Football's Dumbest Rule

[Senser81]

I think he's saying there is no illegal contact rule for the offense when there should be.

There is no need for an illegal contact rule, because offensive pass interference covers the situation. The NFL needed to create the illegal contact rule in 1978 to differentiate between 'illegal contact' and 'defensive pass interference', because prior to 1978 there was no 'illegal contact'...it was legal to jostle the WR up to the point of the ball being thrown. The NFL also had to make the penalization different, because you couldn't really place the ball at the spot of the potential reception, since 'illegal contact' could occur without the QB throwing the ball to that WR.

[Sven Draconian]

There is no need for an illegal contact rule, because offensive pass interference covers the situation. The NFL needed to create the illegal contact rule in 1978 to differentiate between 'illegal contact' and 'defensive pass interference', because prior to 1978 there was no 'illegal contact'...it was legal to jostle the WR up to the point of the ball being thrown. The NFL also had to make the penalization different, because you couldn't really place the ball at the spot of the potential reception, since 'illegal contact' could occur without the QB throwing the ball to that WR.

And why is that a bad thing again?

[Senser81]

It's the same principle that is applied to an illegal contact on 3rd and 15. Illegal contact is called 8 yards down field, but it's an automatic first down. Why?

No, its not the same principal. Not at all. Illegal contact isn't called at the "spot of the foul" like holding. Their is also no 'change of possession' on illegal contact plays like the 'change of possession' you are insisting upon for offensive holding penalties.

I obviously don't feel like holding should result in a punt, however, that would be the equivalent to the current effects penalty for an Illegal Contact.

No, it would not be the equivalent to the current effects for Illegal Contact.

That is the Pandora's Box of "what ifs" that you yourself opened (The receiver might have caught the pass). I'm playing in your scenario.

LOL, this won't end well. Stop being retarded.

This Pandora's Box that I've allegedly opened (I thought you did??) is already in existence. If the pass is deemed catchable, then the officials can spot the ball at the perceived point of the potential catch on pass interference penalty.

[Senser81]

And why is that a bad thing again?

Because teams couldn't pass the ball at all. Look at the NFL scoring and passing stats in 1977.

[FirstTimer]

There is no need for an illegal contact rule, because offensive pass interference covers the situation. The NFL needed to create the illegal contact rule in 1978 to differentiate between 'illegal contact' and 'defensive pass interference', because prior to 1978 there was no 'illegal contact'...it was legal to jostle the WR up to the point of the ball being thrown. The NFL also had to make the penalization different, because you couldn't really place the ball at the spot of the potential reception, since 'illegal contact' could occur without the QB throwing the ball to that WR.

I understand that but I think he didn't know that offensive pass interference rules started at the snap rather than when the ball left the QB's hands(as it does for the D)

[Senser81]

I understand that but I think he didn't know that offensive pass interference rules started at the snap rather than when the ball left the QB's hands(as it does for the D)

Then that would explain it.

[Sven Draconian]

No, its not the same principal. Not at all. Illegal contact isn't called at the "spot of the foul" like holding. Their is also no 'change of possession' on illegal contact plays like the 'change of possession' you are insisting upon for offensive holding penalties.

Holding isn't a spot foul if it occurs in the backfield.

Also, an incomplete pass on 3rd and 10...being revived for illegal contact, is a change of possession penalty IMO.

No, it would not be the equivalent to the current effects for Illegal Contact.



LOL, this won't end well. Stop being retarded.

:laugh:

How would it not be the effect? A change of (up to) 3 downs (4th down to 1st down) and up to 3 downs (1st down to 4th down). Sounds like the exact same punishment.

This Pandora's Box that I've allegedly opened (I thought you did??) is already in existence. If the pass is deemed catchable, then the officials can spot the ball at the perceived point of the potential catch on pass interference penalty.

yes, that is why pass interference exists.

Again, you said illegal contact results in a 1st down because a QB might have thrown too (and completed) a pass if he had not been shoved. That's when you opened the box. If you want to start speculating on things that might have happened, you can bring up what might have happened if holding had not occured or any other penalty.

Because teams couldn't pass the ball at all. Look at the NFL scoring and passing stats in 1977.

Hmm, college football has no issue with the passing game without the rule. Since the rule was largely unenforced during the 90s and we saw the rise of the Run N Shoot (and the further spread of the WCO) I'll go ahead and say you can throw the ball just fine without the rule.

[Senser81]

Also, an incomplete pass on 3rd and 10...being revived for illegal contact, is a change of possession penalty IMO.

Huh? Worst case scenario on a defensive penalty is the offense would get 3rd down over. So you are now complaining about a hypothetical (automatic 1st down for illegal contact) and replacing it with a hypothetical (offense would have turned the ball over on downs).

How would it not be the effect? A change of (up to) 3 downs (4th down to 1st down) and up to 3 downs (1st down to 4th down). Sounds like the exact same punishment.

See above. I cannot comprehend any situation which would follow your logic. You are basically saying that illegal contact should be a 5 yard penalty AND A LOSS OF DOWN, meaning the offense doesn't get another chance at 3rd down. On any 3rd and long, the defense could just tackle the WRs, take the 5-yard penalty, and still force the offense to punt.

Again, you said illegal contact results in a 1st down because a QB might have thrown too (and completed) a pass if he had not been shoved. That's when you opened the box. If you want to start speculating on things that might have happened, you can bring up what might have happened if holding had not occured or any other penalty.

How did I open the box? I'm merely explaining the NFL rules to you. Should we make "illegal contact" penalties a 5-yard penalty at the spot of the foul with no automatic first down given? Even with its lack of logic, it would still make more sense than your "what if" holding scenarios.

Hmm, college football has no issue with the passing game without the rule. Since the rule was largely unenforced during the 90s and we saw the rise of the Run N Shoot (and the further spread of the WCO) I'll go ahead and say you can throw the ball just fine without the rule.

And if we were discussing college football, you may have had a point.

[Tengo Juego]

I understand that but I think he didn't know that offensive pass interference rules started at the snap rather than when the ball left the QB's hands(as it does for the D)

There is no need for an illegal contact rule, because offensive pass interference covers the situation. The NFL needed to create the illegal contact rule in 1978 to differentiate between 'illegal contact' and 'defensive pass interference', because prior to 1978 there was no 'illegal contact'...it was legal to jostle the WR up to the point of the ball being thrown. The NFL also had to make the penalization different, because you couldn't really place the ball at the spot of the potential reception, since 'illegal contact' could occur without the QB throwing the ball to that WR.

I finally found descriptions that gave me every little detail on the PI rule...http://www.footballscrimmage.com/nfl...rference.shtml

And fuck Fitz got away with one. Obviously, the ball wasn't in the air, but you guys were right, the rule goes into effect against the offense at the snap, and when the ball is released on D. Basically, the ref who should have called it, saw the play from behind, so it looked incidental, opposed to the view everyone else saw in the replays.

lol I've never spent so much time reading one simple rule, over an over. I wonder if maybe refs should be required(if they're not already) to do this.

[Sven Draconian]

Huh? Worst case scenario on a defensive penalty is the offense would get 3rd down over. So you are now complaining about a hypothetical (automatic 1st down for illegal contact) and replacing it with a hypothetical (offense would have turned the ball over on downs).

What? Illegal contact is already an automatic first down. I'm not complaining about any hypotethicals, I'm complaining about the real rule and using a comparison to demonstrate what an equivalent offensive rule would be.

You know this, but since you have no counter arguement to the point you'll just change what is said to try and divert the argument and turn it into a semantics war.

See above. I cannot comprehend any situation which would follow your logic. You are basically saying that illegal contact should be a 5 yard penalty AND A LOSS OF DOWN, meaning the offense doesn't get another chance at 3rd down. On any 3rd and long, the defense could just tackle the WRs, take the 5-yard penalty, and still force the offense to punt.

Ah, Senser style. Lets use hyperbole to distort the point because I have no real arguement. Oh well, I'll play along anyway.

Firstly, if the defense tackled the WR's it would be defensive holding, which is (rightly) an automatic first down. They already have a rule for that.

Secondly, if they are going to have the illegal contact rule (which should not exist at all), it should be a 5 yard penalty and a replay of the down. Where did I endorse a loss of down? Oh, right, you just made it up...again...distorting the point.

How did I open the box? I'm merely explaining the NFL rules to you. Should we make "illegal contact" penalties a 5-yard penalty at the spot of the foul with no automatic first down given? Even with its lack of logic, it would still make more sense than your "what if" holding scenarios.

Where did you explain NFL rules again. Again, the what-if scenario YOU started. Illegal contact is an automatic first down, because if there was no illegal contact a completed pass could have resulted in a first down.

Did you, or did you not, make that point. (I'm sure you'll dodge this).

And if we were discussing college football, you may have had a point.

Explain the Run N Shoot rising in an era where illegal contact was not enforced. Further, explain how the WCO came to dominance in the 90s and early 2000s, again, despite non-enforcement of illegal contact.

[Senser81]

What? Illegal contact is already an automatic first down. I'm not complaining about any hypotethicals, I'm complaining about the real rule and using a comparison to demonstrate what an equivalent offensive rule would be.

