Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problem with a rule!

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

  • Ravage!!!
    replied
    Originally posted by kilkizan
    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.
    Uhmm. Law DID win the battle. HE was PHYSICAL.. and PHYSICALLY pushed Bell out of bounds. Thats not cheating, and thats not cheap. Thats using the field to your advantage. Would you say its cheap if the defender in a zone plays off a running back, knowing that the sidelines are keeping the RB in bounds? Thats using the field to your advantage. Why do you think its easier to defend the pass near the endzone?? Because the DBs know the WRs can't run deep.... is that cheating or being cheap??? No. Its using the field to your advantage.

    IF BELL would have been an experience WR, not only would have not gone out of bounds, but he would have known HOW to re-establish himself in bounds before catching the ball. Yes, you CAN do that. You just make an obvious effort to get BACK into the field of play before progressing UP the field. You can't run up the field further while remaining outside the sidelines.

    You see this rule apply on Punts ALlll the time, where the kicking team sprint man runs up and is pushed outside the sidelines.. they ahve to re-establish themseves into the playing field before touching the ball first.

    OTherwise, (as someone already touched on).. WRs could run OUTSIDE the sidelines, to avoid the bump and run, and just run up the outside of the sidelines..using his team mates standing there as screens.

    I learned in HIGH SCHOOL to push the WR out of bounds at the snap if you could. This is something EVERY defensive back does... probably since the start of the NFL. Bell was the one that boo-boo'd...not Law. Thats why Law is considered one of the VERY best at what he does... he's smart AND athletic.

    The fact that you think the rule "re-instatement" was to help the Colts, shows that you have a 'conspiracy' type personality. Everything is tuned to go against you isn't it?

    Leave a comment:


  • SkyFlash1
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoFanCam
    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.
    Exactly, and we would do it too. The reason Law was 'burned' is that he knew Bell was out of the picture and he could go cover somewhere else.
    Last edited by SkyFlash1; 11-22-2005, 12:08 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Emancipator
    replied
    Well I can understand the rule. It has been around for some time. It is one of those rules that may only be flagged about 9 or 10 times a year.

    Leave a comment:


  • topscribe
    replied
    Originally posted by Atwater His Ass
    If the WR is forced out in the 5 yard chuck zone, it's his own fault and the penalty will be called if he is the first one to touch the ball.

    If he's forced out outside of the 5 yard chuck zone, it's illegal contact on the defense.
    Sometimes it takes only a few words to make a lot of sense . . .

    -----

    Leave a comment:


  • Atwater His Ass
    replied
    If the WR is forced out in the 5 yard chuck zone, it's his own fault and the penalty will be called if he is the first one to touch the ball.

    If he's forced out outside of the 5 yard chuck zone, it's illegal contact on the defense.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoRT
    replied
    Originally posted by kilkizan
    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.
    The WR has an advantage over DB's any way and now with the 5 yard contact rule it makes it even harder. You are talking about true athletic skills for a DB but all the rules are in favor of the WR. It is not an even playing field to begin with and this is a rule that DB's can use to somewhat even the field out.

    Everybody is talking about physical and athletic skills. The team with the most athleticism doesn't always win. It is the team with the best schemes and team work that wins. Little battles within the war is what wins games. The WR and CB battle is one of them and this tactic is part of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • kilkizan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoRT
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • topscribe
    replied
    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 . . .



    -----

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoRT
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • topscribe
    replied
    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.

    -----

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoRT
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • kilkizan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • topscribe
    replied
    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.

    -----

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X