Does a Players Reputation Lead to More Personal Foul Calls? (1 Viewer)

[DCThunder]

I want to preface this with the statement that this isn't rampant homerism, but is there anything to Tony Kornheiser's assertion that players with a reputation as being borderline "dirty" get more personal foul calls than those who don't have that rep. Specifically the PF call on Sean Taylor for the hit on the incompletion near the sideline on the final Vikings drive.

Taylor got two PF calls and this was the same officiating crew that tossed him from the playoff game for the spitting incident last season in the playoffs. So there is some history.

BTW, don't turn this thread into a bash Tony K thread, please.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Probably.

It was definitely a BS call.

 

[valhallan]

I think a better example of this was Randy Moss getting a penalty for "throwing the ball at an opposing player" when he lightly tossed it near Kaeding after running out of bounds. I'm no Randy fan, but that was a total b.s. call. Makes you wonder if his rep biassed the officiating on that one.

 

[BlueOnion]

Without a doubt. Much of the calls are judgement calls to begin with. Even with the Sean Taylor face mask last night, the question was not "is it or is it not a facemask". The question should be "was the facemask flagrant or not?"

I have seen far worse face-mask calls than that one last night, and to be honest I don't even think the referee could even see Williamson's face mask to make an accurate call; so the referee had to make a judgement call.

 

[Colin Dowling]

The Randy Moss taunting call was equally ridiculous.

 

[On The Rocks]

my answer is yes and no.

the game is so fast in live action, i don't think refs take the time to look and see who is the offender before they throw a flag. they see a jersey color and an infraction and they blow the whistle.

however, there might be an occasion when a face mask is called or a penalty is called and after the ref realizes who the infraction was on, they might take the extra step and make it a personal foul or flagrant foul. i think that is possible but more an exception and not the norm.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Both of Taylor's penalties were penalties.

The first was not for a hit out of bounds. It was for hitting with the crown of his helmet. (And it wasn't ont he final drive.)

The second was a facemask.

He's still a punk, though.

And the answer to the question is "Yes."

 

[thayman]

Both of Taylor's penalties were penalties.The first was not for a hit out of bounds. It was for hitting with the crown of his helmet. (And it wasn't ont he final drive.)The second was a facemask.He's still a punk, though.And the answer to the question is "Yes."

except he didn't hit with the crown of his helmet. He lead with his shoulder. If the Trent Green hit doesn't get a flag then there is no way in Hell Taylor's hit should be a penalty

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Both of Taylor's penalties were penalties.The first was not for a hit out of bounds. It was for hitting with the crown of his helmet. (And it wasn't ont he final drive.)The second was a facemask.He's still a punk, though.And the answer to the question is "Yes."

except he didn't hit with the crown of his helmet. He lead with his shoulder. If the Trent Green hit doesn't get a flag then there is no way in Hell Taylor's hit should be a penalty

It depended on the angle. I agree that the shot from the side didn't look like it, but then they showed a replay from the front and it looked like he did hit with the crown. Since it's not reviewable, they had to call that penalty.And the hit on Green should have been a penalty too.

 

[trader jake]

Only Theisman would argue otherwise.

It's that way in every sport.

 

[thayman]

Both of Taylor's penalties were penalties.The first was not for a hit out of bounds. It was for hitting with the crown of his helmet. (And it wasn't ont he final drive.)The second was a facemask.He's still a punk, though.And the answer to the question is "Yes."

except he didn't hit with the crown of his helmet. He lead with his shoulder. If the Trent Green hit doesn't get a flag then there is no way in Hell Taylor's hit should be a penalty

It depended on the angle. I agree that the shot from the side didn't look like it, but then they showed a replay from the front and it looked like he did hit with the crown. Since it's not reviewable, they had to call that penalty.And the hit on Green should have been a penalty too.

I rewound it several times. He didn't lead with his helmet. And no they didn't have to call that penalty, the ball was still in play. It wasn't for leading with his helmet, it was for hitting a defenseless reciever.

 

[cws3030]

I think Yes but it's more subconscious than the ref thinking oh that's Sean Taylor he is dirty

 

[reg]

Both of Taylor's penalties were penalties.The first was not for a hit out of bounds. It was for hitting with the crown of his helmet. (And it wasn't ont he final drive.)The second was a facemask.He's still a punk, though.And the answer to the question is "Yes."

except he didn't hit with the crown of his helmet. He lead with his shoulder. If the Trent Green hit doesn't get a flag then there is no way in Hell Taylor's hit should be a penalty

It depended on the angle. I agree that the shot from the side didn't look like it, but then they showed a replay from the front and it looked like he did hit with the crown. Since it's not reviewable, they had to call that penalty.And the hit on Green should have been a penalty too.

