Manning & Polian whine on new umpire position (merged)

[Joker]

Yes, the competition committee did vote unanimously to approve the new rule (even though they didn't have to since it isn't really a rule change). I thought it was a good idea when I first heard about it, and I still think it's a good idea that shouldn't be done away with entirely. But now I think it needs some tweaking.
Well, what about "syncophantic"..? Is that also a word..?

Don't EVER make a spelling mistake on this forum going forward.

Seems you have some unstated grudge against the members of this board...spit it out and maybe there can be some kind of resolution.

 

[Wolfpack]

Don't EVER make a spelling mistake on this forum going forward.

Oh, I make spelling mistakes all the time. I just found it especially hilarious that someone had the audacity to try and insult my intelligence whilst using a word that doesn't exist. I don't think it was a spelling mistake; I think he just thinks that is a real word (and you'll note I didn't mention his spelling mistake "suitabe.")

Seems you have some unstated grudge against the members of this board...spit it out and maybe there can be some kind of resolution.

What makes you say that? Just because I don't echo the majority opinion? Although actually I do echo the majority opinion when looking at fans across the league. It's only in here where this new rule is receiving a lot of support. I wonder why that is...

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

The Colts are using a form of "covert" intimidation on the NFL officials by making this complaint. There are two possible outcomes of their complaint.

1: The league will agree with them and order the officials to hurry up and get into position.

2: The league will NOT make any changes but the NFL umpires,and referees will have it in their head NOT to blow the whistle on the Colts when they are in the hurry up.

It's kind of like the judge telling the jury,"the jury will disregard that" after they have already heard it.

The NFL officials have now heard the Colts complaint and they will have it in their heads NOT to blow the whistle when the Colts are in the hurry up even if the rule is not changed, or adjusted.

I would like to see how many other teams used the hurry up in pre season thus far, perhaps had a penalty and yet DID NOT COMPLAIN TO THE NFL.

You forgot the 3rd option. That the officials won't take kindly to Manning and Polian's complaints and will go out of their way to be even MORE strict with the Colts...

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

There is nothing "gimmicky" about the hurry up offense. It is a perfectly valid and legitimate strategy. Just because the Colts happen to do it better than the rest of the league doesn't make it a "gimmick".

People are letting their hatred cloud their judgement. No one hates the Colts more than I, but I think they have a point in this issue.

You do realize that the Colts were called for legitimate penalties, yes? So that means that, while they were trying to run the hurry up, they screwed up. That's not the fault of the officials. That's the fault of the Colts. Manning admitted that they've been doing it forever. Which means that the umpire wasn't in a position, before to actually see it happening. Now he is and the Colts are whining because they can't cheat anymore.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

You do realize that the Colts were called for legitimate penalties, yes? So that means that, while they were trying to run the hurry up, they screwed up. That's not the fault of the officials. That's the fault of the Colts. Manning admitted that they've been doing it forever. Which means that the umpire wasn't in a position, before to actually see it happening. Now he is and the Colts are whining because they can't cheat anymore.

I agree that if they are finally being caught for pushing the rules, that's a good thing. But do you have any details on what the penalties were? My understanding is that they were illegal snaps, and I'm not sure exactly what that means. If it's something they've been doing all along, they have no complaint. But if "illegal snap" means not waiting for the umpire to get into his new position, that does seem kind of silly.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

If a team of professional football players allows themselves to be caught on defense with their pants down, that's their fault. They haven't been "screwed over" and they have no one to blame but themselves.

I guess I have to say it again: If the offense wants to run the hurry up, the defense does not have the God-given right to substitute personnel or get into position.

Actually, if the offense makes a substitution, the defense DOES have the right to make a substitution as well, regardless of the fact that the offense is running the hurry up. It's in the rules.

I find it amazing how you are ball washing Manning and the Colts because they got caught breaking the rules and trying to spin it into just "they weren't being allowed to run the hurry-up". Which isn't the case at all.

