Bad Rule

#1
volbreaker

volbreaker

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
3,459
Likes
29
#1
Watching the Auburn Ga. game brings back to the frontal lobe how bad some rules can be. The fumble by Anderson through the endzone in the Bama game brought to center stage what I consider to be a bad rule. To penalize a team for a fumble to the extent of 20 yards and the loss of possesion is ridiculous. Thank goodness for Auburns sake they did'nt have to "feel our pain".
 
#3
#3
Come on guys...help me out here. Should'nt the rule be changed? Why should you give the ball to the defense in that situation. I've played the game half of my life and watched avidly the other half and never has a rule made less sense! If the defense never gains possesion, and in this case never even touches it after the hit, why penalize the O 20 yards and loss of possesion? I understand not being able to advance on a fumble, but if a player fumbles out of bounds it's the O's ball unless the D corrals it.....Why penalize for being there...give it to them at the spot of the fumble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
#5
#5
It shouldn't be changed just because it has so adversely affected us this season. Both teams have to play by the same rule and if we did not fumble it into the endzone it would not have mattered.
 
#7
#7
Originally posted by JasonCajun@Nov 14, 2005 8:14 PM
It shouldn't be changed just because it has so adversely affected us this season. Both teams have to play by the same rule and if we did not fumble it into the endzone it would not have mattered.
[snapback]191862[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


I agree both teams have to play by the same rules but the rule is stupid. The ball should be placed at the spot of the fumble if the ball goes out of the back of the endzone.

The NFL pass interference rule is equally stupid. A long pass downfield is a low percentage pass. There is no way it should be a spot foul. 15 yds. and 1st down is plenty.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 
#8
#8
Originally posted by swami2302@Nov 14, 2005 8:26 PM
I agree both teams have to play by the same rules but the rule is stupid.  The ball should be placed at the spot of the fumble if the ball goes out of the back of the endzone. 

The NFL pass interference rule is equally stupid.  A long pass downfield is a low percentage pass.  There is no way it should be a spot foul.  15 yds. and 1st down is plenty.
:banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:
[snapback]191878[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



That is the exact same way I feel about it. And the NFL interference rule. That is the DUMBEST rule alive.
 
#9
#9
Originally posted by swami2302@Nov 14, 2005 8:26 PM
I agree both teams have to play by the same rules but the rule is stupid.  The ball should be placed at the spot of the fumble if the ball goes out of the back of the endzone. 

The NFL pass interference rule is equally stupid.  A long pass downfield is a low percentage pass.  There is no way it should be a spot foul.  15 yds. and 1st down is plenty.
:banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:
[snapback]191878[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


I like it. It keeps the level of difficulty up higher over college.

If the NFL and college had the exact same rules, one would not be necessary. I like the extra challenge it poses to the players who are supposed to be elite anyways. Elite enough to make millions of $$. I also like how the clock doesn't stop on a first down in the NFL. It makes you use your timeouts more wisely. It's overall supposed to raise the level of difficulty and make sure that the players are as on point with their games as possible.

As for the fumbling rule, you wont have to worry if you dont fumble in the first place. My coach always said, a fumble is a fumble!! It dont matter if your knee is down. Your #1 job is to hold on to the ball!

:ninja:
 
#10
#10
If you make pass interference just 15 yards, guys would do it all the time as a cop out and not have to be as skilled to properly cover a receiver. IMO, it could be used as cheating. If you are beat, you shouldn't be able to give yourself another chance by interfering with my ability to make you pay for not covering me properly.
 
#11
#11
Originally posted by USAF_Vol@Nov 14, 2005 8:30 PM
That is the exact same way I feel about it.  And the NFL interference rule.  That is the DUMBEST rule alive.
[snapback]191881[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


No, it keeps the level of difficulty higher than college. If they are going to make millions of $$, they should have stricter rules so they have to use more skill in what they do. Just like having two feet in bounds instead of one (college).

Besides, it makes for more amazing plays because the players have to keep their skills sharpened.
 
#12
#12
Originally posted by tvolsfan@Nov 14, 2005 8:14 PM
i agree. the defense didnt recover it. why should they get it.
[snapback]191860[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



Be honest with yourself, if Tennessee was winning games because of other teams fumbling like that, you wouldn't want that rule changed. You would think of it as the best rule in football.

:ninja:
 
#14
#14
Originally posted by gonygonygo@Nov 14, 2005 8:37 PM
No, it keeps the level of difficulty higher than college.  If they are going to make millions of $$, they should have stricter rules so they have to use more skill in what they do.  Just like having two feet in bounds instead of one (college).

Besides, it makes for more amazing plays because the players have to keep their skills sharpened.
[snapback]191887[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


:moon2:

Ahh, ok. That makes a little sense. BUt I don't watch the NFL for skill. We all know they have it. (Why else would they pay the players).

You make a good point. I have to respect that. :thumbsup:
 
#15
#15
Originally posted by JasonCajun@Nov 14, 2005 8:14 PM
It shouldn't be changed just because it has so adversely affected us this season. Both teams have to play by the same rule and if we did not fumble it into the endzone it would not have mattered.
[snapback]191862[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

It is an illustration of a bad rule....not a commentary about
Everyone plays with it....bad is bad
 
#16
#16
Originally posted by gonygonygo@Nov 14, 2005 8:34 PM
I like it.  It keeps the level of difficulty up higher over college. 

