Bye week thoughts...

[makewayhomer]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

Fully agree with you here - I don't know why this isn't mentioned more often. Not to mention that if you get beat badly on a deep pass, you're generally not in position to tackle the receiver, either before or after he catches the ball.

the solution is "shades of PI", just as there are with facemask.

you can't just make it a 15 yarder, b/c that gives tremendous power to the defense. you WILL see WR's gets mauled when they have clearly beaten their guy. just b/c something happens in college doesn't mean that the same will hold true in the NFL. I mean, the option play can work fine in college.

think of the Moss play bomb in Miami with 2 guys on him. if the worst PI call is 15 yards, the defender doesn't really have much to lose by being super aggresive and bumping Moss while going for the ball. if he gets called now the Pats gets the ball at the 1, which is worth nearly a TD. if he gets called under college rules, the Pats just get the ball 15 yards further down the field. you don't think that the best athletes in the world, playing under the best coaches, will figure out optimal strategy?

as I said, you need flavors of PI. a blatant PI where you tackle a guy should be spot of the foul. incidental illegal contact should be 15.

I know you already have 2 flavors, but I guess you need 3.

the current penalty is too harsh.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

the solution is "shades of PI", just as there are with facemask.

you can't just make it a 15 yarder, b/c that gives tremendous power to the defense. you WILL see WR's gets mauled when they have clearly beaten their guy. just b/c something happens in college doesn't mean that the same will hold true in the NFL. I mean, the option play can work fine in college.

think of the Moss play bomb in Miami with 2 guys on him. if the worst PI call is 15 yards, the defender doesn't really have much to lose by being super aggresive and bumping Moss while going for the ball. if he gets called now the Pats gets the ball at the 1, which is worth nearly a TD. if he gets called under college rules, the Pats just get the ball 15 yards further down the field. you don't think that the best athletes in the world, playing under the best coaches, will figure out optimal strategy?

as I said, you need flavors of PI. a blatant PI where you tackle a guy should be spot of the foul. incidental illegal contact should be 15.

I know you already have 2 flavors, but I guess you need 3.

the current penalty is too harsh.

There's an easy solution: don't commit pass interference.

Of course, that solution requires the NFL to actually start calling pass interference with consistency, instead of having it vary so much from crew to crew.

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

There's an easy solution: don't commit pass interference.

Of course, that solution requires the NFL to actually start calling pass interference with consistency, instead of having it vary so much from crew to crew.

even within games it's called inconsistently.

defenders will/should always try to get away with the most they can - it's in their best interest to. See Pats/Rams 2001, Pats/Colts 2004. it's common fiction around here to say that Polian "changed the rules" but the letter of the rule has not changed since then. but BB noticed that optimal strategy was to instruct defenders to violate the rule, b/c refs weren't calling it. it's just good coaching.

just like Randy Moss has basically mastered the art of pushing off - he almost always does a little, but not often to be called usually.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

even within games it's called inconsistently.

defenders will/should always try to get away with the most they can - it's in their best interest to. See Pats/Rams 2001, Pats/Colts 2004. it's common fiction around here to say that Polian "changed the rules" but the letter of the rule has not changed since then. but BB noticed that optimal strategy was to instruct defenders to violate the rule, b/c refs weren't calling it. it's just good coaching.

just like Randy Moss has basically mastered the art of pushing off - he almost always does a little, but not often to be called usually.

Polian DID change the rules. Those who deny that are just using semantics.

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

Polian DID change the rules. Those who deny that are just using semantics.

no, the rule book stayed 100% the same. the enforcement changed, back to what the original intent was.

"In the games I saw, things went the way we hoped they'd go," said Houston Texans General Manager Charley Casserly, a member of the competition committee. "The things we saw on tape were things that, under the rules, should have been called. All we said was, 'Hey, let's go back and enforce the rules the way they're supposed to be enforced,' and I think that's what happened. I thought the officials did an excellent job of enforcement."

all that had "changed" over the years was that refs had stopped calling some forms of PI. so the enforcement reigned everybody in. just like the strike zone in baseball, the umps had gradually made the strike zone smaller and smaller, just by evolution.

 

[FrontSeven]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

O'm sorry at this point you can not compare Chad Jackson with Stallworth.

Stallworth has produced... Jackson has yet to.

DS breaks tackles....CJ hasn't

True, but we don't see CJ in practice, and have the full compliment of data about him.

Even though the coaches do, and if it's not all great data, they may also decide to take a risk on him. Some things are a risk.

I wouldn't predict that, but the dollars do indicate that they easily could take that risk.

We won't be losing 100% of what Stallworth can do if that happens. We'll lose 100% minus whatever percent CJ can contribute. In the overall scheme this looks to be worth the risk, rather than to risk losing Moss.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

no, the rule book stayed 100% the same. the enforcement changed, back to what the original intent was.

"In the games I saw, things went the way we hoped they'd go," said Houston Texans General Manager Charley Casserly, a member of the competition committee. "The things we saw on tape were things that, under the rules, should have been called. All we said was, 'Hey, let's go back and enforce the rules the way they're supposed to be enforced,' and I think that's what happened. I thought the officials did an excellent job of enforcement."

all that had "changed" over the years was that refs had stopped calling some forms of PI. so the enforcement reigned everybody in. just like the strike zone in baseball, the umps had gradually made the strike zone smaller and smaller, just by evolution.

No, the rule was changed. You can use semantics all you want. A was legal, then A was not. Your argument is, essentially, that what was called on the field was not the rule. That's clearly not the case. What was called on the field was the rule as applied. That was changed. The rule, as applied, was changed by a bunch of clowns who couldn't handle the fact that their sissy receivers couldn't handle contact.




And, for the record, the strike zone was changed too.

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

No, the rule was changed. You can use semantics all you want. A was legal, then A was not. Your argument is, essentially, that what was called on the field was not the rule. That's clearly not the case. What was called on the field was the rule as applied. That was changed. The rule, as applied, was changed by a bunch of clowns who couldn't handle the fact that their sissy receivers couldn't handle contact.




And, for the record, the strike zone was changed too.

show me the rule that was changed, and I'll agree with you. NFL rules change all the time.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

show me the rule that was changed, and I'll agree with you. NFL rules change all the time.

Hence their declaring a "point of emphasis". Now, are you finished with this nonsense, or are you going to keep pretending that a change of enforcement is not a change in the law as applied?

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

or are you going to keep pretending that a change of enforcement is not a change in the law as applied?

I never pretended this. the enforcement changed, of course. but the rule stayed exactly the same.

look, to you maybe this is semantics - but don't ever try telling this to a judge or to a lawyer.

if you want to say "the enforcement of the rule changed", then I agree with you. if you want to say "Polian changed the rule", well, you're 100% wrong, and you should probably be more careful with how you choose to write and speak.

there is no sense arguing it anymore, b/c the facts are crystal clear, and they say I'm right.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

I never pretended this. the enforcement changed, of course. but the rule stayed exactly the same.

look, to you maybe this is semantics - but don't ever try telling this to a judge or to a lawyer.

if you want to say "the enforcement of the rule changed", then I agree with you. if you want to say "Polian changed the rule", well, you're 100% wrong, and you should probably be more careful with how you choose to write and speak.

there is no sense arguing it anymore, b/c the facts are crystal clear, and they say I'm right.

I am a lawyer, slick. And, you are wrong.

 

[Oswlek]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

In the last 2 minutes of the first half and end of the game, the clock will stop after the offense makes a first down in the field of play, and won't start again until the sticks are set. Too often the offense is penalized for doing what its supposed to do...make first downs. This is especially true when the offense makes a big play at the end of a game. For example 30 seconds left, the offense is on its own 25. They complete a 40 yd pass to the opponents 35 and time runs out before they can snap another play.

b. The ground CAN cause a fumble. This will eliminate hundreds of replays. It will also make leaping in the air more of risk, and that would cut down on injuries. I have never understood this rule. It is the ball carrier's responsibility to maintain control until the whistle blows. We already require a receiver to maintain control until the whistle blows, why not RB's/QBs

c. Just having the ball breaking the plane will NO LONGER constitute a TD. The ball must actually be touched down in the endzone, or carried/passed accross. No more judgement calls for officials. The ball is either IN the endzone or not.

d. I'd emphisize the following on PI calls.
i. There can be no PI if one or more officials deem the ball uncatchable
ii. merely incidently touching a receiver will not constitute PI. The official must determine that the contact materially interferred with the receiver's ability to catch the ball

e. I'd emphasize the following on Defensive holding calls. Incidental contact after 5 yards WILL NOT constitute a holding penalty. the official has to determine that the receiver's ability to run his pattern was materially inhibited by the contact before a holding or illegal contact is called.

f. If an illegal procedure call is called on the offense and the play starts, the play will be allowed to continue, and the defense will have the right to chose if they want to take the penalty or the result of the play. No longer would the defense be penalized when the offense makes a mistake (ie the Raven game)

Ken, I enjoy reading your posts, but I think that much of your rule changes are off base.

a) How is this punishing the offense? They can still get out of bounds if they need to. The prior 59 minutes is what determines the situation here. Feel free to like the college rule for the sake of liking it, but there isn't any "punishment".

b) The ground already CAN cause a fumble. You are confusing whether a player is down by contact or not. If a player just stumbles untouched and the ball pops out as his elbow hits the turf, it is a fumble. If said player was being tackled with a knee on the ground and then lost the ball when his elbow hit it is not because the play is effectively over. There is no "ground can't cause a fumble" rule and you seem to be indicating that you want fumbles to still be possible after a player is down.

c) This is no way solves anything. The determination of whether the back end of the ball crossed the plane will be just as much of a judgement call as the tip crossing the plane now. Unless you want to go full-on rugby style where the player has to actually touch the ball down to the ground in the end zone, you are just laterally moving the questionable area.

d) and e) are already on the books. I see that you worded emphasis, but they should already be factoring these in.

f) I can see the point of this, but the Ravens' game is a bad example. The NE players stopping with the whistle was one of the main reasons that Baltimore made the stop that they did. IIRC it was Hochstein that jumped and he just gave up as soon as he knew he was nabbbed, which allowed the tackling defender to jump through his gap. Had your rule been in force, he would have just played through and the results would have been different.

