NFL 2011

Cimmerian Nights said:
OK, so I'm not quite sure how you're qualified to make authoritative statements on how rules were or weren't applied to a game you never saw, or how they were applied differently prior to that in games you never saw. When exactly did they stop enforcing the rule, restart it and where are we at now?
Click to expand...
Well you sure seem to think there's been a major change, given the fact that you complain about the 'rule change' every chance you get.

But I've also seen plenty of pre '04 football. Just not that game. And from what I saw, there was a lot more hustling beyond the 5-yard zone back then, and a lot fewer defensive pass interference/holding penalties.


Cimmerian Nights said:
OK, he just changed they way it was called so that which was an uncalled, unenforced penalty suddenly was called. That makes a world of difference doesn't it? Tomayto Tomahto. End result is the same. The pussification continues.
You don't think he did that to uphold the sanctity of the rules book, do you?
Click to expand...
Of course not. But it was in the rulebook. For 30 years. You seem to completely forget that point every time you talk about this, preferring to pretend that Polian just made shit up.
 
Masturbatory hair splitting aside, the end result is the end result.

DammitBoy said:
Seriously?! Did you guys even see the play I'm talking about?
Click to expand...
The refs had no control of that game, but it's not like the Patriots got jobbed. That safety was totally illegal but didn't really matter. I think you're still assuming the defense was going to come up with a stop - which they haven't proven themselves capable of doing against QBs not named Romo. The Patriots don't stop anyone, so much as they're on the field so long that even the best opposing offense might fuck up and turn it over eventually. That's not how you win football games.

Really good teams overcome bad calls on the road anyway.
 
Bad calls happen to every team. Whining about them is weak, especially so because people never note when they get a lucky break in officiating.
 
Wait? Jamming WR's is a penalty?? When the hell did this happen or am I just burnt and can't read anymore?
 
No, contact beyond 5 yards past the line of scrimmage is a penalty, and that has been a rule for ages, but it didn't get called as much in the olden days.
 
Jamming happens at the line, to throw off timing. If you meet a NFL receiver after 5 yards of acceleration with squared hips, you are toast.

Syphon said:
Wait? Jamming WR's is a penalty?
Click to expand...
Only when you do it to Marvin Harrison.

What Polian changed was the chuck rule, or to satisfy Sander, the way a rule in the books is not called anymore. Funny how that works.

What's this?
a defensive player may chuck an eligible player in front of him. A defensive player is allowed to maintain continuous and unbroken contact within the five-yard zone until a point when the receiver is even with the defender.
 
Right, if it's legal, what's the problem? Physical football is legal. Out-muscling your opponent is not against the rules. Go watch that game (it's splendid, btw) and let me know what happened that isn't covered by the chuck rule, and why other than the Colts losing, things needed to be changed.

It's not like this is the only time he's pushed for nonsensical rules that favor a particular style of offense and personnel, is it?
Coincidence?
 
Yeah, probably a coincidence, since the NFL as a business entity is pushing for more big offensive plays because that draws in viewers, and the best way to do that is soften up the game for offensive players.
 
Oh, I thought the purpose of the competition committee was to, you know, promote fair competition. How are they doing that for defensive teams?
 
:? I don't know, where would I ever get the silly notion that the Competition Committee exists to govern competition and not how better to scratch the mainstream's ass for greater profit?
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
Right, if it's legal, what's the problem? Physical football is legal. Out-muscling your opponent is not against the rules. Go watch that game (it's splendid, btw) and let me know what happened that isn't covered by the chuck rule, and why other than the Colts losing, things needed to be changed.
Click to expand...
If nothing untoward happened in that game that isn't punished now, then why the fuck are you whining so much?
 
Besides the continued en-faggening of football, the pandering to the FF generation, the neutering of D-backs, the obvious conflict of interest, the ridiculous yardage and 1st down penalty for illegal contact, the nonsensical, mid-season knee-jerk rule adjustments and the inconsistencies in officiating?

Let me ask you this, what was the legacy of Lawrence Taylor?
Why is the game different today than it had been before him? Because the game adjusted to him in scheme and personnel (the actual process of strategizing and playing football - what a quint old-timey novelty!), or because some self-interested GM couldn't cope and changed the playing field as a crutch for inferiority? If anyone's going to justify it under the aegis of better marketability, that shows even less integrity. As if the NFL was ever hurting for money, they are far and away the most lucrative of the pro-sports in America.

