Letting the Players Play

[The Green Mushroom]

I thought of this when I heard that there were far fewer penalties called per game during the NFL playoffs this year than during the regular season. The radio commentator who said it stated that letting the "players play" is a good idea.

I got to thinking and realized that this doesn't just affect the NFL. It comes up, at least in my experience, a fair amount in the NBA. I also hear it a lot in the NHL, especially during playoff overtime games where it seems that people want the ref to be lynched for calling a penalty--as if he was the guy who tripped a player during a sudden death period.

My thoughts on this are actually quite simple: why is something that would be a penalty three seconds into a game not a penalty when there are three seconds left in the game? If anything "letting the players play" seems to me to be very blunt code for: if its late in the game than you have to deal with being fouled and its your own lack of skills that prevents you from scoring while the defender is taking a piggy back ride on you.

Am I wrong here?

 

[Borgminister]

Consistency in refereeing a game is all you can ask for, IMO.

 

[Roger Wilco]

I think it's a combination of things. For starters, maybe players are more focused in play off games with their coaches drilling into them how crucial it is not to commit fouls in the first place.
Secondly, the better a referee is, the more confident he is in not calling fouls in close situations when he thinks it wasn't a foul. Weak referees call everything that could remotely be considered a foul because the repercussions are usually lower than if he misses a foul. I see this all the time when I compare soccer games in my home league and games from the EPL, La Liga, German Bundesliga, etc., that referees in those superior leagues call far fewer fouls, but when they do they are almost always right.
And I assume the referees in NFL play off games are considered the best in the sport.
Thirdly, since there's more on the line, maybe the referees assume that just a touch more physicality is permissable than in a common regular season game, especially in regards to player safety.

None of the NFL play off games I've seen this season seemed to me especially violent or out-of-control, so I would guess the first point is the most important one. The players know how important the game is, so they keep their emotions in check.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think part of the reason for a discrepancy early in game and late in game is this. Early in the game, players should adjust. If the refs call a bogus pass interference call, so what? Hold them to a field goal and score a touchdown to make up for it. If they blow a pass interference call at the last second which lets a team kick a game winning fieldgoal, the refs decided the game.

Yes, we want them to get every call right. But if we screw up, it should be on the side of players deciding the game.

 

[tighr]

We saw the refs make a few calls in the Packers/Giants game that essentially put 14 points on the board. Luckily that didn't impact the end result, but those two calls allowed Packer drives to continue that would otherwise have ended right there. Obviously, there is no magic button that lets us see if the Giants would have capitalized or if the Packers would have gotten the ball back anyway, but what we do know is that the Packers did capitalize.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Even then, if the refs blow a call that puts points on the board (although, technically, it doesn't. It makes it easier to score, but, except for a safety, you can't get points via penalty in the NFL), I still don't think that matters. A good team wins anyway. The weather can screw things up too, but nobody thinks the Fog Bowl was illegitimate just because nobody could see the ball being thrown. Late in the game, it matters because this is a game with a clock and there reaches a point where a comeback doesn't matter, but that's generally not the case.