Mike Pereira: Gruden Is A Blowhard

[pbmax]

via: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/29/pereira-gruden-is-a-blowhard-who-doesnt-know-what-hes-talking-about/

h/t: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/mike-pereira-jon-gruden-monday-night-football-helmet-to-helmet-penalty-atlanta-falcons-new-orleans-saints-122811

I admit to thoroughly enjoying this:

1. Gruden is a blowhard
2. Gruden as coach disrespected officials
3. Gruden is ill informed about league rules
4. Gruden has ignored a basic responsibility of a game broadcaster to at least acknowledge the actual rule in question before criticizing it or its application

THIS guy (Pereira) also blasted Gruden on Twitter Monday night while THAT guy (Gruden) was doing the game.

Pereira was the public face of NFL officiating during a serious of contentious and confusing rules changes. So he is not my favorite person, even if he is not directly responsible for the changes. I do think he has added to the confusion at times, especially over the catch not a catch rulings in the endzone.

But on the helmet to helmet hits on defenseless players, he has been far more clear and Gruden deserved getting this knock upside his head.

[Fritz]

That Gruden is a blowhard who doesn't do his homework before broadcasting games simply makes him a lot like many ex-coaches, ex-jocks, and ex-comdians who go into sports broadcasting.

I am not a fan of Jon Gruden. At all. The couple times I watched his Monday Night segment in which he sits down with a young QB to talk football I squirmed in discomfort. It was like watching an older man give a younger man a blowjob. Eww.

[hoosier]

The couple times I watched his Monday Night segment in which he sits down with a young QB to talk football I squirmed in discomfort. It was like watching an older man give a younger man a blowjob. Eww.

I thought blowhard had a different meaning. :-)

[sheepshead]

Mike Pereira is a fucking tool. How this guy has a platform for anything is beyond me. I find Gruden entertaining. I like some of his stories. Mike Pereira can blow me, his input is totally unnecessary in my opinion.

[sharpe1027]

IMO, Gruden offers very little substance but he's probably there more for entertainment, which is surprising for an ex-coach. While I do not have the expertise to comment on Fritz's analogy, listening to Gruden sometimes makes me want to reach through the television and give him a hard slap across the face and ask him what the hell he is talking about.

I am looking forward to further advances in technology that will allow for selection of announcers and/or individual muting options. The selection should include a radio broadcast feed that is synchronized to the television feed. Currently, if you turn on the radio, there's a very annoying few second difference between the feeds.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Thanks you Pereira, or should I say... Captain Obvious

[Lurker64]

I'm not the former VP of officiating, but I have to say that Gruden (and other people) railing against the (fairly clear) defenseless player rule this year really pisses me off. You're not allowed to hit anybody considered "defenseless" in the head with your helmet, arm, shoulder, ass, or any part of your body. You can still hit a player, whether or not he is "defenseless" in any non-head part of his body with any non-head part of your body.

This is not a hard rule to understand.

[Scott Campbell]

I think what Fox has done with Pereira is the most innovative broadcasting advancement since they started superimposing the yellow first down line. It certainly makes the downtime during official play reviews more entertaining.

[pbmax]

Mike Pereira is a fucking tool. How this guy has a platform for anything is beyond me. I find Gruden entertaining. I like some of his stories. Mike Pereira can blow me, his input is totally unnecessary in my opinion.

So you like Gruden. But did he tell you anything useful about that hit and penalty Monday night? Because that is the topic at hand.

[Zool]

Gruden should be on a broadcasting team with Theismann and Joe Buck. That would be 3 hours of nonsensical gibberish.

[sharpe1027]

Gruden was advocating for direct blows to the head of a receiver that has no opportunity to protect himself. Perhaps Gruden didn't mean to do that. Maybe he was just speaking from a place of ignorance or stupidity.

I like that Pereira recites the rules. That way I don't have to look it up on google or listen to an announcer misstate the rule. I could care less about his opinion on the outcome of specific review and play in question.

[sheepshead]

So you like Gruden. But did he tell you anything useful about that hit and penalty Monday night? Because that is the topic at hand.

I didnt see it. I dont really care, broadcastings a tough job and I like Gruden over all. I cant stand Mike Pereira and hopes he fades away fast. He's a tool.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Mike Pereira is a fucking tool.

+1

Gruden speaks his mind, and his opinions about calls are reasonable.

Pereira doesn't like criticism of his peeps, boo hoo

[Harlan Huckleby]

Gruden was advocating for direct blows to the head of a receiver that has no opportunity to protect himself.

Not sure what specific comment you are refering too, but Gruden would do no such thing. Yes, he is on the side of more aggressive football, but these things are subjective. I have agreed with every objection I've heard from Gruden. Gruden knows the rules and respects the intention of the rules, he just sides with a more "let them play" interpretation.

[sheepshead]

I think what Fox has done with Pereira is the most innovative broadcasting advancement since they started superimposing the yellow first down line. It certainly makes the downtime during official play reviews more entertaining.



You're kidding right?

[pbmax]

You're kidding right?

No, I doubt he is and I agree with him on it. Though even Pereira doesn't know how the refs will call a catch-no catch in the endzone.

[pbmax]

Not a good week to be Gruden?

I have read this three times and each time I switch my opinion on whether this is praise or criticism of Gruden, so I am going to have to watch the video. But I think Shaun King is calling Gruden dishonest and that the dishonesty has caused trouble on the teams he has coached (I can see reading this as "good coaches are honest" "Gruden is a good coach" and that honesty has caused trouble. Read for yourself, link to video and writeup is here: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/29/king-gruden-the-same-guy-as-coach-and-broadcaster/


Former Bucs quarterback and 1010 AM host Shaun King joined Florio on Thursday’s PFT Live to discuss the state of all things Bucs.

It was a great conversation that contained a rare moment in the show’s history: King actually seemed to change Florio’s mind about something. (Whether the Bucs should keep Raheem Morris.)

