i was looking through washingtonpost.com and there was a story about rule changes...what do you guys think about the new penalties? the only one that really irks me is the the timeout rule, where you can't call a timeout to ice a kicker? that's ridiculous, its half the fun of watching one of those close games that comes down to a FG to see if the kicker can respond when the pressure is on--doesnt it make the kicker's job just a smidge easier?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02003.html
Rule Changes
-
skinsfano28
- Hog
- Posts: 698
- youtube meble na wymiar Warszawa
- Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:50 pm
-
redskinz4ever
- ******
- Posts: 2630
- Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:55 pm
- Location: charlotte nc
Re: Rule Changes
i for don't really think that icing a kick works ....if he going to make it he is going to make it !!!i like the rule kick the freakin' ball.skinsfano28 wrote:i was looking through washingtonpost.com and there was a story about rule changes...what do you guys think about the new penalties? the only one that really irks me is the the timeout rule, where you can't call a timeout to ice a kicker? that's ridiculous, its half the fun of watching one of those close games that comes down to a FG to see if the kicker can respond when the pressure is on--doesnt it make the kicker's job just a smidge easier?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02003.html
TOUCHDOWN .....WASHINGTON REDSKINS !!!!
-
Gibbs' Hog
- ^^^^^^^^
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: G-town, MD
I don't usually mind an opponent trying to ice a kicker by using a timeout. But there are games where teams use two, or even three (if it's the end of the game) timeouts consecutively, which ends up getting on my nerves. It just wastes time, and it almost never seems to work anyway. Sounds like an ok rule change to me.
My only problem is, what if an opposing team genuinely needs to call a timeout in that situation? If the D isn't set, they have 12 guys on the field, etc. It could result in some problems...
My only problem is, what if an opposing team genuinely needs to call a timeout in that situation? If the D isn't set, they have 12 guys on the field, etc. It could result in some problems...
-
Gibbs' Hog
- ^^^^^^^^
- Posts: 1283
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:24 pm
- Location: G-town, MD
-
HailSkins94
- Hog
- Posts: 945
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:08 pm
- Location: Howard County, Md.
Gibbs' Hog wrote:JSPB22 wrote:All the new rule changes are bogus. Why don't they just make it touch football, and be done with it?
That could result in further injuries. I say we use holographic images of players, so that no physical contact whatsoever would take place.
That is my feeling on the subject. Better yet, lets keep making all the rules based on how the eagles do? Covered like a blanket by Carolina in the NFC championship game 2 years ago...what happens? Next year there is tick tack pass interference calls on everything. Poor Owens breaks his leg on a horse collar tackle by Roy Williams...What happens? No Horse collar tackles this year. It won't be long before everything is a penalty.
HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!!!
-
skinsfano28
- Hog
- Posts: 698
- Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:50 pm
i just feel like, especially with kickers who aren't that experienced in big games, a la seth marler and hayden epstein and such, it would be more like taking advantage of inexperience and its a good idea to call the timeout and put more pressure on the kicker basically to see if they can come through in the clutch (vinatieri, etc.) now, the point about the multiple timeouts in a row, that is a little excessive and needs to be controlled, but one timeout is no big deal and there shouldnt be a 15 yard penalty for it
Sean, may you always rest in peace and look down on us with the same love that we look up to you.
Hail to the Redskins!
Hail to the Redskins!
-
Irn-Bru
- FanFromAnnapolis
- Posts: 12025
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:01 pm
- Location: on the bandwagon
- Contact:
I'll probably grow up to be a bitter old man, since I'm never happy with these rule changes.
I just don't get the icing the kicker rule. Let me see if I've got this right. Let's say that you are up by 2 points with under a minute to go in the 4th. The other team drives down the field and sets up for the field goal that will decide the outcome of the game. If the other team (offense) had called a timeout (for instance, to stop the clock with a few seconds left), then a defensive time out--currently viewed as icing the kicker--is now "excessive." That is what is now illegal, and is what will give the other team 15 yards.
Let's say that there is something wrong with your defensive set. This is the game-deciding field goal. . .you're going to want the right set in there so that you have the best chance possible of blocking the kick. But now you can only call a time-out at the expense of 15 yards. The other team could use those extra 15 yards to get a closer kick or even a chance at a TD, I'm sure. The game is on the line and, well, it sucks to be you, I suppose.
As for the tackling rule. . .I think we covered that well enough in an earlier thread.
Bah.
I just don't get the icing the kicker rule. Let me see if I've got this right. Let's say that you are up by 2 points with under a minute to go in the 4th. The other team drives down the field and sets up for the field goal that will decide the outcome of the game. If the other team (offense) had called a timeout (for instance, to stop the clock with a few seconds left), then a defensive time out--currently viewed as icing the kicker--is now "excessive." That is what is now illegal, and is what will give the other team 15 yards.
Let's say that there is something wrong with your defensive set. This is the game-deciding field goal. . .you're going to want the right set in there so that you have the best chance possible of blocking the kick. But now you can only call a time-out at the expense of 15 yards. The other team could use those extra 15 yards to get a closer kick or even a chance at a TD, I'm sure. The game is on the line and, well, it sucks to be you, I suppose.
As for the tackling rule. . .I think we covered that well enough in an earlier thread.
Bah.
