Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis

[emoney_33]

Re: Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis.

Your logic was they made a bad call on the Reche Caldwell play, so the rule should be changed. That logic is ridiculously unsound because no matter what the rules are, there are always going to be bad calls.

Umm no that wasn't my logic at all. Do you even read what I am quoting to respond to? You sarcastically talked about being forgiving of Colts DBs mauling Pats receivers. I never so much as insinuated that the Caldwell play warrants a rule change. That doesn't even make sense, and for you to jump to that assumption makes even less sense. The argument is about the yardage awarded on a PI call not on limiting missed calls.

Point being you were wrong when you said "holding is -only- 5 yards". When you said holding was "only" 5 yards, you were leaving out the most important part (either deliberately or due to your lack of knowledge of NFL penalties).

I assumed everyone reading already knows that defensive holding is an automatic 1st down, just like I assume everyone reading can assume that a 15 yard PI penalty would be automatic first down. The POINT is that the automatic first down means that it makes NO sense for a DB to "maul" a receiver because it's only "15" yards which is what you and others were arguing.

Where did I claim that?

So you agree that DBs would not start mauling receivers with a 15 yard (and automatic first down) PI penalty right? So your argument then that the rule is fine comes down to you believing that all pass interference as is should be a spot foul. So assuming the receiver would have made the play is OK and fair?

There is nothing unfair about the rule as is. In fact, your logic is once again very poor. Rules are, by their very definition, neutral (assuming they apply to both teams equally). They could make a rule that said the offense could line up 13 men against 10 on the defense and there would be nothing "unfair" about it.

Apparently you aren't very good at comprehending points. The "fairness" being debated about the rule is not about fairness to each team. Obviously any rule that applies the same is fair to each team. The rule UNFAIRLY penalizes the defense, on all teams. As you said you could line up 13 men on defense, but that would not be fair to the offense.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis.

Umm no that wasn't my logic at all. Do you even read what I am quoting to respond to? You sarcastically talked about being forgiving of Colts DBs mauling Pats receivers. I never so much as insinuated that the Caldwell play warrants a rule change. That doesn't even make sense, and for you to jump to that assumption makes even less sense. The argument is about the yardage awarded on a PI call not on limiting missed calls.

Then we agree that the Caldwell play has no bearing in this argument. Moving on...

I assumed everyone reading already knows that defensive holding is an automatic 1st down,

Well I think everybody who knows it is a 1st down also knows it is 5 yards. And yet, when trying to make d-holding sound like it isn't that severe of a penalty, you made sure to omit the 1st down part.

So you agree that DBs would not start mauling receivers with a 15 yard (and automatic first down) PI penalty right?

You're putting words in my mouth again (and since you didn't respond to my question I will take that as your admission of same). It is difficult to answer your question since it is so ridiculously vague - "mauling" could mean just about anything. So let me say that if they changed the rules, it would not result in PI on every single play, but it would dramatically increase the amount of PI's called per game and we would see a marked increase in DB's commit deliberate PI when they are beaten deep.

So your argument then that the rule is fine comes down to you believing that all pass interference as is should be a spot foul. So assuming the receiver would have made the play is OK and fair?

How about you let me state what my argument is instead of your feebly trying to put words in my mouth?

My argument is that penalties are meant to penalize the offending team. The purpose of a penalty is not to just try and figure out "hey what would have happened if this penalty had not occured?" Which I was I used offensive holding on a running play as an example. The offense is penalized 10 yards; the refs don't group up and try and figure out "well, if he hadn't have held, then the play would have resulted in a 1 yard gain so let's just penalize them 1 yard."

Apparently you aren't very good at comprehending points. The "fairness" being debated about the rule is not about fairness to each team. Obviously any rule that applies the same is fair to each team. The rule UNFAIRLY penalizes the defense, on all teams. As you said you could line up 13 men on defense, but that would not be fair to the offense.