No, its not equivalent. Forcing the offense to punt after a holding penalty is not the same as awarding the offense a 1st down for illegal contact. If you think a 1st down is equivalent to a punt, then let me know how many teams punt as often as they make a 1st down.

Firstly, if the defense tackled the WR's it would be defensive holding, which is (rightly) an automatic first down. They already have a rule for that.

HA HA HA! So, a defensive holding penalty is "rightly" an automatic first down...but you take issue with illegal contact being an automatic first down?

Why the differentiation?

[Senser81]

Secondly, if they are going to have the illegal contact rule (which should not exist at all), it should be a 5 yard penalty and a replay of the down. Where did I endorse a loss of down? Oh, right, you just made it up...again...distorting the point.

No, I didn't make it up. You said an illegal contact by the defense on 3rd down gives the offense a 1st down instead of a 4th down. You used this same faulty logic to say that making the offense punt after a holding penalty is equivalent to illegal contact, since I guess in your mind all illegal contact penalties occur on 3rd and long, and any defensive penalty does not allow the offense to replay the down.

My point was even in a scenario when illegal contact does not give an automatic first down...at the very least the offense would gain 5 yards AND replay 3rd down.

Sheesh.

Where did you explain NFL rules again. Again, the what-if scenario YOU started. Illegal contact is an automatic first down, because if there was no illegal contact a completed pass could have resulted in a first down.

Did you, or did you not, make that point. (I'm sure you'll dodge this).

WTF are you talking about? I'm not making this stuff up off the top of my head. I am explaining to you the reasoning behind the NFL (not Senser81) making the illegal contact penalty an automatic first down. Why do you keep attributing this rule to me? I don't get it.

Explain the Run N Shoot rising in an era where illegal contact was not enforced. Further, explain how the WCO came to dominance in the 90s and early 2000s, again, despite non-enforcement of illegal contact.

Illegal contact was enforced from 1978 - present. Again, you have no point.

[Sven Draconian]

No, its not equivalent. Forcing the offense to punt after a holding penalty is not the same as awarding the offense a 1st down for illegal contact. If you think a 1st down is equivalent to a punt, then let me know how many teams punt as often as they make a 1st down.

What does that babble have to do with anything?

Both penalties would be a 3 down shift.
Holding...you go from 1st down to 4th down.
Illegal contact...you go from forcing a 4th down back to first down.

How are those not equal? Both act as a change of possession. Holding now the other team gives it back. IC now the other team no longer is forced into a punt.

HA HA HA! So, a defensive holding penalty is "rightly" an automatic first down...but you take issue with illegal contact being an automatic first down? Why the differentiation?

HA HA HA HA HA HA!. I doubled your HA's, clearly that hurts your arguement.


The differentiation is the purpose and enforcement of the rule. Defensive holding is has an injury risk. The rule was not to liven the passing game, it was to stop defensive lineman from tackling offensive lineman and grabbing their ankles. It wasn't intended to stop "holding" as much as to prevent tackling non-ballcarriers.

Further, it also prevents the game from devolving into a wrestling match. It's be easy to cover a receiver if all you had to do was wrap him up. Nobody wants that, it defeats the purpose of the game.

More importantly, it isn't called with the frequency of most other penalties. If it was called as frequently, as say, offensive holding, I would get annoyed with it. Luckily, the NFL hasn't gotten away from the spirit of the rule (yet).

[Sven Draconian]

No, I didn't make it up. You said an illegal contact by the defense on 3rd down gives the offense a 1st down instead of a 4th down. You used this same faulty logic to say that making the offense punt after a holding penalty is equivalent to illegal contact, since I guess in your mind all illegal contact penalties occur on 3rd and long, and any defensive penalty does not allow the offense to replay the down.

How is a statement of fact faulty logic? IC on 3rd down gives a first down. That's a fact. (It obviously does so on any down).

My point was even in a scenario when illegal contact does not give an automatic first down...at the very least the offense would gain 5 yards AND replay 3rd down.

That would be better, however it doesn't change the fact the rule has no reason to exist.

WTF are you talking about? I'm not making this stuff up off the top of my head. I am explaining to you the reasoning behind the NFL (not Senser81) making the illegal contact penalty an automatic first down. Why do you keep attributing this rule to me? I don't get it.

Because you are holding the logic up to be true, making it your arguement as well. If you disagree with the logic behind the rule, than say so, but as you've spent several posts now defending it...I'll go ahead and chalk you down as a supporter.

Illegal contact was enforced from 1978 - present. Again, you have no point.

No, it was not enforced. A rule existing does not mean it is enforced. Way to try and backpedal away from that one.

[j.hen]

I dont think its the dumbest rule. Defensive Backs are supposed to play the ball, not the receiver.