Francois penalty - poor coaching

[Patler]

It appears the Packer coaches do not even understand how the officials interpret the alignment penalty. MM talked about the "Yard and a half" distance:


"Robert was lined up a yard and a half from the snapper."

According to Hochuli, they evaluate it in a different way:


'He’s got to be outside the center’s shoulders or else he’s got to be back more than a yard off the line, and that’s judged by whether, does he have a foot or any part of his body up within, if you look from the sideline, up within the linemen that are down on the ground."

Pictures show that Francois was within the linemen.

[ND72]

It appears the Packer coaches do not even understand how the officials interpret the alignment penalty. MM talked about the "Yard and a half" distance:


"Robert was lined up a yard and a half from the snapper."

According to Hochuli, they evaluate it in a different way:


'He’s got to be outside the center’s shoulders or else he’s got to be back more than a yard off the line, and that’s judged by whether, does he have a foot or any part of his body up within, if you look from the sideline, up within the linemen that are down on the ground."

Pictures show that Francois was within the linemen.


Post game radio & TV both read straight from the rule book, and nowhere in the rule book say the player must be outside the center's shoulders...He must only line up one yard and a half off of the line of scrimmage. Refs interpreted the rule the way they wanted to.

[Patler]

Post game radio & TV both read straight from the rule book, and nowhere in the rule book say the player must be outside the center's shoulders...He must only line up one yard and a half off of the line of scrimmage. Refs interpreted the rule the way they wanted to.

You are a coach, aren't you? I coached (not football) for quite a few years, and was in a position to be in on the decisions for hiring coaches. Knowing the rule is only part of it. Good coaches coach to the interpretation of the rule. In this situation, the officials can't run up and measure the distance, so, as in a lot of situations, they use a "crutch". Good coaches, in this situation good ST coaches, learn what the "crutch" is and coach to it.

Rule changes are presented by the league to the coaching staffs. I wonder how many good ST coaches asked the simple question, "How do you determine if he is a yard-and-a-half out from the line of scrimmage?" Hochuli seemed pretty matter-of-fact in how they do it, even saying it has to be a delayed call because officials from two different positions have to consult. I doubt it was simply something his crew dreamed up. I suspect it is something they have been instructed to look for in that way.

Slocum should know that.

[ND72]

good point Patler. Coaches should have never put the team in that situation...

[packerbacker1234]

You also have to look at it in the other light as well. Francois hasn't exactly been active and practicing special teams as an actual game time participant, if at all, until this week. Part of it could be due to inexperience, not just coaching.

At the same time, while you should know how things get interpretted, the problem is that every single referee out there interrupts things differently. According to the actual rule, Francious did nothing wrong. He was not lined up wrong, and did not impeded with the actual rules. Look at it like late hits and helmet to helmet hits on AR - apparently that is all subjective to interpretation as well, even though the rules are pretty clear, and they are pretty clear with lining up over the center.

If you are a yard and half back, you can line up wherever the hell you want. If you are within a yard and half, you can't be lined up over the center. Part of the explanation given for the penalty by the ref was what his own mind tacked onto the actual rule - and is not part of the rulebook as it stands. Another referee may not have thrown the flag at all. Looking at the film, we've had a guy in a similar position lined up like that for most of this season without drawing a flag.

[pbmax]

Its a great point. Clifton, when he is flagged for illegal formation, has a very similar problem. He sits straight up in his set, and his head is further off the LOS than other tackles. Linesman, at least in one explanation I read, judge the alignment of the tackles in two point stances by the position of their head in comparison to the center.

By his feet, or lower half of his body, he is within the rules. But since they are looking at his head, he gets flagged for it.

[pbmax]

You also have to look at it in the other light as well. Francois hasn't exactly been active and practicing special teams as an actual game time participant, if at all, until this week. Part of it could be due to inexperience, not just coaching.

At the same time, while you should know how things get interpretted, the problem is that every single referee out there interrupts things differently. According to the actual rule, Francious did nothing wrong. He was not lined up wrong, and did not impeded with the actual rules. Look at it like late hits and helmet to helmet hits on AR - apparently that is all subjective to interpretation as well, even though the rules are pretty clear, and they are pretty clear with lining up over the center.

If you are a yard and half back, you can line up wherever the hell you want. If you are within a yard and half, you can't be lined up over the center. Part of the explanation given for the penalty by the ref was what his own mind tacked onto the actual rule - and is not part of the rulebook as it stands. Another referee may not have thrown the flag at all. Looking at the film, we've had a guy in a similar position lined up like that for most of this season without drawing a flag.
If Francois was really a yard and a half back, which might be the way they coach him to position himself, he probably would not have an issue. But from the JSO picture, his head is almost exactly one yard of the ball. Too close for comfort.

[MichiganPackerFan]

JSO's picture show's him lined up legally: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/105143599.html

Yet another subjective call going against GB. Hopefully next year, when we're healthy enough to compete, we'll get SOME calls to go our way.

[Cheesehead Craig]

He just needed to be about a foot back and he would have been fine. Not that he had a chance to block the kick, but why even line up there in the first place?

[MichiganPackerFan]

He just needed to be about a foot back and he would have been fine. Not that he had a chance to block the kick, but why even line up there in the first place?
THe picture shows he was already six inches (minimum) behind the limit. They made that call over a timeout and there's no excuse for not getting it right. If the rule is a yard and he's a yard and an inch, they have no right to bring in a rare call.

[mmmdk]

Penalties and turnovers -- things often attributed to poor coaching.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Penalties and turnovers -- things often attributed to poor coaching.
often, the officiating has been terrible too.

[Patler]

He just needed to be about a foot back and he would have been fine. Not that he had a chance to block the kick, but why even line up there in the first place?
THe picture shows he was already six inches (minimum) behind the limit. They made that call over a timeout and there's no excuse for not getting it right. If the rule is a yard and he's a yard and an inch, they have no right to bring in a rare call.

I don't see how that picture shows him to be lined up legally, if no part of his body can be within a yard and a half of the LOS. It looks like he is about a yard off, to me.

[gbgary]

poor coaching...i agree.

[MichiganPackerFan]

He just needed to be about a foot back and he would have been fine. Not that he had a chance to block the kick, but why even line up there in the first place?
THe picture shows he was already six inches (minimum) behind the limit. They made that call over a timeout and there's no excuse for not getting it right. If the rule is a yard and he's a yard and an inch, they have no right to bring in a rare call.

I don't see how that picture shows him to be lined up legally, if no part of his body can be within a yard and a half of the LOS. It looks like he is about a yard off, to me.

According to the article, the rule is a yard, not a yard and a half. It was another subjective game changing call. If we had our full squad, calls like that wouldn't matter and if they did, we would probably be in a position where we deserved to lose. With a decayed roster, those calls matter, and if its not clear, dont call it.

[Patler]

He just needed to be about a foot back and he would have been fine. Not that he had a chance to block the kick, but why even line up there in the first place?
THe picture shows he was already six inches (minimum) behind the limit. They made that call over a timeout and there's no excuse for not getting it right. If the rule is a yard and he's a yard and an inch, they have no right to bring in a rare call.

I don't see how that picture shows him to be lined up legally, if no part of his body can be within a yard and a half of the LOS. It looks like he is about a yard off, to me.

According to the article, the rule is a yard, not a yard and a half. It was another subjective game changing call. If we had our full squad, calls like that wouldn't matter and if they did, we would probably be in a position where we deserved to lose. With a decayed roster, those calls matter, and if its not clear, dont call it.

The thing about the picture is that Francois looks to be moving forward, and the ball has not yet been snapped. Who knows how close he was when the snap occurred?

I don't think the officials had any doubt about the call.

[ThunderDan]

He just needed to be about a foot back and he would have been fine. Not that he had a chance to block the kick, but why even line up there in the first place?
THe picture shows he was already six inches (minimum) behind the limit. They made that call over a timeout and there's no excuse for not getting it right. If the rule is a yard and he's a yard and an inch, they have no right to bring in a rare call.

I don't see how that picture shows him to be lined up legally, if no part of his body can be within a yard and a half of the LOS. It looks like he is about a yard off, to me.

