|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
This has been bugging me for a while...
If a defensive player jumps into the neutral-zone and the offensive lineman flinches, it's a penalty.
If the ball isn't snapped and no offensive lineman flinches, the defensive player has every right to get back on-sides before the ball is snapped.
In almost every game now-a-days I see where the QB gives a hard-count, a defensive lineman flinches or steps into the neutral zone, and some trained offensive lineman immediately stands up and starts waiving his damned arms at the defensive player to get a penalty called...
And it works every damned time. 
The NBA has adopted an anti-flopping program. I sure as Hell would love for these offensive linemen to start getting called when they are essentially faking a movement. I just saw this happen in the Packers game. There was no WAY the offensive lineman flinched. He just stepped backwards and pointed right at the DT like he'd flicked a booger on him.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
I've only seen it called on the OL a couple times and it was when the OL was actually several seconds late in moving... as long as the OL guy moves while the DL is still in the neutral zone, it's on the DL... No matter how obvious it is that it wasn't a flinch reaction..
However, I agree with your premise... the alternative is to just make it a penalty immediately if the DL breaks the neutral zone regardless of what the OL guy does....
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
The rulebook states that its a penalty on the defense to enter the neutral zone in an attempt to induce a false start by an offensive player.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
The rulebook states that its a penalty on the defense to enter the neutral zone in an attempt to induce a false start by an offensive player.
Which is very subjective and requires the ref to judge WHY the DL twitched/jumped..... so the OL is exploiting the rule and has been trained to stand up as soon as any DL crosses the line...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Then I'm misunderstanding the intent of Toad's post.
But I see no problem with it being a penalty on the defense to attempt to induce an offensive player to false start by jumping inches in front of his face.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
The rulebook states that its a penalty on the defense to enter the neutral zone in an attempt to induce a false start by an offensive player.
That's based on intent.
My example stated that the defensive players were drawn to jump by the hard-count of the QB. That isn't intended to get the offensive linemen to false-start.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Well considering that its a penalty to enter the neutral zone prior to the snap regardless, I don't have a problem with it regardless of intent.
I'm quite confident that you can come up with way more egregious things to complain about than this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Sure I can, but this is one that has been sticking in my craw lately.
If a defender tries to get an offensive lineman to jump, he should be penalized. That's why the rule was put in to begin with.
If a defender is induced into jumping by a hard-count, and that in turn causes the lineman to jump, he should be penalized.
However, if a defender is induced into jumping, he has every right to get back on-sides. I hate, HATE the fact that these lineman are getting away with faking their flinches.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
The offensive lineman should never be penalized for the defensive player entering the neutral zone, regardless of why the defensive player is in the neutral zone, by virtue of the fact that the defensive player is not permitted to enter the neutral zone in the first place.
You want to add even more judgment-based calls by the refs? You're nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Agreed, the offensive player shouldn't be penalized if a defender enters the neutral zone.
However, the defender has every right to get back on sides. If the offensive player fakes movement for the sole intent of trying to draw a penalty, he should absolutely be penalized for committing a false-start.
It's been called this year, though not nearly enough for me, obviously. 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
by virtue of the fact that the defensive player is not permitted to enter the neutral zone in the first place.
Am I missing something? As long as the defender does not create a situation where they are unabated to the QB, or as long as an offensive player doesn't move, or as long as the ball isn't snapped while the defender is in the neutral zone, they are allowed to get back.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Quote:
by virtue of the fact that the defensive player is not permitted to enter the neutral zone in the first place.
Am I missing something? As long as the defender does not create a situation where they are unabated to the QB, or as long as an offensive player doesn't move, or as long as the ball isn't snapped while the defender is in the neutral zone, they are allowed to get back.
That's the point.
If the QB yells a hard count, and the defender jumps, but catches himself, and is about to get back..
THEN the offensive lineman "jumps" on purpose to get the dlinemen called for the penalty..
