I am officially no longer a football fan.

Cafe Society
21

[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
Or if the outcome of literally every single play, indeed, every single pitch, was determined by the completely subjective evaluation of a referee. That would be nonsensical and… oh, wait.

Ball and strike calls have a bigger effect on the outcome of any baseball game than penalty calls have on the effect of a football game, and are even more reliant on subjective judgment. Foul calls can completely change the course of a basketball game, which is why Dawyne Wade has a championship ring right now and Dirk Nowitzski does not. Hockey requires a team that is penalized to play shorthanded for a period of time, which has a tremendous actual effect on gameplay.

What you are decrying is a necessary aspect of all sport, not just football. If you want to give up sports altogether because of it, that’s your right, but I really can’t see a way that penalties affect football more than they do any other sport (per the above).
[/QUOTE]

Ball and strike calls do have a huge effect on the game of baseball, and I wont argue that it’s less than penalties in football. This is completely different from penalty calls, though. When the refs pull out the chain to measure whether someone has a first down, or when the ref decides where to place the line of scrimmage when he sees someone tackled is more similar to the ball/strike calls than penalties are. I have no problem with the refs determining where to place the line of scrimmage, or judging whether someone ran far enough for a first down.

I don’t have a problem with judges/refs making calls, even bad ones. Nobody’s perfect. This is a completely different effect than penalties, though. A game where rules violations are punished by giving an advantage to the other team literally 20-30 times a game just can’t be taken seriously. It would be like playing a game like chess, but 30 times a game at unpredictable times a player got to change the position of one of his enemy’s pieces. Nobody would take a game like that seriously, right?

22

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Do you not understand my point? I’m not saying that there’s any alternative to the current penalty system in football, and that’s exactly why football sucks. It’s unredeemable. There is no way to keep any recognizable version of the game while reducing/eliminating the effect of penalties. That’s exactly why football is flawed, and why I will never be satisfied with how a game turns out.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, you’re right: you will never be satisfied with how a game turns out. And you’re right that penalties can change the result of a game. (So can weather, a shoelace that comes untied, etc.)

As to whether the game is “unredeemable,” you’re wrong, because that’s not a judgment that one can make on a game. The game is played how it is played and the rules are set up the way they are. You don’t have to like or agree with that, but the NFL and the rest of us who will continue to love the game (and curse incorrect penalty calls, and tragically-timed time outs) don’t really care if you like the game or not.

23

[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
So how do you feel about other sports?
[/QUOTE]

I care way, way too much about sports. Thats why this issue is such a big deal for me. :slight_smile:

24

[QUOTE=Mosier]

I don’t have a problem with judges/refs making calls, even bad ones. Nobody’s perfect. This is a completely different effect than penalties, though. A game where rules violations are punished by giving an advantage to the other team literally 20-30 times a game just can’t be taken seriously. It would be like playing a game like chess, but 30 times a game at unpredictable times a player got to change the position of one of his enemy’s pieces. Nobody would take a game like that seriously, right?
[/QUOTE]

OK, then do you also maintain that basketball and hockey are not to be taken seriously?

25

[QUOTE=Philster]
That being said, I never complain about officials, but one year the Dallas Cowboys went an entire NFL season with ONE holding penalty called against the offensive line. Try to comprehend that. :eek:

[/QUOTE]

I can’t comprehend that- what year was this? Was holding an offense that year?

26

[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
OK, then do you also maintain that basketball and hockey are not to be taken seriously?
[/QUOTE]

Less seriously than baseball, more seriously than football. It really sucks to see penalties decide any game, and the degree to which games are typically decided by penalties is one way to measure how seriously it should be taken.

