Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Online Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:45:15 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,968
Applause Received: 2,227

Clay Matthews, tweeted wrote:
If the NFL really wants to increase player safety, start protecting players on BOTH sides of the ball. . . . Where is the NFL's protection on blocks below the waist like that on Cushing. Double standard!


unknown Packer Player wrote:
It’s definitely on us as players. But I think the refs are out to get us this year.


I said earlier that I think the Seahawks outcome has tweaked this teams psyche and they are more concerned with the referee's making the call than they are about the opponent. This really bothers me.

Message modified by user Wednesday, October 10, 2012 6:23:13 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:30:23 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

I don't think that Matthews tweet has anything to do with refs. It is simply about some players being protected with hits that have low likely hood of ending a career. Perry hit on Luck for example, and other hits that could, like a desperation chop block on Cushing.

The second comment I think would depend on who made it. I could see a defensive player more specifically getting this in their head. Shields probably more than anybody. but that also is a pretty common thought in DBs. Not out to get a team as in a position or positional group like DBs. Heck we have seen for years, every time one makes a play, the first thing they have to do is look to see if a flag was thrown.

The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
dyeah_gb on 10/10/2012(UTC)
Offline dyeah_gb  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:37:37 PM(UTC)
dyeah_gb

Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 28
Applause Received: 25

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
.. Heck we have seen for years, every time one makes a play, the first thing they have to do is look to see if a flag was thrown.




This is a point I want to emphasize as well. It has gotten to the point that every damn incompletion requires the QB or WR to whine for a PI call. I don't want to see the Pack act that way and it annoys the hell out of me when I see other teams do it.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - R. Feynman
Offline nerdmann  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:49:37 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,712
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: dyeah_gb Go to Quoted Post
This is a point I want to emphasize as well. It has gotten to the point that every damn incompletion requires the QB or WR to whine for a PI call. I don't want to see the Pack act that way and it annoys the hell out of me when I see other teams do it.



They need to clean up the PI rule.

No question about that.

I DO believe there are untoward influences in the NFL.

FIRST: I believe that the rules favor offensive players in an attempt to increase scoring and "highlight reel" type plays.

SECOND: I do believe the referees have an agenda to try to keep games close, again to maximize television viewership.

There is money in gambling, and I do believe that some of that goes on, as far as game fixing or point shaving and whatnot. HOWEVER, imo the biggest untoward influence in the game comes from Goodell himself. He wants television ratings and the money that comes with it, at all costs, including that of the integrity of the game.

That said, my biggest secret fear is that I'll wake up one day and be unpopular. Anxious
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:56:00 PM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

If the NFL really cared about player safety, they would let PI go and defenders to defend receivers. It would lower the number of passes because of tighter coverage, and players would be less willing to light up the WR if they knew their teammate was covering them tight.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 2 applause.
Pack93z on 10/10/2012(UTC), DakotaT on 10/10/2012(UTC)
Offline Gaycandybacon  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:12:54 PM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 9/17/2012(UTC)
Location: Hanover Park, IL

Applause Given: 145
Applause Received: 178

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins Go to Quoted Post
If the NFL really cared about player safety, they would let PI go and defenders to defend receivers. It would lower the number of passes because of tighter coverage, and players would be less willing to light up the WR if they knew their teammate was covering them tight.


I think they should let you challenge PI reguardless of tipped passes and what not. Because it is by far the most called penaltie.
Offline Gaycandybacon  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, October 10, 2012 5:16:38 PM(UTC)
Gaycandybacon

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 9/17/2012(UTC)
Location: Hanover Park, IL

Applause Given: 145
Applause Received: 178

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
I said earlier that I think the Seahawks outcome has tweaked this teams psyche and they are more concerned with the referee's making the call than they are about the opponent. This really bothers me.


That "unknown packer" was probably TJ Lang.Tongue
Offline Wade  
#8 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:22:21 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 684
Applause Received: 717

IMO the worst change in the rules in my lifetime was the 5-yard chuck rule. Allow bump and run coverage (and pushing off until the ball is in the air, then hands off.

Interference still will be a judgment call, but would be a lot simpler for morons like the lawyers-in-stripes to call. "I saw the ball in the air. You initiated the contact I saw. Penalty. STFU."

Of course the modern receiver is such a wuss that pass completions would fall by 50 percent for a couple years.

But it'd be worth it.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Online Zero2Cool  
#9 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:48:59 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,968
Applause Received: 2,227

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
IMO the worst change in the rules in my lifetime was the 5-yard chuck rule. Allow bump and run coverage (and pushing off until the ball is in the air, then hands off.