What's the highest ticket price in America this weekend?
LSU/Bama. All defense.

If you want to go down the 'passing yards means more fans/money' route, you're just going to end up like baseball after those inflated homeruns lost their shock value to the casual mainstream. If the moneyshot is all that's keeping them engaged, that's pretty superficial and not sustainable.
 
Man you have real trouble separating long-term changes from one incident in which Polian was involved.

Passing has been going up up up up up since the 1970s. Hell, since the 1930s. And that wasn't because teams adjusted to a new style of play. That was because the NFL consistently and repeatedly changed its rules to promote passing. The NFL has always done this. This is not new. The early '70s are called the Dead Ball Era for a reason, and those 1977 rule changes were no coincidence. Those '77 rule changes were a lot more invasive and game-changing than the minor changes of the past decade, by the way.

The competition committee deciding to advise the owners to re-emphasize the restrictions on contact beyond the line of scrimmage fits in that long-term view. Yes, Bill Polian was involved. That's insignificant. It's not his fault, it's simply the long-term progression of the game. Your pathological need to pretend that Polian is the root cause of all of this is disturbing.



Finally, you keep saying that the Pats never did break those rules and that nothing changed for them, but that somehow those rule changes do mean the game is completely different. Pick a side and stick to it. Either the rule changes eliminated some things from the Pats' arsenal, or they didn't affect the game at all. You can't have it both ways.
 
How is the end of the dead ball era not the beginning of the pussification? I have no problem with passing, it's the motivations behind it.
1930s? Dude, I think I'm pretty clear on how much significance I hold for pre-integration NFL. I'm not even sure pre-merger NFL is relative to anything today.

So tell me Sander, where is the end-game? By your reasoning it's Ultimate Frisbee.
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
How is the end of the dead ball era not the beginning of the pussification? I have no problem with passing, it's the motivations behind it.
1930s? Dude, I think I'm pretty clear on how much significance I hold for pre-integration NFL. I'm not even sure pre-merger NFL is relative to anything today.

So tell me Sander, where is the end-game? By your reasoning it's Ultimate Frisbee.
Click to expand...
I don't know where the end is. We'll see. I don't really mind these rules, to be honest. I think a lot of people are overreacting with the shouts of 'flag football'. I also don't think it's a bad thing that the NFL is trying to do something about head injuries.

I also don't think that putting all of this on one rule emphasis change in 2004 is anywhere close to reasonable.
 
I don't really have a problem with the continuous rule changes for safety, since we are infact watching "humans" and not some movie or video game. One hit can debilitate you for life and so I'm slightly glad to see alot of unneccesary shit go out the window.

MY ONLY BEEF, has been the shit where underneith receivers now have more leeway. I mean, shit to put your wirey WR in the middle where the sharks (LB) roam is not a good idea , yet you can't destroy them like T-jack did Dallas Clark anymore. To me, thats bullshit because if you got the balls to go in the middle, underneith, you better be ready to get your head taken off. I seriously can't stand that shit no more.

I mean, fuck, RB's get tackled 30+ times a game, where people take out there knees, legs, jack em all up; yet WR are treated like my wife plays the game or somethin.

RIP SEAN TAYLOR (the slant/safety killshot play died with you)
 
Safety should be promoted, and headhunting has no place. But you mention debilitating injuries, and you're right, it's interesting who gets protected and who doesn't. Is anyone going to argue that the most debilitating single injuries of the last 30 years weren't to Mike Utley and Dennis Byrd? What's the average lifespan of an NFL lineman? Who gives a shit, they're not who fans come to see, right? They don't even play FF. They don't catch bombs. They don't even show up on the RedZone Channel. Who wants to see them? Arena League understands this mentality.

yet you can't destroy them like T-jack did Dallas Clark anymore.
Click to expand...
At a certain point QBs need to take some of the culpability for throwing into zone coverage. I'm tired of seeing sound defensive football legislated out to prop up poor offensive acumen.
 
Btw, I love linemen. Both sides too.

At a certain point QBs need to take some of the culpability for throwing into zone coverage
Click to expand...

They can throw into zone but they should not expect flags every nasty hit. If it wasn't for rule protection, nobody would run dig routes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top