PDA

View Full Version : What rules do you hate?



kotar44
08-13-2010, 01:16 AM
Why can't the ground cause a fumble? It can prevent a catch, but for some reason runners are treated differently? And forward progress is another phrase for the spot you were at before you got your ass got knocked backwards...lame. These are never rules you would come up with just playing the game...

msclemons
08-13-2010, 01:22 AM
Ground can't cause a fumble because the play is dead when the runner is down. It prevents a catch because the receiver doesn't have possession until he holds the ball through contact with the ground.

Forward progress was implemented because defenders would literally hold a ball carrier up and carry him backward.

I hate the way offensive holding is called. It's a drive killing penalty that seems to be called arbitrarily.

StaggerMcTipsy
08-13-2010, 01:32 AM
Roughing the passer or kicker when it's obvious to EVERYONE except the ref that it was unintentional.

I hate all the other rules, too.

StaggerMcTipsy
08-13-2010, 01:37 AM
On a side note: if a receiver catches the ball, but then a defender picks him up by the ankles, swings him over his head, slams him to the turf, and the ball pops out, is that a fumble? Technically, the ground DID cause the fumble -- if the ground hadn't been there, the defender would have been left just swinging him around...

Andy Freeland
08-13-2010, 08:18 AM
The forward progress rule is necessary. Like Clem said, without it defensive players would just carry the ball carrier backwards. A little known rule is if a ball carrier goes out of bounds while heading towards his own goal line he is considered to have had his forward progress stopped in bounds and the clock keeps running.

I don't like the head coach being able to call a timeout. That's what causes those last second icing the kicker timeouts after the kicker has already kicked the ball. I hate that.

Mythology
08-13-2010, 08:45 AM
The way QBs stop the clock irks me. They just smack the ball down instead of taking the snap and throwing it down (Brett Favre is the first QB I remember doing this). And in general, stopping the clock is intentional grounding. Why shouldn't QBs have to take a snap and just throw it to the sidelines over their WR's head?

-- I'd like to see an increase from 5 yards to 10 yards for a DB to bump a WR.
-- Pass Interference should be a 10 yard penalty.

But the big mess, in my opinion, is "roughing the passer" penalties - what constitutes a clean hit on a QB (where to hit him, when to hit him, the status of the QB getting hit, etc.) is a subjective mess.

ScottDCP
08-13-2010, 08:49 AM
I don't like the head coach being able to call a timeout. That's what causes those last second icing the kicker timeouts after the kicker has already kicked the ball. I hate that.

Right there with you, and hadn't thought of it. The one that bugs me a little more, though it happens less, is the one about an offensive player who is out of bounds not being able to t catch the ball first upon coming back in. I say if he's so dedicatexd to not being a viable target for half the play, he's definitely cooking up something good, so let 'em go and see what it is. If he's just trying to avoid getting held up somehow, well, good on him for finding a solution. And if his toeor heel just happened to touch the line, gimme a break.

ScottDCP
08-13-2010, 08:52 AM
The way QBs stop the clock irks me. They just smack the ball down instead of taking the snap and throwing it down (Brett Favre is the first QB I remember doing this).

Jim Kelly did it first. The thing about it that gets me is that a third of the time, thaqt thing seems to be going backwards.

Resdog154
08-13-2010, 09:06 AM
Right there with you, and hadn't thought of it. The one that bugs me a little more, though it happens less, is the one about an offensive player who is out of bounds not being able to t catch the ball first upon coming back in. I say if he's so dedicatexd to not being a viable target for half the play, he's definitely cooking up something good, so let 'em go and see what it is. If he's just trying to avoid getting held up somehow, well, good on him for finding a solution. And if his toeor heel just happened to touch the line, gimme a break.

If I'm not mistaken, they changed this rule a year or two ago. A player can go out of bounds and be the first to touch it as long as they re-establish themselves in the field of play. It was a good rule change and allows guys who get shoved out of bounds a chance to be a part of the play.

ScottDCP
08-13-2010, 09:19 AM
If I'm not mistaken, they changed this rule a year or two ago. A player can go out of bounds and be the first to touch it as long as they re-establish themselves in the field of play. It was a good rule change and allows guys who get shoved out of bounds a chance to be a part of the play.

Well that's embarrassing. On the plus side, I am now aware of just how many flowers I have overlooked at weddings over the years. So apparently I'm being consistent. Although in my defense, the flowers thing is just ridiculous unless you're my fiance.

kotar44
08-13-2010, 10:18 AM
I agree with what you guys said about forward progress, but that is not how the rule is implemented. A receiver makes a catch at the 40, steps backward to attempt to go around a defender, gets tackled back at the 37 because of his decision to reverse, and they mark the ball at the 40...but, if he broke the tackle and gained another 5 yards, he gets credit for it. It's stupid and counter intuitive. And I still don't buy that explanation regarding the ground causing fumbles. If we accept that a receiver must maintain possession through him landing, then why not a runner? In all honesty, this is essentially how the game used to be played before replay, and the game seemed fine to me. I thought for sure someone would bring up the tuck rule, the most asinine one I can think of this early in the day.

