Manning & Polian whine on new umpire position (merged)

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

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.

No ****, sherlock. We've been over that several times already in this (and other) threads. I thought it was clear that we were talking about a true hurry up offense, where thre were no offensive substitutions. Please do try and keep up.

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.

The new rule slows down a true hurry up offense. Fans of 31 other NFL teams are disappointed to see that is the case.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

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...

If you want to jump into the middle of a thread, that's fine... but in the future please do a better job of keeping up with matters already discussed.

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.

We are not talking about plays where the offense substitutes personnel. We are talking about plays like quick snaps and trying to catch the defense unprepared.

I suggest you read the first few pages of this thread. You'll discover the scenario you painted has already been covered, and is not what we are talking about here. K thx bye.

 

[Wolfpack]

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).

And you seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that we have alrady discussed that scenario, whereby I established that that rule has been in place for a long time, and that the situtations we are discussing here are the ones where offenses try a quick-snap or a true hurry up.

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.

Maybe if you actually didn't jump to so many conclusions when you entereed into the middle of a thread, you'd be able to understand the situation better.

 

[Wolfpack]

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.

Your understanding, as usual, is incorrect. The problem was not that the offense was substituting personnel without giving the defense a chance to do the same. The problem is that the offense may not snap the ball until the umpire is behind the offensive player furthest back in the backfield. So essentially the QB has to turn around and watch the umpire run backwards, or just give it a long enough pause.

And to think you have the audacity to lecture others about not understanding what was going on.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Why should I? You know as well as I do what you said.

Actually, I know what I said much better than you because you are making things up without being man enough to admit it. Instead you dodge the question like a weasel. I never said Brady was going to SF. Not once. Your ignorance does nothing to change that.

Now I guess I have to ask you again: How does bringing up Brady going to San Francisco in this thread not constitute a pathetic attempt on your part to change the subject?

Don't worry... you're not fooling anyone. You realized your argument was breaking down so you desperately tried to change the subject by lying about things I have said in the past. There is no surer admission of defeat, so I will let you try and salvage what little dignity you have left and exit the conversation gracefully.

 

[Wolfpack]

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.

The length of a delay depends on the result of the play itself. Suppose you have a running play up the middle that gains 3 yards. Under the old rule, the umpire would be about 1 yard from the tackle, he would spot the ball, then back up about 5 yards. Now he has to run 18 yards in, spot the ball, then run 15 yards back.

While we obviously see plays that result in yards lost, generally speaking the offense tends to move in the forward direction so every single play involves significantly more running for the umpire. Until the NFL hires Usain Bolt as an umpire, the people that are saying that those 25-30 extra yards of running only adds an additional 2-3 seconds are full of crap.

 

[Fixit]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Actually, I know what I said much better than you because you are making things up without being man enough to admit it. Instead you dodge the question like a weasel. I never said Brady was going to SF. Not once. Your ignorance does nothing to change that.

Now I guess I have to ask you again: How does bringing up Brady going to San Francisco in this thread not constitute a pathetic attempt on your part to change the subject?

Don't worry... you're not fooling anyone. You realized your argument was breaking down so you desperately tried to change the subject by lying about things I have said in the past. There is no surer admission of defeat, so I will let you try and salvage what little dignity you have left adn exit the conversation gracefully.

You spelled "and" wrong. Jeez.

And, really, do the Colts run a true hurry-up, or do they just try to quick-snap a lot?

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

You spelled "and" wrong. Jeez.

Thank you. I have made the necessary correction.

 

[Hardboiled]

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.

You bring up a good point about the possible differences between the ability of different umpires to get into position as quickly as other ones. I'd like to know if that crew called it tighter than the others. For example, were umpires in other games not calling it if they were backing up and next to the runner? Again, the QB cannot see the umpire. They could before.

But I wouldn't want to take away from the typical Patsfans sycophancy and douchebaggery of this thread.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

No ****, sherlock. We've been over that several times already in this (and other) threads. I thought it was clear that we were talking about a true hurry up offense, where thre were no offensive substitutions. Please do try and keep up.

Hey mightymouth.. I am keeping up just fine. YOU, on the other hand, are not. People already brought up how New Orleans did it to the Pats in the first game without any problems..

The new rule slows down a true hurry up offense. Fans of 31 other NFL teams are disappointed to see that is the case.

The new "rule" (which isn't new because the offense had to wait for officials to be in position anyways) only changed the location of the umpire from the LOS. Previously, he was 7-10 yards on the defensive side of the ball. Now, he's 10-15 yards on the OFFENSIVE side of the ball. It's a difference of up to 7 yards.. How long do you think it takes to cover those 7 yards? Certainly not more than 2 seconds.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

If you want to jump into the middle of a thread, that's fine... but in the future please do a better job of keeping up with matters already discussed.
We are not talking about plays where the offense substitutes personnel. We are talking about plays like quick snaps and trying to catch the defense unprepared.

I suggest you read the first few pages of this thread. You'll discover the scenario you painted has already been covered, and is not what we are talking about here. K thx bye.

