|
Post by klawrencio79 on Oct 23, 2020 14:48:54 GMT
They did get a TD on the drive, so not quite a buttfumble. I saw somebody said it was worse than the butt-fumble. It's pretty funny, but it's like a 90 yard gain where they scored 2 plays later. In what universe is that the same as a lost fumble in a blowout loss? People are fucking stupid. That's absurd. Even I know what the Butt Fumble is....hell, even my wife knows what the Butt Fumble is! The Butt Fumble is etched into the annals of history, right there alongside the Immaculate Reception. Yeah, the Jones play was funny but it'll be forgotten in a week.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 23, 2020 14:51:47 GMT
I don't think that's the most fair option. I have no problem with a spot-of-the-foul penalty. Within 5 yards that's pretty much legal anyway. If they want to make it a 10 yard penalty that's far more reasonable than the automatic 1st down. There's no easy answer. A passing play is likely to net more than five yards, especially in a situation like I proposed. You'd still be punishing the offense by only giving them ten yards and a replay of down on a 3rd and 25, or any down where the play was clearly going to result in a huge gain. I agree the rules are skewed toward the offense (nowadays more than ever), but you can't allow the defense to consider a penalty to be a better option than proper technique on 70% of pass plays. I don't think that's true. That 70% of the time proper technique is still gonna be better. Trying to prevent a reception is still gonna be better than intentionally losing yardage and giving them another shot, and to me the idea of 10 yards or the spot-of-the-foul is way more fair than giving them 3 more shots. You're also talking about illegal contact and defensive holding as opposed to PI, and in most cases that conscious decision to intentionally commit a penalty is gonna be when the ball is in the air. To me, more yardage or a spot-of-the-foul is plenty fair, and just logical. We may not agree here, but can we agree that while it barely ever matters that -half the distance to the goal' is fucking nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 23, 2020 14:53:04 GMT
The Butt Fumble is etched into the an nals of history...
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 23, 2020 15:07:43 GMT
There's no easy answer. A passing play is likely to net more than five yards, especially in a situation like I proposed. You'd still be punishing the offense by only giving them ten yards and a replay of down on a 3rd and 25, or any down where the play was clearly going to result in a huge gain. I agree the rules are skewed toward the offense (nowadays more than ever), but you can't allow the defense to consider a penalty to be a better option than proper technique on 70% of pass plays. I don't think that's true. That 70% of the time proper technique is still gonna be better. Trying to prevent a reception is still gonna be better than intentionally losing yardage and giving them another shot, and to me the idea of 10 yards or the spot-of-the-foul is way more fair than giving them 3 more shots. You're also talking about illegal contact and defensive holding as opposed to PI, and in most cases that conscious decision to intentionally commit a penalty is gonna be when the ball is in the air. To me, more yardage or a spot-of-the-foul is plenty fair, and just logical. We may not agree here, but can we agree that while it barely ever matters that -half the distance to the goal' is fucking nonsense? Whether the defender meant to commit the foul or not, it would be too light a penalty in my opinion to give them five or even ten yards and not at least a first down when it probably would've been a huge gain. But yeah, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Regarding 'half the distance,' sometimes that call actually helps the penalized team. A 15 yrd penalty at the 16 yard line moves the ball to the 1. Half the distance puts it at the 8. This seems reasonable to me. What specifically bothers you about this one? How else would you mete out penalties inside the five yard line?
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 23, 2020 16:33:30 GMT
Regarding 'half the distance,' sometimes that call actually helps the penalized team. A 15 yrd penalty at the 16 yard line moves the ball to the 1. Half the distance puts it at the 8. This seems reasonable to me. What specifically bothers you about this one? How else would you mete out penalties inside the five yard line? What bothers me with this rule is just the complete lapse in logic. In this case it's not about helping the offense or the defense, it's equally stupid in either direction. The scenario you lay out is exactly the problem. In what way does that seem reasonable? This seems like something we all accept because we are used to it, but it doesn't happen enough for anyone to stop and think about why it would be enforced this way. Why would you lose yardage because a team commits a penalty against you but they do so too close to the goal line? In what universe does this make any sense? Why wouldn't you just take the penalty yardage as far as you can? A 15 yard penalty on the 16 yard line moves the ball to the 1, but on the 14 it moves to the 7? Why wouldn't both scenarios result in putting the ball on the 1? We can agree to disagree on the other penalty, and I can understand the other argument, in this case there's nothing about it that makes sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Oct 23, 2020 16:38:19 GMT
They did get a TD on the drive, so not quite a buttfumble. I saw somebody said it was worse than the butt-fumble. It's pretty funny, but it's like a 90 yard gain where they scored 2 plays later. In what universe is that the same as a lost fumble in a blowout loss? People are fucking stupid. Reminded me of Steve Young at the end of this play if he'd had a few more yards to go.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 23, 2020 16:41:08 GMT
I saw somebody said it was worse than the butt-fumble. It's pretty funny, but it's like a 90 yard gain where they scored 2 plays later. In what universe is that the same as a lost fumble in a blowout loss? People are fucking stupid. Reminded me of Steve Young at the end of this play if he'd had a few more yards to go. If only Jones fell down 3 or 4 steps later like Young... nobody would have much of anything to make fun of. Though I don't know if it's better or worse with tbmhe Steve Young play that he broke 47 tackles and then only stumbled when nobody was near him.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 23, 2020 16:50:30 GMT
Regarding 'half the distance,' sometimes that call actually helps the penalized team. A 15 yrd penalty at the 16 yard line moves the ball to the 1. Half the distance puts it at the 8. This seems reasonable to me. What specifically bothers you about this one? How else would you mete out penalties inside the five yard line? What bothers me with this rule is just the complete lapse in logic. In this case it's not about helping the offense or the defense, it's equally stupid in either direction. The scenario you lay out is exactly the problem. In what way does that seem reasonable? This seems like something we all accept because we are used to it, but it doesn't happen enough for anyone to stop and think about why it would be enforced this way. Why would you lose yardage because a team commits a penalty against you but they do so too close to the goal line? In what universe does this make any sense? Why wouldn't you just take the penalty yardage as far as you can? A 15 yard penalty on the 16 yard line moves the ball to the 1, but on the 14 it moves to the 7? Why wouldn't both scenarios result in putting the ball on the 1? We can agree to disagree on the other penalty, and I can understand the other argument, in this case there's nothing about it that makes sense at all. The idea behind it is probably to make the game more interesting. An offense trying to operate from its own 1 yard line isn't very compelling. When these rules were written, a team with a ball on their own 1 was running the ball three times and punting a hundred times out of a hundred. Maybe they need to be updated to match the prevalent style of play in the current era. Meanwhile, there are no penalties that are less than five yards, so there has to be a format for penalties inside the five. If the rule fits for a five yard penalty, how can a fifteen yard penalty be enforced differently? That must be the logic there. Of course this circles back to our previous conversation about PI, they don't hesitate to put the defense in an impossible situation if a guy commits a penalty in the end zone on a 50 yard bomb. Advantage offense, I guess. I see what you're saying, I'm not passionate about this one way or the other. I agree it's something we just accept without ever thinking about it. But now that you brought it up, I can't say I'd advocate for a rule change. If they change it I'd understand, but it really doesn't bother me.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 23, 2020 17:06:18 GMT
