Around the NFL: Divisional Round edition

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by HTTR

There are sensible ways that rule could be changed. Bring the ball back to the 20 with offense retaining possession is one.

This one doesn't make any sense to me. Reverse touchback ? Where does that come from ?

The issue with wanting to change just one rule is that the rules have been written with some sort of consistency and coherence. I'm not against changing rules (hence the discussion last week about Apke's punt, I think that's an example of a badly written rule), but you can't do it without considering the overall logic of the ruleS.

How about just coaching guys to situational awareness and protecting the ball ?Ball security is central in this sport.

[Monkeydad]

If the defense didn't recover the fumble, the defense should not get possession. Spot of the fumble would be the fair and reasonable outcome of a fumble like that.

It really killed the Browns' chances, I think they would have won if not for that BS rule.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Look at Marino threw for 5,000 in 84 which is like someone getting 6,000 today. Went to one, lost and never got back again. A lot of great great players that never got one.

Warren Moon on top of that list.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

#Saints will now begin one of the craziest offseasons in NFL history no matter the NFL pegs the cap limit at. Currently project to be around $95M over the cap and that will be around $100M over once they sign futures deals.

DAMN The Saints are DONE

We'll take Michael Thomas off their hands and books for them.

Originally Posted by sdskinsfan2001

That gamble did not pan out.

Hill or Winston as their starting QB next year?

An offense that uses both.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

This one doesn't make any sense to me. Reverse touchback ? Where does that come from ?

The issue with wanting to change just one rule is that the rules have been written with some sort of consistency and coherence. I'm not against changing rules (hence the discussion last week about Apke's punt, I think that's an example of a badly written rule), but you can't do it without considering the overall logic of the ruleS.

How about just coaching guys to situational awareness and protecting the ball ?Ball security is central in this sport.

While logical consistency (what I think you are arguing for) is important, so is competitive fairness.

tldr: I don't see the competitive fairness of giving the ball to the defensive team at the 20. a better rule is the ball is placed at the one with the down determined by the previous play

The rule as it is written is punitive to the offense without basis. On punts, kickoffs or other implementations the offense is surrendering the ball and that makes sense. In the case of a forced or even worse, an unforced fumble, the offense receives a punishment, and the defense gains a reward, that is greatly exaggerated by the demarcation of the endzone boundaries. In the field of play a fumble is ruled for the offense at the spot it went out of bounds.

I think the logical consistency for fumbling out of bounds in the endzone should be a pass interference in the endzone. In both cases the offense cannot be given the ball where they would receive it in the field of play, so they are given it at the 1 yard line. So this is how I would change the rule.

For a fumble out of the opponents endzone by an offensive player:
1) the ball will be spotted at the 1 yard line.
2) the upcoming down and possession will be determined by the spot of the fumble and the last down played.
examples:
a) on any down the offensive player passes the first down marker at the 3 and fumbles out of the endzone.
Offense retains possesion with 1st down at the 1
b) on 1st, 2nd or 3rd and goal to go, the offensive player fumbles out of the endzone
Offense retains possesion and the down is the next successive down with the ball placed the 1
c) on 4th and goal to go, the offensive player fumbles out of the endzone.
Defensive team takes over with 1st and 10 at their 1 yard line.

[AnonEmouse]

Not saying the rule will/should change, but if you go with those scenarios I would say the ball should go back to the offense at the point of the fumble, not the 1. If you fumble say at the 5, and it goes through the EZ, getting it at the 1 would give the O an unfair advantage, given the point of progress on the previous play.

[SunnySide]

The penalty is harsh but protect the football. Dont extend it. This rule reminds me of what football used to be, much like rugby in a sense. A line of men trying to move an opposing line of men. Protecting and possessing the ball were rules 1 and 2.

Belichick and im sure a lot of other coaches have a rule ... dont extend the ball for the pylon.

-----

Just giving the offense the ball at 1 does not reward the defense at all for causing a fumble. The offense shouldnt be gifted on the play bc they fumbled it. Perhaps move it to the 20 and play whatever down it is.

I do think the result of the play is somewhat harsh but I do think the defense needs to be rewarded for causing a fumble .. but I feel that way about automatic first downs being tacked onto penalties as well.

Tough break that has bitten every team.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

While logical consistency (what I think you are arguing for) is important, so is competitive fairness.

tldr: I don't see the competitive fairness of giving the ball to the defensive team at the 20. a better rule is the ball is placed at the one with the down determined by the previous play

The rule as it is written is punitive to the offense without basis. On punts, kickoffs or other implementations the offense is surrendering the ball and that makes sense. In the case of a forced or even worse, an unforced fumble, the offense receives a punishment, and the defense gains a reward, that is greatly exaggerated by the demarcation of the endzone boundaries. In the field of play a fumble is ruled for the offense at the spot it went out of bounds.

I think the logical consistency for fumbling out of bounds in the endzone should be a pass interference in the endzone. In both cases the offense cannot be given the ball where they would receive it in the field of play, so they are given it at the 1 yard line. So this is how I would change the rule.

For a fumble out of the opponents endzone by an offensive player:
1) the ball will be spotted at the 1 yard line.
2) the upcoming down and possession will be determined by the spot of the fumble and the last down played.
examples:
a) on any down the offensive player passes the first down marker at the 3 and fumbles out of the endzone.
Offense retains possesion with 1st down at the 1
b) on 1st, 2nd or 3rd and goal to go, the offensive player fumbles out of the endzone
Offense retains possesion and the down is the next successive down with the ball placed the 1
c) on 4th and goal to go, the offensive player fumbles out of the endzone.
Defensive team takes over with 1st and 10 at their 1 yard line.

Ok, not saying this one doesn't make sense (but it would have to be spot of the fumble UNLESS it's within 1 yard of the goal line. IE: fumble at the 3 can't give you the ball at the 1).
But what I don't like is it gives offense a huge incentive to not be careful with the ball: extend it and you wether score or get it back at the 1... The reward is high (a TD), so lessening the risk isn't fair IMO.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

Ok, not saying this one doesn't make sense (but it would have to be spot of the fumble UNLESS it's within 1 yard of the goal line. IE: fumble at the 3 can't give you the ball at the 1).

But what I don't like is it gives offense a huge incentive to not be careful with the ball: extend it and you wether score or get it back at the 1... The reward is high (a TD), so lessening the risk isn't fair IMO.

Well if it is fumbled and recovered by the defense it is still defense's ball at the 20. So the risk of losing the ball still holds the possibility of turning it over.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[AnonEmouse]

Here's a question; if Mahomes doesn't clear concussion protocol, what chance do you give the Chiefs of beating the Bills? I'd edge the Bills at this point.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by AnonEmouse

Here's a question; if Mahomes doesn't clear concussion protocol, what chance do you give the Chiefs of beating the Bills? I'd edge the Bills at this point.

Almost no chance. Henne definitely made the necessary plays to get past the Browns, but if he plays 60 minutes the Bills will most definitely win that game.

[sdskinsfan2001]

Really hope Mahomes can play. But I don't think anyone plays 1 week after a concussion nowadays. It would be an epic story personally for Henne though. If he plays and wins, automatic Chiefs legend for life.

[htownskinfan]

Originally Posted by The Skinsinator

I just don't see us giving up an absurd amount for him though, if we legitimately pursue him. Watson is, reportedly, done with Houston. He's really pissed. He is suddenly the most polarizing player in this offseason.

I had to make a run from work today and listened to sports radio when doing it{in Houston} local talk show guy thinks Houston has already picked a coach,just hasnt been announced yet,and maybe that's why Watson is telling fans not to protest because he's ok with who they picked.They were supposed to be interviewing Bienemy today

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by htownskinfan

I had to make a run from work today and listened to sports radio when doing it{in Houston} local talk show guy thinks Houston has already picked a coach,just hasnt been announced yet,and maybe that's why Watson is telling fans not to protest because he's ok with who they picked.They were supposed to be interviewing Bienemy today

Really hope it's not Bieniemy. He deserves better.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Arians on Antoine Winfield, throws shade at Chase Young: “Can’t say enough about him. To me, he's the Defensive Rookie of the Year. Seven and a half sacks isn’t anything to what he’s done.”

Ok stop

As long as he's been around the game, he should know that sacks don't tell the whole story. Just a dumb, unnecessary comment. I get promoting your own guy, but you can do that without suggesting that someone else is undeserving.