Weird NFL Rules You Hate

[RavensAllTheWay]

I think intentional grounding is just stupid to begin with. Let a QB just try to get rid of it instead of taking a sack. If he's being chased or about to be brought down, why does he have to hold on a second longer just to find an area with a receiver?

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353181500' post='1220924']
I think intentional grounding is just stupid to begin with. Let a QB just try to get rid of it instead of taking a sack. If he's being chased or about to be brought down, why does he have to hold on a second longer just to find an area with a receiver?
[/quote]

I'm personally in favor the rule. It's not as if they aren't allowed to throw it away. And if they are being chased, as long as they're outside of the Tackle box, there doesn't have to be a receiver in the area so long as the ball crosses the LOS. Otherwise, unless they don't see the defender coming, every QB would literally spike the ball at their feet right before taking the sack. The highest sack total probably wouldn't sniff the double digits. This game is already geared to protect the QB in any and every way possible. The lack of this rule would only add to this.

[RavensAllTheWay]

[quote name='-Truth-' timestamp='1353351553' post='1226205']
I'm personally in favor the rule. It's not as if they aren't allowed to throw it away. And if they are being chased, as long as they're outside of the Tackle box, there doesn't have to be a receiver in the area so long as the ball crosses the LOS. Otherwise, unless they don't see the defender coming, every QB would literally spike the ball at their feet right before taking the sack. The highest sack total probably wouldn't sniff the double digits. This game is already geared to protect the QB in any and every way possible. The lack of this rule would only add to this.
[/quote]

But my point is that it shouldn't come down to either having to leave the tackle box, or if you can't escape the tackle box, you shouldn't have to find an "area" with a receiver (which is very much a judgement call anyway), and [i]then[/i] throw it. Then to top it all off, it has to make it back to the LOS. Why make a QB go through all this work just to avoid a sack? If a QB is being dragged down by a defender inside the box, it's a lose-lose situation for him unless he goes through all these steps. Seems unnecessarily difficult to avoid a huge loss on the play.

I understand the point about taking the easy way out every play by spiking it at their feet, but there are probably better ways to balance all of this out than the IG rule.

[NaveSenrag]

I'd like to see more lenient sack rules. Maybe once the defender has both arms around the QB and has stopped his movement, it's a sack, or once a QB is on his way down, it's a sack.

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353355363' post='1226256']
But my point is that it shouldn't come down to either having to leave the tackle box, or if you can't escape the tackle box, you shouldn't have to find an "area" with a receiver (which is very much a judgement call anyway), and [i]then[/i] throw it. Then to top it all off, it has to make it back to the LOS. Why make a QB go through all this work just to avoid a sack? If a QB is being dragged down by a defender inside the box, it's a lose-lose situation for him unless he goes through all these steps. Seems unnecessarily difficult to avoid a huge loss on the play.

I understand the point about taking the easy way out every play by spiking it at their feet, but there are probably better ways to balance all of this out than the IG rule.
[/quote]

What alternatives could possibly proposed? Can you imagine a league wherein a QB throws the ball at his feet the moment he a player lays his hand on him? It should be a lose-lose situation if he can't make it through the steps. There is the defense to be considered, no? It would be a lose-lose situation for the defender if the rule was absent, who should be rewarded for being able to reach the QB before he flicks his wrist to throw the ball away. If you have something in mind, be my guest. But without this rule, these situations would nothing short of a joke.

[-Truth-]

But my point is that it shouldn't come down to either having to leave the tackle box, or if you can't escape the tackle box, you shouldn't have to find an "area" with a receiver (which is very much a judgement call anyway), and then throw it. Then to top it all off, it has to make it back to the LOS. Why make a QB go through all this work just to avoid a sack? If a QB is being dragged down by a defender inside the box, it's a lose-lose situation for him unless he goes through all these steps. Seems unnecessarily difficult to avoid a huge loss on the play.

I understand the point about taking the easy way out every play by spiking it at their feet, but there are probably better ways to balance all of this out than the IG rule.

What alternatives could possibly proposed? Can you imagine a league wherein a QB throws the ball at his feet the moment a player lays his hand on him? It should be a lose-lose situation if he can't make it through the steps. It's not like there isn't a process available for getting rid of the ball. There is the defense to be considered, no? It would be a lose-lose situation for the defender if the rule was absent, who should be rewarded for being able to reach the QB before he flicks his wrist to throw the ball away. If you have something in mind, be my guest. But without this rule, these situations would nothing short of a joke.