 

[PatsDeb]

The new rules change hurts the Colts more than probably every other team. They so rely on the no huddle on offense that this new rules change really slows down their game more than most. Kinda love to see a rules change that blows up in Polian's face.

Not only do they rely on the "no huddle," but they are constantly moving before the snap, which every other team has always been called for, but they have been given a pass because "that is the way they have always done it." It's about time that the illegal motion rules applied to them the same as everybody else.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't a correct statement.

The irony of this statement, coming from you, is amazing..

So the offense (i.e. the team with possession of the ball) doesn't have the right to control the pace and the tempo of the game? Are you sure that's the position you want to hang your hat on?

The offense has the right to control the tempo as long as it doesn't make a substitution. If it makes a substitution, then the defense has to be allowed to make a substitution as well...

I guess we're just going to have to disagree on that one. I think the team with possession of the ball should be allowed to control the pace and the tempo of the game, not the team who doesn't have possession of the ball.

No, you just don't seem to be understanding the situation that is being discussed.

I guess I just foolishly believe the offense should have the right to snap the ball when they are ready, not when the defense is ready. But since the Colts are so good at it, you don't like that idea.

It has nothing to do with whether the Colts are "so good at it." It has to do with them breaking the rules. That if they substitute a player, they have to allow the defense time to substitute as well. And that is what Manning and the Colts don't do.

The reality is that Manning is a whiny little man who can't win without cheating. And now that he can't cheat anymore, he's throwing a tantrum.

 

[DaBruinz]

Well, duh.

Obviously during the 6.67% of the game played inside a 2:00 warning, you can run the hurry up offense without any problem from the new rule because the new rule gets thrown out the window during those time periods. It's just a shame you can't run a true hurry offense during the remaining 93.33% of the game.

Why I am the only one uncomfortable with this is completely beyond me.

EDIT: I shouldn't say I am the only one uncomfortable with this. The ovelwhelming majority of fans in the forums I participate in agree with me. It's only here in the Patriots forums that people seem not to mind. I wonder why that is.

You are the only one uncomfortable with this because you really don't understand half of what you think you do. You seem to be oblivious to the situations in which Manning was called for the illegal snaps (Offensive Substitution and needing to let the defense substitute). Maybe if you weren't so worried about proving everyone else wrong and realized that you are the one not in tune with the scenario, you'd be able to understand the situation better.

 

[DaBruinz]

Go to other forums and guage the popular sentiment. Don't get mad at me for pointing out that the significant majority of fans don't like the new rule. It seems to be only in this forum that people like it. I wonder why that is.

Maybe if you and they understood the situation properly, you and they wouldn't have an issue. Wouldn't be the first time a group of people didn't understand a situation and, therefore, didn't know what they were talking about.

 

[DaBruinz]

Oh, I make spelling mistakes all the time. I just found it especially hilarious that someone had the audacity to try and insult my intelligence whilst using a word that doesn't exist. I don't think it was a spelling mistake; I think he just thinks that is a real word (and you'll note I didn't mention his spelling mistake "suitabe.")

While Sycophantic isn't the correct spelling, Sychophantic is (Sychophantic | Define Sychophantic at Dictionary.com). Any INTELLIGENT person would figure out that he missed the first "H" as a typo and not make a big deal of it.

What makes you say that? Just because I don't echo the majority opinion? Although actually I do echo the majority opinion when looking at fans across the league. It's only in here where this new rule is receiving a lot of support. I wonder why that is...

You actually DON'T echo the majority opinion. You echo an opinion based on FLAWED perception and understand of the situation. You ignore that offenses are perfectly able to run the no huddle with the Umpire in the backfield as long as they don't make a substitution. It's when they make the substitution (as the Colts did) that it becomes an issue because the offense has to allow the defense to substitute as well. That's the RULE. And that is why the Colts got flagged. Because they attempted to run the no huddle while also making substitutions and not allowing the defense to make theirs as well.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

I agree that if they are finally being caught for pushing the rules, that's a good thing. But do you have any details on what the penalties were? My understanding is that they were illegal snaps, and I'm not sure exactly what that means. If it's something they've been doing all along, they have no complaint. But if "illegal snap" means not waiting for the umpire to get into his new position, that does seem kind of silly.

