Football's Dumbest Rule

[Cryolemon]

So, if a defensive player is called for Pass interference, we should award the offense a TD because the WR might have caught the pass and then ran for a TD?

I'm trying to be reasonable.

I think in theory the ref could do that anyway. It requires interpretation of the phrase "palpably unfair act" though, which while it is an amusing phrase is a vague at best lol.

[kyhadley]

I hate the Patriots, so I'll say my opinion. Blame the Patriots for causing this rule to go in effect...

I do believe it was Bill Polian that complained about the Pats D pushing around the Colts' receivers in that '04 playoff game, leading to the current system

[Senser81]

I think in theory the ref could do that anyway. It requires interpretation of the phrase "palpably unfair act" though, which while it is an amusing phrase is a vague at best lol.

Here is an example of a "palpably unfair act"...fast forward to 3:23 of the video.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVrsGHs2MCk"]YouTube- Last Boy Scout: Opening scene[/ame]

[Senser81]

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.

Are you serious? Not all "Illegal contact" penalties occur on 3rd down. And an offense getting a 1st down is not equivalent to the offense punting and giving up possession of the ball. The offense isn't awarded points for getting a 1st down.

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.

No, an Illegal Contact penalty without an automatic first down attached to it does not act as a change of possession. If it was merely a 5-yard penalty and nothing more, then an illegal contact penalty on 3rd and 10 would make it 3rd and 5. THERE IS NO LOSS OF DOWN ON ANY DEFENSIVE PENALTY. It would not be 4th and 5 and thus a change of possession on the punt. I honestly do not understand how this point is not sinking into your skull. You have serious mental issues.

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.

Please don't waste my time by making crap up. The only way a defensive lineman can be called for holding is if he tackles an offensive lineman and a defensive teammate runs through the gap created by the defensive lineman's holding. It has NOTHING to do with defensive holding being an "injury risk".

I like your last line....its weird how I see RBs tackled on play action screens all the time and nary a penalty is called. I guess those refs just don't care about the players' safety.

[Senser81]

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

Yes, it did have reason to exist. The passing game had stagnated by 1977. If you don't believe me, look it up.

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.

Uh, then I am not "opening up Pandora's Box by talking about hypotheticals", I am talking about the actual rules. The illegal contact rule makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense to you, probably because you have no brain. OK, point taken, lets move on.

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

Riiight....there was no huge uptick in passing statistics and scoring after 1977. Thats why they had all these QBs throwing for 4000 yards prior to 1978 and all the career passing records are held by guys who played in the 1960's and 1970's.

[Sven Draconian]

Are you serious? Not all "Illegal contact" penalties occur on 3rd down. And an offense getting a 1st down is not equivalent to the offense punting and giving up possession of the ball. The offense isn't awarded points for getting a 1st down.

but they are awarded points for a punt? How is giving team A a first down (Illegal contact) and team B a first down (via punt) different?

No, an Illegal Contact penalty without an automatic first down attached to it does not act as a change of possession. If it was merely a 5-yard penalty and nothing more, then an illegal contact penalty on 3rd and 10 would make it 3rd and 5. THERE IS NO LOSS OF DOWN ON ANY DEFENSIVE PENALTY. It would not be 4th and 5 and thus a change of possession on the punt. I honestly do not understand how this point is not sinking into your skull. You have serious mental issues.

But it does have an automatic first down, so what's your point?

Please don't waste my time by making crap up. The only way a defensive lineman can be called for holding is if he tackles an offensive lineman and a defensive teammate runs through the gap created by the defensive lineman's holding. It has NOTHING to do with defensive holding being an "injury risk".

No, that is not the only way it can be called.

More importantly, a common tactic in early football (when the flying wedge was all the rage) was grapping the ankles of offensive lineman to stop the wedge. Huge injury risks associated with it.

I like your last line....its weird how I see RBs tackled on play action screens all the time and nary a penalty is called. I guess those refs just don't care about the players' safety.

If you knew nearly as much as you claim about rules, you would know that a player carrying out a playfake is free game.

Yes, it did have reason to exist. The passing game had stagnated by 1977. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Yet, it revived without the rule being enforced (90s) and it evolved, independently, at every other level of football than professional. The rule was implemented to fix a problem that never really existed.

Uh, then I am not "opening up Pandora's Box by talking about hypotheticals", I am talking about the actual rules. The illegal contact rule makes sense to me. It doesn't make sense to you, probably because you have no brain. OK, point taken, lets move on.

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. Great tactic. Doesn't help your point.

Riiight....there was no huge uptick in passing statistics and scoring after 1977. Thats why they had all these QBs throwing for 4000 yards prior to 1978 and all the career passing records are held by guys who played in the 1960's and 1970's.

Who said there wasn't an uptick? If there wasn't an uptick, I'd have no complaints. If you can't win an arguement, change the arguement. Great tactic. Doesn't help your point.

[Rush]

Glad to see a home page article is bringing some good discussion ;)

[Sven Draconian]

Further.

You still have yet to explain why there is this one rule (1) that has no category. Why should the NFL manipulate strategy through rules?

[Senser81]

but they are awarded points for a punt? How is giving team A a first down (Illegal contact) and team B a first down (via punt) different?

Its different because an offense earning a first down is not nearly the same value as a defense forcing the offense to punt. Think of it this way...if a defense always forced a punt after giving up a first down, it would be the greatest defense in NFL history because the opposing offense would never score. Forcing a punt is of much greater value than giving up a first down.

