Damian Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Except the odds of a ball BOUNCING then breaching any of the three boundaries is so great that it incentivizes the return team to just wait and see what happens, have a guy close by to down it before the kicking team recovers, but playing the odds of the ball rolling to a stop within the boundaries would make kickoffs nearly obsolete. They could make it if it lands in the endzone, then bounces out, it is a touchback to the 20, but if it never lands in bounds at all, out to the 40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BILLS_ROC Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 (edited) In regards to suggestion one, which I like, mostly... What about the chance that having a Steve Tasker type burning down the field at the punt returner, bringing with him the increased propensity for the returner has to poop himself a little and potentially muff the catch? Would this rule change nullify some of the benefit of having a Steve Tasker on your team? (teams would get away with holding, him preventing him from inducing pants pooping and catch muffing) Edited February 12, 2014 by BILLS_ROC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas55 Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 In regards to suggestion one, which I like, mostly... What about the chance that having a Steve Tasker type burning down the field at the punt returner, bringing with him the increased propensity for the returner has to poop himself a little and potentially muff the catch? Would this rule change nullify some of the benefit of having a Steve Tasker on your team? (teams would get away with holding, him preventing him from inducing pants pooping and catch muffing) Really how many times have you seen an NFL punt returner be intimidated into muffing a punt? And a Tasker type has to give the punt returner room to field a punt. And what team would intentionally hold, thereby completely eliminating the chance of returning a punt for a TD or long return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) I understand your point for Rule #2 but it just ends up giving the refs speculation on the play. Even if you are in an I-formation or goal line for that matter, it doesn't mean you are going to run. Short of the coach appealing and showing the playbook and what the call was. I do like the idea though. Maybe it should be if it is a running play it's only 5 yards unless it's a QB scramble caused by coverage/flushed out. I think that would be more easily discernible than what looks like a running play vs a passing play. Everyone know we run from the shotgun formation on 3 and 8. Edited February 13, 2014 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 It seems to me that there has been a spike in defensive holding calls in place of calls that used to be flagged as PI. But that's just me. Which is a joke in it's own right. They still award an automatic first down on defensive holding. Only difference is the yardage after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wnysteel Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 how about the rule that a tackle has to be "covered"? i think its stupid that a WR lined up 20 yards from a tackle has to be either a yard forward or backward. i'm sure people will disagree with me, i think the rule was in place for arcane reasons that no longer apply Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLocke Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I was glad to see someone else say offensive pass interference cough cough Denver cough cough. What about they add an illegal contact on a defensive back 5 yard penalty on top of the already existing offensive pass interference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 this is my pet peeve with the NFL. too many rule changes. also too much subjectivity on the refs for the calls too. like when a QB doesn't get it back to the LOS outside of the pocket the ref can call it or not based on heaven only knows what. simplify the rules. if QB doesn't get it to LOS, bam, intentional grounding. if receiver catches the ball and takes 2 steps it's a catch. 2 steps and a "football move", whatever that is, is too subjective. they got rid of the tuck rule, but there some wiggle room in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince88 Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 They moved the kick offs closer to do away with some of the really violent hits that happens during the run backs , so why not move the extra point further away to make it more difficult ? Seems pretty logical & it makes the game more interesting or at least makes the possibility of the kicker missing more suspenseful & brings the extra point back into the game . furthermore if the kicker kicks it out of the end zone on a kickoff they should give the receiving team the 25 or 30 yard line instead. It has gotten to te point that they just kick it out because they then dont have to play special teams much at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 How about this: ANY loose ball behind the line of scrimmage is a fumble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vincec Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 how about the rule that a tackle has to be "covered"? i think its stupid that a WR lined up 20 yards from a tackle has to be either a yard forward or backward. i'm sure people will disagree with me, i think the rule was in place for arcane reasons that no longer apply This is one of the rules used to determine who is an eligible receiver on offense. Unless you are going to say that anyone can catch a pass anytime he is in a eligible position, including offensive lineman, then it is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 can they create Anti Brady rules? where its OK to hit him late, OOB and hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstealer Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 How'bout whoever scores the TD be the player who must kick the extra point? How fun would it be to see a big D-lineman who fell on the ball in the end zone line up for the simple kick.. And please, this IS a simple athletic duty to kick a PAT. Of course the two point conversion would be the alternative if coach doesn't believe in the player to kick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 How'bout whoever scores the TD be the player who must kick the extra point? How fun would it be to see a big D-lineman who fell on the ball in the end zone line up for the simple kick.. And please, this IS a simple athletic duty to kick a PAT. Of course the two point conversion would be the alternative if coach doesn't believe in the player to kick. I love it! This is the best idea yet if we MUST change the rule. Would make it anything but automatic. Of course a drop kick would work as well as Flutie has shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts