NEW RULE is lame

[QuantumMechanic]

The league also wrote a layman's terms explanation of the new rule on Sept 3 and posted it at nfl.com

I don't care what some layman's explanation or "digest of rules" thing said. Those articles have had mistakes before and in any event are totally unofficial.

Only the rule book matters.

 

[flasox27]

I don't mind the rule being enforced, if it is enforced the same for both teams. Apparently that was not done. I wonder why?

 

[BSR]

Like I said before, the original NFL article (and BB's interpretation) was based on how the rule was proposed but not how it was ultimately passed.

Someone screwed up. Maybe some referee explained it the wrong way in their August meetings with the teams. But like I said, I've already posted 2 articles from August with the new and correct interpretation of the rule. The NFL isn't engaged in any conspiracy, it was just a colossal ****-up.

I agree that it isn't a conspiracy. My problem is that they picked a hell of a time to call it for the very first time. There is no way in the 400 previous kicks this season that it didn't occur and they just decided to enforce it for the very first time right there and then. Its crap and I think we have a right to be pissed but nothing will be done about it.

At the very least we get to stop hearing Jet's fans whining and crying about how they never get calls.

 

[SB39]

I agree that it isn't a conspiracy. My problem is that they picked a hell of a time to call it for the very first time. There is no way in the 400 previous kicks this season that it didn't occur and they just decided to enforce it for the very first time right there and then. Its crap and I think we have a right to be pissed but nothing will be done about it.

I agree with that. I am putting this in the category of calls that are technically correct but geez they absolutely never call it when it happens - and in this case, that is the literal truth.

IF it is true that the league called on this to be a point of emphasis this weekend, then the league should also inform the coaches of the new "emphasis" to avoid any misunderstandings.

 

[Deus Irae]

I don't care what some layman's explanation or "digest of rules" thing said. Those articles have had mistakes before and in any event are totally unofficial.

Only the rule book matters.

"Spygate" says hi

 

[Onedaful]

Not going through 15 pages so I'm sorry if this was answered already. How could this be a 15 yard penalty and why wasnt this assessed when offense took over?

 

[SB39]

Not going through 15 pages so I'm sorry if this was answered already. How could this be a 15 yard penalty and why wasnt this assessed when offense took over?

That's what we've spent the past 15 pages discussing and still lack anything that even remotely approaches a consensus.

 

[Big-T]

Not going through 15 pages so I'm sorry if this was answered already. How could this be a 15 yard penalty and why wasnt this assessed when offense took over?

The foul was during the play not after it so the Jets retained possession.

If it was a scrum after the miss then I believe it would have been Patriot ball 15 yards back.

 

[PatsSox363804]

But wait, I thought we got ALL the calls

This is a terrible rule, regardless of if it was interpreted correctly or not, it's simply awful that a call like that gives 15 yards.

That said, we shouldn't have been in that position. We started the second half up 21-10 with the ball and blew the game. Never put yourself in a situation where a call can lose the game for you.

 

[RoughingthePasser]

just a point of fact guys . . .

just watched SNF's take on the matter and they said that there have been over
400 FG attempts this year and that was the first time it was called . . .

what it said in Mike P. article, it was claimed this was a wide spread problem they were trying to get rid of, fair enough, I understand it and do accept the technical correctness of the call given it was a long FG attempt with anticipated lower angle . . .

But Jesus, Mary and Joseph, this is the first time in over 400 attempts that the defense has done this . . . sorry don't believe it . . . and they decide this time to pull out the yellow hankie . . .

What made the ref make such a quick call in this particular situation (field position, down, overtime) with such an OBSCURE call ???...someone had this **** brewing... probably the NFLGoodell & NYJ connection called it in around the cointoss

they love to twist the knife on this team

 

[Hardboiled]

Curran dug this up.

Dean Blandino explains ban on overloading line on kicks - NFL Videos

– Dean Blandino, the NFL's vice president of officiating, explains the new rule restricting how defenses can line up during a field-goal or extra-point attempt.

Blandino mentions 2nd level. How long will this video remain up?

 

[PatsSox363804]

What made the ref make such a quick call in this particular situation (field position, down, overtime) with such an OBSCURE call...someone had this **** brewing... probably the NFLGoodell & NYJ connection call in around the cointoss

they love to twist the knife on this team

Well it was a point of emphasis this week and that's a good way to get everyone to know about the rule.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

Here is the VP of officiating on the rule in September.

