulting gimme TD...have helped end our season twice in a row...
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2007
  12. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Ahhhhh!!! Hit the nail on the head...MORE specific rules...Gee if officials were full time they could DEFINE what is OK what is NOT..and KNOW...and let the players KNOW what is legal what isn't...WHat the officials CAN do in the offseason...I agree...TOTALLY!!! But I really think the best for PI..besides specifics...is that it be reviewable.. BUT I totally agree some things ARE some things ARE NOT...simple..
     
  13. Pat_Nasty

    Pat_Nasty Third String But Playing on Special Teams

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Making PI calls 15 yards isn't going to solve the problem.

    In the case of the b.s. PI penalty assessed against Hobbs in the AFCG vs. the Colts, a 15-yard PI penalty would have put the ball "half the distance to the goal" to the 9 yard line. That's a net difference of 8 yards. Do you really think, given the shape our D was in, that we were going to keep the Colts out of the endzone?

    The problem isn't the PI calls are too damaging, it's that they're so often called when they shouldn't be. In fact, if you make PI a 15 yard penalty, it could even exacerbate the problem -- refs could become more likely to call b.s. PI penalties like the ones that hurt us in our last two playoff losses the way they happily dole out b.s. roughing calls.

    As BB himself said, the inconsistent calling is the real issue that should be addressed.
     
  14. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,933
    Likes Received:
    72
    Ratings:
    +217 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    The Bengals are afraid anytime they're on camera, it might end up in court
    as evidence against them.......
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>