Florio also asked King if there is a disconnect between Jon Gruden the coach and Gruden the broadcaster.

“That’s absolutely who he is,” King said. “That’s probably been the most frustrating aspect for guys that have played for him. The coaches that have been successful in that league are honest with their players. You are dealing with grown men. . . .

“In private, everyone is great. Everyone is doing a good job. Then you’re gone. I think that’s created some dissension on some of the teams he’s coached.”

You can check out Thursday’s whole show at the PFT Live homepage or download the show on iTunes.

[sheepshead]

I have mixed feelings about instant replay lately. The fact that a former ref is on TV scrutinizing what the refs are doing is mind boggling to me. At some point we turn the game into a video game. Football is a bit different then baseball where I think its the umpires field and there should be no use of electronics period. I question instant replay(where I used to like it) and having this moron (Pereira) on TV acting like God is ridiculous in my opinion.

[Joemailman]

Sheep's greatest nightmare: Being forced to watch Pereira doing pick by pick analysis of the NFL Draft.

[sheepshead]

Sheep's greatest nightmare: Being forced to watch Pereira doing pick by pick analysis of the NFL Draft.
:-D

[Lurker64]

I have mixed feelings about instant replay lately. The fact that a former ref is on TV scrutinizing what the refs are doing is mind boggling to me.

I follow Pereira on Twitter, he was calling out Gruden for his complete lack of understanding of the rule immediately after Gruden said what got Pereira upset. It wasn't a "watching it a couple of days later", he just wrote the column a few days later. The only reviews Pereira saw when he got upset were the same ones Gruden saw.

[sheepshead]

No that's what he does every Sunday. That's his job description. How would any of us like a peer on national TV commenting on our decision making every few minutes?

[pbmax]

No that's what he does every Sunday. That's his job description. How would any of us like a peer on national TV commenting on our decision making every few minutes?

He was their supervisor for much longer than he was a peer (2 years as a side judge). And his reviews are much more favorable to the refs than the opinions of the ex-players and ex-coaches in the booth. I mean, the NFL was the first entity to encourage him to go on TV (NFL Network was the first time I saw him on TV) while he was still serving as the Director of Officiating.

[hoosier]

No that's what he does every Sunday. That's his job description. How would any of us like a peer on national TV commenting on our decision making every few minutes?

Why do you say he is second-guessing the officials? His main job is to offer an "expert opinion" on replay questions. I have never heard him "scrutinize" his colleagues (fellow refs). The only one he is scrutinizing in this example is Gruden, who clearly demonstrated (sorry, Harlan) that he does not understand the defenseless receiver rule.

[pbmax]

Why do you say he is second-guessing the officials? His main job is to offer an "expert opinion" on replay questions. I have never heard him "scrutinize" his colleagues (fellow refs). The only one he is scrutinizing in this example is Gruden, who clearly demonstrated (sorry, Harlan) that he does not understand the defenseless receiver rule.

After Gruden got gob-smacked, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that ESPN adds an officiating expert next year to their 39 person Monday Night broadcasting crew.

Pereira did have to do more ref review when he was on NFL Network, when he was often left to explain what happened, or what should have happened after the fact. When he makes an appearance mid-broadcast on FOX, as hoosier notes, its usually pre-final judgement from the hooded booth.

That said, I will give sheep this: I would also bet there are refs who wish he would disappear from the airwaves.

[Tarlam!]

The selection should include a radio broadcast feed that is synchronized to the television feed. Currently, if you turn on the radio, there's a very annoying few second difference between the feeds.

This THE BEST way to watch a sporting event. I remember starting this watching Rugby League games in Sydney 30 years ago. We had two great commentators working Radio. Their sound, plus the pictures. Just Brilliant! Fortunately, there was not a millisecond of delay back then.

There is often a delay between the feed, the live USA version and what I see when the Packers are featured by my cable provider. I notice this when I am on the Gameday thread and some of you are commenting on a play that is yet to occur with my source. That gets annoying; I only check the thread during commercial breaks, otherwise I know the plot before reading the book, so to speak!

[Tarlam!]

NFL.com is running the stoty: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8258353d/article/pereira-rips-blowhard-gruden-for-commentary-on-illegal-hits

Interesting is the final sentence:


Pereira certainly seems to enjoy the spotlight, and he makes a convincing argument that Gruden was incorrect in his statements. Of course, if an announcer for Fox made similar statements, you have to wonder if Pereira would drop the hammer in the same way.

:confused:

[Bretsky]

+1

Gruden speaks his mind, and his opinions about calls are reasonable.

Pereira doesn't like criticism of his peeps, boo hoo

DITTO

[Patler]

I get exhausted just listening to Gruden. I can't think of anyone else who drones on and on as much, while saying so little of substance. His use of superlatives is excessive. He makes a lot of mistakes and comes across to me as a bit unprepared most of the time. Wasn't he the one who referred to the Packers being a great screen team? Maybe 8+ years ago they were, but they haven't been for a long time.

[sheepshead]

The other thing is, whether you like Gruden or not, he's out there apparently vying for a HC job. Who is this jerk to start ripping the shit out of him as he begins the process.

[Scott Campbell]

The other thing is, whether you like Gruden or not, he's out there apparently vying for a HC job. Who is this jerk to start ripping the shit out of him as he begins the process.


He's the guy who just made it tougher. I imagine that some owners prefer to hire coaches that know the rules.

[Zool]

I get exhausted just listening to Gruden. I can't think of anyone else who drones on and on as much, while saying so little of substance. His use of superlatives is excessive. He makes a lot of mistakes and comes across to me as a bit unprepared most of the time. Wasn't he the one who referred to the Packers being a great screen team? Maybe 8+ years ago they were, but they haven't been for a long time.

This ^

Gruden rambles on about nothing. When are we going to get the option to mute the announcers and not the game audio?

[Cheesehead Craig]

Ok, I just went to Gruden's wikipedia page. There a line on it about what happened after his Super Bowl win that's I had to share.

"With no emerging talent in the fold and no money to afford replacements, the team was decimated by injuries to many of the Super Bowl stars, including Joe Jurevicius, Nigger, Greg Spires, Shelton Quarles, Charlie Sheen and Brian Kelly"

Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Gruden The line I referenced is about half way down the page.

You know, I don't remember players by all those names on the team.

[sharpe1027]

Not sure what specific comment you are refering too, but Gruden would do no such thing. Yes, he is on the side of more aggressive football, but these things are subjective. I have agreed with every objection I've heard from Gruden. Gruden knows the rules and respects the intention of the rules, he just sides with a more "let them play" interpretation.

The comment about not understanding why the penalty flag was thrown when a WR got hit helmet-to-helmet. He either is advocating for helmet to helmet hits or he is an idiot that can't figure out when a helmet to helmet hit occurs or why it is a flag. From the article:

THE PLAY: Saints quarterback Drew Brees completes a 9-yard pass to Marques Colston. Atlanta’s Curtis Lofton is called for an illegal hit on a defenseless receiver. Lofton hit Colston helmet-to-helmet, which was acknowledged by ESPN play-by-play announcer Mike Tirico. Replays clearly confirmed the helmet-to-helmet contact before Colston had completed the catch and clearly become a runner.

GRUDEN’S COMMENTS: “I don’t know. Going to get Lofton for spearing. I’d throw the ball every play if that’s a penalty. Hopkins is entitled to play in the middle of the field.”

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/m...-saints-122811

[pbmax]

I get exhausted just listening to Gruden. I can't think of anyone else who drones on and on as much, while saying so little of substance. His use of superlatives is excessive. He makes a lot of mistakes and comes across to me as a bit unprepared most of the time. Wasn't he the one who referred to the Packers being a great screen team? Maybe 8+ years ago they were, but they haven't been for a long time.

It has escaped almost everyone's attention, but the screen game is working again (this does not explain Gruden's comments as its a recent and fitful development). But sometimes it seems like the M3 forgets it as well.

Seriously, the screens this year have been as productive as they were prior to McCarthy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The comment about not understanding why the penalty flag was thrown when a WR got hit helmet-to-helmet. He either is advocating for helmet to helmet hits or he is an idiot that can't figure out when a helmet to helmet hit occurs or why it is a flag. From the article:

THE PLAY: Saints quarterback Drew Brees completes a 9-yard pass to Marques Colston. Atlanta’s Curtis Lofton is called for an illegal hit on a defenseless receiver. Lofton hit Colston helmet-to-helmet, which was acknowledged by ESPN play-by-play announcer Mike Tirico. Replays clearly confirmed the helmet-to-helmet contact before Colston had completed the catch and clearly become a runner.

GRUDEN’S COMMENTS: “I don’t know. Going to get Lofton for spearing. I’d throw the ball every play if that’s a penalty. Hopkins is entitled to play in the middle of the field.”

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/m...-saints-122811

OK, I remember that play exactly, I agree 1000% with Gruden, if such a thing is possible. There was a slight contact with the face mask of the receiver. It was NOT a blow to the head by any sane interpretation.

I agree Gruden is prone to exaggeration & bloviation, and like most national color commentators doesn't know teams as well as he postures. If you don't like him, fine, but Gruden is voice of reason when it comes to interpretation of the roughing penalties.

[Patler]

It has escaped almost everyone's attention, but the screen game is working again (this does not explain Gruden's comments as its a recent and fitful development). But sometimes it seems like the M3 forgets it as well.

Seriously, the screens this year have been as productive as they were prior to McCarthy.

I agree, the screens are working OK, and actually did at times last year too, but I think it is a lot because of "surprise" and not that the Packers run them particularly well. It seems a lot pick up yardage because they are not well defensed, but when defenders show up they are not particularly well blocked either. That said, there have been a couple long ones that were very well executed. Still, its not a big part of their offense. As somewhat of an indicator, last year and this year, backs will have about 70 receptions

Under Sherman. the Packers were a pretty darn good team running screens. The several different types of screens, all very effectively. It was a bread and butter play, that every defense knew was coming, but very few could stop. Linemen and backs were very adept at running them. As an indicator, under Sherman, backs routinely caught 110-120 passes.

[hoosier]

OK, I remember that play exactly, I agree 1000% with Gruden, if such a thing is possible. There was a slight contact with the face mask of the receiver. It was NOT a blow to the head by any sane interpretation.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNLu4-7dHfY

The best angles are at 0:48-0:55. Lofton makes contact with the shoulder and the helmet (to Colston's helmet) at virtually the same time. If this is not hitting a defenseless receiver with the helmet and on the helmet, then those concepts have no meaning.

[sheepshead]

Ok, I agree the way Colstons head popped its a good call. Lofton could have easily wrapped him up. The tool calling out a super bowl winning coach is what creases me. Fuck that guy.

[sharpe1027]

OK, I remember that play exactly, I agree 1000% with Gruden, if such a thing is possible. There was a slight contact with the face mask of the receiver. It was NOT a blow to the head by any sane interpretation.

I agree Gruden is prone to exaggeration & bloviation, and like most national color commentators doesn't know teams as well as he postures. If you don't like him, fine, but Gruden is voice of reason when it comes to interpretation of the roughing penalties.

I strongly disagree. BF obaloo, the play was a textbook example of the type of hits they said they want to stop with the new rule. Take another look at the play, then take a look at the examples the NFL provided in the video at the front of Pereira's article. Links to both videos are in this thread.

[hoosier]

Ok, I agree the way Colstons head popped its a good call. Lofton could have easily wrapped him up. The tool calling out a super bowl winning coach is what creases me. Fuck that guy.

Barry Switzer won a Super Bowl too.

[mraynrand]

Barry Switzer won a Super Bowl too.

:lol:

[sharpe1027]

Barry Switzer won a Super Bowl too.

Good call. I'll go one better. John Madden. Say what you want about his coaching results, he had some serious head scratchers as an announcer.

[Patler]

Announcers like Gruden routinely criticize the work performance of players, coaches, and officials. I have absolutely no problem with someone criticizing the performance of an announcer. The fact that he is a former coach, a Super Bowl winner or anything else is irrelevant, in my opinion.

Pereira gave a detailed explanation of the two plays that Gruden had compared. Pereira gave a detailed analysis of why he finds great fault in the opinion given by Gruden about those plays. Pereira himself is now a columnist/analyst who has offered an opinion about Gruden. If Gruden or his supporters believe Pereira is wrong, they are free to point out errors in the description and analysis that Pereira has given.

[sheepshead]

What has Mike Pereira ever done besides be a dick?

[mraynrand]

Good call. I'll go one better. John Madden. Say what you want about his coaching results, he had some serious head scratchers as an announcer.

circa 1997:
John: "Hey Pat, do you know what flows into the Bay of Green Bay?"
Pat: "Water"
John: "Well, yeah, I know that. It's the Fox river!"


(Did you capture the subtle irony there? Madden broadcasts on FOX network and the Fox river flows into Green Bay. Scintillating, isn't it? Did you also notice Pat Summerall was suffering from dementia? or maybe he was just drunk.)

[Patler]

What has Mike Pereira ever done besides be a dick?

When was he a dick?
Personally, I like it when someone who really is an expert on the rules tells us what the rule really is. We are then each free to apply our own interpretation of the play in regard to the rules.

Gruden had a well-publicized reputation for a bad attitude on the sidelines. I think his disrespect for the officials then bleeds through in how he analyzes and describes the game action now. The fact that someone from the officials side may have a bit of a grudge against Gruden is no great shock, Gruden clearly has one agaiunst the officials. Pereira made no bones about it. He started his article by admitting that he does not and never did like Gruden.

Besides, Pereira is correct. If Gruden doesn't understand the differences between the two plays, he clearly is failing in a primary aspect of his job.

[sheepshead]

I dont like him, he calls Gruden names instead of showing some respect. Players and fellow coaches can call Gruden out, not this worm. Just my opinion.

Ok, here's my take. Instant replay has, in my opinion, let the rules evolve to where we now depend on it to make a call. They are written knowing full well the only way to call them is with a camera. The possession rules in the end zone for instance are a joke. We now depend so much on instant replay its taking away from the game. Again, just my opinion. This bozo deciding to make a second career out of second guessing his fellow refs just rubs me the wrong way. Again, maybe Im too much of a purest but it seems to me all this is taking the game down paths that are distracting. Maybe its time to do away with Instant replay and live with the calls on the field.

[mraynrand]

I dont like him, he calls Gruden names instead of showing some respect. Players and fellow coaches can call Gruden out, not this worm. Just my opinion.

Ok, here's my take. Instant replay has, in my opinion, let the rules evolve to where we now depend on it to make a call. They are written knowing full well the only way to call them is with a camera. The possession rules in the end zone for instance are a joke. We now depend so much on instant replay its taking away from the game. Again, just my opinion. This bozo deciding to make a second career out of second guessing his fellow refs just rubs me the wrong way. Again, maybe Im too much of a purest but it seems to me all this is taking the game down paths that are distracting. Maybe its time to do away with Instant replay and live with the calls on the field.

I don't really agree with your conclusions or recommendations. The problem isn't replay; the problem seems to be a new (set of) rules put in place to protect players from injury. Some of them are easy to interpret and enforce (kicking off from the 35) and some are difficult - hitting a QB below the knees and unprotected hits on players. Lurker is right about the unprotected player rule: the rule is clear, the consistency of the calls is not there yet. perhaps it will improve. To the point of this thread: Gruden should know the rule back and forth as an announcer and Pereira seems to have improved explaining the rules. Sometimes he's wrong too. We're imperfect beings.

As to eliminating IR? Not a chance:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzThn8pkpC0

This never happens if Rice's fumble was reviewed

[Patler]

I dont like him, he calls Gruden names instead of showing some respect. Players and fellow coaches can call Gruden out, not this worm. Just my opinion.

Ok, here's my take. Instant replay has, in my opinion, let the rules evolve to where we now depend on it to make a call. They are written knowing full well the only way to call them is with a camera. The possession rules in the end zone for instance are a joke. We now depend so much on instant replay its taking away from the game. Again, just my opinion. This bozo deciding to make a second career out of second guessing his fellow refs just rubs me the wrong way. Again, maybe Im too much of a purest but it seems to me all this is taking the game down paths that are distracting. Maybe its time to do away with Instant replay and live with the calls on the field.

Pereira was the head of officiating for the NFL for 11 years under two different titles. Before that, he was an NFL official and I would hazard to guess that before that he was probably a college official. His criticism of Gruden relates to Gruden's knowledge and application of the rules, and his relationship to officials when he was a coach. It seems to me Pereira is in a much better position to criticize Gruden in those areas than a coach or player would be.

I am not a big fan of instant replay either, never have been. However, I don't see that what Pereira is doing now is any different than what Gruden or other players and coaches have done when they take a second career of second guessing their fellow coaches and players. Gruden and other former coaches second guess present coaches, Aikman second guesses players and especially quarterbacks as do the many other former player broadcasters, Pereira second guesses officials. How is it any different? Each are providing analysis based on their area of expertise.

I suspect Fox has instructed Pereira to be more opinionated. When he first started he would simply state the rule, describe what the ref would look for in the replay and what would be needed to overturn the ruling on the field. He didn't offer his own opinion on the outcome. Now the braodcast crew often asks him explicitly for his opinion.

[sheepshead]

Seems to me Gruden just called it as he saw it. Grudens there for entertainment. If Goodell said something then maybe Pereira would have a point. Bottom line, I like Gruden a hell of a lot better then I do Mike Pereira.

[Fritz]

Man, I still can't watch that "catch" without throwing up in my mouth.

[Lurker64]

Seems to me Gruden just called it as he saw it. Grudens there for entertainment. If Goodell said something then maybe Pereira would have a point. Bottom line, I like Gruden a hell of a lot better then I do Mike Pereira.

The "call it like you see it" approach is much better when you actually know what you're talking about, which should be a prerequisite for being a paid football announcer.

Gruden is an ass for complaining about a rule he didn't even understand. Pereira may also be an ass for calling out Gruden like he did, but that doesn't make Gruden a non-ass.

[Patler]

Seems to me Gruden just called it as he saw it. Grudens there for entertainment. If Goodell said something then maybe Pereira would have a point. Bottom line, I like Gruden a hell of a lot better then I do Mike Pereira.

I don't understand your thinking with the reference to Goodell.

Pereira was hired by Fox for his expertise in the rules. It seems any issue that involves the rules is fair game for him. I don't particularly like the tone of his article, but the content of his analysis is good.

Of course, Gruden really rubs me the wrong way, and Pereira doesn't bother me one way or another.

[sheepshead]

Because what Gruden says doesnt matter except from a purely entertainment standpoint. He's a paid entertainer. Color guy on a football telecast. He gave his view of a hit. I dont agree with him either. But it should lie there. This twerp is way out over his skis calling Gruden names.

[Pugger]

Man, I still can't watch that "catch" without throwing up in my mouth.

I won't even open the clip! :-(

[Patler]

Because what Gruden says doesnt matter except from a purely entertainment standpoint. He's a paid entertainer. Color guy on a football telecast. He gave his view of a hit. I dont agree with him either. But it should lie there. This twerp is way out over his skis calling Gruden names.

What Gruden says matters a great deal, because it furthers misunderstanding of the rules by fans who listen to him and assume he is knowledgeable about the rules. Pereira's main purpose is to educate the fan base about the rules. That is how he is used during games and it is the purpose of his regular columns. Identify errors in a TV analyst's discussion of the rules during a national broadcast is a valid subject for Pereira, in my opinion.

Pereira called Gruden a "blowhard" and a "windbag", which are accurate descriptions for Gruden's excessive talking, excessive verbal backslapping and his uniformed pontifications about the rules. Both are actually consistent with the theme of Peeira's article.

I find it interesting that you object to Pereira's name calling, but you have no hesitation to call Pereira names yourself ("dick", "bozo", "twerp"). Why is that?

[Fritz]

Everyone who disagrees with me is a dick, unless I like them.

[sheepshead]

What Gruden says matters a great deal, because it furthers misunderstanding of the rules by fans who listen to him and assume he is knowledgeable about the rules. Pereira's main purpose is to educate the fan base about the rules. That is how he is used during games and it is the purpose of his regular columns. Identify errors in a TV analyst's discussion of the rules during a national broadcast is a valid subject for Pereira, in my opinion.

Pereira called Gruden a "blowhard" and a "windbag", which are accurate descriptions for Gruden's excessive talking, excessive verbal backslapping and his uniformed pontifications about the rules. Both are actually consistent with the theme of Peeira's article.

I find it interesting that you object to Pereira's name calling, but you have no hesitation to call Pereira names yourself ("dick", "bozo", "twerp"). Why is that?

I dont like him. Enough already. Its a God damned opinion.

[Patler]

I dont like him. Enough already. Its a God damned opinion.

As is mine. Am I any less entitled to argue my opinion than you are yours? I have simply responded to your arguments/statements.

Personally, I don't find Gruden or any other announcer, coach or player to be a sacred cow off limits for criticism. They are in very public positions that rely on popularity for success. With that as a base, critique of their work will always be a part of their success and failure.

Gruden criticizes officials repeatedly both directly and indirectly, and did so in the game in question. It should come as no shock that a long time head of officiating might fight back a little.

You complained about Pereira "second guessing his fellow refs..." yet in this instance he is staunchly defending them against criticism from Gruden.

[Fritz]

I just don't like it when I know more about the Packers than the paid professional announcer who is often a former player or coach. When Daryl Johnston referred to Bryan Bulaga as "Bryan Balooga" it really pissed me off. Do your homework, man!

[hoosier]

I just don't like it when I know more about the Packers than the paid professional announcer who is often a former player or coach. When Daryl Johnston referred to Bryan Bulaga as "Bryan Balooga" it really pissed me off. Do your homework, man!

Johnston is dyslecix, give him a beark.

[Lurker64]

I just don't like it when I know more about the Packers than the paid professional announcer who is often a former player or coach. When Daryl Johnston referred to Bryan Bulaga as "Bryan Balooga" it really pissed me off. Do your homework, man!

I've heard a few "Daryn Bulaga"s this year. Bulaga I can understand messing up, but "Bryan"?

[sheepshead]

As is mine. Am I any less entitled to argue my opinion than you are yours? I have simply responded to your arguments/statements.

Personally, I don't find Gruden or any other announcer, coach or player to be a sacred cow off limits for criticism. They are in very public positions that rely on popularity for success. With that as a base, critique of their work will always be a part of their success and failure.

Gruden criticizes officials repeatedly both directly and indirectly, and did so in the game in question. It should come as no shock that a long time head of officiating might fight back a little.

You complained about Pereira "second guessing his fellow refs..." yet in this instance he is staunchly defending them against criticism from Gruden.

Good God.

[Patler]

Good God.

Yes, God is good.

[Fritz]

His mercy is everlasting.

[LP]

Gruden is an ass ... Pereira may also be an ass ... but that doesn't make Gruden a non-ass.

I think this pretty well sums it up.

