skylive5 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Sudden death overtime rule. Both teams should get the ball once. 1281225[/snapback] Personally don't like overtime at all. They play to a tie over 60 mins... keep it a tie. However, since they are not going to eliminate overtime.... keep it the way it is. Giving both teams the ball once is like changing the rules so a passing TD is only worth 4. Which is about the dumbest FF thing I have ever come up against. FMPOV equality in the NFL is not a good thing.... and giving equal shots in overtime just wouldn't be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 22, 2006 Author Share Posted January 22, 2006 Which is amazing considering the Raiders have a lot of albatrosses. Al Davis being the main one. 1281241[/snapback] They could hire Shanahan away from Denver as Davis' personal assistant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 I never understood why, after players run out of bounds, the clock starts again once the officials are set. Not just the play clock, the game clock as well. I'm not sure of the exact rule but there's definitely an exception for late in the half, but many times with 10 minutes left I'll see a guy run out of bounds, officials stop clock, players get to huddle, official restarts game and play clock. I'd like to change this because it would mean less ticking, more scoring. What fantasy nut doesn't want more scoring? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Other than that tuck rule I can't see how you can take posession away when the ball goes ot of bounds in the endzone. Unless the other team secures posession I don't believe officials should give it to the opposing team, as in Champ Bailey's int. last week. If it had gone into the end zone the Patriots would have gotten a touchback. I believe unless the other team secures the ball you should have it where you lost it. 1280302[/snapback] Good calls. Either change to this or make the college kids get 2 feet down. Either one would be fine: just make it consistent. 1280483[/snapback] Yup - just make it two feet for the college players too. Adopt college OT rules - much more exciting, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocknrobn26 Posted January 22, 2006 Share Posted January 22, 2006 Why when a QB throws the ball away, in the pocket it's grounding, but he can drill it into the ground behind the center and it's not? Ineligable rec.-when the pass hits an 'O' lineman in the Back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulOttCarruth Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Not really a rule, but I always thought the way first downs are measured is pretty antiquated. Can't they come up with a better technology? As it is, if the ref on the rear measuring stick places the stick down an inch or two in the wrong direction--and isn't he just eyeballing it to some degree--it can change the entire game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFL_Guru Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 Sides that, though, please correct me if I have thi swrong slightly. The whole thing about the Endzone actually stretches around the earth... so if you are knocked out of bounds but the ball crosses the goal line out of bounds, it's still a TD. Or the even worse interpretation of the rule, where not even the ball but the opposite hand that's holding the ball (Mike Vick vs CHicago was it?). 1281233[/snapback] That is not an accurate interpretation of the rule. Devine, you are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 All of the rules that protect the QB. He is supposed to be a football player, roughing is for pansies like kickers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 26, 2006 Share Posted January 26, 2006 All of the rules that protect the QB. He is supposed to be a football player, roughing is for pansies like kickers. 1290584[/snapback] Gotta protect the QB. There aren't enough NFL quality QBs for each team to have one, much less two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 probably not a rule change, but the refs have to lighten up about illegal blocks on kick/punt returns. it's like clockwork - player makes some great cuts, breaks free, rambles into the endzone, crowd going crazy, and ... flag. bring it all back, no play. then you see on the replay that the block in the back happened on the other side of the field and would have had no impact on the play. give us back one of the most exciting plays in the game by only calling this penalty when it would have had a chance to make a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 probably not a rule change, but the refs have to lighten up about illegal blocks on kick/punt returns. it's like clockwork - player makes some great cuts, breaks free, rambles into the endzone, crowd going crazy, and ... flag. bring it all back, no play. then you see on the replay that the block in the back happened on the other side of the field and would have had no impact on the play. give us back one of the most exciting plays in the game by only calling this penalty when it would have had a chance to make a difference. 1290668[/snapback] Agree about the disappointment of a great play being called back, but gotta ask two things here: Why does the buffoon on the far side of the field commit the offense? Why does the ST coach not chew his ass so he doesn't do it again? In other words, is this really a rule change need or an indicator of crappy coaching and undisciplined play? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Move the OT kickoff up to the 35. More touchbacks and when they had this in place from 1973-1994 the loser of the toss actually won more games than the winner. Since then, that's been lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinersIn2006! Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I read about a proposal that in overtime, you had to win the game by 6...at first I thought it was stupid, but then I gave it more thought, and its actually kind of clever. Think about it, your team is on the 10, and its 4th and 5. They can kick the field goal, then only have to get a field goal to win the game on their next possession, or they can go for it and go for the win right now. Then again, I'm not sure anyone would ever go for FG's in overtime then...I dont know...I would like to see something change with the OT rules because more often than not it seems that both D's are tired and whoever wins the coin toss will win the game on the first possession against a slow and tired D...and I know you would ALWAYS take possession of the football if you win the coin toss in overtime (right Marty Mornigweg??) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Agree about the disappointment of a great play being called back, but gotta ask two things here: Why does the buffoon on the far side of the field commit the offense? Why does the ST coach not chew his ass so he doesn't do it again? In other words, is this really a rule change need or an indicator of crappy coaching and undisciplined play? 1290752[/snapback] agree completely. i think it is definintely crappy coaching, undisciplined play, and also hyperactive officiating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I read about a proposal that in overtime, you had to win the game by 6...at first I thought it was stupid, but then I gave it more thought, and its actually kind of clever. Think about it, your team is on the 10, and its 4th and 5. They can kick the field goal, then only have to get a field goal to win the game on their next possession, or they can go for it and go for the win right now. Then again, I'm not sure anyone would ever go for FG's in overtime then...I dont know...I would like to see something change with the OT rules because more often than not it seems that both D's are tired and whoever wins the coin toss will win the game on the first possession against a slow and tired D...and I know you would ALWAYS take possession of the football if you win the coin toss in overtime (right Marty Mornigweg??) 1290759[/snapback] i do think that changing the OT structure is the biggest opportunity area. it has to be more than getting lucky on a coin toss and kicking a 45 yard field goal to bring home the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 i do think that changing the OT structure is the biggest opportunity area. it has to be more than getting lucky on a coin toss and kicking a 45 yard field goal to bring home the game. 1290766[/snapback] The NFL don't like the idea of extending a game too long because of TV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 That is not an accurate interpretation of the rule. Devine, you are not. 1290583[/snapback] Please bless me with your knowledge then, and an explanation of what happened on said Mike Vick play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 That infinite goal line crap needs to go. So ridiculous. What happened to the good old, get the ball over the goal line? Was that really so hard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Tom Brady should be allowed to play bare chested. 1290794[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Little Bit Special Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 I don't understand why when the offensive team has the ball deep in their own end and get called for a penalty, they only tack on half the distance to the goal. For example, a team is on offence on their own two yard line, they get called for holding. If the defensive team accepts the penalty, it is only 1st and 11 from the one yard line instead of 1st and 20. Yet if the defense gets called for offside or another penalty on the play, they are assessed the full yardage. Why should the offensive team have the advantage just because they got backed up into their own end? Move them back half the distance to the goal but assess the full penalty yardage by moving the chains forward. 1280509[/snapback] I hate this rule too but it is not an advantage only to the offense. In your scenario it is, but take this scenario which I believe I saw in the Indy vs. Pitt game. Indy is on the half-yard line and gets called for a false start. This backs them up five yards. On the ensuing play Pitt is offsides, normally a 5-yard penalty but because they are within 10-yards of the goalline it is assessed as half the distance. Instead of ending up back on the half-yard line they end up on the 2 1/2 yard line. IMO the only time half the distance should be assessed is if there is not enough yardage to assess the full penalty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) I don't understand why when the offensive team has the ball deep in their own end and get called for a penalty, they only tack on half the distance to the goal. For example, a team is on offence on their own two yard line, they get called for holding. If the defensive team accepts the penalty, it is only 1st and 11 from the one yard line instead of 1st and 20. Yet if the defense gets called for offside or another penalty on the play, they are assessed the full yardage. Why should the offensive team have the advantage just because they got backed up into their own end? Move them back half the distance to the goal but assess the full penalty yardage by moving the chains forward. 1280509[/snapback] It does work for the def. also when the Off. is going in from the 11 and the def. gets a 10 yd. penalty, it's also half the distance. So the Def. gets theirs also. ooops didn't read this far ahead. What he said. Edited January 27, 2006 by jgcoach Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 naked cheerleaders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 That infinite goal line crap needs to go. So ridiculous. What happened to the good old, get the ball over the goal line? Was that really so hard? 1290794[/snapback] i agree. receivers have to have 2 feet down in the endzone to have a touchdown right? so should quarterbacks and running backs in the are traveling past the goalline. i'm tired of seeing mike vick jump thought the side of the endzone or reggie bush (i realize he's not in the nfl yet) fly through the air upside-down nowhere near the endzone, yet the referee rules that a tiny portion of the ball broke the imaginary barrier that's out there. i guess i just think the endzone rules needs to be revisited and made consistent. this includes the fumble/touchback situation people have already mentioned. i also hate the forward progress thing. the ball should be spotted where the player should've gone down. i realize this is arbitrary but there are a lot of nfl rules that are. i agree that 6 defenders shouldn't be able to stand a guy up and drive him back 10 yards. he should be spotted where those guys stopped him and started to drive him back. so if he gets pounded and is still standing and then 2 more guys hit him, he should be spotted at the place that backwards motion starts (as if he had been tackled). the reason i don't like this is because i think if you are a running back, quarterback, or receiver and you get knocked on your can, you should be spotted where you got put in your place, not where the ball was before you were tackled. that's silly. if a defender nails somebody and knocks them silly, let's give them some credit for it. and if a player is running straight up enough to get bowled over, he deserves to lose a yard on the tackle. just my thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 i agree. receivers have to have 2 feet down in the endzone to have a touchdown right? so should quarterbacks and running backs in the are traveling past the goalline. i'm tired of seeing mike vick jump thought the side of the endzone or reggie bush (i realize he's not in the nfl yet) fly through the air upside-down nowhere near the endzone, yet the referee rules that a tiny portion of the ball broke the imaginary barrier that's out there. i guess i just think the endzone rules needs to be revisited and made consistent. this includes the fumble/touchback situation people have already mentioned.1291285[/snapback] Receivers need the 2 feet down in bounds for it to be a reception. If the reception takes place at the goal line, those other rules still take place, meaning both feet don't need to be in the end zone, just as long as they were in bounds for the reception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted January 27, 2006 Share Posted January 27, 2006 Receivers need the 2 feet down in bounds for it to be a reception. If the reception takes place at the goal line, those other rules still take place, meaning both feet don't need to be in the end zone, just as long as they were in bounds for the reception. 1291291[/snapback] but if a receiver jumps up, catches a ball, secures it, yet on his own power, goes out of the back of the endzone before he comes down, it's no touchdown right? i realize it's because a player running already has possession and the receiver needs to establish it first, but it just seems inconsistent that all a running player has to do is get a piece of the ball over and their body doesn't have to be in the endzone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.