|
|
#41
09-19-2005, 03:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Repeat: A turnover is too big a penalty for a fumble. [/ QUOTE ] Is a turnover too big a penalty for an intercepted pass? What about a blocked kick? How about if your kick is blocked and the other team recovers the ball, you get a 10-yard penalty and rekick? What if a defender strips the ball from a runner? No fumble, no hitting the ground, he just wrestles the ball out of his hands. Does he get to keep it, or does he have to give it back. If he has to give it back, does he have to apologize for taking it away from its rightful owner? If you hold that loss of the ball is too big a penalty for a fumble, the same logic would require all of the above rule changes. [/ QUOTE ] no it wouldn't. Please note that I'm not necessarily in favor of taking away the fumble rule but: an intercepted pass is either a mental and/or physical mistake by the QB or WR. A blocked kick is the result of bad blocking. A fumble, on the other hand, is normally the result of a defender lucking into putting his helmet on the ball while tackling. (I understand that there is some skill involved in stripping the ball and causing fumbles) However, a vast majority of fumbles are caused by blind luck (both the actual fumble and the resulting pile-up of players poking eyes, biting fingers and grabbing nutsacks in order to wrestle posession of the ball away from the opponent). Eliminating the fumble would possibly result in opening up the running game by allowing the RB's to run faster and harder with less regard for ball position. I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing, but it would have an impact. Like I said, I'm kinda in the 'if it ain't broke' category, but there has been no cohesive argument for the fumble from anyone thus far in this thread. And yes, I did play HS football. OL, but I sucked if that matters. 
|
|
#42
09-19-2005, 03:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
Is losing 8 yards to big of a penalty for allowing a sack [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#43
09-19-2005, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
A fumble, on the other hand, is normally the result of a defender lucking into putting his helmet on the ball while tackling. (I understand that there is some skill involved in stripping the ball and causing fumbles) However, a vast majority of fumbles are caused by blind luck (both the actual fumble and the resulting pile-up of players poking eyes, biting fingers and grabbing nutsacks in order to wrestle posession of the ball away from the opponent). [/ QUOTE ] A fumble is some combination of: a) poor ball handling/security by the back (or receiver) b) good tackling technique from tacklers c) quick-thinking from tacklers (stripping it once the man is held up) You should penalize the runners mistake and reward the tacklers skills. Also nothing gets your head around faster then hearing somebody yell "FUMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOLE!!!!!".
|
|
#44
09-19-2005, 04:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] A fumble, on the other hand, is normally the result of a defender lucking into putting his helmet on the ball while tackling. (I understand that there is some skill involved in stripping the ball and causing fumbles) However, a vast majority of fumbles are caused by blind luck (both the actual fumble and the resulting pile-up of players poking eyes, biting fingers and grabbing nutsacks in order to wrestle posession of the ball away from the opponent). [/ QUOTE ] A fumble is some combination of: a) poor ball handling/security by the back (or receiver) b) good tackling technique from tacklers c) quick-thinking from tacklers (stripping it once the man is held up) You should penalize the runners mistake and reward the tacklers skills. Also nothing gets your head around faster then hearing somebody yell "FUMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOLE!!!!!". [/ QUOTE ] #2 is so wrong. If anything, it's the opposite. Good tackling technique does not normally result in fumbles (wrapping up the ball handler around the waist / legs). Going for the strip is not 'good tackling technique). The luck factor comes in when a defender lucks into placing his helmet on the ball, jarring it loose. Also, the ensuing scramble for the ball is a giant luck fest.
|
|
#45
09-19-2005, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] A fumble, on the other hand, is normally the result of a defender lucking into putting his helmet on the ball while tackling. (I understand that there is some skill involved in stripping the ball and causing fumbles) However, a vast majority of fumbles are caused by blind luck (both the actual fumble and the resulting pile-up of players poking eyes, biting fingers and grabbing nutsacks in order to wrestle posession of the ball away from the opponent). [/ QUOTE ] A fumble is some combination of: a) poor ball handling/security by the back (or receiver) b) good tackling technique from tacklers c) quick-thinking from tacklers (stripping it once the man is held up) You should penalize the runners mistake and reward the tacklers skills. Also nothing gets your head around faster then hearing somebody yell "FUMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOLE!!!!!". [/ QUOTE ] #2 is so wrong. If anything, it's the opposite. Good tackling technique does not normally result in fumbles (wrapping up the ball handler around the waist / legs). Going for the strip is not 'good tackling technique). The luck factor comes in when a defender lucks into placing his helmet on the ball, jarring it loose. Also, the ensuing scramble for the ball is a giant luck fest. [/ QUOTE ] I would be arguing QB fumbles vs other fumbles on that one. Lotta skill in whacking a ball outta WB's hands
|
|
#47
09-19-2005, 08:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: No Fumbles for TOs
Priest Holmes: 1973 touches, 15 fumbles (0.76%)
Curtis Martin: 3814 touches, 28 fumbles (0.73%) Tiki Barber: 2022 touches, 40 fumbles (1.98%) Travis Henry: 1096 touches, 24 fumbles (2.19%) So the first two are just lucky, I guess.
|
|
#48
09-19-2005, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Various NFL Rules and Policies Thoughts
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, on both punts and field goals, if the kicker/holder is farther back from the line, it is easier for a defende coming around the end to block the kick. Also, the longer snap makes it more likely that there will be a bad snap. As for the penalty thing, the rule is the lesser of X yards or half the distance. Why? I dunno, it's just the rule.
|
|
#49
09-19-2005, 11:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Various NFL Rules and Policies Thoughts
[ QUOTE ]
on the setup issue I have been under the impression snappers prepare for that certain length. [/ QUOTE ] This is true. Also, as a kicker and without reading any farther than this particular response, I can personally say that any kicker worth his job can get it over the line from 7. Any closer to the line and its more risky, obviously, but any farther is just overkill. I do a drill a lot, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, in which I stand about 4 yards away from the uprights and try to put it in. If I can get it through from there, I'm good to go.
|
|
#50
09-20-2005, 03:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Various NFL Rules and Policies Thoughts
[ QUOTE ]
First-ever 25-yard penalty: Illegal First Down Signal. [/ QUOTE ] If a player gets 25 yards for signaling a first down, then he should get the firing squad for lobbying for a PI call after a broken-up pass play. No other sport lets you show up the officials like that. I can't believe you guys are arguing with the Fumble Abolitionist. His motivation seems clear to me. He is quite sure he would be much more successful in betting on football games, if this randomizing rule was somehow removed. Oh, what a perfect world it would be. If he ever gets his fumble rule approved, his next goal would be to institute the use of a round ball.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
