[OT] NFL Playoffs - predetermined?

[Squire James]

I think the essential rule is "the game cannot end with a defensive penalty". Whether there also happens to be an offensive penalty does not matter.

While I'm not a Steeler's fan, I did think the kicker sure leaned forward awfully far to make sure that Steeler would "run into" him! Then again, that Steeler was well aware that leaping in like that and failing to block the kick often results in a penalty of some sort, yet he went in there and did it anyway. He gambled with the Football Gods and lost. That happens once in a while!

 

[The Sigil]

The game can't end of offsetting penatlies either.

PS

Regarding the "non-call" in the Giants/49ers game, I found something interesting as I was cruising around the 'net today.

The officials on the field were right. The NFL commissioner is wrong.

http://ww2.nfl.com/fans/rules/kicksfromscrimmage.html

Note point 14:

14. When a team presents a punt formation [Ed. Note: The Field Goal formation is defined to be a "punt formation"], defensive pass interference is not to be called for actions on the widest player eligible to go beyond line. Defensive holding may be called.

I will be the first to admit I never knew this until I found it today.

What it means is that even though the Giants' receiver WAS interfered with, no flag can be thrown on the play.

Hence, the non-call was the right call.

Hence, the game SHOULD have ended at that point. There should not even have been offsetting penalties - because by definition, defensive pass interference could not be called on that play.

Odd. :-/

I'm not defending the officiating crew - the fact that they didn't bring up this rule tells me that they didn't KNOW they were making the right call. But they DID in fact make the right call. *chuckles*

Again, I never knew this - just thought I'd share.

--The Sigil

 

[Storminator]

Not so sure Sigil. Seems like defensive holding was in order, which, by your quote, is allowed.

I'm starting to think the NFL is just too complicated. Perhaps a number of rules need to be eliminated or pared back.

PS

 

[jdavis]

I think all that rule means is that it is only a ten yard penalty instead of marking the ball where the penalty happened (which is the normal pass inerference call). In this case it wouldn't of mattered as the penalties were offsetting, but becauce a defensive penalty was involved the game couldn't of ended, and due to the fact that it wasn't 4th down the Giants would of gottn another play. The call was blown, defensive holding does get called on pass defenders who interfer with a receiver who isn't the one the ball is getting thrown to, I figure the reason that rule is there and is stated for punting is so that that penalty will always give 10 yards and only 10 yards if it happens during a blown punt, these are special teams players for the most part.

The fact of the matter in that situation is the Giants lost because they collapsed in the third and fourth quarters. Pittsburg lost because they didn't play defense good at the end of the game, the penalties give alot of reason for people to gripe but the game is played on the field and both of these teams had several opportunities to win the game that they blew.

 

[The Sigil]

Not so sure Sigil. Seems like defensive holding was in order, which, by your quote, is allowed.

I'm starting to think the NFL is just too complicated. Perhaps a number of rules need to be eliminated or pared back.

PS

Agreed on both counts.

I'm no NFL rules guru, but in the back of my mind, I seem to recall that the differentiation between defensive holding and pass interference comes the moment the ball is released for a forward pass... before the release (or if it's a run play), defensive holding is the call, and pass interference cannot be called. The moment the ball leaves the quarterback's hand, the call becomes pass interference and defensive holding can no longer be called.

I was struck by the "tuck" rule last year - the rule in question is actually "if the quarterback's arm has is in forward motion" and if he could possibly pass (obviously, his arm moving forward as he churns his arms while running with the ball doesn't count). I have thought about it long and hard, and it's ultimately one of only two completely objective ways of ruling something a pass. Way 1 is that the arm is in forward motion when the quarterback is hit. Way 2 is that the ball has been released when the quarterback is hit. Any other definition must be a "subjective" one where the referee is held responsible to determine, "was the QB trying to pass?" Any time you have to assume the motivation of another person, things become subjective. And Way #2 makes it a fumble if the QB is hit while passing (yuk).

I think what we REALLY need in sports (football, basketball, et al) is a healthy dose of "call it the way it is written." The current mentality is "call it if it gives advantage" and sometimes "superstars get calls." Call traveling and carrying the ball in basketball. Call offensive fouls as players fight for position inside in the NBA (by the rules, you can't touch a player to "bump him off his spot and get position" but it's never called). Call offensive holding on every play in the NFL. Clean up hockey. For goodness sakes, restore the strike zone to the "as written" area of shoulders to knees over the plate (and keep batters in the batter's box instead of on top of the plate). I could go on and on.

The problem is that the athletes - regardles of sport - are conditioned to see what rules they can "get away with breaking" rather than to "play by the rules." The referees are trained to "make a call only when an advantage is gained" rather than "when a rule is broken." If we fix both of these viewpoints, we fix much of what ails sport today IMO.

I'm sure this can be related to munchkins and such, thus making it on-topic for this board, but I won't make the comparison. ;-)

--The Sigil

 

[jdavis]

Apparently the refs are now complaining about the fluidness of NFL rules and how they are taking flack for it.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/news/2003/0115/1493069.html

There seems to be a lot of problems with judgement calls and rules that change according to the situation.

 

[The Sigil]

Hence my contention that the solution is:

Call it the way the rules write it.

Don't call it based on "advantage gained" or anything else. If, by rule, it's a penalty, call it a penalty. Be anal in sticking to the rules. Doing anything else leaves you wide-open for criticism.

This is a stupid thing for them to be arguing about... if they spent more time training officials on "here's the definition of a foul/penalty" and not "should you call a foul/penalty based on the situation" we wouldn't even have to have this discussion.

--The Sigil

 

[EarthsShadow]

penalties

since we are talking about penalties and subjectiveness, I think it would make sense for them to just get rid of offensive holding as a penalty because its just stupid for a offensive lineman to get called a penalty for protecting his quarterback. False start, I understand. Face mask, I understand. Hitting the quarterback with your helmet to his helmet I can even understand. Clipping, I can understand that one. Pass Interference I can understand. Offensive Holding, unless its a face mask or something so blatant like that, shouldn't exist. It slows down the game and makes it less interesting.

And yes, they should just follow the rules, period. If they did, there would be a penalty on every play ever.