According to the article, the rule is a yard, not a yard and a half. It was another subjective game changing call. If we had our full squad, calls like that wouldn't matter and if they did, we would probably be in a position where we deserved to lose. With a decayed roster, those calls matter, and if its not clear, dont call it.

The thing about the picture is that Francois looks to be moving forward, and the ball has not yet been snapped. Who knows how close he was when the snap occurred?

Francois moved backwards and covered the "guard" in a punt return call.

[Patler]

He just needed to be about a foot back and he would have been fine. Not that he had a chance to block the kick, but why even line up there in the first place?
THe picture shows he was already six inches (minimum) behind the limit. They made that call over a timeout and there's no excuse for not getting it right. If the rule is a yard and he's a yard and an inch, they have no right to bring in a rare call.

I don't see how that picture shows him to be lined up legally, if no part of his body can be within a yard and a half of the LOS. It looks like he is about a yard off, to me.

According to the article, the rule is a yard, not a yard and a half. It was another subjective game changing call. If we had our full squad, calls like that wouldn't matter and if they did, we would probably be in a position where we deserved to lose. With a decayed roster, those calls matter, and if its not clear, dont call it.

The thing about the picture is that Francois looks to be moving forward, and the ball has not yet been snapped. Who knows how close he was when the snap occurred?

Francois moved backwards and covered the "guard" in a punt return call.

But I believe he stepped forward first. Can't check right now because the TV with TIVO has been commandeered by the non-football fanatic portion of my household! :lol:

[MichiganPackerFan]

He just needed to be about a foot back and he would have been fine. Not that he had a chance to block the kick, but why even line up there in the first place?
THe picture shows he was already six inches (minimum) behind the limit. They made that call over a timeout and there's no excuse for not getting it right. If the rule is a yard and he's a yard and an inch, they have no right to bring in a rare call.

I don't see how that picture shows him to be lined up legally, if no part of his body can be within a yard and a half of the LOS. It looks like he is about a yard off, to me.

According to the article, the rule is a yard, not a yard and a half. It was another subjective game changing call. If we had our full squad, calls like that wouldn't matter and if they did, we would probably be in a position where we deserved to lose. With a decayed roster, those calls matter, and if its not clear, dont call it.

The thing about the picture is that Francois looks to be moving forward, and the ball has not yet been snapped. Who knows how close he was when the snap occurred?

I don't think the officials had any doubt about the call.

I "rewound" that play several times and i saw NO presnap movement. I deleted it, so i can't review it again and I certainly could be wrong, but i think if it takes the refs a full time out to decide whether or not to make a subjective call, the default should be "no", regardless of team or situation.

[mraynrand]

It's a great rule and a great call. It's all about what the NFL wants to be, and a trial attourney deciding games based on nitpicking is everything the NFL aspires to. It's wonderful to come to this site and see people arguing over whether a LB who clearly was not violating the spirit of the law was technically violating the letter of the law. Perhaps a day will come when the NFL is completely regulated by laser rulers and computerized officials obeying the letter of the law. That's what fans want - perfect precision and reproducibility down to the micrometer. That's what makes the NFL fun.

That being said, the Packers tied the game, and the call became moot. The most important calls were the calls Stubby made to not get the Packers a first down in overtime and lose another close game - yet again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

The defense was sorely hurting and the offense was pretty much intact. Capers did his job,, and did it pretty well, while Stubby failed - That his offense couldn't score more than 20 points against a pretty average defense at home is pathetic. That he can't find a way to win close games is even worse. No, he shouldn't be fired in midseason, but this counts as yet again another strike against the confusing mix of talent, stubborness, and 'flailure' that defines Stubby. This goes in the negative column when TT evaluates him at the end of the season.

[Patler]

I "rewound" that play several times and i saw NO presnap movement. I deleted it, so i can't review it again and I certainly could be wrong, but i think if it takes the refs a full time out to decide whether or not to make a subjective call, the default should be "no", regardless of team or situation.

Hochuli said that call is always a delayed call after conferring, because no one is in position to see if the player is both too close to the LOS and within the center's shoulders. He has to get input from different officials about both aspects, then make the call. It sounded like he suspected it right away, but needed confirmation.

There is another aspect too, that came up in a game last week. If a player from the punting team is in a "threatening" position to receive a direct snap, a player can move up on the center's head. So the call might require input from at least three officials.

When a rule becomes that technical, with so many different caveats, its a dumb rule in the first place.

[mraynrand]

When a rule becomes that technical, with so many different caveats, its a dumb rule in the first place.

But it increases the fun of the game, and makes ol' Ed so happy to know he is being technically correct and useful.

[MichiganPackerFan]

If it's uncertain: don't call it. Period.

[MichiganPackerFan]

And if it's leading with the helmet to the QB or helmet to helmet, call it.

[Patler]

If it's uncertain: don't call it. Period.

Who said it was uncertain? I think the officials were very certain of the call.

[MichiganPackerFan]

They took a long time to call it and it was obviously more than one yard. 37 inches is still more than one yard. That's a game changing call. It should have been a no-call: move on. If they can't call an obvious leading with the helmet shot on the QB, don't call an iffy 36- 40 inch game changing call. Be balanced.

My "uncertain" comment was more of a general comment.

[Patler]

They took a long time to call it and it was obviously more than one yard. 37 inches is still more than one yard. That's a game changing call. It should have been a no-call: move on. If they can't call an obvious leading with the helmet shot on the QB, don't call an iffy 36- 40 inch game changing call. Be balanced.

My "uncertain" comment was more of a general comment.

Per Hochuli, the call always takes a long time, because different officials look at different things, and if they all converge....PRESTO...you have a penalty. That can only be done after he asks each what they saw.

I don't agree that it was obviously more than a yard. Not from the single still picture on the JSO blog.

If the guy wasn't going to rush and try to block the punt, it was either stupid coaching or stupid play by Francois to be so close as to make it an issue. I can't blame the officials at all.

[Cheesehead Craig]

2 problems with the play by the Packers:

1 - Francois is lined up directly in line with the center. There's no dispute about that, it's obvious. Why he's lined up like that is foolish in the first place. If his job is to block the G , then line him up over the G. If it's an area he needs to play, then no need to line him up in line with the C, he sure as hell can take a step or two over if he's not going to block the kick well before the punter kicks the ball.

2 - He's way too close to the LOS. Why put yourself in a position where there is even a reason to have the official make a judgement call? Poor coaching and why someone else on the field didn't see it and tell him to either back off or move over is ridiculous. Again, he didn't rush the punter so why the need to be anywhere close to the LOS?

You can argue about it being a judgement call all day, but when you all but dare the officials to call something when you put yourself smack dab in the greyest of the grey area, don't be shocked when the call goes against you.

[Bossman641]

I'm gonna spend tomorrow night watching how those teams line up on punts cause my gut feeling is that the majority of teams line up the same way Francois did.

[packerbacker1234]

I don't see how us tieing the game back up suddenly makes that call moot. Instead of us ahving the ball with a chance to drive and WIN THE GAME, we got the ball back down by 7 and fighting to get another chance to win the game, which we of course failed at in OT.

Point in that is, it was a huge potential game changing call. That call lead directly to 7 more points being put on the board for miami. If it stayed at 13-13 with us having the ball, who knows what happens?

[Joemailman]

2 problems with the play by the Packers:

1 - Francois is lined up directly in line with the center. There's no dispute about that, it's obvious. Why he's lined up like that is foolish in the first place. If his job is to block the G , then line him up over the G. If it's an area he needs to play, then no need to line him up in line with the C, he sure as hell can take a step or two over if he's not going to block the kick well before the punter kicks the ball.

2 - He's way too close to the LOS. Why put yourself in a position where there is even a reason to have the official make a judgement call? Poor coaching and why someone else on the field didn't see it and tell him to either back off or move over is ridiculous. Again, he didn't rush the punter so why the need to be anywhere close to the LOS?

You can argue about it being a judgement call all day, but when you all but dare the officials to call something when you put yourself smack dab in the greyest of the grey area, don't be shocked when the call goes against you.

It was 4th and 2 at the Packers 43. You put him close to the LOS so they don't run a fake up the middle.

[Patler]

2 problems with the play by the Packers:

1 - Francois is lined up directly in line with the center. There's no dispute about that, it's obvious. Why he's lined up like that is foolish in the first place. If his job is to block the G , then line him up over the G. If it's an area he needs to play, then no need to line him up in line with the C, he sure as hell can take a step or two over if he's not going to block the kick well before the punter kicks the ball.

2 - He's way too close to the LOS. Why put yourself in a position where there is even a reason to have the official make a judgement call? Poor coaching and why someone else on the field didn't see it and tell him to either back off or move over is ridiculous. Again, he didn't rush the punter so why the need to be anywhere close to the LOS?

You can argue about it being a judgement call all day, but when you all but dare the officials to call something when you put yourself smack dab in the greyest of the grey area, don't be shocked when the call goes against you.

It was 4th and 2 at the Packers 43. You put him close to the LOS so they don't run a fake up the middle.

If they have a guy in position for a direct snap, he can be head up on the center, on the LOS. If not, back up two feet so there's no question.

[The Leaper]

He can be anywhere the hell he wants to be...as long as he isn't lined up head on over the center. Move 12 inches right or left...you can put two guys on either shoulder of the center if you want. You just can't EVER be head up on the center on a punt. What is so hard to decipher about that?

McCarthy deserves this...he's held on to Slocum and his incompetence far too long. Only fair that it jumps up and bites him hard in the gonads. McCarthy had to be dragged kicking and screaming to get a competent defensive coordinator...and it appears it will be more of the same with the special teams coach. McCarthy's ability to evaluate his staff and judge where upgrades are necessary is sorely lacking. That is a critical component to being a head coach as well.

[Cheesehead Craig]

2 problems with the play by the Packers:

1 - Francois is lined up directly in line with the center. There's no dispute about that, it's obvious. Why he's lined up like that is foolish in the first place. If his job is to block the G , then line him up over the G. If it's an area he needs to play, then no need to line him up in line with the C, he sure as hell can take a step or two over if he's not going to block the kick well before the punter kicks the ball.

2 - He's way too close to the LOS. Why put yourself in a position where there is even a reason to have the official make a judgement call? Poor coaching and why someone else on the field didn't see it and tell him to either back off or move over is ridiculous. Again, he didn't rush the punter so why the need to be anywhere close to the LOS?

You can argue about it being a judgement call all day, but when you all but dare the officials to call something when you put yourself smack dab in the greyest of the grey area, don't be shocked when the call goes against you.

It was 4th and 2 at the Packers 43. You put him close to the LOS so they don't run a fake up the middle.

Doesn't need to be that close and given where those guys behind the LOS were for Miami, that would have been a colossally dumb idea. Don't buy the reasoning.

[Noodle]

My understanding is that the reason for the rule is to protect the center, which makes sense to me. So you should call it when a guy is within the yard and takes a whack at the C.

But here, Francois didn't whack the C. He kind of stood up stepped forward a little, but the C was up and ready to protect himself with no contact from Francois.

So with it being so dang close (maybe he was 36 inches, maybe 39, maybe 34, you'd need a friggin lazer to tell) and with the C not getting whacked, you put the flag away.

[Patler]

He can be anywhere the hell he wants to be...as long as he isn't lined up head on over the center. Move 12 inches right or left...you can put two guys on either shoulder of the center if you want. You just can't EVER be head up on the center on a punt. What is so hard to decipher about that?

McCarthy deserves this...he's held on to Slocum and his incompetence far too long. Only fair that it jumps up and bites him hard in the gonads. McCarthy had to be dragged kicking and screaming to get a competent defensive coordinator...and it appears it will be more of the same with the special teams coach. McCarthy's ability to evaluate his staff and judge where upgrades are necessary is sorely lacking. That is a critical component to being a head coach as well.

They moved them out even farther this year. I believe they have to be outside the center's shoulders. On a regular punt there is a huge space in the middle now. That's why the added the change if a punting team player is in a threatening position for a direct snap. You can then line up anywhere, I think. Even head up on the center, just like the good old days.

[mraynrand]

I don't see how us tieing the game back up suddenly makes that call moot. If it stayed at 13-13 with us having the ball, who knows what happens?

It's moot because it didn't directly change the outcome of the game. Usually, refs decide the outcome if it is pretty much the last play of the game - like a TD pass that is negated because refs don't know the difference between falling to the ground and getting up. And the bolded part of your post is true - you have no idea what happens. Rodgers could just as easily had driven them down the field, used up the clock and then throw a pick six with no time to recover. Or he could have suffered a season-ending ACL tear. Packers had plenty of opportunities to win the game, the absurd, ridiculous, ticky-tacky, no-fun, slide-rule call notwithstanding.

This team cannot win close games.

[mraynrand]

He can be anywhere the hell he wants to be...as long as he isn't lined up head on over the center. Move 12 inches right or left...you can put two guys on either shoulder of the center if you want. You just can't EVER be head up on the center on a punt. What is so hard to decipher about that?

He was off the line, standing up as a LB, not a down-lineman. The rule was made to protect centers from getting 'canned' by D-linemen. I assume you paid attention to the discussion about how far away the guy has to be. There's been some extremely tedious legal briefs filed in this thread over the exact wording of the rule book. I expect we'll see this appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. It's just that important and exciting.

[Pugger]

It's a great rule and a great call. It's all about what the NFL wants to be, and a trial attourney deciding games based on nitpicking is everything the NFL aspires to. It's wonderful to come to this site and see people arguing over whether a LB who clearly was not violating the spirit of the law was technically violating the letter of the law. Perhaps a day will come when the NFL is completely regulated by laser rulers and computerized officials obeying the letter of the law. That's what fans want - perfect precision and reproducibility down to the micrometer. That's what makes the NFL fun.

That being said, the Packers tied the game, and the call became moot. The most important calls were the calls Stubby made to not get the Packers a first down in overtime and lose another close game - yet again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

The defense was sorely hurting and the offense was pretty much intact. Capers did his job,, and did it pretty well, while Stubby failed - That his offense couldn't score more than 20 points against a pretty average defense at home is pathetic. That he can't find a way to win close games is even worse. No, he shouldn't be fired in midseason, but this counts as yet again another strike against the confusing mix of talent, stubborness, and 'flailure' that defines Stubby. This goes in the negative column when TT evaluates him at the end of the season.

The defense, because of injuries to so many starters, couldn't get off the damn field all afternoon and made Henne look like Peyton Manning. We only had the ball for 3 minutes in the 3rd quarter. It isn't easy to get anything going on offense when you are spending your afternoon sitting on the bench.

[Pugger]

2 problems with the play by the Packers:

1 - Francois is lined up directly in line with the center. There's no dispute about that, it's obvious. Why he's lined up like that is foolish in the first place. If his job is to block the G , then line him up over the G. If it's an area he needs to play, then no need to line him up in line with the C, he sure as hell can take a step or two over if he's not going to block the kick well before the punter kicks the ball.

2 - He's way too close to the LOS. Why put yourself in a position where there is even a reason to have the official make a judgement call? Poor coaching and why someone else on the field didn't see it and tell him to either back off or move over is ridiculous. Again, he didn't rush the punter so why the need to be anywhere close to the LOS?

You can argue about it being a judgement call all day, but when you all but dare the officials to call something when you put yourself smack dab in the greyest of the grey area, don't be shocked when the call goes against you.

+1

Why give the zebras the chance to make that call in the first place? I pray we never put a player directly in front of the center ever again no matter how far back he is from the LOS. It just isn't worth it!

[denverYooper]

If the intent of the rule is to protect the C, shouldn't it have been called before the play happens? Not while the O is already huddling. Did they throw the flag before the play and then confer and call? Seemed to me that they conferred during the TV TO and then decided to all it.

Not to excuse another poor showing by ST but it seems to me that if they're really concerned about protecting the C, they get the flag out before the snap.

[pbmax]

I think the simplest explanation is the likeliest. There is no evidence yet the Packers had an issue with this prior to Francois (at least, not yet).

Given McCarthy's claim about 1 and 1/2 yard distance, I would hazard a guess that replacement Francois either misjudged the distance or measured from the center, rather than the ball. Still, if the refs use the other bodies on the line to measure, then that player should too.

The Packers also had another late run on for the FG block team. But I would bet that was Poppinga's replacement that was late, since it happened not long after he came out of the game.

[mraynrand]

It's a great rule and a great call. It's all about what the NFL wants to be, and a trial attourney deciding games based on nitpicking is everything the NFL aspires to. It's wonderful to come to this site and see people arguing over whether a LB who clearly was not violating the spirit of the law was technically violating the letter of the law. Perhaps a day will come when the NFL is completely regulated by laser rulers and computerized officials obeying the letter of the law. That's what fans want - perfect precision and reproducibility down to the micrometer. That's what makes the NFL fun.

That being said, the Packers tied the game, and the call became moot. The most important calls were the calls Stubby made to not get the Packers a first down in overtime and lose another close game - yet again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

The defense was sorely hurting and the offense was pretty much intact. Capers did his job,, and did it pretty well, while Stubby failed - That his offense couldn't score more than 20 points against a pretty average defense at home is pathetic. That he can't find a way to win close games is even worse. No, he shouldn't be fired in midseason, but this counts as yet again another strike against the confusing mix of talent, stubborness, and 'flailure' that defines Stubby. This goes in the negative column when TT evaluates him at the end of the season.

The defense, because of injuries to so many starters, couldn't get off the damn field all afternoon and made Henne look like Peyton Manning. We only had the ball for 3 minutes in the 3rd quarter. It isn't easy to get anything going on offense when you are spending your afternoon sitting on the bench.

maybe the offense could figure out how to get a first down.

[Brohm]

Crosby (and others) came to Francois' defense saying he was where he was coached to be.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105155064.html

[Fritz]

It's a great rule and a great call. It's all about what the NFL wants to be, and a trial attourney deciding games based on nitpicking is everything the NFL aspires to. It's wonderful to come to this site and see people arguing over whether a LB who clearly was not violating the spirit of the law was technically violating the letter of the law. Perhaps a day will come when the NFL is completely regulated by laser rulers and computerized officials obeying the letter of the law. That's what fans want - perfect precision and reproducibility down to the micrometer. That's what makes the NFL fun.

That being said, the Packers tied the game, and the call became moot. The most important calls were the calls Stubby made to not get the Packers a first down in overtime and lose another close game - yet again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

The defense was sorely hurting and the offense was pretty much intact. Capers did his job,, and did it pretty well, while Stubby failed - That his offense couldn't score more than 20 points against a pretty average defense at home is pathetic. That he can't find a way to win close games is even worse. No, he shouldn't be fired in midseason, but this counts as yet again another strike against the confusing mix of talent, stubborness, and 'flailure' that defines Stubby. This goes in the negative column when TT evaluates him at the end of the season.

I love that word, mranynrand. Did you make that up?

I also agree with your analysis of Studdy's coaching problems. First, he's not apparently very good at hiring assistant coaches. He got Capers right on his 2nd try for a defensive coordinator, but he is also responsible for Campen and Slocum.
Secondly, for his offense - supposedly with the best wide receiving corps in the league, and with an offensive line that outside Bulaga has lots of experience - to only be able to put up 20 against an okay Miami defense at home is an indictment of Stubby.

Flailure. Exactly.

[Brohm]

What I don't get is how MM cannot adjust to Rodgers getting hammered all day. Miami was in max-protect and we did not lay a finger on him. MM cannot adjust and we come out with the loss and a beat up QB. The constant slow-developing plays are killing this offense.

[Fritz]

That kills me too. Bulaga was getting eaten alive, and for most of the game the announcers kept pointing out that he was being given no help.

[mraynrand]

Crosby (and others) came to Francois' defense saying he was where he was coached to be.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/105155064.html

I'm glad they did, because it was an unecessary call, a call where nitpicking officials insert themselves into a game and eschew the flow of the game for some bizarre unattainable ideal of technical precision. BTW, I am guessing that tool Pereiro probably thought it was a 'great call.'

[mraynrand]

It's a great rule and a great call. It's all about what the NFL wants to be, and a trial attourney deciding games based on nitpicking is everything the NFL aspires to. It's wonderful to come to this site and see people arguing over whether a LB who clearly was not violating the spirit of the law was technically violating the letter of the law. Perhaps a day will come when the NFL is completely regulated by laser rulers and computerized officials obeying the letter of the law. That's what fans want - perfect precision and reproducibility down to the micrometer. That's what makes the NFL fun.

That being said, the Packers tied the game, and the call became moot. The most important calls were the calls Stubby made to not get the Packers a first down in overtime and lose another close game - yet again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

The defense was sorely hurting and the offense was pretty much intact. Capers did his job,, and did it pretty well, while Stubby failed - That his offense couldn't score more than 20 points against a pretty average defense at home is pathetic. That he can't find a way to win close games is even worse. No, he shouldn't be fired in midseason, but this counts as yet again another strike against the confusing mix of talent, stubborness, and 'flailure' that defines Stubby. This goes in the negative column when TT evaluates him at the end of the season.

I love that word, mranynrand. Did you make that up?

I also agree with your analysis of Studdy's coaching problems. First, he's not apparently very good at hiring assistant coaches. He got Capers right on his 2nd try for a defensive coordinator, but he is also responsible for Campen and Slocum.
Secondly, for his offense - supposedly with the best wide receiving corps in the league, and with an offensive line that outside Bulaga has lots of experience - to only be able to put up 20 against an okay Miami defense at home is an indictment of Stubby.

Flailure. Exactly.

That's my new word for Stubby. I can just see him watching the film of the game and getting upset that Bulaga isn't blocking properly. "THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT TECHNIQUE!" "THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO RUN THAT PLAY" "THAT'S NOT HOW I COACHED IT" all the while completely missing the point that when players are failing, you have to address the issue, not just get upset about the mistakes. I can see him waving his arms in frustration like Robbie the Robot: FLAILURE

[Patler]

Given McCarthy's claim about 1 and 1/2 yard distance, I would hazard a guess that replacement Francois either misjudged the distance or measured from the center, rather than the ball. Still, if the refs use the other bodies on the line to measure, then that player should too.


That was my point in starting this thread. It really doesn't matter what the rule states. What matters is what the officials look for. Coaches have to know that and teach their players accordingly.

Hochuli's explanation seems very straight-forward, very matter-of-fact. It sounded as if that is what the officials have been instructed to look for. If that is what the officials look for, the coaches should know it and teach accordingly.

[mraynrand]

Hochuli's explanation seems very straight-forward, very matter-of-fact..

I'm sure it wold stand up in a court of law.

[Tarlam!]

Hochuli's explanation seems very straight-forward, very matter-of-fact..

I'm sure it wold stand up in a court of law.

Well, no it wouldn't. The film evidence, which I just saw, since espen is re-running the game, it is absolutely clear that he played in accordance to how the rule is in the book.

[Badgerinmaine]

The defense was sorely hurting and the offense was pretty much intact. Capers did his job,, and did it pretty well, while Stubby failed - That his offense couldn't score more than 20 points against a pretty average defense at home is pathetic. That he can't find a way to win close games is even worse. No, he shouldn't be fired in midseason, but this counts as yet again another strike against the confusing mix of talent, stubborness, and 'flailure' that defines Stubby. This goes in the negative column when TT evaluates him at the end of the season.
I agree with most of this, except I wouldn't call a Packers offense without Ryan Grant or Jermichael Finley "pretty much intact".

[pbmax]

Hochuli's explanation seems very straight-forward, very matter-of-fact..

I'm sure it wold stand up in a court of law.
That is actually a good question. Is measuring the player in comparison to his teammates on the LOS the specific technique they are supposed to use? Or is it simply one tool to help the official determine if the player is lined up correctly?

We should call in Judge Joe Brown.

[pbmax]

I do not remember Bulaga struggling that much with his OLB in the first half. Am I mis-remembering this as a second half development?

[Tarlam!]

Is measuring the player in comparison to his teammates on the LOS the specific technique they are supposed to use? Or is it simply one tool to help the official determine if the player is lined up correctly?

We should call in Judge Joe Brown.

If it is and it's not in the rule book then I know who I'd be awarding the case to if I were in the jury.

[Joemailman]

It looks to me that although Francois was inside the linemen, the linemen were off the line a bit. It looks to me like Francois was okay, based on the way the rule is written.

http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007144_punt.jpg

[mraynrand]

It looks to me that although Francois was inside the linemen, the linemen were off the line a bit. It looks to me like Francois was okay, based on the way the rule is written.

http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007144_punt.jpg

Yes but the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Patler, would argue that the LB was leaning forward and a split second after your image and thus "Broke the plane" of the magical minimum distance. Cal Tech physicists are going to testify that, using digital laser reconstruction video analysis, the LB was 6.785 micrometers beyond the legal minimum limit. This is the kind of precision and rule keeping the NFL wants. The jury will side with the good Mr. Patler. But the Packers can always appeal to the 4th district court and then on to the Supreme court. I'm guessing they will cite the 14th amendment that the Packers did not get equal protection under the law and/or that Francois was engaged in interstate commerce (Wisconsin/Florida), and therefore could legally cross the minimum distance.

[ThunderDan]

It looks to me that although Francois was inside the linemen, the linemen were off the line a bit. It looks to me like Francois was okay, based on the way the rule is written.

http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007144_punt.jpg

Yes but the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Patler, would argue that the LB was leaning forward and a split second after your image and thus "Broke the plane" of the magical minimum distance. Cal Tech physicists are going to testify that, using digital laser reconstruction video analysis, the LB was 6.785 micrometers beyond the legal minimum limit. This is the kind of precision and rule keeping the NFL wants. The jury will side with the good Mr. Patler. But the Packers can always appeal to the 4th district court and then on to the Supreme court. I'm guessing they will cite the 14th amendment that the Packers did not get equal protection under the law and/or that Francois was engaged in interstate commerce (Wisconsin/Florida), and therefore could legally cross the minimum distance.

Isn't Wisconsin part of the 5th District Court?

[denverYooper]

I do not remember Bulaga struggling that much with his OLB in the first half. Am I mis-remembering this as a second half development?

I also thought he was fine until the 2nd half.

[denverYooper]

It looks to me that although Francois was inside the linemen, the linemen were off the line a bit. It looks to me like Francois was okay, based on the way the rule is written.

http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007144_punt.jpg

Yes but the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Patler, would argue that the LB was leaning forward and a split second after your image and thus "Broke the plane" of the magical minimum distance. Cal Tech physicists are going to testify that, using digital laser reconstruction video analysis, the LB was 6.785 micrometers beyond the legal minimum limit. This is the kind of precision and rule keeping the NFL wants. The jury will side with the good Mr. Patler. But the Packers can always appeal to the 4th district court and then on to the Supreme court. I'm guessing they will cite the 14th amendment that the Packers did not get equal protection under the law and/or that Francois was engaged in interstate commerce (Wisconsin/Florida), and therefore could legally cross the minimum distance.

It's really too bad they didn't play in Minnesota. There's probably some obscure labor law that could give them the game, or at the very least, keep a loss off of the record.

[Tarlam!]

Not if I'm in the jury. I award the Packers a compensatory 1st Round pick as damages and demote Ed's crew for 4 games to the UFL.

[denverYooper]

Not if I'm in the jury. I award the Packers a compensatory 1st Round pick as damages and demote Ed's crew for 4 games to the UFL.

:lol:

[ThunderDan]

Not if I'm in the jury. I award the Packers a compensatory 1st Round pick as damages and demote Ed's crew for 4 games to the UFL.

I am all for this!!!!

[rbaloha1]

Bad call -- RF was lined-up correctly.

[Patler]

It looks to me that although Francois was inside the linemen, the linemen were off the line a bit. It looks to me like Francois was okay, based on the way the rule is written.

http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007144_punt.jpg

Yes but the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Patler, would argue that the LB was leaning forward and a split second after your image and thus "Broke the plane" of the magical minimum distance. Cal Tech physicists are going to testify that, using digital laser reconstruction video analysis, the LB was 6.785 micrometers beyond the legal minimum limit. This is the kind of precision and rule keeping the NFL wants. The jury will side with the good Mr. Patler. But the Packers can always appeal to the 4th district court and then on to the Supreme court. I'm guessing they will cite the 14th amendment that the Packers did not get equal protection under the law and/or that Francois was engaged in interstate commerce (Wisconsin/Florida), and therefore could legally cross the minimum distance.

Actually, not me; its you that has been making the technical argument. My argument is very simple, very nontechnical, very pragmatic. The wording be damned! Coaches MUST know how the officials interpret the rules, and what the officials look for when they call a penalty. To not know that is sloppy coaching, in my opinion, especially in the NFL at the top of the coaching food chain.

I don't care if the rule is a yard, two yards or 10 yards. If the officials look to see if the player "overlaps" a lineman, teach the player to NOT overlap a lineman. If your lineman line up further off the LOS than normal, you as a coach MUST point it out to the officials. "I know you look for a player "on" the center overlapping down linemen. Our linemen are further off the LOS, so our linebacker is well of the LOS in accordance with the rules. How do we make sure as to not have it called incorrectly?"

Not coaching to the interpretation is asking for trouble. Not alerting the officials to "peculiarities" in what you do is also asking for trouble. Either way, in my opinion, good coaching could lessen the chance of that penalty having been called.

As to the photo "proof", I do think it is very weak. The ball is in the shadow, but appears to be perhaps touching the 44. Francois has his back foot on the 42 and his front foot on or close to the 43. His head appears to be in front of that. Is it a yard? Less? More? Is he moving forward or backward? Was that the closest he ever was? Is the rule a yard or 1.5? To me the answers don't matter one bit. Its stupid to even put him in that situation. If the officials look for "overlapping", he is clearly doing that.

[mraynrand]

It looks to me that although Francois was inside the linemen, the linemen were off the line a bit. It looks to me like Francois was okay, based on the way the rule is written.

http://media.jsonline.com/images/28007144_punt.jpg

Yes but the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Patler, would argue that the LB was leaning forward and a split second after your image and thus "Broke the plane" of the magical minimum distance. Cal Tech physicists are going to testify that, using digital laser reconstruction video analysis, the LB was 6.785 micrometers beyond the legal minimum limit. This is the kind of precision and rule keeping the NFL wants. The jury will side with the good Mr. Patler. But the Packers can always appeal to the 4th district court and then on to the Supreme court. I'm guessing they will cite the 14th amendment that the Packers did not get equal protection under the law and/or that Francois was engaged in interstate commerce (Wisconsin/Florida), and therefore could legally cross the minimum distance.

Actually, not me; its you that has been making the technical argument. My argument is very simple, very nontechnical, very pragmatic. The wording be damned! Coaches MUST know how the officials interpret the rules, and what the officials look for when they call a penalty. To not know that is sloppy coaching, in my opinion, especially in the NFL at the top of the coaching food chain.

I don't care if the rule is a yard, two yards or 10 yards. If the officials look to see if the player "overlaps" a lineman, teach the player to NOT overlap a lineman. If your lineman line up further off the LOS than normal, you as a coach MUST point it out to the officials. "I know you look for a player "on" the center overlapping down linemen. Our linemen are further off the LOS, so our linebacker is well of the LOS in accordance with the rules. How do we make sure as to not have it called incorrectly?"

Not coaching to the interpretation is asking for trouble. Not alerting the officials to "peculiarities" in what you do is also asking for trouble. Either way, in my opinion, good coaching could lessen the chance of that penalty having been called.

As to the photo "proof", I do think it is very weak. The ball is in the shadow, but appears to be perhaps touching the 44. Francois has his back foot on the 42 and his front foot on or close to the 43. His head appears to be in front of that. Is it a yard? Less? More? Is he moving forward or backward? Was that the closest he ever was? Is the rule a yard or 1.5? To me the answers don't matter one bit. Its stupid to even put him in that situation. If the officials look for "overlapping", he is clearly doing that.

did not you earlier in this thread argue exactly what I bolded?

P.S. you still argued the technicalities of the call councillor. I think you will win your case, but as I said, there is the appeal process.
_____________
It's too bad the coaches didn't bring Francois completely up to speed on all the fine details of the intricate NFL rules. Perhaps they were just trying to get this backup to a backup to understand the playbook and actually be ready to play the game, not interpret arcane NFL rule book hieroglyphics that even the officials have to confer over to figure out. Perhaps all NFL players should get a six week ACT/SAT/MCAT like test prep before being allowed on the field so that they are technically adept on all the rules.