Apparently you aren't very good at logic. Rules are, by their very definition, fairly and equally applied to all 32 teams. There is no such thing as something being "unfair to the defense." According to your logic, it's "unfair to the offense" that the defense can have 7 guys in motion at the snap but the offense can't have more than 1.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis.

Well I think everybody who knows it is a 1st down also knows it is 5 yards. And yet, when trying to make d-holding sound like it isn't that severe of a penalty, you made sure to omit the 1st down part.

Are you following the conversation of this topic at ALL? The point is that people are arguing 15 yard penalty for PI is bad and would allow DBs to maul receivers etc... Knowing that the 15 yard argument includes an automatic first down, I used holding being "only" 5 yards as a point to show that just because a penalty isn't a spot foul doesn't mean defenders will commit it egregiously because it does NOT benefit them to do so. Please either understand the topic at hand or stop nitpicking certain points with your own context.

You're putting words in my mouth again (and since you didn't respond to my question I will take that as your admission of same). It is difficult to answer your question since it is so ridiculously vague - "mauling" could mean just about anything. So let me say that if they changed the rules, it would not result in PI on every single play, but it would dramatically increase the amount of PI's called per game and we would see a marked increase in DB's commit deliberate PI when they are beaten deep.

When I ask a question it is NOT putting words in your mouth. Please learn how to read and comprehend or just graciously leave the argument. I asked you, because I am not sure, whether you believe DBs would start mauling (read: intentionally and egregiously pass interfering) if the penalty for PI was 15 yards (and a first down OBVIOUSLY) rather than a spot foul.

Now the idea that the amount of PIs called per game increasing is ridiculous and doesn't even have any sound logic to back that idea. As of today, defenders don't intentionally pass interfere and that would not change. It makes absolutely no sense for a defender to intentionally pass interfere just because the penalty is "only" 15 yards and a first down. If they are in position to pass interfere, they are in position to defend and play the ball and that will always be the way they play.

How about you let me state what my argument is instead of your feebly trying to put words in my mouth?

My argument is that penalties are meant to penalize the offending team. The purpose of a penalty is not to just try and figure out "hey what would have happened if this penalty had not occured?" Which I was I used offensive holding on a running play as an example. The offense is penalized 10 yards; the refs don't group up and try and figure out "well, if he hadn't have held, then the play would have resulted in a 1 yard gain so let's just penalize them 1 yard."

This quote makes 0 sense. You first say that a purpose of a penalty is to penalize and NOT to assume what would have happened if the penalty had not occurred. You then argue in FAVOR of assuming that a receiver makes the catch. The spot foul penalty of PI is ASSUMING that the receiver would have made the catch at the point of PI. My argument is at the LEAST make it a 15-yard (and 1st down) penalty unconditionally (like college). Because the amount of yardage awarded for borderline PI calls is ridiculously unfair to a defense.

Apparently you aren't very good at logic.

I can guarantee you that my logic skills are far superior to yours.

Rules are, by their very definition, fairly and equally applied to all 32 teams. There is no such thing as something being "unfair to the defense." According to your logic, it's "unfair to the offense" that the defense can have 7 guys in motion at the snap but the offense can't have more than 1.

This is the stupidest analogy I've ever seen. There can absolutely be rules that are unfair to one thing and that does not have to be between teams. The fact that you think the word "fair" can only apply on a team-wide basis shows you are incapable of arguing the merits of any rule because as long as the rule applies to both teams it is automatically fair and just. You can apply that same stupid "fair" argument to a rule proposal that puts 15 players on defense. Your argument that because it applies to all teams it is fair is stupid, and that's being nice.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

It is broke, that's the damn point.

 

[jeffro]

I did not bother reading the whole thread so sorry if this has already been suggested...

Why not keep PI rule as it is except apply "half the distance to the goal". So, for example, if there is PI in the end zone on a play started from the 40, the ball gets spotted at the 20.