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

I am a lawyer, slick. And, you are wrong.

then I doubt you are a very good one, if you just make up definitions as you go

 

[aluminum seats]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

Interesting thoughts, but I think it'd be smart to break out some of this stuff to smaller threads--the conversation would be more focused that way.

Agree w/others that most of the rule changes either aren't really changes or aren't practical. Regarding one, I don't know that I see a difference between the ball "breaking the plane" vs. being "carried across"--would still be a judgement call.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

then I doubt you are a very good one, if you just make up definitions as you go

Now you're being insulting as well as wrong, and that's not a good combination. Feel free to notice a pretty famous example:


Plessy v. Ferguson

as opposed to

Brown v. Board of Education

 

[oldskool138]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

Did you say "yoots"?

 

[godef]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

The ground CAN cause a fumble. This will eliminate hundreds of replays. It will also make leaping in the air more of risk, and that would cut down on injuries. I have never understood this rule. It is the ball carrier's responsibility to maintain control until the whistle blows. We already require a receiver to maintain control until the whistle blows, why not RB's/QBs

I think this is worthwhile considering. However, you can't make that comparison to wide receivers, because this really isn't the same thing. A receiver is trying to establish that he has control of the ball (I presume you meant upon making a catch), whereas a running back has presumambly had control all along; even if it's a fumbled hand-off, it is still not a pass which abides by a different set of rules than a hand-off. Note that if a running back catches a ball, he also has to establish control. Also note that if a wide receiver has caught a ball and has established possession and is running for yards after the catch, then the-ground-cannot-cause-a-fumble rule also applies to him. So good idea, but bad argument.

Just having the ball breaking the plane will NO LONGER constitute a TD. The ball must actually be touched down in the endzone, or carried/passed accross. No more judgement calls for officials. The ball is either IN the endzone or not.

I hear what you're saying, but this would cause a lot of complications, which presumably is why the rule is what it is. Suppose a player holds the ball out over the endzone but then is pushed back, or else has dived passed the goalline out of bounds; where do you place the ball? At the 1 yard line? Not quite at the goal line? If right at the goal line, how many yards does the player get who gets the ball in for a TD on the next play? Now, what if this happens at midfield at the first down marker? Where does that ball get placed? Or do you propose a special rule for just at the goal line?

I'd emphisize the following on PI calls.
i. There can be no PI if one or more officials deem the ball uncatchable
ii. merely incidently touching a receiver will not constitute PI. The official must determine that the contact materially interferred with the receiver's ability to catch the ball

Isn't that pretty much what exists now for PI? One change I would suggest is that, if the ball is uncatchable, there should still be a penalty, but make it a 5-yard penalty with no automatic first down. In no other cases is any penalty ever cancelled because it is judged to be inconsequential; I think this is an artifical rule created because PI penalties can be very large which creates a sense of injustice if the team interfered with had no chance to catch it anyhow.

I'd emphasize the following on Defensive holding calls. Incidental contact after 5 yards WILL NOT constitute a holding penalty. the official has to determine that the receiver's ability to run his pattern was materially inhibited by the contact before a holding or illegal contact is called.

Isn't this already the case? Holding is holding, don't confuse that with "illegal touching" or whatever they want to call Payton's rule.

If an illegal procedure call is called on the offense and the play starts, the play will be allowed to continue, and the defense will have the right to chose if they want to take the penalty or the result of the play. No longer would the defense be penalized when the offense makes a mistake (ie the Raven game)

Totally agree.

 

[godef]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

No, the rule was changed. You can use semantics all you want. A was legal, then A was not. Your argument is, essentially, that what was called on the field was not the rule. That's clearly not the case. What was called on the field was the rule as applied. That was changed. The rule, as applied, was changed by a bunch of clowns who couldn't handle the fact that their sissy receivers couldn't handle contact.




And, for the record, the strike zone was changed too.

Nyet, makewayhomer is right, the rule was NOT changed. It was NOT legal, it just wasn't unforced as much. It hasn't always been a rule; it was one of those changes made earlier in the Super Bowl era to juice up NFL offenses. But it has been a rule since before the infamous Colt whinnying.

 

[makewayhomer]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

Now you're being insulting as well as wrong, and that's not a good combination. Feel free to notice a pretty famous example:


Plessy v. Ferguson

as opposed to

Brown v. Board of Education

thats great, now tell me how that applies to our discussion

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Bye week thoughts....

thats great, now tell me how that applies to our discussion

Same language + different interpretation = new/changed law as applied. Where once "separate but equal" was just dandy, that is now a bad thing. Same Constitutional words, different spin.


Then again, you must already know this, given your commentary on my potential legal capabilities.