[retailguy]

As is mine. Am I any less entitled to argue my opinion than you are yours? I have simply responded to your arguments/statements.

Personally, I don't find Gruden or any other announcer, coach or player to be a sacred cow off limits for criticism. They are in very public positions that rely on popularity for success. With that as a base, critique of their work will always be a part of their success and failure.

Gruden criticizes officials repeatedly both directly and indirectly, and did so in the game in question. It should come as no shock that a long time head of officiating might fight back a little.

You complained about Pereira "second guessing his fellow refs..." yet in this instance he is staunchly defending them against criticism from Gruden.


Well done.

[Bretsky]

Rumor has it Chucky is talking to the Rams; I hope they hire him

[Tarlam!]

Rumor has it Chucky is talking to the Rams; I hope they hire him

Michelle would be kicking your collective butts for all the Chucky hate going on in this thread. Having said that, I am pretty much anti-Chucky myself. I like enthusiasm, I prefer reliable, professional commentary.

I also think Pereira's interjection is highly innovative. Still, if Chucky were a commentator on Pereira's channel, I doubt we arehaving this discussion.

[Bretsky]

Michelle would be kicking your collective butts for all the Chucky hate going on in this thread. Having said that, I am pretty much anti-Chucky myself. I like enthusiasm, I prefer reliable, professional commentary.

I also think Pereira's interjection is highly innovative. Still, if Chucky were a commentator on Pereira's channel, I doubt we arehaving this discussion.


I'm with GBM; I am pro chucky
I like the Rams so that is why I want them to hire him

[pbmax]

Rumor has it Chucky is talking to the Rams; I hope they hire him


Michelle would be kicking your collective butts for all the Chucky hate going on in this thread. Having said that, I am pretty much anti-Chucky myself. I like enthusiasm, I prefer reliable, professional commentary.

I also think Pereira's interjection is highly innovative. Still, if Chucky were a commentator on Pereira's channel, I doubt we arehaving this discussion.


I'm with GBM; I am pro chucky
I like the Rams so that is why I want them to hire him

I am not a fan and its not all rational. Had I the cause for paying more attention to him, my opinion might change. I was ticked that he didn't take Holmgren's advice when he left as receiver's coach (I think he was WR coach by then) to be OC for Rhodes in Philly. I was hoping he would be in line for the Mariucci/Mohringweg/Reid line of QB coaches who would one day work with Favre to keep his head on straight and prevent Holmgren's early retirement due to Favre induced strokes or panic attacks.

He followed that up by ignoring Holmgren's advice and taking the HC job with the Raiders. You really can't fault him in either case as both worked for him, though his departure from the Raiders to the Buccaneers suggests a slightly devious climb the ladder mentality. Lastly, his comical expressions and sneers that make him look like a 12 year old trying to look and act like an adult just drives me nuts. In person, I am sure he is far more serious, but on TV he looks like Doogie Howser has been asked to coach the Bears.

Among the only serious complaints I have is that he seems to have earned an outsized reputation for taking a team built by Dungy and Rich McKay and grafting on a veteran QB and then getting to play the team he knew best in the Super Bowl. He deserves credit for the game plan and win, but it seems an extraordinary set of circumstances that are unlikely to be repeated.

He then took that talented team and along with another overrated type, Bruce Allen, drove it into the ground for five years. All the while he seemed to have public whipping boys on the team that blame for the disappointing performance was shoveled onto.

Other than that, I am sure he is an outstanding individual.

In other news, the Rams rumors are now rumored to be the work of AJ Smith in San Diego, trying to salvage some support among the Chargers by ginning up interest elsewhere. PFT today had a report that Jeff Fisher was in Tampa this weekend, so Jon's old job may be open soon.

[packrulz]

Honestly, I think both guys are entertaining. I do think it's unprofessional to bash a fellow announcer on Twitter, it's a candy ass thing to do.

[MJZiggy]

I just hope Gruden gets picked up by a team this year. I want to see whether he really has no idea what he's doing. Coaching a team that's not poised to go to the Super Bowl should be telling.

[Lurker64]

Honestly, I think both guys are entertaining. I do think it's unprofessional to bash a fellow announcer on Twitter, it's a candy ass thing to do.

Gruden's job and Pereira's job are not the same. Gruden provides color commentary for ESPN, whereas Pereira is the rules expert for FOX. It's entirely reasonable for the rules expert to criticize the color guy's knowledge of the rules.

[sheepshead]

Honestly, I think both guys are entertaining. I do think it's unprofessional to bash a fellow announcer on Twitter, it's a candy ass thing to do.

Bingo

[esoxx]

Whenever you need a live official to explain game rules the game has reached the point of over-regulation and buffonery.

[Lurker64]

Whenever you need a live official to explain game rules the game has reached the point of over-regulation and buffonery.

The rule in question is not complicated. If you're curious I explained it on the first page (though I did not define "defenseless"), the problem is that the announcers don't know the rules. It's not hard to learn the rules, it's just that some people who call games don't know them.

[Patler]

Honestly, I think both guys are entertaining. I do think it's unprofessional to bash a fellow announcer on Twitter, it's a candy ass thing to do.

Ya, I don't particularly like the twitter thing either, but he followed it with a very thorough analysis in an article the next day. He completely substantiated and supported any comment he had made on twitter.

For the life of me, I can't understand why pro athletes and entertainers accept the risks of embarrassing themselves on twitter.

[Patler]

The rule in question is not complicated. If you're curious I explained it on the first page (though I did not define "defenseless"), the problem is that the announcers don't know the rules. It's not hard to learn the rules, it's just that some people who call games don't know them.

Agreed, and that was the point of Pereira'a article, the specific rules involved are pretty clear. That is exactly why announcers who fail to understand the rules do more harm than good. They convince fans that all of the rules are so complicated as to be nonunderstandable. A few may cause confusion, most should not. The rules are the rules, and announcers should help fans understand them, not just throw their hands up and whine about it instead of putting in the effort to learn how the rules are applied.

