Football's Dumbest Rule
Collapse
X
-
Comment
-
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVrsGHs2MCk"]YouTube- Last Boy Scout: Opening scene[/ame]Comment
-
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.
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.Comment
-
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.Comment
-
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.Comment
-
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?Comment
-
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.
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.Comment
-
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?Comment
-
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. HAHAHAHAHAComment
-
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.
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.
Wrong. It is the only way it can be called on a defensive lineman. There are no penalties for "ankle grabbing" or "pillow biting".
However, if it were to occur, it grabbing an ankle would be holding.
Whoa, so every rule ISN'T about player safety? Wow.
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.
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.
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.
That's alright Senser, keep using hyperbole to deflect the arguement.Comment
Comment