Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-14-2019, 07:43 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
What does it have to do with the Patriots? The rule was instituted because the Rams got away with a clear PI against the Saints in the NFC Championship game, sending the wrong team (Rams) to the Superbowl.
Because usually when people are saying how the NFL is conspiring to send a specific team to the Superbowl, they're talking about the Patriots.

Given that the Patriots have appeared in four out of the last five Superbowls, if the NFL is conspiring to send some other team to the Superbowl, they're doing an amazingly bad job of it.
  #52  
Old 10-14-2019, 07:53 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Because usually when people are saying how the NFL is conspiring to send a specific team to the Superbowl, they're talking about the Patriots.

Given that the Patriots have appeared in four out of the last five Superbowls, if the NFL is conspiring to send some other team to the Superbowl, they're doing an amazingly bad job of it.
LOL. Truth.

Or the NFL is trying to keep the Patriots out and are failing because New England is that good. (Said nobody ever except maybe the most die-hard Patriot homer.)
  #53  
Old 10-14-2019, 09:13 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Because usually when people are saying how the NFL is conspiring to send a specific team to the Superbowl, they're talking about the Patriots.

Given that the Patriots have appeared in four out of the last five Superbowls, if the NFL is conspiring to send some other team to the Superbowl, they're doing an amazingly bad job of it.
I can't tell if you're serious or joking, or I don't understand what you mean.

This rule isn't about furthering an agenda. It's to prevent avoidable error, but so far not so great.
  #54  
Old 10-14-2019, 09:49 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I think the Seahawks have a really good, balanced offense.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Russell is playing as the undisputed MVP this year,
One of the fellow "football nerds" (who is not, as far as I've been able to tell, a Seahawks fan, per se) that I communicate with has admitted to me that he thinks that Russell is a future H.o.F.er
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Chris Carson is building on last yearís success as a RB (and stopped fumbling),
I've liked Chris Carson from the first time I saw him play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Tyler Lockett is a legit #1 WR
Okay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
and Metcalf is a rookie WR not playing like a rookie.
A big, strong, fast WR. I don't know if the 'hawks have ever really had that, before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
The OL goes from decent to crap but thatís nothing unusual.
There's only so much $$$ to go around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
The defense though isnít good.
I was telling a good friend of mine that just yesterday. Actually, what I told him is that "I don't think the offense is the problem" when he was complaining about certain aspects of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
The defensive line should be better, and maybe when Reed comes off suspension next week it will be better, but...
I think that one thing that people thought before the season is true: that they don't have much for a pass rush, despite the additions of Clowney and Ansah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
The linebackers are awesome but they can only do so much.
Very true! I'm a HUGE Bobby Wagner fan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Only Griffin is looking good in the secondary (and heís looking really good). They are allowing too much and while Russell keeps bailing them out you have to wonder if thatís enough.
One of those "football nerds" e-mailed me a while back that as good as he thinks R.W. is, banking on him to "rescue" the team every game probably isn't sustainable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I do think that the Seahawks are better than their numbers suggest. For example, they beat the Browns by 4. They could have beaten them by 11 if they wanted to. They got the ball just outside the end zone and the way the Cleveland D was playing they probably could have walked in. But they didnít because the Browns had no timeouts and there was only a minute on the clock, so they went into victory formation to end the game. They do just enough to win.
Well, "a win's a win," as they say, but to my mind all the 'hawks' wins this year, save one, could've very easily gone the other way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
While thatís not unusual, I feel like itís a peek into their philosophy. They play conservative and grind out games.
Pete Carroll may run around like he's 25 all over again but he definitely has an "old school" philosophy about the game of football.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
They are explosive when they need to be (and when opportunities appear) but donít push it. Unless a team is just folding over with no resistance like Arizona they are unlikely to run up the score. So I donít necessarily see that one team blowing out opponents is automatically better than the one barely beating them, though that could be the case.
Fair point but I still say that the scorelines don't really impress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
Hereís an example... The Rams crushed the Saints, 27-9. Obliterated them. The next week the Saints go to Seattle and beat them. Clearly the Rams are better, right? But then Seattle beats the Rams, and are currently two games ahead of them in the standings.
Yeah, I know sports isn't like math where if A beats B and then B beats C then A will necessarily beat C when the two meet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
I would say that the Rams are not as good as Seattle
I'd like to believe that that's correct but I think that remains to be seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
and are fighting a serious SB hangover.
You could very well be right about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
If things progress as they have been, with the Seahawks winning close games and the Niners winning by huge margins, I donít know if we will get a real measure of them before Nov 11 when they meet.
I remember last year when the Niners ended their losing streak to the 'hawks I thought it was simply a case of the Seahawks not taking the 49ers seriously that day but the start that the 49ers are having to this season is causing me to rethink that.
  #55  
Old 10-14-2019, 10:13 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
I remember last year when the Niners ended their losing streak to the 'hawks I thought it was simply a case of the Seahawks not taking the 49ers seriously that day but the start that the 49ers are having to this season is causing me to rethink that.
Itís not like they overhauled they entire team in the offseason. Some of the great stuff we see now was there last year, waiting, like a creeper in the attic. Maybe the creeper peeked out in that game.
  #56  
Old 10-14-2019, 11:23 PM
garygnu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 11,520
If that wasn't the biggest eff-up I've ever seen...
__________________
įoį
  #57  
Old 10-14-2019, 11:25 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,225
Absolute horseshit officiating in the fourth quarter of Lions-Packers.
  #58  
Old 10-14-2019, 11:28 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,666
A terrible officiated game, and the Packers win it. What else is new?
  #59  
Old 10-14-2019, 11:30 PM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,153
Agreed. I love Aaron Rodgers and I've never had anything against the Packers but those critical calls against the Lions tonight were pretty bad.
  #60  
Old 10-14-2019, 11:31 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,848
I have to question those final Green Bay decisions. They're down by two points in the last ninety seconds of the game. They want to score, of course, but they're also concerned about the possibility of Detroit scoring.

