Beerball Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 The pats are still POed about illegal contact becoming a "point of emphasis" last season. They want any future similar action put on hold until the teams get a chance to vote on the proposal. KC doesn't want to be penalized for having a crappy defense. I agree with the first point, illegal contact should not be an automatic first down IMO. If the ref thinks it's blatent call it holding. Their second proposal is to make interference penalties 15 yards. I don't see any of these three proposals passing. linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 The pats are still POed about illegal contact becoming a "point of emphasis" last season. They want any future similar action put on hold until the teams get a chance to vote on the proposal. KC doesn't want to be penalized for having a crappy defense. I agree with the first point, illegal contact should not be an automatic first down IMO. If the ref thinks it's blatent call it holding. Their second proposal is to make interference penalties 15 yards. I don't see any of these three proposals passing. linky 278532[/snapback] Patriots just want to make mugging receivers legal. It's the NFL version of the neutral zone trap. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Patriots just want to make mugging receivers legal. It's the NFL version of the neutral zone trap. PTR 278565[/snapback] So they don't have to pay CBs 10 mil a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Although I do agree with the two Chiefs proposals. It shouldn't be a first down for illegal contact and pass interference should mirror college. In fact, I would be happy if both the NFL and college worked to have more consistentcy in their rules. Why not have one foot for possession with passes like in college? It seems like that would help out the offense and make the game simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Fong Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I actually like Lamar Hunt's first proposal. I don't like automatic first downs on penalties, so any attempt to get rid of one instance is music to my ears. The second proposal I think would unfairly hinder downfield passes. It would ensure that almost any pass over 20 yds. would result in a mugging of the WR. The Patriots proposal.....I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 Why not have one foot for possession with passes like in college? It seems like that would help out the offense and make the game simpler. 278568[/snapback] Because they are pros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Because they are pros. 278574[/snapback] What's wrong with consistency with the rules in either direction? One of the problems in football catching on with more people is the complexity of the rules. I have to explain which, college or pros, stops the clock on 1st downs, has the two foot rule, has the spot rule for pass interference, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poeticlaw Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 What's wrong with consistency with the rules in either direction? One of the problems in football catching on with more people is the complexity of the rules. I have to explain which, college or pros, stops the clock on 1st downs, has the two foot rule, has the spot rule for pass interference, etc. 278581[/snapback] I think that the all defensive penalities over the first down marker should be a first down at the line of scrimmage for example: 3-4 on the 31 yrd line illegal contact infraction incurs instead of marching off 10 yards have it 1-10 on the 31 yd line. THus the defense still gets to hold and the offensive still has to prove they can go down the field. I think it should be this way on all defensive calls. My reasing is as follows: 1. you dont truly know if the guy would have caught the ball why give him the yardage of an imaginary catch. Let the offense prove they can march down the field but give them the 4 downs because even if he would have caught the ball it would have incurred a first down. Secondly anything behind the markers should be a repeat of down this way the offense could still maintain its groove and the defense isnt deflated completly. Just something id like to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 The pats are still POed about illegal contact becoming a "point of emphasis" last season. They want any future similar action put on hold until the teams get a chance to vote on the proposal. KC doesn't want to be penalized for having a crappy defense. I agree with the first point, illegal contact should not be an automatic first down IMO. If the ref thinks it's blatent call it holding. Their second proposal is to make interference penalties 15 yards. I don't see any of these three proposals passing. linky 278532[/snapback] I remember when the Colts signed Wil Wolford away from the Bills after the 1992 season using a bogus escalator clause. The league made the Bills a sacrificial lamb by allowing the deal, THEN immediately banning such clauses, when they could have just negated the deal. To add insult to injury, the committee assigning compensatory picks gave the Bills a lousy second rounder for the All Pro LT, and turned around and awarded Philly and Arizona extra first round picks for losing Reggie White and Tim McDonald. Not only were the Bills shortchanged by comparison, but the schittass league should have given Buffalo extra compensation for signing off on that BS deal. Why did this happen? Al Davis and Pat Bowlen were the ones doling out the compensation, and it just so happened that they had both lost AFC Championship games to Buffalo in preceding seasons and were staring up at a Bills juggernaut and trying to disassemble it. That's politics. It's lonely at the top, the Pats need to deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted March 18, 2005 Share Posted March 18, 2005 What's wrong with consistency with the rules in either direction? One of the problems in football catching on with more people is the complexity of the rules. I have to explain which, college or pros, stops the clock on 1st downs, has the two foot rule, has the spot rule for pass interference, etc. 278581[/snapback] Then would it be okay to use aluminum bats in MLB? PING!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts