This is a moderated phorum for the CIVILIZED discussion of the Miami Dolphins. In this phorum, there are rules and moderators to make sure you abide by the rules. The moderators for this phorum are JC and Colonel.
I would really have felt bad about the outcome of that game if it weren't for their dirty player (Suh). Hopefully the Pack will mop the floor with the Cowboys and all will be forgotten.
I'm really confused now about what PI really is in the NFL.
One of the explanations that was given about it not being PI is that in the NFL, there is no face guarding. There isn't? Then why is it continually mentioned on broadcasts that because the defender never turned around, it is PI; if he had just turned and looked for the ball it would have been a good defensive play?
Along with that, Dallas' defender had reached in (before the ball got there) and pretty much had ahold of the receiver's right arm for long enough to where he couldn't reach out for the ball.
As ticky-tacky as the NFL has been this year about touching a receiver past five yards, for them to pick up the flag was puzzling.
As far as that call determining the outcome of the game, I must disagree. There was still over 8 minutes left in the game. I would say that the shanked punt that went only ten yards may have had a lot to do with it.
I would never say that a referee's call had an outcome on the game, unless it was in the last two minutes with a team driving down the field.
captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm really confused now about what PI really is in
> the NFL.
>
> One of the explanations that was given about it
> not being PI is that in the NFL, there is no face
> guarding. There isn't? Then why is it continually
> mentioned on broadcasts that because the defender
> never turned around, it is PI; if he had just
> turned and looked for the ball it would have been
> a good defensive play?
>
> Along with that, Dallas' defender had reached in
> (before the ball got there) and pretty much had
> ahold of the receiver's right arm for long enough
> to where he couldn't reach out for the ball.
>
> As ticky-tacky as the NFL has been this year about
> touching a receiver past five yards, for them to
> pick up the flag was puzzling.
RESPONSE: You and the rest of the world on all of the above, Cap.
Like you say, it's basically confusion written down as a rule.
To me, what difference does it make ANYWAY, whether the defender is looking back at the ball or not?
They're saying (the rules themselves, not just this case) that if a defender has his back to the ball but his head turned around and he is right behind the receiver and there is NO WAY THEREFORE that the receiver can catch the ball, there is no penalty.
YET if his head is NOT turned around and he is right behind the receiver and there is NO WAY THEREFORE that the receiver can catch the ball, there IS a penalty.
Even though the fact that the defender's head is turned around has NOTHING IN PHYSICS TO DO WITH THE ABILITY OF THE RECEIVER TO CATCH THE BALL.
So my problem is that I can't get to the point where makes any sense to discuss the application of the rule in any particular instance because the rule itself is so silly.
The rule is basically written so that there has to be intent to interfere but allows for the faking of the LACK OF INTENT.
In order to make sense, the rule should be written so that there is no intent required so that as long as you interfere, that is is. The ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION should be if the ball is clearly underthrown OR where the receiver, in the opinion of the refs, himself created the contact.