Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by PapaL, Apr 2, 2008.
As taken from ESPN; link:
1. Not sure how I feel about this.
2. Oh Lord - more replays? Then again a handful of FGA are tricky.
3. Yeah ok - no biggie.
4. Should have already been a rule. It is in a shotgun formation.
5. I think eliminating the incidental face mask might cause my "incidental" face ask incidents.
I like most of them. The elemination of the 5 yard face mask is pretty cool. Its hard to tackle a guy with out touching the mask.
I don't like the first one, because it will probably mean open season on WRs. The first time AJ gets jacked on the sideline and is out injured, I'm sure we'll all be complaining about it. If the offense adjusts to it, it shrinks the field.
I'm not worried about our WR's. AJ can hold his own on the perimeter. The number one safety concern for our receivers is still passes over the middle.
I like the changes.
yeah, I'm a little sketchy on how that's going to work. If a WR jumps up to catch the ball and will clearly land in bounds before a defender hits him out, how will they rule it? His feet never touches the ground, so would it be incomplete, correct?
To my understanding, if you're a defensive back, you now have equal incentive to nail a WR out of bounds as you do over the middle. Rather, there is no deterrent to making that WR think twice about going up for the ball. You seldom see WRs go high in the air in the middle of the field. Now, you won't see it on the sidelines, either.
I guess the vertical jump will become less important at the combine, right?
Maybe the rule change will make guys like Chad Johnson think twice about jumping for a ball that they can catch on the ground.
Seriously, how many WRs in the league now get one tossed right at their face & instead of snagging it they jump in the air & catch it with their body?
That wont be happening on the sideline anymore at least.
I like the rule change.
If you don't get two feet in bounds, it's incomplete. Simple.
This year, the Texans will get big plays, but AJ won't get both feet inbounds, on what was previously called a "force out". Let's see how you like this rule change then.
I guess the flip side is that our DB's will get to lay some wood on WRs on the sidelines, too. This could come in handy when playing the Colts.
I like the first rule change. For too long rules have been set up to give advantages to the offense. I understand the thinking behind the rules to score more points and make bigger plays and such, but it has been slanted in the receivers favor for a long time.
GB, how many times can you remember AJ actually getting a reception because of the force out rule? (I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'm hard pressed to remember one occurrence).
I'm not a fan of the change to the force out rule, but on the bright side it'll be more clear cut. I like that they removed the incidental face mask penalty, makes more sense that way, IMO.
What is the implication of deferring the decision on the coin toss? I don't quite follow that one. Does that mean you let the other coach choose to receive or kick but you get to choose the side of the field?
I'll still like it.
And you will too.
Anything that encourages our DB's to be more physical in this division is a good thing.
The rule goes both ways.
If we do the same thing to the opposing WRs then the rule will even out for both teams.
I like the change. Now the rule is clear & the referee wont have to make a judgement call.
But our corners aren't within a 20 foot radius of the wideouts anyway, so it doesn't really go both ways.
I hate the rule. I really hope we didn't vote "For", because the fade is a big part of Andre's game.
lol the rule is a way for the NFL to make it up to the DB's for all the over-sensitive touch rules they implemented the last couple of years. now it's payback time, because they're going to be destroying any receiver that's anywhere near the sideline once he touches the ball
The only thing that I see that would be a reason to have the rule is:
If you want to START the game with a heck of a offensive attack (if you have a strong offense), you have the opportunity to intimidate by scoring first.
If you want to START the game with a heck of a defensive demonstration (if you have a strong defense), you have the opportunity to intimidate by stopping your opponent right off the bat.
Of course, choosing the opposite approaches to the aforementioned would make the same statement.........near the latter part of the game going into the home stretch.
Either move would basically be a posturing/flexing of the muscle move.
Assuming that the new rule is similar to the NCAA rule....When you choose to defer a decision on the coin toss, you are allowing the other coach to choose to kick or receive to start the game.
However, you are also choosing to defer your decision until the start of the 2nd half. This means that if you win the coin toss and defer, at the start of the 2nd half, you get to choose to kick or receive...regardless of how the opposing team chose to start the game.
So...hypothetically, a team could receive the ball to start the game and also receive the ball at the start of the 2nd half. For example, say the Texans win the coin toss against a very defensive-minded team and Kubiak chooses to defer. If the other team chose to kick to start the game b/c they want their defense on the field first, the Texans would obviously be receiving the ball to start the game. Now, since Kubiak deferred his original decision, he can choose to also receive the ball to start the 2nd half. The chances that this will happen are probably pretty slim, but with the new rule, it is at least possible.
I'm not sure if that's what you were asking, but take it FWIW.
Separate names with a comma.