NFL Week 2

[Rockroi]

Kal:

All I can say at this point is contact the NFL Rules Committee (located in I believe New York City). Bring your points to them.

Because the NFL protects the QB (or have you not noticed). I find you hyperbole in this area to be striking. These things happen "all the time"? Really? They happen, but they are not fixtures. The reason the call yesterday stands out is because it was so against the grain (and, to be fair, such a bad call). Hocouli knows he screwed the pouch. But the whistles are there for a reason. They provide the "clear line of demarcation" between "hard play" and "roughing." Hence... why they have the rules to begin with.

This is why there is "roughing the passer" (again, your comments that end with "OMG" are really, really not helpful) and other like calls. The NFL protects that postion- and for a reason. Losing a QB can screw a whole season in seconds (hence, why the Pats are playing for a playoff birth right now, and not the Superbowl). The NFL wants to keep that in tact.

By allowing the play to continue after that kind of whistle opens the door to injuries, all kinds. Not to mention that the NFL is trying to do away with judgment calls (as in "would he have gotten to that fumble, but ofr the whistle?"). And I watch a lot of football games. People do react when they hear the whistle. Its part of the game. Sometimes they don't hear it. And again- immaterial- its a line of demarcation the NFL uses. The rule- from what I can gather -will not change and I really think its not THAT important. As soon as a QB is injured and a season wasted THEN it will become important and we'll just have to change back.

[Kalbear]

[quote]These things happen "all the time"? Really? They happen, but they are not fixtures. The reason the call yesterday stands out is because it was so against the grain (and, to be fair, such a bad call). Hocouli knows he screwed the pouch.[/quote]The reason the call yesterday stands out is because it was blatantly wrong and it decided a game's outcome. And yes, they do happen all the time. I don't watch the NFL all that often and I can think of several times last year when a whistle was blown inadvertently and the play was called dead. The difference, as I stated, is that they didn't directly affect the outcome of the game like this one did.

[quote]This is why there is "roughing the passer" (again, your comments that end with "OMG" are really, really not helpful) and other like calls. The NFL protects that postion- and for a reason. Losing a QB can screw a whole season in seconds (hence, why the Pats are playing for a playoff birth right now, and not the Superbowl). The NFL wants to keep that in tact.[/quote]Yep! Except this rule doesn't protect anyone any more than they are right now. People already get flagged for roughing. People already get flagged for hits after the play. These rules already exist. And people already go after the ball after the whistle has blown. Go look up the play on youtube and see for yourself - do you see a single player stopping? If you're actually concerned about the wellbeing of a QB being hit or otherwise being involved in a fumble after the play, you're going to have to stop making fumbles at all important. Because Jay Cutler? He was going after that ball as much as anyone, and I can guarantee you that he would have been obliterated by a SD player if any were around him and not near the ball.

So if you want to protect QBs, the way is not to make it so that inadvertent whistles are the law. The way is to make it so that either QBs cannot be involved in fumbles, or that fumbles don't actually matter.

[quote]By allowing the play to continue after that kind of whistle opens the door to injuries, all kinds. Not to mention that the NFL is trying to do away with judgment calls (as in "would he have gotten to that fumble, but ofr the whistle?").[/quote]They're trying to do away with judgment calls by doing things like instant replay. But they're not allowing instant replay to actually work because of bad judgment calls. They're letting the first bad judgment call overrule the person who has more information and time to decide something. That's a bad design.

Look, people are going to run for the ball as long as there's a chance it's a fumble. Do you really not believe this? Do you think that any QB worth their salt is going to stop diving for the ball regardless of whether the whistle blew? Do you think Brady would stop diving for a ball? I'm sorry that Brady got hurt, but it's a contact sport. Stop being such an overprotective mom about it.

[grozeng]

I was just watching ESPN while I worked out during lunch.

Ed Hochuli said the call was wrong. Then they had Jay Cutler on the show live and he said he fumbled the ball, he knew it was a fumble and when he got to the sideline they were acting like it was a fumble but since the whistle blew they hoped that at best they would get the ball back at the 10. So it looks like everyone involved knew it was a bad call.

[Swordfish]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1518614' date='Sep 15 2008, 09.46']They already do not stop playing when it's a fumble.[/quote]


most of the time, they do actually. but that isn't really the point.

Creating a rule that forces players to play after the whistle is just a horrible idea.

You are essentially taking the judgment call away from one guy (the official) and handing it over to 22 guys.

[quote]It happened yesterday. It happens all the time. I see all sorts of games where an inadvertent whistle was blown and the play stops.[/quote]

So we aren't just talking about loose balls now?

because that makes it even worse.

[quote]But it's not ignoring unintended consequences. Players are taught to go for the ball regardless of anything else. Any whistles, any contact, anything is ignored over the ball.[/quote]

that's an exaggeration. and you aren't talking now just about loose balls, and you aren't talking about just the players going for the ball anymore either.

