Posted on 01/29/2015 12:13:14 PM PST by Colofornian
There's a team in Super Bowl XLIX that, for years, has created a major competitive advantage by blatantly disregarding NFL rules.
I'm talking about the Seattle Seahawks, of course.
Focused on 24 PSIs of missing hot air and hype in New England, we've all missed an actual rules revolution going on in Seattle that, with one more win on Sunday in Arizona, could fundamentally change the NFL -- forever.
Over the past three years the Seahawks have done something no one in the white-socks-and-black-shoes, stuck-in-the-1950s NFL ever dreamed possible, or legal. Since 2012 Seattle has been at the top of the NFL in wins (tied with 36), Super Bowl appearances and ... penalties.
The best team in the league has been penalized so many times (416) in the last three seasons that I'm pretty sure the fluorescent yellow trim on the Seahawks uniforms is actually just residue from all the penalty flags. Still, Seattle's success isn't in spite of all the penalties. It's inspired by it. Without anyone really noticing, Seattle has created a blossoming dynasty in the most competitive league in the world by completely, and brilliantly, turning the stigma of penalty flags upside down; embracing infractions rather than avoiding them at all costs.
[SNIP]
Through 18 games, the Seahawks not only have been called for a league-high 144 penalties (according to NFLpenalties.com) their opponents have only been flagged just 80 times. Yes, you read that correctly. The Seahawks have been called for almost twice as many penalties as their opponents.
(Excerpt) Read more at espn.go.com ...
That’s the nature of sport though. Teams find loopholes, rules committees close them, teams find new loopholes... I expect if more teams start following the Seahawks model the NFL will probably adopt something similar to the NBA, where the punishment for penalties begins to ramp up as the team gets more flags. If starting with your 5th team penalty of the day there was an extra 1yd * total penalties (ie 5 for the 5th, 6 for the 6th) this method would become a lot less attractive. Having offsides be 11 yards and a probable first down would be a definite tactic changer.
Penalties worked for the 1970’s Raiders
Right. That’s what I was going to say. If a team is penalized more than any other team, and they are still winning Super Bowls and most of their games, the penalties are not severe enough to discourage the violations.
1. Refs will "let go" most stuff away from the flow of the play.
2. If you'll notice, refs upped enforcement of "defensive holding" in 2014...by definition in every level of reffing, "holding" involves restraint.
I've seen several NFL penalties called on defenders who attempted to hold a receiver, but didn't actually restrain them in any way. If we applied the 2014 definition of defensive holding to offensive holding, just about every pass play (& many more running plays) could be holding.
When you have 22 players -- and less than 22 eyes -- yeah, I lot will be either missed ... and much ignored. Refs realize this is ultimately "entertainment" -- and that they are not the center of that.
Btw, the same thing has happened over recent decades in college basketball.
Much more contact than used to be...and very subjectively whistled...coaches know refs aren't going to whistle most games to death.
Yes, just like how laws & codes are a basic part of society and built into the fabric of culture...and, yes, "the structure is such that breaking rules" (laws/codes) "is often smart play" for the criminal as well.
It’s not cheating, it’s accepting the potential punishment as worth the risk."
(Yeah, just like criminals accept the "potential punishment as worth the risk" of getting away with XYZ.
"Sports is all about risk and reward, you take actions (prescribed and proscribed by the rule book) knowing that it could go well or it could go poorly.
So is life. Your philosophy applies to criminals and potential criminals and even those who engage in criminal activity (& not YET been caught) as well.
And remember the “punishment” for under inflated balls is they switch them and/ or fix them. Exactly what happened.
Not good enough. In baseball, if you cheat with a corked bat, and it's discovered, somebody can get tossed. If a pitcher cheats with a foreign substance, somebody can get tossed.
In football, the only penalty is a post-game financial one. That needs to be fixed. When the Pats were found to be cheating in that game by halftime, the head coach (or identified cheater) should have been tossed.
Seattle has committed 144 penalties this year. Their opponents 80. Sorry, but the Seahawks (as a winning team) are not that ill-concentrated, confused, disoriented, impulsively jumping the gun, etc. to the degree of almost twice their opponents. (If they were, they wouldn't be where they are).
(But, hey, you get an "A" for a good apologetic try there)
(Sorry, but not a fan of anybody who lost in Seahawks or Pats in playoffs)
But, hey...good try at mindreading...
(And I doubt the ESPN article-writer was necessarily a sour-grapes "fan" of any losing team...but, hey, it's up to you to try to prove that)
Nope. Not like them at all. You see laws are about defining and defending rights (at least they’re supposed to be, there’s a whole other discussion to be had about the dumb laws we spawn vast quantities of today). If I break some law I’m violating somebody’s rights.
Rules in sports are about structuring a style of play that the league feels will enhance the viewing experience, making the game more entertaining, thus more watched, thus increasing revenue. Holding is against the rules in all sports because all the leagues have figured out that impeded movement of the players slows the game, reduces the action, and makes the game less fun to watch. No one’s rights are being violated when a football player holds another, all he’s doing is keeping the game from working the way the league WANTS it to. And if (when really) the league finds that the rules as written aren’t having the play results desired they change them. Defensive PI was greatly expanded in the 70s because the league felt the Steel Curtain and Purple People Eater were resulting in a slower lower scoring less exciting game. Offensive PI was expanded because they were tired of Michael Irvin shoving defenders to the ground.
So there’s simply no parallel between societal laws and sports rules. And trying to draw them is simply lazy strawman errecting.
That game was the beginning of the modern success of the Patriots.
I was so disgusted, I have never since taken the Super Bowl seriously. The Super Bowl is a tremendous spectacle, but it is not a football game, because it is not called like a football game.
While entertainment heavily factors into MANY rules in professional sports, it's well beyond that.
It's also to put it simply -- both realizing the peer to peer aspect of sports (and, in part, to pre-empt or negate "escalation" in physical sports situations) and even to a greater degree a response to cultural expectations.
Fans watch youth sports as well as college & professional level sports.
And, no, "rules in sports" -- when viewed from a broader perspective -- are NOT formed merely to "structure...a style of play that the league FEELS will enhance the viewing experiencing, making the game more entertaining, thus more watched, thus increasing revenue."
Rules in EVERY level are either meant to...
...(a) place opponents are a more consistent "even playing field"
...(b) or are injected for reasons of safety
...(c) are in the more physical contact sports intended to pre-empt or negate contact escalation...
People view sports at every level -- and come to expect a certain level of fairness -- (a) above -- in professional sports as well.
For you to reduce it all to "entertainment" level would place the NFL, MLB, and NBA to the levels of "Big Time Wrestling" & the older roller derby leagues.
The best way to solve this problem is (a) to increase the cost of an infraction (e.g., 10 or 15 yds for motion or offside penalties), or (b) to send off for the rest of the game players who commit more than a certain number of infractions (if necessary, the team could be reduced to 10 men when the player is sent off).
Nope. Wrong again.
Physical escalation is against the rules because, aside from hockey fans, folks really don’t want their sporting even to turn into a brawl. If the fans did, like in hockey, then physical escalation would be allowed, why hockey is the only of the majors where throwing a punch isn’t an automatic ejection.
The cultural expectation is to be entertained.
Youth and college sports have their own sets of rules. Again generally geared towards entertainment, including emotional comforts (thus why the level of physical impact allowed generally goes down at every level of age).
A - you could delete most of the rules in most sports and teams would be on the exact same evenness of playing field. Again look at holding, if that rule goes away both sides can hold, playing field is no less even.
B - safety rules are, again, for the entertainment value. Having your star players out hurt is bad for the bottom line. Just look at how much concern any league has for retired players (none) to see their true opinion on safety.
C - nope, “contact escalation” is just plain not an issue
Breaking the rules doesn’t break fairness. It breaks the desire for how the game should work. Look at the way traveling is basically not called in the NBA, it’s in the book but somewhere during the Jordan era the league decided they just don’t care anymore so long as it’s broken on the way to an exciting dunk. Break the traveling rule in a boring way sure you’ll get the whistle, but on a cool run and jump to the basket it suddenly goes away. But it’s fair because they ignore the rule for both teams. And it keeps things exciting, which is what’s important.
I think that on the more physical penalties (ONLY), we need a basketball system imported into the NFL.
5 -- or 6 physically related penalties -- and you foul out of the game! This would at least cause coaches to take certain players out for a certain amount of the game.
OK, I wasn't talking about penalties UPON physical escalation; was talking about how the basic rules themselves are there to pre-empt or negate escalation from even occurring.
If a guy knows the guy is holding him is likely to be held accountable, he's less likely to either circumvent the rules as a fightback technique (or revenge) or whatever.
Your reductionistic superimposition as to the "why" of rules doesn't even address this component of all competition.
The mighty seahawks were out played most of the game by GB on their field. They arent a dynasty.
But again the reason sports don’t want it to escalate is because that’s not what the viewers want to see. Even in hockey, where many of the fans still love fighting, they got rid of the bench clearing brawls, because they were boring and stopped the game cold for 10 minutes. If the fans wanted it, and they felt it would result in star players getting injured and not playing, all the sports would allow fighting.
Not true again. For one thing just look at how often after a play where no flag was thrown the players players complain they were held, clearly they DON’T think the player is likely to be held accountable. And as for circumventing the rule, they kind of all do that. How often do we hear holding could be called on every play? So we know that both team are holding, circumventing the rule, the question is are they doing it in a way that should/ does draw the flag.
Because that component only exists in your head. Out here in reality escalation really is only an issue when it grinds the game to a halt.
If you look at college football rules & the NFL, they are not ALL that far apart.
You would have us believe that they are night & day. They aren't.
And those rules were LONG there -- well before college football had huge media contracts and huge crowd-swells.
IoW, those rules "predate" the entertainment medium as we now know it. Which means that these rules were (MOSTLY) put in place for reasons that predated entertainment as we know it.
Which then puts to lie your reductionism that rules were created out of thin air to accommodate ONLY entertainment value.
The other aspect of this, which I addressed two posts ago, is that BECAUSE all lower-level sports has rules that don't even "entertain" the entertainment (fan) component, people who watch professional sports EXPECT a similar framework of rules for professional sports as well.
And why is that?
Because...
...inherently we all want "justice"...(you can find this in one of C.S. Lewis' books)
...and inherently we all sin...we all exploit situations...we all look for both fair and unfair competitive advantages...we all flaunt whatever codes, rules, and laws are placed upon us -- just to varying degrees...
...and therefore, BECAUSE of this human condition...
...laws, codes & rules are needed to curb such impulses...
Your "fan" foundation philosophy as THE basis of professional sports rules totally negates the above...and therefore is 100% flawed.
Not completely valid.
The whole concussion monitoring movement in the NFL -- along with safety rules like "targeting" -- has impacted other professional sports as well.
You've had even some NHL players outright attacked -- and have lost their careers.
And it's not just the injuries itself.
The insurance industry has come alongside teams and said unless you want your rates to go up, we suggest you place certain safety measures in the very rules of the sport. That has been a secondary incentive for leagues to change some of these rules.
Actually there’s a lot of differences between the NFL and NCAA. Hash mark position, feet for reception, 2 minute warning, clock stoppages as a result of play, OT, motion before the snap, line ups... it’s a long list.
And college football was huge BEFORE the pros. For multiple decades, through actually multiple pro leagues. Pros bigger than college is actually a relatively recent development.
Nope they DEFINITELY don’t predate the entertainment medium. Because ALL forms of sport other than sandlot include some form of revenue from an audience, and you need to entertain that audience. Even flat floor roller derby has structured the rules to keep the game entertaining for the dozens of people in attendance.
Lower level sports are still entertaining people. Just not as many. And at their heart even sandlot games are about entertainment, it’s just that you’re only entertaining the participants. Behavior which makes it no fun to play kills the sport just as much as behavior that makes it no fun to watch.
This ain’t about justice. It’s about entertainment. That’s what sport are. That’s what they’ve always been. Since before there was such a thing as America. People want their sports to be entertaining, as participants and as watchers. And THAT is why EVERY SINGLE sport rule that has EVER EXISTED was written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.