As Pereira said, criticizing the rule is fine, if you take the time to understand it first.

[esoxx]

The rule in question is not complicated. If you're curious I explained it on the first page (though I did not define "defenseless"), the problem is that the announcers don't know the rules. It's not hard to learn the rules, it's just that some people who call games don't know them.

I'm talking big picture, not the rule in question. When you need a former official available to explain game rules and interpretation of rules, you're lost as a league. It's over regulated to the point of idiocy. So we get a talking head to come in on a call to explain what a catch is or what a reasonable tackle may be or was the ball moving or did the player make a football related move and on and on it goes. And said official that's commenting may or may not get the call right anyhow b/c the rules are so out of control.

Maybe the league should just mandate each team names a lawer to represent them. Whenever a questionable call occurs, the attorneys can argue the play and then a NFL assigned judge could render a decision. Lawyer "A" could argue the Bert Emanuel Rule (circa 1999) on a disputed catch, Lawyer "B" would be happy to cite the Tuck Rule (circa 2000) on a QB sack pass/fumble call. The winning decision would award the team in question one point per verdict.

[Patler]

I'm talking big picture, not the rule in question. When you need a former official available to explain game rules and interpretation of rules, you're lost as a league. It's over regulated to the point of idiocy. So we get a talking head to come in on a call to explain what a catch is or what a reasonable tackle may be or was the ball moving or did the player make a football related move and on and on it goes. And said official that's commenting may or may not get the call right anyhow b/c the rules are so out of control.

Maybe the league should just mandate each team names a lawer to represent them. Whenever a questionable call occurs, the attorneys can argue the play and then a NFL assigned judge could render a decision. Lawyer "A" could argue the Bert Emanuel Rule (circa 1999) on a disputed catch, Lawyer "B" would be happy to cite the Tuck Rule (circa 2000) on a QB sack pass/fumble call. The winning decision would award the team in question one point per verdict.

If the announcers did their jobs more thoroughly, Pereira might not be needed in his.

[Lurker64]

If the announcers did their jobs more thoroughly, Pereira might not be needed in his.

Ultimately the reason Pereira is employed by FOX in this role is that frequently there are situations in football where Announcer A thinks a call should go one way and Announcer B thinks it should go otherwise, Pereira is mostly the arbiter to tell us which announcer's interpretation of the rule is the correct one.

Even if the rules were going to be made very simple, there will still be ambiguous situations in the rules (of the form "was that a catch?" "was that a fumble?") that people will argue about so having an authority of some kind to appeal to does add to the value of the television broadcast.

[pbmax]

As Pereira demonstrated twice in the Packer game, often the dispute is WHICH rule to apply WHEN to a situation. He thought the going to the grond rule held in the So'oto fumble recovery but acknowledged that the ref could call down by contact. Clearly, these two rules can disagree in a given situation and there is no clear guideline that I am aware of that helps to sort it out. Which means its up to the individual to pick which makes more sense.

[sharpe1027]

As Pereira demonstrated twice in the Packer game, often the dispute is WHICH rule to apply WHEN to a situation. He thought the going to the grond rule held in the So'oto fumble recovery but acknowledged that the ref could call down by contact. Clearly, these two rules can disagree in a given situation and there is no clear guideline that I am aware of that helps to sort it out. Which means its up to the individual to pick which makes more sense.

Good thing they added the catch rules for the express purpose of removing subjective decisions by an individual. ;)

I thought I knew the rules reasonably well, but after this play, I can't figure them out. If Jennings non-TD was "going to the ground" after taking three full steps, then this had to be going to the ground and an interception. BF obaloo, this head official had an unbelievably terrible game.

[Patler]

As Pereira demonstrated twice in the Packer game, often the dispute is WHICH rule to apply WHEN to a situation. He thought the going to the grond rule held in the So'oto fumble recovery but acknowledged that the ref could call down by contact. Clearly, these two rules can disagree in a given situation and there is no clear guideline that I am aware of that helps to sort it out. Which means its up to the individual to pick which makes more sense.

Yup. The interesting thing to me was to consider what the call would have been if the ball had been dislodged to the ground instead of So'oto gaining possession himself. Many seeming completions have been ruled incomplete because the player did not maintain possession while going to the ground. Since the hit was simultaneous with the catch, it would seem that rule should have applied, had the ball been dislodged to the ground. However, consistent with the overturn of the play, if the ball had gone to the ground instead, presumably their ruling would have been that contact with the ground can't cause a fumble.

[Patler]

Good thing they added the catch rules for the express purpose of removing subjective decisions by an individual. ;)

I thought I knew the rules reasonably well, but after this play, I can't figure them out. If Jennings non-TD was "going to the ground" after taking three full steps, then this had to be going to the ground and a fumble. BF obaloo, this head official had an unbelievably terrible game.

Shouldn't it have been an interception for So'oto if the catch wasn't held through contact with the ground? The ball itself never touched the ground, did it?

[sharpe1027]

Shouldn't it have been an interception for So'oto if the catch wasn't held through contact with the ground? The ball itself never touched the ground, did it?

Yes, an interception. It could never have been a fumble as he would have needed to complete the catch first and then he would have been down by contact. My mistake.

[sharpe1027]

Yup. The interesting thing to me was to consider what the call would have been if the ball had been dislodged to the ground instead of So'oto gaining possession himself. Many seeming completions have been ruled incomplete because the player did not maintain possession while going to the ground. Since the hit was simultaneous with the catch, it would seem that rule should have applied, had the ball been dislodged to the ground. However, consistent with the overturn of the play, if the ball had gone to the ground instead, presumably their ruling would have been that contact with the ground can't cause a fumble.

