Dungy & Martz...Cry Babies!!!!

Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
268
Reaction score
10
Points
18
Age
55
Location
Northern VA
Illegal contact rule is drawing scrutiny
By Jim Thomas
Of the Post-Dispatch
03/28/2004


The NFL's competition committee met in late February in Indianapolis and for nine days in Naples, Fla., this month and discussed a wide range of issues and potential rules changes.

It's all done in preparation for the NFL owners meetings this week in Palm Beach, Fla. One of the most interesting things to come out of those sessions is that illegal contact on passing plays will be a point of emphasis by officials this season.

What this means, in theory, is that illegal contact will be more closely called and the rule more strictly interpreted. When NFL officiating crews make their usual rounds in training camp this summer, they will explain to coaches and players what is and what is not permissible. According to Atlanta general manager Rick McKay, it probably means there will be more penalties for illegal contact called early in the season.

By league rule, only incidental contact is allowed once the receiver is more than 5 yards down the field. The committee, in a report it will make to league owners Monday, has determined that enforcement has not been consistent with the intent of the rule. In other words, defensive backs and linebackers have been mauling receivers.

When coach Mike Martz raised this issue after the Rams' Super Bowl loss to New England, it was perceived by some as the whining of a losing coach - a maverick losing coach, at that. But when the Patriots mugged Indianapolis receivers in the AFC title game last season, Colts coach Tony Dungy made the same complaints.
Dungy is chairman of the coaches subcommittee of the competition committee. He received an ally on the topic this offseason when Martz was added to the subcommittee.
Surely, Martz made a point or two about illegal contact during those meetings in Indy and Naples, right?

"No comment," Martz said, tongue in cheek.

Obviously, Martz is very much in favor of any move to crack down on illegal contact. For years, he's been watching Isaac Bruce getting his jersey grabbed, or Marshall Faulk get bear-hugged by linebackers.

"I think it's very important," Martz said. "I think the game has been defined differently in the past few years in terms of what you're allowed to do in the secondary, than what it was prior to that."

There appears to be sufficient league-wide sentiment in that regard. Particularly since passing yards per game declined to 200.4 yards per team in 2003, the lowest level in 11 years.

Martz is a nonvoting member of the committee, but he is very much in favor of proposals to install the current instant replay system on a permanent basis and to make choreographed end zone celebrations subject to a 15-yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.

"Any way we can get instant replay on a permanent basis, I'm all for it," Martz said. "Now, if we want to tweak it just a little bit as the years go by, I think that's fine.

"But I think it's been refined enough to the point where we all understand it. It's become just a part of the game at this point. It's been very, very helpful in terms of correcting some of the things that may have gone uncorrected" before.

As for choreographed celebrations, Martz said, "Any celebration designed for anything other than just the emotion of the moment is wrong. I understand why people did not like the (the Rams') Bob 'n Weave, because it was deemed to be kind of an in-your-face deal. It certainly was never meant that way by the guys doing it.

"But I just feel like a player has to understand that once he gets in the end zone, there's 10 other guys that helped get him there. And to bring attention to yourself is somehow inherently wrong. That's how I feel about it.

"Now if a guy wants to do a Lambeau Leap, I could care less. But to stand there, and go through the gyrations, and pull the pen out, and pull the sign out, somehow it's not right. ... You've got to keep the integrity of the game."


I will save you all from my tyrate...for now but all I can think of is...


:cuss:

Source.



Edit: fixed link
 
Bunch of wimps still trying to turn the NFL in to a "Touch Football" league.

I think most fans of football who never played the game want to see it that way.

Personally, I like the smash mouth style. This yrs SB had all the elements a football game could offer, aside from the Marquis Players list. If a team is getting beaten in one way, they need to adjust. The Panthers did an incredible job of adjusting and should be viewed as a model for the Rams and Colts as to how to adapt to what is happening on the field. They forced the Pats to back off and nearly won the game.

I am very tired of people complaining about the Pats being dirty or cheaters, and unfortunately this is the way the league is moving now. I for one, don't want to see 99 point games week in and week out. That's what arena football is for. I'm with you on this one BigDick!
 
****ing bull. Martz and Duny hmm...two coaches bitching piss and moaning. They both lost titles to the Patriots. Hmm....interesting is it not? So now you cant bear hug in football? Than jesus, maybe anytime any NFL linebacker make s atackle he should apoligize and ask to have a cup of tea after such violent collisions?! Seriously...I think so manyt NFL players are just whinging due to losing. Is it not funny its teams with cover boys? The Panthers or Patriots never bitched during the game on how physical they were to one another.

However, the losers had one of their WR talk **** saying how he was illegaly handled. Yet another loser complains. Why cant these bitches just admit defeat and move the hell on?! Gosh...
 
BigDickSeymour said:
As for choreographed celebrations, Martz said, "Any celebration designed for anything other than just the emotion of the moment is wrong. I understand why people did not like the (the Rams') Bob 'n Weave, because it was deemed to be kind of an in-your-face deal.

It certainly was never meant that way by the guys doing it.

Nice double standard there Martz. When it's choreographed it's wrong, unless it is my team, then they were just celebrating.

Martz and Dung-y's remarks look like sour grapes to anyone else. Get over it. Do you have football players -- or not? You would never see a HOCKEY coach standing up and saying the other team was, "TOO ROUGH."
 
HAHA:) , I'm trying read between the lines here and what I see are coaches of the two teams that rely on finesse the most. Martz cant coach any other way and Dungy... well you gotta play to your strengths I guess.
The Rams should replace the horns on their helmet with a pic of Kurt Warners wife, no one will touch that. And the Colts should use doilies or something. Maybe just change their name to the Barbies!
:) I cant wait for September.
 
I am sure had the Colts and Rams won those games, there would be no whining of any sort. People these days.
 
I always knew that Martz was a legend in his own mind, but I used to think that Dungy had a clue. Maybe I was wrong.

In my opinion, the Colts and Rams should renamed to the Horseys and the Sheep.

:donkeys:
________
vaporite solo
 
Lucky for us we get to play both teams this year and send their whiney asses a message, Don't play with the big boys if you are afraid to get hurt.:grrr: :bang:
 
If they DO call these 'illegal contacts' more often, Ty Law's value just went down.
 
BB's not happy about this. This is from Wednesday's Herald:

It's safe to say Belichick despises the league's new ``point of emphasis'' on calling the ``illegal chuck'' rule, and Belichick expressed that feeling in meetings with his fellow coaches. Playing physical with receivers has been a big part of the Pats' success, and it's probably no coincidence that Rams coach Mike Martz and Colts coach Tony Dungy are members of the competition committee that recommended the emphasis.

Belichick doesn't know how back judges who line up 25-30 yards down the field can accurately determine whether contact occurs in the legal 5-yard box. When asked about it, he shook his head with a look of disgust.

``I don't really understand what we're trying to do,'' Belichick said. ``The language in the rules hasn't changed, but something else has. I'm not really sure what that is. . . . Was there contact at six (yards) or five? How can (the official) tell? Sometimes it did happen at six, I'll give you that. But he still has the call. Nothing has changed. A guy is going to see it better than last year? Great. I just don't really see it.''

To Belichick, it's another case of cracking down on defenses while allowing offenses to do as they please. ``Every year they liberalize offensive holding,'' he said. ``That's been liberalized for the last 20 years.''
 
To Belichick, it's another case of cracking down on defenses while allowing offenses to do as they please. ``Every year they liberalize offensive holding,'' he said. ``That's been liberalized for the last 20 years.''

This is exactly what the league wants. Wide open offense and handcuffed defense. That is not football and I will not be so likely to be a fan of a "Free Kick" league.

I just don't understand this crap, it's the winey coaches and owners doing this. Not the players or commisioners office. What a load of crap!
 
runnerone said:
This is exactly what the league wants. Wide open offense and handcuffed defense. That is not football and I will not be so likely to be a fan of a "Free Kick" league.

I just don't understand this crap, it's the winey coaches and owners doing this. Not the players or commisioners office. What a load of crap!

That's exactly the problem here. Both the Rams and Colts success is predicated on offense. There's a pretty serious conflict of interest here when they're both on the rules comittee. It's in their best interest to suggest rule changes which open up offense. I wonder if they'd be pushing this if their teams were built around defense.
 
What I am wondering this morning (I was thinking about starting a thread asking this question but this thread seems appropriate):

should the Patriots move up to draft one (or even two) of those stud wide receivers?

I realize they won't do this, but it would be really interesting if they did. I personally would hate watching the Patriots beat the Colts 65-50 or whatever, but it would be an interesting response to this new rule interpretation.

I see people sometimes say how they hate Tom Brady's game, because they don't like the "dink and dunk" (I don't see Patriots fans say this, but I see this comment on rival teams message boards occasionally). I have always thought that this was an odd comment, because to me, if you like football, you like screen passes as much as you like slant patterns (or whatever). It's all just a tactic within a strategy. So I suppose if the Patriots were to decide to exploit this new rule interpretation by becoming more of a downfield passing game, and it worked, I would be okay with that. I dunno.

I suppose also they would have to beef up their offensive line to get Brady more protection, and maybe trade to get Bledsoe back. :)

Anyway, I guess my real question is: how should the Patriots respond to this change, if they should respond at all?
 
thomas144 said:
I suppose also they would have to beef up their offensive line to get Brady more protection, and maybe trade to get Bledsoe back. :)


Thomas you've just exposed yourself as a closet Bledsoe/Bills supporter. The O line give Brady plenty of protection, and a smiley won't mask your belief that Bledsoe is a better QB than Brady. Bledsoe won't make it through this yr as a starter, get used to it!
 
runnerone said:
Thomas you've just exposed yourself as a closet Bledsoe/Bills supporter. The O line give Brady plenty of protection, and a smiley won't mask your belief that Bledsoe is a better QB than Brady. Bledsoe won't make it through this yr as a starter, get used to it!

no, sorry, I really hate Bledsoe. The smiley means I am joking.

you guys, so many shibboleths!
 
Brady is a noodle-arm loser and couldn't even hold Bledsoe's jock :p
 
Good god, the Patriots skitterbug WRs will benefit from this as much as anyone.

I've always thought the illigal touching rule was an odd one, actually. Say you're a linebacker, and a RB takes a fake handoff and comes through the line - he's heading into a pattern, surely, when he finishes selling the fake. Why shouldn't you be able to tackle him? "Yup, he fooled me. I thought he had the ball, and I plastered him."

Willie McGinest in the Rams SuperBowl, for example. That was a play action pass - the fake was to Faulk. Why shouldn't Willie be able to just floor him? You fake the hand off, you take the risk that the defense buys it.
 
Oedipus Tex said:
Good god, the Patriots skitterbug WRs will benefit from this as much as anyone.

I've always thought the illigal touching rule was an odd one, actually. Say you're a linebacker, and a RB takes a fake handoff and comes through the line - he's heading into a pattern, surely, when he finishes selling the fake. Why shouldn't you be able to tackle him? "Yup, he fooled me. I thought he had the ball, and I plastered him."

Willie McGinest in the Rams SuperBowl, for example. That was a play action pass - the fake was to Faulk. Why shouldn't Willie be able to just floor him? You fake the hand off, you take the risk that the defense buys it.

I've always had this same thought. But I guess it would fall under the rule of "common sense" from the ref's point of view. There is some judgement involved. For example, does the runner continue to "sell" the run after he goes through the line? If yes, I'd think he could get hit. Also keep in mind, if the LB is within 5 yds of the line, the back can get hit even if its obviously a pass, as long as he's not being held or the ball is in the air headed in the back's direction.

In the Willie-Faulk case, the replay shows that even though it was play action, it was pretty obvious that Faulk didn't have the ball when Willie started holding him. Also, Willie was making no attempt to tackle Faulk, he just gave a bear hug.
 
thomas144 said:
you guys, so many shibboleths!

Interesting word, shibboleth. You defy comprehension. Just when I am ready to declare you the next batman -- a fascinating example of the Internet giving equal voice to opinion without prejudice and simultaneously making an argument for prejudice -- you come up with something like "shibboleth" and I can't get a read on who you are.


:huh:
 
bideau said:

In the Willie-Faulk case, the replay shows that even though it was play action, it was pretty obvious that Faulk didn't have the ball when Willie started holding him. Also, Willie was making no attempt to tackle Faulk, he just gave a bear hug.

It's an interesting point. I think in general you have to put the burden on the defender in this case to only tackle the ballcarrier (I'm actually surprised I never thought about this before). Otherwise you would have virtually every defensive player tackling every potential ball carrier all the time. To take it to an extreme, otherwise you could never call clipping because every blocker could say that he was confused by the moves of the defensive player being blocked.

There are actually a number of rules like that in football that I have always thought were too artificial to enforce reliably, but because this is the off-season, it's a little hard for me to remember what they are.

I've always been unclear on how it is that defensive back can tackle a receiver in such a way that it will cause them not to catch the ball. If the receiver doesn't have possession, how can you be allowed to tackle him? That's the sort of artifical rule I guess I am thinking of.
 
Back
Top