Page 1 of 1
Two kinds of penalties
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:33 am
by Irn-Bru
From the blog at pro-football-reference.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=1256
There are two kinds of penalties in the NFL. One type is the necessary one — calling them is necessary for the game to exist in its current form (ignoring whether or not these have always been penalties or whether or not they’re always enforced). Unabated to the quarterback or encroachment are good examples of this; the game wouldn’t be the same if defensive lineman could line up behind the offensive lineman. Pass interference is another — the modern game would be dramatically different if defensive backs could push a WR out of the way when he is about to catch a pass. Holding is another one — if a defender is about to get a sack, having a blocker hold him isn’t really “fair” and should be penalized. These penalties are designed to highlight the unbelievable athleticism of NFL players and increase fan enjoyment. We want our WRs running free, we want our pass rushers exhibiting tremendous strength and speed, and we want to keep the game from getting boring. If we didn’t have the delay of game penalty, things would get pretty boring pretty quickly.
There’s another type of penalty, though. Penalties such as roughing the kicker, roughing the punter, roughing the quarterback, late hit, excessive celebration, helmet to helmet, face-mask, horse collar tackle and unnecessary roughness are distinctly different from a delay of game or offsides. The “necessary” penalties are designed to foster competition and excitement; these latter penalties are simply “disincentive” penalties. We don’t want you to rough a QB, K or P because they might get hurt. We don’t allow horse collar tackles, grabbing the face mask or late hits because a player is likely to get injured. Those things are NOT penalties because it is “unfair” in the spirit of the competition; they are not part of the structure of the game.
Assume a WR is running open down field, and just before he catches the ball, he gets slammed by a CB and drops the ball. It’s clear that on that play, the offense “won” and should be rewarded. Therefore, we call pass interference. Now consider a play where the QB drops back, throws a pass to a covered receiver, the ball is knocked down, but the QB is hit late by a defensive end. It’s obvious that the defense “won” that play yet the offense will be rewarded with the automatic first down. Why? Not to correct the injustice performed by the defense on that play, but because if defensive players constantly do that, quarterbacks will get hurt, and in the aggregate, NFL play quality will suffer.
These disincentive penalties always bother me, though. To use but one example, here’s how the New York Times described the 1986 playoff game between the Jets and the Browns.
More at the link.
I agree with him about the problem. However, I can't say I fully agree with his conclusion. My own solution to the problem would actually involve a restructuring of the way football is played. My dad and I have been kicking around ideas on this for ages, and I think this offseason I'll try posting some of that in ATL to see whether I'm just crazy or whether pro football could be changed for the better.
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:37 pm
by VetSkinsFan
I can already tell you that you're crazy.
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:09 pm
by BnGhog
I think you just have to look at hockey for the answer.
You sit the player for something like 5 plays.
That punishes that player in that game, and maybe add on a fine after the game(they do that now anyway).
But I agree, when the D holds, and looses the game, because of a late hit, is wrong.
The SB champs should be "the SB champs" not that team that won because of a late hit. The team that plays the best should win and those type of flags should not change "who won" on any play IMO.
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:13 pm
by Bob 0119
I think the primary officiating should be taken away from the on-feild officials and given to the booth officials.
The on field officials should refer to the booth officials, who should consult (just like the zebra huddles we see now) via radio with the on field guys, but should have the final say.
I think the problem is that the on-field guys are too close to the action. So much so that they become part of it.
That would eliminate a lot of these "phantom" helmet-to-helmet calls.
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:59 pm
by BnGhog
Bob 0119 wrote:I think the primary officiating should be taken away from the on-feild officials and given to the booth officials.
The on field officials should refer to the booth officials, who should consult (just like the zebra huddles we see now) via radio with the on field guys, but should have the final say.
I think the problem is that the on-field guys are too close to the action. So much so that they become part of it.
That would eliminate a lot of these "phantom" helmet-to-helmet calls.
That would take too long IMO.
It use to be, they wouldn't call it unless they "know" they saw it. When the NFL tells the officials to "be more stiff on the helmet-to-helmets". The refs start calling it more, even if they don't "know" they saw it. This all started with the new commish. He puts out the word, that the officials will be looking for it. He's trying to get his point across to the players. But, I think that is the wrong way to do.
The problem is, one line judge can't see if everyone on the line is holding at one time. So, they use their peripheral vision. And throw a flag if the think they saw something.
