I can tell you a rule I would like enforced, offensive holding on passing downs. It is ridiculous what the OL gets away with against the DL. If the referees ever do call it, it always seems like it is the obligatory "once in a game" and then they go back to covering their eyes the rest of the game.
"It happens all the time," Taylor said. "It's not an exact science and personnel guys aren't the end-all, be-all. " Jason Taylor,2011
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
holding on to the football throughout the process of the catch. since when is getting up part of catching the football?
Offsides.
what a ridiculous rule.
I don't like the clock rules changing based on the score and situation. Every time a player goes out of bounds the clock should stop. But in the 1st and 3rd qtrs the clock continues to run. Early in the 2nd qtr the clocks continues to run after a player goes out of bounds but after the two minute warning the clock stops when going out of bounds. 4th qtr is totally dependent on the situation. If the game is a blowout the clock will continue to run after going out of bounds, but if the game is close and there's like 6 mins left then all of a sudden the clock stops again after going out of bounds. What if a team like Miami is playing in the 1st qtr...and they're in the redzone with the qtr winding down. Maybe they want to score before the 2nd qtr cause in the 1st qtr they're driving with the wind playing in Foxboro or something instead of the going against the wind as they would in the 2nd qtr. Most likely the qtr will wind down if Miami didn't score in time....even if a player went out of bounds to stop the clock. It's things like that that could go from Miami making a FG iwith the wind in the 1st qtr to missing a FG against the wind in the 2nd qtr.
I just think it's weird to change how a clock works based on the situation.
...........?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by Fin-O
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The one that ticks me off lately is the defender "leading" with his head on a tackle. Uh, the running backs do that pretty much all the time...lower the head and try and get extra yards, yet the defender can't do the same basic thing. That kind of double standard irritates me.
Agree. Why is it that "hands to the face/facemask" is a penalty for OL vs. DL or pass rusher vs. QB, yet a RB running at full speed can legally stiffarm a defender right in the facemask? In terms of safety, a RB at full speed hitting a defender running at him in the facemask will generate more force to the head/neck area with a greater chance of injury than two linemen standing toe-to-toe. Either do away with "hands to the face" (pulling on the facemask would still be a penalty), or throw a flag on the runner.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by BigCityCat
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
This one is simple to me. First, there is a minor one... hitting a quarterback, even slightly in the head, with your hand should not be a penalty. There are a few that are violent, but for the most part its pretty obvious that the player who is getting hurt is the the defensive players hand and not the quarterbacks head. When hand meets helmet....helmet wins.
More importantly, I believe the rules prohibiting defensive players from impeding wide receivers and tight ends after five yards of contact with even minimal contact is doing a true disservice to the illusion of improving player safety. Lets be real, the league is not interested in improving player safety, they are interested in asset protection. There is a difference. The NFL is driven by scoring points. Across the board, regardless of sport, if you increase scoring... you increase the interest of non-die hard fans, and these additional casual fans are the driving force for increasing the popularity of the game.
When the NFL decided that it was going to truly allow offense to dominate through the air, while simultaneously attempting to increase player safety, they hit a major cross roads. By allowing receivers to run freely through the defensive backfield, the game changed forever in favor of offense. However, what they didnt account for was what happened as a result of all this free movement. By giving these ultra gifted athletes a 'free release', all of the sudden they are running at full stride almost at will around the field. The defensive players are also roaming freely with limited contact to slow them down. What happens when two all world athletes are running at full speed and collide?....destruction.
The allowance of the old rules to impede offensive players, allowed them to slow them down. I know it sounds obvious, but that changes everything. Two players hitting each other at 70% of their respective optimum speeds (totally arbitrary number) makes an unbelievable difference compared to each of them running full speed.
The lightbulb moment for me about this was a few years ago (shortly after the rule changes i believe) was when two "little" players by NFL standards, Desean Jackson and Dunta Robinson collided for one of the most violent hits in recent memory. Dunta was levied a fine, which I believe was totally unwarranted. Dunta absolutely lowers his head, but if you notice, all the contact comes from his shoulder into Desean's chest... a legal hit. The issue is that desean was a "defenseless receiver". So the question truly becomes, why is desean, and other receivers, defenseless? The answer is because the rules have been tinkered to allow these situations to become more and more prevalent. You aren't allowed to touch a receiver, everyone is freely running at high speeds, the reaction times now went from being incredibly small windowed to now nearly instantaneous.
I will admit I am a more traditionalist in the sense that I believe football was designed as a barbaric and brutal game. I do not believe there is any way to make football "safe", much like there is no way to make boxing safe. But just like boxers are two consenting adults, the players ,outside of some of the quarterbacks, are against these protection rules. It is taking away from the spirit of the game, and they acknowledge that this is what they signed up to do. Desean Jackson after the crushing hit when asked about the hit said somemthing along the lines of, this is football, I signed up to be a football player, don't take the hitting out.
The NFL's own ambition for points is also one of the contributing factors to hellacious hits and concussions being sustained on a nearly gamely basis. Combine that with the fact that players are truly as big, fast, and strong as ever.... and you have a formula for frustrated players, frustrated fans, seriously injured players, but more points... and in the end thats all the NFL is concerned with.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If a QB leaves the pocket he should lose all his special protections and basically be treated like a running back. Case in point that roughing the passer penalty Tannehill drew against Seattle, he knew the hit was coming so he needs to take responsibility for his own body at that point and make a decision.
I also think there is a double standard between the "running" QBs and the pocket passers. Vick doesn't get the same calls a Tom Brady or even an Aaron Rodgers would get when they leave the pocket
Pass interference should only be a 15 yard penalty and an automatic first down. It's ridiculous that it is a spot foul with the way the referees call games. The spot foul pass interference might have made sense in the early days of the NFL when the league was predominately a running league, but now that the game has changed to a throwing league, it is way too severe a penalty.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks