The one rule in football I hate

#26
#26
KoachKrab127 said:
The offensive team fumbles the football into the end zone and the football goes out of bounds. So what happens? The ball is rewarded to the other team at the 20 yard line. It's so stupid. Why should the defense be awarded possession without actually recovering the football?

If a team fumbles on the 30 yard line, and the ball rolls forward to the 32 yard line and then rolls out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the 30 yard line where the ball was fumbled. The defense has to recover the ball to earn possession on the field, so why does the end zone have to be different? If a player fumbles at the 1 yard line, and the ball rolls into the end zone and out of bounds, the offense should be given possession back for the next down where the ball was fumbled.

Yes, I was thinking about Pig vs. UGA in 2013, and Anderson vs. Bama in 2005.

:banghead2:
Click to expand...

Offsides or pass interference.
 
#28
#28
TrueOrange said:
If I understood correctly, the reason the coaches pushed for celebration and taunting rules were to prevent/lessen the chances of fights breaking out later in games or things like a player becoming a target for cheap/dirty hits or injury-intended hits as reciprocation as the game goes on.
Click to expand...

I don't remember many people fighting or targeting The Funbunch or TO or Deion or Ocho Stinko etc. Not saying that wasn't the reason, but its a pretty dumb reason considering it wasn't a problem ever in football that I recall.
 
#29
#29
I think college football should embrace the pro rule that a ball carrier has to be down by contact. It's maddening watch a WR catch a ball untouched and fall down and the play be dead having never been touched.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 14 people
#31
#31
fade route said:
I think college football should embrace the pro rule that a ball carrier has to be down by contact. It's maddening watch a WR catch a ball untouched and fall down and the play be dead having never been touched.
Click to expand...

I actually think the opposite. I think the NFL should go back to the college rule.

Football is a game of pressure, and the ground is another defender in college football. I like the fact that if you're running the ball on the game-winning play and you've got 40 open yards in front of you, you have to focus on staying on your feet as well. It's similar to making sure not to lose your dribble when a basketball game is on the line.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#32
#32
chatt-townVOL said:
I actually think the opposite. I think the NFL should go back to the college rule.

Football is a game of pressure, and the ground is another defender in college football. I like the fact that if you're running the ball on the game-winning play and you've got 40 open yards in front of you, you have to focus on staying on your feet as well. It's similar to making sure not to lose your dribble when a basketball game is on the line.
Click to expand...

Uh.....no.....no its not. jmo
 
#33
#33
Id have to agree with the fumbling through the endzone and losing possession rule. Just doesnt make sense to me.

Anybody know the logic behind that rule?
 
#35
#35
fade route said:
I think college football should embrace the pro rule that a ball carrier has to be down by contact. It's maddening watch a WR catch a ball untouched and fall down and the play be dead having never been touched.
Click to expand...

It happens a lot with our offense too.
 
#36
#36
fade route said:
I think college football should embrace the pro rule that a ball carrier has to be down by contact. It's maddening watch a WR catch a ball untouched and fall down and the play be dead having never been touched.
Click to expand...

They'll never do that. It encourages defensive players to hit you after you're down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#37
#37
KingtUT said:
Id have to agree with the fumbling through the endzone and losing possession rule. Just doesnt make sense to me.

Anybody know the logic behind that rule?
Click to expand...

Corey Anderson from the game that we eventually didn't lose comes to mind. Don't understand either.
 
#38
#38
KingtUT said:
Id have to agree with the fumbling through the endzone and losing possession rule. Just doesnt make sense to me.

Anybody know the logic behind that rule?
Click to expand...

My theory, at the end of the half or game, a team could purposefully fumble toward one side of the endzone or the other to try to gain a score (ie. run to the right side and "lose" the ball if you get tackled). If only your team was expecting it, you would have the advantage, and if the ball goes out of bounds without the rule, you get another shot. But I'm just making stuff up, and other than that, I would have no clue. :)
 
#39
#39
chatt-townVOL said:
I actually think the opposite. I think the NFL should go back to the college rule.

Football is a game of pressure, and the ground is another defender in college football. I like the fact that if you're running the ball on the game-winning play and you've got 40 open yards in front of you, you have to focus on staying on your feet as well. It's similar to making sure not to lose your dribble when a basketball game is on the line.
Click to expand...


Bet you wouldn't feel that way watching one of our receivers wide open have to dive for a catch and not be able to get back up and get a few more yards
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#41
#41
Kristy* said:
My theory, at the end of the half or game, a team could purposefully fumble toward one side of the endzone or the other to try to gain a score (ie. run to the right side and "lose" the ball if you get tackled). If only your team was expecting it, you would have the advantage, and if the ball goes out of bounds without the rule, you get another shot. But I'm just making stuff up, and other than that, I would have no clue. :)
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it. :thumbsup:
 
#42
#42
fade route said:
I wonder how many NFL players were on the injured reserve last year due to down by contact hits? By guess is almost none
Click to expand...

You don't think ANY injury was due to getting hit on the way down either? My point is DATA OR NO they're not going to institute any rule that allows for MORE contact. The NFL keeps bandying around the idea of eliminating returns for safety reasons...sweat that out more than this.
 
#43
#43
KoachKrab127 said:
The offensive team fumbles the football into the end zone and the football goes out of bounds. So what happens? The ball is rewarded to the other team at the 20 yard line. It's so stupid. Why should the defense be awarded possession without actually recovering the football?

If a team fumbles on the 30 yard line, and the ball rolls forward to the 32 yard line and then rolls out of bounds, the offense retains possession at the 30 yard line where the ball was fumbled. The defense has to recover the ball to earn possession on the field, so why does the end zone have to be different? If a player fumbles at the 1 yard line, and the ball rolls into the end zone and out of bounds, the offense should be given possession back for the next down where the ball was fumbled.

Yes, I was thinking about Pig vs. UGA in 2013, and Anderson vs. Bama in 2005.

:banghead2:
Click to expand...

Also happened to Fumblin' Foster at least twice. I despise the "targeting" rule, which is misused and overapplied. The refs care more about possible lawsuits than the game. It's even worse because they use replay to review it and then don't overrule obviously bad calls. I hate the "celebration" rule even more. There's not even a safety concern there unlike targeting, just PC crybabies to appease.
 
#44
#44
Kristy* said:
My theory, at the end of the half or game, a team could purposefully fumble toward one side of the endzone or the other to try to gain a score (ie. run to the right side and "lose" the ball if you get tackled). If only your team was expecting it, you would have the advantage, and if the ball goes out of bounds without the rule, you get another shot. But I'm just making stuff up, and other than that, I would have no clue. :)
Click to expand...

It's considered a touchback, just like a kickoff (live ball) going out of the endzone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#46
#46
Coach_Z said:
Targeting
Click to expand...

This is another of mine as well. So subjective, can be called on almost any play at any time, when the defense makes a stop, especially in the open field. I've seen some of these called and worst upheld, when you know money from Vegas changed hands and a ref somewhere must have walked off with a nice retirement package, just a very bad rule and way it is interpreted.
 
#48
#48
Kristy* said:
My theory, at the end of the half or game, a team could purposefully fumble toward one side of the endzone or the other to try to gain a score (ie. run to the right side and "lose" the ball if you get tackled). If only your team was expecting it, you would have the advantage, and if the ball goes out of bounds without the rule, you get another shot. But I'm just making stuff up, and other than that, I would have no clue. :)
Click to expand...

Thats fixed by simply saying no advancing a fumble isnt it? Im like you, its all just a guess
 
Last edited:
#49
#49
apevol said:
Hand checking should be allowed. Start calling travelling again. If you hold the ball, jab stepping, pump faking or feigning a dribble for 8 seconds, it should be a TO.
Click to expand...

Nowadays we have kids and pros with great "crossover" dribble moves that in my day were turnovers called palming. Also the higher up the chain one moves toward MLB the further the distance required by a shortstop to actually touch second base when turning a double play. I've seen major leaguers get the out when they've just been in the neighborhood of 2nd before throwing to first.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top