So they have a clear opportunity to score a touchdown - and they sit down on the one yard line. They spike the ball twice to run down the clock. And then they kick a 23 yard field goal.

It worked. But I think it was a unnecessary risk. People miss field goals, even at short range. If the snap had been bobbled, the clock would have run out and they would have lost the game.

The first thing they should have done was secure the lead. They should have run in that touchdown and taken the lead. Even if it meant Detroit getting the ball back. Defending against Detroit making a touchdown in ninety seconds (with no timeouts left) was less of a risk than chancing a bad field goal attempt.
  #61  
Old 10-14-2019, 11:37 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It worked. But I think it was a unnecessary risk. People miss field goals, even at short range. If the snap had been bobbled, the clock would have run out and they would have lost the game.
Oh I wouldn't worry about that, the ref's would've just kept throwing flags til Green Bay got the score they needed.
  #62  
Old 10-14-2019, 11:41 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Defending against Detroit making a touchdown in ninety seconds (with no timeouts left) was less of a risk than chancing a bad field goal attempt.
I don't have numbers to cite but I would guess that when you're facing a field goal that short, your odds of making it are around 95%. There is a very low statistical occurrence of snap-to-holder failure or kicker miss.

Whereas the odds of your opponent driving seventy or eighty yards for a touchdown within ninety seconds might be around 20%, especially with a hurry-up offense. That's significantly higher than the 5% chance of your field-goal attempt going awry.

Last edited by Velocity; 10-14-2019 at 11:41 PM.
  #63  
Old 10-15-2019, 02:06 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,848
Out of curiosity, did Green Bay set an NFL record for a winning team that first took the lead the latest in the game? (Not counting games that were decided in overtime.)