My understanding is that the Colts were attempting to run the no huddle offense and made at least one substitution on their offense. By the rules, the defense has to be allowed to substitute as well, prior to the offense snapping the ball. And this is what Manning failed to do. He snapped the ball while the defense was still substituting. Hence the flag.

 

[falloutboy14]

You are the only one uncomfortable with this because you really don't understand half of what you think you do. You seem to be oblivious to the situations in which Manning was called for the illegal snaps (Offensive Substitution and needing to let the defense substitute). Maybe if you weren't so worried about proving everyone else wrong and realized that you are the one not in tune with the scenario, you'd be able to understand the situation better.

Are you talking about the game on Thursday? Because those were for snapping the ball before the umpire was in position. The Colts have been penalized previously for not allowing the other team to substitute, but that was years ago.

This new system is rather silly if you ask me. For the first time, the qb has to check with the ref to see if they're allowed to snap the ball. Imo, it should be the offenses prerogative to make sure the ump is out of the way, for them to snap the ball. There were plays where the ump was literally waiting behind the center, not getting into his pre-snap position, not allowing the QB to get into his position. It should be interesting to see the impact from this for teams that are down 2 scores with 5 minutes left, trying to move the ball quickly down field.

 

[Fixit]

Now if they'll only start calling the illegal picks (the ones that Madden thinks are a legitimate part of the Colts offense because they run it so often) we'll be getting somewhere.

 

[Deus Irae]

Are you talking about the game on Thursday? Because those were for snapping the ball before the umpire was in position. The Colts have been penalized previously for not allowing the other team to substitute, but that was years ago.

This new system is rather silly if you ask me. For the first time, the qb has to check with the ref to see if they're allowed to snap the ball. Imo, it should be the offenses prerogative to make sure the ump is out of the way, for them to snap the ball. There were plays where the ump was literally waiting behind the center, not getting into his pre-snap position, not allowing the QB to get into his position. It should be interesting to see the impact from this for teams that are down 2 scores with 5 minutes left, trying to move the ball quickly down field.

Why is a rule designed to prevent injury to an official "silly"? As I noted earlier, under the old system, teams still had to wait until the ball was placed and the officials got into position. The difference is just a matter of a couple of yards, so you're not losing more than 1-3 seconds. There's no excuse for Peyton screwing this up other than lack of experience dealing with it.

If the league could adapt to the contact rules, Peyton can adapt to having to take an extra second or so before snapping the ball.

 

[Fixit]

Why is a rule designed to prevent injury to an official "silly"? As I noted earlier, under the old system, teams still had to wait until the ball was placed and the officials got into position. The difference is just a matter of a couple of yards, so you're not losing more than 1-3 seconds. There's no excuse for Peyton screwing this up other than lack of experience dealing with it.

If the league could adapt to the contact rules, Peyton can adapt to having to take an extra second or so before snapping the ball.

Maybe this is a result of lack of sleep, but I thought that the Colts don't really run a hurry-up as a big part of their offense, they just try to use the quick snap a lot to catch the defense unaware.

This rule won't hamstring them anymore than it will another team; it's just going to prevent them from doing something that was technically legal but super-cheesy.

 

[pherein]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

BTW: The Saints looked pretty good tonight. Here's to a great season for both our teams, and no more injuries!

NB: How's the weather in NO in January? I'm thinking about heading down there for a visit, and I would suspect the off-season rates would be fairly decent.

Yea, We both had some unfortunate injuries. Cant believe Ty was hurt for the season, hopefully Warren,Weston,Deaderick or Love can get it done. I guess sometimes things work out for the best. Ivory would not have seen much time if we had not lost Hamilton and PJ Hill.

Seems both our teams are on track to be in the top #15, what more can a fan ask for. Glad to see Bradys long ball, sweet pass.

January is perfect for N.O. , right around 50-70 degrees. The sheridan on Canal St is pretty good.

