JETS WIN on a PI Call

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Phoenix125. Show Phoenix125's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call


    I do not like the Jet's, but I believe in the following sports philosophy:

    'Excellent Teams Find Ways To Win Games They Should Have Lost'
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    The defender wouldn't have hit the receivers face mask if the Receiver hadn't pulled the DB back towards him,hey but the NFL wants  the TV market in NYC to be very active during the playoffs so expect to see even more help coming their way each week.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from WelkerRules. Show WelkerRules's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    I am sick of the Jets wining the last few games. They need to start losing. We need to be first in the AFC East. Not the Jets.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]it was a pathetic call
    Posted by KyleCleric2[/QUOTE]
    But it was the right call. Check the replay and put the homerism aside.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]IT was a good call insofar as he did interfere. It was a bad call, in the sense that all spot fouls are bad calls.  That would have been a simply amazing catch if the guy makes it. Highlight reel stuff. You cannot assume that he catches a ball like that. Sorry.  It should have been fifteen yards. But saying it was a bad call isn't right. He hooked the guy's facemask. 
    Posted by zbellino[/QUOTE]
    You would have taken a spot foul in the same situation. Don't lie.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]You know what was great?  Sanchez starting to play like his true self again.  They cannot protect him by having him playing it safe each week if they want to keep winning.  Some turnovers today and they will keep coming, like last year. Jeys were lucky to win today.
    Posted by boomerst3[/QUOTE]
    Don't you think the dinks and dunks that TB throws all game long don't protect him? Last week everyone was complaining about going down field with incompletions.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188. Show Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]It was the right call...that's why you FIND THE BALL IN THE AIR! And not mindlessly try to shield the receiver's face. Use skill, not luck next time. Same thing happened today to McCourty twice, first time, he never looked and got flagged. Next time he actually looked, and almost picked it off. As for the rule itself, I agree that it should be modified. I think it should be a spot foul with a maximum of 15 yards, and still a first down. No more 40 yard bogus penalties. A win is a win. Honestly, I prefer if those lucky-type plays go the Jets way. I don't want any excuses when they lose. And Pats fans shouldn't have issue. Remember and unconscious Patten touching the ball while his head was out of bounds against Buffalo? Remember the tuck rule? Remember ST Louis (or was it Carolina?) kicking it out of bounds to give the Pats the ball at the 40 in the final minutes of a super bowl? My point is, EVERY team gets lucky at some point. Hello NYG and the 07 Super Bowl! It all balances out in the end.
    Posted by ma6dragon9[/QUOTE]

    Face-guarding is NOT a penalty: http://www.ehow.com/facts_4778957_nfl-rules-face-guarding.html
    http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=latestnewsdetail&pid=23945&pcid=41

    Just an FYI so you understand.

    Also, the defender is supposed to have an equal right to space: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference

    So

    Devin McCourty had inside position and had a right to run down the field.  The ball was thrown to his inside, and the receiver tried to go over McCourty to get to the football.  Face-guarding is not a penalty.

    You got served.
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call : Face-guarding is NOT a penalty: http://www.ehow.com/facts_4778957_nfl-rules-face-guarding.html http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=latestnewsdetail&pid=23945&pcid=41 Just an FYI so you understand. Also, the defender is supposed to have an equal right to space: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/passinterference So Devin McCourty had inside position and had a right to run down the field.  The ball was thrown to his inside, and the receiver tried to go over McCourty to get to the football.  Face-guarding is not a penalty. You got served.
    Posted by Artist-Frmrly-Knwn-As-NickC1188[/QUOTE]

    Face-guarding and pulling on the face-mask are two different things.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SShoreLurker. Show SShoreLurker's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    There is one part of Pass Interference that must be rectified for 2011: the intentional low pass on tight coverage causing the defender to magically be a shield.

    Happened in the Patriots game but it happens in every game.  Defender has tight shirt coverage and the QB throws it at the defender in the waist area where the offensive player, who otherwise is completely shut down, has to "struggle to reach around" the defender.  The pass is not meant to be caught its merely to get the call.  It comes across as shielding when in fact it was an uncatchable ball!! 

    The defender should have right to his space regardless of where the pass is thrown. if the pass is low and behind the action, it should be considered non- interference PROVIDED that the defender not put his arms up or lean on the receiver. 

    Take a look the next game you watch. It will happen.  Its a modification that needs to occur.  Otherwise, whats the point in defending anything?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from RushThePillPopper. Show RushThePillPopper's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]The defender wouldn't have hit the receivers face mask if the Receiver hadn't pulled the DB back towards him,hey but the NFL wants  the TV market in NYC to be very active during the playoffs so expect to see even more help coming their way each week.
    Posted by sportsbozo1[/QUOTE]..."and if he hadn't done this than he wouldn't have done that", blah blah blah. It was the correct call so you and Kyle who made the other idiotic and homer-based blind call are just plain moronic. It WAS the right call so deal with it


     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call : Kyle, I do think it was pass interference, but I think it blows that a team can essentially win a game this way. I know the Jets trolls will whine that I'm complaining about this one game, but I do think the league should give the referee discretion to award either a 15-yard penalty (for more incidental contact) or a spot foul (for when a clearly beaten defender deliberately grabs or tackles the receiver), in the same way they have discretion on face mask or roughing the kicker penalties to award a more or less severe penalty. If the PI call against the Broncos had resulted in a 15-yard penalty, I think the punishment would have fit the crime. That being said, we all know Polian would never allow the league to change the rules on Peyton Interference.
    Posted by NY-PATS-FAN4[/QUOTE]

    PI should absolutely be changed to a 15 yard penalty like a personal foul.  I think this would be a much more equitable way to deal with interference. I'd guess on at least 20% of the calls the contact is incidental or the defender gets caught while the receiver was pushing off too.  We have the benefit of hindsight with instant replay to see just how questionable some of these calls are, while the refs react at game speed.  If PI was reviewable, which it shouldn't be, I'd bet it would get overturned enough.

    Too harsh a penalty to give a guy 70 yards when there was a fair amount of back and forth between the receiver and the defender.   
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RushThePillPopper. Show RushThePillPopper's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call : PI should absolutely be changed to a 15 yard penalty like a personal foul.  I think this would be a much more equitable way to deal with interference. I'd guess on at least 20% of the calls the contact is incidental or the defender gets caught while the receiver was pushing off too.  We have the benefit of hindsight with instant replay to see just how questionable some of these calls are, while the refs react at game speed.  If PI was reviewable, which it shouldn't be, I'd bet it would get overturned enough. Too harsh a penalty to give a guy 70 yards when there was a fair amount of back and forth between the receiver and the defender.   
    Posted by CablesWyndBairn[/QUOTE]...no disagreement here. My team benefitted from the call (and placement) this time but other times it will not. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from WeDerrWEDAT. Show WeDerrWEDAT's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    okay, lets get this cleared up here.  That last pass was PI, watch the replays and you will see that Holmes actually almost came up with the catch anyway.  The only thing that you have a gripe about is that it was thrown up by sanchez almost as a hail mary yet slightly underthrown.  The receiver has a right to the ball, just as the defender does.  The defender did not make a play on the ball, he was preventing Holmes from making a play on it. That is classic pass interference.

    As for the officiating in this game it was horrendous!!!  so many bs calls I was fuming.  It extended Broncos drives on a day that we clearly did not play our best ball and did not need the refs to tilt the match...

    So quit whining about the jets win.  We pulled it out and we are going into the bye week 5-1.  A far cry from the 0-3 or 1-3 that was promissed to me.  I dont even understand why you feel the need to whine.  The pats played a great game and beat the ravens and are sitting at 4-1.  You will have a chance to hang a loss on us.  focus on how you are going to beat us. 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ewhite1065. Show ewhite1065's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]okay, lets get this cleared up here.  That last pass was PI, watch the replays and you will see that Holmes actually almost came up with the catch anyway.  The only thing that you have a gripe about is that it was thrown up by sanchez almost as a hail mary yet slightly underthrown.  The receiver has a right to the ball, just as the defender does.  The defender did not make a play on the ball, he was preventing Holmes from making a play on it. That is classic pass interference. As for the officiating in this game it was horrendous!!!  so many bs calls I was fuming.  It extended Broncos drives on a day that we clearly did not play our best ball and did not need the refs to tilt the match... So quit whining about the jets win.  We pulled it out and we are going into the bye week 5-1.  A far cry from the 0-3 or 1-3 that was promissed to me.  I dont even understand why you feel the need to whine.  The pats played a great game and beat the ravens and are sitting at 4-1.  You will have a chance to hang a loss on us.  focus on how you are going to beat us. 
    Posted by WeDerrWEDAT[/QUOTE]

    Yuh but didn't somebody around here say the Ravens were going to destroy us and there was no way we could stop Rice????

    I made money on the Pats, Jets and Colts yesterday.There is harmony in the universe. If only I didn't take Oakland and Atlanta too.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    I've long advocated the "either or" application of the P.I. rule.

    That is, if it's flagrant (clearly beaten defender tackles or grabs the receiver to prevent a catch), then it's a spout foul.

    If it's merely a "rules violation," like not turning to look for the ball, or putting an arm on the receiver's back a split second before the ball get there, then it should be at the official's discretion to mark off 15 yards and an automatic first down.

    I didn't see this play in question yesterday, but it sounds like it would have been the perfect "15-yard and a first down" call rather than a spot foul.

    There is room in the game for the spot foul call, but it needs to be on flagrant violations IMO.