 

[unoriginal]

I did not bother reading the whole thread so sorry if this has already been suggested...

Why not keep PI rule as it is except apply "half the distance to the goal". So, for example, if there is PI in the end zone on a play started from the 40, the ball gets spotted at the 20.

Spot fouls aren't penalized that way, only dead ball fouls. Offensive holding, for example, results in a safety if it occurs in the team's own end zone.

 

[jeffro]

Spot fouls aren't penalized that way, only dead ball fouls. Offensive holding, for example, results in a safety if it occurs in the team's own end zone.

OK I see your point that it would not be consistent with the way other spot fouls are handled but why not make a special case for pass interference?

 

[woolster22]

Something needs to be done. I say get rid of the penalties on underthrown balls. Why should the defense be put at risk over a terrible pass? that is the one that drives me nuts. I am really tired of the ticky-tack calls on sub-par recievers, while it seems the "Stars" get mauled and handchecked all the way down the field with no flag, as they should be "expected" to make the play regardless. Defensive holding/PI has gotten way out of hand the last few years. The new all offense show is no where near as entertaining to me as the offensive/defensive "games" (more like street fight) of ~5 years ago. Polian/Goodell are ruining this game. I swear to god, if the banning of the 3 point stance has any merit to it, Goodell should be tortured and shot.

 

[Joker]

excellent post from my POV...if only all rules pre-Ratdell could be re-enforced AND every SINGLE CHANGE emanating from the Polian Rules Cabal since 2001 could be overturned.

 

[Wolfpack]

Re: Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis.

Are you following the conversation of this topic at ALL?

It's tough to follow a conversation when your points are so haphazard, illogical, and you are constantly putting words in my mouth.

When I ask a question it is NOT putting words in your mouth. Please learn how to read and comprehend or just graciously leave the argument.

When you ask a leading question, it is a lame attempt at putting words om someone's mouth - not to mention you kept saying I said DB's would "maul" receivers and then when I asked you where I said that, you ignored my question (but apparently weren't man enough to admit you were wrong).

Now the idea that the amount of PIs called per game increasing is ridiculous and doesn't even have any sound logic to back that idea. As of today, defenders don't intentionally pass interfere and that would not change.

You need to join us in the real world here. If you make the penalty less severe, then we are definitely going to see more infractions. There will certainly be an increase in DB's committing PI when they get beatn deep because it is better to give up 15 yards than 50.

If you are too belligerent to accept basic facts, even when those facts oppose your contentions, then I suggest you join us in the real world or just graciously leave the argument

It makes absolutely no sense for a defender to intentionally pass interfere just because the penalty is "only" 15 yards and a first down. If they are in position to pass interfere, they are in position to defend and play the ball and that will always be the way they play.

This statement is so ridiculously ignorant, it leads me to believe you don't actually watch football. If a receiver has a step on a DB, the DB is often still in a position to reach out and grab the WR (or grab his arm or whatever) but not necessarily be in a position to make a play on the ball.

This quote makes 0 sense.

No, it makes perfect sense. Your inability to understand what I am saying does not imply the fault is mine.

This is the stupidest analogy I've ever seen. There can absolutely be rules that are unfair to one thing and that does not have to be between teams. The fact that you think the word "fair" can only apply on a team-wide basis shows you are incapable of arguing the merits of any rule because as long as the rule applies to both teams it is automatically fair and just. You can apply that same stupid "fair" argument to a rule proposal that puts 15 players on defense. Your argument that because it applies to all teams it is fair is stupid, and that's being nice.

You obviously are a phenomenally ignorant individual when it comes to football, and that's being nice.

While I am going to continue in this thread, I am done with you since you are not capable of debating a point without all your small minded ad hominem attacks and insults. I now leave you to have the last word you are clearly so desperate to have.

 

[Wolfpack]

Something needs to be done. I say get rid of the penalties on underthrown balls. Why should the defense be put at risk over a terrible pass?

