Another stupid Rule (1 Viewer)

[zed2283]

Can we use this thread to complain about stupid rules in general? The thread title would seem to cover it.I hope so because I don't want to start a thread. But pleeeeaaassseeee NFL change that stupid rule that allows WR's to wear whatever dumba## number they want. These jerks have no feel for the history of the game. I'm so tired of seeing 11, 15, 18, 19 on the field instead of numbers in the 80's, where they should be.I know no one else on earth cares about this rule, but it makes me :X

If you want to make this argument (which is silly), you'll have to ignore actual history of the game. Among Hall of Famers, Bob Hayes wore #22, Clifton McNeil wore #18 (and also #85 and #86), Charley Taylor wore #42, Danny Abramowicz wore #46, **** Gordon wore #45, Ron A. Johnson wore #30, and so on. The restriction is arbitrary, unnecessary, and not grounded in league history.

Not to mention Don Hutson wore #14, Cliff Branch wore #21, Lance Allworth wore #19, Belitnikoff wore #25, and Paul Warfield wore #42 just to name a few more.You might want to do a little research before calling out people as "jerks (who) have no feel for the history of the game."Just sayin.

Very true, but that was before they standarized the number groups (defensive lineman also wore numbers in the 80's).So no, I don't need to do any research. These guys are jerks.

 

[renesauz]

Getting back to the OP again...he was asking why a penalty was called, instead of just ruling the pass incomplete. The answer, is that the pass was not incomplete. Benn caught the ball in the air, got two feet inbounds, and ran down the field. His foot touched the sideline before the catch, but by the time the ball touched his hands, his feet were no longer on the sideline. Notice that the officials did not blow the whistle, which they would do if the pass was actually incomplete, e.g. if Benn had one foot on the sideline when catching the ball. Since the pass was legally complete, but yet the receiver did something else illegal (stepped OOB and did not re-establish himself on the field of play BEFORE catching the ball), then the only way to invalidate the play is to call a penalty for the other infraction.

Good Post, but the bolded part is not relevant to the play. Even if the reciever does re-establish himself in the field of play, it is a penalty if he is the first player to touch the ball. If the ball had been tipped, a reciever who has re-established himself is eligible.

The bolded is a large part of why I think the rule is so stupid. If he DOES re-establish...it's a penalty. If he DOES NOT re-establish, it's just incomplete. The differance in many cases is mere inches. I have no problem with ruling complete/incomplete based on mere inches. I do have a problem with ruling a penalty/no penalty in a full-speed non-contact situation over mere inches.

Again, do you feel the same way about illegal forward pass rulings? If the QB is inches over the line of scrimmage, or the person who received a forward pass laterals it inches forward, it's a penalty, not an incompletion.

NO. But in those cases, the players are generally given the benefit of the doubt. They don't have a line painted on the field for them where a single inch or two is going to draw that flag 95% of the time. If you were to give players the same latitude, the receiver would need to put BOTH feet CLEARLY OOB to draw the flag.Again...this is a fine line we're discussing...nobody here is advocating allowing the completion.

 

[CalBear]

Again, do you feel the same way about illegal forward pass rulings? If the QB is inches over the line of scrimmage, or the person who received a forward pass laterals it inches forward, it's a penalty, not an incompletion.

NO. But in those cases, the players are generally given the benefit of the doubt. They don't have a line painted on the field for them where a single inch or two is going to draw that flag 95% of the time. If you were to give players the same latitude, the receiver would need to put BOTH feet CLEARLY OOB to draw the flag.Again...this is a fine line we're discussing...nobody here is advocating allowing the completion.

If you're not advocating allowing the completion, I don't see what your point is. Either the QB is across the line of scrimmage when he throws the pass or he's not. It's either a completion or a penalty. There's no "benefit of the doubt" where you might call it an incompletion instead of a penalty because he was only a little bit over the line.

 

[CalBear]

Can we use this thread to complain about stupid rules in general? The thread title would seem to cover it.I hope so because I don't want to start a thread. But pleeeeaaassseeee NFL change that stupid rule that allows WR's to wear whatever dumba## number they want. These jerks have no feel for the history of the game. I'm so tired of seeing 11, 15, 18, 19 on the field instead of numbers in the 80's, where they should be.I know no one else on earth cares about this rule, but it makes me :X

If you want to make this argument (which is silly), you'll have to ignore actual history of the game. Among Hall of Famers, Bob Hayes wore #22, Clifton McNeil wore #18 (and also #85 and #86), Charley Taylor wore #42, Danny Abramowicz wore #46, **** Gordon wore #45, Ron A. Johnson wore #30, and so on. The restriction is arbitrary, unnecessary, and not grounded in league history.

Not to mention Don Hutson wore #14, Cliff Branch wore #21, Lance Allworth wore #19, Belitnikoff wore #25, and Paul Warfield wore #42 just to name a few more.You might want to do a little research before calling out people as "jerks (who) have no feel for the history of the game."Just sayin.

Very true, but that was before they standarized the number groups (defensive lineman also wore numbers in the 80's).So no, I don't need to do any research. These guys are jerks.

So, just for clarity, you're acknowledging that:* For the majority of the history of the NFL, there have been few restrictions on numbers for receivers* There's no practical reason to have restrictions on numbers for receivers* Restrictions on numbers at other levels of football are much less strict than in the NFLAnd your conclusion is:* Any WR who wants to wear a number other than 80-89 is a jerkGood luck with that. While you're at it, go tell Jim Otto he's a jerk. He'll crush your head.

 

[ark]

I thought Benn looked good on this TD which was called back. What do you guys think of his upside....

Link to the video here:

http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/benn-premature-td/

 

[renesauz]

Again, do you feel the same way about illegal forward pass rulings? If the QB is inches over the line of scrimmage, or the person who received a forward pass laterals it inches forward, it's a penalty, not an incompletion.

NO. But in those cases, the players are generally given the benefit of the doubt. They don't have a line painted on the field for them where a single inch or two is going to draw that flag 95% of the time. If you were to give players the same latitude, the receiver would need to put BOTH feet CLEARLY OOB to draw the flag.Again...this is a fine line we're discussing...nobody here is advocating allowing the completion.

If you're not advocating allowing the completion, I don't see what your point is. Either the QB is across the line of scrimmage when he throws the pass or he's not. It's either a completion or a penalty. There's no "benefit of the doubt" where you might call it an incompletion instead of a penalty because he was only a little bit over the line.

Exactly wtf are you talking about? The QB gets the BOD from the ref when he throws a pass...no QB gets flagged for being 2 inches past the LOS. A player tossing a lateral is given the BOD unless it's clearly forward.Again...NOBODY SAID TO CALL IT A COMPLETION. What we said was don't call it a penalty. The infraction (having a heel go 1" OOB) doesn't merit a penalty. It's inconsistant and silly.

 

[smashingsilver]

Getting back to the OP again...he was asking why a penalty was called, instead of just ruling the pass incomplete. The answer, is that the pass was not incomplete. Benn caught the ball in the air, got two feet inbounds, and ran down the field. His foot touched the sideline before the catch, but by the time the ball touched his hands, his feet were no longer on the sideline. Notice that the officials did not blow the whistle, which they would do if the pass was actually incomplete, e.g. if Benn had one foot on the sideline when catching the ball. Since the pass was legally complete, but yet the receiver did something else illegal (stepped OOB and did not re-establish himself on the field of play BEFORE catching the ball), then the only way to invalidate the play is to call a penalty for the other infraction.

Good Post, but the bolded part is not relevant to the play. Even if the reciever does re-establish himself in the field of play, it is a penalty if he is the first player to touch the ball. If the ball had been tipped, a reciever who has re-established himself is eligible.

You're right, of course; I confused that detail in my head after reading this thread, lol.The point remains that a penalty has to be called on this play, because the catch portion was ruled complete. Renesauz keeps missing that this play was ruled a completed pass, but with an infraction against the receiver. The pass was not ruled as incomplete. The following is from the play-by-play log of the game:

2-7-TB 38 11) 5-J.Freeman pass deep right to 17-A.Benn for 62 yards, TOUCHDOWN NULLIFIED by Penalty. PENALTY on TB-17-A.Benn, Illegal Touch Pass, 5 yards, enforced at TB 38 - No Play. Tampa Bay challenged the runner was in bounds ruling, and the play was Upheld. (Timeout #1.)

The penalty is essential in this case, in order to cancel the effects of the play. If his foot was OOB while catching the pass, there is no penalty, because it is unnecessary; the pass is ruled incomplete. Essentially, I agree with the intention and spirit of Renesauz's posts, but this is not a valid example to explain his point.

 

[zed2283]

Can we use this thread to complain about stupid rules in general? The thread title would seem to cover it.I hope so because I don't want to start a thread. But pleeeeaaassseeee NFL change that stupid rule that allows WR's to wear whatever dumba## number they want. These jerks have no feel for the history of the game. I'm so tired of seeing 11, 15, 18, 19 on the field instead of numbers in the 80's, where they should be.I know no one else on earth cares about this rule, but it makes me :X

If you want to make this argument (which is silly), you'll have to ignore actual history of the game. Among Hall of Famers, Bob Hayes wore #22, Clifton McNeil wore #18 (and also #85 and #86), Charley Taylor wore #42, Danny Abramowicz wore #46, **** Gordon wore #45, Ron A. Johnson wore #30, and so on. The restriction is arbitrary, unnecessary, and not grounded in league history.

Not to mention Don Hutson wore #14, Cliff Branch wore #21, Lance Allworth wore #19, Belitnikoff wore #25, and Paul Warfield wore #42 just to name a few more.You might want to do a little research before calling out people as "jerks (who) have no feel for the history of the game."Just sayin.

Very true, but that was before they standarized the number groups (defensive lineman also wore numbers in the 80's).So no, I don't need to do any research. These guys are jerks.

So, just for clarity, you're acknowledging that:* For the majority of the history of the NFL, there have been few restrictions on numbers for receivers* There's no practical reason to have restrictions on numbers for receivers* Restrictions on numbers at other levels of football are much less strict than in the NFLAnd your conclusion is:* Any WR who wants to wear a number other than 80-89 is a jerkGood luck with that. While you're at it, go tell Jim Otto he's a jerk. He'll crush your head.

Like I said, I realize no one else on earth cares about this.Sorry, I didn't realize Jim Otto was a receiver. I guess I'd better go do some more research.

 

[golfguy]

here is one:

why isn't spiking the ball intentional grounding?

-obviously not trying to complete a pass still in the pocket?

 

[renesauz]

here is one:why isn't spiking the ball intentional grounding? -obviously not trying to complete a pass still in the pocket?

Easy answer: Intentional grounding is throwing the ball away TO AVOID A SACK. Spiking the ball is trading a down for clock time...it's not done to avoid a sack.

 

[renesauz]

Getting back to the OP again...he was asking why a penalty was called, instead of just ruling the pass incomplete. The answer, is that the pass was not incomplete. Benn caught the ball in the air, got two feet inbounds, and ran down the field. His foot touched the sideline before the catch, but by the time the ball touched his hands, his feet were no longer on the sideline. Notice that the officials did not blow the whistle, which they would do if the pass was actually incomplete, e.g. if Benn had one foot on the sideline when catching the ball. Since the pass was legally complete, but yet the receiver did something else illegal (stepped OOB and did not re-establish himself on the field of play BEFORE catching the ball), then the only way to invalidate the play is to call a penalty for the other infraction.

Good Post, but the bolded part is not relevant to the play. Even if the reciever does re-establish himself in the field of play, it is a penalty if he is the first player to touch the ball. If the ball had been tipped, a reciever who has re-established himself is eligible.

You're right, of course; I confused that detail in my head after reading this thread, lol.The point remains that a penalty has to be called on this play, because the catch portion was ruled complete. Renesauz keeps missing that this play was ruled a completed pass, but with an infraction against the receiver. The pass was not ruled as incomplete. The following is from the play-by-play log of the game:

2-7-TB 38 11) 5-J.Freeman pass deep right to 17-A.Benn for 62 yards, TOUCHDOWN NULLIFIED by Penalty. PENALTY on TB-17-A.Benn, Illegal Touch Pass, 5 yards, enforced at TB 38 - No Play. Tampa Bay challenged the runner was in bounds ruling, and the play was Upheld. (Timeout #1.)

The penalty is essential in this case, in order to cancel the effects of the play. If his foot was OOB while catching the pass, there is no penalty, because it is unnecessary; the pass is ruled incomplete. Essentially, I agree with the intention and spirit of Renesauz's posts, but this is not a valid example to explain his point.

Why not just call it incomplete? Or, to make you happy with verbiage, change the penalty to a simple "loss of down" instead of 5 yards?

 

[CalBear]

Why not just call it incomplete? Or, to make you happy with verbiage, change the penalty to a simple "loss of down" instead of 5 yards?

Because there's no other penalty which results in just a pass being ruled incomplete. If the ball is caught by an ineligible receiver, it's a penalty and it should be. If a pass is thrown from across the line of scrimmage, or if two forward passes occur on the same play, or the offensive player pushes off, it's a penalty and it should be.

 

[Road Warriors]

Getting back to the OP again...he was asking why a penalty was called, instead of just ruling the pass incomplete. The answer, is that the pass was not incomplete. Benn caught the ball in the air, got two feet inbounds, and ran down the field. His foot touched the sideline before the catch, but by the time the ball touched his hands, his feet were no longer on the sideline. Notice that the officials did not blow the whistle, which they would do if the pass was actually incomplete, e.g. if Benn had one foot on the sideline when catching the ball. Since the pass was legally complete, but yet the receiver did something else illegal (stepped OOB and did not re-establish himself on the field of play BEFORE catching the ball), then the only way to invalidate the play is to call a penalty for the other infraction.

Good Post, but the bolded part is not relevant to the play. Even if the reciever does re-establish himself in the field of play, it is a penalty if he is the first player to touch the ball. If the ball had been tipped, a reciever who has re-established himself is eligible.

You're right, of course; I confused that detail in my head after reading this thread, lol.The point remains that a penalty has to be called on this play, because the catch portion was ruled complete. Renesauz keeps missing that this play was ruled a completed pass, but with an infraction against the receiver. The pass was not ruled as incomplete. The following is from the play-by-play log of the game:

2-7-TB 38 11) 5-J.Freeman pass deep right to 17-A.Benn for 62 yards, TOUCHDOWN NULLIFIED by Penalty. PENALTY on TB-17-A.Benn, Illegal Touch Pass, 5 yards, enforced at TB 38 - No Play. Tampa Bay challenged the runner was in bounds ruling, and the play was Upheld. (Timeout #1.)

The penalty is essential in this case, in order to cancel the effects of the play. If his foot was OOB while catching the pass, there is no penalty, because it is unnecessary; the pass is ruled incomplete. Essentially, I agree with the intention and spirit of Renesauz's posts, but this is not a valid example to explain his point.

Why not just call it incomplete? Or, to make you happy with verbiage, change the penalty to a simple "loss of down" instead of 5 yards?

This would work.

 

[zed2283]

Please get rid of the stupid horse collar rule. The original version made some sense, but the current version is idiotic.