NE Gets A Little Help From The Zebras

[TheBillsWillRiseAgain]

If you'd like to show how that correlates to the Patriots getting the most favorable calls in the whole league, be my guest. Simply suggesting that's why isn't enough to warrant consideration though.

 

The AFC South was a worse division than the AFC East last season. Were the Colts top 3 in those penalties as well?

Edited October 17, 2014 by TheBillsWillRiseAgain

[Pneumonic]

I obviously disagree with you that the play in question wasn't a penalty. That not being obvious is odd.

 

It's odd because you are making it out to be a situation where the ref purposely did something that specifically benefited the Pats. This is clearly not the case as witnessed by the regularity with which the play happens throughout the league, in games not involving the Pats.

 

Furthermore, the league is on record as saying it encourages its refs to handle plays exactly as last night's ref did.

[TheBillsWillRiseAgain]

I'm not making it out to be a situation of anything other than it is. In a league of constant questionable calls and judgement decisions by the referees, the Patriots consistently seem to come out on top year after year.

[CountDorkula]

If you'd like to show how that correlates to the Patriots getting the most favorable calls in the whole league, be my guest. Simply suggesting that's why isn't enough to warrant consideration though.

 

The AFC South was a worse division than the AFC East last season. Were the Colts top 3 in those penalties as well?

 

Indy had more beneficiary yards then NE last year.....

 

Indy Net yards - 403

NE Net yards - 352

Edited October 17, 2014 by CountDorkula

[Pneumonic]

I'm not making it out to be a situation of anything other than it is. In a league of constant questionable calls and judgement decisions by the referees, the Patriots consistently seem to come out on top year after year.

 

But you are and you may not even realize it.

[TheBillsWillRiseAgain]

Indy had more beneficiary yards then NE last year.....

 

Indy Net yards - 403

NE Net yards - 352

 

You already know we're not talking about total yards and you already know why we're not talking about total yards.

[ko12010]

You already know we're not talking about total yards and you already know why we're not talking about total yards.

It's the only thing he understands.

[NoSaint]

 

 

 

Both of you are missing the major point: If it is a rule the players are supposed to follow they need to follow it without interference or the refs need to enforce the rule and remind players before hand every time, every game, every single time this call comes up to make it fair.

 

This is not a grey area rule that you two make it out to be: the refs either need to let the players play or they need to remind the players every time to enforce safety. They do both, that makes it grey area and there is NO room for grey area in this.

 

You're on a Bills board, most of us don't care about those calls.

 

Go to another teams site and you'll read about it. Even Pats sites are upset calls didn't go there way last night

 

 

if the ref is right there, and notices a player is drifting towards it -- i dont think its a huge deal. just my opinion.

[CountDorkula]

It's the only thing he understands.

 

Ugh - we have been talking yards the entire damn time. "NE only gets hit with 5 yard penalties"

 

Indy and NE . are at or near the top in yards, number of calls, beneficiary yards. etc. I was asked to compare them to Indy because of the "bad division" Which I did. At they are very similar. hence why i brought up Division play. SO far stats are in my favor...

[buffaloboyinATL]

 

 

It's odd because you are making it out to be a situation where the ref purposely did something that specifically benefited the Pats. This is clearly not the case as witnessed by the regularity with which the play happens throughout the league, in games not involving the Pats.

 

Furthermore, the league is on record as saying it encourages its refs to handle plays exactly as last night's ref did.

Just because something happens with regularity throughout the league ( a point I personally disagree with) doesn't mean this wasn't something that the referee purposely did that specifically benefitted the Pats*. That is exactly what it was. If that is common practice by the league, then why is this penalty ever even called? Again, whether it is common or not, the referees actions directly benefited the Pats* and potentially altered the outcome of the game. That is undeniable.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just because something happens with regularity throughout the league ( a point I personally disagree with) doesn't mean this wasn't something that the referee purposely did that specifically benefitted the Pats*. That is exactly what it was. If that is common practice by the league, then why is this penalty ever even called? Again, whether it is common or not, the referees actions directly benefited the Pats* and potentially altered the outcome of the game. That is undeniable.

 

WTH???

[Pneumonic]

Just because something happens with regularity throughout the league ( a point I personally disagree with) doesn't mean this wasn't something that the referee purposely did that specifically benefitted the Pats*. That is exactly what it was. If that is common practice by the league, then why is this penalty ever even called? Again, whether it is common or not, the referees actions directly benefited the Pats* and potentially altered the outcome of the game. That is undeniable.

 

Philosophically, OK.

 

But, the reality is .... this play wasn't a penalty due to the fact that Hightower wasn't within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage at the time the ref re-positioned him. Regardless of whether or not Hightower's intent was to end up in that 1 yard criteria area or not.

 

Ironically, since Hightower was in accordance with the rules and the ref re-positioned him, it could be argued that the ref did a dis-service to the Pats on that play. One which might have negatively impacted the result.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Pneumonic

[pimp 2]

Bam. Last week Colts vs. Texans.

 

 

 

http://www.stampedeblue.com/2014/10/9/6955243/colts-vs-texans-second-half-open-thread

 

 

 

 

33 out of the 63 penalties the Patriots have this season are only 5-yard penalties.

 

Investigative reporting...Good job !!!

 

:worthy: :worthy:

[buffaloboyinATL]

 

 

WTH???

You don't agree that the referee repositioning a player to avoid a penalty was beneficial to the Pats*? Had he not intervened the result was almost assuredly a penalty for lining up over the long snapper, you don't agree?

[Orton's Arm]

But, like all real evidence points to in the conspiracies is that when it is not called. When penalties are not called. Revis' PI late in the game, the chopping blows Geno Smith was getting all night, the whipped to the ground he was getting as players would continue to roll in to his legs, the launching tackles at receivers heads, etc.

 

They failed to call several penalties on the Pats when they were blatantly obvious and would have changed the game.

 

It was called against Miami, iirc, in our matchup.

 

It gets called weekly.

 

> They failed to call several penalties on the Pats when they were blatantly obvious and would have changed the game.

 

It was obvious that the Bills were being held to a completely different standard than the Patriots. Nor was that the first time this season the Patriots have benefited from very favorable, one-sided officiating.

 

Players on all teams make stupid mistakes, such as false starts. They'll push whatever limits have been set, resulting in additional penalties. The typical pattern is for the refs to penalize the Patriots for obvious stuff--such as encroachment or offsides--while giving them the benefit of the doubt on plays which require more of a judgement call. (Offensive and defensive pass interference, holding, etc.)

 

I'm not concerned about the ref providing advice to the Patriot before the snap. Maybe that same ref would have provided the exact same advice to a member of the opposing team also. There's no proof that a double standard was being used. But there have been plenty of other times when it's been glaringly obvious a double standard was being used.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Orton's Arm

[buffaloboyinATL]

 

 

Philosophically, OK.

 

But, the reality is .... this play wasn't a penalty due to the fact that Hightower wasn't within 1 yard of the line of scrimmage at the time the ref re-positioned him. Regardless of whether or not Hightower's intent was to end up in that 1 yard criteria area or not.

 

Ironically, since Hightower was in accordance with the rules and the ref re-positioned him, it could be argued that the ref did a dis-service to the Pats on that play. One which might have negatively impacted the result.

Ok, but if a Defense lines up with 12 men on the field and the referee alerts one of them to get off of the field before the ball is snapped, would you be ok with that? It is not a penalty until the ball is snapped but it is not the referees job to point this out.

[26CornerBlitz]

You don't agree that the referee repositioning a player to avoid a penalty was beneficial to the Pats*? Had he not intervened the result was almost assuredly a penalty for lining up over the long snapper, you don't agree?

 

Hightower got into that position to call a line shift. He wasn't "lined up" over the long snapper. As a matter of safety, the Umpire reminded him that he needed to move and he did just that right after making his call that led to the FG block.

 

You are imagining an advantage where none exists on a routine reminder from an NFL official. We all hate the Patriots, but come on!!

[Pneumonic]

Ok, but if a Defense lines up with 12 men on the field and the referee alerts one of them to get off of the field before the ball is snapped, would you be ok with that? It is not a penalty until the ball is snapped but it is not the referees job to point this out.

 

I'm not saying the rule enforcement is good or bad - though I do understand it's intent is to minimize the health risk to the long snapper on the play - which I believe to be a good thing. I'm just saying it's a commonly seen practice throughout the league that is not just limited to the Pats as some of the critics seem to be implying.

[CountDorkula]

> They failed to call several penalties on the Pats when they were blatantly obvious and would have changed the game.

 

It was obvious that the Bills were being held to a completely different standard than the Patriots. Nor was that the first time this season the Patriots have benefited from very favorable, one-sided officiating.

 

Players on all teams make stupid mistakes, such as false starts. They'll push whatever limits have been set, resulting in additional penalties. The typical pattern is for the refs to penalize the Patriots for obvious stuff--such as encroachment or offsides--while giving them the benefit of the doubt on plays which require more of a judgement call. (Offensive and defensive pass interference, holding, etc.)

 

I'm not concerned about the ref providing advice to the Patriot before the snap. Maybe that same ref would have provided the exact same advice to a member of the opposing team also. There's no proof that a double standard was being used. But there have been plenty of other times when it's been glaringly obvious a double standard was being used.

 

Hmmmm..

 

Penalties this year.

 

Offensive PI

Pats - 4

Bills - 2

 

Defensive Holding

Pats -9

Bills - 7

 

Defensive PI

Pats - 3

Bills - 6

 

.....

Edited October 17, 2014 by CountDorkula

[boyst]

Could it be the Pats play what have been 3 terrible teams twice that only select teams play once?

 

 

 

Nice, insults because i don't agree.

insults no. You took offense to i . I am merely telling you that your entire argument ismlogically flawed. Therefore illogical.

It's odd because you are making it out to be a situation where the ref purposely did something that specifically benefited the Pats. This is clearly not the case as witnessed by the regularity with which the play happens throughout the league, in games not involving the Pats.

 

Furthermore, the league is on record as saying it encourages its refs to handle plays exactly as last night's ref did.

in his case yes. In many other games no. It shouldn't be happenin . It could be favoritism. Let's say the ref forgets to tell the guy to move on one play so he does no call it but then another official does completely unaware that the ref had been aiding both reams already in the game with the rule.

 

At that point you can't uncall an actual penalty and the damage is done.

 

if the ref is right there, and notices a player is drifting towards it -- i dont think its a huge deal. just my opinion.

I agree its not a big deal but if it is a rul it needs to be obeyed and not mocked. I think the whole false start hoo-ha of players standing up moving around, calling assignments at the line is BS. In my experience football is simpl . You get down, you're called to set and you can't move.

 

The NFL began twisting rules long before this and it is causing too many issues like last night.

[buffaloboyinATL]

 

 

I'm not saying the rule enforcement is good or bad - though I do understand it's intent is to minimize the health risk to the long snapper on the play - which I believe to be a good thing. I'm just saying it's a commonly seen practice throughout the league that is not just limited to the Pats as some of the critics seem to be implying.

Fair enough. I agree that there are other teams that get the benefit of preferential treatment from the Officials, it was just the Pats* that were the beneficiaries last night. I don't really buy the leagues safety concern excuse though, because to that end, allowing the Defense to play with one extra player could be a safety concern for the other team, so it goes back to my question as to whether that gives the official the right to alert the Defense prior to the snap.

[CountDorkula]

insults no. You took offense to i . I am merely telling you that your entire argument ismlogically flawed. Therefore illogical.

 

Care to explain. I have used facts to back up every single one of my points. All others have said "If you don't see it, I don't know what to tell you"

[buffaloboyinATL]

 

 

Hightower got into that position to call a line shift. He wasn't "lined up" over the long snapper. As a matter of safety, the Umpire reminded him that he needed to move and he did just that right after making his call that led to the FG block.

 

You are imagining an advantage where none exists on a routine reminder from an NFL official. We all hate the Patriots, but come on!!

Regardless of his intent, if he was over center when the ball was snapped, he was in an illegal Defense formation which is a penalty. My argument is that the officials should not be permitted to alert a player to a pending penalty, regardless of the team. Their job is to call the penalties, not to "prevent" them.

[26CornerBlitz]

Regardless of his intent, if he was over center when the ball was snapped, he was in an illegal Defense formation which is a penalty. My argument is that the officials should not be permitted to alert a player to a pending penalty, regardless of the team. Their job is to call the penalties, not to "prevent" them.

 

Safety of the long snapper is a league point of emphasis and nothing unusual. It is indeed a mandate for league officials. Your not liking it is an entirely different matter.

[Pneumonic]

Hmmmm..

 

Penalties this year.

 

Offensive PI

Pats - 4

Bills - 2

 

Defensive Holding

Pats -9

Bills - 7

 

Defensive PI

Pats - 3

Bills - 6

 

.....

 

I think what often times happen when you have situation of complete and utter domination (as is the case with Bills and Pats) is those who have fallen victim to such domination (ie the fans of dominated team in this case) often look for ways and means to explain, even rationalize, how such domination can occur. Often times illogical aspects and components are entered into as evidence when, in fact, they are not at all accurate or truly representative of reality. But, it makes those involved feel good that their is a reason, other than the obvious, that explains for such futility. This may be an example of such a situation.

 

Fair enough. I agree that there are other teams that get the benefit of preferential treatment from the Officials, it was just the Pats* that were the beneficiaries last night. I don't really buy the leagues safety concern excuse though, because to that end, allowing the Defense to play with one extra player could be a safety concern for the other team, so it goes back to my question as to whether that gives the official the right to alert the Defense prior to the snap.

 

How can you not agree that the rule isn't in place to help with the well-being of the LS? There is a requirement for a defender to not be situated any closer to 1 yard away from LS and not lined-up directly over top of him. It's a VERY explicit rule done, obviously, for a VERY specific reason ... to protect the LS.

 

In the play last night, even though Hightower was line-up over the LS, the ref SHOULDN'T have re-directed Hightower for he was beyond the 1 yard limitation. In re-directing Hightower as he did, the ref might have caused a negative play.

[boyst]

Care to explain. I have used facts to back up every single one of my points. All others have said "If you don't see it, I don't know what to tell you"

Facts schmax.

 

The NFL has no right to interject with what is happening on the field. That's what the argument is. They interjected and it potentially changed the outcome of this game.

[Pneumonic]

Regardless of his intent, if he was over center when the ball was snapped, he was in an illegal Defense formation which is a penalty.

A defender can be lined-up over the LS. he just can'r do so any closer to 1 yard of the LS while doing so.

 

In last night's games, Hightower was ~2 yards away from the LS when the ref intervened. So, Hightower's actions weren't even penalty worthy to begin with!

Edited October 17, 2014 by Pneumonic

[TheBillsWillRiseAgain]

A defender can be lined-up over the LS. he just can'r do so any closer to 1 yard of the LS while doing so.

 

In last night's games, Hightower was ~2 yards away from the LS when the ref intervened. So, Hightower's actions weren't even penalty worthy to begin with!

 

So it's ok for them to interfere to stop a player from committing a penalty? That's like saying "The ref grabbed him and pulled him back before he went offsides so that's ok."

[buffaloboyinATL]

 

 

 

How can you not agree that the rule isn't in place to help with the well-being of the LS? There is a requirement for a defender to not be situated any closer to 1 yard away from LS and not lined-up directly over top of him. It's a VERY explicit rule done, obviously, for a VERY specific reason ... to protect the LS.

 

In the play last night, even though Hightower was line-up over the LS, the ref SHOULDN'T have re-directed Hightower for he was beyond the 1 yard limitation. In re-directing Hightower as he did, the ref might have caused a negative play.

Sorry, I agree completely that the rule should be enforced for the protection of the LS, I meant I don't agree with the league allowing the officials to intervene with a defensive formation prior to the snap. They should wait until the ball is snapped and then blow the play dead.

[judman]

If the position of the defender is indeed a penalty, let it happen, call it... and allow the other team the opportunity to accept or decline the penalty.

 

If this is a "prior to the snap" penalty like 12 men in the huddle or a false start, the penalty should be automatic. I guess you could argue that the guy would have backed out of position before the snap. But if he is not supposed to be there in the first place, then it should be called.

[Pneumonic]

So it's ok for them to interfere to stop a player from committing a penalty? That's like saying "The ref grabbed him and pulled him back before he went offsides so that's ok."

 

As I said previously, I can't say either way if they should intervene in order to protect the health of a susceptible player.

 

My point is much simpler .... the Hightower play last night wasn't a penalty in accordance with the rules for Hightower wasn't within the 1 yard LOS rule limitation when the ref re-directed him.

[boyst]

A defender can be lined-up over the LS. he just can'r do so any closer to 1 yard of the LS while doing so.

 

In last night's games, Hightower was ~2 yards away from the LS when the ref intervened. So, Hightower's actions weren't even penalty worthy to begin with!

he was moving forward... it fuels conspiracy that there would have been a penalty.

 

so, lets try to wrap this dead horse up like this:

1) he was moving forward and not yet causing a penalty

2) the ref intervened which they occasionally do in the games to stop the player from causing a penalty

3) the penalty still occurs in the game and players are not always stopped prior to the snap

4) mrags should stay

5) that the nfl is involved at all, in some situations, causes many arguments which fall back to #1 again.

 

in conclusion if you are fine with the refs having influence in the game then you will not see a big deal in this. if you want purity of the game you do.

 

[CountDorkula]

So it's ok for them to interfere to stop a player from committing a penalty? That's like saying "The ref grabbed him and pulled him back before he went offsides so that's ok."

 

They do this all of the time.

 

It is no different from when a WR lines up a checks the LOS, The Ref is preventing an illegal action.

[Pneumonic]

Sorry, I agree completely that the rule should be enforced for the protection of the LS, I meant I don't agree with the league allowing the officials to intervene with a defensive formation prior to the snap. They should wait until the ball is snapped and then blow the play dead.

 

I see that side of the point. Though, waiting until after the play, my have health consequences for the LS that the league is not willing to risk.

[buffaloboyinATL]

 

A defender can be lined-up over the LS. he just can'r do so any closer to 1 yard of the LS while doing so.

 

In last night's games, Hightower was ~2 yards away from the LS when the ref intervened. So, Hightower's actions weren't even penalty worthy to begin with!

That's kind of my point. Whether this would have been a penalty or not ( it may have been if he kept moving up on the line) the official should not have intervened. They are there to call penalties, not prevent them.

[buffaloboyinATL]

 

 

They do this all of the time.

 

It is no different from when a WR lines up a checks the LOS, The Ref is preventing an illegal action.

I have NEVER seen a ref proactively alert at WR that he is off sides or in an illegal formation, and if I did, that would piss me off too.

[TheBillsWillRiseAgain]

I have NEVER seen a ref proactively alert at WR that he is off sides or in an illegal formation, and if I did, that would piss me off too.

 

That's because they don't do that. And certainly not on the last play of a 2 point game where that play will either result in a win or a loss.

[Pneumonic]

That's kind of my point. Whether this would have been a penalty or not ( it may have been if he kept moving up on the line) the official should not have intervened. They are there to call penalties, not prevent them.

 

They are also there to ensure the safety of the players out on the field. Sometimes that means having to get involved in a pre-emptive fashion. I accept that as does, apparently, the league.

[truth on hold]

@DeanBlandino

Player safety rule and Umpire will remind players to stay off the center before snap. Will discuss on NFLAM this morning.

 

Blandino: Ref tapping Hightower to avoid penalty 'not unusual'

why is this a player safety issue?

[26CornerBlitz]

why is this a player safety issue?

 

Because the NFL protects long snappers from getting blasted while in a completely vulnerable position.