He's saying THAT should be a penalty on the O Lineman, akin to flopping in the NBA...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
I agreed with that part a long time ago.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,754 Likes: 396
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 16,754 Likes: 396 |
Quote:
I disagree 100%.
I think I'm with you on this one.
If the OL takes advantage of a jumping DL, so be it. They shouldn't have jumped to begin with. If the DL is able to get back onsides, good for him. But the OL is just playing the game within the game.
What I don't believe should be allowed at all is ... the OL must react to the jumping DL. They can't just point to the DL. That's not a false start, and the refs shouldn't react to that. The refs should allow the DL to get back onsides. Now if the OL sees the DL jumping and decides to react with a football move, so be it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
If the DL is able to get back onsides, good for him. But the OL is just playing the game within the game.
Then I might argue that the rule should be abolished, since defensive players flinching "unintentionally" is just playing the game within the game.
If the first rule was put into place to abolish something that violates the spirit of the game, then there should be a second rule abolishing the offensive play which also violates the spirit of the game.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
What the heck are you talking about that violates "the spirit of the game"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
Quote:
What the heck are you talking about that violates "the spirit of the game"?
If the OL standing up and pointing when they didn't really flinch when the DL is in the neutral zone is just playing the game within the game, then why is a DL flinching to get an OL to move just playing the game within the game?
You have a QB who uses a hard count, the specific intent of this is to get the DL to jump offsides... the DL flinches into the neutral zone, the specific intent of this may be to get the OL to jump off sided.... if the DL flinches into the neutral zone, the OL guy stands up and points, the specific intent of this is to get the call on the DL...
Why is some of that ok and some is not?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,456 |
Quote:
Quote:
What the heck are you talking about that violates "the spirit of the game"?
If the OL standing up and pointing when they didn't really flinch when the DL is in the neutral zone is just playing the game within the game, then why is a DL flinching to get an OL to move just playing the game within the game?
You have a QB who uses a hard count, the specific intent of this is to get the DL to jump offsides... the DL flinches into the neutral zone, the specific intent of this may be to get the OL to jump off sided.... if the DL flinches into the neutral zone, the OL guy stands up and points, the specific intent of this is to get the call on the DL...
Why is some of that ok and some is not?
I agree. defenders will storm the line then jump back to get a guy on offense to move. Works the same way for both sides. Non issue here to me.
If you need 3 years to be a winner you got here 2 years to early. Get it done Browns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
You have a QB who uses a hard count, the specific intent of this is to get the DL to jump offsides... the DL flinches into the neutral zone, the specific intent of this may be to get the OL to jump off sided.... if the DL flinches into the neutral zone, the OL guy stands up and points, the specific intent of this is to get the call on the DL...
Why is some of that ok and some is not?
I think all of it is ok...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,276 |
This flop needs to be removed from the game for sure. It seems like a recent rule to me as I don't really remember it before the past few seasons. I like to call it "Neutral zone infarction" Defensive lineman flinches into the neutral zone, offensive lineman has an infarction
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
That's actually pretty good.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,728 |
I've seen it called against the OL as a false start. Just once.
I agree. It's annoying and it seems childish.
The booger comment was quite fitting
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 504
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 504 |
Gotta agree with toad here.
A defender is allowed to be in the neutral zone until the ball is snapped. He has every right to get back onside. If an offensive player moves as a result of a defender entering the neutral zone it is absolutely a penalty. However, if an offensive player, especially lineman, just stands up and points at the defender it should be called a false start everytime. By standing up, its clear it is to force a penalty because if a lineman thought the defender was actually going to initiate a play they would start moving back into their protection.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,398 Likes: 280 |
The thing is though, I don't equate this to flopping in the NBA.. it's more like that play when the defender has his hand out almost touching the guy with the ball, almost hand checking him but not really... and the guy with the ball swings it under his arm then swoops it up pretending he was going to shoot and the foul gets called on the defender who never moved because the offensive guy throws the ball straight up and starts flailing like the defender just kicked him in the groin... I HATE that call. As long as the defender is not touching or fouling already, that call should go against the guy who initiates contact, and that's the offensive player.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I've seen it called against the OL as a false start. Just once.
I agree. It's annoying and it seems childish.
The booger comment was quite fitting
I don't know if any of you were watching the Packers/Lions game, but it happened...
Rodgers put on the hard-count and a Lions defender flinched. The Packers guard #71 jumped up and pointed at the defender, but not until well-after the guy had flinched. The Ref's called #71 for a false start.
Justice! 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
I've only seen it called on the OL a couple times and it was when the OL was actually several seconds late in moving... as long as the OL guy moves while the DL is still in the neutral zone, it's on the DL... No matter how obvious it is that it wasn't a flinch reaction..
However, I agree with your premise... the alternative is to just make it a penalty immediately if the DL breaks the neutral zone regardless of what the OL guy does....
Why not make it that as long as the DL gets back without touching the OL, then it's all good. And the OLman in front of the DLman who is infracting also has the freedom to flinch as long as he resets before the ball is snapped?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
The first rule was put into place to protect the integrity and the spirit of the game.
Defensive players used to intentionally flinch or jump at the offensive line in hopes of making them flinch, causing a false-start. So they made it a penalty.
Now, if a defensive player flinches or steps across the line of scrimmage, but no offensive players move, he has the right to get back to his side of the ball.
Recently, coaches have taught offensive linemen to instantly jump if a defensive player flinches or jumps first to get a penalty on the defense. It's BS.
Last night Rodgers put the hard-count on the Lions and a defender flinched. #71 CLEARLY didn't flinch or jump because of the defender, but he sure as Hell stood right up pointing at the defender. The Ref's didn't buy it and called the false start penalty on #71.
Just as a defender violates the spirit of the game by trying to intentionally cause an offensive lineman to jump, offensive linemen who intentionally fake a false-start because a defender moves also violates the spirit of the game. That's why it got called.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,497 Likes: 52
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,497 Likes: 52 |
Quote:
Quote:
I've seen it called against the OL as a false start. Just once.
I agree. It's annoying and it seems childish.
The booger comment was quite fitting
I don't know if any of you were watching the Packers/Lions game, but it happened...
Rodgers put on the hard-count and a Lions defender flinched. The Packers guard #71 jumped up and pointed at the defender, but not until well-after the guy had flinched. The Ref's called #71 for a false start.
Justice!
I think that happened to either Pinky or Lauvao too in the first game of the season against the Eagles.
#gmstrong
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,745 Likes: 931
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,745 Likes: 931 |
j/c
To me, this is all a bunch of hooey.... and an unnecessary escalation of rules that don't need to exist.
And here's why: the OL KNOW what the snap count is. Period. A well-disciplined OL should never be "induced into flinching" no matter what the DL does. It's a stupid rule that adds nothing to the fairness, slows down the pace of the game, and puts one more layer of "sybjective sontrol" into the hands of the refs.
My opinion: it was instituted to give yet more advantage to the O. The NFL is all about points, these days.
Dumb rule change. They should go back to the way things useta wuz.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,131 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,131 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
Sure I can, but this is one that has been sticking in my craw lately.
I had a sticking Craw once.. Took hours for the sturgeon to free it up
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 460
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 460 |
Maybe but no reason to carp on it
"Its too much of a coincidence to be a coincidence"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,131 Likes: 134
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,131 Likes: 134 |
Quote:
Maybe but no reason to carp on it
You are right, no sense in getting schooled
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,497 Likes: 52
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,497 Likes: 52 |
Its a matter of the Dlineman taking the bait and the Olineman trying to reel him in.
#gmstrong
Live, Love, Laugh
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum "Neutral zone infraction..."
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Heldawg/rgiii2.jpg)
