Talib not worried about emphasis on fouls against receivers

AP

The last time the NFL made defensive holding and illegal contact with receivers a point of emphasis in 2004, the number of flags thrown for both fouls increased from 79 to 191.

Broncos cornerback Aqib Talib doesn’t believe this year’s emphasis on those fouls will result in a similar uptick.

“They always talk about it but once it’s September and the real games start, it will probably be regular,” Talib told reporters on Friday.  “It’ll probably go through preseason and die out.  It doesn’t matter, it is what it is.  We’re just going to come out here and play football.”

It probably won’t die out, especially if teams like the Seahawks commit those fouls under the impression that the officials won’t throw a stream of flags for fear of bogging down the game.  The officials are under orders to throw the flags, and they apparently will.

20 responses to “Talib not worried about emphasis on fouls against receivers

  1. Yeah and what’s with Ross Tucker breaking down a play the other day and complimenting Revis when he used a cheap hold to disrupt the Steve Smith play? That should have been a 1st down, even Revis’ early contact couldn’t stop Smith from beating him on that play, only the jersey-pullback-hold move was able to save the day.

    Oh and Mayock referred to that as a “good veteran hold”, cause yeah that’s a real term in the rulebook.

  2. I am a bit worried about this. What I continually see is mutual contact with both the receiver and defender hand-fighting, the receiver frequently pushing off, etc. That needs some cleaning up but calling everything on the defender doesn’t sound like the way to go about it.

  3. Offensive pass interference should be an emphasis as well.

    But less points doesn’t move the needle enough and Roger has to answer to his stockholders on growth so……..

  4. .
    Competition Committee czar, Jeff Fisher, is not going to let the Seahawks secondary dominate NFC West games like they did last year.

    The strategy worked perfectly when Fisher and Colts GM Bill Polian decided that Peyton Manning should be awarded a ring via penalties in 2005.
    .

  5. It might force the seahawks DBs to play by the rules…if that happens…richard sherman will get his butt handed to him.

  6. They still play football for the first 5 yards, that is where the Hawks bump guys. Florio can throw out the gratuitous barbs all he wants but there was a reason the league didn’t show a clip of the Hawks as part of the rule emphasis.

    I get player safety issues and can buy the defenseless receiver rules, but other than a big hard one for Manning there is no reason to call a bunch of ticky tacky penalties where both players are bumping each other down field in order to try and turn the pro-game into some sort of 52-46 Div II joke. And Sherman is right, short of a rules change to abolish kickoffs and start every drive at the 50, the league can’t expect the refs to change the game into a one sided joke that it shouldn’t be. Maybe there is a rule emphasis this year so Manning can go out the way the league wants him to, but by next year they’ll be back to playing football again.

  7. Carbonriver, You hit a ten penny nail right on the head with a sledge hammer. Twice in this century the NFL has brought up this “emphasis” bull. Both times after the golden boy got it handed to him the way it wasn’t expected. First Pats then Seahawks, coincidence?

  8. The trade off is that the league is also going to start calling more penalties on offensive pass interference ..teams with physical receivers may get flagged more too…Seattle had officials out on their playing field this week..during practice,,,learning the new ropes…they also added speed in the WR group to take advantage of the new rule change…

  9. Seahawks will be the poster boys for the new rule, rightfully so. They bragged last year that they were holding on every play because “the refs will only call it on every 10 plays”. 9-7, 10-6 somewhere around there this year IF the refs call PI like they should.

Leave a Reply