Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Gift Of The 2003 Tigers

Why The New NFL Umpire Rule Was Implemented? Lawyers And General Incompetence

GREEN BAY WI - AUGUST 26: Jermichael Finley #88 of the Green Bay Packers signals along with a referee a touchdown against the Indianapolis Colts during a preseason game at Lambeau Field on August 26 2010 in Green Bay Wisconsin. (Photo by Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images)

Mike Florio, a former lawyer turned Internet football gossip whore, has a good theory as to why the NFL shoved this moronic umpire position change rule down the throats of NFL teams:

The abrupt change in the rules has the feel of a decision that was initiated and pushed by lawyers hoping to avoid potential liability. Though we believe that the decision was motivated in part by a genuine desire to keep the umpires safe after several injuries in 2009, we've got a feeling based on the broader facts and circumstances that someone with a law degree made a compelling case for the potentially disastrous legal and P.R. consequences that would result if the league had failed to rescue its assortment of middle-aged men from a blender full of barbed wire.

For now, we've got no smoking gun to support our theory. Still, the fact that the league has rammed into place without sufficient consideration of its competitive impact a rule that has drawn sharp criticism from teams that use no-huddle offenses suggests that either the football people badly missed on this one -- or that they had no real say in it.

The injury litigation angle makes sense, but I disagree when Florio suggests that 'football people' might not have had a say. They did have say, in the form of the NFL's Competition Committee. On that committee are 'football people' like Titans coach Jeff Fisher and Colts president Bill Polian. 'Football people' on that committee voted for this dumb rule change without properly vetting it.

In short, they 'badly missed on this one.'

Now, after seeing the abject disaster the rule is in preseason, they are trying to back track. Sorry, but that won't work.

Star-divide

If the Competition Committee was pressured by owners to push the rule through without properly weighing the cons, then that would be a rather significant revelation. Owners aren't supposed to do that kind of stuff. If they did, any sensible, honorable person on that committee should have told the owners to screw off.

Interestingly, the NFL experimented with moving the umpire nine years ago, and the results were not desirable. It's likely the 'football people' remember this experiment. If they did, and voted for this dumb change anyway, it simply reinforces the perception of ineptness on the part of the NFL's Competition Committee.

Look, there's plenty of blame to go around here. The owners were clueless to push this rule into 'law' without taking into account the impact it would have on the game. The Competition Committee (and Bill Polian) look weak and useless in recommending this rule when they should have known full and well that it would kill no-huddle offenses (the very thing many fans look forward to seeing on Sundays). Like any other massive corporate entity that screws up royally, the whole mess is a cluster f*ck of almost farcical proportions. And since everyone is to blame, there is now a massive flurry of activity to 'get this thing right' before the games start to actually count.

Obviously, a better way to handle this would have been to experiment this preseason, but not implement for the regular season. Use the whole year to analyze the pros and cons, and then next season possibly implement with some changes.

That is, if there is even a 'next season,' what with the labor issues and all.

In the end, what gets hurt is the game itself along with the fans who pay good money to see that game. We have to deal with higher prices for a weaker product. I don't know about you, but I do not intend to shell out hundreds of dollars just to watch some slow, fat, old umpire do more to slow down the Colts no-huddle offense than the opposing defense can.

Comment 26 comments  |  2 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

rec'd for

“the whole mess is a cluster f*ck of almost farcical proportions.”

"We ARE going to our own private island, Chris: it's called the State Fucking Fair!"

by naptown_ninja on Sep 1, 2010 11:18 AM EDT reply actions  

BBS' greatest asset

His ability to keep perspective and rationally respond to change.

by kasey_junk on Sep 1, 2010 11:32 AM EDT reply actions  

All kidding aside

The hyperbole about this destroying the no huddle offense is pretty out there. The vast majority of the time the Colts run a no huddle offense they use most of the play clock and will not be impacted by this.

There are 3 situations where this new rule will cause issue:
1. Spiking the ball to stop the clock.
2. Trying to get a play off so a previous play could not be reviewed (the first flag on the Colts at Green Bay was precisely this).
3. Trying to get a play off so that you catch a defense substituting.

Because they are not using this new formation in the final 2 minutes the vast majority of item 1 above will not be impacted. Item 3 is easily remedied by making too many players on the field take precedence over illegal snap. This leaves item 2, which if that is all we are complaining about, it’s time to man up and deal.

Finally, I think an even simpler solution is that they change the penalty. The penalty should not be for snapping the ball before the referree is set. It should be for running into the referree before he is set. If an offense wants to run a play with an official in their back field let them. I’m sure some crafty OC will take advantage of this at some point, but all rules have unintended consequences.

by kasey_junk on Sep 1, 2010 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions   4 recs

Rec'd and agreed

I argued this in another post – it is not the no-huddle offense that would be impacted so much as hurry-up plays… which are used by MANY teams – not just the Colts – in the situations you list above. In fact, now that savvy defenses are disguising their coverages, we more often see Peyton letting the clock go to 2 or 3 seconds before calling for the snap. I can think of one instance last year that was an exception (and I’m sure commenters will remind me of others) – against Houston he initiated the first series with a massive hurry-up offense all the way down the field… but this is not norm.

As for situation #3, it just so happens that Peyton is more aware than most QBs (though Brady is very good at this as well), but that’s no fault of his or the Colts.

Initially, I like your idea of giving 12 men precedence, though that may be difficult to reconcile when the defense knows the ball shouldn’t be snapped before the back ump is out of harm’s way. Under that rule, you can’t really tell how long the defense has before they have to be ready.

Too bad we won’t get to see Peyton test out the tweaks they are implementing tomorrow night.

How can you not love a team that does this?

by LovinBlue on Sep 1, 2010 12:11 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

Rec'd for...

“man up and deal”. Well put.

Another great big smiley-face for tactfully referring to what amounts to paranoia and fear-mongering as ‘hyperbole’ (sweet word!). Good suggestion on the penalty, too.

"If I ever was myself, I wasn't that night"

by Via_Chicago on Sep 1, 2010 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions  

Rest easy, Chicken Littles of Coltdom,

the smartest QB and most talented offense in football will ADAPT (yikes!!) and figure this out. And even after the Anti-Peyton Rule is in place (undoubetly what it will be known as, unfortunately), they will still be the best at the hurry-up.

"If I ever was myself, I wasn't that night"

by Via_Chicago on Sep 1, 2010 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions  

^ "undoubtedly"

"If I ever was myself, I wasn't that night"

by Via_Chicago on Sep 1, 2010 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions  

Not so fast...

I think you’re missing a number 4

 #4 Forcing the defense to commit to an alignment while still leaving enough Play Clock to change the play.
 
That’s the one I haven’t seen mentioned in all the talk… all the arguing… all the gnashing of teeth… about this new rule. And it’s the one I’m (and it wouldn’t surprise me to find out Peyton is too) most worried about. If it takes 3-5 more seconds for the Umpire to get into position, that’s 3-5 seconds the defensive doesn’t have to commit; no matter what gyrations Peyton is going through. I think most of you who aren’t concerned about this rule have overlooked this very important aspect of the Colts’ hurry up.
 
Your suggestion for a 12-man penalty having precedence over illegal snap sounds good at first, but how do you penalize a defense for having too many men on the field at the time of the snap when the snap shouldn’t have been made until the Umpire was in position? It appears you haven’t thought this through.
 
Also, I disagree whole-heartly with your suggestion that an offense be allowed to snap prior to the Umpire being set. With an Umpire with his back to the play and unable to monitor for holding, the offense would have a huge advantage. Not good.

Careful what you wish for... "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald Ford, 38th US president

by teej813 on Sep 1, 2010 1:41 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

I did think of these things
  1. may or may not be an issue. Teams could already avoid committing to an alignment before. In fact it has been hugely popular for teams not to commit to an alignment by moving guys around. What they do have to commit to is a group of players which doesn’t change based on my 12 man suggestion.

The 12 man suggestion quite simply means that all substitutions have to be done by the ball is set, not by the time the ball is snapped, a slight tweak to allow for this rule. You would still have to allow defenses time to substitute if the offense did.

As for an umpire with his back to the play. I never invisioned this. I envisioned them back pedaling to their position (as they were doing the other night).

by kasey_junk on Sep 1, 2010 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, teams have learned to wait until the last second before committing to a defensive alignment.

But they risk Peyton calling for the quick snap. Frankly, that’s when a quick snap is most effective. And that’s precisely what this new rule makes illegal.

Back to the line or back-pedaling… either way, he’s not in position to call holding.

This new rule will definitely change how the game is played. And that’s a shame, because Peyton taught us all how exciting and effective the hurry up can be… to the point that other teams are emulating it. That stops now.

Careful what you wish for... "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald Ford, 38th US president

by teej813 on Sep 1, 2010 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

we shall see

I don’t think it will impact nearly as much as you think. I think most people have blown it out of proportion because of three reasons:
1. They equate the no-huddle with the hurry up. The Colts very rarely run the hurry up outside of the 2 minute drill. I remember them doing it early against Houston last year, and when they were down late against the Pats. The no huddle on the other hand they run alot. This won’t be impacted.
2. They think that it is much harder to move 6 yards than it is to move 5.
3. Peyton Manning played the refs (and us) to make a point during the Green Bay game.

As for not being in position to call holding, if there is a problem with this in the new position it comes from the new position, not from moving to get there. I sort of expected the new position to give them a better view on holding calls, not a worse one.

As far as I can tell there is no such thing as holding in the NFL anymore anyway.

by kasey_junk on Sep 1, 2010 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions  

Yes, we'll see

As far as I can tell there is no such thing as holding in the NFL anymore anyway.

We sure agree on this! I get frustrated watching Freeney get mauled on every play.

And I hope you’re right about it becoming a non-issue. But i still disagree about it not being an issue most of the time.

While i agree that Peyton doesn’t run the hurry up that often, he does rely on the threat of hiking the ball to force the defense to reveal its coverage on almost every play.

As long as Peyton has time to force the defense to reveal its coverage and still have enough play clock to change the play when appropriate, the new rule won’t be a big deal.

But I’m concern the delay could mean Peyton doesn’t have time to audible out of a bad play and has to waste a timeout, or worse, run a bad play.

Careful what you wish for... "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have." Gerald Ford, 38th US president

by teej813 on Sep 1, 2010 3:44 PM EDT up reply actions  

Rec'd for getting the point.

Anonymity breeds inhumanity. In simpler terms, don't be a troll.

by linkish on Sep 2, 2010 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions  

there's 1 more

4. a team is trying to run a play before the clock expires.

also, they may possibly have no timeouts…..and be losing.

by $tinfoot on Sep 1, 2010 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions  

i just recalled

they move the umpire to the defensive side of the ball in the final 2 minutes of each 1/2. but, this could still have an effect outside of 2 minutes.

by $tinfoot on Sep 1, 2010 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions  

very true. it's going to take longer to spike the ball the stop the clock

which already seems to take an excruciatingly long time!

"To be a great football coach, you have to be smart enough to do it well, and dumb enough to think it's important." -- Can't remember whom I am paraphrasing.

by zherebyonki on Sep 2, 2010 1:16 AM EDT up reply actions  

yeah, but

what i’m saying is, sometimes teams are genuinely in a hurry and don’t want to spike the ball….they are just in a hurry and want to run a play as said team might be losing by 14 points and need to go down and score, and then hopefully get the ball back again.

by $tinfoot on Sep 2, 2010 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions  

Great article

and another example of Polian’s boneheadedness. He should never have voted for this rule, especially considering his team is the one who makes the most use out of the hurry-up, no-huddle offense.

by Ayrshire on Sep 1, 2010 11:58 AM EDT reply actions  

Vote for best tease line...

“Mike Florio, a former lawyer turned Internet football gossip whore…”

Definately made me read on. Then I saw this was just this hour’s installment of ‘why the ref rule makes me cry’. Doh!

"If I ever was myself, I wasn't that night"

by Via_Chicago on Sep 1, 2010 1:00 PM EDT reply actions  

While on that topic: I'm amused at how Florio uses the royal "we" in his piece.

Or perhaps I should say “We are amused at how Florio…”

------

"How can a pickup truck contain enough mass to unfold into a towering machine? I say if Ringling Brothers can get 15 clowns into a Volkswagen, anything is possible."

Roger Ebert, Transformers review.

by E.M.H. on Sep 1, 2010 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions  

I honestly don't think it will wind up being a problem

If we see a single regular-season illegal snap penalty I’ll eat my hat. Even if one is committed, the refs will be too shy to actually call it, because they know illegal snaps are THEIR problem, not the players’.

by slash196 on Sep 1, 2010 1:59 PM EDT reply actions  

Mmmmm, hhhhaaat.

Given how theatrical PM was the other night & purposefully getting penalties to make his point, it seems his strategy is to personally make/keep this a front-burner issue for the media and bloggosphere to talk about. If an early season game is in the bag and this ref issue needs another spark to keep it alive, I wouldn’t put it past him to eat a penalty or two.

Of course, then drive down the field to score.

"If I ever was myself, I wasn't that night"

by Via_Chicago on Sep 1, 2010 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions  

Bull!! One GM or Teams Vote won't change Rule.

Its been written and Fans told its here to stay just time and adjustments will hopefully improve this rule. Seems to do very little to make the game 1) more fluent for more Ads 2) and only makes the game less exciting.

by ndbreeze on Sep 1, 2010 2:01 PM EDT reply actions  

The Umps probably could not sue the NFL if injured

As employees of the NFL whatever worker’s compensation scheme covers them will be their exclusive remedy in the event of an on-the-job injury. I think the whole “potential litigation” theory is a load of B.S. More likely, this is an extension of the NFL’s recent “concussions are the devil” campaign broadened to include the officials (since they had three concussions last year.)

"Hey, quit callin' the f@&%in' plays, alright?...When we call pass plays, BLOCK!" - #18

by EVLGNUS on Sep 1, 2010 6:35 PM EDT reply actions  

programming note

when should we expect the post explaining how by use of the adjectives old, slow and fat you were not in fact bashing umpires?

by Lucky Horseshoe on Sep 1, 2010 7:53 PM EDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Indianapolis Colts, 2006 NFL Champions!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Stats Prove It: Brady Is Now a Choker

Recent FanPosts

Small
Two more colts assistants
Small
Co-existence
Img_0497-comp_small
Colts Mock Draft
Small
Tony Ugoh
Small
Jim Irsay on Peyton Manning Last Week
Small
next years' starting lineup
Small
More Clarity on Peyton's Injury
Small
Colts Mock 1.0
Indianapolis-colts_small
Indianapolis Colts 2012 NFL Draft Mock W/ TRADE SCENARIO
Small
Mock Draft 5.0

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Head Writer, Editor-In-Chief

Stampedeblue_small Brad Wells

Mgrex03_avatar_small mgrex03

Contributing Writers

Colts_small emiller17

Photo_small nopuntintended

Sbmanning_small Stew Blake