But it does have an automatic first down, so what's your point?

Your initial argument centered on the fact that an automatic first down accompanies an "Illegal Contact" penalty. Now it seems that your "argument" has devolved to "why is illegal contact a penalty at all?". My bad.

No, that is not the only way it can be called.

More importantly, a common tactic in early football (when the flying wedge was all the rage) was grapping the ankles of offensive lineman to stop the wedge. Huge injury risks associated with it.

Wrong. It is the only way it can be called on a defensive lineman. There are no penalties for "ankle grabbing" or "pillow biting".

If you knew nearly as much as you claim about rules, you would know that a player carrying out a playfake is free game.

Whoa, so every rule ISN'T about player safety? Wow.

Yet, it revived without the rule being enforced (90s) and it evolved, independently, at every other level of football than professional. The rule was implemented to fix a problem that never really existed.

Not really. The mid-90's never saw passing numbers plummet to 1977 levels. You are acting as if illegal contact was never called prior to the late-90's...it was more like the MLB deciding to "enforce the strike zone" when the hitters had too much of the upper hand. The strike zone had always been in place, and its not like the umps never called strikes.

If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. Great tactic. Doesn't help your point.

I still don't understand. Your original "argument" was to ask why the illegal contact rule exists and why the penalty is what it is...and I answered you. I don't see how I am attacking you or arguing with you on the factual basis of a rule. You can disagree with the rule's fairness or applicability, but you can't really disagree about what the rule is.

Who said there wasn't an uptick? If there wasn't an uptick, I'd have no complaints. If you can't win an arguement, change the arguement. Great tactic. Doesn't help your point.

You said that even though illegal contact became a rule prior to 1978, it was never enforced until recently. I pointed out the OBVIOUS absurdity of your statement...but I guess the huge uptick in passing stats in 1978 was sheer coincidence -- it had NOTHING to do with the rule changes.

[Senser81]

Further.

You still have yet to explain why there is this one rule (1) that has no category. Why should the NFL manipulate strategy through rules?

I don't really know what you mean by "having no category", but I will say that the NFL is in the business of making money. If every game ended 0-0 or 3-0 no one would watch. Perhaps you are also upset with the legalization of the forward pass?

[Fox1994]

In all honesty, I never noticed the illegal contact rule until 2008. It was funny, because my granddad, who's been watching pro and college football since he was little (He was born in '47) said "What the hell is that? Was the guy playing with himself?" He was being sarcastic... Shit was still fucking hilarious. HAHAHAHAHA

[Sven Draconian]

Its different because an offense earning a first down is not nearly the same value as a defense forcing the offense to punt. Think of it this way...if a defense always forced a punt after giving up a first down, it would be the greatest defense in NFL history because the opposing offense would never score. Forcing a punt is of much greater value than giving up a first down.

What?

A first down is a first down.

Your initial argument centered on the fact that an automatic first down accompanies an "Illegal Contact" penalty. Now it seems that your "argument" has devolved to "why is illegal contact a penalty at all?". My bad.

My initial arguement covered both facets of the rule. The excessive penalty as well as the absurdity of it's existance.

Wrong. It is the only way it can be called on a defensive lineman. There are no penalties for "ankle grabbing" or "pillow biting".

You're dead wrong. Just for instance, it can be called on holding a TE from releasing for a pass (the most common occurence of the penalty). Even further, there is no need for lineman to grab ankles because that style of play is long gone.

However, if it were to occur, it grabbing an ankle would be holding.

Whoa, so every rule ISN'T about player safety? Wow.

Ok.

Not really. The mid-90's never saw passing numbers plummet to 1977 levels. You are acting as if illegal contact was never called prior to the late-90's...it was more like the MLB deciding to "enforce the strike zone" when the hitters had too much of the upper hand. The strike zone had always been in place, and its not like the umps never called strikes.

I'm sorry, but what's your point. Nobody is arguing how effective the rule is.

Further, the rule was unneccesary. The evolution of the passing game would have occured naturally (again, see the college game). That is why the passing game continued to grow during a period where the rule was un-enforced (ok, rarely enforced).

The passing game has exploded because of the natural evolution coupled with the new emphasis on the rule.

I still don't understand. Your original "argument" was to ask why the illegal contact rule exists and why the penalty is what it is...and I answered you. I don't see how I am attacking you or arguing with you on the factual basis of a rule. You can disagree with the rule's fairness or applicability, but you can't really disagree about what the rule is.

I never disagreed with what the rule is. I disagreed with the fairness and application of the rule.

You said that even though illegal contact became a rule prior to 1978, it was never enforced until recently. I pointed out the OBVIOUS absurdity of your statement...but I guess the huge uptick in passing stats in 1978 was sheer coincidence -- it had NOTHING to do with the rule changes.

Alright, the rule was enforced and then forgotten for 15 years. Better?

I don't really know what you mean by "having no category", but I will say that the NFL is in the business of making money. If every game ended 0-0 or 3-0 no one would watch. Perhaps you are also upset with the legalization of the forward pass?

Ah yes, because every college game ends 3-0....and every NFL game in the 90s ended 3-0....and every game before 1978 ended 3-0.

That's alright Senser, keep using hyperbole to deflect the arguement.

[Senser81]

I can't argue with you any further since you thanked my article.