Football Whitlock has a great idea - Page 3

orange · 10-08-2009, 11:54 AM

9. Fixing the roughing-Tom Brady-penalty crisis is rather easy.

As I did when I first addressed this problem at the beginning of the season, I'm not going to play the race card. I'm going to continue to ignore the fact that Donovan McNabb had a rib cracked while laying in the end zone and there was no penalty called, and I'm going to ignore the unpenalized illegal hits leveled against Off-The-Marcus Russell and David Garrard last week.

This is not an issue driven by race. It's a star power issue, no different from the NBA officiating that protected Michael Jordan the second half of his career and gave Dwyane Wade and the Miami Heat an NBA title.

Refs pamper the big stars. Refs are humans just like you and me. They get caught up in Brady's fame.

Ray "Avon Barksdale" Lewis and Ed "Stringer Bell" Reed had every right to blast the refs following the Patriots-Ravens game. There were two unwarranted roughing-the-Brady penalties that contributed to New England TD drives. One of the penalties occurred on third and nine and Brady threw incomplete. And the other occurred on second and 11 and Brady completed a 1-yard pass.

The "hits" didn't justify a flag and they certainly didn't justify 15-yard penalties. Why do quarterbacks deserve more protection than a punter or a kicker? Why can't there be a 5-yard running-into-the-Brady call and a 15-yard roughing-the-Brady call?

A hand accidently slapping a QB in the helmet isn't worthy of 15 yards. A defender falling down and grazing a QB's knee isn't worth 15 yards.

And there needs to be a common-sense official placed in a television replay booth. He needs the authority to stop the game and review any and every 15-yard penalty. Look at the excessive-celebration penalty that ruined the Georgia-LSU college game. A common-sense ref in the booth could've stopped that.

If you eliminated the TV timeouts after punts, kickoffs and timeouts primarily taken to stop the clock, a more active replay ref wouldn't interfere with the flow of an NFL game or prevent it from concluding in three hours or less.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/1...are-NFL-Truths

**notorious** · 10-08-2009, 01:22 PM

I like Colin Cowherd's take on this stuff: If you see it call it, but don't call something that didn't happen.

Give the benefit of the doubt to the players unless it is obvious.

The refs are way to aggressive on calls, IMO.

blaise · 10-08-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

As far as I know, the announcers only ever said "helmet-to-helmet."

That is probably why the letter was issued - the Chiefs' inquiry to the NFL also probably said the same thing. Maybe that's the words the ref actually used, which would be wrong. I still think it was a proper personal foul even if he got the wording wrong.

When the NFL makes a new rule, they train the officials by going over videos of when to apply the penalty. They don't concentrate on the wording. I'm sure the ref thought the play looked like plays the league taught him were penalties now.

That's really a baseless assumption

orange · 10-08-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

That's really a baseless assumption

Why is it baseless?

"Not a helmet to helmet hit" is the only detail Teicher mentions. Why is it baseless to conclude that's what the inquiry was about?

CHIEFS58 · 10-08-2009, 01:27 PM

Whitlock cant play any card BUT the race card. He sure as hell can play the "knowledge about anything" card.

Hes as useless as Paris Hilton explaining physics.

CHIEFS58 · 10-08-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHIEFS58

Whitlock cant play any card BUT the race card. He sure as hell can play the "knowledge about anything" card.

Hes as useless as Paris Hilton explaining physics.

Cant play.

my bad.

**notorious** · 10-08-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHIEFS58

Hes as useless as Paris Hilton explaining physics.

Paris isn't good at explaining physics, she is better at applying physics:

When "it" comes up, she must go down.....

blaise · 10-08-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

Why is it baseless?

"Not a helmet to helmet hit" is the only detail Teicher mentions. Why is it baseless to conclude that's what the inquiry was about?

It's baseless because you have no idea if the letter from the NFL was clarifying the language or simply saying the call was wrong period, and should not have been made. You're saying words like "probably" based on nothing. Therefore it's baseless.

Chiefnj2 · 10-08-2009, 01:32 PM

The Ngata call was okay - hands to the head.

The call against Suggs was a joke. It was incidental contact.

orange · 10-08-2009, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

It's baseless because you have no idea if the letter from the NFL was clarifying the language or simply saying the call was wrong period, and should not have been made. You're saying words like "probably" based on nothing. Therefore it's baseless.

Okay. So where does this whole "apology" nonsense come from then?

Nothing.

Therefore it's baseless.

