Manning & Polian whine on new umpire position (merged)

[Metaphors]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

I saw it twice tonight in the Saints game, and I wasn't even watching most of it.

I didn't see it in the Saints game so I can't comment. My point was that the Colts will be the only team to get called for it in the regular season. That is because only the Colts will be looking to push the limit of the rule. But even they will eventually figure out how to push it without being called.

This ain't Pop Warner. I have no problem with a team doing everything they can within the context of the rules to win whether that's the Patriots or the Colts.

When you use the "this ain't Pop Warner" line, you are supposed to comment on the physicality of the game...not the ability to quickly dance to the line and yell "Ha! Caught you!" when the defense can't get their players in position or even on the field. In fact, I've known coaches in Pop Warner that pull stuff just like this. So you are correct that the NFL isn't Pop Warner. Adapting the rules to suit a team trying to avoid lining up and beating a team straight up, I don't see how that helps the league.

Did you feel the same way when the Patriots defensive strategy was "hit the WR's as much as you can and if the refs don't call it, keep doing it"...? Was that "nibbling around the edges of sportsmanship", or was that a legitimate strategy?

Do I feel that contact is a good strategy in the NFL? Yes. Yes I do.

I don't think that was a terribly recent rule change.

I think it was fairly recent. Regardless, the rule was adopted to avoid the very kind of behavior that the Colts are prevented from doing with the umpire positioning.

Why do I have a feeling your definition of douchebaggery is "things teams not named "New England" do"..?

So please list what the offense can't do now with the new umpire position. That list should tell you all you need to know. The Pats have also done the quick snap to catch a team with too many men on the field...not to play quicker but to specifically get the penalty. Don't like it but at least the Pats do it infrequently enough that it doesn't bother me.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

I didn't see it in the Saints game so I can't comment. My point was that the Colts will be the only team to get called for it in the regular season. That is because only the Colts will be looking to push the limit of the rule. But even they will eventually figure out how to push it without being called.

And my point is that you are mistaken and as evidence of the fact that this rule will impact other teams, I use the Saints-Chargers game as an example. I haven't watched much preseason this year, but I have seen this new rule be an issue in every game - and for the sake of argument I am going to call this a "new rule" even though, as I pointed out in another thread, it is not a "new rule."

When you use the "this ain't Pop Warner" line, you are supposed to comment on the physicality of the game...not the ability to quickly dance to the line and yell "Ha! Caught you!" when the defense can't get their players in position or even on the field.

These men are professionals getting paid millions of dollars, not a bunch of confused 8 year olds. If a team can't be professional enough to be ready for a quick snap, then they deserve the penalty that they get. If the offense does not change their personnel on the field, the defense does not have a God-given right to be given enough time to substitute.

In fact, I've known coaches in Pop Warner that pull stuff just like this.

Sure you do.

Do I feel that contact is a good strategy in the NFL? Yes. Yes I do.

So using the rules to your maximum advantage is good for certain teams, but not good for others. Got'cha.

I think it was fairly recent. Regardless, the rule was adopted to avoid the very kind of behavior that the Colts are prevented from doing with the umpire positioning.

It is not a recent rule change. It's been in the league all along. It only has come into emphasis fairly recently (meaning within the past decade or so) as more and more teams (including both the Patriots and the Colts) try to do the quick-snap.

So please list what the offense can't do now with the new umpire position.

They can't snap the ball as quickly as they used to.

That list should tell you all you need to know. The Pats have also done the quick snap to catch a team with too many men on the field...not to play quicker but to specifically get the penalty. Don't like it but at least the Pats do it infrequently enough that it doesn't bother me.

So it doesn't bother you when the Patriots do it, but it does bother you when the Colts do it. Got'cha

Thank you for proving the point I have been trying to make. You oppose this positioning change not based on the merit of the rule itself, but rather how it impacts our favorite team's rival.

 

[BradyBranch39]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Indeed, New Orleans got flagged twice tonight for snapping the ball before the ref was in position.

That's unacceptable. if the ref isn't in position, that's HIS problem. He is NOT supposed to be influencing the game, yet this is exactly what he was doing tonight.

This is a damned stupid rule, and the ref ought to go back to where he was. Put him in pads and give him a helmet if he needs it, but this new position is downright pathetic.

Yeah, I agree. However, Polian has a track record of getting rules changed to help his team.

If there was ever an easy way for a ref to make $ off of a team losing, this is it.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Gamesmanship is part of the game. If any team thinks it can get an advantage by petitioning the league for a change or by complaining about a rule so officials are conscious of what the team said, it's just part of being competitive as far as I can see.

And here I thought the game should be settled by which team played better, not which team manipulated the rules and officiating better. Silly me.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Yeah, I agree. However, Polian has a track record of getting rules changed to help his team.

If there was ever an easy way for a ref to make $ off of a team losing, this is it.

Yeah. Right. Sure. Calls like defensive pass interference or holding or personal fouls can be real game changers, but this new rule is the one that is going to send all the league's referees into the spiral of corruption and crooked mafia style payouts because now it's so easy.