What happens if someone gets called for a late hit, and then they overturn the whistle?

Reall, you can't see how terrible encouraging players to play past the whistle is?

it seems so utterly obvious that i can't even believe anyone would suggest it to be honest.

[quote]Now, you can reasonably say that there should be penalties for hitting hard after the play is over. And there actually are, so that's okay too. That part is covered.[/quote]

there is no rule that I'm aware of that penalizes only for 'hard' hits after the whistle.

And even if there were, that would be a judgement call. So should those plays also be reviewable?

[quote]But give the refs the ability to make reasonable judgment calls after the play is dead and after they have more information.[/quote]

What happens after the play is dead is irrelevant.

The play is dead.

So nothing that happens after that should be suddenly considered relevant.



[quote]Look, people are going to run for the ball as long as there's a chance it's a fumble. Do you really not believe this? Do you think that any QB worth their salt is going to stop diving for the ball regardless of whether the whistle blew?[/quote]

What about once they have the ball? Shouldn't they then keep the play going and try to score? even if the whistle keeps blowing and blowing and blowing?

And then is every single hit that occurs a penalty, since the play was dead?

It makes ZERO sense on any level to make change that rule.

[Kalbear]

[quote]that's an exaggeration. and you aren't talking now just about loose balls, and you aren't talking about just the players going for the ball anymore either.[/quote]It really isn't. Ever actually play football in High School and above? It's trained so much that it's instinctual. You don't think about going for the ball, you go after the ball. The whistle is meaningless.

In any case, you have reasonable points. I don't know how you stop people from running hard after the ball if you made it so that possession could change even after a whistle blew. You may have a bunch of late hits and penalties. The thing is, they do this already. They're trained to do this already. No coach is ever going to stop training their players to do loose ball drills.
[quote]What happens after the play is dead is irrelevant.
The play is dead.
So nothing that happens after that should be suddenly considered relevant.[/quote]We are at war with Oceania. We have always been at war with Oceania. I understand the rule as it is now. You're basically saying in this statement that because the play is dead, it shouldn't be reviewed, because the play is dead. Okay, thank you tautology man! I'm arguing that if we're willing to give referees the ability to make judgment calls like 'the play is dead even though it shouldn't be' we need to be able to make judgment calls so that possession can change hands in those cases if they were wrong. No advancement is necessary - and that takes care of your random 'should he advance it and keep running' garbage. Just let the ball change possession. That's it.

[quote]Reall, you can't see how terrible encouraging players to play past the whistle is?

it seems so utterly obvious that i can't even believe anyone would suggest it to be honest.[/quote]You really should go around the nation and tell all the coaches in the US that.
[quote]What about once they have the ball? Shouldn't they then keep the play going and try to score? even if the whistle keeps blowing and blowing and blowing?[/quote]Again, most players already do this, at least for a good few seconds.

[Young Wolf]

*points at Chargers fans and laughs*

[size=4][color="#708090"]RAIDERS! BETTER RECORD THAN THE CHARGERS! OH YEAH! [/color][/size]

McFadden looked great. Hell Michael Bush looked great as well running the ball.

RE: Kiffin

The were rumors among various Raiders fan sites that Davis wanted to fire Kiffin this Monday with Davis having been quoted by an "anonymous" Raiders official: "He's not the guy I hired. He's not my guy."

If he's not "your" guy Al...who the fuck hired him because no one else has any juice in the organization???

I wish Davis would just go away so the Raiders can function like a normal NFL franchise.

YW

[Arlingzen Bill]

[quote name='Young Wolf' post='1518708' date='Sep 15 2008, 14.14']*points at Chargers fans and laughs*

[size=4][color="#708090"]RAIDERS! BETTER RECORD THAN THE CHARGERS! OH YEAH! [/color][/size]

RE: Kiffin

The were rumors among various Raiders fan sites that Davis wanted to fire Kiffin this Monday with Davis having been quoted by an "anonymous" Raiders official: "He's not the guy I hired. He's not my guy."

If he's not "your" guy Al...who the fuck hired him because no one else has any juice in the organization???

I wish Davis would just go away so the Raiders can function like a normal NFL franchise.

YW[/quote]

Any chance Al could hire Matt Millen to run his organization. I think Lions fans have suffered enough, and I don't even like the Lions.

[Space Bandito]

No one is arguing it was a correct call. I think many are simply saying. Tough luck.

Perhaps Turner will get an Official NFL apology letter like Ellis Hobbs did for the phantom (game changing) pass interference call a few years back. I bet that will make him feel better. ;)

Ask Vikings fans how they felt about that Addai touchdown on the one yard line after he was stopped 3 times. The challenge upheld due to lack of evidence after it was called a touchdown. Was that a game changer? Different refs, different results.

[Space Bandito]

Raiders have a mean ground and pound, but come November JR is going to need to learn to throw that rock.

[Kalbear]

Space Bandito, they should totally be able to review PI calls.

I guess I don't have a problem (or as much of one) with the Addai TD because it wasn't incontrovertible that he was not in. With the SD/Denver call, it was absolutely clear that it was a fumble. Every ref agreed, the replay official agreed, etc. And that's how it was ruled. The problem was the non-change of possession. And I think that when we have the ability to change the play's outcome and the ability to correctly determine what the play's outcome should have been, it should be done. Some times that's not as easy, but when the call is that easy to overturn...let's get it 100% right.

[Young Wolf]

[quote name='arlington bill' post='1518713' date='Sep 15 2008, 14.16']Any chance Al could hire Matt Millen to run his organization. I think Lions fans have suffered enough, and I don't even like the Lions.[/quote]

No, because that would require relenquishing power.

[Mexal]

[quote name='Young Wolf' post='1518708' date='Sep 15 2008, 14.14']I wish Davis would just go away so the Raiders can function like a normal NFL franchise.

YW[/quote]

I wish the same thing of Mike Brown and the Bengals every single day.

[Week]

[quote name='Mexal' post='1518803' date='Sep 15 2008, 14.59']I wish the same thing of Mike Brown and the Bengals every single day.[/quote]
I wish the same thing of Jeremy Jacobs and the Bruins sometimes. I told myself I'd never talk about them again...it's so damn hard not to though.

[Young Wolf]

[quote name='Mexal' post='1518803' date='Sep 15 2008, 14.59']I wish the same thing of Mike Brown and the Bengals every single day.[/quote]

I dunno...your guy just likes convicts and bad defenses.

Our guy enjoys draining blood from humans, hiring and firing a new HC every year, hiring Bed & Breakfast proprietors for OC, blowing obsene amounts of money on players who are completely undeserving (Javon Walker, Tommy Kelly, etc), and did I mention he's a bloodsucking vampire?

[Mexal]

[quote name='Young Wolf' post='1518840' date='Sep 15 2008, 15.18']I dunno...your guy just likes convicts and bad defenses.

Our guy enjoys draining blood from humans, hiring and firing a new HC every year, hiring Bed & Breakfast proprietors for OC, blowing obsene amounts of money on players who are completely undeserving (Javon Walker, Tommy Kelly, etc), and did I mention he's a bloodsucking vampire?[/quote]

No. All of our problems stem from Mike Brown. I could list quite a few.

[Andrik the Unsmiling]

[quote name='Weekapaug' post='1518814' date='Sep 15 2008, 12.05']I wish the same thing of Jeremy Jacobs and the Bruins sometimes. I told myself I'd never talk about them again...it's so damn hard not to though.[/quote]

I'm sorry? is a Boston fan complaining about a losing team?

John York, Brian Sabean, Chris Cohan, Lew Wolff, and Al Davis laugh at your tiny shred of sports misery.

(To be fair, I only actually root for three of those teams. A's and Raiders were just added for effect.)

[Kalbear]

By the way, the NFL is going to be [url="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3589407"]looking into changing the inadvertent whistle rule[/url], and possibly changing it to be similar to the down by contact rule they changed earlier.

[quote]Until March 2007, down by contact plays were not reviewable. That rule was changed so that they were reviewable, and if a fumble occurred even after the whistle blew, the team recovering it got possession.[/quote]

Pretty similar rule except one is about fumbles vs. being ruled down, one is about fumbles vs. incomplete passes. Both would allow the whistle to keep going. So not only is the NFL not worried about that so much, [i]they've already done a rule like it[/i].

[Week]

[quote name='Andrik the Unsmiling' post='1518883' date='Sep 15 2008, 15.48']I'm sorry? is a Boston fan complaining about a losing team?

John York, Brian Sabean, Chris Cohan, Lew Wolff, and Al Davis laugh at your tiny shred of sports misery.

(To be fair, I only actually root for three of those teams. A's and Raiders were just added for effect.)[/quote]
Am I not allowed to be sad about a team that I rooted for as my favorite team in Boston probably until about the lockout when during that time Boston fans were consistently let down and betrayed by Jeremy Jacobs? Fucking Jeremy Jacobs. I used to watch every single Bruins game and go to several per year. Now between him and Bettman, I haven't been to a game in 2 years nor watched one in full in about the same time. Hockey had been my favorite sport up until the lockout (though I was still a Sox and Pats fan of course), so yes this is a Boston fan complaining about a losing, mismanaged team that has an evil owner.

[Kalbear]

You're not allowed to talk about hockey in a football thread. :P

[Week]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1518903' date='Sep 15 2008, 16.05']You're not allowed to talk about hockey in a football thread. :P[/quote]
Haha, you're right, I shouldn't :P.


Anyways, looking forward to the game tonight. Should be a slugfest.