Last edited by Little Nemo; 10-15-2019 at 02:06 AM.
  #64  
Old 10-15-2019, 10:10 AM
FoieGrasIsEvil's Avatar
FoieGrasIsEvil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Land of Cheese Coneys
Posts: 18,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Absolute horseshit officiating in the fourth quarter of Lions-Packers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
A terrible officiated game, and the Packers win it. What else is new?
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
Agreed. I love Aaron Rodgers and I've never had anything against the Packers but those critical calls against the Lions tonight were pretty bad.
I went to bed during the 4th quarter not knowing who won. When I got up and watched the highlights, I was pretty aghast at how terrible those two crucial calls against Flowers really were. Completely altered the game in GB's favor. And the non-call for PI on the deep ball Stafford threw was just as egregious. I simply cannot understand how you miss that call...like in the Saints game last season.
__________________
Posting From Above The Browns
  #65  
Old 10-15-2019, 10:32 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,026
For the past several seasons, I've become increasingly convinced that the NFL's rules are now so convoluted, and the instructions that they give to officials on enforcement are so obscure, that they've now reached the point where it's impossible for the officials to accurately and fairly enforce the rules in real time. The officials are being told to keep on watch for so many things that they miss (or misinterpret) other actions by players as they occur at game speed.

The Packers benefitted from that last night (and the Lions got screwed by it). Next week, some other team will be on the receiving end of the horrible calls.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 10-15-2019 at 10:33 AM.
  #66  
Old 10-15-2019, 01:38 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
For the past several seasons, I've become increasingly convinced that the NFL's rules are now so convoluted, and the instructions that they give to officials on enforcement are so obscure, that they've now reached the point where it's impossible for the officials to accurately and fairly enforce the rules in real time. The officials are being told to keep on watch for so many things that they miss (or misinterpret) other actions by players as they occur at game speed.

The Packers benefitted from that last night (and the Lions got screwed by it). Next week, some other team will be on the receiving end of the horrible calls.
Youíre not alone in that. This all stems from the push to do all that they can to help player safety. The NFL got such a black eye from the CTE reports that they tried to soften the game. But now they have rules that donít work and canít be properly officiated. I see many calls for them to simplify things and stop with all the ticky-tack details that people are supposed to somehow follow when flying around a field at superhuman speeds, and that a handful of guys in zebra stripes are supposed to catch in real time. Itís getting to be impossible.
  #67  
Old 10-15-2019, 02:50 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
You’re not alone in that. This all stems from the push to do all that they can to help player safety. The NFL got such a black eye from the CTE reports that they tried to soften the game. But now they have rules that don’t work and can’t be properly officiated. I see many calls for them to simplify things and stop with all the ticky-tack details that people are supposed to somehow follow when flying around a field at superhuman speeds, and that a handful of guys in zebra stripes are supposed to catch in real time. It’s getting to be impossible.
Agreed. I think that there are three areas in which the NFL has, in the past decade or so, repeatedly rewritten the rules in attempts to make things clearer, but what they have wound up doing is make the rules more complex, less comprehensible, and nearly impossible for the officials to adjudicate on the field:
1) What sorts of hits are illegal
2) What is or isn't a catch
3) What is or isn't pass interference

Ideally, the rules should be created in such a way that a knowledgeble fan* who is watching a game (as well as the players who are playing the game!) is able to understand why a flag is or isn't thrown. And, even more importantly, if said knowledgeable fan is watching a replay of that play, it'll become even clearer to the fan what the correct call should be -- and the officials will make that call after the replay review.

We're now in an era in which both of the above precepts are regularly being violated. That just causes frustration and anger with the fans, and with the players.

* - Admittedly, many knowledgeable fans' perceptions become altered when the call (or lack of call) goes against their favorite team.

Last edited by kenobi 65; 10-15-2019 at 02:51 PM.
  #68  
Old 10-15-2019, 03:01 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,568
An example was a flag in the Seattle/Cleveland game. Wilson got pulled down as he threw the ball away and a flag was thrown. The reason was a horse collar tackle, because the jersey can’t be grabbed and pulled down on a QB at or above the nameplate when he is out of the pocket.

And I thought tax code was complicated.
  #69  
Old 10-15-2019, 06:59 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
Ideally, the rules should be created in such a way that a knowledgeble fan* who is watching a game (as well as the players who are playing the game!) is able to understand why a flag is or isn't thrown. And, even more importantly, if said knowledgeable fan is watching a replay of that play, it'll become even clearer to the fan what the correct call should be -- and the officials will make that call after the replay review.[/SIZE]
I would go a step further and get rid of replay review (I know, I know, it sounds crazy!!!) Let's go back to being purely what a human sees in real time.

Yes there will be errors, but there are errors now, so big diff, yah?

Whereas, if you aren't going to get rid of replay review, then let's go all in - each side gets an attorney to argue in their favor during each replay review. (I said it would be CRAZY!!!)

Last edited by Icarus; 10-15-2019 at 06:59 PM.
  #70  
Old 10-15-2019, 10:01 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Oh I wouldn't worry about that, the ref's would've just kept throwing flags til Green Bay got the score they needed.
yea, the Seahawks would agree.

Oh wait, they don't! They got the good end of a horrible call and won against the packers.
  #71  
Old 10-15-2019, 10:04 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
yea, the Seahawks would agree.

Oh wait, they don't! They got the good end of a horrible call and won against the packers.
That didnít count because that game didnít have any real refs in it.
  #72  
Old 10-16-2019, 12:20 AM
racepug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Snohomish County, WA
Posts: 1,153
Oh, yeah, the so-called "Fail Mary." As I recall it was that game that compelled the N.F.L. to get a contract done with the real refs.
  #73  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:30 AM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by racepug View Post
Oh, yeah, the so-called "Fail Mary." As I recall it was that game that compelled the N.F.L. to get a contract done with the real refs.
Russell Wilson saved the NFL.

(Goodell even admitted that the backlash from that play forced his hand.)
  #74  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:08 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atamasama View Post
That didnít count because that game didnít have any real refs in it.
They were officially officials, and their officiating counted. The game does not have a * after it.
  #75  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:38 PM
Atamasama's Avatar
Atamasama is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 4,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
They were officially officials, and their officiating counted. The game does not have a * after it.
But they were replacement refs. Sure the game counted, but the officials were stand-ins while the real ones were on strike. Few people doubt that play would have happened if the real refs were officiating.
  #76  
Old 10-16-2019, 05:28 PM
Quercus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: temperate forest
Posts: 7,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenobi 65 View Post
For the past several seasons, I've become increasingly convinced that the NFL's rules are now so convoluted, and the instructions that they give to officials on enforcement are so obscure, that they've now reached the point where it's impossible for the officials to accurately and fairly enforce the rules in real time.
Is it really that rules have gotten more convoluted, or just that these days 2/3rds of the audience can instantly rewind every single play in slow-mo/freeze frame and the other 1/3 can find a GIF online within 30 seconds? I don't think it's particularly any harder to enforce the rules in real time now than say 20 years ago-- it was always impossible to perfectly call the rules; we just notice (and argue over) the imperfections now. It's not like a pass rusher hands to the face is super convoluted and obscure. it's no more difficult to call that now than 20 years ago (or whenever that particular rule was added). The referee wasn't confused; they just couldn't see perfectly in high-speed real time.
  #77  
Old 10-16-2019, 05:42 PM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is offline
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 16,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
Is it really that rules have gotten more convoluted, or just that these days 2/3rds of the audience can instantly rewind every single play in slow-mo/freeze frame and the other 1/3 can find a GIF online within 30 seconds?
Probably a little of both.

I think that, in particular, the rules on legal vs. illegal hits, and the rule on what constitutes a catch, have been repeatedly massaged by the Rules Committee over the past decade, and much (if not all) of those interative changes have made things more complex, not less.

Regarding the rules on illegal hits, it seems to me (as a "knowledgeable" football fan) that there are a lot of situational differences in when a particular hit becomes illegal (e.g., quarterback in the pocket versus not in the pocket, defenseless ballcarrier versus not, etc.). It also seems that the officials have been given particular points of guidance on things to look for that constitute an illegal hit (such as a hand going to a quarterback's head), which lead to roughing calls on incidental, minor contact, like this play from the Packers/Cowboys game.

In the case of the rule on a catch, it's now a common refrain (among players, coaches, fans, and commentators) that "I don't know what constitutes a catch anymore." That's hyperbole, of course, but the rule used to be pretty obvious and intuitive, and it isn't anymore.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017