Suggestions for Roger...
by Jim Vance on Jul 5, 2009 5:00 AM CDT
76 comments
Ok, I do love the game of pro football, but there are certain aspects I could do without. Here are some annoying things about the pro game. I would like to ask Roger Goodell to intercede on my behalf and correct these blemishes on an otherwise great past time. Commish, are you listening?
Using the Chains - Come on. Are those chains the most precise unit of measure available? We have the technology to superimpose the first down line on the TV screen and the officials on the field are still ‘moving the chains'. I have trouble getting repeatable accuracy using a tape measure on a piece of wood, you have to assume these chains are rife with inaccuracy. Upgrade Roger, let's go laser.
Sudden Death Overtime - A coin flip should not have that much influence on a games outcome. I want to know which team is the best, not the most fortunate. Play an extra quarter, that way the coin toss is important but each team has a chance to utilize all of its strengths.
Prevent Defense - OK, this one we can't get done just with Roger's help, we need to get all coaches to agree. Every time I see some team go into this formation I hear myself saying, "The only thing you're going to prevent is yourself from winning." I am willing to bet that if statistics were kept on the prevent defense we would see that it doesn't work.
The Cliches - We need Goodell to put pressure on the networks. He's a downhill runner, Which team wants it more, It's a shame one of these teams has to lose, He made a circus catch, This team is better than its record shows, He has a nonstop motor, He's faster than he looks, and on and on. I'm working on another post just to capture these and others. We've heard them all so many times that I start thinking of alternative meanings. Circus catch - he caught a clown? A trapeze artist?
The Inevitable Midwinter Shirtless Shot - Please have the networks stop encouraging this childish and potentially dangerous behavior. Unless she's hot.
Alright, I could think of a few more but I don't want to sound petty. How about you? Is there anything about the pro game that bugs you?
0 recs |
76 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
PATs
These are made more than 99% of the time, and are an irrelevant patr of the game. The league should look at making these attempts harder or just give the soring team an automatic 7 points for a touchdown.
My suggestion: adopt a similar approach to rugby, in that the PAT should be attempted from a point in line with where the TD was scored. (For example if a player makes a catch in the back corner of the endzone, the PAT should be attempted from the sideline.) Get rid of all the other players on the feild (No-one is blocking PATs anyway) and let the kicker kick off a tee and try to put the ball between the posts.
I know this wont happen, but it would not only increase the value of an accurate kicker, but would encourage teams to go for 2 point conversions if a touchdown was scored towards the sideline.
by aussie_cowboy on Jul 5, 2009 5:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If I didnt explain myself properly, see this link
(Or if you just want to see the best kicker in the world.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKiWcGE0HDo
by aussie_cowboy on Jul 5, 2009 5:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am in favor of this
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
by Seanrude on Jul 5, 2009 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The unintended consequences would be horrible
So what happens to the team who is down 7 and has someone break off a long run/pass (beyond 30 yards)? Do they stop and kneel at the 1?
by StillHateTheGiants on Jul 5, 2009 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thye would just do what they do in rugby
Still run towards the endzone, but angle towards the centre of the field at the same time.
by aussie_cowboy on Jul 5, 2009 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is the drop kick still in in the NFL?
It used to be. Also a rugby throw-back that I think is pretty cool.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jul 5, 2009 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah its still legal
But it isnt as common now because the ball was made less round after the fowrd pass was legalised.
Doug Flutie kicked a feild goal in a patriots game a few years ago i think.
by aussie_cowboy on Jul 5, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, his grand swan song as an NFL player
classiest departure in league history I think
by scottmaui on Jul 5, 2009 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OT
I think an entire extra quarter is excessive because the players are gassed as it is at that point. I say keep the coin toss, but allow both teams to have an offensive series. If the first team scores, they kick off to the other team who begins do-or-die drive. If the second team ties it up again, then it’s sudden death as usual.
by Tex34 on Jul 5, 2009 8:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
first of all i don’t agree that anything needs to be done about overtime rules. college football decided to mess around with it’s ot rules and look at the monstrosity they’ve created, complete with bogus final scores and inflated stats.
but if a change absolutely has to be made, why not dispense with the convolutions about coin flip/giving a do again, fairness et al, and simply extend the 4th quarter? the team with possession at the end of the 4th keeps the ball at the current spot on the field/down and distance. first team to score or 15 minutes are up, the game is over.
by billstickers on Jul 5, 2009 9:04 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I like that idea
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jul 5, 2009 9:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like extending the 4th q too except...
It might take the urgency out of teams with the ball trying to score before time expires. How could you keep the urgency without the coin flip and potential loss of the ball?
by Cosby Sweater on Jul 8, 2009 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't Mess With OT
I don’t buy the argument that OT should be changed because it’s not to fair to have a coin flip to decide the outcome. Both teams have 60 minutes in regulation to win the game. One of the things that makes OT in the NFL exciting is that the game can end on any play. I wouldn’t want to see the league lose that aspect of OT.
One rule I would change is to have the clock stop momentarily in the final 2 minutes why the refs spot the ball and move the chains. I think it’s ridiculous to see the clock run out in an exciting game because the refs can’t get the chains moved fast enough and some 350 pound lineman can’t get his butt down the field to get set for the next snap
by Este on Jul 5, 2009 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree dont mess with the OT. It is not perfect but
everyone knows the drill. I disgree that because one team wins the flip of the coin and scores that the best team that day did not win. Both teams had a full 60 minutes to proove they were best on that given day or night.
by 082288 on Jul 5, 2009 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
everyone knows the drill, besides McNabb lol
"Hit or get hit" MB3
by Ca$h on Jul 9, 2009 1:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fix overtime by just kicking from the 35
I think the simplest solution to this problem is to have the overtime kickoff from the 35 yard line instead of the 30.
Here’s a good discussion of this proposal with statistics. It is from 2004 so this idea has been around for a while.
http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html
A couple basic points:
- Prior to 1994 when the kickoff was moved back 5 yards to the 30, who won the toss did not significantly affect the outcome
- Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first, and there is a 99.99% statistical certainty that the coin flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years
Considering that, my proposal would be to have the OT kickoff only from the 35. If prior to 1994 when the kickoff was at the 35 the impact of the coin toss was not statistically significant, that seems like the most simple, easy solution to the problem.
by scottmaui on Jul 5, 2009 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
starting position auction
much easier just to kick from the 35, but here’s another proposal thrown out for discussion that also would solve the fairness problem without the new problems that come with other solutions (more ties, etc)…
The Fifth Down: A Better Way to Decide Overtime in the N.F.L.
Shutdown Corner: The brilliant NFL overtime silent auction system
by scottmaui on Jul 5, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They have a coin toss?
That’s odd. I just heard McNabb interviewed on Sirius and he said he’s prettu sure there is no coin toss for overtime.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jul 5, 2009 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Celebrations
Revise the excessive celebrations rules so that they’re not so arbitrary. It’s like the league’s testing players’ ability to follow random rules more than actually trying to improve the game.
Personally, I think the delay of game and taunting penalties are enough; if a celebration doesn’t taunt the other team or cause a delay, it’s just fun. What putting a hand on the ground can do to hurt football is beyond me.
I have always supported the NFL’s current overtime for two reasons:
1. Who gets the ball first hasn’t proven statistically relevant
2. There’s really not a “fair” way. In the college game, the team who goes second gets an extra down to score a TD if the other team has done so rather than kicking a field goal and any extra time could still be dominated by the team getting the ball first.
I think we should ask Donavin McNabb what kind of overtime rule he can remember and suggest the opposite.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jul 5, 2009 8:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
who gets the ball first in OT is statistically relevant
I posted more about this above, but check out this site:
http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_11_08_04.html
- Prior to 1994 when the kickoff was moved back 5 yards to the 30, who won the toss did not significantly affect the outcome
- Since 1994, nearly one-third of overtime games have been won on the first possession by the team that received the ball first, and there is a 99.99% statistical certainty that the coin flip has made a difference in the outcome of the game over the last 10 years
(This was written in 2004)
If prior to 1994 when the kickoff was at the 35 the impact of the coin toss was not statistically significant, that seems like the most simple solution to the problem.
by scottmaui on Jul 5, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I stand corrected
It never did make sense that there was no difference. After all, I would never expect a team to win the toss and elect to kick off in OT.
So pardon my disposition; why should I listen to a system that never listened to me?
by NICK L on Jul 5, 2009 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
original study
unfortunately the link to the original study that is cited as a reference doesn’t seem to work, but you can at least get the basic stats breakdown.
by scottmaui on Jul 5, 2009 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Raiders chose to kick off once... I think it was when Madden was still coaching
their defense was DOMINANT … and it was a “mind-games” move that paid off … or you can call it lucky… or stupid… but I have seen it, once
Tar Heels = National Champs in Basketball ... #1 in Baseball ... Top 10 this year in Football?
by DalaiLuke on Jul 5, 2009 9:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not On Point . . .
But I would like to see the Cowboys (not all do this of course see Ware) end the over the top celebrations for first downs and routine plays. Roy Receiver for example and his silly first down salute – and his immitators like Hurd – need to end; at least until Roy Receiver earns his stipes by dominating in a playoff game. Brady James and others have celebrations that are almost laughable taken in context of the failure of the Cowboys in the last decade plus. The departure of TO and Canty etc will help but I want to see a more diciplined and focused team effort and less ‘look at me make routine play’ celebrations by the “new” Cowboys.
by Iowacowboy on Jul 5, 2009 9:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Self-congratulatory antics
for routine plays make a player look stupid and certainly don’t advance the team’s efforts in the game.
I remember a sack by 94 when he jumped up and started flexing and strutting, oblivious to the fact that the fumbled ball he had just knocked loose was still in play.
Cowboys should celebrate real accomplishment, and not until the play is over. Shouldn’t be an NFL rule, but a team practice.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Jul 5, 2009 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
excessive celebration
i agree with all of you who are saying that it’s ridiculous that players celebrate routine first downs and tackles. why isn’t this considered excessive celebration? it’s hard to believe guys can get penalized for celebrating a TD, which is an actual accomplishment, but that they allow the flexing and other self-congratulatory behavior for making a tackle.
by g8tgod on Jul 5, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I;m not a big fan of the whole
You don’t get to eat with the rest of the class until to win “x”. The only time it’s sort of ridiculous is when your team is losing big in a game and you celebrate a routine tackle.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jul 5, 2009 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lighten up buddy.
You have to have when your playing this violent game.
"If your good at something never do it for free." - The Joker
by houseofprime on Jul 6, 2009 2:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can't think of a better system for overtime than the current one.
Playing a full quarter would disproportionately expose those teams to injuries and fatigue that would affect the rest of their season. From 2000-2007, only 30% of teams that won the coin toss scored on the opening drive.
One big problem with the current format is that a strong legged kicker can end the game quickly, so if they were to change something, I would like to see them make it the first team to score 6 points. That means if you only score a field goal on the opening drive, you expose yourself to the possibility of a loss on the opposing team’s next possession. Teams might be more willing to go for it than attempt a FG, or even attempt an onside kick on the ensuing kickoff.
The Arizona game last year is a good example that getting the ball first is not really that much of an advantage.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jul 5, 2009 11:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I forgot something.
Also, because there is a higher probability of ties in the first to six format, they should also add that whichever team is ahead at the end of the OT quarter wins, or if it’s still tied, then it’s a tie. One problem with this suggestion is that it would still lead to longer games in many cases and expose the teams to injury and fatigue, though not as often as making every OT game a full quarter.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jul 5, 2009 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
If they made the 4th quarter—say 10 minutes—then there would be more urgency on the teams to score if the overtime was the regular 15. Also, no team wants to tie so perhaps the close chance at winning will increase 2-pt conversions or force teams to go for the TD if down by 3 in OT.
All eyes on Free.
by Aaron Novinger on Jul 7, 2009 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rock Paper Scissors
I wonder if Wilson and the NFL could come up with some sort of sensory system. Maybe there could be sensors just under the leather of the ball that talk to sensors that run up and down the sidelines. That would be pretty sweet. Strangely though, I think I’d be a little sad to see the chains disappear.
by sublimezg on Jul 5, 2009 12:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's a cliche I wish you would stop using
“The only thing you’re going to prevent is yourself from winning.”
by northtexan95 on Jul 5, 2009 12:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
"Roger"
standing alone in a headline on a Cowboys blog will invariably be construed as referring to Staubach. I did a double-take when I figured out you were referring to Goodell, whom I would instantly recognize by his stand-alone last name.
Just saying.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Jul 5, 2009 1:05 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i thought he meant
Federer after today’s victory at Wimbledon.
by Joey2zs on Jul 5, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i did the same thing... thinking we had a Staubach thread
maybe I’ll end my lazy binge and start one
Tar Heels = National Champs in Basketball ... #1 in Baseball ... Top 10 this year in Football?
by DalaiLuke on Jul 5, 2009 9:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
But just want to say, this is a great article for the first week in July.
As always, BTB rules.
Tar Heels = National Champs in Basketball ... #1 in Baseball ... Top 10 this year in Football?
by DalaiLuke on Jul 5, 2009 10:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to see a college style overtime, just maybe from the 45 or 50
instead of the 25.
That would however greatly compromise the stat books.
WELCOME HOME SEVEN!!
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Jul 5, 2009 1:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I like the college style...
but they would never do it.
Instead I just think it would be good that each team gets one shot to score from their own 30, and then you go to a coin flip. That way at least both can say they had an equal shot to score/and stop the other one.
it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.
by AirforceBat on Jul 5, 2009 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if the only problem with the college style is the stat books, why not just ignore the stats?
… or perhaps only recognize the stats in the winning possession. This would make both the score and the stats remain in line with reality.
Tar Heels = National Champs in Basketball ... #1 in Baseball ... Top 10 this year in Football?
by DalaiLuke on Jul 5, 2009 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think it's the stat books that are the problem.
I think on the pro level, it would make the risk of injury higher and that’s why they won’t ever do that.
it was weird, I... I mean you probably didn't hear about it because I went under the name of Mike Honcho. But I just wanted you to know that. If you can hear me, if it got into your brain somehow. That I spread my buttcheeks as Mike Honcho.
by AirforceBat on Jul 7, 2009 8:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if the only problem with the college style is the stat books, why not just ignore the stats?
… or perhaps only recognize the stats in the winning possession. This would make both the score and the stats remain in line with reality.
Tar Heels = National Champs in Basketball ... #1 in Baseball ... Top 10 this year in Football?
by DalaiLuke on Jul 5, 2009 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do Away With The Two Minute Warning
Everybody knows the time on the field so nobody needs to be warned.
Go to the college rule and stop the clock on first downs untill the chains are moved.
by TCB Orange Dino on Jul 5, 2009 1:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I want them to take the skirt off of the QB
I know franchise quarterbacks make the league and when one gets injured, it can ruin your team’s season. But they have so many rules protecting the Quarterback now its insane!
You can’t hit them below the knee, you can’t hit above the shoulders. You cant even TOUCH a quarterbacks head. During this past offseason they made a Tom Brady inspired rule that says if a defender is on the ground, he can’t lunge towards the QB. What is the defender supposed to do? Just sit there and not go after the QB?? If a defender gets knocked to the ground, but still tries to get the QB its a 15 yard penalty.
by GoComets! on Jul 5, 2009 2:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I totally agree that this last rule is ridiculous.
Here are a few examples of when this rule will be really pitiful:
1. A blitzing defender gets his hands on the QB but falls down next to the QB (especially if the QB is off-balance)
2. In avoiding one defender, the QB moves right toward a guy on the ground.
3. The QB sheds a tackle, leaving the defender on the ground next to him.
The list goes on and on and on … I cannot imagine liking this rule even if it helps Romo. When we get a call in our favor, I’m just gonna hang my head and feel shame for the ref.
Tar Heels = National Champs in Basketball ... #1 in Baseball ... Top 10 this year in Football?
by DalaiLuke on Jul 5, 2009 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. OT – No field goals. Keep everything else the same but make the team score a
touchdown.
2. Celebrations – League officials are the only ones who don’t like the crazy celebrations
some of these guys come up with. The fans love it.
by connery on Jul 5, 2009 3:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+infinity for #1
The Giants winning it against the Panthers is acceptable but not the jets beating the patriots.
by Burt88 on Jul 5, 2009 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
clock stoppage on a first down...
…that makes the end of the game much more interesting with more plays. when the chains are reset, let the clock start up again.
…also, half the commercials, plllleeeeeease.
by archangel on Jul 5, 2009 5:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Instant replay overhaul!
Instead of forcing a stoppage of play so that the center ref can go over to a peep show booth, there should just be a seventh replay official with 6 TV screens somewhere in total control of multiple camera angles, etc. In the event of a close call that was missed, the replay official radios the refs to halt play for a moment and contribute his/her opinion.
by Doctorjorts on Jul 5, 2009 6:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Shirtless is worse than drugs..
The league is always worried about children..I agree..Someone needs to tell Roger more people die from Pneumonia than steroids..
Put the damn shirts back on and keep them on!
by bevomav on Jul 5, 2009 6:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Make pass interference reviewable.
That’s such a huge penalty, the only one that is more than 15 yards and can go more than half the distance to the goal line, that it should be subject to review.
by Baked Potato Soup on Jul 5, 2009 8:22 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Best suggestion yet
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jul 5, 2009 8:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's can't because it's a subjective call
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 5, 2009 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That may be why they don't do it
but it’s a game changer and really often mis-called.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jul 5, 2009 8:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
there are other calls that are also subjective
but are reviewable.
PI is such a big penalty that I think it should be reviewable.
it would just have to go by the standard, as with other calls, requiring irrefutable visual evidence to overturn a call. So if even on the replay it looks subjective, the call would stand.
But sometimes it is quite clear in a replay that the call was wrong, and I don’t see why the replay shouldn’t be able to overturn such a call with PI the same as it would for any other penalty.
by scottmaui on Jul 5, 2009 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what other subjective calls are reviewable?
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 5, 2009 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
all sorts of calls could potentially involved some subjectivity
down by contact, illegal forward pass, QB pass/fumble (arm in forward motion, tuck rule), spotting of the ball based on forward progress…
by scottmaui on Jul 6, 2009 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
those are all black and white calls and the reason they are reviewable.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 6, 2009 8:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well i disagree with you!
there is obviously potential of subjectivity to each of them… depending on camera angle, etc… just because they are reviewable doesn’t mean they are always completely black and white…
by scottmaui on Jul 6, 2009 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
they aren't subjective
that’s why calls like PI, personal fouls and holding calls will never be reviewable because it’s the referee’s discretion.
The calls that can be ascertained by irrefutable evidence by cameras can only be reviewed.
You have to have some human element left in these calls, they all can’t be reviewable.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 6, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Play might be subject to interpretation but...
not the rule. I think that’s where the difference comes in. The rule that states that a receiver must come down with two feet in bounds is black and white or if a player was down by contact, or did he break the plain of the end zone are not subject to interpretation. However, the replay of a particular play can be, different officials or fans can always interpret it in different ways. But there are rules that are subject to interpretation like, was that pass interference or did the receiver have possession before going out of bounds.
by staubachfan on Jul 6, 2009 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it is more subject to interpretation than some other plays
but there are still some clear-cut rules. and there are still some clear examples of plays where you can see, like it was called PI but the defender didn’t actually touch him prior to the ball arriving, or the offensive player had ahold of the defender’s jersey where the ref couldn’t see it but the camera can, and it should actually be offensive PI. Whether a defender is going for the ball or going through the player may be subjective, but whether he actually touched the guy before the ball arrived is not a subjective rule. If he didn’t touch the guy, it’s not a penalty.
Like all other plays, you would need irrefutable visual evidence to overturn a play, but there are PI plays where the replay can clearly show that they got the call wrong. Given how huge a call it is, more potentially game changing than any other penalty if they get it wrong, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to correct these plays where it is very clear on the replay, even if most PI plays would not be overturned because of the relative subjectivity of the rule.
by scottmaui on Jul 7, 2009 12:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I think there is still room to apply IR to judgment calls as long as they maintain the irrefutable evidence standard. I guess I lean toward PI because it is THE biggest penalty, right on par with turn-overs, which are generally reviewable.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jul 7, 2009 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like to make PI a 15 yard penalty
and a spot foul on flagrant violations.
by I_miss_Switzer on Jul 5, 2009 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would work too
although you’d need an exception for in the end zone, since guys would interfere a lot more often on deep passes.
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig loves it.
by dunkman on Jul 6, 2009 5:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to suggest this!
A 15-yard PI penalty rule is waaaaaaaaay overdue. Teams can gain 70 yards on a PI penalty. That’s just lame. The defense is handcuffed enough w/the 5-yard contact rule and the sensitivity of hits on QBs.
All eyes on Free.
by Aaron Novinger on Jul 7, 2009 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
If PI was just a 15 yd penalty, DBs would simply just tackle WRs on deep bombs when they know they’re beat and the league doesn’t want that.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 8, 2009 7:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then, if the infraction is over 15 yards, the refs could do a halfway distance to the spot of the foul thing.
Counting as an automatic first down is damaging enough to defenses. Tack on a buttload of yards on a penalty play that pretty much counts as a catch is a bit much. Not all WRs would come down with the ball on PI calls. It’s such a subjective penalty that it warrants some looks at limitations.
All eyes on Free.
by Aaron Novinger on Jul 8, 2009 8:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