2011 Mardi Gras Parade Schedule! New Orleans Routes, Times, Krewe History 2011
100 great places to eat in New Orleans | NOLA.com
New Orleans Dining and Restaurant Guide - NOLA.com

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

OK, sure. Right after you quote where I said Tom Brady is going to San Francisco. I would love to see just where I said that.

Why should I? You know as well as I do what you said. Now please show me other teams that complained about the new umpire position. Let's try not to dodge the subject at hand here because I made an offhanded comment for a good laugh.

You must not have watched the Saints game last night, because they were getting pretty pissed off too. And I don't blame 'em.

I didn't. With that in mind, show me the soundbyte or quote from Payton, Brees, or anyone else complaining about the new umpire position.

Then please explain how your "Tom Brady to San Francisco" comment has anything to do with the subject of the new rule. I look forward to you squirming your way around that answer.

It doesn't. It was an offhand comment for my own amusement. The fact that you've now gone off on a multi-paragraph tangent about it trying to defend yourself shows me I hit the mark. I am now sitting here trying to discuss the new rule with you. I'm awaiting evidence of other teams complaining about this rule as well as an explanation from you as to why many other teams in the preseason were able to execute a hurry-up offense without any sort of failure.

What I said was that there was a 25% to 33% chance Brady leaves New England, and a 67% to 75% chance he stays. If saying there is at most a 1/3rd chance something happens means I "VEHEMENTLY" believe it will happen, well I think you need to work on the ole' reading comprehension, my ignorant friend.

Thanks for the personal attack. It lets me know you're on your heals now when it comes to this subject. You might want to watch it, though. While that sort of stuff will fly in the sewage runoff that you lurk in, it doesn't really fly in the football forums.

Making any sort of mathematic estimate when it comes to Brady possibly leaving New England is a failure in thought. You either believe there's a chance he will, or you believe he won't. You stated that you believe there was a chance he would and then went on to vehemently defend that position, despite me pointing out failures in logic. When you realized that your argument was breaking down, you leveled all sorts of personal attacks at me (just as you are now doing in this thread).

Now please explain what my 1/4th to 1/3rd guesstimate of Tom Brady has to do with this new rule, and how that doesn't constitute a pathetic attempt on your part to change the subject.

I'm not attempting to change the subject at all. That was an offhand comment by me. If you felt so strongly about your position on it, you didn't need to defend it or even address it. Instead, you did and now roughly 3/4's of your post is about that.

So if you want to stay on the subject at hand, the quit ducking my challenges. Produce evidence of other teams complaining about this and explain to me why there have been many other teams (many more than teams that have been penalized for it) that have been able to run a successful hurry up. If you can't do that, then you're more than welcome to leave this thread, take a break, and try your hand at football discussion some other time.

 

[Hardboiled]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

My understanding is that the Colts were attempting to run the no huddle offense and made at least one substitution on their offense. By the rules, the defense has to be allowed to substitute as well, prior to the offense snapping the ball. And this is what Manning failed to do. He snapped the ball while the defense was still substituting. Hence the flag.

The umpire was not behind the running back (or furthest player in the backfield) when the ball was snapped. That caused the penalty.

 

[Metaphors]

This new system is rather silly if you ask me. For the first time, the qb has to check with the ref to see if they're allowed to snap the ball. Imo, it should be the offenses prerogative to make sure the ump is out of the way, for them to snap the ball. There were plays where the ump was literally waiting behind the center, not getting into his pre-snap position, not allowing the QB to get into his position. It should be interesting to see the impact from this for teams that are down 2 scores with 5 minutes left, trying to move the ball quickly down field.

I would agree that this position change would need to be revisited if the umpire is unable to get into position quickly. I haven't seen any evidence of that yet, but I'm sure there have been some situations as you describe above.

I would guess it should take about 2-3 seconds longer for the umpire to clear the offensive backfield than it would take if he was on the other side. If that isn't happening, then the offending umpires need to be reprimanded. If the mechanics don't allow it to happen, then the position change should be aborted.