Mike Pereira: Gruden Is A Blowhard

[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.