Where did my football love go? [Archive]

Supertanker

01-10-2003, 12:35 PM

I used to be a huge football fan. Born in Chicago so I always followed the Bears, grew up in the East Bay so I was a Raiders fan. Occasionally I would even root for those snooty 49ers across the Bay. Religiously went out to bars for Monday Night Football throughout college. Bought lots of hats & other licensed merchandise.

Now, after seven years with no local team, I didn't watch a single game this year. It never dawned on me that the playoffs had started until I heard the results on TV. I'll probably watch the Superbowl for the ads, but I won't place any bets or care about the outcome. I don't even hear much watercooler chat because people's loyalties are divided. It is hard to shoot the breeze about football for long if you are a Dallas fan and the other person is a Washington fan.

I heard NFL ratings are declining in LA, but I can't find any real numbers to support that. I don't know what it would take to get me to care about the NFL again. A winning team? Cheap tickets? I guess time will tell.

Bub, Andrew

01-10-2003, 01:28 PM

I think the reason is LA. LA sucks the life out of football fans (and teams). The only bonus about living in LA is you generally get better games each Sunday, no sucky local teams to compete for airtime. NY is awful, I hear, when both the Giants and Jets suck.

If you come to a land where winter is dismal, you'll rekindle your love anew I think. Up to you whether that's worth it.

To pre-empt an imminent Brett Todd "anti-today's NFL rant," I think this past season was one of the finest I've ever seen. And not just because the Packers did well, but mainly because of that early Thursday night Dolphins/Broncos game where the lead changed thrice in the last minute due to miracle 55+ yard field goals. That game and last Sunday's games... whew!

Jason Levine

01-10-2003, 01:54 PM

NY is awful, I hear, when both the Giants and Jets suck.

I first lived in NY in 1980 when both teams did indeed suck. The one good thing about it for me was that late in the season when both teams were hopelessly out of it, the local WNBC decided to preempt the Jets game in favor of the Browns-Steelers, figuring nobody wanted to see the Jets anymore.

Actually, it's no bargain living in a one-team town, if your team sucks. In Chitown this year, it was the sucky Bears on TV plus whatever other game the local station deigned to show, which, in their infinite wisdom, was usually another sucky NFC North game. It really frosts me that the NFL once-again decided to renew Direct TV's monopoly on NFL Sunday Ticket. So may fans, who can't get satellite reception, but can get cable, are aced out once again.

Rob de los Reyes

01-10-2003, 01:54 PM

I'll second you Bub. I not only think this has been one of the best seasons I've seen, but I keep thinking that early Dolphins game was one of the most entertaining single games I've ever watched. You'll have to take my word that I'm not just given to superlatives; I really thought we got some great entertainment this year. And I say that even as a New Yorker who had to endure the Giants (who are boring even when good) and the Jets (who were bad early, but are now one of the most exciting teams to watch) every weekend even when better games were on elsewhere. Seems like the NFL did a slightly better job this year putting the Giants/Jets in off-hour games so we were able to see more of the good games than usual this year. I still want to abolish the home-town rules, or at least cause every apartment in New York to face southwest (or whatever the necessary direction is) so that I can get DirecTV.

Bub, Andrew

01-10-2003, 02:01 PM

The worst thing about that Broncos/Dolphins game Rob, was that I was fighting with my wife during the 4th quarter. Suddenly she's still fighting and I've stopped because I became totally absorbed in the game (it isn't like me to bow out a fight in that way). Which made things worse, until we made up and she got to see on Sportscenter why I got so absorbed. (She's actually a football fan, so she wished she'd hadn't stormed out of the room like she did when she saw what she missed.)

Jason Becker

01-10-2003, 08:15 PM

"I think the reason is LA. LA sucks the life out of football fans (and teams). "

You could say living in Arizona is the same with Mr. Bidwell and the joke that is the Cardinals. ABout the only place worse would be to live in Cincinnati. Luckily I've been a Steelers fan since I was a kid and have something to look forward too most years. Even then I just love football, and can watch a good game with most teams. Last Sunday's two games were about as good as you can get. I've given up of the NBA, and only pay attention to the Dbacks in baseball. But football I'll never give up.

Aleck

01-10-2003, 09:02 PM

I heard NFL ratings are declining in LA, but I can't find any real numbers to support that. I don't know what it would take to get me to care about the NFL again. A winning team? Cheap tickets? I guess time will tell.

I actually grew up in LA when we had *two* football teams, and, to be honest, I just think LA's the kind of town where it's hard for people to get rabid about football. I remember in my teens driving to go to Raiders or Rams games and the stadium only being about 2/3 full, which didn't strike me as at all odd.

Now I live in DC, where there's still an 8 or 10 year waiting list for season tickets despite the fact that the Redskins inevitably manage to blow chunks. People are *rabid* about the Redskins, which always strikes me as funny and a little scary. When I was an intern some friends of mine came up with a game where, on the Metro, you would alternate in a round robin saying some hugely inappropriate word (penis, asswipe, etc.), with each person having to say it louder than the preceding individual. One afternoon, after the 'skins were blown out, my friend proposed changing it to "Redskins suck."

That was the *last* time we played that game and the closest I've come to having my ass kicked Fight Club style.

Bottom line, I just don't think LA's a football town. But basketball... Man, I *still* miss the Lakers!

ASJunk

Met_K

01-10-2003, 10:59 PM

Bottom line, I just don't think LA's a football town. But basketball... Man, I *still* miss the Lakers!

I love the Lakers. They're much, much better than the Bulls ever were. I mean, for fuck's sake, you didn't see the Bulls' fans riot after Jordan retired and the team started to blow playoffs left and right.

Rywill

01-11-2003, 11:28 AM

I really don't get why LA is so ambivalent about football. I spent a lot of time growing up in Chicago too, and believe me, if the Bears had said they were moving to St. Louis, we would have burned the city flat. But nobody out here really cares that much about football. Weird.

You have to respect the Lakers' legacy and the power of their current team, but I find their attitude--the Hollywood, wearing-sunglasses-indoors thing--a turnoff (although I confess I'm not a big basketball fan anyway).

Toddy

01-12-2003, 01:41 AM

Just for you, Bub. ;-)

Yes, I still hate the NFL, but now it's for lame playoff game endings. How the Giant game ended last week was ridiculous. And the Steeler game didn't end much better.

First of all, there's the overtime issue itself. What the fuck does the NFL need to realize that sudden-death OT doesn't work in football? The CFL does it right, US college football does it right. Yet the NFL persists in an overtime where almost half of the time the team that wins the coin toss wins the game on its first possession. How is this fair? But most of all, how is it satisfying for a fan? You watch a game for three-plus hours, get really into a close contest, then see the thing end in overtime before one team's even had the chance to touch the ball. Idiotic. It's like giving a hockey team the chance to win a game in OT with a single breakaway in a shootout. Or not giving a baseball team the chance to bat in the bottom half of the inning if the visitor scored in the top.

Second, there's that contacting the kicker call. Yeah, Washington did touch the guy. But it was incidental contact on the foot that nobody would have noticed if Nedney hadn't done that big Russian-hockey-player piroutte and dive. And there's no way that contact like that should be allowed to change game results. It happened after the ball was kicked, for one thing. The NFL differentiates on some penalties, applying the foul after the result of the play. In instances like this, such a minor infraction should only punish the team after it takes possession of the ball. In this case, Pittsburgh should have been awarded possession, and taken a 10-yard penalty. That's fairer to the Steelers and it doesn't give the Titans that ludicrous second attempt at what should have been a gimmie field goal in the first place. And it would have been nice if the refs could've hit Nedney with an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and made the fouls offsetting. That dive was embarrassing to the whole league.

Anyhow, I feel disappointed in the way that both games were resolved, so Andrew, you can rest assured that I still hate the NFL.

Guestacy

01-12-2003, 06:36 AM

Bottom line, I just don't think LA's a football town. But basketball... Man, I *still* miss the Lakers!
L.A.'s not a sports town, period.

The fans only support the winning teams. The Clippers don't receive the love like the Lakers, the Lakers lost the love after Magic left and before Shaq and the coaching Jesus arrived, and no one was really passionate about the Rams or the Raiders. Hell, the latter couldn't sell out the Mausoleum. The Dodgers, no one cares, the Angels, now people are fans. The Kings? Only big when Gretzky was in town. The Ducks? I have no clue.

Fans arrive late and leave early, in mass, to avoid traffic. Which of course generates more traffic. People should really consider arriving at halftime and leaving at the end of halftime. Or maybe the top of the 5th and leave the bottom of the 5th. That would really solve that problem.

Bub, Andrew

01-12-2003, 09:33 AM

Brett,
I agree on the OT situation. Actually the league does too but it isn't something that they can change mid-season. The rumor is that they're going to put into place an OT system gives both teams a equal chances until one of them scores. Then the other team can beat or match that score. This makes it interesting if one nails a FG, the other team needs to gain a TD to win, or a FG to continue OT.

Regarding the Giants ending. Yes, that was a blown call. Absolutely. It's notable that the reciever was actually elligible, but even more notable that the officials didn't notice that, the booth officials didn't notice that, the Giants booth didn't notice that, AND JIM FASSEL DIDN'T NOTICE THAT!
... until about 3 hours after the game ended. The bizarre thing, for me, is that the announcers weren't aware that the holder cannot spike the ball (which is what they recommended) because he isn't a QB lined up behind the center. Odd, considering that Marino was calling that game.

Bah, the Giants could have won that game by running the clock (this ges for the Browns too, btw), restraining that idiot who kept offsetting TO's penalties, or, I dunno, answering those 25 uninterupted points scored maybe?

Last night was different (bear in mind that I wanted the Steelers to win). I agree with you (and he enraged Cowher) that the call was ludicrous. But, again, the refs call it as they see them. I don't really favor stopping the game every call to make sure everything is 100% perfect on the playcalling. Obviously something needs to be done about that though. The stakes were too high for a bullshit call to end the Steelers season.

Bottom Line: Officials make mistakes and to be honest, I don't really want an NFL that's 100% devoid of human error anyway. They're changing OT, as I said, but I'm sure you'll find other reasons to hate the NFL...

at least until the Cowboys turn around again
;-)

Tom Ohle

01-12-2003, 12:17 PM

I think the call on the Steelers game was perfectly fair. The defender ran into the kicker--simple as that. It's a rule--don't hit the kicker. Cowher's "he took a few steps forward" rant was BS. Fair call, stupid-ass defender.

Toddy

01-12-2003, 01:34 PM

Yeah, by the letter of the law, sure, it was a penalty. But it had nothing to do with the outcome of the play, so why should it change things so dramatically? Like I said earlier, the NFL already differentiates in fouls in terms of calling back scores, and it should consider doing the same in this case as well when there is no interference with the kicker during the kick itself. I mean, doesn't it make sense?

Unless the Cowboys return to prominence under Parcells means that the NFL will cut commerical time down by an hour per game, that ain't gonna happen, Andrew. ;-) Though I'll always be around for playoff time. Hey, it's January in Eastern Ontario--what the hell else have I got to do?

Dave Long

01-12-2003, 02:39 PM

I dunno about NOT making that call. If you don't call that one, what's to say you should ever make a call when a guy hits the kicker? When is it acceptable and not acceptable? You're a hockey fan too Brett, so you should be just as tired as me of rules interpretation to suit the whims of the referee, which is what that kind of situation would look like if it were a non-call instead of a call. Should the NHL have ignored McSorely planting his stick on Brashear's head because it didn't have an effect on the play? The puck was nowhere near Brashear when McSorely brained him IIRC.

If the rule's on the books, then you should follow it. None of this "it didn't matter to the play" crap. If the Steelers really wanted to win, they shouldn't have allowed themselves to have Nedney make three separate attempts at field goals to win. If Nedney hit the first one at the end of regulation, we wouldn't even be talking about this. The Steelers met their match and their luck finally ran out.

--Dave

Bub, Andrew

01-12-2003, 05:15 PM

Though I'll always be around for playoff time. Hey, it's January in Eastern Ontario--what the hell else have I got to do?

Ladies and gentlemen, the thread now comes full circle. Supertanker's current disinterest in the NFL is because he lives in LA now, and not Chicago.

Mark Asher

01-12-2003, 06:23 PM

"Yeah, by the letter of the law, sure, it was a penalty. But it had nothing to do with the outcome of the play, so why should it change things so dramatically?"

You've been watching too much hockey where they get a new officiating crew for the third periods. The NFL rules are supposed to applied regardles of the situation. The running into the kicker rule is designed to protect the kicker, that's all, just like hitting the QB late after he throws is a no-no. QBs and kickers get special protection.

Guestacy

01-12-2003, 07:10 PM

The NFL rules are supposed to applied regardles of the situation. The running into the kicker rule is designed to protect the kicker, that's all, just like hitting the QB late after he throws is a no-no. QBs and kickers get special protection.
Exactly. It's a penalty, call it. You don't make special exceptions just because it's OT; if anything, it's up to the players to be more careful.

I suppose it's the same logic that says veterans can travel and foul with impunity in the NBA. It turns officiating into a big joke.

Bernie_Dy

01-12-2003, 07:38 PM

I actually grew up in LA when we had *two* football teams, and, to be honest, I just think LA's the kind of town where it's hard for people to get rabid about football. I remember in my teens driving to go to Raiders or Rams games and the stadium only being about 2/3 full, which didn't strike me as at all odd.

I was there too, in those days with the Rams and the Raiders. Another problem was that so many people in CA were from outside CA. I was a Rams fan in Orange County...not so strange, right? But at those home games the visiting teams (especially the 49ers) got more cheers than the home team. Heh, of course, the 49ers had Joe 'God' Montana then, so I could understand that.

Bub, Andrew

01-12-2003, 07:53 PM

The NFL rules are supposed to applied regardles of the situation.

Not true. Plenty of penalties are overturned or modified due to circumstance.

The running into the kicker rule is designed to protect the kicker, that's all, just like hitting the QB late after he throws is a no-no.

Again, not true under certain circumstances. A lineman who runs into a QB after he throws, because he slipped or slid, usually isn't flagged for a late hit (late hits would happen ALL THE TIME otherwise). All the ref needs to see is the defender pull up, attempt a stop, and that can overturn the penalty. Cowher's argument was that the kicker stepped forward. If he did, he went to where any defender would aim his body to block the kick, and that would also negate his "special protection." Cowher was also pissed because he called a Time Out just before the snap (probably too late, imo) *probably* to give the replay booth time to overturn or at least look more closely at the call (the announcers felt he was "icing the kicker" but I doubt that was his only reason).

When I look at the replay, I see the guy pull up and slide into the kicker. That flag could have been overturned under the rules.

Note: I'm not saying it SHOULD have, because I'm not a huge fan of game stopping replays and I believe the call on the field should generally stand. But Cowher is right that the call was questionable. Really though, the refs should have been looking at Cowher to see if he was going to call Time Out. Why? Because teams always call Time Out on a game ending FG if they can, and Pitt could have done it twice.

I suppose it's the same logic that says veterans can travel and foul with impunity in the NBA. It turns officiating into a big joke.

Heh, funny you should mention the NBA. When Nedney went down in that pirouette, I turned to my wife and said, "who is he? Iverson?" I agree with Brett, it looked a bit theatrical to me. But, you know, that could be because he was stepping forward when he got hit....

Toddy

01-12-2003, 11:01 PM

Actually, I think more sports should adopt hockey's style of officiating. You don't see major problems and bitching like this in the NHL. The only time in recent memory was at the end of the 1999 Cup playoffs, when the refs allowed a goal while a player had a toe in the crease -- something that had been getting disallowed all year because of an asinine, NFL-style interpretation of the rules. In this case, though, I'm not arguing so much for the refs to ignore the penalty, but for the NFL to make a rule change to accommodate this type of situation next year. This wasn't roughing the kicker, it was incidental contact.

And there's still some debate over whether it was even a penalty. As I said before, there's no way that flag gets thrown if Nedney doesn't flop about like a fish. He's now admitting to taking the dive, too, saying things like "After I retire from kicking, maybe I'll take up acting." Boy, that really makes the NFL look good, doesn't it? Cite the rule book all you want, but this was a rotten way for a great game to end.

Mark Asher

01-13-2003, 01:40 AM

The NFL rules are supposed to applied regardles of the situation.

Not true. Plenty of penalties are overturned or modified due to circumstance.

Plenty of rules give the refs leeway to make a judgement call. For example, here's the rule for roughing the QB:

"No defensive player may run into a passer of a legal forward pass after the ball has left his hand (15 yards). The Referee must determine whether opponent had a reasonable chance to stop his momentum during an attempt to block the pass or tackle the passer while he still had the ball."

I guess I didn't make myself clear. By "situation" I meant the time of the game or closeness of the score. The refs are going to call roughing the passer every time if they make that judgement. They're not going to look the other way if it's late in the game and making the call might hand the game to one team.

Cowher's argument was that the kicker stepped forward. If he did, he went to where any defender would aim his body to block the kick, and that would also negate his "special protection."

When I look at the replay, I see the guy pull up and slide into the kicker. That flag could have been overturned under the rules.

Doubtful, unless the kicker had taken steps after kicking. Here's the rule:

"A member of the receiving team may not run into or rough a kicker who kicks from behind his line unless contact is:

(a)
Incidental to and after he had touched ball in flight.

(b)
Caused by kicker's own motions.

(c)
Occurs during a quick kick, or a kick made after a run, or after kicker recovers a loose ball. Ball is loose when kicker muffs snap or snap hits ground.

(d)
Defender is blocked into kicker."

Only (b) would apply, and I didn't see what Cowher saw -- the kicker taking steps. It doesn't matter if the defender slides into the kicker; if he hits him, he gets flagged. I've almost never seen a ref not flag a play like that. All they were doing is calling the penalty like they would in any situation. That's what I like about the NFL refs. They make mistakes, but they never make calls based on what the score is or what quarter the game is in. The game could be 48-0 with two minutes to go and they still call penalties.

Mark Asher

01-13-2003, 01:42 AM

"And there's still some debate over whether it was even a penalty. As I said before, there's no way that flag gets thrown if Nedney doesn't flop about like a fish. He's now admitting to taking the dive, too, saying things like "After I retire from kicking, maybe I'll take up acting." Boy, that really makes the NFL look good, doesn't it?"

Heh -- no one can touch the NHL when it comes to players flopping to try to get penalties.

Fact is, kickers flop all the time in the NFL and those hardly ever get called for penalties. If anyone gets near a punter he will usually flop. The refs get the running into the kicker calls right almost all the time.

Bub, Andrew

01-13-2003, 06:50 AM

Heh -- no one can touch the NHL when it comes to players flopping to try to get penalties.

Ha! Allen Iverson tops the NHL single-handedly.

The Officials may have made the call correctly, but they still screwed up. They should have anticipated the Pitt Time Out (and if you look at Cowher, he called it before the snap). But also because the Official booth can challenge any play and when a Playoff game is on the line, what harm does a booth challenge do? There is *some* doubt about the Nedney penalty (even though I personally believe it actually was a penalty), enough doubt that they should have expected a Pitt Time Out or, at the very least, called a Booth Replay.

I dunno, maybe they were blinded by that premature Fireworks Display....

Tom Ohle

01-13-2003, 07:50 AM

Fact of the matter is, though, that the Nedney penalty was a judgement call, correct? Not overturnable, as far as I know (I may be totally wrong, but that's the impression that I'm under).

And to me, it was a penalty. I didn't see the defender really pull up and try to stop. He rolled right into Nedney. Stupid play on Pittsburgh's part.

And you want to see floppers? Anyone watch international soccer? Probably my favorite sport, but GOD, so many whiners and divers. Terrible. The NHL is nothing--NBA is way worse, and soccer is the worst of all. International hockey has more of an issue--primarily the eastern bloc teams (nothing against people in eastern bloc countries, but their hockey players seem to like taking dives a lot more than others)

Bub, Andrew

01-13-2003, 07:54 AM

Fact of the matter is, though, that the Nedney penalty was a judgement call, correct? Not overturnable, as far as I know (I may be totally wrong, but that's the impression that I'm under).