-
19and97fan
- piggie
- Posts: 135
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:00 pm
- Location: Oakland, CA
-
Redskins Rule
- ||||
- Posts: 1788
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:17 am
- Location: Burke, VA
-
Countertrey
- the 'mudge
- Posts: 16632
- Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 11:15 pm
- Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine
NFL officials have already demonstrated (CLEARLY!!!) that they are incapable of dealing with the rules as they were... now, they have added more? Simply additional opportunities for incompetent zebras to determine to course of a game.
LET THEM PLAY!!!
LOAD O' CRAP!
LET THEM PLAY!!!
LOAD O' CRAP!
"That's a clown question, bro"
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
- - - - - - - - - - Bryce Harper, DC Statesman
"But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have"
- - - - - - - - - - Dewey Bunnell, America
-
Chris Luva Luva
- ---
- Posts: 18887
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:55 pm
- Location: AJT
- Contact:
19and97fan wrote:Why not be able to blow a time out thinkin u can "ice" a kicker.. Weak.. Just another unnecessary rule change!
Yeah, and the networks could sell even more commercial time. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Andre Carter wrote:Damn man, you know your football.
Hog Bowl IV Champion (2012)
Hail to the Redskins!
What if it's a fake FG and someone realizes and tries to call time out!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
What do you do then? You're basically screwed, right?
That actually can be easily taken advantage of. You call a time out, get your kicking team on the field but one guy stays near the sideline a la Troy Brown and you chuck him the ball for the easy score. (Remember, Randy Moss was also supposed to do this play last year but he forgot and walked off the field -- what an idiot). If the other team sees him they can't call a time out. If they do you say they were icing your kicker, the guy was over there because you had to make a personnel change, and you get a first down. This is a really dumb rule.
The dumbest rule is that you can't block kickers though. They can still make tackles anyway. That's rediculous. Why don't they just say that if the kicker doesn't want to get hit he can run off the field and if he wants to try making a play he can stay on. That makes things a lot easier.
What do you do then? You're basically screwed, right?
That actually can be easily taken advantage of. You call a time out, get your kicking team on the field but one guy stays near the sideline a la Troy Brown and you chuck him the ball for the easy score. (Remember, Randy Moss was also supposed to do this play last year but he forgot and walked off the field -- what an idiot). If the other team sees him they can't call a time out. If they do you say they were icing your kicker, the guy was over there because you had to make a personnel change, and you get a first down. This is a really dumb rule.
The dumbest rule is that you can't block kickers though. They can still make tackles anyway. That's rediculous. Why don't they just say that if the kicker doesn't want to get hit he can run off the field and if he wants to try making a play he can stay on. That makes things a lot easier.
-
BringThePain!
- Hog
- Posts: 3887
- Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:49 pm
- Location: inside the matrix... do not unplug
I think that all of you are getting your panties in a bunch for nothing... the quote from the post is:
-- and an attempt to pressure a kicker by calling an excess timeout prior to a field goal try will result in a loss of 15 yards from the previous or succeeding spot.
that means calling one time out... and then another after that time out if over... that's an excess...
your most certainly aloud to call a time out before a field goal...
If I'm wrong, you can shoot me... but I'm 99% sure I'm right...
**SPECIAL EDITION**
CurveBall - "It might be YOUR biggest game of the year but it really doesn't seem to be as big a deal for Dallas fans anymore."
Oopsies! What's that taste like?
CurveBall - "It might be YOUR biggest game of the year but it really doesn't seem to be as big a deal for Dallas fans anymore."
Oopsies! What's that taste like?
-
Chris Luva Luva
- ---
- Posts: 18887
- Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 1:55 pm
- Location: AJT
- Contact:
-
USAFSkinFan
- Hog
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 7:54 am
- Location: St Louis via Manassas, Va.
hkHog wrote:What if it's a fake FG and someone realizes and tries to call time out!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
What do you do then? You're basically screwed, right?
That actually can be easily taken advantage of. You call a time out, get your kicking team on the field but one guy stays near the sideline a la Troy Brown and you chuck him the ball for the easy score. (Remember, Randy Moss was also supposed to do this play last year but he forgot and walked off the field -- what an idiot). If the other team sees him they can't call a time out. If they do you say they were icing your kicker, the guy was over there because you had to make a personnel change, and you get a first down. This is a really dumb rule.
The dumbest rule is that you can't block kickers though. They can still make tackles anyway. That's rediculous. Why don't they just say that if the kicker doesn't want to get hit he can run off the field and if he wants to try making a play he can stay on. That makes things a lot easier.
Everybody needs to get their facts straight... first of all, it's not illegal to ice the kicker with a timeout. The new rule disallows the defensive team's use of consecutive timeouts for the purpose of icing the kicker.
Second of all, it's not illegal to block the kicker. It's only illegal if he's not involved in play. The rule reads like this, "A kicker/punter who is standing still or fading backwards after the ball has been kicked is out of the play and must not be unnecessarily contacted by the receiving team through the end of the play or until he assumes a distinctly defensive position"
-
USAFSkinFan
- Hog
- Posts: 741
- Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 7:54 am
- Location: St Louis via Manassas, Va.
19and97fan wrote:Why not be able to blow a time out thinkin u can "ice" a kicker.. Weak.. Just another unnecessary rule change!
I guess "consecutive" is the wrong word... but how it's being reported is, "Starting this season, the opponent cannot call more than one timeout when trying to ice a kicker or they will be penalized" ... interpret that however you want, I still don't think it's a big deal...