The worst rule in football...

#1
KoachKrab127

KoachKrab127

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Messages
4,925
Likes
5,839
#1
actually benefited us today. I have stated year after year how terrible and stupid the "fumble out of the end zone is a touchback to the defensive team," rule is. It makes no sense at all. If a fumble goes out of bounds on the 50 yard line, it goes back to the offense. Why does the goal line have to be different? The defense should have to recover the ball to earn possession. It shouldn't be given to them.

The rule should be: if the ball is fumbled forward, goes into the end zone and out of bounds, the ball will be spotted at the point of the fumble. That's what they do if the ball is fumbled forward and goes out of bounds anywhere else on the field. It should be the same for the goal line.

Stupid rule, always hated it. Yes, we benefited from it tonight, but I can think of a few times off the top of my head when it has killed our team something horrible in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#4
#4
KoachKrab127 said:
actually benefited us today. I have stated year after year how terrible and stupid the "fumble out of the end zone is a touchback to the defensive team," rule is. It makes no sense at all. If a fumble goes out of bounds on the 50 yard line, it goes back to the offense. Why does the goal line have to be different? The defense should have to recover the ball to earn possession. It shouldn't be given to them.

The rule should be: if the ball is fumbled forward, goes into the end zone and out of bounds, the ball will be spotted at the point of the fumble. That's what they do if the ball is fumbled forward and goes out of bounds anywhere else on the field. It should be the same for the goal line.

Stupid rule, always hated it. Yes, we benefited from it tonight, but I can think of a few times off the top of my head when it has killed our team something horrible in the past.
Click to expand...
That 2005 Bama game still haunts me too Hoss
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
I think the rules fine, just sucks when it bites you, but awesome when you gain from it
 
#7
#7
The players know the rule - if they protect the football until they cross into the end zone there is no problem with the rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
I've always thought the stupidest rule is when a defender gets called for PI simply for not turning to look at the ball even if there was no contact.

I get it when the defenders all over the guy but I see people get hit with PI all the time simply for not turning their head towards the ball.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#9
#9
Worst rule in College Football...
On a punt- the punt coverage player should not be able to be in the end zone and down the football at the 1. That is stupid. If you are in the end zone, it is a touchback.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#10
#10
Cdywolfe said:
I've always thought the stupidest rule is when a defender gets called for PI simply for not turning to look at the ball even if there was no contact.

I get it when the defenders all over the guy but I see people get hit with PI all the time simply for not turning their head towards the ball.
Click to expand...

Well, that is not PI. It is only PI if they make contact.
 
#13
#13
No. The targeting rule as it currently stands is the worst rule in football. It has far too much leeway and is too difficult to interpret, so players who are just playing the game get tossed out when it is 100% clear there was no intention behind the hit.

The rule should have stricter interpretations, it seems like every game now some poor kid is tossed out for targeting, I highly doubt THIS many players are intentionally going after others to cause physical harm.

The "targeting" call on Reeves Maybe is exhibit A for an unintentional/unavoidable hit that was marked as targeting.

If you want to see a real targeting call, watching Penn State vs Maryland game where the Maryland player took a cheap shot at the kicker. THAT was targeting and the guy deserved to be tossed out of the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#14
#14
Nerwen Aldarion said:
No. The targeting rule as it currently stands is the worst rule in football. It has far too much leeway and is too difficult to interpret, so players who are just playing the game get tossed out when it is 100% clear there was no intention behind the hit.

The rule should have stricter interpretations, it seems like every game now some poor kid is tossed out for targeting, I highly doubt THIS many players are intentionally going after others to cause physical harm.

The "targeting" call on Reeves Maybe is exhibit A for an unintentional/unavoidable hit that was marked as targeting.

If you want to see a real targeting call, watching Penn State vs Maryland game where the Maryland player took a cheap shot at the kicker. THAT was targeting and the guy deserved to be tossed out of the game.
Click to expand...

Intent has nothing to do with the rule. The rule is in place to stop hits to the head, regardless of intent.
 
#15
#15
KoachKrab127 said:
I don't think it does, because it's inconsistent with the rules at any other point on the field.
Click to expand...

No. If the offense crosses the goal line, it's a touchdown and ball goes to the other team. Same concept on the fumble, minus the points.


It's like complaining that field goals should be worth the same as XP's. They're both kicks, right?

The endzone produces touchdowns, safeties, and touchbacks. That spans offense and defense.

Penalties change based on field position. Half the distance inside the 10.

The ball being live on kickoffs vs. not live until touched on punts.


The entire fabric of the game is that each situation is different depending on where it happens. It's weird you pick this one situation out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
TNBV said:
Intent has nothing to do with the rule. The rule is in place to stop hits to the head, regardless of intent.
Click to expand...

Per NCAA rules on targeting:

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Here's the rub. What defines legal vs illegal force?

Purposes of attacking implies intent, purpose means "on purpose" so therefore we need intent in order to establish targeting
 
#17
#17
Nerwen Aldarion said:
Per NCAA rules on targeting:

Note 1: "Targeting" means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.

Here's the rub. What defines legal vs illegal force?

Purposes of attacking implies intent, purpose means "on purpose" so therefore we need intent in order to establish targeting
Click to expand...

Still not intent as was being described in the other post. it does not matter if you intend to hit someone in the head and shoulders or you intend to hit them in the gut. Nor is it considered if you meant to hurt or not hurt the player. The idea that a foul could ever be called based on "intent" is asinine, other than blatant unsportsmalike conduct. If the player has a snarl on his face does that establish intent? If he is smiling while he knocks someones head off, is that intent?
 
#20
#20
It makes as much sense as the one stating "Targeting shall be called on a Tennessee player if it's anywhere close, but shall never be called on anyone playing Tennessee regardless"
 
#21
#21
I personally feel like it is a good rule..But a fumble out of bounds should also result in loss of possession.

Protect the ball and you won't lose it
 
#22
#22
KoachKrab127 said:
actually benefited us today. I have stated year after year how terrible and stupid the "fumble out of the end zone is a touchback to the defensive team," rule is. It makes no sense at all. If a fumble goes out of bounds on the 50 yard line, it goes back to the offense. Why does the goal line have to be different? The defense should have to recover the ball to earn possession. It shouldn't be given to them.

The rule should be: if the ball is fumbled forward, goes into the end zone and out of bounds, the ball will be spotted at the point of the fumble. That's what they do if the ball is fumbled forward and goes out of bounds anywhere else on the field. It should be the same for the goal line.

Stupid rule, always hated it. Yes, we benefited from it tonight, but I can think of a few times off the top of my head when it has killed our team something horrible in the past.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree with you more. Out of bounds should be out of bounds. Period
 
#23
#23
KoachKrab127 said:
I don't think it does, because it's inconsistent with the rules at any other point on the field.
Click to expand...

Well...speaking of consistency, why is a safety only 2 points? Much harder to get than a TD. i don't think rules have to be consistent, necessarily.
 
#24
#24
Targeting is definitely the worst rule...not because the intent is dumb but because in practice it's total chaos.
 
#25
#25
n_huffhines said:
Targeting is definitely the worst rule...not because it the intent is dumb but because in practice it's total chaos.
Click to expand...

Decent rule with horrible implementation. Feels like a bandaid on a gaping wound though. They want to reduce helmet to helmet injuries but only go after a fraction of the instances of it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top