It's overturnable, but only by an Official's Booth review, and only if Nedney stepped forward out of position. See, the Pittsburgh player is supposed to aim his body at the ball, to block the kick, which is about 2 steps from where Nedney kicks. So if the kicker moves forward, he can draw a penalty like this. It's crazy to do this intentionally of course, unless compound fractures are desired. Cowher claims Nedney moves forward, I haven't seen a replay that made this clear or not.

Mark Asher

01-13-2003, 11:07 AM

Cowher's nuts. That kick was like every other kick I've seen, and the rule is clear -- you hit the kicker, it's a penalty, unless any of the criteria previously mentioned apply, and none of them did. I always see the flag come out when the kicker gets hit -- hit, not touched, mind you.

As to booth replays, the booth is supposed to signal that they want one. They are not obligated to review a play simply because it's the last play of the game or because a TO has been called, especially if the call appears to be correct. If the officials missed Cowher signaling TO, that's unfortunate. How long did he try to call TO? If he waited until they were about to snap the ball, well, Cowher was foolish. He had plenty of time to call a TO after the penalty.

I'm unclear as to what's reviewable also. I don't think you can review a roughing the passer call, so I'm doubtful you can review a running into the kicker call.

Brian Koontz

01-13-2003, 06:20 PM

And it would have been nice if the refs could've hit Nedney with an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and made the fouls offsetting. That dive was embarrassing to the whole league.

I completely agree... flops should be penalized. Calling it "unsportsmanlike conduct" is perfect... that's just what it is.

By the way, you guys seem to be confused on the Cowher timeout issue. Here is what espn.com says on the matter...

"With Washington penalized for running into Nedney, the kicker got a third straight chance, this time from 26 yards. Pittsburgh tried to ice him again, but officials told the Steelers they had no timeouts left despite the scoreboard showing two remaining."

Bub, Andrew

01-13-2003, 08:13 PM

As to booth replays, the booth is supposed to signal that they want one. They are not obligated to review a play simply because it's the last play of the game or because a TO has been called, especially if the call appears to be correct.

True but what happens when there's a Time Out after a big penalty? The TV station runs the Instant Replay from every single conceivable angle they have at their disposal. Who has the game on TV in front of them? Among others, the Replay Booth. It's become a strategy unto itself to call a TO just so your booth or the Official's Booth has time to watch the Replay. True, they might have gone to commercial, but that's doubtful given this situation.

I'm unclear as to what's reviewable also. I don't think you can review a roughing the passer call, so I'm doubtful you can review a running into the kicker call.

As I understand it, everything is reviewable if the Official Booth buzzes for a replay. There are a lot of limitations on the kinds of replays a coach can call. Apparently Officials aren't always aware of what those are these days....

Man, if what Koontz is saying is true, that Pitt was DENIED a TO (even after they were almost denied a Coach's Challenge earlier, that's bad news for Officiating in the NFL. I can't find corraborating evidence at ESPN though.

Guestacy

01-13-2003, 09:36 PM

Man, if what Koontz is saying is true, that Pitt was DENIED a TO (even after they were almost denied a Coach's Challenge earlier, that's bad news for Officiating in the NFL. I can't find corraborating evidence at ESPN though.
That's not true, at least based on what I saw. A player said that after the game, but if you watch the replay, he clearly called for the TO after the snap. They were trying to get a situation like they did earlier, where they called the TO and managed to get a snap and kick, the theory being that would really rattle the kicker. But they got too cutesy and waited too long.

It's sour grapes. Games typically aren't ever literally decided on the last play. It's like saying Buckner alone cost the Red Sox the 86 world series. No, the inning earlier, I think it was Shiraldi that gave up some runs, then they got smoked in game 7. Pittsburgh got in the situation by getting out of the gate slowly, caught up, took the lead, then let the Titans back in the game. It's certainly easier to blame the refs than admit they played shitty defense in a large part of the game.

Bub, Andrew

01-13-2003, 09:50 PM

That's not true, at least based on what I saw. A player said that after the game, but if you watch the replay, he clearly called for the TO after the snap.

Yeah, the Special Teams captain called it as the snap happened. What Koontz said, and what I saw too, is that Coach Bill Cowher called it before the snap. Also, I found one column on ESPN that suggests Cowher was actually told by an official that they didn't have any Time Outs left when they in fact had two.