stuckincincy Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I was about to ask this question. Thanks for taking it on. What does the Bills wedge scheme look like, anyway? Do you know that this is going to hurt, or are you (like me) guessing that it might? As for Parrish, I didn't notice the rule changed for punts, so he might be fine. And punts are high-arcing things, ideally. The return blockers wait. Not much of a wedge formation like for kick offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Replay review, draft order among changes made by owners http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true In the future, the Super Bowl will be played after the Pro Bowl in some seasons ??? Say what? Am I reading this right? That means that anyone on a team in the championship finals, who was elected to the Pro Bowl will NOT participate in the Pro Bowl because of the risk or injury. Is this a means to phase the Pro Bowl out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 And punts are high-arcing things, ideally. The return blockers wait. Not much of a wedge formation like for kick offs. Correct, Cincy. I guess my point was, this rule is specifically about Kickoffs. I see no rule (including this one) that would impact punts, so Parrish probably isn't affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Correct, Cincy. I guess my point was, this rule is specifically about Kickoffs. I see no rule (including this one) that would impact punts, so Parrish probably isn't affected. I wonder how the on-field refs will interpret the rule. 3 players within 4 feet of each other? Two players close, and another spotting an opponent zeroing, in moves next to the other two...penalty? I'm not too keen on this other change: ..."The owners eliminated a re-kick after an illegal onside kick, immediately awarding the ball to the receiving team.". I view an on-side kick as a last chance, if you will, for a team to get back into the game. And I like the "surprise" ones that occur from time to time. I know the NFL tweaks rules to try to control overall game length, but I don't care for this restriction on an exciting moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I wonder how the on-field refs will interpret the rule. 3 players within 4 feet of each other? Two players close, and another spotting an opponent zeroing, in moves next to the other two...penalty? I'm not too keen on this other change: ..."The owners eliminated a re-kick after an illegal onside kick, immediately awarding the ball to the receiving team.". I view an on-side kick as a last chance, if you will, for a team to get back into the game. And I like the "surprise" ones that occur from time to time. I know the NFL tweaks rules to try to control overall game length, but I don't care for this restriction on an exciting moment. I think this prevents the kicking team from having numerous chances to recover the ball. If they knew that if they were offsides or the ball did not go at least 10 yards that they can keep trying, it is a big advantage to the kicking team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I think this prevents the kicking team from having numerous chances to recover the ball. If they knew that if they were offsides or the ball did not go at least 10 yards that they can keep trying, it is a big advantage to the kicking team. Good point. Still, I don't care for the change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts