|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
Is eliminating the forceout a good thing as to the Winslow catch last year, or a bad thing?
The field just got skinnier.
All our WR's including KW2 had better be paying attention. Last year we had a tendancy to try to tightrope the catches right on the edge of the field. Now they can legally be pushed out of bounds before they can get their feet down, just so long as it doesn't amount to carrying them.
With the speed of the game and the strength of the defenders this effectively makes the field about two yards narrower on each boarder. If they try to play around tightroping again this year it's going to end up as an incomplete pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Is eliminating the forceout a good thing as to the Winslow catch last year, or a bad thing?
The field just got skinnier.
All our WR's including KW2 had better be paying attention. Last year we had a tendancy to try to tightrope the catches right on the edge of the field. Now they can legally be pushed out of bounds before they can get their feet down, just so long as it doesn't amount to carrying them.
With the speed of the game and the strength of the defenders this effectively makes the field about two yards narrower on each boarder. If they try to play around tightroping again this year it's going to end up as an incomplete pass.
Hey the quarterback threw it to the sideline. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
...but now it doesn't matter if your pushed out, you have to get the ball in bouinds
That is AWESOME!!! I've been hoping the league would get rid of that stupid rule. A WR goes over the middle and anyone can hit him as hard as they want to stop him from making the catch...but if that WR is near the sideline, hands off cause it could be ruled a force out. BS. The defense should be able to stop a WR from getting their two feet in bounds. If you want to use the sidelines for passing, it should be a gamble just like the middle of the field. I say JOB WELL DONE to the NFL.
Of course, the "unless he's carried out of bounds" will still create a grey area in the rule. If the WR jumps straight up and the defender simply gets underneath him to prevent from two feet coming down all while moving him out of bounds....is that considered "carried"? What about if the defender grabs one leg and holds it from going down while pushing him out? I think the rule should be simple.....get two feet in bounds, that's it.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
And the NFL needs a "Running into the QB" and "Roughing the QB" penalty. I'm ok with protecting the QB, but some of the hits aren't 15-yards and an automatic first down. It's crazy at times.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Quote:
Hopefully, we won't be in that situation again this year.
Our situation had nothing to do with the reseeding rule.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/hfMNC7T.jpg) "I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874 |
Quote:
And the NFL needs a "Running into the QB" and "Roughing the QB" penalty. I'm ok with protecting the QB, but some of the hits aren't 15-yards and an automatic first down. It's crazy at times.
...and the thing where a defender's pinky touches the QB's helmet needs to go too.
![[Linked Image from members.cox.net]](http://members.cox.net/flyinc5/smallsigpics/frcburnout.gif) AL 29 76 14 R_K
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 874 |
Quote:
• Atlanta president Rich McKay said the competition committee will look into scheduling more games between division opponents late in the season to combat the possibility of meaningless matchups.
...maybe the Titans can play the Colts again.
AL 29 76 14 R_K
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,363
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,363 |
Quote:
And the NFL needs a "Running into the QB" and "Roughing the QB" penalty. I'm ok with protecting the QB, but some of the hits aren't 15-yards and an automatic first down. It's crazy at times.
The NFL needs to take the skirt off the QB's
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
And the NFL needs a "Running into the QB" and "Roughing the QB" penalty. I'm ok with protecting the QB, but some of the hits aren't 15-yards and an automatic first down. It's crazy at times.
The NFL needs to take the skirt off the QB's
While that statement is more accurate than mine, I think the NFL wants to keep the skirt on....I just want the refs to have the option to choose which kind of foul it is. The way it is now, touch the QB's head and it's 15 and a first. Lame.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986 |
Quote:
Quote:
And the NFL needs a "Running into the QB" and "Roughing the QB" penalty. I'm ok with protecting the QB, but some of the hits aren't 15-yards and an automatic first down. It's crazy at times.
The NFL needs to take the skirt off the QB's
While that is true, you know it isn't going to happen. I just wish that all QBs had the "same quality skirt", haha. QBs like Manning and Brady can get looked at wrong and get a 15 yard penalty against the other team, but no name QBs can get hit while going out of bounds at times and there is no flag. If you are going to put skirts on them, do it for all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Atlanta president Rich McKay said the competition committee will look into scheduling more games between division opponents late in the season to combat the possibility of meaningless matchups.
You know I think they should do this....You can have what amounts to a college rivalry weekend. And there would most likely be more instances where those games would have Large implications on the divsional standings...
It could make for some exciting football.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
I actually didn't like the Playoff Reseeding proposal.. You win your division.. You are get the home game. Otherwise, you should just get rid of divisions and say the best 6 teams go into the playoffs.
That proposal would hurt teams more in tough divisions.. Remember you play the teams in your division twice. and your division all the play the teams from another division. Lets say that other division is also strong. You have all four teams basically beating each other out and losing them a chance to have a home playoff game while a weaker division sports 2 home playoff games because they didn't battle much and might have played a weaker outside division.
