Do the Bucs EVER have a "play" not go their way?

[Bonegavel]

Nice point. That roughing the kicker call was the biggest piece of dog-doo ever. The fact that I picked Indy in my office pool notwithstanding.

[Logan]

Rule 12, Section 3, Article 2 of the 2003 Official Playing Rules of the National Football League (page 86) defines the unsportsmanlike conduct/leaping penalty as follows:

"Clearly running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal, or try-kick after touchdown and landing on players, unless the leaping player was originally lined up within one yard of the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped."

[Bonegavel]

What's funny about the rule is the "in an obvious attempt to block a field goal." What, are they just going to be jumping around like decoy Daffy Ducks with seemingly no purpose? You can argue all you want that they could jump well away from the play and not be guilty of this, but I just thought that line was silly.

[FBPro]

There is NO DOUBT that he "got a running start" from more than 1 yard behind the line.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Heh. I guess I should be honered.

Point was, Rice's job there is to lineup within one yard and then get up to try to block the kick. He lined up too far back. Blame him, not the ref.

Shortly after posting that, I thought to myself I should have accused you of not just listening to the game on radio, but on an Indianapolis radio station.

[Wolfpack]

I think the salient point being missed with regard to trying to block the kick on a running jump and landing on players is that the intention behind many penalties is the safety of the players themselves, not necessarily a cheat to gain an advantage (why else is there 15-yard facemasking, roughing the passer, roughing the kicker, etc). This seems like one of those "player safety violation" penalties. Would you want to be in a scrum of 300-pounders and then suddenly have another big body literally throw himself on to you (even if it's for something not directly related to what you're doing)? That, I think is why this rule exists. It's to ensure that no player, accidentally or intentionally, puts the desire to win (i.e. block the field goal) above the health of his fellow players, even on his own team. Thus, you have to leap and block in such a fashion that you cannot jeopardize the health of another player.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
Nice point. That roughing the kicker call was the biggest piece of dog-doo ever.

That, imo, was not a good call. It was more like Punter Roughing the Defender On The Ground. The Leaping Call was correct, according to the rules.

[Ksyrup]

Who knew Tom Tupa was Dennis Rodman?

[Havok]

Move over Brett Favre.... The next great QB is here.....

[pjstp20]

I agree with Wolfpacks point, there is a safety element involved, but I also think the rule is used to keep the defense from having an advantage. If you leap and then land on another players back, it allows you to hang in the air longer, therefore giving you a better chance of blocking the kick. Although that wasnt the case in this play I can see how allowing players to jump on other players backs could be similar to using another player to boost yourself.

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
That, imo, was not a good call. It was more like Punter Roughing the Defender On The Ground. The Leaping Call was correct, according to the rules.

Agreed. I admit that I had a vested interest in Indy winning (work pool) but, that was the lamest roughing the punter call ever. What that should do is make every punter hop around for a while looking for a defender on the ground and just fall over him. Shameful.

[sabotai]

I take back what I said about it being a bad call. After looking up the rule in the NFL rulebook, it was a good call (what Logan posted is straight from the rule book). The rule says "landing on players", which makes it irrelevant if the player landed on was blocked into him or not. You can't run, leap and land on anyone, regardless of how the player ended up "under" the leaping player.

So, good call after all.

[Ksyrup]

NEW YORK -- The NFL upheld the penalty on leaping Simeon Rice, a call that gave the Indianapolis Colts a second chance at a field goal that beat the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in overtime.

With 3:57 remaining in overtime, the Colts attempted a game-winning 40-yard field goal.

The attempt missed, but Buccaneers DE Rice was penalized for unsportsmanlike conduct after jumping in an attempt to block Mike Vangerjagt's unsuccessful 40-yard field goal. Vanderjagt received another chance and made a 29-yarder that caromed off the right upright.

The league confirmed Tuesday what referee Johnnie Grier said after the game: The rules ban running forward, leaping and falling on a player, as Rice did.

The penalty has been called seven times in the last five years including Monday night, ESPN.com's John Clayton reports. Before Monday, it was last called against Washington's LaVar Arrington in a Week 3 game between the Giants and Redskins on the winning field goal, a 29-yarder by the Giants' Matt Bryant in overtime. The kick was good, so the penalty was declined.