If the NFL and college had the exact same rules, one would not be necessary.  I like the extra challenge it poses to the players who are supposed to be elite anyways.  Elite enough to make millions of $$.  I also like how the clock doesn't stop on a first down in the NFL.  It makes you use your timeouts more wisely.  It's overall supposed to raise the level of difficulty and make sure that the players are as on point with their games as possible.

As for the fumbling rule, you wont have to worry if you dont fumble in the first place.  My coach always said, a fumble is a fumble!!  It dont matter if your knee is down.  Your #1 job is to hold on to the ball!
Fubling is part of the game.If you use the argument about it making the game then you are 'competetively crippling the benefactor of such a poor rule. Marking it at the spot of the fumble would keep things fair......not incentivizing against the controling team. If that were the purpose I could come up with many other FAIR ways to do it!
:ninja:
[snapback]191884[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

 
#17
#17
Originally posted by gonygonygo@Nov 14, 2005 8:39 PM
Be honest with yourself, if Tennessee was winning games because of other teams fumbling like that, you wouldn't want that rule changed.  You would think of it as the best rule in football.

:ninja:
[snapback]191889[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

OH, Yes it's acute right now ,but I would not want to win on a play that fell my way in this respect either.
 
#18
#18
Compare to Souther Cal's fumble on the goal line against Notre Dame. The ball was fumbled out of bounds (just like Tennessee's fumble against Alabama) but Southern Cal was able to retain possession AT THE SPOT OF THE FUMBLE even though the ball bounced backwards and went out of bounds at the 3-yard line. Tennessee lost possession because the ball was fumbled AT ABOUT THE SAME SPOT AS USC'S but the ball bounced out of bounds through the endzone.

I've never understood this rule and never really cared because I've rarely seen it used. However, after seeing how the outcome could adversely effect a game like it did.... I agree that the rule needs to change.
 
#19
#19
Good point. What is the difference if it rolls to the sideline as opposed to the sideline on the other side of the cone in the endzone. I can see them giving the ball at the spot of the fumble. It is severely harsh.

In my time of watching the vols i have never seen them ever fumble through the endzone. Unfortunately they have done twice this season resulting in losses. We should be 6-3 at least.
 
#20
#20
Originally posted by allvol@Nov 15, 2005 10:21 AM
Compare to Souther Cal's fumble on the goal line against Notre Dame.  The ball was fumbled out of bounds (just like Tennessee's fumble against Alabama) but Southern Cal was able to retain possession AT THE SPOT OF THE FUMBLE even though the ball bounced backwards and went out of bounds at the 3-yard line.  Tennessee lost possession because the ball was fumbled AT ABOUT THE SAME SPOT AS USC'S but the ball bounced out of bounds through the endzone.

I've never understood this rule and never really cared because I've rarely seen it used.  However, after seeing how the outcome could adversely effect a game like it did.... I agree that the rule needs to change.
[snapback]192428[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Very good statement. I agree 100%.
 
#21
#21
Originally posted by allvol@Nov 15, 2005 10:21 AM
Compare to Souther Cal's fumble on the goal line against Notre Dame.  The ball was fumbled out of bounds (just like Tennessee's fumble against Alabama) but Southern Cal was able to retain possession AT THE SPOT OF THE FUMBLE even though the ball bounced backwards and went out of bounds at the 3-yard line.  Tennessee lost possession because the ball was fumbled AT ABOUT THE SAME SPOT AS USC'S but the ball bounced out of bounds through the endzone.

I've never understood this rule and never really cared because I've rarely seen it used.  However, after seeing how the outcome could adversely effect a game like it did.... I agree that the rule needs to change.
[snapback]192428[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Then why not make a kickoff out of the back of the endzone a penalty? If you're going to treat the sideline the same as the back of the endzone, wouldn't that be another logical rule change.
 
#22
#22
Originally posted by hatvol96@Nov 15, 2005 11:50 AM
Then why not make a kickoff out of the back of the endzone a penalty? If you're going to treat the sideline the same as the back of the endzone, wouldn't that be another logical rule change.
[snapback]192480[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


There is no loss of possession in the situation you are discussing... just a 15-yard penalty.

However, the fumble that bounces into the endzone penalized the offense with loss of possession. Its the worst penalty that can be given.
 
#23
#23
Originally posted by allvol@Nov 15, 2005 11:53 AM
There is no loss of possession in the situation you are discussing... just a 15-yard penalty.

However, the fumble that bounces into the endzone penalized the offense with loss of possession.  Its the worst penalty that can be given.
[snapback]192483[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

But shouldn't the defense get some reward for causing the fumble? With the change you propose, there's no detriment to the offense for fumbling out of the endzone.
 
#24
#24
Originally posted by hatvol96@Nov 15, 2005 11:58 AM
But shouldn't the defense get some reward for causing the fumble? With the change you propose, there's no detriment to the offense for fumbling out of the endzone.
[snapback]192488[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


give the offense the ball back at the 20-yard line. the defense should not get it unless they recover it. it is too much like a gift right now.... the defense did not earn the ball.
 
#25
#25
Originally posted by allvol@Nov 15, 2005 12:06 PM
give the offense the ball back at the 20-yard line.  the defense should not get it unless they recover it.  it is too much like a gift right now.... the defense did not earn the ball.
[snapback]192498[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

That would be reasonable. It rewards the defense without unjustly enriching them.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top