NFL officiating

[Valuist]

I believe the season starts 6 weeks from tomorrow night. What is a pet peeve in the NFL? IMO, calling too much pass interference. And it looks like its only going to get worse:

http://www.ninersnation.com/2014/7/20/5919583/mike-pereira-illegal-contact-defensive-holding-points-of-emphasis

[Stillriledup]

As long as the NFL is the employer of the officials, you have to take their calls with a grain of salt.

[_______]

Catch the ball outside the end zone and hold 1mm of it over the goal line while your entire body is flying out of bounds before fumbling, it's a touchdown. No doubt. No question.

Catch the ball inside the end zone, land with both feet inbounds and both hands on the ball it could be a touchdown. Maybe. It depends. Did you complete an ill defined "football move" before the ground dislodged the ball?

There is no consistent logic that can support both these rules. The Calvin Johnson rule is a crime against common sense.

[Stick]

Catch the ball outside the end zone and hold 1mm of it over the goal line while your entire body is flying out of bounds before fumbling, it's a touchdown. No doubt. No question.

Catch the ball inside the end zone, land with both feet inbounds and both hands on the ball it could be a touchdown. Maybe. It depends. Did you complete an ill defined "football move" before the ground dislodged the ball?

There is no consistent logic that can support both these rules. The Calvin Johnson rule is a crime against common sense.

I have no clue what you are talking about. In the first example, the player has already caught the ball and is running and places it even on ( doesn't have to be any mm over) and he has scored. In the second example, the player has to establish catching the ball, regardless if he is in the endzone or not. Seems easy to understand for me.

[Stick]

I believe the season starts 6 weeks from tomorrow night. What is a pet peeve in the NFL? IMO, calling too much pass interference. And it looks like its only going to get worse:

http://www.ninersnation.com/2014/7/20/5919583/mike-pereira-illegal-contact-defensive-holding-points-of-emphasis

Valuist,

I agree with you. The pass interference gets bad, especially when it is a 40 or 50 yard game changing penalty.

[Stillriledup]

Catch the ball outside the end zone and hold 1mm of it over the goal line while your entire body is flying out of bounds before fumbling, it's a touchdown. No doubt. No question.

Catch the ball inside the end zone, land with both feet inbounds and both hands on the ball it could be a touchdown. Maybe. It depends. Did you complete an ill defined "football move" before the ground dislodged the ball?

There is no consistent logic that can support both these rules. The Calvin Johnson rule is a crime against common sense.

Couldn't agree more. The split second you catch the ball over the line, its a TD no matter what happens after that. That rule will eventually get changed i'm guessing. When it gets changed is another matter.

[Stick]

In this day where every play is super slow motioned, there has to be a clear rule as to what is a catch. It doesn't matter if the player is in the middle of the field or the endzone. If you make it a completion as soon as someone catches it, there would be a million fumbles that are now called incomplete passes.

[tucker6]

As long as the NFL is the employer of the officials, you have to take their calls with a grain of salt.
You have a conspiracy theory for everything. Do you look under the bed each night? :lol:

[tucker6]

I have no clue what you are talking about. In the first example, the player has already caught the ball and is running and places it even on ( doesn't have to be any mm over) and he has scored. In the second example, the player has to establish catching the ball, regardless if he is in the endzone or not. Seems easy to understand for me.
Not true in reply to the second example as you are making blanket statements. The poster with no name is spot on. If you can catch the ball just in front of the goal line and as long as you split the plane of the goal line, it's a TD whether you make a football move or not, and whether you fumble afterwards or not. Once the ball breaks the plane, the play is over. I have seen WR's catch a ball at the 4, make an obvious couple football move steps toward the goal line, fumble the ball, and end up with an incomplete pass. Remember the Steeler-Colts playoff game back in 2005 when Manning threw an Int to Polamalu. Polamalu catches it, rolls on the ground, gets up and runs about five yards, is hit and looses control of the ball before hitting the ground (he recovered it himself), and they called it an incomplete pass. That play could NOT be called an incomplete pass in the endzone if it was a receiver. It would be a TD long before the ball would have gotten loose.

[Stillriledup]

You have a conspiracy theory for everything. Do you look under the bed each night? :lol:

What's conspiratorial about it? Is it logical for employees of a company to do things that are not beneficial to the success of said company?

[tucker6]

What's conspiratorial about it? Is it logical for employees of a company to do things that are not beneficial to the success of said company?
No, it is not logical in this case. Is having the referees cheat detrimental to the NFL?? I sure think so. There are no long term positives to the league for doing it, and minuscule short term gain. And you would have us believe that because not one official has ever spoken up about this, it still could be happening!!

[Valuist]

Valuist,

I agree with you. The pass interference gets bad, especially when it is a 40 or 50 yard game changing penalty.

They need to put some kind of limit on the distance of the penalty. Maybe 25 yards. To just give away any more than that is ridiculous; plenty of the penalties are called when its very questionable that the receiver would get to the ball anyways.