The going to the ground rule has not been limited to the ball coming out only by contact with the ground. It can be dislodged by a defender per the Jennings non-TD and other similar calls. So whether it was a defender or the ground should not have made any difference in the call. So, I agree that it would necessarily have also been a catch and no fumble if the ground caused it to come out. Of course, that flies in the face of many calls that have gone the other way and are seemingly indistinguishable.

[sheepshead]

TOOL!



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/16/league-explais-leavys-replay-ruling/

If the Packers had beaten the Giants by seven points or fewer on Sunday, the NFL offices in Manhattan would have been besieged by calls, emails, pitchforks, and/or torches as to the failure of referee Bill Leavy to overturn a ruling on the field that Packers receiver Greg Jennings had lost possession of the ball in the first quarter before he was down.

Even though the Giants won the game by 17 points, Leavy’s indisputable failure to find that indisputable evidence existed to reverse the non-fumble finding has made a major stir. The league has explained the decision.

“Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 35) states: ‘An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: (a) when a runner is contacted by a defensive player and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet,’” the league said in a statement emailed to PFT by NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. “So by rule, if Jennings’ calf was on the ground prior to the ball coming loose, he is down by contact. Contrary to what was suggested during the game, there is no need for the runner’s knee to be on the ground.”

That’s a not-so-subtle slap at FOX, whose broadcasters (including rules analyst and former NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira) believed that Leavy had committed a pretty big blunder. In the end, Leavy’s decision apparently flowed from uncertainty based on the video as to whether Jennings’ calf was on the ground before he lost possession of the ball.

“Rule 15, Section 9 of the Rule Book (page 98) governs instant replay reviews and states: ‘All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Referee on a field-level monitor after consultation with the other covering official(s), prior to review. A decision will be reversed only when the Referee has indisputable visual evidence available to him that warrants the change,’” the league said in the statement.

“Referee Bill Leavy conducted the instant replay video review and determined that there was no indisputable visual evidence to warrant reversing the on-field ruling of down by contact. As a result, the ruling on the field stood.”

That’s fine, and we appreciate the explanation. But the video clearly showed the ball coming out before any part of Jennings’ leg was on the ground.

Many of you will assume that the league is merely circling the wagons on this one. Even though the NFL has been candid in the past about some officiating mistakes, that assumption seems to be valid this time around.

[sharpe1027]

How would someone's calf hit the ground before some another body part? I just about got caught trying to figure it out on the floor at work. It was a fumble.

[pbmax]

TOOL!



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/16/league-explais-leavys-replay-ruling/

If the Packers had beaten the Giants by seven points or fewer on Sunday, the NFL offices in Manhattan would have been besieged by calls, emails, pitchforks, and/or torches as to the failure of referee Bill Leavy to overturn a ruling on the field that Packers receiver Greg Jennings had lost possession of the ball in the first quarter before he was down.

Even though the Giants won the game by 17 points, Leavy’s indisputable failure to find that indisputable evidence existed to reverse the non-fumble finding has made a major stir. The league has explained the decision.

“Rule 7, Section 2, Article 1 of the NFL Rule Book (page 35) states: ‘An official shall declare the ball dead and the down ended: (a) when a runner is contacted by a defensive player and touches the ground with any part of his body other than his hands or feet,’” the league said in a statement emailed to PFT by NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. “So by rule, if Jennings’ calf was on the ground prior to the ball coming loose, he is down by contact. Contrary to what was suggested during the game, there is no need for the runner’s knee to be on the ground.”

That’s a not-so-subtle slap at FOX, whose broadcasters (including rules analyst and former NFL V.P. of officiating Mike Pereira) believed that Leavy had committed a pretty big blunder.

Except of course Perreira was right and Leavy was wrong.

[sheepshead]

Except of course Perreira was right and Leavy was wrong.

No, that's not what he(Leavy) saw AND Pereira's explanation was apparently incorrect( I didnt hear it).

[mraynrand]

It was a fumble

[pbmax]

No, that's not what he(Leavy) saw AND Pereira's explanation was apparently incorrect( I didnt hear it).

The calf explanation just doesn't seem to pass the smell test. It seems like an explanation concocted after the fact, made convenient by his calf being obscured in some angles.

[sharpe1027]

The calf explanation just doesn't seem to pass the smell test. It seems like an explanation concocted after the fact, made convenient by his calf being obscured in some angles.

You know what? I was going to post again about how crappy of a call it was. Then I went and looked at a youtube video and frankly, it is not as clear as it first seemed. I can't tell exactly when the ball is moving, but I can see that the calf does hit the ground before the ball tilts from a position perpendicular to Jennings' arm. Wow. I was 100% sure that it was a fumble until then. I've never seen a player called down by "calf" before, but it may actually have been correct.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1025537-giants-vs-packers-twitter-blasts-referees-for-overturning-fumble

[pbmax]

Nope. Ball was open and loose before that calf hit and despite sheeps protestations (and despite a misleading PFT article and Aiello press release) Perreira mentioned the back of the leg/calf as looking like it was not down before the ball was loose.

[Joemailman]

I can see why that call would not be overturned. It looks to me that when the ball starts to get pulled out, you can't see Jennings' lower leg because #23 of the Giants is standing in the way. It was probably a fumble, but that replay does not look conclusive to me.

[MadtownPacker]

Watch that shit again. Once it came out it flew in a horizontal direction. I believe the leaning movement of the ball that everyone thinks is it coming out is Jennings holding it by the tip with his fingers and trying to cradle it towards his forearm. Thats when and why it is popped out. By then he is down.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyP157p4SEQ

[MJZiggy]

I was way more certain about that call 5 minutes ago than I am now...

[sharpe1027]

As Mad said, I think the key is when you determine that the ball is coming loose. If you go by when it first stops being in line with Jennings' arm, he is probably down.

[pbmax]

Heck I don't know for certain, but we can't have a 24 hour video challenge. Mad, you have got to be faster with these things.