Various NFL Rules and Policies Thoughts

[gonores]

Because it's halftime of the Packers game and I don't have anything better to do.

1. Half the distance - Never got this concept. Why does a holding penalty on your own 16 result in only 8 yards of penalization? Penalties should be enforced to the full extent whenever possible. A holding penalty at the 16 should put the ball on the 6. A holding penalty on the 8 should put the ball on the 1. A holding penalty on the 4 should put the ball on the 1. Any penalty inside one's own 1 should result in a safety. Similar rules should apply for defensive penalties with the ball in the red zone.

*Especially annoying are scenarios like this. Offense has 3rd and 4 on opponent 6. An offsides penalty on the defense results in a 3rd and 1 on the 3.

2. Idiot coaches who can't figure out which plays can or cannot be reviewed. Mike Tice is especially ridiculous with his challenging of unchallengeable plays. There needs to be some token 5 yard/timeout penalty assessed to coaches who throw unnecessary red flags.

3. In pooch punt situations, why doesn't the punter stand back further from the line of scrimmage to get to a comfortable punting distance? If he consistently can kick the ball 50 yards in the air (40 yards past line of scrimmage, plus 15 yards behind the line, minus the 5 yards of run-up he uses), why doesn't he just always stand on his own 40 yard line, even if his team is punting from the opponent 38? It seems like the long-snapper wouldn't have a problem putting the ball 7 yards deeper.

Likewise, why don't field goal kickers kick short field goals from 8,9, or 10 yards behind the line? Is there is a greater chance of a block if the holder is back a few extra yards? It's gotta be easier to get it over the line with 25% more space between the ball and the line.

I'll post more as they come to me.

[bugstud]

on the setup issue I have been under the impression snappers prepare for that certain length.

[2+2 wannabe]

punters trying to kick the ball and make it bounce backwards at the 1 instead of trying to kick the ball out of bounds at the 1 (when they have plenty of leg to get it there)

not having offsetting pass interference penalties ever (this was called today in the NE/CAR game and I liked it a lot)

[gonores]

You're talking about putting the laces in a particular place in the holder's hands, right? Just clarifying.

If that is the case, my response is they are pros. If the ball goes through 1/4 revolution per yard of travelling through the air, just have the snapper turn the ball over to snap it 9 yards instead of 7.

[jstnrgrs]

They should make the return team actually field punts. I hate it when everyone just runs away from the ball.

[gonores]

It's a good idea, but unfeasible, because it sets up opportunities for "onsides punts."

[Wilbix]

What would be wrong with onside punts?

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
You're talking about putting the laces in a particular place in the holder's hands, right? Just clarifying.

If that is the case, my response is they are pros. If the ball goes through 1/4 revolution per yard of travelling through the air, just have the snapper turn the ball over to snap it 9 yards instead of 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

talking about the long snapper part and I wonder if a further back field goal might not improve the block percentage

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a good idea, but unfeasible, because it sets up opportunities for "onsides punts."

[/ QUOTE ]

so?

[craig r]

[ QUOTE ]
They should make the return team actually field punts. I hate it when everyone just runs away from the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you also saying they should get rid of the fair catch? If so, that seems like it would be pretty dangerous. Same with making the receiving team pick up the ball with 4 defenders around. Obviously football is a sport with a high risk of getting hurt, but wouldn't making the receiving team return the ball cause a lot of unnecessary injuries?

craig