PDA

View Full Version : Illegal Contact Rule Illegal


CloakNNNdagger
02-11-2010, 08:55 AM
Interestingly enough, there seems like there may have ultimately been a little "Peyton Factor" in the push for this questionable rule.

Pereira says emphasis on illegal contact "didn't seem logical" (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/10/pereira-says-emphasis-on-illegal-contact-didnt-seem-logical/)

Several of you have forwarded to us the link to a Super Bowl week Radio Row interview (http://985thesportshub.radio.com/2010/02/07/the-rules-direction-of-the-nfl/) of now-former NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira, who sat down with Mike Felger and Tony Massarotti of 98.5 The Sports Hub in Boston.

Among other things, Pereira talked about the renewed emphasis that was placed in the middle of the last decade on the rule regarding illegal contact with receivers. Pereira made it clear that Colts president Bill Polian [as well as Tony Dungy], a long-time member of the Competition Committee, pushed the issue due to the perception/reality that Patriots defensive backs were manhandling Indianapolis receivers.

Pereira was candid regarding his belief that the change to the application of the rule made little sense. Specifically, he said that the notion that a flag would be thrown and a first down awarded regardless of whether the contact actually generates an advantage for the defensive team "didn't seem logical."

"It was difficult for us," he said. "You always tried to officiate the game advantage-disadvantage. And so it didn't seem logical . . . to me at the time. I probably wouldn't be saying this if I didn't have just four quarters left to go in my career. But it didn't seem logical to me that you would take advantage-disadvantage out of the equation, that just a touch became a foul whether or not it had an affect or not."

Pereira also explained that the spike in illegal-contact calls has since leveled out, with the spike in calls subsiding over time.

But his broader point is an eye-opener. Not only did Pereira make it clear that Polian pushed the "point of emphasis" through the Competition Committee, but Pereira also was refreshingly candid regarding his disagreement with the requirement that any contact with a receiver after five yards mandated a five-yard penalty and an automatic first down.

It's interesting to read this 2004 ESPN article which supports the true "source" of the increased focus to this rule. Expect more illegal contact penalties in 2004 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=pasquarelli_len&id=1771047)

HoustonFrog
02-11-2010, 09:09 AM
Something is starting to bother me about Tony Dungy these days. The man is a good Christian man and I know helps people, etc but when I hear his commentary about games, etc, there is almost a whine to his analysis and what is going on. It is like you can hear the natural bent toward teams or against teams in his commentary. Before the SB he was really all over the "Colts can't be beat with Peyton" train. Of course he would be. But the argument wasn't even debatable to him. One of the reasons people thought he couldn't get those strong TB teams over the top is they said he was soft as a coach. They then said that with the Colts until the one SB win. It just seems like the "we should be given everything" syndrome. I respect and like the Colts teams for what they do every year but this article kind of confirms what I've thought all along.

BigBull17
02-11-2010, 09:23 AM
Something is starting to bother me about Tony Dungy these days. The man is a good Christian man and I know helps people, etc but when I hear his commentary about games, etc, there is almost a whine to his analysis and what is going on. It is like you can hear the natural bent toward teams or against him in his commentary. Before the SB he was really all over the "Colts can't be beat with Peyton" train. Of course he would be. But the argument wasn't even debatable to him. One of the reasons people thought he couldn't get those strong TB teams over the top is they said he was soft as a coach. They then said that with the Colts until the one SB win. It just seems like the "we should be given everything" I respect and like the Colts teams for what they do every year but this article kind of confirms what I've thought all along.

Yeah, as a guy who followed those Tampa teams, he always was like this. Seems to make alot of excuses when things didn't go his way. Also, to have a team that was as good as the Colts all those years and only have 1 ring, only one SB appearence, and all those one and dones, is telling. A very over-rated coach, IMO.

bah007
02-11-2010, 10:31 AM
The illegal contact rule made no sense when it was enacted and it still doesn't. Just another unfair rule to try to give offenses even more of an advantage.

steelbtexan
02-11-2010, 10:31 AM
Yeah, as a guy who followed those Tampa teams, he always was like this. Seems to make alot of excuses when things didn't go his way. Also, to have a team that was as good as the Colts all those years and only have 1 ring, only one SB appearence, and all those one and dones, is telling. A very over-rated coach, IMO.

This is what I was saying years ago. Very overrated

Caldwell almost did in his rookie season as a HC what it took Dungy a career to do,

Ole Miss Texan
02-12-2010, 11:14 AM
To play devil's advocate, a holding penalty will get called whether its an advantage or not. You see this on punt or kick returns a lot. A sensless block in the back or a holding that has zero effect on the play.

playa465
02-12-2010, 06:48 PM
I would expect offensive teams to want this rule in place...a large portion of the passing game is on timing...anything that disrupts that is an advantage for the defense...the defensive side of me says so what, adjust to the game and move on...but maybe changing it to a 5yd penalty only and no automatic 1st down could be a compromise...the Colts are a finesse offensive team so you anything physical causes them problems, its not like this is football

disaacks3
02-12-2010, 08:19 PM
To play devil's advocate, a holding penalty will get called whether its an advantage or not. You see this on punt or kick returns a lot. A sensless block in the back or a holding that has zero effect on the play. That why Pereira's comments seem silly to me. Most calls are supposed to be made withOUT consideration of advantage / disadvantage to a particular play. The reason you have guys like the "Head Linesman" and "Back Judge" is to allow specialization of officiating duties during the game.

ex. - The Head Linesman shouldn't have to worry about whether the Offense gains any "advantage" from only having 6 guys on the line on a given play, only that he should throw the flag because there weren't 7. (Per the HoF in Canton, this particular rule was made in the era of the flying wedge when fatalities were quite a bit higher due to the use of this formation.)

As for the basis of the "Illegal Contact" rule, I thought everyone knew that the Colts were behind it (due to the Pats DBs getting away w/ murder). If the officials (prior to the rule) had been enforcing all teams equally to begin with, it probably wouldn't have been necessary to enact a change.