27

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Do you not understand my point? I’m not saying that there’s any alternative to the current penalty system in football, and that’s exactly why football sucks. It’s unredeemable. There is no way to keep any recognizable version of the game while reducing/eliminating the effect of penalties. That’s exactly why football is flawed, and why I will never be satisfied with how a game turns out.
[/QUOTE]
Since football is out, and baseball and basketball are so clearly affected by referee’s calls,
I suggest you watch soccer, then. It’s not like penalties have such an effect on that game that offensive players intentionally go down in order to get penalties called.. :rolleyes:

Any sport with rules requires enforcement of the rules, and that enforcement will have to have an effect (or it’s not enforcement). Luck has an effect, too. That’s life, right?
And, for the record, I agree that the Patriots caught a lot of breaks last night (what a stomach punch for Ravens fans!), but find it hard to believe that anyone is arguing that NFL officials are generally biased towards the Patriots, given the consensus about the officiating in the last two Patriots-Colts games.

28

[QUOTE=storyteller0910]
Hockey requires a team that is penalized to play shorthanded for a period of time, which has a tremendous actual effect on gameplay.
[/QUOTE]

In fact, the experience of the NHL shows exaxtly why penalties, from time to time, HAVE to decide the outcome of games; because if officials don’t allow it to happen when it’s merited, the quality of play will decline.

Starting in the early 90s but really getting going in the later part of the decade, less talented NHL teams began to engage in more and more holding, hooking and other illegal plays in an effort to slow down faster, more talented teams, figuring that taking more penalties might not be a bad tradeoff. The result was that referees who called the penalties appropriately came under fire for “allowing penalties to decide the game.” A team would lose 5-3 after giving up three power play goals and people who complain that the refs had decided it; the fact that the losing team had committed eleven minor penalties was blamed on the REFS, not the losing team.

So, over time, what happened was that referees started spacing penalties out, allocating them more or less evenly to either side. Unless a penalty was particularly egregious - and sometimes, even if it was - refs would not allow one team to get substantially more power plays than the other. If one team had had two or three more power plays, the other team would get a pass on almost any rule violation, which the team with more power plays would be called on the next available penalty.

The result, as you would expect, is that illegal play ballooned. By the early part of this decade, the rules against hooking and holding had effectively been removed from NHL hockey; almost any degree of interference was permitted, including hooking men from behind, attacking the upper body with the stick, pinning men to the ice, holding the arms, tripping, and cross-checking. Pretty much all interference was allowed except for stick-to-the-head hits. Of course, all NHL players had no choice but to engage in non-stop interference, since everyone else was doing it. Penalties were awarded in complete disregard for who had committed penalties, and instead were handed out based on whose turn it was.

The result was a dramatic reduction in the quality of play. Skilled, fast play was quickly squeezed out of the game, and goal scoring plummeted. In 2003-04, no NHL player scored more than 41 goals, a total that 20 years earlier wouldn’t have led most teams. All play became defensive, and hideously boring. So by not allowing PENALTIES to determine the outcome of games, the league allowed breaking the rules to not only determine the outcome of games, but effectively wreck the quality of play.

29

Geez. I give up on watching the Pats after they beat the Cowboys and Colts. Then 2 weeks in a row, I expect blowouts, and they’re close.

When and who are they playing next week? Should it be good?

30

[QUOTE=Quercus]
Since football is out, and baseball and basketball are so clearly affected by referee’s calls,
I suggest you watch soccer, then. It’s not like penalties have such an effect on that game that offensive players intentionally go down in order to get penalties called.. :rolleyes:

Any sport with rules requires enforcement of the rules, and that enforcement will have to have an effect (or it’s not enforcement). Luck has an effect, too. That’s life, right?
And, for the record, I agree that the Patriots caught a lot of breaks last night (what a stomach punch for Ravens fans!), but find it hard to believe that anyone is arguing that NFL officials are generally biased towards the Patriots, given the consensus about the officiating in the last two Patriots-Colts games.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not arguing the refs are biased. I’m also not arguing that refs making calls is “bad” for a sport. I know every sport has some referee making some kind of call. I think I’m having a hard time explaining what my problem is with football, so I’ll try again.

Football games are frequently decided by who got caught breaking the rules more. The same can’t be said of basketball, or baseball, or racing, or boxing, or most other sports.