The officials should never call something from peripheral vision. But the NFL won't tell them that. I think the NFL has told them, if it even appears to be helmet-to-helmet, to call it. Because, their proving a point. And whatever the commish is high up about this week, is what the officials will call the most.
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:52 pm
by Bob 0119
Well, if they did a full review like they do now, but really, they could take a quick look, just like the TV guys do, and determine if the on-feild guys made the right call and over turn it.
I think the reason the replays take so long now is because the official has to go stand "under the hood" which is the dumbest thing I have ever seen.
But if the booth officials had input, and veto power, it would be no different than the zebra conferences they currently have.
If the replay guys didn't see it, or don't have an angle, then they let the refs call it.
It doesn't have to be a lengthy process, and can fit into the game seamlessly...if they wanted it to.
I'm not saying the replay guys should call the penalties, just add insight from an angle the on-field refs don't have.
We have the technology! Use it!
We're not dealing with reel-to-reel cameras and tin cans on strings anymore.
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:17 am
by ChocolateMilk
i think coaches should just be able to challenge a penalty of 15+ yards
Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:40 pm
by Countertrey
There was once a time when a receiver truly had to earn a reception. He had to claw his way though multiple muggings by tenacious and pugnacious cornerbacks, and fight for every catch.
Pass interference was actually pass interference. Defensive holding, as a practical matter, did not exist.
The rules were change, not because it wasn't fair to recievers... the playing field was level, and all receivers had the same gauntlet to run through... It was to increase scoring.
To those of us who were fans of defense, the game was cheapened.
To those of us who were fans of receivers who were actually tough... Charley Taylor, Harold Charmichael, and others... the game was cheapened.
How effective would a whiner like TO have been playing against the nasty corners and safeties of the 60s and 70s?
A receiver who could take the abuse handed out by those guys, and still get free... THAT was a receiver.
The term "bang-bang play" applies to a baseball play in which the player hits the bag as the ball does. Sometimes the ump gets it right, sometimes not...
They exist in football, as well... did the ball pop out just before, or just after the knee touched the ground? Did the player's shoe graze the sideline or just miss it?
Bang-bang plays should not be penalized... and should not be up for review. Review of such plays cheapen the game.
However, if you are going to insist on such reviews, then all judgement calls should be up for review... You threw a flag for PI... but you missed the WR pushing off just prior to the Corner trying to re-establish position and leaning into the receiver (which you called)... reverse the call, baby... That's Offensive PI...
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:59 am
by JansenFan
You fooled me. I thought the two kinds of penalties were the ones that went against our opponents and the ones that were phantom calls, made up by the officials involved in the league-wide conspiracy to keep the Redskins from winning another super bowl.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:10 am
by Countertrey
JansenFan wrote:You fooled me. I thought the two kinds of penalties were the ones that went against our opponents and the ones that were phantom calls, made up by the officials involved in the league-wide conspiracy to keep the Redskins from winning another super bowl.
Well, yeah... there is that...
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:33 am
by Irn-Bru
JansenFan wrote:You fooled me. I thought the two kinds of penalties were the ones that went against our opponents and the ones that were phantom calls, made up by the officials involved in the league-wide conspiracy to keep the Redskins from winning another super bowl.
Obviously you didn't decode the message. (Shhh. . .they are listening!)
On a serious note, I think I am enjoying pro football as a sport less over time.
I'm still very much a fan of the sport. . .but there are things that, over time, are really starting to bother me about it.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:29 am
by VetSkinsFan
Irn-Bru wrote:JansenFan wrote:You fooled me. I thought the two kinds of penalties were the ones that went against our opponents and the ones that were phantom calls, made up by the officials involved in the league-wide conspiracy to keep the Redskins from winning another super bowl.
Obviously you didn't decode the message. (Shhh. . .they are listening!)
On a serious note, I think I am enjoying pro football as a sport less over time.
I'm still very much a fan of the sport. . .but there are things that, over time, are really starting to bother me about it.
Sounds like senility is setting in early to me...
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:31 pm
by Irn-Bru
I know. . .I can't believe I'm saying this. When I was 8 years old I actually didn't have a favorite team, I just thought pro football itself was the greatest thing on earth.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:43 am
by Deadskins
I agree with the original quote to a point. Flagrant fouls have no place however. There should be a reasonable amount of time after a QB has released the ball that he can still be hit without drawing a roughing penalty. The whole "in the grasp" thing was a fiasco. I like the change to the 15 yard or nothing facemask rule, and the two feet down in bounds changes, though. Seems as if they are trying to get some things right.