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.