Really? The first one looked like he hit him with the facemask. I disagreed with the penalty.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Both of Taylor's penalties were penalties.The first was not for a hit out of bounds. It was for hitting with the crown of his helmet. (And it wasn't ont he final drive.)The second was a facemask.He's still a punk, though.And the answer to the question is "Yes."

except he didn't hit with the crown of his helmet. He lead with his shoulder. If the Trent Green hit doesn't get a flag then there is no way in Hell Taylor's hit should be a penalty

It depended on the angle. I agree that the shot from the side didn't look like it, but then they showed a replay from the front and it looked like he did hit with the crown. Since it's not reviewable, they had to call that penalty.And the hit on Green should have been a penalty too.

I rewound it several times. He didn't lead with his helmet. And no they didn't have to call that penalty, the ball was still in play. It wasn't for leading with his helmet, it was for hitting a defenseless reciever.

Maybe I'm wrong then. I could have sworn I hear it was for an illegal hit with the crown. All the booth chatter may have messed me up.All the game log says is "PENALTY on WAS-S.Taylor, Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, enforced at MIN 8 - No Play. "It was a bit ticky-tack, but then I thought there were several of those against the Vikes last night.

 

[redman]

Both of Taylor's penalties were penalties.

The first was not for a hit out of bounds. It was for hitting with the crown of his helmet. (And it wasn't ont he final drive.)

The second was a facemask.

He's still a punk, though.

And the answer to the question is "Yes."

except he didn't hit with the crown of his helmet. He lead with his shoulder. If the Trent Green hit doesn't get a flag then there is no way in Hell Taylor's hit should be a penalty

It depended on the angle. I agree that the shot from the side didn't look like it, but then they showed a replay from the front and it looked like he did hit with the crown. Since it's not reviewable, they had to call that penalty.And the hit on Green should have been a penalty too.

I rewound it several times. He didn't lead with his helmet. And no they didn't have to call that penalty, the ball was still in play. It wasn't for leading with his helmet, it was for hitting a defenseless reciever.

Maybe I'm wrong then. I could have sworn I hear it was for an illegal hit with the crown. All the booth chatter may have messed me up.All the game log says is "PENALTY on WAS-S.Taylor, Unnecessary Roughness, 15 yards, enforced at MIN 8 - No Play. "

It was a bit ticky-tack, but then I thought there were several of those against the Vikes last night.

No, the ref at the time clearly stated it was the "defenseless receiver" rule, which is garbage given that the ball had yet to hit the ground and was still within arms reach of the WR. Beyond that though, a pet peeve of mine is the crown of the helmet rule as it relates to safeties in that situation. We all know what spearing looks like, but the rule goes beyond spearing and penalizes anyone for "leading with the crown of the helmet." How on earth can you run across the field as a safety does in deep coverage to either tackle or hit and not lead with your head? It's not anatomically possible, short of pulling a Jackie Chan and leading with your feet. Players are taught to keep their head up when they tackle, and/or to make sure that they stick their head on the upfield side of the offensive player! It's good form! Add to that the fact that the receiver is inevitably himself moving, and you have a really unjust situation for safeties.

Penalties are subjective. Yes, bias can impact them. I have no idea whether that was a factor last night, but I do know that there were a handful of calls that I strongly took issue with.

 

[wannabee]

I think Rasheed would say so. And, I think the NFL is the same ....

 

[BlueOnion]

Beyond that though, a pet peeve of mine is the crown of the helmet rule as it relates to safeties in that situation. We all know what spearing looks like, but the rule goes beyond spearing and penalizes anyone for "leading with the crown of the helmet." How on earth can you run across the field as a safety does in deep coverage to either tackle or hit and not lead with your head? It's not anatomically possible, short of pulling a Jackie Chan and leading with your feet. Players are taught to keep their head up when they tackle, and/or to make sure that they stick their head on the upfield side of the offensive player! It's good form! Add to that the fact that the receiver is inevitably himself moving, and you have a really unjust situation for safeties.

Same thing goes for the roughing the passer and late hits out of bounds. All three of these calls are made entirely to tightly. Offensive players need to burder some of the responsibility of their own safety by avoiding dangerous situations.

 

[fatness]

The "defenseless reciver" call on Taylor and the taunting call on Moss would not have been called on 90% of other players. Those calls were made because of reputation.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

Taylor's facemask looked to be a 5-yarder and was called a 15-yarder. However, Archuleta's facemask shortly before that looked to be a 15-yarder and was called a 5-yarder. Dunno if that was because of reputations, or whether Taylor's was a makeup call.