Some would call it cynical. Others would call it pragmatic. Some might wonder whether it’s a deeper comment on a potentially common practice that undermines the integrity of the game.
Twice this week, in both of his appearances on 105.3 The Fan, Cowboys owner and G.M. Jerry Jones shared his theory regarding penalties. Put simply, he believes that penalties should be called evenly between both teams in any given game.
“Penalties are a big part of this,” Jones said Friday. “Generally, in a given game, if the officiating is ‘what’s good for the goose, good for the gander,’ is the same for both sides, offense [and] defense, then you really haven’t had a game outcome change. And that one the other day [against the Chargers], we all got it equally.”
On Monday night, the Cowboys were penalized 11 times for 85 yards. The Chargers drew nine flags, for 79 yards.
Jones’s viewpoint isn’t that of a fan spouting off whatever to whoever will listen. This is the opinion of one of the most influential voices in the entire sport.
So should penalties be called equally, or should they be called based on the penalties that are actually happening? Is it a loose quota system, with each team supposedly drawing the same number of fouls regardless of the precise frequency with which the rules are being violated by either team?
If Jones is right, compliance with the rules doesn’t really matter. The penalties will ultimately be called equally.
While the reality might not support his ideas about penalties, Jones’s aspiration should carry with it some concern in an age of widespread legalized gambling. Penalties can, and at times do, impact the outcome of games. Do the current stewards of the sport expect penalties to be called based strictly on what the officials see, or do the powers-that-be want the officials to consider other factors, such as whether there’s a disparity in penalties being called — regardless of whether there’s a disparity in fouls being committed?
Taking it another step farther, and in light of the league office’s increasing involvement in the officiating of games, is the league office at all times simply trying to get things right, or is the league office hoping to keep things balanced?
Jones’s position on penalties comes from his broader perspective that the league tries to keep things as even as possible. In both of his appearances on 105.3 The Fan this week, he volunteered the notion that “when a club . . . releases a player today, for whatever the reason, the club that lost the most last year would have the first dibs on that player.” (That’s technically inaccurate, for two reasons. First, prior to the trade deadline, vested veterans immediately become free agents. Second, after three weeks of the regular season, the waiver priority is based on the records in the current season.)
The broader point from Jones, as it relates to penalties, is subtle yet critical. In the mind of one of the most important figures in pro football over the past 35 years, penalties should be balanced out, and not strictly called based on when and how infractions are happening. That commentary potentially cracks open a Pandora’s box of curiosity by those in government (legislators, prosecutors, regulators) who now have a reason to protect consumers who are now betting their hard-earned money legally in most American jurisdictions.