You guys need to take off the blue and red colored glasses. No one hates the Colts more than I do, but in this case they have a point.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Yeah. Right. Sure. Calls like defensive pass interference or holding or personal fouls can be real game changers, but this new rule is the one that is going to send all the league's referees into the spiral of corruption and crooked mafia style payouts because now it's so easy.

You guys need to take off the blue and red colored glasses. No one hates the Colts more than I do, but in this case they have a point.

The inability to screw the other team over is not "a point".

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

The inability to screw the other team over is not "a point".

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

You can say it all you want. It's not going to sound any smarter. The offense doesn't have the God-given right to do what it's whining about, either.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

You can say it all you want. It's not going to sound any smarter.

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

The offense doesn't have the God-given right to do what it's whining about, either.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

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

I understood it fine. It's just not a "correct statement".

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?

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.

The offense has the right to follow the rules, just like the defense.

 

[Calciumee]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Colts and Polian can go f**k themselves!

I think Manning is an advantage to the Colts that other teams don't benefit from; I think that should be a new rule!

What bulls**t!

 

[patfanken]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

I surprised when I first read this. My initial impression of the new position of the umpire is that it will make it HARDER for him to see offensive holding, and THAT, youi would think would make it EASIER for a passing team like the Colts......or the Pats

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

I understood it fine. It's just not a "correct statement".

Well if you think it is not a correct statement then it is obvious you didn't understand it. What part about it do you think is incorrect? If we can identify where your ignorance lies, we can go about teaching you the actual ruling.

The offense has the right to follow the rules, just like the defense.

And the rules says the offense can snap the ball anytime they darn well want to so long as they have the necessary formation (7 men on the line) and have been set and motionless for 1 full second. The referees should not be an obstruction to that process. Obviously injuries or measurements can be factors, but during your regular play-to-play process, the referees should have an invisible presence and not be slowing things down.

But thanks for proving my point. Your own statements help my argument more than they do yours.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

These men are professionals getting paid millions of dollars, not a bunch of confused 8 year olds. If a team can't be professional enough to be ready for a quick snap, then they deserve the penalty that they get. If the offense does not change their personnel on the field, the defense does not have a God-given right to be given enough time to substitute.

And nobody has claimed otherwise. The point that you continually miss is that repositioning the umpire only affects the ability of the offense to catch the defense unprepared. And even that is only for the 2 seconds when the umpire gets set. If the defense isn't ready after those 2 seconds, too bad for them.

You can have the opinion that those 2 seconds materially affect the quality or competitive nature of the game. I think that is a huge leap. You can still snap the ball legally and catch the defense unprepared (the Colts first TD for example). You just can't do it during those initial 2 seconds.

So using the rules to your maximum advantage is good for certain teams, but not good for others. Got'cha.

You are drawing the link between jamming a receiver, blocking a rusher, etc. and quick snapping in a non-time-sensitive situation. I don't mind seeing the Colts or any team torch a defense with precision execution. I won't miss the Colts or any team trying to generate penalties or otherwise gain an advantage without actually having to be better than the defense.

They can't snap the ball as quickly as they used to.So it doesn't bother you when the Patriots do it, but it does bother you when the Colts do it. Got'cha

And teams can't block on kick returns like they used to. That is kind of the whole point of rules. If you can put your wiseass attitude aside for a moment, you could answer the original question...in what meaningful way is the game affected by not being able to snap the ball during those initial 2 seconds?

I don't like it when the Pats (or any team) quick snap to get a too-many-men-on-the-field penalty. It doesn't happen with the Pats often enough that it bothers me. The Colts do this as a regular practice. I can handle eating broccoli once a week. It would bother me to eat it for every meal. I can use preschool imagery if you need the difference explained a third time.

Thank you for proving the point I have been trying to make. You oppose this positioning change not based on the merit of the rule itself, but rather how it impacts our favorite team's rival.

I don't oppose or support the change. If the umpire can get in position effectively, I don't think it makes a difference either way. If the new position is safer and still allows them to do their job, sounds like a reasonable change to me.

The "point of emphasis" on illegal contact was clearly aimed at the Pats and clearly for the benefit of the Colts...and I didn't have any issue with it at all (besides the whiny way the Colts went about it). And I think the Tuck Rule is pretty silly. Rules that enhance the quality, fairness and safety of the game are good things, even if the Pats don't benefit or benefit less than the Colts.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that so feel free to AVOID posting a reply telling me what my post means. You aren't very good at it anyway.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Erm, there have been quite a few teams in this preseason that have had no problem putting together drives in the hurry up. I just named the most recent example before. If the Colts are having such trouble with it, they should do what other teams do: shut their mouths and adjust.

How's that Brady signing to San Francisco looking, by the way?

 

[patriots pam]

re: Manning & Polian whine on new umpire position (merged)

I think it's important to note that while everyone is calling this a "rule change" it isn't really a rule change. It was never voted on by ownership (rule changes require a 75% majority vote). It is a change implemented by the commissioner and only he can reverse it.

Yes, obviously, the commissioner consulted with others about this repositioning, most notably Mike Pereira (the former head of officiating). And he did get an endorsement from the competition committee. But ultimately he is the one who will have the last word on the positioning.

Ah, that explains it. For the life of me I couldn't figure out how this would get implemented by the CC without Polian at least making a huge stink about it. So there it is. I read a quote somewhere from BB that basically said he doesn't think it's a problem. So I'll side with the Hoodie and maybe just add that the Fivehead and Co. can Choke. On. It! And not just in the post season.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

And nobody has claimed otherwise.

Actually, yeah, people are claiming otherwise.

The point that you continually miss is that repositioning the umpire only affects the ability of the offense to catch the defense unprepared. And even that is only for the 2 seconds when the umpire gets set. If the defense isn't ready after those 2 seconds, too bad for them.

If you think that this is taking just "2 seconds" then you obviously haven't been watching any of the games. The ump is running in about 15 yards, positioning the ball, and running out about 15 yards. Any ump that can do that in "2 seconds" must be an Olympic gold medalist. I've seen plays where it took 6-8 seconds. As another poster in this very thread pointed out, there was one play where the ball couldn't be snapped until there were 4 seconds left on the play clock.

You are drawing the link between jamming a receiver, blocking a rusher, etc. and quick snapping in a non-time-sensitive situation. I don't mind seeing the Colts or any team torch a defense with precision execution. I won't miss the Colts or any team trying to generate penalties or otherwise gain an advantage without actually having to be better than the defense.

Feel free to join us in the real world any day now. Teams constantly try and gain an advantage any way they can, including trying to draw penalties. I guess you think they should make it illegal for the QB to yell "HUT HUT" and try and draw the defense offsides, huh?

And teams can't block on kick returns like they used to. That is kind of the whole point of rules. If you can put your wiseass attitude aside for a moment, you could answer the original question...in what meaningful way is the game affected by not being able to snap the ball during those initial 2 seconds?

See above comment regarding olympic caliber officials.

I don't like it when the Pats (or any team) quick snap to get a too-many-men-on-the-field penalty. It doesn't happen with the Pats often enough that it bothers me. The Colts do this as a regular practice. I can handle eating broccoli once a week. It would bother me to eat it for every meal. I can use preschool imagery if you need the difference explained a third time.

It's funny how you're not smart enough to realize the irony in saying "If you can put your wiseass attitude aside for a moment" and then in the next sentence saying "I can use preschool imagery if you need the difference explained a third time."

The "point of emphasis" on illegal contact was clearly aimed at the Pats and clearly for the benefit of the Colts...and I didn't have any issue with it at all (besides the whiny way the Colts went about it). And I think the Tuck Rule is pretty silly. Rules that enhance the quality, fairness and safety of the game are good things, even if the Pats don't benefit or benefit less than the Colts.

I don't think I can make it any clearer than that so feel free to AVOID posting a reply telling me what my post means. You aren't very good at it anyway.

It's perfectly obvious what your post is saying. Maybe the NBA should illegalize the fast break too. After all, it's just not fair for an offense to press the ball when the defense isn't ready!

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Erm, there have been quite a few teams in this preseason that have had no problem putting together drives in the hurry up.

Erm, there have also been a quite a few teams that have had penalties called against them. Those of you who think it is just the Colts obviously aren't paying attention.

How's that Brady signing to San Francisco looking, by the way?

I don't blame you for trying to change the subject considering how silly you are looking trying to discuss this one.

 

[Kontradiction]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Erm, there have also been a quite a few teams that have had penalties called against them. Those of you who think it is just the Colts obviously aren't paying attention.

Quote where I said it's only the Colts who have penalties called against them. Please quote it. I would love to see just where I said that. The thing about it is that I haven't said that. It hasn't only been the Colts that have been penalized. It HAS only been the Colts that have whined about it, though. If you have evidence otherwise, I would love to see that as well. The other teams are either making efforts to adjust to the new rule changes (as the Pats did when Polian had to change the rules in order to try to get his team past us... only to get his teeth kicked in again in 2004) or have already adjusted to them and are able to put together drives in the hurry up with the refs in the offensive backfield. The fact that there have been more than a fair share of teams that have done so will probably kill the Colts case, unless King Polian has his way.

I don't blame you for trying to change the subject considering how silly you are looking trying to discuss this one.

Not trying to change the subject. And where have I looked silly? Bringing up a solid fact or two is silly? If that's the case, you've been spending too much time in the bottom feeding forum, and that's probably where you should go back to. No. What I was doing was rubbing it in. You spent so much time VEHEMENTLY trying to make a case for why Brady was going to San Francisco or any other California team about month and a half ago. I was just asking you how things were going with that. Now, when you respond, if you could try to NOT dodge the question, that would be nice.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Rule Under Review after Manning, Polian Complain

Erm, there have also been a quite a few teams that have had penalties called against them. Those of you who think it is just the Colts obviously aren't paying attention.

Quite a few teams had illegal contact called, too, after the "point of emphasis" was made following the 2004 season.