Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 607586" data-attributes="member: 2013">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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;tuck&quot; rule last year - the rule in question is actually &quot;if the quarterback's arm has is in forward motion&quot; and if he could possibly pass (obviously, his arm moving forward as he churns his arms while running with the ball doesn't count).&nbsp; I have thought about it long and hard, and it's ultimately one of only two completely objective ways of ruling something a pass.&nbsp; Way 1 is that the arm is in forward motion when the quarterback is hit.&nbsp; Way 2 is that the ball has been released when the quarterback is hit.&nbsp; Any other definition must be a &quot;subjective&quot; one where the referee is held responsible to determine, &quot;was the QB trying to pass?&quot;&nbsp; Any time you have to assume the motivation of another person, things become subjective.&nbsp; 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 &quot;call it the way it is written.&quot;&nbsp; The current mentality is &quot;call it if it gives advantage&quot; and sometimes &quot;superstars get calls.&quot;&nbsp; Call traveling and carrying the ball in basketball.&nbsp; Call offensive fouls as players fight for position inside in the NBA (by the rules, you can't touch a player to &quot;bump him off his spot and get position&quot; but it's never called).&nbsp; Call offensive holding on every play in the NFL.&nbsp; Clean up hockey.&nbsp; For goodness sakes, restore the strike zone to the &quot;as written&quot; area of shoulders to knees over the plate (and keep batters in the batter's box instead of on top of the plate).&nbsp; I could go on and on.The problem is that the athletes - regardles of sport - are conditioned to see what rules they can &quot;get away with breaking&quot; rather than to &quot;play by the rules.&quot;&nbsp; The referees are trained to &quot;make a call only when an advantage is gained&quot; rather than &quot;when a rule is broken.&quot;&nbsp; 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</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 607586, member: 2013"] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification