Too Many Green Bay "Free Plays" Are Gifts from the Officials

[Jordysghost]

lets just face it Packers, Cowboys, and Patriots all get calls they shouldn't

Yea, like the Fail Mary! Those damn fudgies get all the calls.

[nfcnorthchamps25]

I was at the game Monday night and both of the 12 man on the field calls where Green Bay got free plays I probably would've blown dead. One of them was especially bad where pretty much no one was set but Rodgers and his center just went.

[Mothman]

That is really frustrating, but I wonder if it's a Green Bay issue or if the officials are doing a poor job of making the call league wide.

Regardless, hopefully it is fixed soon.

It's not a Green Bay issue, just an officiating issue. I saw Alex Smith get a free play in the same game (he threw an INT that didn't count). I see the same thing happen at times in other games, involving other teams. nevertheless, Rieux is right that, by rule, it shouldn't be allowed.

[Rieux]

It's not a Green Bay issue, just an officiating issue. I saw Alex Smith get a free play in the same game (he threw an INT that didn't count).

I appreciate the shout-out, but given that comment it's not clear that you understand (it really appears Jordy, here, still doesn't either) the actual problem with what happened to the Seahawks and Chiefs at Lambeau. It wasn't merely that they jumped offsides and gave Rodgers a free play. Under some circumstances—such as the ones you saw in which Smith got a free play!—that's entirely appropriate and ordinary.

The problem is that the Packers have now, three times in two weeks, been gifted with free plays on which one or more offensive linemen false-started. That did not happen on Kansas City's free play. (It didn't happen on a handful of other free plays that the Packers were correctly allowed in those two games, either.)

This is a specific rule that's supposed to apply in specific circumstances; it certainly does not apply just any time a defensive player jumps offside.

Dungy and Carroll both noticed, and called out, this problem the first time it happened. Then it happened two more times, a week later. For the same team. In the same stadium. It's hard for me to see how that problem is particularly susceptible to a "things are tough all over" defense.

(Arguably, from a Packers' perspective, the problem here (if there is one) is that Bakhtiari is a jumpy doof who insists on bouncing up, gesticulating at the guilty defender, and (I presume) hollering "He's offside! He's offside!" every time Rodgers fools a defender with the hard count. Mike McCarthy or James Campen might want to suggest that he stop doing that. On the other hand, if the referees are never going to apply this rule to the Packers, why bother?)

[Mothman]

I appreciate the shout-out, but given that comment it's not clear that you understand (it really appears Jordy, here, still doesn't either) the actual problem with what happened to the Seahawks and Chiefs at Lambeau. It wasn't merely that they jumped offsides and gave Rodgers a free play. Under some circumstances—such as the ones you saw in which Smith got a free play!—that's entirely appropriate and ordinary.

The problem is that the Packers have now, three times in two weeks, been gifted with free plays on which one or more offensive linemen false-started. That did not happen on Kansas City's free play. (It didn't happen on a handful of other free plays that the Packers were correctly allowed in those two games, either.)

This is a specific rule that's supposed to apply in specific circumstances; it certainly does not apply just any time a defensive player jumps offside.

Dungy and Carroll both noticed, and called out, this problem the first time it happened. Then it happened two more times, a week later. For the same team. In the same stadium. It's hard for me to see how that problem is particularly susceptible to a "things are tough all over" defense.

(Arguably, from a Packers' perspective, the problem here (if there is one) is that Bakhtiari is a jumpy doof who insists on bouncing up, gesticulating at the guilty defender, and (I presume) hollering "He's offside! He's offside!" every time Rodgers fools a defender with the hard count. Mike McCarthy or James Campen might want to suggest that he stop doing that. On the other hand, if the referees are never going to apply this rule to the Packers, why bother?)

Why indeed?

I did misunderstand you. Sorry about that! Thank you for the clarification.

That's what I get for reading and posting 5 minutes after waking up. I really should give my brain a little more time to get used to processing information in the morning.

I don't know if this is a Packer-specific problem or not but they are clearly benefitting from it and that needs to stop. The rule should be applied (regardless of which teams are involved).

[Jordysghost]

I appreciate the shout-out, but given that comment it's not clear that you understand (it really appears Jordy, here, still doesn't either) the actual problem with what happened to the Seahawks and Chiefs at Lambeau. It wasn't merely that they jumped offsides and gave Rodgers a free play. Under some circumstances—such as the ones you saw in which Smith got a free play!—that's entirely appropriate and ordinary.

The problem is that the Packers have now, three times in two weeks, been gifted with free plays on which one or more offensive linemen false-started. That did not happen on Kansas City's free play. (It didn't happen on a handful of other free plays that the Packers were correctly allowed in those two games, either.)

This is a specific rule that's supposed to apply in specific circumstances; it certainly does not apply just any time a defensive player jumps offside.

Dungy and Carroll both noticed, and called out, this problem the first time it happened. Then it happened two more times, a week later. For the same team. In the same stadium. It's hard for me to see how that problem is particularly susceptible to a "things are tough all over" defense.

(Arguably, from a Packers' perspective, the problem here (if there is one) is that Bakhtiari is a jumpy doof who insists on bouncing up, gesticulating at the guilty defender, and (I presume) hollering "He's offside! He's offside!" every time Rodgers fools a defender with the hard count. Mike McCarthy or James Campen might want to suggest that he stop doing that. On the other hand, if the referees are never going to apply this rule to the Packers, why bother?)

You seem a bit confused, and that is probably why you failed to refute anything from my last 5 posts.

I understand quite clearly the rule, and I agree that the refs should either call it like it says in the rulebook, or change the rule, in that we are in agreement.

The problem is that you are trying to spin this into some silly pro Packer conspiracy, look around you dude, most people dont realize that that is a rule, and that is because around the league it is almost NEVER called that way, that is the reason many people are having a hard time grasping this concept, and the reason my first reply was a little bit off base, is because this has been going on throughout the league for years and hasn't been called the way the rulebook says.

My point is, you have an agenda, and your little comment about the Packers 'Blatant holding everytime Rodgers scrambles' certainly backs this up. While this definitely needs to be discussed and addressed accordingly, it is hardly a single team specific issue.

[Rieux]

The problem is that you are trying to spin this into some silly pro Packer conspiracy,

Two weeks; two games; three missed-call plays; 130 yards (78 passing, 52 penalty) and 1 TD. All in favor of one team.

I don't know about "conspiracy," but that is an overwhelming benefit from an inexplicable refusal to apply a simple and (actually) rather well-known rule to a particular team.

look around you dude, most people dont realize that that is a rule

What in the world is that supposed to mean? Are you claiming that the three calls were missed because the officials don't know the rule? That's absurd—but if not that, then what relevance does your comment have to anything? The rule not being applied to the Packers is no less a problem just because (you claim) you were ignorant of the rule.

and that is because around the league it is almost NEVER called that way, that is the reason many people are having a hard time grasping this concept, and the reason my first reply was a little bit off base, is because this has been going on throughout the league for years and hasn't been called the way the rulebook says.

That's flatly ludicrous. Before the Green Bay-Seattle game I had never seen this rule misapplied. How do you think I knew it existed?

Of the group Pete Carroll, Tony Dungy, and yours truly, there are exactly zero genius experts. This is not an obscure issue. False Starts Stop Plays; what person who has watched any meaningful number of NFL games doesn't know that?

My point is, you have an agenda...

So do you. So what?

While this definitely needs to be discussed and addressed accordingly....

Well, that's a fine about-face from your earlier position. So much for "things are tough all over."

...it is hardly a single team specific issue.

Really? Can you actually find a single example of an offense other than the Packers' getting the improper advantage that I've shown they got three times in two weeks?

You claim "this has been going on throughout the league for years and hasn't been called the way the rulebook says." Show me that it's happened once.

[Rieux]

Hey, look what I found!

the reason my first reply was a little bit off base, is because this has been going on throughout the league for years and hasn't been called the way the rulebook says.

So I rewound my DVR copy of the Vikings-San Diego game from this past Sunday. With 9:55 to go in the first quarter, on what would have been the third play of the Vikings' second drive, a hard count by Teddy Bridgewater induced Chargers LDE Corey Liuget to jump into the neutral zone. Vikings RG Mike Harris and RT T.J. Clemmings then false-started, pointing at Liuget in Bakhtiari-like fashion.

Want to guess what happened next? I'm sure the suspense is killing you.

That's right: the officials blew their whistles, stopping the play. Just like the rulebook requires them to. The Vikings were denied the opportunity to run a free play on which Bridgewater could have thrown a high-risk/high-reward pass without worrying about an interception, or even an incompletion. The Vikes were awarded a five-yard penalty on Liuget, though. And every bit of the officials' conduct was correct.

So whereas you complain that the misapplication of the rule in question "has been going on throughout the league for years and hasn't been called the way the rulebook says," it took me all of three minutes to find an example of exactly the opposite.

And, though it may be impolitic of me to point out, the home team that was denied a free play in this case (by the rule being applied properly) was... not the Packers.

