Goodell's newest anti-Patriots weapon

[Tunescribe]

If the league wanted the refs to ensure the Patriots lost games, they wouldn't need to implement this rule.

You don't realize it, but you support my point when you mention the OPI calls. The mechanisms are already in place to sway the outcomes of games if they were so inclined.

Not a single Patriot player will be ejected by virtue of this new rule in a meaningful moment of a game this year. Book it.

I wasn't predicting a Patriot will be ejected this coming season, I merely stated that the rule will be an extra arrow in the refs' quiver of discretionary enforcement that might come in "handy" in the right situation. But I certainly will "book" your guarantee and hope you're right.

 

[XLIX]

No, he wouldn't have. No more than one and perhaps none of the PFs Odell committed are the kind of PFs that count towards the auto-eject. The proposed rule is very specific about exactly which PFs "count". I have seen multiple articles about the proposed rules change that say "and OB would not have been auto-ejected because he did not have two of the listed PFs".

Yes I've seen those articles too. I guess since someone wrote an article about it, it must be true!!

You're missing the point. If the new rule is implemented, then behavior like Odell's will be considered a "strike" the first time and an ejection the next. They won't just call a generic offsetting "Unnecessary Roughness" penalty without specifying what, specifically, the offender did. They will give a specific reason why and make sure that reason fits within the auto-eject categories when appropriate.

 

[Galeb]

Yes I've seen those articles too. I guess since someone wrote an article about it, it must be true!!

You're missing the point. If the new rule is implemented, then behavior like Odell's will be considered a "strike" the first time and an ejection the next. They won't just call a generic offsetting "Unnecessary Roughness" penalty without specifying what, specifically, the offender did. They will give a specific reason why and make sure that reason fits within the auto-eject categories when appropriate.

Keep digging, you'll get to China soon.

 

[XLIX]

I wasn't predicting a Patriot will be ejected this coming season, I merely stated that the rule will be an extra arrow in the refs' quiver of discretionary enforcement that might come in "handy" in the right situation. But I certainly will "book" your guarantee and hope you're right.

So, in other words, this rule is being implemented for a reason that has nothing to do with the Patriots, and you agree it likely won't be used against the Patriots in the upcoming season, but you still believe it is an "anti-Patriots" weapon.

oh kay.

 

[Galeb]

So, in other words, this rule is being implemented for a reason that has nothing to do with the Patriots, and you agree it likely won't be used against the Patriots in the upcoming season, but you still believe it is an "anti-Patriots" weapon.

oh kay.

In his previous post, he stated that the title was cynical hyberbole. He is correct in his conclusion that Goodell will use any tool in his arsenal to eff the Pats if an opportunity presents itself.

 

[XLIX]

Keep digging.

It's not digging, it's a fact. Under the old rules, a ref would call generic unsportsmanlike penalties or unnecessary roughness penalties and not go into specifics regarding why. That's what happened to Beckham.

If you watch the following video and claim that Odell would not be thrown out under the new rule (if implemented), then you either don't know the new rule or you don't know football.

 

[Galeb]

It's not digging, it's a fact. Under the old rules, a ref would call generic unsportsmanlike penalties or unnecessary roughness penalties and not go into specifics regarding why. That's what happened to Beckham.

If you watch the following video and claim that Odell would not be thrown out under the new rule (if implemented), then you either don't know the new rule or you don't know football.

Is your name Tom?

 

[Tunescribe]

So, in other words, this rule is being implemented for a reason that has nothing to do with the Patriots, and you agree it likely won't be used against the Patriots in the upcoming season, but you still believe it is an "anti-Patriots" weapon. oh kay

I've explained the rationale over concern about this rule, specifically applied to the Patriots, several times. If you don't get it by now or don't want to get it, I can't help you. If you just don't like it, fine.

 

[1960Pats]

Just read the damn thread and think. The title obviously is hyperbole but the implication involves the very real prospect of Goodell implementing rule changes putting even greater discretion in the hands of officials to determine the outcome of games. WHY? (I'm sure you will ask.) To FORCE the league-mandated parity the Patriots have defied for the better part of 15 years. Selective enforcement to "right the balance," a la last year's OPIs against Gronk. There, I've spelled it out for you and you owe me three minutes of life back.

I was worried about that crap last year when the NYJFL decided that they were going to control the calls on replays, but then they got it right on P6's pass/lateral play in the AFCCG and gave the ball to the Pats.

I think what we have in this case is the typical micro-management of the rules by the NYJFL. They're probably reacting to the foolishness last year by Beckham, Norman, Burfict and Talib in the playoffs.

 

[Galeb]

I think what we have in this case is the typical micro-management of the rules by the NYJFL. They're probably reacting to the foolishness last year by Beckham, Norman, Burfict and Talib in the playoffs.

This is exactly why. I believe it is meant as a deterrent and show of doing something more than anything. If a player is ejected from a game, are they still paid the entire game check?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The proposal being voted on does not include PFs in general at all anymore. It only includes three specific types of unsportsmanlike conduct penalties:
WaPo: The competition committee narrowed the proposal from two personal fouls to two unsportsmanlike conduct penalties for infractions such as punching, kicking or throwing a forearm at an opponent; using abusive language; or taunting.

 

[1960Pats]

This is exactly why. I believe it is meant as a deterrent and show of doing something more than anything. If a player is ejected from a game, are they still paid the entire game check?

It could also be about keeping the discipline hammer for Fraudell.