Today's WSJ: Broncos/Seahawks Super Bowl of 'cheating'

[scout]

The Patriots employed the strategy of "go right up to what the rulebook allows and go ever further until the refs start throwing flags" to absolute perfection 10 years ago. In fact, they routinely got away with stuff they probably shouldn't have. Everyone in here hates Polian so it blinds them to the fact that the guy had a legit point. I can't say I have any problem whatsoever with the Broncos and Seahawks employing the same strategy that worked so well for us during our Championship Seasons.

I would not be surprised if we see another "rulebook point of emphasis" this offseason with regards to offensive PI the way we saw that for defensive holding and illegal contact almost a decade ago.

There is one problem with this post. The rules changed from 10 years ago. You cannot compare what DB's did then and now. Clearly, there is a contradiction in what is being called on the Broncos and what has been called recently. Don't you agree?

 

[SB39]

There is one problem with this post. The rules changed from 10 years ago. You cannot compare what DB's did then and now. Clearly, there is a contradiction in what is being called on the Broncos and what has been called recently. Don't you agree?

Please clarify what you're asking me because I honestly do not understand what you are saying above. Are you talking rules regarding offensive PI or defensive holding/illegal contact?

I don't believe the rules for defensive backs have changed, there was just the "point of emphasis" from ~10 years ago. I am saying I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar "point of emphasis" for the offense.

 

[scout]

I don't believe the rules for defensive backs have changed, there was just the "point of emphasis" from ~10 years ago. I am saying I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar "point of emphasis" for the offense.

Sorry for the delayed response as I had pick myself off the floor from your response. The rule changes regarding defensive backs effected the sport of football more then any other rule change in major sports (football, baseball, basketball) in the last decade. That is how dramatic the rule change has become. Now, if you disagree with my assessment (or any other member), please state a rule change in any sport in the last decade that had more of an impact on its game. I seriously can not think of any.

 

[SB39]

Sorry for the delayed response as I had pick myself off the floor from your response. The rule changes regarding defensive backs effected the sport of football more then any other rule change in major sports (football, baseball, basketball) in the last decade. That is how dramatic the rule change has become. Now, if you disagree with my assessment (or any other member), please state a rule change in any sport in the last decade that had more of an impact on its game. I seriously can not think of any.

Then maybe you should read a sports page every once in a while.

First of all, you're obviously completely unaware that it wasn't a rule change. It was a renewed point of emphasis and, IMHO, it was correct to place renewed emphasis on illegal contact by the DB's since they were getting away with murder (much like right now we are seeing offensive WR's getting away with murder on the pick plays).

As I mentioned above, this group's collective hatred of Bill Polian prevents people from realizing that the guy, despicable as he may be, had a legit point.

Second of all, you clearly have never heard of the sport called "hockey". No sport has changed so dramatically as the NHL in 2005 in the first year back following the lockout. There are about a half dozen rule changes that went into effect that year which each had a greater impact on that game than the NFL "emphasis" on illegal contact, none the least of which was the overhaul of overtime.

Third of all, I don't even consider the illegal contact "emphasis" to be the biggest change in football. I think the new rules regarding targeting, unnecessary roughness, horse collars and increased protection of quarterbacks have had a bigger influence on the game than the "emphasis" brought in in 2005.

 

[scout]

Then maybe you should read a sports page every once in a while.

First of all, you're obviously completely unaware that it wasn't a rule change. It was a renewed point of emphasis and, IMHO, it was correct to place renewed emphasis on illegal contact by the DB's since they were getting away with murder (much like right now we are seeing offensive WR's getting away with murder on the pick plays).

As I mentioned above, this group's collective hatred of Bill Polian prevents people from realizing that the guy, despicable as he may be, had a legit point.

Second of all, you clearly have never heard of the sport called "hockey". No sport has changed so dramatically as the NHL in 2005 in the first year back following the lockout. There are about a half dozen rule changes that went into effect that year which each had a greater impact on that game than the NFL "emphasis" on illegal contact, none the least of which was the overhaul of overtime.

Third of all, I don't even consider the illegal contact "emphasis" to be the biggest change in football. I think the new rules regarding targeting, unnecessary roughness, horse collars and increased protection of quarterbacks have had a bigger influence on the game than the "emphasis" brought in in 2005.

Rule change or point of emphasis, lets call it semantics. My point being that every time a QB goes back to pass a defensive back will be flagged for interfering with a receiver. There would have been no flag thrown when the Pats played St. Louis for the championship in 2001. Although, I think the five yard penalty is a rule not an emphasis (whatever). I could care less about Bill Polian?

I mentioned the three major sports which does not include hockey (insert Red's Bruin quote "75 miles outside of Boston....). Either way, a QB can throw 50 times in ONE game "emphasizing" the DB from interfering with the receiver. In hockey, I don't think there were 50 OT games in one season.

All the scenarios you mention (horse collar, targeting, protection qb, roughness) do not even come close to totaling the times a defensive back is involved with a receiver in one game. Not to mention, depending on the formation there are multiple receivers.

If I was wrong I would concede defeat as I do not have a problem with being proved wrong.

 

[SB39]

Rule change or point of emphasis, lets call it semantics. My point being that every time a QB goes back to pass a defensive back will be flagged for interfering with a receiver. There would have been no flag thrown when the Pats played St. Louis for the championship in 2001. Although, I think the five yard penalty is a rule not an emphasis (whatever). I could care less about Bill Polian?

I mentioned the three major sports which does not include hockey (insert Red's Bruin quote "75 miles outside of Boston....). Either way, a QB can throw 50 times in ONE game "emphasizing" the DB from interfering with the receiver. In hockey, I don't think there were 50 OT games in one season.

All the scenarios you mention (horse collar, targeting, protection qb, roughness) do not even come close to totaling the times a defensive back is involved with a receiver in one game. Not to mention, depending on the formation there are multiple receivers.

If I was wrong I would concede defeat as I do not have a problem with being proved wrong.

You're wrong when you say the 5-yard penalty for illegal contact or defensive holding was a new rule and not an emphasis. Rule changes require a 3/4th majority of owners to pass but this was not a rule change.

You're wrong when you estimate "In hockey, I don't think there were 50 OT games in one season." The Bruins alone had 22 OT games that first season after the lockout, 10 of which went to shootout. So obviously hockey has a helluva lot more than 50 OT games in one season.

Everything beyond that is simply opinions and we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[scout]

You're wrong when you say the 5-yard penalty for illegal contact or defensive holding was a new rule and not an emphasis. Rule changes require a 3/4th majority of owners to pass but this was not a rule change.

You're wrong when you estimate "In hockey, I don't think there were 50 OT games in one season." The Bruins alone had 22 OT games that first season after the lockout, 10 of which went to shootout. So obviously hockey has a helluva lot more than 50 OT games in one season.

Everything beyond that is simply opinions and we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Really, we are talking about hockey? LOL, I used "one" NFL game as an example versus a hockey league. Evidently, I was wrong. Should I go for one weekend of NFL games?
The QB throws the ball throughout the game and the officials pay close attention to the defensive backs and throws the flag much, much more then before the "emphasis/rule change. There is no greater effect on the outcome of the game regardless of the sports team (basketball, baseball, football, or hockey) then what the official interprets from the interaction of the receiver and defensive back. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.