[RavensAllTheWay]

[quote name='-Truth-' timestamp='1353359778' post='1226389']
What alternatives could possibly proposed? [b]Can you imagine a league wherein a QB throws the ball at his feet the moment he a player lays his hand on him?[/b] It should be a lose-lose situation if he can't make it through the steps. It's not like there isn't a process available for getting rid of the ball. There is the defense to be considered, no? [b]It would be a lose-lose situation for the defender if the rule was absent, who should be rewarded for being able to reach the QB before he flicks his wrist to throw the ball away.[/b] If you have something in mind, be my guest. But without this rule, these situations would nothing short of a joke.
[/quote]

I don't think that would happen as frequently as you seem to, especially on third and fourth downs and stuff like that, where you need a play. Also, I'm not in favor of all of these dumb rules that favor the offense and QBs, so when you say defense needs to be considered and there are already too many rules that favor a QB, you're assuming that I am. I think a lot of them need to be eliminated and just let defenders plays because they're not going to slow down injuries, they're just throwing more flags and deciding more games.

The play isn't automatically over if a defender reaches the QB. Getting to the QB is only half the job. Finishing the play means getting the sack or forcing an incompletion. I view a throw away as a win for the defense, but not necessarily a loss for the QB.

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353364524' post='1226557']
I don't think that would happen as frequently as you seem to, especially on third and fourth downs and stuff like that, where you need a play. Also, I'm not in favor of all of these dumb rules that favor the offense and QBs, so when you say defense needs to be considered and there are already too many rules that favor a QB, you're assuming that I am. I think a lot of them need to be eliminated and just let defenders plays because they're not going to slow down injuries, they're just throwing more flags and deciding more games.

The play isn't automatically over if a defender reaches the QB. Getting to the QB is only half the job. Finishing the play means getting the sack or forcing an incompletion. I view a throw away as a win for the defense, but not necessarily a loss for the QB.
[/quote]

Why would it not? I'm just curious on what would the logic would be behind it not occurring as often. Say that I was a QB, facing a 3rd down. A jail break occurs, a sack is imminent, and an opposing defender is taking me to the ground. Is it more likely that I simply take the sack, or toss the ball at my feet to prevent a loss of downs and lose field position? The answer is fairly obvious. There wouldn't be any reason to take the sack in that situation, so it would be extremely likely to see even the semi-intelligent QBs take the easy way out. 4th down wouldn't be affected by the rule much, if at all, because it's almost impossible to find an NFL signal caller who would be foolish enough to consciously want to throw it away on his teams' last down, especially since an INT on a long heave would essentially be a punt. But it would definitely be a factor on every other down, and a distinct advantage for the offense. I'm glad that you're not in favor of them. However, I never assumed that you were. I stated that in this specific rule, with regards to your previous statements, you were not accounting for the defense, which was an accurate observation.

Yes, I would agree that forcing a throw away is a win for the defense. However, a sack is a much bigger win than a throw away, and without this rule, there's nothing indicating that we wouldn't see a significant decrease in the former.

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353364524' post='1226557']
I don't think that would happen as frequently as you seem to, especially on third and fourth downs and stuff like that, where you need a play. Also, I'm not in favor of all of these dumb rules that favor the offense and QBs, so when you say defense needs to be considered and there are already too many rules that favor a QB, you're assuming that I am. I think a lot of them need to be eliminated and just let defenders plays because they're not going to slow down injuries, they're just throwing more flags and deciding more games.

The play isn't automatically over if a defender reaches the QB. Getting to the QB is only half the job. Finishing the play means getting the sack or forcing an incompletion. I view a throw away as a win for the defense, but not necessarily a loss for the QB.
[/quote]

Why would it not? I'm just curious on what would the logic would be behind it not occurring as often. Say that I was a QB, facing a 3rd down. A jail break occurs, a sack is imminent, and an opposing defender is taking me to the ground. Is it more likely that I simply take the sack, or toss the ball at my feet to prevent a loss of downs and lose field position? The answer is fairly obvious. There wouldn't be any reason to take the sack in that situation, so it would be extremely likely to see even the semi-intelligent QBs take the easy way out. 4th down wouldn't be affected by the rule much, if at all, because it's almost impossible to find an NFL signal caller who would be foolish enough to consciously want to throw it away on his teams' last down, especially since an INT on a long heave would essentially be a punt. But it would definitely be a factor on every other down, and a distinct advantage for the offense. I'm glad that you're not in favor of them. However, I never assumed that you were. I stated that in this specific rule, with regards to your previous statements, you were not accounting for the defense, which was an accurate observation.