    Polian's committee should take a look at this rule--then again, he's the guy that doesn't want receivers even being breathed on anymore, so fat chance of that happening.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]I've long advocated the "either or" application of the P.I. rule. That is, if it's flagrant (clearly beaten defender tackles or grabs the receiver to prevent a catch), then it's a spout foul. If it's merely a "rules violation," like not turning to look for the ball, or putting an arm on the receiver's back a split second before the ball get there, then it should be at the official's discretion to mark off 15 yards and an automatic first down.[/QUOTE]

    I said this earlier in the thread and I'll repeat it here for "emphasis" (groan): If you do this, you're giving more leeway to the officials to "interpret" what happens on the field. I think over-officiating is ruining the game. I want what the official "thinks" taken out of the equation as much as possible. Giving a group of part-time officials carte blanche to call whatever they want is not going to solve the problem.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from WeDerrWEDAT. Show WeDerrWEDAT's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call : Yuh but didn't somebody around here say the Ravens were going to destroy us and there was no way we could stop Rice???? I made money on the Pats, Jets and Colts yesterday.There is harmony in the universe. If only I didn't take Oakland and Atlanta too.
    Posted by ewhite1065[/QUOTE]

    nice ewhite, you keep making $$$ I am going to come up there for a lahbstah dinnah on YOU lol.  You guys looked every bit of the contenders you have been for so long in the AFC.  My hats off to you guys doing that to a fired up ravens team out to prove something to the AFC and all of football.  Maybe the coming off the bye week helped but you did it anyways.  I definately wouldnt have made that bet. gratz to you guys.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call : I said this earlier in the thread and I'll repeat it here for "emphasis" (groan): If you do this, you're giving more leeway to the officials to "interpret" what happens on the field. I think over-officiating is ruining the game. I want what the official "thinks" taken out of the equation as much as possible. Giving a group of part-time officials carte blanche to call whatever they want is not going to solve the problem.
    Posted by p-mike[/QUOTE]

    But there has to be a happy medium somewhere between a low-percentage pass tossed up for grabs that results in a 55-yard, game-changing penalty, and the refs having "too much" power to influence the game (I would argue that the ticky-tack P.I. calls that result in huge gains, right now, give them too much influence as it is).

    How about a compromise--get rid of the spot foul entirely but up the automatic penalty yardage from 15 to 25 (or half the distance to the goal inside the 25)?

    That's more severe than the college rule, which is just 15 yards, and it probably would dissuade most DBs from just grabbing the receiver to prevent a catch if he's clearly beaten.

    As it is right now, the rules are so heavily slanted towards the offense, and passing offenses in particular, that there are more and more of these ticky-tack P.I. calls affecting field position and, by extension, affecting the outcomes of games.

    I, personally, want to see wide receivers turn back into football players. These modern-day rules have turned many of them into little more than pampered Divas.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call : But there has to be a happy medium somewhere between a low-percentage pass tossed up for grabs that results in a 55-yard, game-changing penalty, and the refs having "too much" power to influence the game (I would argue that the ticky-tack P.I. calls that result in huge gains, right now, give them too much influence as it is). How about a compromise--get rid of the spot foul entirely but up the automatic penalty yardage from 15 to 25 (or half the distance to the goal inside the 25)? That's more severe than the college rule, which is just 15 yards, and it probably would dissuade most DBs from just grabbing the receiver to prevent a catch if he's clearly beaten. As it is right now, the rules are so heavily slanted towards the offense, and passing offenses in particular, that there are more and more of these ticky-tack P.I. calls affecting field position and, by extension, affecting the outcomes of games. I, personally, want to see wide receivers turn back into football players. These modern-day rules have turned many of them into little more than pampered Divas.
    Posted by hardright[/QUOTE]

    Spot fouls on PI has been around since day one. Why would you want to change it? As for yesterdays play, the defender got his hand into Holmes facemask and pulled. Anyone who questions the call is just being biased against the Jets. Leave it alone man; it is just sour grapes. The Jets win, the Pats win and we move onto the next week.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from WeDerrWEDAT. Show WeDerrWEDAT's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    I aint scared huevos rancheros...the call was cheap because he was prevented from coming back to the ball?  If you watched the game then you saw a TON of bs PI calls on the jets defense all game.  If you couldnt see that then you are simply turning a blind eye to it.  I dont talk about calls but this game had me yelling at my tv about the refs.  You are allowed to touch/feel for the defender if that is what you are refering to, no grabbing or holding(or pulling on the facemask) or turning the defender.  As far as the broncos running wild?  I think their QB was their biggest rusher when he scrambled for a few big pickups.  Figures they wait till they play the jets to break out Tebow for that one TD.  Dood hasnt played all year and they bust out the UF offense on the goalline against us lol.
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from hardright. Show hardright's posts

    Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call

    In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: JETS WIN on a PI Call : Spot fouls on PI has been around since day one. Why would you want to change it? As for yesterdays play, the defender got his hand into Holmes facemask and pulled. Anyone who questions the call is just being biased against the Jets. Leave it alone man; it is just sour grapes. The Jets win, the Pats win and we move onto the next week.
    Posted by jesseyeric[/QUOTE]

    Yes, it's been around since the beginning of time, but the game has changed.

    More and more passes attempted.

    More and more restrictions on what the DB can do.

    More and more of these ticky-tack P.I. calls being made.

    If this were 1977, I'd say keep the rule as is. But it's 2010 and the game has changed, dramatically.

    Defense are already handcuffed by the ludicrous pro-offense rules changes that seemingly happen every year.

    To make things fair I think tweaking the P.I. rules is in order at this point.

    But it won't happen. I'm realistic.

     

Share