Francois penalty - poor coaching

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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!

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.

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!

[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