Well, the current rule does allow for a terrible pass to be deemed "uncatchable" and there would be no PI in that situation. As for underthrown balls, it really depends on if the DB is looking at the receiver or looking back at the ball. You will rarely see PI called against a DB who is looking back at the ball and trying to make a play.

NOTE: When I say "looking back at the ball" I mean, for example, when the WR and DB are streaking down the sidelines or something like that. Obviously, PI is frequently called if the WR is trying to make a catch and the DB goes over his back or through him to try and bat the ball down.

 

[woolster22]

I'm talking more of the reciever has his man smoked, db doing everything he can to catch up and the qb throws a duck variety. In which case the reciever pulls up and often initiates minor contact and tries to make the catch coming back through the db. There is no way that should be pi. If the QB can't get it to the spot, why should the DB be responcible for it? These guys have it tough enough now that they so much as blow on someone past 5 yards and laundry is coming out. They hit a guy to soon after he goes up and more laundry. Hell, you play hard assume a guy is going to make a very makeable catch going up, he drops it and stumbles and you light him up (in real time the player had no time to react/pull up) and you get an unnecessary roughness flag (want to say pats game, maybe against the saints? Could very well be wrong). It is absurd. I understand the head-head part and makes sense. But when two guys are moving at full speed and one stumbles/trips immediately before contact, how can the league justify a 15 yard penalty? theres probably more contact down the sidelines in most flag football leagues in this country. Herr Goodell and Pouting Polian need to take a damn hike.

 

[emoney_33]

Re: Pereira on Polian and point of emphasis.

If you make the penalty less severe, then we are definitely going to see more infractions. There will certainly be an increase in DB's committing PI when they get beatn deep because it is better to give up 15 yards than 50.

The receiver usually beats the DB before the ball is thrown. Yet DBs don't grab the receiver and hold them because "5 yards is better than 50". If a DB is in position to interfere, that means they are in position to make a play on the ball. No DB will ever decide to intentionally interfere and give an automatic first down plus 15 yards JUST so they don't have to TRY to break up the play. The first DB to do that would lose his job. It makes no sense, and you are arguing with horrendous logic. At which point in time when the ball is in the air does the defender decide "nope I know for a fact I can't get to it, let me hold the receiver".

If the defender is so far behind that he can't make a play on the ball, then he most likely can't make the tackle either. Therefore according to your logic it is better for him to intentionally interfere with the current rules to prevent the more dangerous YAC. Yet it doesn't happen, because it goes against common sense, logic and even the competitive nature of athletes.

This statement is so ridiculously ignorant, it leads me to believe you don't actually watch football. If a receiver has a step on a DB, the DB is often still in a position to reach out and grab the WR (or grab his arm or whatever) but not necessarily be in a position to make a play on the ball.

Yet DBs very rarely intentionally hold, even though by your logic that would be better than allowing the DB to get a step on you.

While I am going to continue in this thread, I am done with you since you are not capable of debating a point without all your small minded ad hominem attacks and insults. I now leave you to have the last word you are clearly so desperate to have.

Re-read your post (of which I've ignored most of the crap in it) and then accuse me of "attacks and insults". My points are backed by something as simple as common sense. Your theory is backed by flawed logic and what you personally believe a defender should do. Now go ahead and ignore me because you can't stand reading my common sense.

 

[Wolfpack]

I'm talking more of the reciever has his man smoked, db doing everything he can to catch up and the qb throws a duck variety. In which case the reciever pulls up and often initiates minor contact and tries to make the catch coming back through the db. There is no way that should be pi. If the QB can't get it to the spot, why should the DB be responcible for it?

This is the type of situation where the ref is supposed to let it go if the DB is turned and is facing the ball (instead of facing the WR). But the WR has a right not to be interfered with even if the pass is underthrown (but is still catchable). So if the DB is not making a play on the ball, I have no problem with a flag being thrown on such a play.