31

[QUOTE=Mosier]
Do you not understand my point? I’m not saying that there’s any alternative to the current penalty system in football, and that’s exactly why football sucks. It’s unredeemable. There is no way to keep any recognizable version of the game while reducing/eliminating the effect of penalties. That’s exactly why football is flawed, and why I will never be satisfied with how a game turns out.
[/QUOTE]

I say that if a player commits a penalty, they’re out for the next play. If they do it on third down and don’t take the field when they normally would on fourth down, they don’t get back in on the ensuing first down.
That was a great game, and if I weren’t a Lions fan, I’d be a Ravens fan. I like good defense as much as the next guy and the Ravens, no matter what their record is, puts up a damn good game against damn good opponents. (I guess I also have a soft spot for acquitted murders, but Mr. Lewis seems to be a better person now) I didn’t like that illegal contact call at the end of the game either. It seemed a little weak. Throughout the years, the league has definitely slanted towards favoring offense in its rules.

32

[QUOTE=RickJay]
In fact, the experience of the NHL shows exaxtly why penalties, from time to time, HAVE to decide the outcome of games; because if officials don’t allow it to happen when it’s merited, the quality of play will decline.

Starting in the early 90s but really getting going in the later part of the decade, less talented NHL teams began to engage in more and more holding, hooking and other illegal plays in an effort to slow down faster, more talented teams, figuring that taking more penalties might not be a bad tradeoff. The result was that referees who called the penalties appropriately came under fire for “allowing penalties to decide the game.” A team would lose 5-3 after giving up three power play goals and people who complain that the refs had decided it; the fact that the losing team had committed eleven minor penalties was blamed on the REFS, not the losing team.

So, over time, what happened was that referees started spacing penalties out, allocating them more or less evenly to either side. Unless a penalty was particularly egregious - and sometimes, even if it was - refs would not allow one team to get substantially more power plays than the other. If one team had had two or three more power plays, the other team would get a pass on almost any rule violation, which the team with more power plays would be called on the next available penalty.

The result, as you would expect, is that illegal play ballooned. By the early part of this decade, the rules against hooking and holding had effectively been removed from NHL hockey; almost any degree of interference was permitted, including hooking men from behind, attacking the upper body with the stick, pinning men to the ice, holding the arms, tripping, and cross-checking. Pretty much all interference was allowed except for stick-to-the-head hits. Of course, all NHL players had no choice but to engage in non-stop interference, since everyone else was doing it. Penalties were awarded in complete disregard for who had committed penalties, and instead were handed out based on whose turn it was.

The result was a dramatic reduction in the quality of play. Skilled, fast play was quickly squeezed out of the game, and goal scoring plummeted. In 2003-04, no NHL player scored more than 41 goals, a total that 20 years earlier wouldn’t have led most teams. All play became defensive, and hideously boring. So by not allowing PENALTIES to determine the outcome of games, the league allowed breaking the rules to not only determine the outcome of games, but effectively wreck the quality of play.
[/QUOTE]

Compare that to your sterotypical playoff hockey series, which, in my opinion, is the best sport there is. Playoff hockey usually requires a very obvious penalty for a whistle to be blown.

33

[QUOTE=Mosier]
I’m not arguing the refs are biased. I’m also not arguing that refs making calls is “bad” for a sport. I know every sport has some referee making some kind of call. I think I’m having a hard time explaining what my problem is with football, so I’ll try again.

Football games are frequently decided by who got caught breaking the rules more. The same can’t be said of basketball, or baseball, or racing, or boxing, or most other sports.
[/QUOTE]

I’m a huge sports fan who gave up on Pro Football years ago. I haven’t watched an entire game in years, and that includes the Super Bowl. In addition to the penalties deciding the outcome of so many games, they occur on 50% of the kickofs and punts. If the game is close or on Monday night, you can bet the game will be called a lot closer. Then there’s the injuries that happen more and more frequently. Watching a game on TV is about 90% dead time and 10% action.

And what about the end zone rules? For some plays, “crossing the plane” means you’re in the end zone, but for others it requires two feet touching the ground inside the lines. Touchbacks have other rules, too.

If it weren’t for fantasy football and gambling, it’d be hard to imagine anyone would voluntarily give up a Sunday to watch that crap.

34

[QUOTE=Mosier]
IFootball games are frequently decided by who got caught breaking the rules more. The same can’t be said of basketball, or baseball, or racing, or boxing, or most other sports.
[/QUOTE]
Define “frequently.” You’re only giving a single game as an example.

Hockey outcomes, of course, are often determined by penalties. Yesterday, the Bruins beat the Islanders 3-1; two of the goals were scored on power plays.

And basketball results are sometimes determined by how many fouls are called.

But the only way to satisfy you would be for no penalties to be called. Let the defenders push all wide receivers to the ground, or tackle them before the ball is thrown into the air. Allow offensive lineman to run and jump as much as they want before the ball is snapped and to tackle defenders going for the quarterback.

Penalties are pat of football. Sometimes they determine the outcome. But the way to prevent penalties from determining the outcome is not to break the rules.

35

[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
But the only way to satisfy you would be for no penalties to be called. Let the defenders push all wide receivers to the ground, or tackle them before the ball is thrown into the air. Allow offensive lineman to run and jump as much as they want before the ball is snapped and to tackle defenders going for the quarterback.
[/QUOTE]

That wouldn’t satisfy me. I don’t think anything could, actually. I just don’t like the game anymore.

36

[QUOTE=Darth Sensitive]
Geez. I give up on watching the Pats after they beat the Cowboys and Colts. Then 2 weeks in a row, I expect blowouts, and they’re close.

When and who are they playing next week? Should it be good?
[/QUOTE]

They are playing (9-3) Pittsburg (in Foxboro) - and yes, it will be good.

37

[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
I’m a huge sports fan who gave up on Pro Football years ago. I haven’t watched an entire game in years, and that includes the Super Bowl. In addition to the penalties deciding the outcome of so many games, they occur on 50% of the kickofs and punts. If the game is close or on Monday night, you can bet the game will be called a lot closer. Then there’s the injuries that happen more and more frequently. Watching a game on TV is about 90% dead time and 10% action.

And what about the end zone rules? For some plays, “crossing the plane” means you’re in the end zone, but for others it requires two feet touching the ground inside the lines. Touchbacks have other rules, too.

If it weren’t for fantasy football and gambling, it’d be hard to imagine anyone would voluntarily give up a Sunday to watch that crap.
[/QUOTE]

For example, Ben Watson’s almost-catch in the end zone that got broken up by Ray Lewis. I wondered aloud about this as well. Watson had the ball (both hands on it, also Ray Lewis had to physically rip the ball out) and both feet on the ground.

38

[QUOTE=Least Original User Name Ever]
I say that if a player commits a penalty, they’re out for the next play. If they do it on third down and don’t take the field when they normally would on fourth down, they don’t get back in on the ensuing first down.
[/QUOTE]

If a sit-out is the only penalty, I can see players committing a lot of intentional situational fouls (e.g., pass interference late in the game).

39

[QUOTE=Bearflag70]
If a sit-out is the only penalty, I can see players committing a lot of intentional situational fouls (e.g., pass interference late in the game).
[/QUOTE]

I must not have been clear. The player sits out a play and also the yardage applies. My bad.
Also, I’m down with changing pass interference to 15 yards.

On edit: I definitely wasn’t clear. My bad.

40

[QUOTE=Mosier]
the icing on the cake was a 30 yard combination of penalties immediately proceeding the game-ending drive, with the clock at 0 and the ball on the 2 yard line.
[/QUOTE]
This is a fool’s complaint, and shame on all the professional analysts for not understanding the rules of football.

Think it through. The objection boils down to the fact that without those 30 yards, the kickoff could have been returned past the twenty, thus meaning that the final play – snapped with 4 seconds left – would have gotten into the endzone instead of falling 2 yards short.

Nobody seems to be aware that returning a kick takes time. When a kickoff goes into the endzone, no time whatsoever is run off the clock, since it doesn’t start winding until somebody touches the ball.

Therefore, the same logic that pushes the final play from 2 yards short to into the endzone ALSO prevents the play from ever being run, since the kick return would have eaten up at least 4 seconds.

Therefore, those two penalties had no effect on the game’s outcome.