|
I don't understand why you're not allowed to go for two from the 15.
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
Zoran posted:I don't understand why you're not allowed to go for two from the 15. You're allowed, right? Holder flub the ball and runs it in? Choosing to run a set play from the 15 when you could do it from the 2 is just too dumb to even have a rule against it.. From the previous post though, if the offense is set up at the 15 to kick and the defense gets called for a penalty, do they get the choice at the point to take the half the distance penalty from the 2 to the 1 and go for the conversion? Or are they locked into the kick attempt?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:From the previous post though, if the offense is set up at the 15 to kick and the defense gets called for a penalty, do they get the choice at the point to take the half the distance penalty from the 2 to the 1 and go for the conversion? Or are they locked into the kick attempt? Yeah you can move to the 1 and go for 2 if the defense gets a penalty on a kicking extra point as I understand things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
I would just like to reassure all 1st downies that this is not an approved supplementary signal https://instagram.com/p/-b7R9Tq-27/
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:I would just like to reassure all 1st downies that this is not an approved supplementary signal There's only one true penalty anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61eq-KjHGfQ
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
I have my own rules question for Trin: It involves the distinction between the two definitions for a receiver demonstrating possession of the ball. A receiver catching the ball in stride is easy, a receiver catching the ball while diving is more complicated but still fairly straightforward. What about the edge case of a stumbling receiver? The way I have often seen this called seems to be that a stumbling runner is in a sort of limbo until the situation resolves itself. If he regains his balance, it's case 1, if he eventually falls to the ground it's case 2. However, I haven't followed this sort of situation systematically enough to be able to tell if it's a real thing or not. It would explain some rulings I've seen: last year a Michigan receiver caught the ball near the hash stumbling, took 4 or 5 steps trying to regain his balance, but never did. At the end of it he dove and stretched the ball out for the first down line, finally contacting the ground and losing the ball when he hit. It was ruled incomplete, upheld on review. Similarly, the Wisconsin touchdown that was taken away last Saturday involved a receiver hit as he caught the ball who then stumbled across the end zone for a few steps and finally fell down, losing the ball when he did. It was called a touchdown on the field, then overruled on review. My question: Do refs have any rules or guidelines for making this kind of call, or is it just up to the refs on site to use their own judgment? I like understanding why refs call what they do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:My question: Do refs have any rules or guidelines for making this kind of call, or is it just up to the refs on site to use their own judgment? I like understanding why refs call what they do. Was the player black?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Hijo Del Helmsley posted:There's only one true penalty anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eslz06J9hFw Also, thanks for the explanation for kicking from the 2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I have my own rules question for Trin: The stumbling receiver is still an edge case that doesn't have any specific guidance.. It's the sort of thing that happens rarely enough that it takes a while for anyone to realise that it's even a situation that needs addressing, so there's a gap in philosophy that could use filling. Here's two plays I've seen from recent games: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14186770 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rikn30H9osI Both of these plays were ruled touchdowns and my first reaction for both of them was "incomplete pass". After looking at the first one about twenty-six times I'm now happy with a catch, as it seems the receiver controlled the ball and took two good steps before the defender who was hanging all over him started taking him down; for me the second one (which is from a Texas high school game) is an incomplete pass but I can understand why the F has gone for a touchdown, even though I think he's wrong and I'm not surprised that his mates had a drat good go at talking him off it. (That play is also an excellent example of how selling a call is just as important as getting it right - none of the players argue, and on replay the commentators are looking for reasons why the call was right when they analyse it, even though they're clearly not entirely convinced.) The other thing that might interest you here is two competing philosophies* for what you should do when you're not sure on this kind of play. Until very recently the mantra coming from supervisors was "no cheap fumbles" and "no cheap scores"; when in question, make it an incomplete pass. On the other hand, these two things clash with another philosophy that's come out of the NFL and Div 1-A recently, which is that when in question you should make certain calls in a way that allows replay to fix the error - and in cases like these, that usually means ruling the play a catch so that any subsequent action can play out, and then replay can intervene to help out if it needs to. *A philosophy is something that isn't a rule, but which officials still use to help them make a call. For instance, there are many instances during a game where holding could be called, but there's a whole buttload of philosophy to tell us which holds are actually worth calling (very few) and which holds aren't (very many).
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The stumbling receiver is still an edge case that doesn't have any specific guidance.. It's the sort of thing that happens rarely enough that it takes a while for anyone to realise that it's even a situation that needs addressing, so there's a gap in philosophy that could use filling. Here's two plays I've seen from recent games: I agree with you on those calls. The first looks like he gains possession on his feet, then initiates the dive for the pylon himself - the defender is mostly along for the ride. The second one looked like a very unambiguous incompletion - he was obviously going to the ground while making the catch and had to maintain control after hitting the ground to demonstrate possession, and didn't. Anyway, thanks for the reply. I don't like making a bad call accusation without understanding what criteria the ref was using to make the call, or how he was supposed to be applying them. I've seen numerous catches where the receiver doesn't go down immediately, but staggers for a step or two first. Usually he hangs onto the ball so it's not an issue, but I was wondering how wide the "process of the catch" window extended and at what point he turns into a runner stumbling with possession of the ball. "I know it when I see it" seems to be the standard, which will have to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The first looks like he gains possession on his feet You'd think that, and yet they've started a whole load of discussion with people violently disagreeing with each other about what a catch is in closed forums. When are we going to get you out on a field somewhere, by the way? I've never yet known someone who asks the kind of questions you ask and didn't turn out to be good at calling games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Officiating American football seems even at its simplest much, much more complex in both rules and mechanics than basically anything else I've officiated or arbitrated. Since the rulebook itself doesn't go over mechanics, philosophies, etc, what would be a good resource to pick up to learn more about these at any level of play?
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Here, have the 2013 TASO mechanics manual (they do some things differently to others, but there's more similarities than differences): http://www.spczebras.org/football/images/2013TASOFB5ManMechanics.pdf I'd download a local copy, it might disappear if someone discovers a lot of traffic going to it that they weren't expecting. This is for a crew of 5 calling the 2013 NCAA rulebook in Texas high school games. Yes, the formatting is a bit pony. Contains such gems as: quote:NOTE: Be prepared to give complete and through instructions to assistants if a different line to gain device is to be used in the game Which now makes me want to go find out which Texas AD with a sense of humour insists on still using that vintage Dickerod his pop bought back in 1972. On the question of complexity: I would say that 20% of the rulebook covers 80% of the things that will ever happen in a game of football, and the other 80% is only used 20% of the time. I would also say that in many regards, and once you've actually managed to get your head round that Godawful rulebook, football is actually simpler to officiate because of the crew concept and zones of responsibility. This is not a sport that's controlled by  The Referee and a couple of his mates who occasionally help him out, if he feels like asking for their help; it's controlled by equals who all have their little bit of stuff to look after, and nobody has to worry about all the players at once.
Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
I've been mostly off following football for ~4 years. How come none of these teams with no qb to speak of (Ravens, Rams, bills now maybe,, a few others) have signed tebow? He had decent numbers, I thought, but I guess he got cut from the Eagles this year and now they're using Mark loving Sanchez. As a Giants fan I'm okay with this, just not sure why nobody has given him a shot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
In short: his strong suits don't work well enough for him to be a full-time starter and his skills are too limited for him to be a suitable backup because he only works in a specific type of offense, so your starter would have to be a better Tim Tebow. There's no place for him. Also the Ravens, Rams are on their backup QB and the Bills QB is hurt. And Mark Sanchez has produced in the Chip Kelly offense (last year). Spoeank fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Let's also not forget when invoking the existence of Mark loving Sanchez that Tebow was only the third string QB behind Sanchez and something called a Greg McElroy on the Jets in 2012. He is Not Good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Oh. To hear my friends talk he's actually an amazing QB being unfairly blackballed from the league. I haven't been around for much of his pro career though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
Sharzak posted:Oh. To hear my friends talk he's actually an amazing QB being unfairly blackballed from the league. I haven't been around for much of his pro career though. Your friends are deficient in football knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Why do teams have to release injury reports, and how accurately do they have to be?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:Why do teams have to release injury reports, and how accurately do they have to be? Because of gambling/Vegas even if they officially deny that, and sort of accurate? Tom Brady was listed as probable for years when nothing was wrong with him for instance, but the Colts are in trouble this year for not listing Andrew Luck when he was playing with cracked ribs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Sharzak posted:Oh. To hear my friends talk he's actually an amazing QB being unfairly blackballed from the league. I haven't been around for much of his pro career though. What is their relationship with Christ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
How much of Russell Wilson's struggles this year are his own fault and how much can you blame on a crappy O-line and a bonehead Offensive Coordinator? Like I see people post "Russell Wilson is bad" and while I wouldn't put him up there with Brady, Rodgers, or Cam; I have seen way worse garbage QBs than him. A lot of times it looks like luck but he manages to consistently pull off some crazy stuff, at least he did before the O-line went to crap. Maybe the one thing I see that he does wrong is try to extend plays and run around when maybe he should just throw the ball away but I think he's improving that. Like is there something fundamentally wrong with him that I'm not seeing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
FIRST TIME posted:How much of Russell Wilson's struggles this year are his own fault and how much can you blame on a crappy O-line and a bonehead Offensive Coordinator? I think consistently having a bottom five pass-blocking o line and Doug Baldwin as a #1 receiver count for almost all of the blame. Wilson is a pretty good young qb with a lot of room to develop and every tool (but height) that a QB needs to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
What happens to the tee during kickoffs? Does a ref snatch it up immediately after the kick or does it sit on the field during the return? If the latter, has anyone ever tripped on it or other weird poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Miloshe posted:What happens to the tee during kickoffs? Does a ref snatch it up immediately after the kick or does it sit on the field during the return? If the latter, has anyone ever tripped on it or other weird poo poo? Boise State has a tee dog and he is awesome and every team should have a tee dog.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Miloshe posted:What happens to the tee during kickoffs? Does a ref snatch it up immediately after the kick or does it sit on the field during the return? If the latter, has anyone ever tripped on it or other weird poo poo? Some teams have their kicker throw it at the sideline. Most just leave it there until the end of the down. (Any good mechanics manual gives an official the responsibility for checking that they have in fact taken it away.) I've never yet known anyone to come to grief on it, but it's definitely a "never say never" thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Some teams have their kicker throw it at the sideline. Most just leave it there until the end of the down. (Any good mechanics manual gives an official the responsibility for checking that they have in fact taken it away.) I've never yet known anyone to come to grief on it, but it's definitely a "never say never" thing. If the kicker is allowed to handle the tee after the kick, is there a foul associated with holding on to it and intentionally dropping or throwing it in the path of the return man?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
You're into unfair acts territory there. I might be inclined to rule that the appropriate penalty is for the tee to be inserted into the kicker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
swickles posted:Boise State has a tee dog and he is awesome and every team should have a tee dog. Thanks for the quick responses Swick and Trin Trag. So should a player trip on the tee and does an RG3 impression it's ultimately the ref's gently caress up. I don't follow college ball at all but I want to meet this noble beast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGHTJC1qxpA
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Miloshe posted:Thanks for the quick responses Swick and Trin Trag. So should a player trip on the tee and does an RG3 impression it's ultimately the ref's gently caress up. That makes me so drat happy I can almost ignore how ugly the blue turf is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:You're into unfair acts territory there. Ah, the holy grail
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:That makes me so drat happy I can almost ignore how ugly the blue turf is. we can all only hope to be as happy about anything as that dog is about getting a tee off the field. if it were me, i would say "gently caress i gotta go get this tee again"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:You're into unfair acts territory there. I might be inclined to rule that the appropriate penalty is for the tee to be inserted into the kicker. Speaking of the "palpably unfair acts" clause, has it ever been called in the NFL or NCAA? It's like this mysterious call that I know exists but I've never seen...like clipping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
axeil posted:Speaking of the "palpably unfair acts" clause, has it ever been called in the NFL or NCAA? It's like this mysterious call that I know exists but I've never seen...like clipping. Most famous example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSteCSinjTs The referees awarded a touchdown for the palpably unfair act. ETA: This:  was legal at the time and not penalized, but the rule was changed shortly thereafter. Refs can now award the field goal for goaltending like that. ED2: Clipping is an interesting example, as it was the "targeting" of its day. It had been officially illegal but rarely enforced until artificial turf became popular. Then suddenly there were scads of career-ending knee injuries and the powers that be decided to crack down on it. For a while in the '70s virtually every play had a clipping penalty, as the refs flagged anything that looked even close to one. It took a few years (and fans screamed about "what the hell is a clip, anyway?" and bitched about terrible refs ruining the game), but eventually players got out of the habit of doing it and coaches stopped teaching it. The result is that you almost never see clipping calls any more. I suspect in a few years Targeting will be the same sort of thing. Deteriorata fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Most famous example: Yeah, that's happened twice, previously in 1918 with Navy. It was only a 15 yard penalty in the rule books at the time, but the ref just awarded whomever they were playing a touchdown, then at some point before the 1950's the rule as we know it came about. In the NFL, I don't believe it's ever been called, but the closest examples are Tomlin going out on the field a few years ago. Other then that, some tall dude in the '60's blocked a FG by jumping at the crossbar and goaltending it , but that wasn't against the rules at the time, and was made it that the next year. Also Buddy Ryan was threatened with it for his Polish defenses (intentionally subbing in well over 11 players to cause a penalty) to run time off the clock and there was a case in the late 90's where Bill Cowher stepped on the field, and almost kicked a loose ball, then pulled back like he was going to punch a player that scooped it up and was returning it for a TD on him. He ended up backing off, but if he did either thing, they probably would've called a PUA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
axeil posted:Speaking of the "palpably unfair acts" clause, has it ever been called in the NFL or NCAA? It's like this mysterious call that I know exists but I've never seen...like clipping.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Yeah, that's happened twice, previously in 1918 with Navy. It was only a 15 yard penalty in the rule books at the time, but the ref just awarded whomever they were playing a touchdown, then at some point before the 1950's the rule as we know it came about. I believe that the rule actually exists because the referee in 1954 said "gently caress you, you cheating fucker, 15 yards is not an adequate penalty, I give no fucks what the rulebook says, I'm awarding a touchdown"*, and the Rules Committee then went "hmm, not a bad idea, that" and passed it in the offseason. *Quote may not be 100% representative of actual events but I guarantee you he was thinking it
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
When quarterbacks call out stuff on the line, they always sound very gruff and manly. Are there any NFL quarterbacks that have soft feminine voices or a gay lisp or anything like that? I'm talking about the pre-snap shouting, not interviews and such.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:When quarterbacks call out stuff on the line, they always sound very gruff and manly. Are there any NFL quarterbacks that have soft feminine voices or a gay lisp or anything like that? I'm talking about the pre-snap shouting, not interviews and such. Interesting article on that subject here. quote:Monahan went on to say that a quarterback's low voice on the line of scrimmage can tell the opposing line that he's not rattled, and it makes the players on his team listen up. Also, J. T. Barrett had to get voice lessons to make his voice deeper: quote:This is Barrett's team now, with Meyer saying he needed to have faith in Barrett's "command" of the team to give him freedom at the line. In addition to the machismo and authority of a low voice, crowd noise tends to be higher pitched. A deliberately low voice cuts through it and is easier to hear. So having a low voice is an asset for a quarterback, and must be cultivated if it isn't naturally low enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:44 |
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:When quarterbacks call out stuff on the line, they always sound very gruff and manly. Are there any NFL quarterbacks that have soft feminine voices or a gay lisp or anything like that? I'm talking about the pre-snap shouting, not interviews and such. Andy Dalton's isn't as deep as everyone else's, but probably because he's a goober. I couldn't find a good presnap video so here he is hyping up the #1 seed in the AFC before the first game this season https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezwi_GgMCuU
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 06:02
|
|