football stuff
#1
11-21-2015, 09:06 PM
football stuff
I'd like to see a few changes in football (not that anyone cares 
).
But, I'll lay 'em out anyway. Feel free to agree, rebut or talk about your own.
Refs and instant replays. How about getting rid of those bleeping replays. They don't really make the officiating better -- they're still talking about blown calls days after the game.
- How about if the NFL hired FULL TIME refs. Then they could talk about ref stuff all week and call the games on Sunday ( or whenever they're on). Sure it's an expense, but the NFL (teams not the league) makes BILLIONS.
- They could even fire refs who screwed up too often -- what a plan.
Not to mention that the rules for what can get reviewed and challenged are nearly as complicated as the rest of the game.
Speaking of which -- how many rules do they have? One that the certainly could lose is the 'process of the catch'. The first time that I saw it called, the receiver caught the ball in the end zone and went down still holding on to it. They called it a no catch -- and the league agreed.
And here's an unusual thought. Make ALL offensive penalties a loss of downs. Why does the defense get the shaft on an offensive foul. Too many times they have to guess whether to replay the down or take what they got. When the defense fouls, it's win win for the offense.
One college note. I really wish that they hadn't gone to the BCS stuff. I liked the old scheme where 3 or four schools would claim that they were #1. Everybody got to argue about it all year. I think that it narrows the focus to the eventual champ at the expense of some very good teams. Plus, there's always a lot of judgement as to who gets in. There are too many teams and not enough common opponents. On the pro level, it makes sense -- it's set up so that there's no real judgement involved. Not so for the colleges.
Oh well, as I said, feel free to agree or disagree.
hj
).But, I'll lay 'em out anyway. Feel free to agree, rebut or talk about your own.
Refs and instant replays. How about getting rid of those bleeping replays. They don't really make the officiating better -- they're still talking about blown calls days after the game.
- How about if the NFL hired FULL TIME refs. Then they could talk about ref stuff all week and call the games on Sunday ( or whenever they're on). Sure it's an expense, but the NFL (teams not the league) makes BILLIONS.
- They could even fire refs who screwed up too often -- what a plan.
Not to mention that the rules for what can get reviewed and challenged are nearly as complicated as the rest of the game.
Speaking of which -- how many rules do they have? One that the certainly could lose is the 'process of the catch'. The first time that I saw it called, the receiver caught the ball in the end zone and went down still holding on to it. They called it a no catch -- and the league agreed.
And here's an unusual thought. Make ALL offensive penalties a loss of downs. Why does the defense get the shaft on an offensive foul. Too many times they have to guess whether to replay the down or take what they got. When the defense fouls, it's win win for the offense.
One college note. I really wish that they hadn't gone to the BCS stuff. I liked the old scheme where 3 or four schools would claim that they were #1. Everybody got to argue about it all year. I think that it narrows the focus to the eventual champ at the expense of some very good teams. Plus, there's always a lot of judgement as to who gets in. There are too many teams and not enough common opponents. On the pro level, it makes sense -- it's set up so that there's no real judgement involved. Not so for the colleges.
Oh well, as I said, feel free to agree or disagree.
hj
#2
11-22-2015, 11:45 AM
#3
11-23-2015, 08:34 PM
First off I'll say I don't watch football nor can I stand any talk about it. I can barely sit thru the superbowl, and the only reason I go to super bowl parties is for the eat and drink. So with that being said...
I don't understand what I think is called pass interferrence. I thought the whole point of the game is to get the ball and score with it.
So what if you got in the way of a pass and managed to get the ball instead of the intended catcher? Why is it wrong?
Oh and they should show the cheerleaders more.
I don't understand what I think is called pass interferrence. I thought the whole point of the game is to get the ball and score with it.
So what if you got in the way of a pass and managed to get the ball instead of the intended catcher? Why is it wrong?
Oh and they should show the cheerleaders more.
#4
11-23-2015, 09:09 PM
Post Fiend
#5
12-08-2015, 10:08 PM
My points in red below:
Here are some more:
Punters get credit from where they kicked the ball.
Special teams can have their bodies in the endzone while trying to down the ball at the one, if the ball has not crossed the goal line. If it wouldn't count as a touchdown, how can it be a touchback?
