Toggle sidebar

Bad calls...

TIDE-HSV said:
How about the two false starts?
Click to expand...
Which false starts? The blocked punt play? I need to see that again. From the back it looked like they were early, but I saw a side view where it could have been very close to the snap. I'm pretty sure it should have been a false start though.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
IndyBison,

I totally understand why officiating is so inconsistent now days. Thank you for your input.

BTW, what about the horses collar tackle on the Bama rb on their first drive. Let me guess, it didn't affect the play. Gezz...........................
 
Tider n LA said:
IndyBison,

I totally understand why officiating is so inconsistent now days. Thank you for your input.

BTW, what about the horses collar tackle on the Bama rb on their first drive. Let me guess, it didn't affect the play. Gezz...........................
Click to expand...

I didn't see that one but horse collar is a safety foul so advantage/disadvantage plays no part in the decision. You err on the side of foul.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
IndyBison said:
This showed up on my Facebook history thread. I thought it was relevant to this discussion.

https://www.sbnation.com/2016/1/19/10784818/nfl-rules-referee-officiating-philosophy

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This actually lines up with what I have heard all the way back to the 70’s. Linemen would be “warned” if the hold was not impacting the play but understood if it continued it would be called when it would hurt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
KrAzY3 said:
Not only that but we've seen concerted efforts to commit penalties just to stop Alabama's superior talent. The Auburn game is a good example, they just mugged Ridley when he was open, and even though the gameplan was fairly obvious, the refs still missed some of those calls. In previous seasons we've seen guys literally jumping on the back of Alabama pass rushers, and still not getting called for holding. Heck, for a while there was nothing they could do that would cause them to be called for holding, and teams were obviously doing it to stop Alabama's pass rush.I do find it hard to believe that the opponents play mistake free against Alabama, but even accepting that we've seen teams incorporate violations of the rules into their playstyle if not their gameplan (chop blocks, pass interference, holding) to try to stop them, so it does make it rather incredible that Alabama somehow commits more penalties under those circumstance.
Click to expand...
Nah, they didnt miss those calls, aint you been reading? Barn gained no advantage holding and tackling, so there was no call to make. Smh
The second part times a thousand!
And going along with our resident officials "way" of officiating a college game...2 plays come to mind. 1)Championship(?) game a couple years ago...chop block called on UA's right tackle and guard. Guard contacts dt at waiste while rt litterally put his left hand on dt as he was STEPPING AROUND HIM, to go after a linebacker. No advantage and goes completely against the spirit of the rule. 2) Barn game same year, i believe. Illegal procedure called when rt may have taken a deep breath? What was the advantage gained? I see meer(sp?) cat head bobs and centers nearly turning around with ball in hand. No call. Just call it like it is...refs call the game that they want. I reckon its human nature.
 
Chop block (safety) and false start (procedural) are not advantage/disadvantage fouls. There are other philosophies that could apply, but this isn't one of them. For example, a flinch by an interior linemen will be called almost every time. But if it's a 30 point game in the fourth quarter a small flinch likely gets ignored. Or of a lineman flinches at the same time a defender enters the neutral zone, put that one on the offense because he's the one that knows the snap count.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
IndyBison said:
This showed up on my Facebook history thread. I thought it was relevant to this discussion.

https://www.sbnation.com/2016/1/19/10784818/nfl-rules-referee-officiating-philosophy
Click to expand...

This drives me crazy:
"Adrian Peterson takes a hand off from Teddy Bridgewater and darts left aiming for the C gap between the left tackle and the tight end. As he approaches the hole, the tackle on the right side of the line grabs the Seahawks' defensive end by the jersey and slows his ability to give chase. Peterson hits the hole and gets 4 yards before he's dragged down.

The Seahawks coaching staff and fans all scream in unison, "Holding! Holding!" They saw the jersey pull and want their 10 yards.

The umpire saw it, too, as did the line judge, and they both kept their flags in their pants. No foul. Why? A hold on the opposite side of where the play went had zero affect on the outcome of the play."

Maybe. Maybe not. How many times have we seen a DE or LB chase a RB down from behind, either due to hesitation from the RB or due to sheer athletic speed by the defensive player? Too many to act as if that holding has zero impact on the play.

Further, when giving the refs the ability to decide whether or not the flag should be thrown on an obvious penalty, we allow bias (intentional or unintentional) to play a much larger role - which precisely explains the massive disparity in penalties wrt Alabama.
 
crimsonaudio said:
This drives me crazy:
"Adrian Peterson takes a hand off from Teddy Bridgewater and darts left aiming for the C gap between the left tackle and the tight end. As he approaches the hole, the tackle on the right side of the line grabs the Seahawks' defensive end by the jersey and slows his ability to give chase. Peterson hits the hole and gets 4 yards before he's dragged down.

The Seahawks coaching staff and fans all scream in unison, "Holding! Holding!" They saw the jersey pull and want their 10 yards.

The umpire saw it, too, as did the line judge, and they both kept their flags in their pants. No foul. Why? A hold on the opposite side of where the play went had zero affect on the outcome of the play."

Maybe. Maybe not. How many times have we seen a DE or LB chase a RB down from behind, either due to hesitation from the RB or due to sheer athletic speed by the defensive player? Too many to act as if that holding has zero impact on the play.

Further, when giving the refs the ability to decide whether or not the flag should be thrown on an obvious penalty, we allow bias (intentional or unintentional) to play a much larger role - which precisely explains the massive disparity in penalties wrt Alabama.
Click to expand...

This is but one example of arbitrary enforcement, which seems to be the enforced modus operandi of officials from what I'm reading here.
 
NationalTitles17 said:
This is but one example of arbitrary enforcement, which seems to be the enforced modus operandi of officials from what I'm reading here.
Click to expand...
Exactly - and its my problem with it. By allowing officials to determine whether or not a penalty might impact a play, they're affecting the game.

And not just directly via penalties, either. How may times has a Bama QB not thrown the ball to a WR who was 'covered' because the DB had grabbed his jersey, etc? When the QB glances to his left and sees Ridley being held all the way down the field so he throws the ball to the right and it's incomplete, picked off, OOB, etc. - that lack of penalty doesn't matter? I beg to differ.
 
crimsonaudio said:
This drives me crazy:
"Adrian Peterson takes a hand off from Teddy Bridgewater and darts left aiming for the C gap between the left tackle and the tight end. As he approaches the hole, the tackle on the right side of the line grabs the Seahawks' defensive end by the jersey and slows his ability to give chase. Peterson hits the hole and gets 4 yards before he's dragged down.

The Seahawks coaching staff and fans all scream in unison, "Holding! Holding!" They saw the jersey pull and want their 10 yards.

The umpire saw it, too, as did the line judge, and they both kept their flags in their pants. No foul. Why? A hold on the opposite side of where the play went had zero affect on the outcome of the play."

Maybe. Maybe not. How many times have we seen a DE or LB chase a RB down from behind, either due to hesitation from the RB or due to sheer athletic speed by the defensive player? Too many to act as if that holding has zero impact on the play.

Further, when giving the refs the ability to decide whether or not the flag should be thrown on an obvious penalty, we allow bias (intentional or unintentional) to play a much larger role - which precisely explains the massive disparity in penalties wrt Alabama.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZooIzPiXbY

It only took to the 15 second mark to get to a play that might not have been made if the guy had been allowed to be held back at the line. Several others as well such as 45 seconds. Not necessarily textbook examples but plays in which if a lineman or player was held/tackled/etc at a different spot from the play to claim that there would be no advantage gained from it is silly because the advantage would have been that they wouldn't have been in position to make a play before the whistle blew.

I get that you can take that idea too far the other direction but for refs to claim that they can predict when/where a team is given an advantage in a game as unpredictable as football is the height of hubris.
 
crimsonaudio said:
Exactly - and its my problem with it. By allowing officials to determine whether or not a penalty might impact a play, they're affecting the game.

And not just directly via penalties, either. How may times has a Bama QB not thrown the ball to a WR who was 'covered' because the DB had grabbed his jersey, etc? When the QB glances to his left and sees Ridley being held all the way down the field so he throws the ball to the right and it's incomplete, picked off, OOB, etc. - that lack of penalty doesn't matter? I beg to differ.
Click to expand...

I suspect that a ref would flag the hold as the play was developing if the ref saw it. I hope that this would not fall into the non-impact category for the exact reason you mentioned.

As for the Peterson run referenced in the article, I didn't see the play but if he was tackled for a 4 yard gain there wouldn't have been an opportunity for any kind of chase by the defensive end on the other end of the line so I can understand no impact here. My question would be when does the ref make this determination and can he pull the flag a little late if something allows the play to continue? Can they throw it and then wave it off?

I'm torn between liking the philosophy because it keeps the game moving and wanting every foul called because it should force the players to quit doing them and trying to get away with all the holds and such.
 
Last edited:
crimsonaudio said:
This drives me crazy:
"Adrian Peterson takes a hand off from Teddy Bridgewater and darts left aiming for the C gap between the left tackle and the tight end. As he approaches the hole, the tackle on the right side of the line grabs the Seahawks' defensive end by the jersey and slows his ability to give chase. Peterson hits the hole and gets 4 yards before he's dragged down.

The Seahawks coaching staff and fans all scream in unison, "Holding! Holding!" They saw the jersey pull and want their 10 yards.

The umpire saw it, too, as did the line judge, and they both kept their flags in their pants. No foul. Why? A hold on the opposite side of where the play went had zero affect on the outcome of the play."

Maybe. Maybe not. How many times have we seen a DE or LB chase a RB down from behind, either due to hesitation from the RB or due to sheer athletic speed by the defensive player? Too many to act as if that holding has zero impact on the play.

Further, when giving the refs the ability to decide whether or not the flag should be thrown on an obvious penalty, we allow bias (intentional or unintentional) to play a much larger role - which precisely explains the massive disparity in penalties wrt Alabama.
Click to expand...
Or how many times has a runner cut back across the field? The defender being held is taken out of the play because "the penalty didn't have an affect on the play."
 
day-day said:
As for the Peterson run referenced in the article, I didn't see the play but if he was tackled for a 4 yard gain there wouldn't have been an opportunity for any kind of chase by the defensive end on the other end of the line so I can understand no impact here.
Click to expand...

But what if he cuts back? What if he hesitates? When does the flag get thrown, 20 seconds after he cuts back and isn't tackled because he takes it all the way due to the DE being held?

That's my problem with it - acting as if the refs can predict what NO ONE can predict is ludicrous, and further, it perfectly explains the ongoing penalty disparity against Alabama.

If the opposing OL can be called on every play for holding as it's the only chance they have to stay in the game - the CALL IT ON EVERY PLAY.
 
TIDE-HSV said:
I'll agree that we get everyone's A game. However, I don't think any team can completely reverse their previous penalty record playing us. In fact, if anything, I'd expect the opposite from their being amped up - more false starts, offsides, DPI and the like...
Click to expand...

Fair point. I wonder if there's an easy way to sort the penalties into groups. If their procedure and safety penalties are lower against us, I'd say it's better game prep. If their holding, PI, etc were lower, I'd say not.
 
Here is another good philosophy example. The rule indicates it's a foul to tackle or block a runner who is clearly out of bounds. There is obviously judgment involved when the runner is not near the sideline. If you read the rule literally, how would you judge "clearly?"

One philosophy I learned and is somewhat universal is if the runner is basically giving himself up and obviously running out of bounds you give the benefit of the doubt to the runner. The defender knows he's going out of bounds and just wants to get in a cheap shot. But if the runner is parallel to the sideline and still trying to gain yards and the contact happens just after he steps out, give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. This philosophy helps eliminate the gray area and make it called more consistently.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
day-day said:
I suspect that a ref would flag the hold as the play was developing if the ref saw it. I hope that this would not fall into the non-impact category for the exact reason you mentioned.
Click to expand...

Yes, that could definitely be a defensive holding. If the covering official sees what he feels is enough restriction, he takes a quick peak back at the quarterback. If the ball is already out and going another direction, there is no foul, but if he still has the ball or it's conning to that receiver, there will be a flag.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
That's not a horse collar because he grabbed him around the waist and threw him down. The other hand appears to be in the collar but that's only part of the foul. It requires you to grab and pull sideways or backwards in a way that buckles the knees. That's not what happens here.

This is a good example of understanding the source of the rule helps you know why it exists. Several years ago there as a Cowboys defensive back who would chase down runners from behind, grab the back of their collar, and pull them down with all their weight by leaving their feet.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back