Hey dumbass, I read the entire thread and it's why I replied to specific posts, QUOTING the post.

Yes, that is the ONLY scenario to talk about because that's what Manning is b!tching about. DUH.

 

[DaBruinz]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Your understanding, as usual, is incorrect. The problem was not that the offense was substituting personnel without giving the defense a chance to do the same. The problem is that the offense may not snap the ball until the umpire is behind the offensive player furthest back in the backfield. So essentially the QB has to turn around and watch the umpire run backwards, or just give it a long enough pause.

And to think you have the audacity to lecture others about not understanding what was going on.

My understanding is just fine. YOU are the one who seems to not have a clue as to what Manning was talking about and the reality of the situation. You seem to be the only person who can't understand that there is really NO ISSUE with a team running the hurry up with the new rule. The only ones with an ISSUE are the COLTS. No other team has complained about it.

 

[Frezo]

This position change has been nagging me. Let’s just toss this out for discussion. Here’s some arbitrary numbers. Let’s say it takes the average offense 15 seconds to run a play and that there are 100 offensive plays in a game. It takes the ump 3 seconds to get in position in front of the offense and 5 seconds in back of the offense. That’s a two second difference. A play that used to take 15 seconds to start now takes 17 seconds. That’s not a big deal until it’s multiplied by 100 plays. Now we have an extra 3 minutes and 20 seconds of actual playing time. That could translate to an extra 5 or 6 minutes of actual on air time. That’s easily an additional commercial break above what was available before the position change. Might that sneaky Goodell be pulling a fast one on us? How many umps really get injured at the original position? I don’t recall any season ending injuries. If it’s that big of a deal, why put them at risk at all for the combined 4 minutes at the end of the 2nd and 4th quarter?

Remember when 1:00 games used to end at 3:30? They seem to average around 3:45 now. How many extra commercials is that? Replay is a big part of this. Think about the Gronk stretch for the TD. To anybody watching just one instance of the replay it was obvious that it was a TD. Yet the officials had to stay in the replay booth long enough to get a certain number of commercials in. Even BB was complaining about how long they took.

Commercials generate substantial revenue for pro sports. How about baseball? Remember when the batter couldn’t leave the batter’s box? Now they go on posing struts for the camera. Think of the on air time that adds up to in the course of a game. Baseball has become so slow moving that I have lost all interest.

Anyway, don’t be surprised if the NFL decides to add a 4th timeout for each team in the second half. Goodell does have to feed his family.

 

[DaBruinz]

The length of a delay depends on the result of the play itself. Suppose you have a running play up the middle that gains 3 yards. Under the old rule, the umpire would be about 1 yard from the tackle, he would spot the ball, then back up about 5 yards. Now he has to run 18 yards in, spot the ball, then run 15 yards back.

So, you are making the assumption that the Umpire just stands back there and doesn't move up as the play is moving???

You act as if the Umpire just takes a leisurely stroll to go up, get the ball and spot it and a leisurely stroll back. Unfortunately for you, that just isn't the case. BTW, since you haven't watched many football games, Please tell me where the REFEREE Starts from, where does he go at the end of a play and where does he go to prior to the snap...

Also, the umpire, when on the defensive side of the ball can be between

While we obviously see plays that result in yards lost, generally speaking the offense tends to move in the forward direction so every single play involves significantly more running for the umpire. Until the NFL hires Usain Bolt as an umpire, the people that are saying that those 25-30 extra yards of running only adds an additional 2-3 seconds are full of crap.

The only person who is full of crap is yourself because you seem to not understand that the Referee goes up the the line up scrimmage at the end of a play and then goes back behind the QB as well.. So, if he can do it, why can't the Umpire?

 

[Hardboiled]

How many umps really get injured at the original position? I don’t recall any season ending injuries. If it’s that big of a deal, why put them at risk at all for the combined 4 minutes at the end of the 2nd and 4th quarter?

By viewing, I'd say the injuries were increasing but also getting more severe.

I thought the same thing about your last question. That exception allows for offenses to move faster when time is more important. I'd say that exception clearly shows that the move of the umpire to the backfield may slow down offensives before the 2 minute warning.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Hey mightymouth.. I am keeping up just fine. YOU, on the other hand, are not. People already brought up how New Orleans did it to the Pats in the first game without any problems..

No, wonder woman, you're not keeping up just fine. You wrote about 4 posts trying to correct me on something which I had already established in this thread. I have always been aware that when the offense substitutes personnel, the defense gets a chance to respond. And if you had been keeping up, you would have know that that isn't the situation we are talking about here.

The new "rule" (which isn't new because the offense had to wait for officials to be in position anyways) only changed the location of the umpire from the LOS. Previously, he was 7-10 yards on the defensive side of the ball. Now, he's 10-15 yards on the OFFENSIVE side of the ball. It's a difference of up to 7 yards.. How long do you think it takes to cover those 7 yards? Certainly not more than 2 seconds.

As I established in another post, on a typical play where the offense moves the ball forward (instead of, for example, a QB sack) the umpire has at least 25 extra yards to cover when compared to his former position. There isn't a human being on the planet that can go from full stop and cover 25 yards in 2 seconds.

