Chrome_Seahawk":7rzgeb89 said:
Honest question - I know we won the game last year so it didn't matter, but how would you feel if a call like the one below by Kam Chancellor on Vernon Davis was flagged (as it was in that game):
Obviously I mean this call either way, whether it be on your team or our team - I just think that most 49ers fans likely feel that Kam deserved to be flagged on the play. Meanwhile, most of us here feel bad that Vernon got a concussion on that play, but when looking at how and where Kam hit Davis, we feel it should not have been flagged.
It's a good question. FWIW in my experience after seeing the replays every 9er fan I know agrees with Hawks fans that it shouldn't have been flagged. This is one of three problems IMO with discussions of NFL officiating.
Problem #1 (the long one, as it requires the actual rule book as it applies here): Fans complain about the officiating all the time, but most of us most of the time (myself included) don't know the actual rule book. The Kam hit is a great example of this phenomon. Almost all fans seem to believe that the unnecessary roughness (UR) call when applied to a defenseless receiver (DR) is about helmet to helmet contact (e.g. the first UR call on the Saints against Percy Harvin). That's not the actual rule though, and is only one of the clauses for the UR call for DR penalties.
It's contained in Rule 12, Section 2, Article 7 (pp. 67-68 in the rule book here:
https://www.nfl.info/download/2012Media ... 20Book.pdf)
The first part of the application is the DR clause of "Defenseless Posture", which in the .gif above unarguably describes Davis, and is contained in Article 7 A(2):
A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to protect himself or
has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending
contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player
The second part is one of the clauses that fans don't seem to know about (including 9ers fans), and is in the companion "Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture" section, the operative clarification that inarguably describes Kam being contained in Article 7 B(2):
Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/‖hairline‖ parts of the helmet
against any part of the defenseless player’s body
It's completely cut and dry. Even 9ers fans who have every incentive to want it to be a penalty think it isn't though, because they don't know that this clause about the hairline of the helmet hitting any part of the defenseless receivers body (read: leading with the helmet into Vernon's shoulder while he is defenseless) is, according the rule book, a correct application of the UR call. It means that even if there hadn't been helmet to helmet contact on the Harvin hit and if the helmet hit his shoulder it would have correctly been a UR call.
Problem #2: Another problem is that as a matter of course the NFL doesn't explain itself and the application of rules. Fans basically are left to assume that if a UR fine is rescinded the NFL is acknowledging that the call was a bad one. That's simply not true, though.
Oddly, it's the exact same story with Brooks' hit on Drew Brees, which 9ers fans think was an atrocious call, not least of which because all other things all season being equal the 9ers would have won the division if that call wasn't made. Brooks' fine, like Kam's fine, was rescinded, causing both fanbases to think they have "proof" that the calls were bad. It's because in the case of Kam fans haven't taken the time to actually read Article 7 A(2) and B(2), and in the case of Brooks fans haven't taken the time to read Article 7 A(1) and B(1) (the latter of which states "Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask,
forearm, or shoulder,
even if the initial contact of the defender’s helmet or facemask is lower than the passer’s neck; it's just as clear as the ruling on the Kam hit).
Essentially by not engaging in the pro forma explanation of calls, the NFL forces fans who aren't going to pour through the rule book to misuse fines being levied or rescinded as a divining rod to what "should" and "should not" have been called, which is an improper usage of that process. According to the actual rule book the call on Kam and the call on Brooks were both absolutely correct (translation: 9ers fans can end their woulda/coulda/shouldas about this hit and the division title), and the process of adjudicating fines is a completely different thing.
Problem #3: While Problem #1 is our problem as fans and Problem #2 is a problem with the administration of the NFL that has an easy solution (engage in the pro forma explanation of calls with clear reference to the rule book, perhaps on the NFL's own website between games each week), problem #3 is completely intractable:
Football is, without a doubt, by far the hardest sport to officiate. The officiating in the NFL will always be "bad" compared to other sports, as the complexity of the game doesn't allow for clean officiating in a way it does in most other sports. We need not be fatalists, it can improve, but it will always comparatively be "bad."
Sorry for the long post.
