Professional Football Researchers Association Forum
PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
The referee has no authority to declare a forfeit, so the gameday manuals specifically state that the word "forfeit" is never uttered.
The Referee must not discuss a forfeit with head coaches or club personnel and must not use that term over the Referee’s microphone
If a game cannot continue due to the interference of nonplayers, it is a security matter: event staff, local police, state troopers, and NFL Security if necessary (cf. Bottlegate). If someone does not want to do their job in keeping unauthorized personnel off the field, it will be their last day doing that job.
The basis for the penalty procedure is essentially what would happen with an ejected player who returns to play. While the rulebook spells out the procedures for disqualified players returning (inactive, suspended, ejected, etc.), that also would never come to pass, because the sidelines are monitored by the staff of Football Operations. The provisions are there, though, just in case, and are likely a holdover from an era when security was not as robust.
by 65 toss power trap » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:16 pm The referee has no authority to declare a forfeit, so the gameday manuals specifically state that the word "forfeit" is never uttered.
"The Referee must not discuss a forfeit with head coaches or club personnel and must not use that term over the Referee’s microphone
If a game cannot continue due to the interference of nonplayers, it is a security matter: event staff, local police, state troopers, and NFL Security if necessary (cf. Bottlegate). If someone does not want to do their job in keeping unauthorized personnel off the field, it will be their last day doing that job.
The basis for the penalty procedure is essentially what would happen with an ejected player who returns to play. While the rulebook spells out the procedures for disqualified players returning (inactive, suspended, ejected, etc.), that also would never come to pass, because the sidelines are monitored by the staff of Football Operations. The provisions are there, though, just in case, and are likely a holdover from an era when security was not as robust.
Fascinating! Disgusting, but fascinating!
You are to be commended for posting these facts and making them available to the public. Hopefully, you are not in any danger
for so doing.
It is - or was until your cite - difficult to believe that one of our "Four Freedoms" is suppressed by Rule.
If a person can submit to having their speech controlled, he certainly cannot be counted on to "call 'em as he sees 'em." Can he?
Additionally, to suggest the use of force to brutally achieve a simple regulation is absurd.
Haven't we seen enough of law enforcement gone berserk in the past few years.
You include "If someone does not want to do their job in keeping unauthorized personnel off the field, it will be their last day doing that job."
Is that your decision to make or is that just another guess?
Here is the rub:
So much money and so many people are charged with writing rules of dominance and the hiring (and, hopefully, training)
of personnel to enforce those rules by any means but no one seems to know how to properly check the air in a quarterback's balls.
By the way, are those "gameday manuals" viewable? Surely they are kept secure by armed guards and attack dogs.
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
Since the referee cannot declare a forfeit, the manual just wants to make it clear that the word isn't tossed around in an already heated situation. If a threat of forfeit is made and not followed through on (because the league policies prohibit it) the opposing team will say it's entitled to the 2-0 win. It just makes an ugly situation uglier.
In the snowball game in the Meadowlands between the Chargers and Giants, the euphonious Bob Sheppard warned the crowd that the game was under the threat of termination by forfeit. It never was at any time, and as far as I know the referee did not make that statement to the teams.
By NFL standards, a forfeit is when one team fails or refuses to take the field and the other team is ready and willing to play. The Commissioner isn't even allowed to declare a forfeit, except for a narrow exception that essentially allows him to do so if a team does not declare the forfeit but refuses to take the field. It does not apply to apocalyptic Disco Nights or other travesties of sport.
The policy manual is not available online.
If you will permit me a moment to shill, I have a book coming out in September -- So You Think You Know Football? -- which devotes an entire chapter to extraordinary beyond-the-rulebook situations.
by 65 toss power trap » Sun Aug 02, 2015 11:38 pm
"... If you will permit me a moment to shill, I have a book coming out in September -- So You Think You Know Football? -- which devotes an entire chapter to extraordinary beyond-the-rulebook situations."
Certainly, you can shill. Why would you be the lone exception?
It was quite easy to see that was the spot on your horizon that was your objective.
It is why a few headings were provided to help you stay the course.
You did a fine job and (not quite artfully) dodged other more important issues.
The New York Times book review people must be on pins and needles just waiting for enlightenment.
bonne chance!
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
by SixtiesFan » Mon Aug 03, 2015 3:08 pm
"Another book on the 1970's Raiders is coming out in September. The title is "Cheating Is Encouraged.""
Once upon a time, a snow storm was going to postpone a swim meet between two Ivy League schools.
They decided not to cancel and each team used its own pool and faxed the results to the other. The results and records were official.
I think one of the schools was Princeton and I will look for the exact date. (I just came across it the other day in my files.)
Anyway, whenever that comes to mind, I think of the Patriots and the Raiders.
If they had Football by FAX, the Patsies and the Black and Silver would hold every record in Football.
Edited to Add:
Found it!
1/12/1991 Princeton University 164-71 v. Cornell University in swimming meet with each team using own pool.
Blizzard made transportation impossible & schools agreed to compete by telephone with results exchanged by FAX.
Only in the Ivy League...
What's that cheer?
"That's all right. That's okay.
You're gonna work for us some day."
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
Transcript of Tom Brady's Deflategate hearing testimony released
NFLPA releases transcript of Tom Brady appeal hearing
On Tuesday, the NFL Players Association released the complete transcript of Tom Brady's suspension appeal hearing.
BY SI WIRE
"It was a different game when I played.
When a player made a good play, he didn't jump up and down.
Those kinds of plays were expected."
~ Arnie Weinmeister
It amazes me how many still think this is just about what happened in January. Like I said in the original thread, I believe this is really about two things -
1) The cover up is always worse than the crime
2) Previous history of cheating coupled with a "we're above the law" arrogance
To me, it doesn't really matter how much of an advantage it gave Brady and the Pats nor how much they needed. The fact is that Brady must've thought it gave an advantage, otherwise why do it?
Courts typically don't like to go against what's in a CBA, so my guess is that the judge will strongly recommend that the two sides come to a compromise and that Brady's suspension will be reduced but not completely wiped out. Then it would just be a matter of Brady's team coming up with language expressing that Brady still isn't admitting guilt.
I'm just still trying to figure out how Belichick didn't get a suspension out of this. I mean, you're telling me that Bill freakin' Bellichick had no idea this was going on? Gimme a break. Even on the slight chance he didn't, we were told when Sean Peyton got suspended that ignorance is no excuse.
It is beyond comprehension that this has dragged on for six months. The NFL has become a real life soap opera. How much embarrassment to the "shield" can Goodell possibly survive?
JohnH19 wrote:It is beyond comprehension that this has dragged on for six months. The NFL has become a real life soap opera. How much embarrassment to the "shield" can Goodell possibly survive?