 

[Wolfpack]

The only person who is full of crap is yourself because you seem to not understand that the Referee goes up the the line up scrimmage at the end of a play and then goes back behind the QB as well.. So, if he can do it, why can't the Umpire?

You're right I don't understand that - because it isn't true and once again you show you don't know what you are talking about. The referee does not run up to the LOS in between every play (especially during a hurry up offense). On a normal play (no penalties) that goes in a forward direction, the referee will not run up to the new line of scrimmage. The umpire, of course, has to since he is the one spotting the ball.

What you seem not to understand (among a great many other things) is that the league admits that the new rule slows down play significantly. Why else would they return to the old rule inside 2:00? They are essentially admitting that the new rule has an impact on the speed of the game. I just think it's a shame that we won't be able to see a true hurry up offense in the first 28 minutes of each half anymore.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Hey dumbass, I read the entire thread and it's why I replied to specific posts, QUOTING the post.

"Thanks for the personal attack. It lets me know you're on your heals (sic.) 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." - Kontradiction

 

[Metaphors]

This position change has been nagging me. Let’s just toss this out for discussion. Here’s some arbitrary numbers. Let’s say it takes the average offense 15 seconds to run a play and that there are 100 offensive plays in a game. It takes the ump 3 seconds to get in position in front of the offense and 5 seconds in back of the offense. That’s a two second difference. A play that used to take 15 seconds to start now takes 17 seconds. That’s not a big deal until it’s multiplied by 100 plays. Now we have an extra 3 minutes and 20 seconds of actual playing time. That could translate to an extra 5 or 6 minutes of actual on air time. That’s easily an additional commercial break above what was available before the position change. Might that sneaky Goodell be pulling a fast one on us?

Your take on this makes invalid assumptions. It assumes that for each play, the offense is ready to snap and has to wait 2 seconds. That clearly is not the case. During those 2 extra seconds, the offense can huddle, line up, call protection, go in motion, change the play, etc...they just can't snap the ball. The vast majority of plays (close to 100%) would be consuming those 2 seconds doing other things and wouldn't be ready to snap the ball anyway. Even in a no-huddle.

In fact, during those 2 seconds Goober Sr. generally does all of his flailing around and yelling strange sounding animal/location combinations...which also allows the announcers to sing his praises for his mastery at the LOS. Come to think of it, maybe snapping the ball early isn't such a bad idea.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Actually, I know what I said much better than you because you are making things up without being man enough to admit it. Instead you dodge the question like a weasel. I never said Brady was going to SF. Not once. Your ignorance does nothing to change that.

Now I guess I have to ask you again: How does bringing up Brady going to San Francisco in this thread not constitute a pathetic attempt on your part to change the subject?

Don't worry... you're not fooling anyone. You realized your argument was breaking down so you desperately tried to change the subject by lying about things I have said in the past. There is no surer admission of defeat, so I will let you try and salvage what little dignity you have left and exit the conversation gracefully.

As apple studel said the other day, wow. You're argument blows up in your face and you're saying that I should exit the thread?

1. You said what you said. You made a desperate argument saying that there was a chance that Brady was going to leave. The conversation had long before turned to Brady going to a California team. Your argument turned into vehemently defending the chance that Brady would do it. As I said before, you either believe that there was a chance that Brady would leave, or you believe that there was no chance Brady would leave. You defended the former while I defended the latter. So I'll ask you again: How's that Brady to San Francisco signing looking by the way? How's that Brady to ANYWHERE looking, by the way? I only ask because it's laughable how hard you defended that only to have reports that the exact opposite was being set in motion a week later.

2. Speaking of weaseling out of things, you still haven't answered either of my questions. So let me ask them again. First, why is it only the Colts complaining about it? If other teams are so against it, why haven't they gone public? If they have, please provide evidence of it to support your opinion. Secondly, why is it that numerous other teams around the league have been able to execute successful hurry up offenses?

3. One thing you should realize is that the NFL changes rules all of the time. Some for the better, some for the worse. You would know this if you actually followed the NFL instead of spending all of your time getting owned down in the Political forum. As has been mentioned, any rule that helps the safety of officials not wearing pads should be fine by everyone. The Colts have a history of complaining to the competition committee to get the rules changed. Their opponents have had to adjust to it and didn't go crying to the media. Now that the tables have turned, if the Colts are having a hard time adjusting when other teams are clearly NOT having that problem, then they should take a long hard look at themselves.

4. Now, instead of skirting around my questions, how about you try to answer them chief? Because, right now, you're not doing so hot in this thread. As a matter of fact, you're pretty much getting hammered. By the desperate and angry tone of your responses, I can tell that you know this to be a fact. A good first step to improving your position would be to confront both points. Of course, you could always rescue what little dignity you have left in this one and just return to that armpit that you spend so much time in at the bottom of the forum. That would be your choice. And if you're going to keep trying to go personal to not only me, but everyone else who disagrees with you in this thread, please try to make it worthwhile. Your personal attacks suck... badly.