[Mothman]

Hey, look what I found!
So I rewound my DVR copy of the Vikings-San Diego game from this past Sunday. With 9:55 to go in the first quarter, on what would have been the third play of the Vikings' second drive, a hard count by Teddy Bridgewater induced Chargers LDE Corey Liuget to jump into the neutral zone. Vikings RG Mike Harris and RT T.J. Clemmings then false-started, pointing at Liuget in Bakhtiari-like fashion.

Want to guess what happened next? I'm sure the suspense is killing you.

That's right: the officials blew their whistles, stopping the play. Just like the rulebook requires them to. The Vikings were denied the opportunity to run a free play on which Bridgewater could have thrown a high-risk/high-reward pass without worrying about an interception, or even an incompletion. The Vikes were awarded a five-yard penalty on Liuget, though. And every bit of the officials' conduct was correct.

So whereas you complain that the misapplication of the rule in question "has been going on throughout the league for years and hasn't been called the way the rulebook says," it took me all of three minutes to find an example of exactly the opposite.

And, though it may be impolitic of me to point out, the home team that was denied a free play in this case (by the rule being applied properly) was... not the Packers.

It might be instructive to see if the officiating crews that made the calls that favored the Packers have called that penalty the same way in other games. I don't know if anybody has the time/ability to do that but it could be interesting.

[Rieux]

Found another one...

This past Sunday, Oakland at Cleveland, 4th Quarter, 8:00 to go, Browns have 2nd and 2 from the Raiders' 36 yard line. Josh McCown, in the shotgun, employs a hard count and induces Oakland ROLB Aldon Smith to jump offsides. Cleveland LT Joe Thomas bounces up, pointing at Smith. (What is with these O-Linemen and all this silly pointing?) The Browns attempt to snap the ball and run a play, but—wonder of wonders!—the officials blow it dead. Smith is called for the neutral zone infraction, 5 yards, which results in a Cleveland first down—but not the passing touchdown or deep pass-interference penalty that a "free play" could have yielded.

Admittedly this one took a bit more than three minutes and required me to use GamePass—but I'm still only two non-Packer games into 2015 Week 3. Does anyone really still think it's credible that "around the league it is almost NEVER called that way"? That "this has been going on throughout the league for years and hasn't been called the way the rulebook says"? "Going on," that is, outside of Wisconsin?

[Rieux]

It might be instructive to see if the officiating crews that made the calls that favored the Packers have called that penalty the same way in other games. I don't know if anybody has the time/ability to do that but it could be interesting.

That is indeed an interesting question. Maybe this evening I'll give your idea a shot.

I have a hard time believing, though, that the missed calls in Lambeau were the result of the officials seriously not knowing this rule.

[Mothman]

That is indeed an interesting question. Maybe this evening I'll give your idea a shot.

I have a hard time believing, though, that the missed calls in Lambeau were the result of the officials seriously not knowing this rule.

Oh, I'm not wondering if they know it, just how often they don't apply it and if this is a something that has benefitted teams other than Green Bay.

[Jordysghost]

That is indeed an interesting question. Maybe this evening I'll give your idea a shot.

I have a hard time believing, though, that the missed calls in Lambeau were the result of the officials seriously not knowing this rule.

I wasn't asserting that the call was 'never' called correctly, only that it is inconsistent throughout the NFL, and that is true, it is. Cherry picking calls from a 2 week sample size means nothing.

Your obscenely small sample size only proves what your childish comments about how the Packers get away with 'blatant holding every time Rodgers scrambles' already suggests, that you are just a fan with an agenda trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill to discredit a rivals accomplishments.

If you truly are hell bent on spinning this into some pro Packer conspiracy, which it appears you are then you need to both examine the calls and non calls over a larger sample size, prefferably something over two weeks, and also examine a larger number of franchises, I'd be interested to see how many other teams are benefitting from these 'gifts from the officials' along with the Packers.

Until then, your just another fan cherry picking calls, on one of the many inconsistently called rules in the league and trying to spin in it to some conspiracy theory about a rival team.

BTW, if you want to get into 'gifts from the officials' then I might as well just bring up the NFL's leniency on the Minnesota Vikings after Brad Childress admitted to the league doing something that by rule would consist of tampering, no ifs, ands, or buts. But I suspect you have no interest in 'gifts from the officials' unless it involves them being in the favor Green Bay.

[Mothman]

Ahem...

Please respond to the post, do not attack the poster.

[Jordysghost]

Ahem...

Please respond to the post, do not attack the poster.

While I will definitely be more polite from now on, and Ill even edit my post, I dont think anything I said could really be considered 'attacking the poster' I apologize if you disagree and I will conduct myself in a more measured fashion.