I can just hear the skeptics: "they'll just interfere every time." Really? 25 yards is still 25 yards. Maybe another alternative is to make PI just 10 yards, but the player who interferes has to be removed from the game for a set amount of time.

[Stick]

Not true in reply to the second example as you are making blanket statements. The poster with no name is spot on. If you can catch the ball just in front of the goal line and as long as you split the plane of the goal line, it's a TD whether you make a football move or not, and whether you fumble afterwards or not. Once the ball breaks the plane, the play is over. I have seen WR's catch a ball at the 4, make an obvious couple football move steps toward the goal line, fumble the ball, and end up with an incomplete pass. Remember the Steeler-Colts playoff game back in 2005 when Manning threw an Int to Polamalu. Polamalu catches it, rolls on the ground, gets up and runs about five yards, is hit and looses control of the ball before hitting the ground (he recovered it himself), and they called it an incomplete pass. That play could NOT be called an incomplete pass in the endzone if it was a receiver. It would be a TD long before the ball would have gotten loose.

If you catch the ball at the one, control the ball and go into the endzone by running forward a yard, it is a touchdown. That is different than a player getting hit or falling to the ground in the endzone and the ball popping out. Your proof is a game nine years ago when the refs botched the call?
Also, do you guys have a problem in baseball when the center fielder jumps in the air and has the ball securely in his glove, only for it to pop out when he hits the ground? Not a catch either.

[Stick]

They need to put some kind of limit on the distance of the penalty. Maybe 25 yards. To just give away any more than that is ridiculous; plenty of the penalties are called when its very questionable that the receiver would get to the ball anyways.

I can just hear the skeptics: "they'll just interfere every time." Really? 25 yards is still 25 yards. Maybe another alternative is to make PI just 10 yards, but the player who interferes has to be removed from the game for a set amount of time.

I don't know what they can do, but they have to do something. The ball is fifty yards down the field and there is some hand fighting going on. That's worth a fifty yard penalty?

[Stick]

Valuist,

The biggest problem with PI is that it is so subjective. I prefer the rules that are black and white. Even if they are taken to an extreme, at least we know what should have been called. With PI there is always that, well there was contact, but is it enough.

[MutuelClerk]

Roger Goodell's rules are black and white. Smoke a joint you get four games. Beat your girl in a casino and drag her to the elevator you only get two.

Have your coach tell everyone Ray Rice is an example to kids when you make a mistake you pay the price. Really? It's not like he farted in church. No jail time, the bimbo actually married him so she wouldn't have to testify. I don't see how he paid the price.

[Stick]

They need to put some kind of limit on the distance of the penalty. Maybe 25 yards. To just give away any more than that is ridiculous; plenty of the penalties are called when its very questionable that the receiver would get to the ball anyways.

I can just hear the skeptics: "they'll just interfere every time." Really? 25 yards is still 25 yards. Maybe another alternative is to make PI just 10 yards, but the player who interferes has to be removed from the game for a set amount of time.

My first thought was that there could be two types of PI. I mean, if a guy is open 50 yards down the field and the defender just jumps on him, they can spot the ball where the foul occurred. But if two guys are just bumping back and forth and the official rules it was PI, maybe it can be 5 or 10 yard and an automatic first down.

[proximity]

You have a conspiracy theory for everything. Do you look under the bed each night? :lol:

I always assumed he just collapsed onto the keyboard each night. :D

as for pi, maybe make it a spot foul or half the distance to the goal.... whichever is worse for the offense. no more first and goal from the 1 nonsense.

[Stillriledup]

No, it is not logical in this case. Is having the referees cheat detrimental to the NFL?? I sure think so. There are no long term positives to the league for doing it, and minuscule short term gain. And you would have us believe that because not one official has ever spoken up about this, it still could be happening!!

Who said the refs would be cheating?

[Dark Horse]

I dropped the NFL. No, I didn't. The NFL dropped me.

A game where you can't touch the QB, and have to target your tackle in a fraction of a second to the new legal target area, is not football, but orchestrated ballet.

I understand the benefit to the players. They no longer walk away from the game as zombies. The only problem? All those zombies religiously watching this corporate crap every Sunday.

Pass interference? And you thought flopping in soccer was bad...

[tucker6]

Who said the refs would be cheating?
You did in so many words ...

Stillriledup: As long as the NFL is the employer of the officials, you have to take their calls with a grain of salt.

Say what you will, but you heavily insinuated that they cheat at times.

[Stillriledup]

You did in so many words ...

Stillriledup: As long as the NFL is the employer of the officials, you have to take their calls with a grain of salt.

Say what you will, but you heavily insinuated that they cheat at times.

That's not me using the word cheating.

Why is it cheating if the ref makes a call based on who the league might want to advance in the playoffs? This is an entertainment league, do you think that actors and actresses (for example) are cheating when filming a movie because they're reading a script?