Rule 12, Section 3, Article 2 of the 2003 Official Playing Rules of the National Football League defines the unsportsmanlike conduct/leaping penalty as follows:

"Clearly running forward and leaping in an obvious attempt to block a field goal, or try-kick after touchdown and landing on players, unless the leaping player was originally lined up within one yard of the line of scrimmage when the ball was snapped."

Rice lined up approximately four yards behind the line of scrimmage, ran forward, leaped in an attempt to block the kick, and illegally landed on a teammate.

Following the penalty, the ball was spotted half the distance to the goal line, giving Indianapolis a first-and-10 from the Tampa Bay 11 yard-line.

Vanderjagt then connected on a 29-yard field goal to give the Colts a 38-35 victory.

The rule dates back to 1983 and was implemented for the safety of players being landed on by leapers trying to block kicks. The rule was modified in 1993, so that players could run and leap to attempt to block a kick but be forbidden to land on or make contact with a teammate while leaping or landing.

[Ksyrup]

I reserved judgment on the call, as I thought it fit the criteria of the rule at the time it was being discussed. My only question was whether it had actually been enforced before, and it appears it has. I'm satisfied with that.

[Celeval]

Huh. Good job by the refs, then; and I retract any earlier comments.

Still a great finish, though. :-)

[haji1]

Ditto, Great Call Great Game

[ISiddiqui]

What's funny about the rule is the "in an obvious attempt to block a field goal." What, are they just going to be jumping around like decoy Daffy Ducks with seemingly no purpose?

Well, players also leap into the air to catch a pass. If you didn't have the Field Goal part in there, a CB leaping in the air to catch a pass and landing on the WR would be called for unsportsmanlike conduct. So that language is necessary!

[QuikSand]

I think the NFL woudl do well to get over the few bucks they make off selling copies of their whiole rulebook, and to just post the damned thing on line, in its entirety. We went through all this crap a couple of years ago with the whole "tuck rule" too -- lots of pointless consternation as the breathless nation waits a day or two until the league gets around to actually telling us what the actual rule is.

Just post the entire rules on the nfl.com site -- do it in some way that makes it inconvenient to print out and assemble if you want to keep selling $15 rulebooks, but at least let the people see this stuff when they want to.

[ISiddiqui]

Totally agree. There is no reason to keep the rules out of the public domain, because then you have announcers who have no clue what the rules are (though Michaels somehow remembered part of it... I think Madden had no clue). Other sports freely circulate their rules, why shouldn't the NFL?

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Wolfpack
I think the salient point being missed with regard to trying to block the kick on a running jump and landing on players is that the intention behind many penalties is the safety of the players themselves, not necessarily a cheat to gain an advantage (why else is there 15-yard facemasking, roughing the passer, roughing the kicker, etc). This seems like one of those "player safety violation" penalties. Would you want to be in a scrum of 300-pounders and then suddenly have another big body literally throw himself on to you (even if it's for something not directly related to what you're doing)? That, I think is why this rule exists. It's to ensure that no player, accidentally or intentionally, puts the desire to win (i.e. block the field goal) above the health of his fellow players, even on his own team. Thus, you have to leap and block in such a fashion that you cannot jeopardize the health of another player.

I am pretty sure the impetus behind this rule is not safety. I believe players used to throw players into the air to try and block kicks. One would face the goal posts and cup his hands, another would step into them and get launched. Other players would actually run up plant a foot on the backside of a linemen, who used either a special pad or just a board for protection, and leap over the line of scrimage. Now while there are obvious safety issues that could be addressed in those examples, I am pretty sure the rule was intended to prevent those unintended methods of kick blocking.

I was perfectly aware of the rule that prevented jumping onto or leaping off of another player in an attempt to block a kick. I had completely disregarded the one yard run up aspect of the rule. Once that became clear I consider it a fine call. It also explains why the flag got in there SO early. In the replay it seems to hit Rice even before both of his feet were on the ground. I had previously begun to wonder if Indy had told the officials to watch him or something.

Regarding the running into the kicker penalty. It was a penalty. Well, rhodes at very least came SO very close to the kicker that you cannot expect a referee to distinguish at full speed that nothing occured. That rule is pretty specific as well, if the kicker is contacted the foul is called. I have seen it several times in slow motion, and I can't clearly state if Rhodes slid into his foot or not.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
Shortly after posting that, I thought to myself I should have accused you of not just listening to the game on radio, but on an Indianapolis radio station.

So are you arguing that Rice did not line up more than a yard back?

[FBPro]

If you watch the replay you can see that he looks to be 3-5 yards back from the line.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by FBPro
If you watch the replay you can see that he looks to be 3-5 yards back from the line.

Right. Which means he either didn't know the rule (likely) or didn't think they'd call it (possible). Either way, it's his fault.

And I think it's a good rule. Imagine what kick blocks would look like without that rule... guys lining up ten yards back, charging forward to try to time the snap and flying through the air like dummies.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
So are you arguing that Rice did not line up more than a yard back?

Oh no. I should have been more clear. When I thought that I was unaware of the 'more than one yard' section of the rule. I was simply saying for you to clasify what Rice did as leaping on another player to attempt to block a kick, you had to have been listening to the game on the radio. Once the running start more than one yard came into play I knew I was wrong in that assessment.

[ISiddiqui]

I am pretty sure the impetus behind this rule is not safety.

Actually I think you are very wrong. Of course the impetus is safety. Why else would it be a penalty if you hit another player, but not a penalty if you didn't?!

I have seen it several times in slow motion, and I can't clearly state if Rhodes slid into his foot or not.

What are you crazy? If lying on the ground and not really moving is 'slid[ing] into his foot' then maybe you'd have a point.

[TroyF]

The one thing I like about the NFL in these things is that they'll admit when they are wrong. That makes cases like the tuck rule and this flag more bearable when they say they had it right.

It isn't as if there is anything they can do if they do get it wrong. It's nice to see they'll at least own up to the mistake and move on then being like the NBA and trying to cover up for their refs horrible decisions.

Listening to David Stern try to justify the Laker/T-Wolve game 3 last year was almost as funny as listening to the Iraqi information minister.

TroyF

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
Actually I think you are very wrong. Of course the impetus is safety. Why else would it be a penalty if you hit another player, but not a penalty if you didn't?!

Well actually it is a quite old rule, and back then safety wasn't really a concern. Ridiculous attempts to block a kick by vaulting through the air was a concern. I mean I can't say safety had absolutely nothing to do with the rule, but I really think they were trying to stop gimmicky block attempts.

Originally posted by ISiddiqui
What are you crazy? If lying on the ground and not really moving is 'slid[ing] into his foot' then maybe you'd have a point. [/b]

So your position is that Rhodes meddled with the time space continuum, phased out of this dimension and back in such a manner that he appeared beneath the punter without sliding into him? What? Did you used to write for the Next Generation?

The penalty was running into the kicker, the 5 yard variety, it has been around for many years. It was introduced to protect the kickers, punters, and holders from contact that was more incidental than flagrant in nature.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
Well actually it is a quite old rule, and back then safety wasn't really a concern. Ridiculous attempts to block a kick by vaulting through the air was a concern. I mean I can't say safety had absolutely nothing to do with the rule, but I really think they were trying to stop gimmicky block attempts.

The old rule was called pyramiding. I remember that one well. I can still remember a orange Buccaneer team getting called for it in the very early days when nothing went right. I'm guessing 78 or 79 here but definitely in that range.

Why it's so memorable is the reaction of the broadcast crew who had no idea what the penalty was or meant. The guy said, "there's a flag down and he's called for... ... ... pyramiding????" with an extremely befuddled emphasis on pyramiding.

Now, the new rule is no longer called pyramiding ( or is pyramiding still there ? )and as pyramiding covered the vaulting issue I have no problem thinking that the rule ( or part of the rule ) that pertains to the Rice scenario was added to emphasize safety. It's just that rules meant for safety still have to be enforced even when there is no safety issue and it's totally meaningless to the play.

That's the most generous interpretation I can give to the running into the kicker too. Maybe technically it happened ( well, I think it's just a blown call myself but being generous )but it was meaningless and possibly game altering.

Now, this is the second time I've watched this crew come in and heavy hand on the penalties and I finally realize why.

The NFL really doesn't have that many minority officials and they're obviously rooting for Johnny Grier to do well. Personally, I've always thought he was overrated and nothing more than a mediocre official but the league ...

oh wait, wrong rant.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
I am pretty sure the impetus behind this rule is not safety. I believe players used to throw players into the air to try and block kicks. One would face the goal posts and cup his hands, another would step into them and get launched. Other players would actually run up plant a foot on the backside of a linemen, who used either a special pad or just a board for protection, and leap over the line of scrimage. Now while there are obvious safety issues that could be addressed in those examples, I am pretty sure the rule was intended to prevent those unintended methods of kick blocking.

I was perfectly aware of the rule that prevented jumping onto or leaping off of another player in an attempt to block a kick. I had completely disregarded the one yard run up aspect of the rule. Once that became clear I consider it a fine call. It also explains why the flag got in there SO early. In the replay it seems to hit Rice even before both of his feet were on the ground. I had previously begun to wonder if Indy had told the officials to watch him or something.

Though it doesn't seem likely after this issue has been so well beaten... it still reads like the author is unaware that we are talking about two separate rules from the NFL rulebook.

Yes, there is a rule to prevent all the crazy block attempts you discuss - jumping off other guys' backs, that sort of thing. That was linked very early in this discussion - as someone mistakenly thought that was the rule being enforced. No, you can't jump off of another player, throw another player, or otherwise manufacture a crazy block attempt.

There is a completely separate rule called "leaping" which has nothing to do with multi-player crazy block attempts, but rather prohibits a player from trying to block a kick by running to the line of scrimmage, leaping into the air, and landing on another player or players. That rule is clearly designed with player safety in mind - there's nothing anti-competitive about it at all, it's just that the players who are engaged along the line of scrimmage are defenseless against a guy dropping in from a forward leaping posture, presumably cleats-first. It was this rule, of course, that was correctly identified as being violated by Rice on Monday night.

(My emphasis in the quote is on the place where he mentions "the rule" in a context where he ought to be speaking about two different rules-- there is no "one yard run up" aspect of the rule prohibiting players from pyramiding or using one another in a block attempt, that's part of the separate rule against leaping)

In the event that this wasn't clear - I hope that helps.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by TroyF
Listening to David Stern try to justify the Laker/T-Wolve game 3 last year was almost as funny as listening to the Iraqi information minister.

TroyF

Thankfully, even with all the extra help the Lakers get I like the Wolves chances going against them this year.

[Glengoyne]

QS,

I do get that there are two rules. I just think they both have the same intent, I could well be wrong. I probably shouldn't have brought it up. I just don't think safety was what motivated that rule. Since the rule exists, it is pretty silly to argue about why it exists.

I was really coming back to this thread to see if anyone had bitten on the time space continuum response. Common fella's I was pretty happy with that one when I wrote it.

[Daimyo]

Turns out the Bucs were arguing about the wrong "bad" call. Surprised no one caught this with all the NFL experts we have around here: (from today's Indianapolis Star)

Illegal onside kick

The Colts' historic fourth-quarter comeback at Tampa received an illegal boost, according to the NFL.

Dungy said a league official told him Mike Vanderjagt's onside kick with 3:37 remaining in the fourth quarter, which was recovered by safety Idrees Bashir, was illegal.

Bashir worked his way among several Bucs, jumped up and grabbed the football before it was touched by a Tampa Bay player, giving the Colts possession at their 42-yard line. In retrospect, the Colts had to give Tampa Bay a chance to field the football.

The Bucs had to have the opportunity to field the ball because Vanderjagt popped the kick high into the air instead of skipping it on the ground.

"A free kick is treated like a punt until it hits the ground," Dungy said. "If someone is there in position to catch it, you have to allow them (the opportunity)."

[Glengoyne]

I didn't completely miss this point. I actually thought they had bounced it off the ground immediately. To be more clear I thought the ball was caught on the first bounce. After all the fuss made about how Vanderjagdt was setting the ball up, I actually figured he had been practicing this first high bounce technique. I mean, I gave him all sorts of credit for doing it twice even. When I was watching the game I thought "Why didn't they call a fair catch?", "oh he must have bounced it up into the air".

Idiot referees, cost me the office pool.