New NFL rules: Overloading line restriction will protect linemen - NFL.com

He says it was for players in the second level. Obviously that's not what's written but I wouldn't be surprised it that's what was taught when the officials came around teaching the new rules.

All over now, hard way to learn the rule.

 

[neuronet]

Don't let a freaking penalty like this decide the game. They usually let them play a little more in OT and such. Surprised they called it, the way they let PI and holding go as games near the end (e.g., the SB last year).

Plus, WTF why is this a 15 yard penalty?

 

[NSPF]

Holy **** guys, so I was thinking that this was a bull**** call that they never should have made, but it turns it's worse than that. A lot worse. Belichick was right, and that was only against the rules for players that started not on the line of scrimmage, but THE NFL CHANGED THE RULEBOOK AFTER THE GAME AND MODIFIED THEIR PAST ARTICLES IN ORDER TO COVER THEIR ASSES.

How the rule read prior to the game:

http://wibx950.com/new-rule-costs-patriots-jets-top-pats-with-fg-in-overtime/
During a field-goal attempt or a try kick: (1) No more than six Team B players may be on the line of scrimmage on either side of the snapper at the snap; Penalty: For illegal formation by the defense, loss of 5 yards from the previous spot. (2) Team B players not on the line of scrimmage at the snap cannot push players on the line of scrimmage into the offensive formation. Penalty: For unnecessary roughness, loss of 15 yards from the previous spot.

How it reads now:

http://prodhands-515094417.us-east-...ion-will-protect-linemen?ref=0ap1000000237712
During a field-goal attempt or a try kick: (1) No more than six Team B players may be on the line of scrimmage on either side of the snapper at the snap; Penalty: For illegal formation by the defense, loss of 5 yards from the previous spot. (2) Team B players cannot push teammates on the line of scrimmage into the offensive formation. Penalty: For unnecessary roughness, loss of 15 yards from the previous spot.

THIS IS REALLY NOT OKAY.

 

[SB39]

Holy **** guys, so I was thinking that this was a bull**** call that they never should have made, but it turns it's worse than that. A lot worse. Belichick was right, and that was only against the rules for players that started not on the line of scrimmage, but THE NFL CHANGED THE RULEBOOK AFTER THE GAME AND MODIFIED THEIR PAST ARTICLES IN ORDER TO COVER THEIR ASSES.

Hey guess what? THAT'S NOT THE RULE BOOK.

Here is a quote from way back in March by Jeff Fisher explaining the rule as it is.

NFL Rule Changes to be Discussed at Owners Meetings: The Sunday Five - Dawgs By Nature

"We’re going to add restrictions to the PAT rush and Field Goal rush teams from an alignment standpoint. Specifically, we’re going to require that no more than six defensive players, team ‘B’ players, be permitted to align on either side of the snapper. They will no longer permit defense rush players, team ‘B’ players, to push their teammates through the gaps and overload."

Please note the part in bold says nothing about what level the "pusher" is on.

Geez, when did Raiders fans take over this message board??!

 

[crypto]

my favorite part of all this is how boger said that "umpire's flag went up almost instantaneously as he observed the action," as if to allay late-flag suspicions or whatever.

because the umpire totally anticipated a 56-yard success story.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

THE NFL CHANGED THE RULEBOOK AFTER THE GAME AND MODIFIED THEIR PAST ARTICLES

Changed the completely unofficial and non-binding "digest of rules" or explanation written by some random NFL.com writer? Or changed the actual, official, only-thing-that-matters rulebook?

Like I said, if you're so sure they changed anything official after the game, I challenge you to go to a bookstore or to Amazon, buy a hardcopy of the 2013 Rulebook, and show us the rule as it exists in the official, printed-before-the-season-even-started rulebook.

 

[upstater1]

Curran dug this up.

Dean Blandino explains ban on overloading line on kicks - NFL Videos

– Dean Blandino, the NFL's vice president of officiating, explains the new rule restricting how defenses can line up during a field-goal or extra-point attempt.

Blandino mentions 2nd level. How long will this video remain up?

Blandino is a robot, his memory has been scrubbed.

 

[crypto]

the wording of the rule has nothing to do with whether jones was actually trying to do whatever is supposedly prohibited. i agree with tunescribe; it looked pretty clearly to me like a line stunt that got bumpy. i'd have to watch a replay though.