KeithByars

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/3/2008 12:16 PM




I think that would be good just b/c it would keep part of the rule, but leave out the retarded judgment part by the ref




NotoriousEAG

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/3/2008 12:27 PM




Right. If you can knock someone out w impunity you have to have a trade off.

Good luck running a 2 minute drill like f-dallas (the most astute football poster) said




f-dallas

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/3/2008 1:01 PM




Are you guys suggesting all sideline/end zone catches be changed to 1 foot?




KeithByars

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/3/2008 1:04 PM




Not at all, just thought it would have been fine as a compromise.

I like it either way (one foot or out altogether) b/c I thought it was stupid as a rule as it was.




f-dallas

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/3/2008 1:09 PM




If they wanted to change it to 1 foot in bounds all the way around (for any reason), I wouldn't care.

However, changing it just for those specific plays would be trading one evil for another, wouldn't it?

Instead of judging whether or not the player would have come down in bounds had he not been hit, they'd be judging whether or not the defensive player exerted force on the WR (so they can decide whether to use the 2 foot or 1 foot rule).

I'm okay with 1 foot or 2 feet all the way around, but I think an exception for just "force outs" to one foot would just trade one tough/controversial call for another.




KeithByars

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/3/2008 1:12 PM




I never had a problem with that part as a judgement call, b/c it's obvious when the player is knocked out. There are always going to be judgement type things (was his arm coming forward, where is the ball marked), so the one foot thing would be a good compromise.




f-dallas

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/3/2008 1:19 PM




Yeah, but as soon as a defender has a check hand on the WRs hip, hits the guys arm while going for the ball, etc. the question will be "was that enough force to defer to the 1 foot rule".

That's just my opinion. I don't want to see a first down in the playoffs handed out of taken away because the ref thought the corner helped him out and gave him credit for one foot from 15 yards away.




KeithByars

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/3/2008 1:23 PM




I know, not saying I loved it, just saying it would have been a good compromise




f-dallas

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/3/2008 1:45 PM




And I'm saying it would have been an "awful" compromise, Animal.

f-dallas has spoken.




NotoriousEAG

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/4/2008 12:45 AM




One foot all the way around




NCSaintsFan

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/4/2008 7:41 AM




Aside from teh subjective nature of the call, which I don't really have a problem with, I think this helps shift the balance on the field slightly back toward the defense. For years, the league constantly changed the rules to benefit the offense. This isn't something that is neccessarily designed to help the defense, but it does shift the balance of power.

Or so says the Bible.




uber1024

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/4/2008 8:19 AM




It's good to agree with NCSaintsFan on something. I feel like Jesus wants defenses to have more options now.

All kidding aside, I've been noticing a trend towards more offensive capabilities over the past few years, also, and I was hoping to see the defense get some of their teeth back.




Roachie

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/4/2008 6:47 PM




It looks like this statement, "A legal forward handoff that is dropped is now a fumble" is not quite correct. I was wondering what a legal forward handoff is and why it wasn't a fumble in the past.

From what I can tell from searching online, it seems that the rule change was that an illegal forward handoff is now a fumble.

I haven't been able to find a definition for an illegal forward handoff. Anyone have one? From what I've found, it seems that it might be a forward pass behind the line of scrimage (typically an improperly executed lateral). Is that right?




Fred_Barnett

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/5/2008 3:15 PM




It's the Plaxico Burress rule- spiking the ball after not having been ruled down is now a fumble instead of an illegal pass




NCSaintsFan

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/6/2008 8:38 PM




The Plax one was ruled a fumble, wasn't it?

This looks like a clarification of the Holy Roller/Raiders rule. Didn't they continue to "fumble" that ball forward?




NCSaintsFan

RE: Owners Meeting


Reply


4/9/2008 7:39 AM




Matt Sotver wants to replace Upshaw as head of the players union.

Mixed feelings about this. Upshaw's done a decent job. The games with stronger unions have seen quality of play acrosss their leagues absolutely plummet. The players will always feel their union doesn't do enough and they may have legit gripes. I think Troy Vincent is a more natural replacement for Upshaw, since he's played on modern teams and has a sense of the modern locker-room, has instant credibility among players, and has experience as a player rep.




1 2  










1. Seth in 736  2. f-dallas  3. KeithByars  4. Fred_Barnett  5. GlennGoBlue

View Members List