What bothers me with this rule is just the complete lapse in logic. In this case it's not about helping the offense or the defense, it's equally stupid in either direction. The scenario you lay out is exactly the problem. In what way does that seem reasonable? This seems like something we all accept because we are used to it, but it doesn't happen enough for anyone to stop and think about why it would be enforced this way. Why would you lose yardage because a team commits a penalty against you but they do so too close to the goal line? In what universe does this make any sense? Why wouldn't you just take the penalty yardage as far as you can? A 15 yard penalty on the 16 yard line moves the ball to the 1, but on the 14 it moves to the 7? Why wouldn't both scenarios result in putting the ball on the 1? We can agree to disagree on the other penalty, and I can understand the other argument, in this case there's nothing about it that makes sense at all. The idea behind it is probably to make the game more interesting. An offense trying to operate from its own 1 yard line isn't very compelling. When these rules were written, a team with a ball on their own 1 was running the ball three times and punting a hundred times out of a hundred. Maybe they need to be updated to match the prevalent style of play in the current era. Meanwhile, there are no penalties that are less than five yards, so there has to be a format for penalties inside the five. If the rule fits for a five yard penalty, how can a fifteen yard penalty be enforced differently? That must be the logic there. Of course this circles back to our previous conversation about PI, they don't hesitate to put the defense in an impossible situation if a guy commits a penalty in the end zone on a 50 yard bomb. Advantage offense, I guess. I see what you're saying, I'm not passionate about this one way or the other. I agree it's something we just accept without ever thinking about it. But now that you brought it up, I can't say I'd advocate for a rule change. If they change it I'd understand, but it really doesn't bother me. I'm sure I'm the only one bothered by it. Again, it doesn't even really come up much, but I don't see any logic at all. The penalty yardage should count, and you shouldn't be rewarded for committing a penalty 1 yard closer to the goal line. Not sure what you are talking about with the 5 yard penalty thing. I'm saying that no matter what the penalty yardage is it should be enforced as far as it can go and there should be no exceptions, and I don't see how there's any logic in saying otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 23, 2020 17:12:27 GMT
The idea behind it is probably to make the game more interesting. An offense trying to operate from its own 1 yard line isn't very compelling. When these rules were written, a team with a ball on their own 1 was running the ball three times and punting a hundred times out of a hundred. Maybe they need to be updated to match the prevalent style of play in the current era. Meanwhile, there are no penalties that are less than five yards, so there has to be a format for penalties inside the five. If the rule fits for a five yard penalty, how can a fifteen yard penalty be enforced differently? That must be the logic there. Of course this circles back to our previous conversation about PI, they don't hesitate to put the defense in an impossible situation if a guy commits a penalty in the end zone on a 50 yard bomb. Advantage offense, I guess. I see what you're saying, I'm not passionate about this one way or the other. I agree it's something we just accept without ever thinking about it. But now that you brought it up, I can't say I'd advocate for a rule change. If they change it I'd understand, but it really doesn't bother me. I'm sure I'm the only one bothered by it. Again, it doesn't even really come up much, but I don't see any logic at all. The penalty yardage should count, and you shouldn't be rewarded for committing a penalty 1 yard closer to the goal line. Not sure what you are talking about with the 5 yard penalty thing. I'm saying that no matter what the penalty yardage is it should be enforced as far as it can go and there should be no exceptions, and I don't see how there's any logic in saying otherwise. A five yard penalty on the defense within 5 yards of the goal line is enforced half the distance to the goal. If it happens on the half yard line or one foot from the goal line, it's still half the distance. So as not to make the rules more convoluted than they already are, all penalties that would result in more than half the distance are still only enforced half the distance. That must be the logic. Not saying I agree with it, but that must be the logic.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 24, 2020 19:05:15 GMT
I'm sure I'm the only one bothered by it. Again, it doesn't even really come up much, but I don't see any logic at all. The penalty yardage should count, and you shouldn't be rewarded for committing a penalty 1 yard closer to the goal line. Not sure what you are talking about with the 5 yard penalty thing. I'm saying that no matter what the penalty yardage is it should be enforced as far as it can go and there should be no exceptions, and I don't see how there's any logic in saying otherwise. A five yard penalty on the defense within 5 yards of the goal line is enforced half the distance to the goal. If it happens on the half yard line or one foot from the goal line, it's still half the distance. So as not to make the rules more convoluted than they already are, all penalties that would result in more than half the distance are still only enforced half the distance. That must be the logic. Not saying I agree with it, but that must be the logic. I still don't follow the logic. No matter how long the penalty distance it should just be enforced as far as it can be. Instead of 'half the distance to the goal' any penalty that would go farther than can be enforced should just put the ball just outside of the goal line. Treating it all the same is the opposite of convoluted.
|
|