P.P.S. I am not arguing the technical aspect of the ruling, I am mocking it.

[Pugger]

Right. All the coaches had to do to was position Francois so he wasn't standing directly in front of the center just to be on the safe side. I don't care if ther rule says one yard or not. Don't leave it up to some part-time zebra to interpret the rule! If Francois was just a foot or so to the right or left of the center it wouldn't have made a big difference, especially on a PUNT for crying out loud. :doh:

[Joemailman]

Again though, I think Francois is there in case they don't punt. There are 2 guys lined up 3 yards from the line who I believe could take a quick snap and run the ball. It's just a dumb rule. There's no reason the formation should be illegal as long as there is no illegal contact.

[Tarlam!]

How often has this penalty been called? Is it a known that the Zebras interpret the rule in the way that they did or just Patler's suspicion? I am aware that coaches get clarification about new rules and how they are measured on the field. But were we there when M3 and Slocum were briefed.

The way the rule has been quoted in this thread and looking at the film, Francois lined up within the rules. It was a bum call that potentially cost the Packers the game.

[Patler]

did not you earlier in this thread argue exactly what I bolded?

P.S. you still argued the technicalities of the call councillor. I think you will win your case, but as I said, there is the appeal process.
_____________
It's too bad the coaches didn't bring Francois completely up to speed on all the fine details of the intricate NFL rules. Perhaps they were just trying to get this backup to a backup to understand the playbook and actually be ready to play the game, not interpret arcane NFL rule book hieroglyphics that even the officials have to confer over to figure out. Perhaps all NFL players should get a six week ACT/SAT/MCAT like test prep before being allowed on the field so that they are technically adept on all the rules.

P.P.S. I am not arguing the technical aspect of the ruling, I am mocking it.


Damn, man, read what I have been writing since I started the thread! :lol:

I did argue that the picture isn't the vindication that some say it is, but that isn't the crux of my position at all. That should be readily apparent. I simply responded to someone who suggested that the picture showed no rule violation. I disagree, and said why. It is not my argument. It was merely a rebuttal to another argument. I have consistently and repeatedly argued that what is important is not the detail of the rule, but what the officials look for.

I know you are mocking the rules, but in doing so you are arguing the technicalities as much as I was.

Personally, I think Slocum brought the picture to the press to try and save his job. He screwed up, and I think even the players realize it. The player did as told, and was put in a bad situation as a result. That is poor coaching, in my book.

[Patler]

How often has this penalty been called? Is it a known that the Zebras interpret the rule in the way that they did or just Patler's suspicion? I am aware that coaches get clarification about new rules and how they are measured on the field. But were we there when M3 and Slocum were briefed.

The way the rule has been quoted in this thread and looking at the film, Francois lined up within the rules. It was a bum call that potentially cost the Packers the game.

I saw it called last weekend, then waived off because a player on the punting team had moved into a "threatening" position where he could have received a direct snap. The ref gave a real detailed explanation in negating the flag.

[Patler]

Right. All the coaches had to do to was position Francois so he wasn't standing directly in front of the center just to be on the safe side. I don't care if ther rule says one yard or not. Don't leave it up to some part-time zebra to interpret the rule! If Francois was just a foot or so to the right or left of the center it wouldn't have made a big difference, especially on a PUNT for crying out loud. :doh:

A foot right or left wouldn't do it. I believe the rule has been changed this year to require players to be outside the shoulders of the center if they are on the line of scrimmage (for however that is interpreted!).

[Patler]

How often has this penalty been called? Is it a known that the Zebras interpret the rule in the way that they did or just Patler's suspicion? I am aware that coaches get clarification about new rules and how they are measured on the field. But were we there when M3 and Slocum were briefed.

The way the rule has been quoted in this thread and looking at the film, Francois lined up within the rules. It was a bum call that potentially cost the Packers the game.

Maybe one of the crack sportswriters at JS or GBPG will contact the league and ask how often it is called, what the officials are told to look for, etc., and/or contact a number of good ST coaches for their understanding of the rule. It would make an interesting article.

ANYONE at JS or GBPG reading this....HINT, ....Hint.....HINT! :lol: :lol:

[MichiganPackerFan]

Not if I'm in the jury. I award the Packers a compensatory 1st Round pick as damages and demote Ed's crew for 4 games to the UFL.

add one swift kick to the genitals

[Tarlam!]

Not if I'm in the jury. I award the Packers a compensatory 1st Round pick as damages and demote Ed's crew for 4 games to the UFL.

add one swift kick to the genitals

Will you stop turning every thread into a Favre attack??? :lol:

[LP]

I don't care if the rule is a yard, two yards or 10 yards. If the officials look to see if the player "overlaps" a lineman, teach the player to NOT overlap a lineman. If your lineman line up further off the LOS than normal, you as a coach MUST point it out to the officials.

Bullshit.

Officials have to make LOS calls on every play. That's where the ball is not where players line up. If said officials can't figure this out on their own, and must have it pointed out to them, then they are incompetent and should be fired. If they can get calls correct (the vast majority of the time) at full speed, there should be no reason to get a pre-snap call right. Yeah, he was close, but as others have said, if it's that close why call it?

[bobblehead]

reminds me of the intentional grounding in the end zone call. AR had a reciever in the vicinity, but the official was sure he didn't "know he was there" and simply was throwing the ball away.

Yea, the picture could be misleading. JS could have posted a picture before francois moved forward (why on earth would they do that?), but I doubt it. The rule says one yard, no way you can convince me that was a clear enough violation. Was it 35 inches? Possibly at some point, but it seems like a horseshit call. Did it cost us the game? Who knows, but it certainly didn't help us win it.

[sharpe1027]

I don't care if the rule is a yard, two yards or 10 yards. If the officials look to see if the player "overlaps" a lineman, teach the player to NOT overlap a lineman. If your lineman line up further off the LOS than normal, you as a coach MUST point it out to the officials.


Maybe, but who is to say that explanation about "overlap" wasn't made up after-the-fact as an excuse for a possible blown call? Has there been any clarification for how or when this overlap test began to be used?

It seems a kinda ridiculous standard since a DL can often lineup a good half yard off the ball and are usually more than three feet tall anyway.

[Patler]

I don't care if the rule is a yard, two yards or 10 yards. If the officials look to see if the player "overlaps" a lineman, teach the player to NOT overlap a lineman. If your lineman line up further off the LOS than normal, you as a coach MUST point it out to the officials.

Bullshit.

Officials have to make LOS calls on every play. That's where the ball is not where players line up. If said officials can't figure this out on their own, and must have it pointed out to them, then they are incompetent and should be fired. If they can get calls correct (the vast majority of the time) at full speed, there should be no reason to get a pre-snap call right. Yeah, he was close, but as others have said, if it's that close why call it?

Officials use crutches all the time. Sometimes it leads to correct calls, sometimes to bad ones. I don't have a problem with that if I know what the crutch is.

To be honest, as a coach I would rather have the official judge something definite ("does he overlap a lineman") than something indefinite ("is he a yard, yard and half, whatever, away from wherever the LOS is") I can teach a player not to overlap the player next to him. I can not teach a player to necessarily have the same judgment as an official as to how far a yard or yard and a half is in that situation.

I suspect Miami fans would say, "If its that close, why not call it?"

[Patler]

I don't care if the rule is a yard, two yards or 10 yards. If the officials look to see if the player "overlaps" a lineman, teach the player to NOT overlap a lineman. If your lineman line up further off the LOS than normal, you as a coach MUST point it out to the officials.


Maybe, but who is to say that explanation about "overlap" wasn't made up after-the-fact as an excuse for a possible blown call? Has there been any clarification for how or when this overlap test began to be used?

It seems a kinda ridiculous standard since a DL can often lineup a good half yard off the ball and are usually more than three feet tall anyway.

We don't know that, I agree. My point was IF that is the way officials interpret it, Slocum absolutely should know it and coach to it.

If Hochuli simply made up the explanation, he should be fired. Immediately.

Circumstances lead me to believe it is not made up however, because he isn't talkng in a vacuum after a game, and he knows that. He has been involved in enough controversy already in recent years. His comments and decisions will be reviewed, as will the call he made. If he made a mistake, lying about it would simply dig a deeper hole for himself, because the league will get his "explanation" too.

[sharpe1027]

We don't know that, I agree. My point was IF that is the way officials interpret it, Slocum absolutely should know it and coach to it.

If Hochuli simply made up the explanation, he should be fired. Immediately.

Circumstances lead me to believe it is not made up however, because he isn't talkng in a vacuum after a game, and he knows that. He has been involved in enough controversy already in recent years. His comments and decisions will be reviewed, as will the call he made. If he made a mistake, lying about it would simply dig a deeper hole for himself, because the league will get his "explanation" too.

There is no way to prove whether or not the "overlap" criteria was the criteria that the officials actually used (unless the officials themselves change their statements). IMO, the real question is whether or not the NFL officially condoned the "overlap" criteria before the game.

I the answer is "yes" and the coaches had a way to get/verify that information, then I agree with you.

[Jimx29]

I'm more concerned about the name. I have neighbors who go by Fran coyz, not Fran swa

[Pugger]

At the snap of the ball did Francois back away from the LOS? If my memory is correct then the center was not in any danger, was he? Maybe the league should look at this rule again and if a player moves away from the LOS then a penalty shouldn't be called. I'm gonna be out of town this week and won't have access to the NFL Network so I won't be able to see a replay of the game.

[mraynrand]

Personally, I think Slocum brought the picture to the press to try and save his job. He screwed up, and I think even the players realize it. The player did as told, and was put in a bad situation as a result. That is poor coaching, in my book.

What exactly was the player told? Do we know?

[Bossman641]

Yea, the picture could be misleading. JS could have posted a picture before francois moved forward (why on earth would they do that?), but I doubt it. The rule says one yard, no way you can convince me that was a clear enough violation. Was it 35 inches? Possibly at some point, but it seems like a horseshit call. Did it cost us the game? Who knows, but it certainly didn't help us win it.

This!!

The rule is a yard. From my POV, Francois was more than a yard from the snapper. Horseshit call.

[pbmax]

Personally, I think Slocum brought the picture to the press to try and save his job. He screwed up, and I think even the players realize it. The player did as told, and was put in a bad situation as a result. That is poor coaching, in my book.
That is a photo from the sideline, and the Packers are taking pictures from the endzone cameras. Where would he get the photo from on Sunday evening that JSO couldn't get it from? It doesn't look like a 35 mm picture, digital or otherwise. It looks like a TV picture.

[Patler]

Personally, I think Slocum brought the picture to the press to try and save his job. He screwed up, and I think even the players realize it. The player did as told, and was put in a bad situation as a result. That is poor coaching, in my book.
That is a photo from the sideline, and the Packers are taking pictures from the endzone cameras. Where would he get the photo from on Sunday evening that JSO couldn't get it from? It doesn't look like a 35 mm picture, digital or otherwise. It looks like a TV picture.

I was referring to the early post-game reporters comments that immediately after the game Slocum was walking around discussing the play with photos in hand. I thought that was a bit unusual. I didn't mean that the paper used his photos. Slocum just planted the seeds, they found their own.

[Patler]

Yea, the picture could be misleading. JS could have posted a picture before francois moved forward (why on earth would they do that?), but I doubt it. The rule says one yard, no way you can convince me that was a clear enough violation. Was it 35 inches? Possibly at some point, but it seems like a horseshit call. Did it cost us the game? Who knows, but it certainly didn't help us win it.

This!!

The rule is a yard. From my POV, Francois was more than a yard from the snapper. Horseshit call.

Just curious. How far off the line would you say that he is? I have no intention of arguing it, just want to know how you interpret it. (I explained my interpretation above.)

[Bossman641]

Yea, the picture could be misleading. JS could have posted a picture before francois moved forward (why on earth would they do that?), but I doubt it. The rule says one yard, no way you can convince me that was a clear enough violation. Was it 35 inches? Possibly at some point, but it seems like a horseshit call. Did it cost us the game? Who knows, but it certainly didn't help us win it.

This!!

The rule is a yard. From my POV, Francois was more than a yard from the snapper. Horseshit call.

Just curious. How far off the line would you say that he is? I have no intention of arguing it, just want to know how you interpret it. (I explained my interpretation above.)

Based on the picture I've seen, he appears to be just over a yard off the ball. I'm working with the same picture you are, so I saved it to my desktop and blew it up. The ball is just outside the 44 yard line. I drew a series of parallel lines down the hashmarks and 45 yard line. Obviously this isn't a perfect science because I just did it freehand. Francois's helmet is just to the left of the 43 yard line. His foot appears (it is blocked) to be right on the 43 yard line. Based on the viewpoint we have, the lines shouldn't be perfectly parallel, but doing it this way actually disfavors the Packers, as the lines become less vertical moving from right to left.

Now this could all be a moot point anyways, because we don't know when in time the picture was taken. He could have been moving forward, he also could have been moving backwards. The other thing I would like to see is what did Francois do at the snap. Does anyone know? Did he crush the center?

[Pugger]

I thought he moved back away from the LOS after the snap....?

[Patler]

Bossman;

I'm not arguing your interpretation. In fact, I may even agree. But something else somewhat peculiar has now been uncovered. I finally got to watch my Tivo recording. There seems to be another big problem with the play:

I have been in question about where the ball was, because there is a big shadow on the picture. Plus, the center has already cocked the ball, which commonly includes tipping it up and even moving it back a little sometimes. Some centers actually move it quite a bit as they settle in. Even so, it is hard to see, but does appear to be outside the 44 a little.

HOWEVER, the ball is shown very clearly on 3rd down to actually be inside the 44 by the length of the football. Third down was the incomplete pass batted down by Bishop. So presumably on 4th down the line of scrimmage as they lined up should have been inside the 44. However, I agree that 4th appears to be outside the 44 at the snap. I can't believe the center would have moved it that far when "cocking" to snap, would he? Apparently the spots between 3rd and 4th downs were very different, by maybe as much as a half yard or so.

The NFL gamebook confirms that the ball was inside the 44, because the plays are listed as 3rd and 2 from the 43 and 4th and 2 from the 43. If the ball is any amount inside the 44, statistically it becomes the 43. If it is on the 44 or between the 44 and 45, it would be listed as the 44. Why the ball appears to be outside the 44 at the snap on 4th down is a bit mystifying.

Then, I concentrated on a replay shown after the penalty was called, One angle clearly shows Francois' front foot to be on the 43 yard line. If the LOS was the same as it was for third down, in no way was he more than a yard off. From where the ball appears to be on 4th, it could be a yard, a smidgeon more or less.

However, this presents a big problem. If one official saw Francois foot on the 43, and they looked at the yard marker, presumably inside the 44 from 3rd down, Francois would appear to be in violation. Could he have been the victim of a poor ball placement for 4th down?

Oh, and Francois moved forward on the snap, briefly engaged the center very minimally, then slid over to engage another player.

[Bossman641]

Interesting find.

My main issue has been with the sentiment of "hey, why even have him that close to the ball, line him up 3 yards off the ball." It was 4th and 2 at the 42, prime position to go for it. He HAS to be near the line in case of a sneak.

[Patler]

Interesting find.

My main issue has been with the sentiment of "hey, why even have him that close to the ball, line him up 3 yards off the ball." It was 4th and 2 at the 42, prime position to go for it. He HAS to be near the line in case of a sneak.

If a player is in position to receive a direct snap, the rule that caught Francois is "voided". He can line up on the center I saw that happen last week.

[Bossman641]

Interesting find.

My main issue has been with the sentiment of "hey, why even have him that close to the ball, line him up 3 yards off the ball." It was 4th and 2 at the 42, prime position to go for it. He HAS to be near the line in case of a sneak.

If a player is in position to receive a direct snap, the rule that caught Francois is "voided". He can line up on the center I saw that happen last week.

Yes, I have heard that but it doesn't make a ton of sense to me. How does the league determine the upback is in position to receive a direct snap? Do you know?

He still could have received the snap from where he was standing at on this play. If I were running a fake point I obviously would want to disguise it. So now I would line up in a different formation, basically tipping my hand that it's a fake?

[mraynrand]

Good news: when you google "Francois" and "Packers" this thread is at the top

That being said.....


Robert Francois: Hapless victim of Bad Coaching, or Unfortunate Target of Hochuli Nitpicking?:

http://prod.static.packers.clubs.nfl.com//assets/images/imported/GB/photos/persons/player-cards/Francois_Robert.jpg

You make the Call!! WHAT DID FRANCOIS KNOW, AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT???

[mraynrand]

Bossman;

I'm not arguing your interpretation. In fact, I may even agree. But something else somewhat peculiar has now been uncovered. I finally got to watch my Tivo recording. There seems to be another big problem with the play:

I have been in question about where the ball was, because there is a big shadow on the picture. Plus, the center has already cocked the ball, which commonly includes tipping it up and even moving it back a little sometimes. Some centers actually move it quite a bit as they settle in. Even so, it is hard to see, but does appear to be outside the 44 a little.

HOWEVER, the ball is shown very clearly on 3rd down to actually be inside the 44 by the length of the football. Third down was the incomplete pass batted down by Bishop. So presumably on 4th down the line of scrimmage as they lined up should have been inside the 44. However, I agree that 4th appears to be outside the 44 at the snap. I can't believe the center would have moved it that far when "cocking" to snap, would he? Apparently the spots between 3rd and 4th downs were very different, by maybe as much as a half yard or so.

The NFL gamebook confirms that the ball was inside the 44, because the plays are listed as 3rd and 2 from the 43 and 4th and 2 from the 43. If the ball is any amount inside the 44, statistically it becomes the 43. If it is on the 44 or between the 44 and 45, it would be listed as the 44. Why the ball appears to be outside the 44 at the snap on 4th down is a bit mystifying.

Then, I concentrated on a replay shown after the penalty was called, One angle clearly shows Francois' front foot to be on the 43 yard line. If the LOS was the same as it was for third down, in no way was he more than a yard off. From where the ball appears to be on 4th, it could be a yard, a smidgeon more or less.

However, this presents a big problem. If one official saw Francois foot on the 43, and they looked at the yard marker, presumably inside the 44 from 3rd down, Francois would appear to be in violation. Could he have been the victim of a poor ball placement for 4th down?

Oh, and Francois moved forward on the snap, briefly engaged the center very minimally, then slid over to engage another player.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IdE-xwjB1Kc/TCnmbTJwXyI/AAAAAAAAGtI/mNoSpT75LAs/s1600/yawn-2.jpg

[pbmax]

Personally, I think Slocum brought the picture to the press to try and save his job. He screwed up, and I think even the players realize it. The player did as told, and was put in a bad situation as a result. That is poor coaching, in my book.
That is a photo from the sideline, and the Packers are taking pictures from the endzone cameras. Where would he get the photo from on Sunday evening that JSO couldn't get it from? It doesn't look like a 35 mm picture, digital or otherwise. It looks like a TV picture.

I was referring to the early post-game reporters comments that immediately after the game Slocum was walking around discussing the play with photos in hand. I thought that was a bit unusual. I didn't mean that the paper used his photos. Slocum just planted the seeds, they found their own.
OK. I did not see that report.

[Patler]

Bossman;

I'm not arguing your interpretation. In fact, I may even agree. But something else somewhat peculiar has now been uncovered. I finally got to watch my Tivo recording. There seems to be another big problem with the play:

I have been in question about where the ball was, because there is a big shadow on the picture. Plus, the center has already cocked the ball, which commonly includes tipping it up and even moving it back a little sometimes. Some centers actually move it quite a bit as they settle in. Even so, it is hard to see, but does appear to be outside the 44 a little.

HOWEVER, the ball is shown very clearly on 3rd down to actually be inside the 44 by the length of the football. Third down was the incomplete pass batted down by Bishop. So presumably on 4th down the line of scrimmage as they lined up should have been inside the 44. However, I agree that 4th appears to be outside the 44 at the snap. I can't believe the center would have moved it that far when "cocking" to snap, would he? Apparently the spots between 3rd and 4th downs were very different, by maybe as much as a half yard or so.

The NFL gamebook confirms that the ball was inside the 44, because the plays are listed as 3rd and 2 from the 43 and 4th and 2 from the 43. If the ball is any amount inside the 44, statistically it becomes the 43. If it is on the 44 or between the 44 and 45, it would be listed as the 44. Why the ball appears to be outside the 44 at the snap on 4th down is a bit mystifying.

Then, I concentrated on a replay shown after the penalty was called, One angle clearly shows Francois' front foot to be on the 43 yard line. If the LOS was the same as it was for third down, in no way was he more than a yard off. From where the ball appears to be on 4th, it could be a yard, a smidgeon more or less.

However, this presents a big problem. If one official saw Francois foot on the 43, and they looked at the yard marker, presumably inside the 44 from 3rd down, Francois would appear to be in violation. Could he have been the victim of a poor ball placement for 4th down?

Oh, and Francois moved forward on the snap, briefly engaged the center very minimally, then slid over to engage another player.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IdE-xwjB1Kc/TCnmbTJwXyI/AAAAAAAAGtI/mNoSpT75LAs/s1600/yawn-2.jpg

OK, I can take the hint.

[sharpe1027]

However, this presents a big problem. If one official saw Francois foot on the 43, and they looked at the yard marker, presumably inside the 44 from 3rd down, Francois would appear to be in violation. Could he have been the victim of a poor ball placement for 4th down?

Oh, and Francois moved forward on the snap, briefly engaged the center very minimally, then slid over to engage another player.

Maybe, maybe not, but that would imply that they actually look at the distance and not just for overlap with the DL...

[mraynrand]

Bossman;

I'm not arguing your interpretation. In fact, I may even agree. But something else somewhat peculiar has now been uncovered. I finally got to watch my Tivo recording. There seems to be another big problem with the play:

I have been in question about where the ball was, because there is a big shadow on the picture. Plus, the center has already cocked the ball, which commonly includes tipping it up and even moving it back a little sometimes. Some centers actually move it quite a bit as they settle in. Even so, it is hard to see, but does appear to be outside the 44 a little.

HOWEVER, the ball is shown very clearly on 3rd down to actually be inside the 44 by the length of the football. Third down was the incomplete pass batted down by Bishop. So presumably on 4th down the line of scrimmage as they lined up should have been inside the 44. However, I agree that 4th appears to be outside the 44 at the snap. I can't believe the center would have moved it that far when "cocking" to snap, would he? Apparently the spots between 3rd and 4th downs were very different, by maybe as much as a half yard or so.

The NFL gamebook confirms that the ball was inside the 44, because the plays are listed as 3rd and 2 from the 43 and 4th and 2 from the 43. If the ball is any amount inside the 44, statistically it becomes the 43. If it is on the 44 or between the 44 and 45, it would be listed as the 44. Why the ball appears to be outside the 44 at the snap on 4th down is a bit mystifying.

Then, I concentrated on a replay shown after the penalty was called, One angle clearly shows Francois' front foot to be on the 43 yard line. If the LOS was the same as it was for third down, in no way was he more than a yard off. From where the ball appears to be on 4th, it could be a yard, a smidgeon more or less.

However, this presents a big problem. If one official saw Francois foot on the 43, and they looked at the yard marker, presumably inside the 44 from 3rd down, Francois would appear to be in violation. Could he have been the victim of a poor ball placement for 4th down?

Oh, and Francois moved forward on the snap, briefly engaged the center very minimally, then slid over to engage another player.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IdE-xwjB1Kc/TCnmbTJwXyI/AAAAAAAAGtI/mNoSpT75LAs/s1600/yawn-2.jpg

OK, I can take the hint.

You're a good sport Patler. Sorry for being so obnoxious

[MichiganPackerFan]

To be safe, we should also instruct our offensive and defensive linemen to wait a five-count after the snap to make sure that an official can't use their subjective judgement to call for a fall start or off sides. Our corners should also NEVER touch the receiver, especially within five yards of the LOS to be safe. Also the defense should avoid ever touching the quarterback in order to avoid subjective roughing the passer calls. And we should line up two yards back when over the center to make sure a subjective "within one yard" call is not made.

Seriously, I think you coach to play within the rules and if the refs want to be asshats, there's not a whole lot you can do about it. There is NO accountability for officiating. Period.