Chiefnj2 · 10-08-2009, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blaise

It's baseless because you have no idea if the letter from the NFL was clarifying the language or simply saying the call was wrong period, and should not have been made. You're saying words like "probably" based on nothing. Therefore it's baseless.

They wouldn't have issued an apology if they were clarifying the language.

SDChiefs · 10-08-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

9.
Why can't there be a 5-yard running-into-the-Brady call and a 15-yard roughing-the-Brady call?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/1...are-NFL-Truths

This. Plus its funny too.

**BigMeatballDave** · 10-08-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

They wouldn't have issued an apology if they were clarifying the language.

This. Oh, and Orange is an idiot and wrong...

orange · 10-08-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

They wouldn't have issued an apology if they were clarifying the language.

They DIDN'T issue an apology.

Where the hell do you get that?

Quote me someone NOT named GoChiefs.

SDChiefs · 10-08-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.A.Chieffan

Have the ****ing commercials while the ref is reviewing it. I dont need to see a ****ing zebra looking in a camera for ****ing 2 minutes while the annoucers try to fill in dead air the entire ****ing time. knock those commercials out baby

Hell yes. Rep

**kysirsoze** · 10-08-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

Because the NFL rulebook says I'm right.

Rule Change No. 3: Unnecessary roughness has been expanded to include shots to a defenseless receiver's head.
The amendment states, a penalty will be called "If the initial force of the contact by a defender's helmet, forearm, or shoulder is to the head or neck area of a defenseless receiver who is catching or attempting to catch a pass."

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/archiv...ate=03-31-2009

He hit him in the chest with his shoulder. It was a bad call. They sent a letter saying the unnecessary roughness call was a mistake. I just can't imagine what you would need to convince you. At this point you MUST just be trolling.

10-08-2009, 11:54 AM
orange MVP Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Denver, CO Casino cash: $10004900	Whitlock has a great idea 9. Fixing the roughing-Tom Brady-penalty crisis is rather easy. As I did when I first addressed this problem at the beginning of the season, I'm not going to play the race card. I'm going to continue to ignore the fact that Donovan McNabb had a rib cracked while laying in the end zone and there was no penalty called, and I'm going to ignore the unpenalized illegal hits leveled against Off-The-Marcus Russell and David Garrard last week. This is not an issue driven by race. It's a star power issue, no different from the NBA officiating that protected Michael Jordan the second half of his career and gave Dwyane Wade and the Miami Heat an NBA title. Refs pamper the big stars. Refs are humans just like you and me. They get caught up in Brady's fame. Ray "Avon Barksdale" Lewis and Ed "Stringer Bell" Reed had every right to blast the refs following the Patriots-Ravens game. There were two unwarranted roughing-the-Brady penalties that contributed to New England TD drives. One of the penalties occurred on third and nine and Brady threw incomplete. And the other occurred on second and 11 and Brady completed a 1-yard pass. The "hits" didn't justify a flag and they certainly didn't justify 15-yard penalties. Why do quarterbacks deserve more protection than a punter or a kicker? Why can't there be a 5-yard running-into-the-Brady call and a 15-yard roughing-the-Brady call? A hand accidently slapping a QB in the helmet isn't worthy of 15 yards. A defender falling down and grazing a QB's knee isn't worth 15 yards. And there needs to be a common-sense official placed in a television replay booth. He needs the authority to stop the game and review any and every 15-yard penalty. Look at the excessive-celebration penalty that ruined the Georgia-LSU college game. A common-sense ref in the booth could've stopped that. If you eliminated the TV timeouts after punts, kickoffs and timeouts primarily taken to stop the clock, a more active replay ref wouldn't interfere with the flow of an NFL game or prevent it from concluding in three hours or less. http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/1...are-NFL-Truths
Posts: 11,661

10-08-2009, 01:22 PM	#31
notorious Supporter Join Date: May 2005 Location: Who knows? Casino cash: $-984116	I like Colin Cowherd's take on this stuff: If you see it call it, but don't call something that didn't happen. Give the benefit of the doubt to the players unless it is obvious. The refs are way to aggressive on calls, IMO.
Posts: 88,588

10-08-2009, 01:27 PM	#34
CHIEFS58 Smoke a turd. Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Western North Carolina Casino cash: $10004930	Whitlock cant play any card BUT the race card. He sure as hell can play the "knowledge about anything" card. Hes as useless as Paris Hilton explaining physics.
Posts: 2,217

10-08-2009, 01:32 PM	#38
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $6654388	The Ngata call was okay - hands to the head. The call against Suggs was a joke. It was incidental contact. __________________ Mismanaging the clock.
Posts: 22,541