NFL Bans Goalpost dunking

[LSIGRAD09]

I thought about this. According to the rules, which apparently have always been in place but haven't been enforced, one cannot use the ball as a prop. So doing a lay-up over the goalpost would be penalized, too.

At least, that's my understanding.

So I guess spiking the ball should be banned as well.

Booo. That's not fun.

[fallforward3y+]

Not even close to the same thing, and you know it.

My point is, and will continue to be, that the NFL is being hurt by a lot of these rule changes. Whether it's the "safety rules" that really have nothing to do with the well-being of players, but rather a preemptive measure to avoid lawsuits, or if it's something as silly as outlawing dunks over the goalpost -- I believe all of it's bad for football.

Actually, it's a very similar concept. You said they shouldn't take up time and effort because there are bigger issues. However, there's plenty of time for those other issues as well, it doesn't interfere and is irrelevant. If your issue is that the rules hurt the NFL, then you shouldn't have used time and effort as a reason.

As for the safety rules, you should perhaps blame players who sue the NFL for that. People complain about the rules but support players suing the league. You can't have it both ways. If you say the rules should not be in place because it's a risky game and they take the risk, you can't then support players suing the NFL. If you say suing is fine and the game has to protect players, you can't blame them for making rules. You'd basically be saying the league has to just let themselves get sued and do nothing to prevent law suits.

Many of those rules have plenty to do with the well being of players. Helmet to helmet collisions causing concussions and other head injuries seems to be pretty obvious. If your running with the ball, I say no protection because you can have good head placement for protection, but when you have just caught the ball, you can't.

[fallforward3y+]

Because, as you said, it has zero impact on the game itself. The object of this thread is to point out the NFL's tendency to worry about making rule changes to nearly irrelevant things like this. With the time and effort spent on these minuscule issues, so much more could be done about things that actually need to be improved (replays, challenges, etc).

I brought up the contact with the ball-carrier rule because it's another rule change in the long line of other terrible rule changes that are hurting the NFL. They have no direct relation, other than the enforcement of both (along with others) being a negative for football.

What is the ball carrier rule? I only know of the ball carrier using the helmet as a weapon outside of the tackle box rule. It seems people may be being a bit dramatic in saying 'tackling has become illegal'.

[TheMoth]

I understand why they did it , but I mean c'mon. I know they are trying to speed up the game and everything but i don't think any true fans were upset when there was a slight delay when jimmy graham bent it.

[Spice 1]

What is the ball carrier rule? I only know of the ball carrier using the helmet as a weapon outside of the tackle box rule. It seems people may be being a bit dramatic in saying 'tackling has become illegal'.

Oh, my bad. "Hitting people too hard" has become illegal.

[Conner13]

If you say the rules should not be in place because it's a risky game and they take the risk, you can't then support players suing the NFL.

I don't. And if you don't believe that tackling has virtually been eradicated from the game, I have to question whether or not you watch any games.

Back to the goalpost rule -- fallforward3y+, you stated that I shouldn't have used time and effort as a reason. Why? I can imagine that NFL higher-ups sat together for hours agonizing over minute crap like this. I don't see where I'm wrong in having the opinion of it being silly.

[beastlyskronk]

Lol Tony you were doing lay ups last year, you got out a year too late