Yes, I would agree that forcing a throw away is a win for the defense. However, a sack is a much bigger win than a throw away, and without this rule, there's nothing indicating that we wouldn't see a forced and significant decrease in the former.

[RavensAllTheWay]

[quote name='-Truth-' timestamp='1353371993' post='1226702']
Why would it not? I'm just curious on what would the logic would be behind it not occurring as often. Say that I was a QB, facing a 3rd down. A jail break occurs, a sack is imminent, and an opposing defender is taking me to the ground. Is it more likely that I simply take the sack, or toss the ball at my feet to prevent a loss of downs and lose field position? The answer is fairly obvious. There wouldn't be any reason to take the sack in that situation, so it would be extremely likely to see even the semi-intelligent QBs take the easy way out. 4th down wouldn't be affected by the rule much, if at all, because it's almost impossible to find an NFL signal caller who would be foolish enough to consciously want to throw it away on his teams' last down, especially since an INT on a long heave would essentially be a punt. But it would definitely be a factor on every other down, and a distinct advantage for the offense. I'm glad that you're not in favor of them. However, I never assumed that you were. I stated that in this specific rule, with regards to your previous statements, you were not accounting for the defense, which was an accurate observation.

Yes, I would agree that forcing a throw away is a win for the defense. However, a sack is a much bigger win than a throw away, and without this rule, there's nothing indicating that we wouldn't see a forced and significant decrease in the former.
[/quote]

Maybe I'm wrong because I've never been a QB, but there aren't many QBs good under pressure, and perhaps human instinct would play a factor, causing them not to throw the ball in time, hence taking a sack. Under immense pressure, it may be instinct to take cover and get sacked, even for QBs who know better. Plus there are some QBs with average to below average pocket awareness, so sacks would certainly still be a part of the game. And "if an opposing defender is taking me to the ground" as you say, it wouldn't be unfair at all if a QB just heaves it out of there. It's what he has to do in order to not take a sack and lose yards. Nothing wrong with that if you're being taken to the ground, but if you are, you shouldn't have to do the extra work of finding a receiver in the area, as well as making sure the ball makes it back to the LOS. It's not automatically a loss on the play if you're going down. The play isn't over until you're down with the ball or until the ball is out.

How would this be for a compromise? Intentional grounding only applies when a QB is upright, and sees/feels the pressure coming. But I think it's completely unfair to have it when a QB is going to the ground or has a defender draped all over him. Let him do what he has to in order to avoid a sack. Why take it away?

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353373414' post='1226718']
Maybe I'm wrong because I've never been a QB, but there aren't many QBs good under pressure, and perhaps human instinct would play a factor, causing them not to throw the ball in time, hence taking a sack. Under immense pressure, it may be instinct to take cover and get sacked, even for QBs who know better. Plus there are some QBs with average to below average pocket awareness, so sacks would certainly still be a part of the game. And "if an opposing defender is taking me to the ground" as you say, it wouldn't be unfair at all if a QB just heaves it out of there. It's what he has to do in order to not take a sack and lose yards. Nothing wrong with that if you're being taken to the ground, but if you are, you shouldn't have to do the extra work of finding a receiver in the area, as well as making sure the ball makes it back to the LOS. It's not automatically a loss on the play if you're going down. The play isn't over until you're down with the ball or until the ball is out.

How would this be for a compromise? Intentional grounding only applies when a QB is upright, and sees/feels the pressure coming. But I think it's completely unfair to have it when a QB is going to the ground or has a defender draped all over him. Let him do what he has to in order to avoid a sack. Why take it away?
[/quote]

The situation you've described is how it happens with the rule enforced. Without it, throwing the ball wouldn't even be necessary. Per the Tuck rule, as long as their arm goes forward, they could simply reach out and drop the ball in the middle of the sack in order to void the loss of yards. Yes, I'm certain that sacks will still be part of the game, but they would likely be significantly diminished. Why should you not have to do the extra work? It's not like every offensive play is supposed to go in favor of the offense. And it only has to make it to the LOS if there is no receiver in the area. It could be thrown way before the line if one is present.

Why take it away? Because you're clamoring for QBs to be able to do anything they can in order to avoid a sack, yet a defender is not allowed to hit the QB above the shoulders and below the knees. They also can't trip them or make contact with the facemask. If that's your argument, then why not allow the defenders to do anything they can in order to finish the sack? That's a very s . The upright compromise sounds a little more feasible, but the above-mentioned scenario could still easily apply. How many times on average does a QB throw the ball away during the game? A handful? So It's not exactly impeding the progressing of the ever evolving passing game or exposing players to injuries. I see absolutely no purpose in removing this rule other than to make matters easier for QBs. With the Tuck rule in place, along with the defensive parameters, I don't see any point of taking action against it before reconsidering those first. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree.

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353373414' post='1226718']
Maybe I'm wrong because I've never been a QB, but there aren't many QBs good under pressure, and perhaps human instinct would play a factor, causing them not to throw the ball in time, hence taking a sack. Under immense pressure, it may be instinct to take cover and get sacked, even for QBs who know better. Plus there are some QBs with average to below average pocket awareness, so sacks would certainly still be a part of the game. And "if an opposing defender is taking me to the ground" as you say, it wouldn't be unfair at all if a QB just heaves it out of there. It's what he has to do in order to not take a sack and lose yards. Nothing wrong with that if you're being taken to the ground, but if you are, you shouldn't have to do the extra work of finding a receiver in the area, as well as making sure the ball makes it back to the LOS. It's not automatically a loss on the play if you're going down. The play isn't over until you're down with the ball or until the ball is out.

How would this be for a compromise? Intentional grounding only applies when a QB is upright, and sees/feels the pressure coming. But I think it's completely unfair to have it when a QB is going to the ground or has a defender draped all over him. Let him do what he has to in order to avoid a sack. Why take it away?
[/quote]

The situation you've described is how it happens with the rule enforced. Without it, throwing the ball wouldn't even be necessary. Per the Tuck rule, as long as their arm goes forward, they could simply reach out and drop the ball in the middle of the sack in order to void the loss of yards. Yes, I'm certain that sacks will still be part of the game, but they would likely be significantly diminished. Why should you not have to do the extra work? It's not like every offensive play is supposed to go in favor of the offense. And it only has to make it to the LOS if there is no receiver in the area. It could be thrown way before the line if one is present.

Why take it away? Because you're clamoring for QBs to be able to do anything they can in order to avoid a sack, yet a defender is not allowed to hit the QB above the shoulders and below the knees. They also can't trip them, launch themselves or make contact with the facemask. If that's your argument, then why not allow the defenders to do anything they can in order to finish the sack? Because should it be discontinued, the defenders would have to adhere to numerous regulations on how to legally complete the sack, but the QB would have little to none on how to avoid them. That's a serious flaw to your proposal. The upright compromise sounds a little more feasible, but the above-mentioned scenario could still easily apply. It's not exactly impeding the progressing of the ever evolving passing game or exposing players to injuries. I see absolutely no purpose in removing this rule other than to make matters easier for QBs. With the Tuck rule in place, along with the defensive parameters, I don't see any point of taking action against it before reconsidering those first. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, because I doubt we'll see eye-to-eye on this.

[RavensAllTheWay]

[quote name='-Truth-' timestamp='1353390593' post='1226964']
The situation you've described is how it happens with the rule enforced. Without it, throwing the ball wouldn't even be necessary. Per the Tuck rule, as long as their arm goes forward, they could simply reach out and drop the ball in the middle of the sack in order to void the loss of yards. Yes, I'm certain that sacks will still be part of the game, but they would likely be significantly diminished. Why should you not have to do the extra work? It's not like every offensive play is supposed to go in favor of the offense. And it only has to make it to the LOS if there is no receiver in the area. It could be thrown way before the line if one is present.

Why take it away? Because you're clamoring for QBs to be able to do anything they can in order to avoid a sack, yet a defender is not allowed to hit the QB above the shoulders and below the knees. They also can't trip them, launch themselves or make contact with the facemask. If that's your argument, then why not allow the defenders to do anything they can in order to finish the sack? Because should it be discontinued, the defenders would have to adhere to numerous regulations on how to legally complete the sack, but the QB would have little to none on how to avoid them. That's a serious flaw to your proposal. The upright compromise sounds a little more feasible, but the above-mentioned scenario could still easily apply. It's not exactly impeding the progressing of the ever evolving passing game or exposing players to injuries. I see absolutely no purpose in removing this rule other than to make matters easier for QBs. With the Tuck rule in place, along with the defensive parameters, I don't see any point of taking action against it before reconsidering those first. Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, because I doubt we'll see eye-to-eye on this.
[/quote]

Well again, I'm [i]not[/i] in favor of rules that overly protect the QB, and I'm not in favor of rules that restrict defenders, at least not nearly to the extent of what they are today. I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to give a QB an advantage over defenders, but I don't see much of a correlation between how a defender is supposed to hit and how a QB is supposed to avoid a sack. And even if I did, why would you assume that these offense friendly rules would be in my game, for lack of a better term? I made it clear that I would make it less offense friendly. And your tuck rule point would be more valid, if QBs actually did what you suggested, which is purposely drop it in the middle of a forward motion. But they don't, at least I've never seen or heard of it.

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353394033' post='1226988']
Well again, I'm [i]not[/i] in favor of rules that overly protect the QB, and I'm not in favor of rules that restrict defenders, at least not nearly to the extent of what they are today. I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to give a QB an advantage over defenders, but I don't see much of a correlation between how a defender is supposed to hit and how a QB is supposed to avoid a sack. And even if I did, why would you assume that these offense friendly rules would be in my game, for lack of a better term? I made it clear that I would make it less offense friendly. And your tuck rule point would be more valid, if QBs actually did what you suggested, which is purposely drop it in the middle of a forward motion. But they don't, at least I've never seen or heard of it.
[/quote]

I'm aware that you're not. However, while I read that you weren't in favor of the defensive rules, I did miss your proposition to abolish some of them. I appreciate you pointing that out. It is beyond me on how the two supposedly don't correlate when one party is allowed to do anything they please to avoid a sack and the other isn't when they want to attain it. There's a direct correlation, with no fairness under those circumstances. No, they do not, which is precisely my point. The scenario I stated in my previous post couldn't legally occur under today's rules because the QB is required to throw the ball in the area of a receiver or past the LOS when outside the Tackle box. It would be impossible to take the easy way out without causing grounds for the intentional grounding penalty. But should this rule not be in place, they would be free to push the ball in front of them without being penalized. Therefore, my point about the Tuck rule is a very distinct possibility. Should the defensive rules be lessened, I wouldn't oppose your proposition as strongly. However, I just don't see an underlying reason to do so.

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353394033' post='1226988']
Well again, I'm [i]not[/i] in favor of rules that overly protect the QB, and I'm not in favor of rules that restrict defenders, at least not nearly to the extent of what they are today. I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to give a QB an advantage over defenders, but I don't see much of a correlation between how a defender is supposed to hit and how a QB is supposed to avoid a sack. And even if I did, why would you assume that these offense friendly rules would be in my game, for lack of a better term? I made it clear that I would make it less offense friendly. And your tuck rule point would be more valid, if QBs actually did what you suggested, which is purposely drop it in the middle of a forward motion. But they don't, at least I've never seen or heard of it.
[/quote]

I'm aware that you're not. However, while I read that you weren't in favor of the defensive rules, I did miss that you proposed to abolish some of them. I appreciate you pointing that out. But it is beyond me on how the two supposedly don't correlate when one party is allowed to do anything they please to avoid a sack and the other isn't when they want to attain it. There's a direct correlation, with no fairness under those circumstances. No, they do not, which is precisely my point. The scenario I stated in my previous post couldn't legally occur under today's rules because the QB is required to throw the ball in the area of a receiver or past the LOS when outside the Tackle box. It would be impossible to take the easy way out without causing grounds for the intentional grounding penalty. But should this rule not be in place, they would be free to push the ball in front of them without being penalized. Therefore, my point about the Tuck rule is a very distinct possibility. Should the defensive rules be lessened, I wouldn't oppose your proposition as strongly. However, I just don't see an underlying reason to do so.

