Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
2 Pages<12
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline 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: 1,870
Applause Received: 2,048

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?
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: 162
Applause Received: 354

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: 168
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: 383
Applause Received: 1,027

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: 11
Applause Received: 352

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: 645
Applause Received: 657

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 (2)
2 Pages<12
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

Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / blueleopard

1-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

1-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

1-Sep / Random Babble / nyrpack

1-Sep / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack

1-Sep / Around The NFL / nyrpack


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.