Penalize teams for kicking the ball out of the endzone.
Don't discourage a team trying to kick a long FG. If an FG is more than 50 yards make the defense have a runner back there to field the ball possibly. This will result in either more blocked kicks because the kicking team will be sending a couple of guys down the field or a better chance of a good return.
These would apply to all sports:
Seasons have uneven games (for NFL, that would be 15 or 17). That way you either had a winning season or a losing season.
Playoff teams cannot have a losing season.
I'd like to see a few changes in football (not that anyone cares ).
But, I'll lay 'em out anyway. Feel free to agree, rebut or talk about your own.
Refs and instant replays. How about getting rid of those bleeping replays. They don't really make the officiating better -- they're still talking about blown calls days after the game. Agreed and it makes cooler talk more fun!
Speaking of which -- how many rules do they have? One that the certainly could lose is the 'process of the catch'. The first time that I saw it called, the receiver caught the ball in the end zone and went down still holding on to it. They called it a no catch -- and the league agreed. Ball is being brought into torso = a catch! If the ground can't cause a fumble, it can't cause an incompletion.
And here's an unusual thought. Make ALL offensive penalties a loss of downs. Yes, and if it is intentional grounding, make it an extra loss. For in stance, IG on first down? It's third down next. When the defense fouls, it's win win for the offense.
One college note. I really wish that they hadn't gone to the BCS stuff. I liked the old scheme where 3 or four schools would claim that they were #1. Everybody got to argue about it all year. I think that it narrows the focus to the eventual champ at the expense of some very good teams. Plus, there's always a lot of judgement as to who gets in. There are too many teams and not enough common opponents. On the pro level, it makes sense -- it's set up so that there's no real judgement involved. Not so for the colleges.
I like the idea of a playoff for college, just make it for the top 16 teams. Playoffs will be done in 4 weeks so that the ......students......can get back to their studies.
Oh well, as I said, feel free to agree or disagree.
hj
).But, I'll lay 'em out anyway. Feel free to agree, rebut or talk about your own.
Refs and instant replays. How about getting rid of those bleeping replays. They don't really make the officiating better -- they're still talking about blown calls days after the game. Agreed and it makes cooler talk more fun!
Speaking of which -- how many rules do they have? One that the certainly could lose is the 'process of the catch'. The first time that I saw it called, the receiver caught the ball in the end zone and went down still holding on to it. They called it a no catch -- and the league agreed. Ball is being brought into torso = a catch! If the ground can't cause a fumble, it can't cause an incompletion.
And here's an unusual thought. Make ALL offensive penalties a loss of downs. Yes, and if it is intentional grounding, make it an extra loss. For in stance, IG on first down? It's third down next. When the defense fouls, it's win win for the offense.
One college note. I really wish that they hadn't gone to the BCS stuff. I liked the old scheme where 3 or four schools would claim that they were #1. Everybody got to argue about it all year. I think that it narrows the focus to the eventual champ at the expense of some very good teams. Plus, there's always a lot of judgement as to who gets in. There are too many teams and not enough common opponents. On the pro level, it makes sense -- it's set up so that there's no real judgement involved. Not so for the colleges.
I like the idea of a playoff for college, just make it for the top 16 teams. Playoffs will be done in 4 weeks so that the ......students......can get back to their studies.
Oh well, as I said, feel free to agree or disagree.
hj
Punters get credit from where they kicked the ball.
Special teams can have their bodies in the endzone while trying to down the ball at the one, if the ball has not crossed the goal line. If it wouldn't count as a touchdown, how can it be a touchback?
Penalize teams for kicking the ball out of the endzone.
Don't discourage a team trying to kick a long FG. If an FG is more than 50 yards make the defense have a runner back there to field the ball possibly. This will result in either more blocked kicks because the kicking team will be sending a couple of guys down the field or a better chance of a good return.
These would apply to all sports:
Seasons have uneven games (for NFL, that would be 15 or 17). That way you either had a winning season or a losing season.
Playoff teams cannot have a losing season.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
scottman70
General NON-Automotive Conversation
26
02-03-2009 09:45 PM
AlabamaBronco
General NON-Automotive Conversation
24
05-23-2003 02:41 PM