I actually agree that there should be some sort of reward for winning your division other than a fancy title and a spot in the playoffs... Just win your division.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
jc..
The one I don't understand is the "deferring of the coin toss"
I don't see what the big deal is. You either want to receive or you want to kick, why defer to the other team? Are you too afraid to make a decision?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,678
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,678 |
Quote:
jc..
The one I don't understand is the "deferring of the coin toss"
I don't see what the big deal is. You either want to receive or you want to kick, why defer to the other team? Are you too afraid to make a decision?
If you defer, the other team gets to choose and then you get to decide to take any wind or not.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
ahh, forgot about picking field sides. Thanks Peen.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 844
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 844 |
well, I have no issues with dropping the forceout rule, it rarely ever gets called so why bother even having it. Now there will be no questions.
I wasn't really for or against the reseeding, I do think the reseeding could have given us some more interesting matchups, possibly!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
I actually didn't like the Playoff Reseeding proposal.. You win your division.. You are get the home game. Otherwise, you should just get rid of divisions and say the best 6 teams go into the playoffs.
That proposal would hurt teams more in tough divisions.. Remember you play the teams in your division twice. and your division all the play the teams from another division. Lets say that other division is also strong. You have all four teams basically beating each other out and losing them a chance to have a home playoff game while a weaker division sports 2 home playoff games because they didn't battle much and might have played a weaker outside division.
I actually agree that there should be some sort of reward for winning your division other than a fancy title and a spot in the playoffs... Just win your division.
The way I saw it, is that it didn't do anything other than determine the home games, and force teams to play all 16 regular season games.
2007 season - Jax vs Pit - Jax(11-5) vs Pit(10-6) in the playoffs.
Now, Jax had a better record, they also had already beaten Pit in Pit earlier in the year. They should have gotten the home playoff game.
Jax played in a division that had 3 teams make the playoffs. Pit had 1
Again, NYG(10-6) [another 3 playoff team division] against Tampa 9-7, in Tampa for the playoff game. Sure Tampa won their division, but they also play NO, ATL, and CAR, not exactly a dominant division.
In most cases, this also forces teams to play all 16 games. There are many times when a team has the division clinched, they rest players, and therefore affect the chances of other teams playoff chances. Ten would never have beat a full Indy squad.
I can see both sides of the argument, but as you can see, while Tampa won their division, they didn't have to work nearly as hard as the NYG did to do so. Winning their division guaranteed them a playoff spot, but not necessarily a home game.
And in the reseeding, Tampa may have not rested Garcia in the final game of the season, which they ended up losing, in an effort to ensure a home game.
Not to mention, what about the fans that pay money to see their team, and you get to watch the pre-season lineup in week 16 and 17?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Another proposal that got nixed : League rejects 'Devin Hester Rule' on punts Getty Images The NFL has no interest in doing Devin Hester any favors, so there will be no "Devin Hester rule" passed any time soon according to the Chicago Tribune. In recent weeks, the league considered legislating against punting out of bounds-which teams did frequently when opposing Hester last season. A survey was sent to head coaches and general managers to get their reaction to such a rule, but the response was overwhelmingly against changing what often is a strategic move to trap an opponent inside his own 20-yard line rather than kicking into the end zone for a touchback. The NFL's competition committee also had a discussion about enacting a new rule, but it didn't go very far. "Directional kicking is a difficult thing to do," said Colts President Bill Polian, a member of the competition committee. "We saw no evidence that [punting out of bounds] is growing in use. So it's not an issue we had a lot of concern about. Very few people can do it, and the odds of it backfiring on you are pretty high. If you shank it, it's 20 yards, not 40. It's a tough skill to execute." Link
"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
I think you are misreading the rule. The title of this thread is a bit confusing. Perhaps that is why you misunderstood it. Go back and read the original article again and try not to think about the title of this thread.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,311
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,311 |
Vers: I'm not sure how I misled people with the title of this thread. The owners voted against the reseeding proposal that was on the table and decided to vote to get rid of "forceout calls" made by refs due to the gray area that came with them. What is misleading?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Not to nit-pick, but they voted against changing the seeding and for changing the forceout rule.
It threw me too as the title seemed to indicate that they nixed the idea of changing either one.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
Kardiac, I don't think you tried to mislead anyone intentionally. That's why I didn't address it earlier.
Read ddubia's reply. I was confused by the title too. No big deal, man.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,693 |
Grammatically you got it right, bro. They did nix the reseeding and they also nixed force outs. Since you're speaking specifically about the actions and not the rules, your title is perfectly correct and not misleading at all, IMHO. God, I can't wait for the draft. 
"I am undeterred and I am undaunted." --Kevin Stefanski "Big hairy American winning machines." --Baker Mayfield #gmstrong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Browns plays stir rules-makers
|
|
![[Linked Image from i89.photobucket.com]](http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k233/marctheshark1969/thrandelelisafaggot.jpg)