EricTheClown
08-13-2010, 10:47 AM
If I'm not mistaken, they changed this rule a year or two ago. A player can go out of bounds and be the first to touch it as long as they re-establish themselves in the field of play. It was a good rule change and allows guys who get shoved out of bounds a chance to be a part of the play.

I think last night in the Panthers game there was a receiver go out of bounds then re-establish himself in bounds.
He caught the ball and was penalized for being the first to touch the ball after going out of bounds.

The way the ref explained it made it sound like if he hadn’t "re-established" himself, it would have just been an incomplete pass.

Did anyone else see that?

EricTheClown
08-13-2010, 10:49 AM
I don't like the head coach being able to call a timeout. That's what causes those last second icing the kicker timeouts after the kicker has already kicked the ball. I hate that.

II don’t know how to explain it, but it seems weasley and bush league to me.

Bengals1181
08-13-2010, 11:06 AM
there was a thread similar to this a bit ago, and I'll say the same thing I said there:


cut blocks being legal.



Far too many injuries take place on cut blocks.

With all the protection rules they've been putting in place for QB's, RB's and WR's, why do they continue to use a rule that allows a player to dive at another player's knees? Makes no sense.

Trumpetbdw
08-13-2010, 11:24 AM
I despise the "football move" after a catch rule. Whatever happened to 2 feet? That was the rule forever, or at least that's how it was interpreted, and watching some of these classic games on NFLN is a bit weird because there are numerous catches that would have never been allowed today. I'd think a 3rd step would constitute that football move, but if you're going to the ground, some refs don't care how many steps you take because you must "complete the catch" by maintaining possession through hitting the ground. And even then, sometimes that's not enough. Remember the Steelers-Indy playoff game from a few years ago where Polamalu intercepted a pass, had 3 feet down, hit the ground, did a complete roll, then started to get up without ever being touched, and kicked the ball out on the way back up, and it was ruled incomplete. Man I hate this rule...

Resdog154
08-13-2010, 01:14 PM
I think last night in the Panthers game there was a receiver go out of bounds then re-establish himself in bounds.
He caught the ball and was penalized for being the first to touch the ball after going out of bounds.

The way the ref explained it made it sound like if he hadn’t "re-established" himself, it would have just been an incomplete pass.

Did anyone else see that?

To clarify my earlier post. If the player voluntarily goes out of bounds he is out of play - he can only re-establish if he was pushed out of bounds by a defender.

AZCardsFan
08-14-2010, 11:54 AM
I believe Cris mentioned it on another thread, but I hate the way that pass interference is called. It seems like the defense is at such a disadvantage on down field plays. A ticky-tack PI call on a deep ball is sometimes the difference in a game. That's crazy to me. Cris proposed an intermediate penalty (similar to college) where the less egregious touch fouls are not potentially game changing. I know that this injects some subjectivity into the process, but refs get paid for their judgement

ScottDCP
08-14-2010, 11:56 AM
To clarify my earlier post. If the player voluntarily goes out of bounds he is out of play - he can only re-establish if he was pushed out of bounds by a defender.

OK, I can grab this one - I say let 'em roam free.

StaggerMcTipsy
08-14-2010, 12:16 PM
I hate how you're not allowed to hit the ball carrier with a two by four then rip the ball out of his hands, hop on a dirt bike and head for the end zone. Didn't even know there was a rule against that until I tried it last weekend in a flag football game. Got a 15-yard penalty; ridiculous!

I also don't like how you're not allowed to have beer coolers in the huddle.

Andy Freeland
08-14-2010, 01:17 PM
I hate how you're not allowed to hit the ball carrier with a two by four then rip the ball out of his hands, hop on a dirt bike and head for the end zone. Didn't even know there was a rule against that until I tried it last weekend in a flag football game. Got a 15-yard penalty; ridiculous!

I also don't like how you're not allowed to have beer coolers in the huddle.

It's fine to hit someone with a popsicle stick, Illegal to hit them with a 2 by 4. You just have to find the middle ground.

brauneyz
08-14-2010, 01:29 PM
It's fine to hit someone with a popsicle stick, Illegal to hit them with a 2 by 4. You just have to find the middle ground.

Not if it's pointed and going for the face.

(Sorry, I had an old calc teacher who began lessons occasionally with, "This one's going to be about as much fun as sharp stick in the eye." Some pictures you just can't shake.)

Ragar
08-18-2010, 01:24 PM
I despise the "football move" after a catch rule.

This is actually one of the rules that I love being implemented as it's primary devised to determine possession of the ball. A person running the ball has already established possession and has no further need to do so.

The rule I hate is the automatic first down on penalties. 5-yard defensive holding penalties should not be auotmatic first downs, 15-yard penalties should not be automatic first-downs, you mark off the yardage and go by the yardage stick.