|
|
#21
09-19-2005, 10:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
This would be my radical change to the game - no such thing as turnovers due to a fumble. I always thought giving the ball to the other team was way too severe a penalty for someone getting a good hit on the ball carrier. [/ QUOTE ] So how exactly does your proposal change how this situation is handled? The running back fumbles the ball and the defense pounces on it...then what? They give the ball back to the offense with a 10 or 15 yard penalty? This intrigues me. Is the penalty increased if the defense picks up the fumble and returns it for a TD? Maybe that would make it a personal foul, and the RB would be ejected! 
|
|
#22
09-19-2005, 12:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This would be my radical change to the game - no such thing as turnovers due to a fumble. I always thought giving the ball to the other team was way too severe a penalty for someone getting a good hit on the ball carrier. [/ QUOTE ] So how exactly does your proposal change how this situation is handled? The running back fumbles the ball and the defense pounces on it...then what? They give the ball back to the offense with a 10 or 15 yard penalty? This intrigues me. Is the penalty increased if the defense picks up the fumble and returns it for a TD? Maybe that would make it a personal foul, and the RB would be ejected! [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Why would the defense pounce on the ball if it didn't mean a turnover?? The RB just gets forward progress to where the ball popped out. It would take the luck factor out of the game and let running backs run harder if they didn't have to worry about a lucky stab knocking the ball out. Here's the box...think outside of it.
|
|
#23
09-19-2005, 12:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This would be my radical change to the game - no such thing as turnovers due to a fumble. I always thought giving the ball to the other team was way too severe a penalty for someone getting a good hit on the ball carrier. [/ QUOTE ] So how exactly does your proposal change how this situation is handled? The running back fumbles the ball and the defense pounces on it...then what? They give the ball back to the offense with a 10 or 15 yard penalty? This intrigues me. Is the penalty increased if the defense picks up the fumble and returns it for a TD? Maybe that would make it a personal foul, and the RB would be ejected! [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Why would the defense pounce on the ball if it didn't mean a turnover?? The RB just gets forward progress to where the ball popped out. It would take the luck factor out of the game and let running backs run harder if they didn't have to worry about a lucky stab knocking the ball out. Here's the box...think outside of it. [/ QUOTE ] This is so stupid, I don't even know how to respond to it. You think that running backs currently aren't running as hard as they should because they're afraid of getting hit hard and fumbling? There's no luck to hammering somebody and making them drop the ball. BTW...Nice finish to the post, implying that everybody laughing off your idea isthe result of small-thinking on their part. You're truly a trail blazer. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#24
09-19-2005, 12:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
Yes, I know a lot of "fumblers" develop holding techniques to prevent fumbles - the 2-handed to the chest method for one. You don't think it hurts their running ability? Try it.
Do you realize you haven't given one concrete reason why fumbles are a great part of football?
|
|
#25
09-19-2005, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I know a lot of "fumblers" develop holding techniques to prevent fumbles - the 2-handed to the chest method for one. You don't think it hurts their running ability? Try it. Do you realize you haven't given one concrete reason why fumbles are a great part of football? [/ QUOTE ] How about: fumbles are one of the most exciting parts of football.
|
|
#26
09-19-2005, 12:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This would be my radical change to the game - no such thing as turnovers due to a fumble. I always thought giving the ball to the other team was way too severe a penalty for someone getting a good hit on the ball carrier. [/ QUOTE ] So how exactly does your proposal change how this situation is handled? The running back fumbles the ball and the defense pounces on it...then what? They give the ball back to the offense with a 10 or 15 yard penalty? This intrigues me. Is the penalty increased if the defense picks up the fumble and returns it for a TD? Maybe that would make it a personal foul, and the RB would be ejected! [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Why would the defense pounce on the ball if it didn't mean a turnover?? The RB just gets forward progress to where the ball popped out. It would take the luck factor out of the game and let running backs run harder if they didn't have to worry about a lucky stab knocking the ball out. Here's the box...think outside of it. [/ QUOTE ] Are you the same guy who proposed that they dump all the water in New Orleans into a landfill?
|
|
#27
09-19-2005, 12:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I know a lot of "fumblers" develop holding techniques to prevent fumbles - the 2-handed to the chest method for one. You don't think it hurts their running ability? Try it. Do you realize you haven't given one concrete reason why fumbles are a great part of football? [/ QUOTE ] Okay,I'm not going to lambaste you like the others rightly have done. I just want to know the answer to one question: you have never played organized football, correct?
|
|
#28
09-19-2005, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize you haven't given one concrete reason why fumbles are a great part of football? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, why should a runner have to actually holdf on to the football? And why is tackling part of football? Wouldn't it be better if they just played touch football? And how about if they didn't have to actually catch the ball? If the receiver just catches it, thaat should be enough. And a turnover is really too much of a penalty when throwing it to the opposing team. Maybe they should just lose a down or something. And.....
|
|
#29
09-19-2005, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Various NFL Rules and Policies Thoughts
I think they should stop letting players take crack or cocaine before games. theres something wrong with all the players beating their chests and spazzing out everytime they convert a first down.
|
|
#30
09-19-2005, 01:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Various NFL Rules and Policies Thoughts
[ QUOTE ]
I think they should stop letting players take crack or cocaine before games. theres something wrong with all the players beating their chests and spazzing out everytime they convert a first down. [/ QUOTE ] Yes and when did a stop for 2 yards become a play worth dancing about?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