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353394033' post='1226988']
Well again, I'm [i]not[/i] in favor of rules that overly protect the QB, and I'm not in favor of rules that restrict defenders, at least not nearly to the extent of what they are today. I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to give a QB an advantage over defenders, but I don't see much of a correlation between how a defender is supposed to hit and how a QB is supposed to avoid a sack. And even if I did, why would you assume that these offense friendly rules would be in my game, for lack of a better term? I made it clear that I would make it less offense friendly. And your tuck rule point would be more valid, if QBs actually did what you suggested, which is purposely drop it in the middle of a forward motion. But they don't, at least I've never seen or heard of it.
[/quote]

I'm aware that you're not. However, while I read that you weren't in favor of the defensive rules, I did miss that you proposed to abolish some of them. My mistaken, and I appreciate you pointing that out. But it is beyond me on how the two supposedly don't correlate when one party is allowed to do anything they please to avoid a sack and the other isn't when they want to attain it. There's a direct correlation, with no fairness under those circumstances. No, they do not, which is precisely my point. The scenario I stated in my previous post couldn't legally occur under today's rules because the QB is required to throw the ball in the area of a receiver or past the LOS when outside the Tackle box. It would be impossible to take the easy way out without causing grounds for the intentional grounding penalty. But should this rule not be in place, they would be free to push the ball in front of them without being penalized. Therefore, my point about the Tuck rule is a very distinct possibility. Should the defensive rules be lessened, I wouldn't oppose your proposition as strongly. However, I just don't see a significant reason to do so.

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353394033' post='1226988']
Well again, I'm [i]not[/i] in favor of rules that overly protect the QB, and I'm not in favor of rules that restrict defenders, at least not nearly to the extent of what they are today. I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to give a QB an advantage over defenders, but I don't see much of a correlation between how a defender is supposed to hit and how a QB is supposed to avoid a sack. And even if I did, why would you assume that these offense friendly rules would be in my game, for lack of a better term? I made it clear that I would make it less offense friendly. And your tuck rule point would be more valid, if QBs actually did what you suggested, which is purposely drop it in the middle of a forward motion. But they don't, at least I've never seen or heard of it.
[/quote]

I'm aware that you're not. However, while I read that you weren't in favor of the defensive rules, I did miss that you proposed to abolish some of them. My mistake, and I appreciate you pointing that out. But it is beyond me on how the two supposedly don't correlate when one party is allowed to do anything they please to avoid a sack and the other isn't when they want to attain it. There's a direct correlation, with no fairness under those circumstances. No, they do not, which is precisely my point. The scenario I stated in my previous post couldn't legally occur under today's rules because the QB is required to throw the ball in the area of a receiver or past the LOS when outside the Tackle box. It would be impossible to take the easy way out without causing grounds for the intentional grounding penalty. But should this rule not be in place, they would be free to push the ball in front of them without being penalized. Therefore, my point about the Tuck rule is a very distinct possibility. Should the defensive rules be lessened, I wouldn't oppose your proposition as strongly. However, I just don't see a significant reason to do so.

[RavensAllTheWay]

[quote name='-Truth-' timestamp='1353440170' post='1227345']
I'm aware that you're not. However, while I read that you weren't in favor of the defensive rules, I did miss that you proposed to abolish some of them. My mistake, and I appreciate you pointing that out. But it is beyond me on how the two supposedly don't correlate when one party is allowed to do anything they please to avoid a sack and the other isn't when they want to attain it. There's a direct correlation, with no fairness under those circumstances. No, they do not, which is precisely my point. The scenario I stated in my previous post couldn't legally occur under today's rules because the QB is required to throw the ball in the area of a receiver or past the LOS when outside the Tackle box. It would be impossible to take the easy way out without causing grounds for the intentional grounding penalty. But should this rule not be in place, they would be free to push the ball in front of them without being penalized. Therefore, my point about the Tuck rule is a very distinct possibility. Should the defensive rules be lessened, I wouldn't oppose your proposition as strongly. However, I just don't see a significant reason to do so.
[/quote]

I think we'll agree to disagree, lol.

But on a different note....a MOD note, lol......each time you've quoted me, it shows up as more than one notification. For example, when you quoted my last post with this one, it showed up as four notifications. One said 28 minutes ago, one said 27, one said 26 and one said 25.

Mods, you might want to look into this.

[-Truth-]

[quote name='RavensAllTheWay' timestamp='1353441973' post='1227378']
I think we'll agree to disagree, lol.

But on a different note....a MOD note, lol......each time you've quoted me, it shows up as more than one notification. For example, when you quoted my last post with this one, it showed up as four notifications. One said 28 minutes ago, one said 27, one said 26 and one said 25.

Mods, you might want to look into this.
[/quote]

lol Definitely. And I appreciate the well-thought out and articulated debate. Well played.

Actually, those were on me, and I do apologize. I have a habit of deleting and re-posting if I see a grammatical error. I know, it's petty and senseless. I just never figured they still show up as multiple notifications. I've tried to cut down on doing so. Sorry.

[arnie_uk]

[quote name='-Truth-' timestamp='1353445423' post='1227426']


lol Definitely. And I appreciate the well-thought out and articulated debate. Well played.

Actually, those were on me, and I do apologize. I have a habit of deleting and re-posting if I see a grammatical error. I know, it's petty and senseless. I just never figured they still show up as multiple notifications. I've tried to cut down on doing so. Sorry.
[/quote]edit is your friend truth

[-Truth-]

[quote name='arnie_uk' timestamp='1353447847' post='1227495']
edit is your friend truth
[/quote]

lol I know, but I can't stand that, "Edited by -Truth-." It's probably the warning symbol that gets me. I'm just making excuses. OCD FTW.

[MissK528]

Challenge a touchdown, or at least throw a flag during a touchdown run, no one reviews the touchdown.

WHAT?!

[GrimCoconut]

[quote name='MissK528' timestamp='1353614293' post='1228706']
Challenge a touchdown, or at least throw a flag during a touchdown run, no one reviews the touchdown.

WHAT?!
[/quote]
I am unbelievably mad about that rule. That's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of before.

I'm really mad about the Lions losing probably more than I have been of the Ravens losing this year. The way they lost was just completely ridiculous.

[MissK528]

It's just so passive-aggressive to me... "oh, you wanted a review on that play? Even though we're gonna review it anyway? Well too bad, you don't get anything reviewed at all."

Yes, there should be a penalty for trying to challenge something that's gonna be reviewed anyway. There's no denying that. But take away yardage instead of putting a rule in there that sounds like something a 4 year old would do.

[PuRock]

Yep that rule has to be the worst rule. I didn't even know that was a rule. Whatever. It needs to go. I can understand if you want to flag penalize the coach at the very least. But then not to review the play at all when it would be because its a scoring play is an absolute joke.

Once again the Texans get bailed.

[gabefergy]

[quote name='PuRock' timestamp='1353643213' post='1229264']
Yep that rule has to be the worst rule. I didn't even know that was a rule. Whatever. It needs to go. I can understand if you want to flag penalize the coach at the very least. But then not to review the play at all when it would be because its a scoring play is an absolute joke.

Once again the Texans get bailed.
[/quote]

Completely agree. That rule is absurd.

The Texans sneak by with another win. It sucks that they are pretty much locks for the #1 seed now, but at least it is readily apparent they can be beaten. Double team Watt and their pass-rush becomes much less scary.

[PuRock]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1353644418' post='1229285']
Completely agree. That rule is absurd.

The Texans sneak by with another win. It sucks that they are pretty much locks for the #1 seed now, but at least it is readily apparent they can be beaten. Double team Watt and their pass-rush becomes much less scary.
[/quote]

Just gotta hope the Colts show up to play them tough in-division. They struggled with the Jags. The Texans still have the Patriots as well. But yeah its gonna be hard for the Ravens to get home field. They are chasing the Texans and have the Broncos nipping at our heels.

[The Raven]

[quote name='NaveSenrag' timestamp='1353357440' post='1226291']
I'd like to see more lenient sack rules. Maybe once the defender has both arms around the QB and has stopped his movement, it's a sack, or once a QB is on his way down, it's a sack.
[/quote]

Sorry, that's dumb. That defeats the whole purpose of tackling...

[flaccopoe]

[quote name='GrimCoconut' timestamp='1353642295' post='1229250']
I am unbelievably mad about that rule. That's one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of before.

I'm really mad about the Lions losing probably more than I have been of the Ravens losing this year. The way they lost was just completely ridiculous.
[/quote]

It happened to Mike Smith this season, but he managed to win anyway. We were 1 bad call from being tied for 1st in the AFC!!!!

[flaccopoe]

[quote name='gabefergy' timestamp='1353644418' post='1229285']
Completely agree. That rule is absurd.

The Texans sneak by with another win. It sucks that they are pretty much locks for the #1 seed now, but at least it is readily apparent they can be beaten. Double team Watt and their pass-rush becomes much less scary.
[/quote]

They sure have a lot of luck when they play cats: the Lions and Jaguars. Should've lost both of them, but the refs played favorites in BOTH...