Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problem with a rule!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Problem with a rule!

    Who here thinks that the rule of being the first to touch the ball after being pushed out of bounds is total BS?

    What I am talking about is the cheap shot Law put on Bell that pushed him out of bounds and then we get penalized for it after he burns Law for the TD.

    #1 How is Jake supposed to know that he was pushed out of bounds when he throw it?
    #2 Why don't we just start throwing our opponents receivers out of bounds and thus removing them from the play every time? Talk about eliminating the passing game in a retarded but apparently legal way...

    It is my opinion that if a player is shoved out of bounds and is then the first person to touch the ball that the play doesn’t count but that the teams player who pushed him out of bounds is called for the penalty not the team who’s guy was pushed out... In all honesty isn’t this the largest pass interference out there that is called on the offence when they are the victims? This rule makes me sick!
    “Brevity is the soul of wit” – William Shakespeare

  • #2
    #2 Why don't we just start throwing our opponents receivers out of bounds and thus removing them from the play every time? Talk about eliminating the passing game in a retarded but apparently legal way...
    Because if you're doing it intentionally it's defensive holding & interference.

    The wideout has no business being that close to the line within the 5 yard "chuck zone". Anything after that (if pushed) HAS to be holding on the D.


    [SIZE=1][B]Adopted Bronco:Kenard Lang

    Comment


    • #3
      I thought the rule was, the player was still eligible if he was pushed out, but not if he went out of bounds on his own. If that's not the rule, it should be

      Comment


      • #4
        I would agree that the receiver should not be penalized if he was forced out of bounds by the defender and makes an immediate attempt to get back in bounds. But rather than call a penalty on the defender, I would just make it a non-call situation, assuming the contact was within the legal 5 yards.

        If the receiver goes out of bound on his own, it should still be a penalty.
        "You can't take the sky from me..."
        ------
        "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kilkizan
          Who here thinks that the rule of being the first to touch the ball after being pushed out of bounds is total BS?

          What I am talking about is the cheap shot Law put on Bell that pushed him out of bounds and then we get penalized for it after he burns Law for the TD.

          #1 How is Jake supposed to know that he was pushed out of bounds when he throw it?
          #2 Why don't we just start throwing our opponents receivers out of bounds and thus removing them from the play every time? Talk about eliminating the passing game in a retarded but apparently legal way...

          It is my opinion that if a player is shoved out of bounds and is then the first person to touch the ball that the play doesn’t count but that the teams player who pushed him out of bounds is called for the penalty not the team who’s guy was pushed out... In all honesty isn’t this the largest pass interference out there that is called on the offence when they are the victims? This rule makes me sick!
          A couple of remarks regarding this. All teams try to force WR's out of bounds if they are lined up close to the sidelines and try to run down the sideline on their route. That is a good and legal tactic and if the rule was changed players would be going out of bounds all day to try and avoid coverage. Shanny of all coaches would exploit this the most.

          Ty Law is one of the best CB's in the past decade, the man knows what he is doing and Bell got burnt. Bell is young and cocky. He thought he could burn Law down the field, which he can, but Law uses his experience, wit and craftiness to overcome Bell's speed by simply forcing him out of bounds. I thought it was a great play by Law and I was just happy to see Bell hold on to the catch, even though it didn't count.
          The three Keys to football
          1. Turnovers
          2. Field Position
          3. Red Zone Play

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BroncoRT
            A couple of remarks regarding this. All teams try to force WR's out of bounds if they are lined up close to the sidelines and try to run down the sideline on their route. That is a good and legal tactic and if the rule was changed players would be going out of bounds all day to try and avoid coverage. Shanny of all coaches would exploit this the most.

            Ty Law is one of the best CB's in the past decade, the man knows what he is doing and Bell got burnt. Bell is young and cocky. He thought he could burn Law down the field, which he can, but Law uses his experience, wit and craftiness to overcome Bell's speed by simply forcing him out of bounds. I thought it was a great play by Law and I was just happy to see Bell hold on to the catch, even though it didn't count.
            Hmm, good point. Maybe Law didn't bother trying to cover Tater better, knowing he was ineligible...?

            Comment


            • #7
              I think the rule as it stands is wrong. If a receiver steps out of bounds, that should be it. However, if he was forced out of bounds, he should be allowed to come in and legally receive. Law was able to "cheat" his way around his inferiority to Bell.

              The penalty actually was "illegal touching." In other words, the receiver is not allowed to touch the ball after coming back in bounds. At that time, the thought occurred to me that if the receiver were simply to bat the ball to avoid an interception, he would be penalized under that rule. That is also wrong, IMO. To receive it, yes . . . . but to knock it down, no.

              -----

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by BroncoRT
                A couple of remarks regarding this. All teams try to force WR's out of bounds if they are lined up close to the sidelines and try to run down the sideline on their route. That is a good and legal tactic and if the rule was changed players would be going out of bounds all day to try and avoid coverage. Shanny of all coaches would exploit this the most.

                Ty Law is one of the best CB's in the past decade, the man knows what he is doing and Bell got burnt. Bell is young and cocky. He thought he could burn Law down the field, which he can, but Law uses his experience, wit and craftiness to overcome Bell's speed by simply forcing him out of bounds. I thought it was a great play by Law and I was just happy to see Bell hold on to the catch, even though it didn't count.
                So by your logic we should just put LBs out there and even if the WR is lined up 10 yards away from the sideline they got 5 yards to push them out and make them inegible for the play. I didn't say they should change it to allow players to go out of bounds but to make it so the defenders are penalized for pushing players out and thus removing them from the play. Law knew he couldnt cover Bell and took the cheap way out imo and was not a great play but a sucker play on his part and then we were even penalized for it too...
                Last edited by kilkizan; 11-22-2005, 10:09 AM.
                “Brevity is the soul of wit” – William Shakespeare

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by topscribe
                  I think the rule as it stands is wrong. If a receiver steps out of bounds, that should be it. However, if he was forced out of bounds, he should be allowed to come in and legally receive. Law was able to "cheat" his way around his inferiority to Bell.

                  The penalty actually was "illegal touching." In other words, the receiver is not allowed to touch the ball after coming back in bounds. At that time, the thought occurred to me that if the receiver were simply to bat the ball to avoid an interception, he would be penalized under that rule. That is also wrong, IMO. To receive it, yes . . . . but to knock it down, no.

                  -----
                  There are so many rules now days to make the DB's job harder and harder, this is one rule that a experienced CB can exploit and gives him an advantage. Let the DB's have it, the NFL already took away the downfield contact to help Peyton win a Super Bowl...what's next?
                  The three Keys to football
                  1. Turnovers
                  2. Field Position
                  3. Red Zone Play

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by BroncoRT
                    There are so many rules now days to make the DB's job harder and harder, this is one rule that a experienced CB can exploit and gives him an advantage. Let the DB's have it, the NFL already took away the downfield contact to help Peyton win a Super Bowl...what's next?
                    It just seems a form of "handicapping." Leave that to golf (where I especially appreciate it ). Every offense would be given the same advantage. If a given offense's WRs are superior . . . . well, that's sport.

                    -----

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kilkizan
                      So by your logic we should just put LBs out there and even if the WR is lined up 10 yards away from the sideline they got 5 yards to push them out and make them inegible for the play. I didn't say they should change it to allow players to go out of bounds but to make it so the defenders are penalized for pushing players out and thus removing them from the play. Law knew he couldnt cover Bell and took the cheap way out imo and was not a great play but a sucker play on his part and then we were even penalized for it too...
                      You call it "cheap" I call it crafty. My theory on defense is to be aggressive at the line with the WR's to break up their rhythm. It's FOOTBALL, which is a physical and aggressive game, let's keep it like that. By the way that is part of the recipe to beat Peyton and the Colts. Complain about it now, but we might be using it if we go to Indy for the playoffs.
                      The three Keys to football
                      1. Turnovers
                      2. Field Position
                      3. Red Zone Play

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by BroncoRT
                        You call it "cheap" I call it crafty. My theory on defense is to be aggressive at the line with the WR's to break up their rhythm. It's FOOTBALL, which is a physical and aggressive game, let's keep it like that. By the way that is part of the recipe to beat Peyton and the Colts. Complain about it now, but we might be using it if we go to Indy for the playoffs.
                        Yes, BRT, and with our Smith, Lelie, and Bell, they might be using it against us, too.

                        I still would like it the other way, but as long as it's the same for everybody . . .



                        -----

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          This is a totally legit rule. Don't get forced out of bounds. It's not that hard.


                          My adopted Bronco is Chris Kuper. Huzzah!

                          I am the raid leader for this World of Warcraft guild. Yay us!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by topscribe
                            It just seems a form of "handicapping." Leave that to golf (where I especially appreciate it ). Every offense would be given the same advantage. If a given offense's WRs are superior . . . . well, that's sport.

                            -----
                            Superior physically, not mentally. It is one of the games within the game, which makes football football. It is not all about superior physical talent, is about superior schemes, coaching and philosophy.
                            The three Keys to football
                            1. Turnovers
                            2. Field Position
                            3. Red Zone Play

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BroncoRT
                              You call it "cheap" I call it crafty. My theory on defense is to be aggressive at the line with the WR's to break up their rhythm. It's FOOTBALL, which is a physical and aggressive game, let's keep it like that. By the way that is part of the recipe to beat Peyton and the Colts. Complain about it now, but we might be using it if we go to Indy for the playoffs.
                              Cheap/Crafty there is no difference, they are both a tactic used by somebody who knows they cannot compete on a level playing field. I want to see DBs winning the battle with the reciever for the ball, not because they can push them out of bounds but because they test their athletic skills agenst the WRs skills and win. I wouldnt have complained if Law covered Bell and broke the pass up or if Bell even caused Offensive PI, but to push somebody out of bounds and then think you are good is just sad.

                              Football is a agressive sport and hence why I watch, but I want to watch good players who can compete and not cheat to win. Personally I think the Colts have ruined most of the job a DB does and that they should revert some of those rules to gift the Colts wins, but this is one that is just dumb.
                              “Brevity is the soul of wit” – William Shakespeare

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X