Bad Rule

#76
#76
That would be my understanding.

Further on the debate, fumbling (as we did against Bama) is not a penalty. It is a fumble with a particular ruling on what happens after the ball becomes dead.

Fumble out of your own endzone and it's a safety (no penalty but points and possession for the other team no matter what down it is).
 
#77
#77
Now, I did witness a really dumb rule a few years ago.

During a Titans preseason game, Del Greco kicked a field goal in the last seconds of the game. It was good. But the defense was off-sides. They had to kick again. It was No Good. Whoever we were playing won. Now, that's a dumb rule.
 
#78
#78
It had to have been a dead ball foul - contact that blew the play dead. Just being offsides doesn't stop the play.
 
#79
#79
Originally posted by Jasongivm6@Nov 17, 2005 9:35 PM
Now, I did witness a really dumb rule a few years ago.

During a Titans preseason game, Del Greco kicked a field goal in the last seconds of the game.  It was good.  But the defense was off-sides.  They had to kick again.  It was No Good.  Whoever we were playing won.  Now, that's a dumb rule.
[snapback]194555[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

titans should have been able to decline that offsides. they got screwed if it happened that way.
 
#80
#80
Originally posted by checkerboard_charly@Nov 17, 2005 9:42 PM
titans should have been able to decline that offsides. they got screwed if it happened that way.
[snapback]194563[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



Yeah, I'm sure now that it probably couldn't have been offsides. But it was a penalty against the defense. They did get to kick it over with no time left on the clock. But I don't think that a defensive penalty should negate a score.
 
#81
#81
Originally posted by checkerboard_charly@Nov 17, 2005 9:42 PM
titans should have been able to decline that offsides. they got screwed if it happened that way.
[snapback]194563[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Rules sre rules....no discussion...it's heiracy. Just kidding, he's right there was contact before snap....still sucked.
 
#82
#82
The debate was not which scenario is better, but that the rule sucks. What is great about America is that we have the ability to change things that suck. Just because the rule might have originated in football's rugby origins means nothing to me. The rule still sucks. It sucks no matter which team it happens to.

Safeties and touchbacks. They occur on different ends of the field and should be treated differently. The rule needs to be changed.

Also, losing 7 points and possession is much more damaging than giving up 2 points and possession.
 
#83
#83
Seven points is not lost - it was never gained. Anderson did not score. We may have or may not have. He was hit at the 3 and went down.

In a safety, points aren't lost either - they are awarded to the other team.

You may not like the rule but it is part of a fundamental core rule - keeping the ball in the field of play while in the endzone. If the offensive team fails to do so on one end of the field its a safety, on the other end its a touchback - same concept. This is not some esoteric rule or late add-on; it's been part of football since the beginning and is part of the core principles of the game. Five yard contact zones, halo rules, etc. - those are adaptations that have come way after the fact as the game evolves.

So if the debate is about whether or not the rule "sucks" I say no because it is directly related to a fundamental principle of the game.
 
#84
#84
Originally posted by allvol@Nov 18, 2005 10:25 AM
  What is great about America is that we have the ability to change things that suck. 
[snapback]194842[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


We also have the ability to maintain things as they were conceived even if some people think they suck :post-20645-1119625378:

We also have the ability to create sanctioning bodies and provide them with the authority to create and monitor the rules of participation :post-20645-1119625378:

Finally, we have the ability to use sarcasm at will :post-20645-1119625378: :post-20645-1119625378:


 
#85
#85
The rules did evolve from rugby. In rugby any dropped ball that rolls foward off the body results is a turnover regardless who recovers which is called a knock on.

American Football took the derivative of the rugby rule and only applied it to fumbles through the endzone or if the opposing team recovers the ball.
The reason american football applies that rule is because we have a limit of downs or tackles to reach a certain point. Unlike rugby A team with posession of the ball can hold the ball with unlimited plays and tackles. There is no limitation on how many times they get tackled or downs. Only an infraction such as offsides or dropped ball ball will result in the other team getting poseion of the ball. A player that steps out of bounds will result in a turnover in rugby. In rugby the team that scores will recieve the ball again on kickoff.
As far as rule changes. The fumble rule has from my knowledge never been discussed for change. Changes i have seen in college and the NFL has been to the two point rule in the NFL. The NCAA changed the goal posts width. OT was instilled in the NCAA although diferrent from the sudden death play and tie at the end of ot in the nfl. So there have been changes that have been positive.
A good rule change would be a fumble through the endzone would result the other team getting the ball but at the spot of the fumble. The way i see is it the NCAA apply it the same as a punt or kickoff through the endzone.
I prefer the 2 feet in bounds as opposed to one foot. I feel the offense has a much easier job and it makes it harder on the defense especially with the no contact rule after 5 yards.
 
#86
#86
Originally posted by brg72@Nov 18, 2005 11:43 AM
The way i see is it the NCAA apply it the same as a punt or kickoff through the endzone. 

[snapback]194884[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


NFL does as well. - As I've stated earlier, if the attacking team (offense) causes the ball to go out of bounds in the opponent's endzone, it is a touchback (kickoff, punt, fumble). The primary EXCEPTION is causing the ball to go out via forward pass.

While I see the point of giving the ball to the other team at the spot of the fumble, this would be creating another exception to the rule.
 
#87
#87
Why has this discussion reached 5 pages?! It's easy to understand...

Dont fumble, and you have nothing to worry about! A rule is a rule.

I happen to like the rule. It's a way for the defense to still have one last chance to prevent the offense from a sure score when they get so deep into the redzone. It's either that, or hope they miss a field goal. I like having "options". The closer you get to the other team's endzone, the more careful you should have to be with the football. Remember, the defense doesn't always have to be pro-active when it comes to regaining posession of the ball. The other factor is the offense making mistakes to hurt itself.

In basketball, the defense doesn't have to steal the ball to get posession back. If you put enough pressure on the (or not), they can turn the ball over by being careless and turning it over with or without effort from the defense.

Should we change the out of bounds rule in basketball because the defense didn't do anything to "earn" the ball back. If there's a bad pass and it happens to go out of bounds, the offense should just get the ball back, since the defense didn't "take" it away.

Change of posession rules are part of every sport. Get used to it, or find a new sport, or invent your own version of it, like Vince McMahon did with the XFL. Good luck with that...
 
#88
#88
Here is another example of the concept of that rule applied to other sports:

In hockey, if a player knocks the puck into his own goalie's net, it's still a point for the other team. It doesn't matter who places it in the net. It just has to cross the line. Same goes for soccer.

The team that benefits from such luck had nothing to do with the score, but it just a rule that is part of the game. Changes of posession and scoring do not always have to be forced by the defense, they can result from self-inflicted errors by the offense.

Actually, in the case of Corey Anderson, the defense DID force the turnover by the hit that caused the fumble in the first place. With that said, the defense DID earn the ball back. It wasn't like he was running alone, and fumbled the ball on his own. It was FORCED out.
 
#89
#89
Originally posted by gonygonygo@Nov 18, 2005 12:08 PM
Here is another example of the concept of that rule applied to other sports:

In hockey, if a player knocks the puck into his own goalie's net, it's still a point for the other team.  It doesn't matter who places it in the net.  It just has to cross the line.  Same goes for soccer.

The team that benefits from such luck had nothing to do with the score, but it just a rule that is part of the game.  Changes of posession and scoring do not always have to be forced by the defense, they can result from self-inflicted errors by the offense.

Actually, in the case of Corey Anderson, the defense DID force the turnover by the hit that caused the fumble in the first place.  With that said, the defense DID earn the ball back.  It wasn't like he was running alone, and fumbled the ball on his own.  It was FORCED out.
[snapback]194898[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



I feel sorry for those goalies who don't anticipate their own teamates to score on them. :D
 
#90
#90
Originally posted by volbreaker@Nov 18, 2005 9:03 AM
Rules sre rules....no discussion...it's heiracy. Just kidding, he's right there was contact before snap....still sucked.
[snapback]194775[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

oh ok. i didnt know that it was encroachment. my bad.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top