That's very unreasonable as it requires a lot of judgment. The rules need less judgement, less gray area. The NFL needs more black/white rules, not more gray area rules. They need to let players play more and eliminate all these little "loopholes" in the current rules.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline Porforis  
#10 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:28:43 AM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 333

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
That's very unreasonable as it requires a lot of judgment. The rules need less judgement, less gray area. The NFL needs more black/white rules, not more gray area rules. They need to let players play more and eliminate all these little "loopholes" in the current rules.


No touching until the receiver has the ball in his hands! Do NOT touch the quarterback!
UserPostedImage
Offline Yerko  
#11 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:38:07 AM(UTC)
Yerko

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 10/15/2008(UTC)
Location: Chicago, IL

Applause Given: 160
Applause Received: 261

I wouldn't be surprised or upset if that "unknown player" was Sam Shields. The guy has played good defense and been interfered with more than a receiver, yet he gets called for PI.

The calls all around so far have been blatantly horrible, from pass interference to roughing the passer. I still can't believe some people agree with the roughing the passer hit by Perry...that is a text book tackle to me.

Roger Goodell has officially ruined football with all these rules.
UserPostedImage
Online Zero2Cool  
#12 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:29:10 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,968
Applause Received: 2,227

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post
No touching until the receiver has the ball in his hands! Do NOT touch the quarterback!


I would rather see the CB and WR bump and touch as much as they want, as long as they don't restrict the arms/hands in any fashion. Let the best man win.

As for the aiming at the knees, I think it should be avoided and helmet to helmet hits and forearms to the head as well.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline steveishere  
#13 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:12:44 AM(UTC)
steveishere

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2013

Joined: 7/28/2012(UTC)

Applause Given: 48
Applause Received: 981

I don't know I could definitely see the "out to get us" comment being sort of tongue in cheek and not in reference to some sort of conspiracy. It's impossible to know the context being that it's in writing and anonymous.

I kind of agree with Clay. There is no reason a 300+lb man has to dive into a 250lb mans knee to block him. I don't see any detriment to the game by making guys block someone standing up instead of diving at them.
Online Zero2Cool  
#14 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:14:42 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,968
Applause Received: 2,227

Originally Posted by: steveishere Go to Quoted Post
I don't know I could definitely see the "out to get us" comment being sort of tongue in cheek and not in reference to some sort of conspiracy. It's impossible to know the context being that it's in writing and anonymous.


"every joke has a little bit of truth to it."


I personally want the previous week's games a far distant memory, and not even joked about or tongue in cheek'd about or anything weeks later. You don't move on, the NFL will pass you by and you'll be 2 - 3 going against a 5 - 0 team on Sunday Night in front of the country.
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline Wade  
#15 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 2:20:38 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 684
Applause Received: 717

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
That's very unreasonable as it requires a lot of judgment. The rules need less judgement, less gray area. The NFL needs more black/white rules, not more gray area rules. They need to let players play more and eliminate all these little "loopholes" in the current rules.


How does my rule require more judgment than the current mess?

All the official needs to do is "see ball in air" (which has to do already for the interference rule), then look down at DB/WR and see who initiates post-air contact first.

And it gets rid of all that crap about how far past 5 yards is too far. And the "incidental contact" part, too. In fact, eliminates the need for any illegal contact foul at all. Players can mug each other until the ball is in the air, and must play complete hands off afterward. One place of interpretation (first contact after airborne") only, not 3-4

How, short of saying there is no interference foul, is there a more black and white rule possible? Seriously.

(As an aside, I'd also change the penalty to a max 20 yards from LOS.)

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Online Zero2Cool  
#16 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:15:43 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool

Rank: Legend

Yahoo! Fantasy Football - Gold: 2009FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2011ESPN NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2010Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 10/13/2006(UTC)
Location: Green Bay, WI

Applause Given: 1,968
Applause Received: 2,227

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
How does my rule require more judgment than the current mess?

All the official needs to do is "see ball in air" (which has to do already for the interference rule), then look down at DB/WR and see who initiates post-air contact first.

And it gets rid of all that crap about how far past 5 yards is too far. And the "incidental contact" part, too. In fact, eliminates the need for any illegal contact foul at all. Players can mug each other until the ball is in the air, and must play complete hands off afterward. One place of interpretation (first contact after airborne") only, not 3-4

How, short of saying there is no interference foul, is there a more black and white rule possible? Seriously.

(As an aside, I'd also change the penalty to a max 20 yards from LOS.)



At what point is the ball in the air and how are they going to decipher when the ball is in the air and WR/CB need to stop battling? Stare at the QB until the ball is thrown and if you see contact between them, FLAG? What about that referee's other responsibilities? How is he going to get a clear view of the QB and all WR/CB?
"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Nikola Tesla

UserPostedImage
Offline Cheesey  
#17 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:26:29 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 200
Applause Received: 439

Seems to me the Packers have had more then their "fair share" of bad calls against them this season.
The NFC North should read:
Green Bay Packers 2-1
Replacement refs 1-0
Regular refs 1-0
UserPostedImage
Offline Porforis  
#18 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:09:00 PM(UTC)
Porforis

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 8/22/2009(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Applause Given: 169
Applause Received: 333

Nobody would be bitching about the calls from last game if it weren't for the previous two games. I think we need to keep that in mind and in perspective. Bad calls are going to look a lot worse all season because we got royally screwed earlier on.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Pack93z on 10/11/2012(UTC)
Offline Pack93z  
#19 Posted : Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:32:13 PM(UTC)
Pack93z

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Bronze: 2012

United States
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin

Applause Given: 400
Applause Received: 1,078

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post
Nobody would be bitching about the calls from last game if it weren't for the previous two games. I think we need to keep that in mind and in perspective. Bad calls are going to look a lot worse all season because we got royally screwed earlier on.


Yes, we are becoming hyper sensitive about it all. Nobody was yelping about calls or missed calls going in our favor. IE.. last Sunday and Woodson pinning Wayne's arm down.
I think when there's enough will and aggression, there's no shortage of talent either.

UserPostedImage
Offline PackFanWithTwins  
#20 Posted : Friday, October 12, 2012 10:32:57 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 13
Applause Received: 398

Originally Posted by: Porforis Go to Quoted Post
Nobody would be bitching about the calls from last game if it weren't for the previous two games. I think we need to keep that in mind and in perspective. Bad calls are going to look a lot worse all season because we got royally screwed earlier on.


I beg to differ. When the calls are that wrong, Perry and Shields. I will definately call them out.
The world needs ditch diggers to Danny!!!
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 10/13/2012(UTC)
Offline Wade  
#21 Posted : Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:01:43 PM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 684
Applause Received: 717

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool Go to Quoted Post
At what point is the ball in the air and how are they going to decipher when the ball is in the air and WR/CB need to stop battling? Stare at the QB until the ball is thrown and if you see contact between them, FLAG? What about that referee's other responsibilities? How is he going to get a clear view of the QB and all WR/CB?


(shaking head)

Kevin, again, my point is that I have added no judgment call that the referee doesn't already have to make. "Ball in the air" is ALREADY a requirement for pass interference downfield. Anything else has to be illegal contact/holding.

Sure its hard to figure out when the ball is in the air. BUT THAT IS ALREADY PART OF THE OFFICIAL'S RESPONSIBILITY. It is not a change!

So while my rule does keep one of the current rule's "judgment" moment, it gets rid of at least 2 really big places of judgment under the current mess of rules:

1. "When is there sufficient contact beyond five yards to warrant a penalty?" Gone under the Wade proposal.
2. "When is contact incidental?" Gone under the Wade proposal.

Of course, the ref can still miss the first push (just like now). But he doesn't have to distinguish between a "little" and a "lot". There are no adjectives involved at all once a piece of contact is seen. As soon as sees a piece of contact after the pass in air, his job re: interference is done. He can now put all his effort into all those other responsibilities you worry about.

By no means is the Wade proposal perfect. (Nor does it have a chance in hell with the lawyers in charge.)


But it does allow the zebras less flexibility to screw things up with their "judgment" calls.

And, I just thought of this one. Since "first instigated contact" (unlike "substantial" or "incidental") isn't really a judgment call, just a question of whether the official saw it or not, you could actually make it an (easily) reviewable call under replay. All an idiot like Hochuli or Triplette would have to do is watch the replays for one thing: who pushed first after the ball was in the air. Bad interference calls could get corrected, and the game-wasting time spent under the hood and making dissertation-length explanations reduced.

Like I said, ain't ever going to happen. The Vikings will likely win a Super Bowl before the NFL makes any serious change to the interference rules.



And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
7m / Green Bay Packers Talk / cheeseheads123

29m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / rabidgopher04

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / polargrizz

21h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Rios39

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

24-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool