HopsGuy Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 Most rules are made/changed/more-closely-enforced so the the product is improved or protected. They have to keep the game interesting so people will watch. Passing is fun to watch, so the NFL wants to remind the DBs (this means you Ty Law) that you're not supposed to touch the receiver after 5 yards. It's not much fun to watch a guy step up to the plate against major league pitching since the last real pitch he saw was in high-school, so hey, let's have someone bat for him. I agree with AD that the two pass rule in hockey should probably be eliminated. The instigator rule walks a fine line as was pointed out. The NHL wants to reduce the fighting, but it has the undesired consequences of increasing the clutching/grabbing that effectively makes the game boring. That's not good. Right now, hockey is in a bad situation. The lockout is looming and no one really seems to care. These things evolve. The front-office types will always try to tweak the product to make it better or to insure they keep the interest of the fan from wandering. I'd like to see the NBA do something to change the game so that it is more team oriented. Maybe a switch to the international rules would do it. They've made all these changes over the years to promote the stars of the game (3-step travelling rule to make them look better, 6 fouls to keep them in the game), but it's boring basketball. These are some of the best athletes in the world and they've got six guys standing outside the arc so that four other guys can play 2-on-2.
Mark VI Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 The Tuck rule, which handed the Pats a playoff win and a SB title. Window dress it all you want. I saw the play. That was a clear fumble. Any other explanation is pure fiction.
BillnutinHouston Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 The celebration rule in the NFL. Celebrating does not materiallly affect the outcome game in any real sense, yet its prohibited.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 Pass Interference should be like roughing the kicker. If it is minor and not intentional and just may have disrupted the route, it should be five yards. If it is intentional, and harsh, and clearly stopped a receiver from catching a ball he likely would have caught, it should be spot of the foul. They have two roughing the kicker calls (okay, wiseguys, one is running into the kicker), they should have two PI calls. College B-ball three pointers shouldn't be 19'. Red lines should be eliminated in hockey.
hoser12 Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 dumbest rule = forward laterals are legal in Tennessee.
RunTheBall Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 Id like to get rid of the rule that states an unconcious guy laying out of bounds with his big toe touching the ball has possession of the ball. I think there is a sub-section of this rule that states it is only in effect when it benefits the NE Patriots. RunTheBall
ATBNG Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 I've always thought the offsides rule in soccer was really asinine. Shouldn't the team on offense be rewarded for having the speed to go by the defense?
taterhill Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 2 line pass in hockey. Want to eliminate the neutral zone trap? Get rid of the red line. I'd say the offsides rule in soccer, but soccer would still suck if they eliminated it. 26323[/snapback] yes yes..nothing like a sweet pass whistled dead b/c the D-man was 3 inches inside of the blue line and the forward was three icnhes over the center Red Line...Awful..Touch up icing also sucks
IDBillzFan Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 "in the grasp" What kind of pussified rule is that? Why not just hang flags from the quarterback's sides?
PastaJoe Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 The Illegal Formation rule in football. You should be allowed to line your team up any way you like, as long as they're onsides. If they want to line the whole team up to the right of the center, or have all the receivers 5 yards off the line, so what. It's a petty rule.
Corp000085 Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 ...except losing an OT game when the opposing team returns the opening kick off for a TD!!!!! thanks for reminding me of the dehydration and sunburn of that mess of a jets game 2 years ago...
Alaska Darin Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 Pass Interference should be like roughing the kicker. If it is minor and not intentional and just may have disrupted the route, it should be five yards. If it is intentional, and harsh, and clearly stopped a receiver from catching a ball he likely would have caught, it should be spot of the foul. They have two roughing the kicker calls (okay, wiseguys, one is running into the kicker), they should have two PI calls. College B-ball three pointers shouldn't be 19'. Red lines should be eliminated in hockey. 26704[/snapback] No way do I want to give the zebras anything else to interpret.
Alaska Darin Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 The Illegal Formation rule in football. You should be allowed to line your team up any way you like, as long as they're onsides. If they want to line the whole team up to the right of the center, or have all the receivers 5 yards off the line, so what. It's a petty rule. 26801[/snapback] Except it's not a petty rule. It has everything to do with who is eligible to run a pass route and who isn't.
Alaska Darin Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 "in the grasp" What kind of pussified rule is that? Why not just hang flags from the quarterback's sides? 26771[/snapback] John Madden actually said he wanted the NFL to make it illegal for a QB to be hit once he's thrown the ball. Compared it to the punter...
Spiderweb Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 With out a DOUBT, pass interference! Let them fight for the damn ball! Fine, a CB is literally riding the WR like a horse. Does that deserve a spot of the foul penalty? So, the QB can see a WR getting mugged, simply throw the ball at his feet and get a 50 yard penalty resulting in a HUGE gain? B.S.!!!!! First of all, why does ANY football player deserve to go down field un freakin touched? This IS a contact sport! Secondly, What gaurantees that the WR will actually CATCH the ball anyways? They drop all KINDS of balls! Thirdly, Who says the pass is on target? QB's throw off target all the time. Finally, penalize a standard yardage for each infraction. Why is a 50 yard pass interference worth more than a 2 yard pass interference? Whats to say the 2 yards throw wouldnt be caught and run for 50 yards? Holding penalties count a straight amoutn whether it would have resulted in a loss of yards on the run or a TD. 26298[/snapback] From the opposite perspective, not necessarily mine though, one can make a strong arguement that there has to be a sliding scale on the length of the penalty for pass interference. If there wasn't, what would stop a beaten DB from simply going right after the WR and flattening him so he can't catch a 50 yard bomb? If the penalty was only 10 yards, just think of how many times the DB would not give the ball a second thought.
dib Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 making women beach volleyball players wear clothes.
_BiB_ Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 making women beach volleyball players wear clothes. 26928[/snapback] Aw, what's wrong with a little mystery. And don't they need a little something to keep the sand out of...well...uh hum....what if you had a shot at getting one drunk after the match?
JAMIEBUF12 Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 i dont like holding in football,i say let em battle it out on the line.i also dont like pass interference.even if you mug the receiver i have no problem with that.i say let them battle for the ball.on a 40 yard bomb if the defender gets there and knocks the receiver down...so be it!boy that would be really fun to watch! go bills in'04
IndyJay1234 Posted September 11, 2004 Posted September 11, 2004 Clearly it has to be in the game Duck Duck Goose. I mean not being able to run in the opposite direction to catch the person that tapped you on the head. I mean come on!! Also in Chutes and Ladders all the damn chutes make the game impossible to win!
Recommended Posts