Hate kneel downs at the end of the game? (1 Viewer)

[coolnerd]

In fact, I have noticed that defensive coaches more and more are not calling every single timeout to make the offense take an extra kneel down or two.

Herman Edwards

Play to win the game

Miracle at the meadowlands

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1Ixd3jiGU

 

[LC512]

This is like NBA Jam where if a team was getting beat by 10 or more, all the sudden their dudes would start making every shot they put up. Half court, full court, David Robinson busting more threes in a row than he did his entire career.

It made for exciting video games when I was 10. It makes for a terrible idea in football.

 

[ghostfacekilla]

hey seriously though, why do they have an automatic stoppage of the clock for the 2 minute warning...isnt that a tricked up rule out of nowhere with a similar purpose to the OP's suggestion. also why is the NFL not consistent on the clock stopping when a player goes out of bounds---if it's late in the half they stop it, otherwise they let it run..seems the OP has the same line of thinking as the NFL. personally i wish they stopped the clock EVERY time a player goes out of bounds..i.e consistency. same thing with the offensive player recovering/advancing a fumble. rules should not change just because of situation/time..wtf

 

[belljr]

hey seriously though, why do they have an automatic stoppage of the clock for the 2 minute warning...isnt that a tricked up rule out of nowhere with a similar purpose to the OP's suggestion. also why is the NFL not consistent on the clock stopping when a player goes out of bounds---if it's late in the half they stop it, otherwise they let it run..seems the OP has the same line of thinking as the NFL. personally i wish they stopped the clock EVERY time a player goes out of bounds..i.e consistency. same thing with the offensive player recovering/advancing a fumble. rules should not change just because of situation/time..wtf

The out of bounds clock rule I think was changed in 1995. It was supposed to help speed up games.It used to stay stopped until the next snap all the time.The 2 minute warning was in place for a long time, the officials used to keep time on the field and this was a way to allow the teams to know exactly how much time is left, since the scoreboard was not official.I think in the 70's the Scoreboard clock became official but the kept the 2 minute warning.

 

[Outkast]

Why does anyone hate kneel downs other than losing yards from your FF QB?

Because the game is 60 minutes and shows a cheap way to win, its not a 58 minute game.football is suppose to be a mans game, but at the end they act like a little ***** and kneel down? Cmon play till the buzzer sounds.

LOL , What is your logic here? Do you honestly think that the last 2 mins of the game>>the other 58 mins of the game?Here's why the "Victory Formation" makes sense & has always worked: If you are losing the game & can't convert on four downs @ the end of the game to keep your drive/hopes alive, then you don't deserve to get the W....Now the Overtime rules are an entirely different story/discussion

 

[Dancing Bear]

WTFLets delete this thread. Makes the Shark Pool look ridiculous

 

[SWC]

I propose that there be a "live time limit" where for, say, 10 seconds anything and everything goes. The only rule would be no foreign objects. If the QB kneels down, the D can still crush him until 10 seconds expire. That would probably prevent these wuss job kneel downs, and make the game a lot more exciting for fantasy players who care about the QB position and might lead to the increased use of direct snap plays to huge musclebound lineman who were inserted in the game to simply catch the ball and get the crap kicked out of them for 10 seconds.

 

[Please See Mine]

Let's presume this is a legitimate issue (which I don't think it is).5 minutes is entirely too long for this. 2 minute warning on, maybe. Sacks would stop the clock? That would just help a team trying to come back at the end.

That's not necessarily a bad thing if you wanted a more exciting game, though I'm not advocating it personally.

 

[belljr]

I'll ask again, if you want to get rid of the QB kneel down are you ok with the QB spike to stop the clock?

 

[qimqam]

I'll ask again, if you want to get rid of the QB kneel down are you ok with the QB spike to stop the clock?

One has nothing to do with the other ... you're going to have to start a different thread

 

[belljr]

I'll ask again, if you want to get rid of the QB kneel down are you ok with the QB spike to stop the clock?

One has nothing to do with the other ... you're going to have to start a different thread

Of course they are related.You don't like that a QB can take a knee to end a game because the clock runs and they don't really run a play where something can happen.A QB takes a snap and drops the ball on the ground to stop the clock, which is a play where nothing really happens.To me you can't get rid of one and keep the other

 

[rick6668]

I started the thread, but I would not like to see a rule implemented, I was just curious as to what people thought.

I don't get all the hate. Vote no and move on. I did.

 

[Lord Lucan]

A more logical development would be to make net points (points for compared with points against) the first tiebreaker after win/loss record for end-of-season standings. Obviously this would mean acknowledging that "running up the score" is not a crime against humanity - this is something that has been debated over and over on here in the past and usually seems to get about equal numbers in both camps - but at least it would have the merit of not penalising the winning team in the closing stages, merely giving them an incentive to be aggressive. I doubt it will ever happen, and of course most teams would still choose to kneel down if protecting a narrow lead in the closing stages against opponents who were out of time outs, but it would make more sense than artificial rules to prevent the kneel-down.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Spinoff from another thread.Some people have complained that they hate when the game ends with successive kneel downs by the offense to run the remaining time off the clock. Here's an option for a rule change which would eliminate this.In the last 5 minutes of either half, when the offense runs a play which results in negative yardage, (the new line of scrimmage is behind the previous line of scrimmage), the clock is stopped and does not start again until the ball is snapped. This would eliminate the kneel downs at the end of games as the offense would have to get at least 1 yard to keep the clock running.Thoughts?

I'm not going to call this one of the the dumbest ideas I've ever heard, so here's some constructive criticism.A. The vast majority of fans don't care about kneel downs. The ones who do are usually fantasy football geeks. This is actually the first time in my life I've heard someone propose a rule change over this.B. What would happen if this rule was implemented? One thing that would happen is that there would be a lot more qb sneaks. Which translates to more hits on the qb's, increasing their chances of injury. Which means that there's no chance in hell the nfl would ever implement this.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Instead of changing the "kneel down", why don't we concentrate on providing a quality product for entertainment.

The NFL should implement a Mercy Rule.

If one team is ahead by 3 touchdowns or more, then the game is called on account of providing a horrible product.

The NFL should have an entertainment back-up plan with a local High School band, or a cheerleader competition, a magic show ... anything.

Last week, both the Lions vs Rams & Giants vs Texan games were horrible entertainment and they should have been called at the half!

 

[qimqam]

Spinoff from another thread.

Some people have complained that they hate when the game ends with successive kneel downs by the offense to run the remaining time off the clock. Here's an option for a rule change which would eliminate this.

In the last 5 minutes of either half, when the offense runs a play which results in negative yardage, (the new line of scrimmage is behind the previous line of scrimmage), the clock is stopped and does not start again until the ball is snapped. This would eliminate the kneel downs at the end of games as the offense would have to get at least 1 yard to keep the clock running.

Thoughts?

I'm not going to call this one of the the dumbest ideas I've ever heard, so here's some constructive criticism.A. The vast majority of fans don't care about kneel downs. The ones who do are usually fantasy football geeks. This is actually the first time in my life I've heard someone propose a rule change over this.

B. What would happen if this rule was implemented? One thing that would happen is that there would be a lot more qb sneaks. Which translates to more hits on the qb's, increasing their chances of injury. Which means that there's no chance in hell the nfl would ever implement this.

I have no idea why people think this has anything to do with FF. It's barely significant in the FF World and huge in the real world

 

[ghostfacekilla]

I'll ask again, if you want to get rid of the QB kneel down are you ok with the QB spike to stop the clock?

i kinda hear what ur saying,different sides of the same coin. but once again ya'll got me thinking on the nfl rules and the glaring inconsistencies..how is spiking the ball not intentional grounding--QB is between the tackles/ball does not go past line of scrimmage/throw is not in the vicinity of eligible reciever-- the nfl/refs let it slide when it is obvious that said team is trying to stop the clock. once again a tricked up "ruling" similar to the OPs tricked up intentions. if a QB did that at any other time in the game how would it not be called intentional grounding? also at any other time during the game a player is not down when his knee hits the ground unless he is contacted, yet the QB kneels in victory formation and the play is whistled dead. seems a defender should be allowed a Lloyd Christmas/Mary Swanson one in a million chance to knock the #### out of him to try and force a fumble. not likely but you're saaaaaying there's a chance.

 

[Dexter Manley]

Spinoff from another thread.

Some people have complained that they hate when the game ends with successive kneel downs by the offense to run the remaining time off the clock. Here's an option for a rule change which would eliminate this.

In the last 5 minutes of either half, when the offense runs a play which results in negative yardage, (the new line of scrimmage is behind the previous line of scrimmage), the clock is stopped and does not start again until the ball is snapped. This would eliminate the kneel downs at the end of games as the offense would have to get at least 1 yard to keep the clock running.

Thoughts?

I'm not going to call this one of the the dumbest ideas I've ever heard, so here's some constructive criticism.A. The vast majority of fans don't care about kneel downs. The ones who do are usually fantasy football geeks. This is actually the first time in my life I've heard someone propose a rule change over this.

B. What would happen if this rule was implemented? One thing that would happen is that there would be a lot more qb sneaks. Which translates to more hits on the qb's, increasing their chances of injury. Which means that there's no chance in hell the nfl would ever implement this.

I have no idea why people think this has anything to do with FF. It's barely significant in the FF World and huge in the real world

Actually, it can be pretty significant. Say you're down a point or less to your opponent (who's players are finished) on Sunday/Monday night and instead of handing it off to your starting rb (the last guy playing in your lineup), the qb goes to the kneel down. This scenario isn't that rare. The only time I hear people complaining about kneel downs it's fantasy related.

 

[road warrior]

Miracle at the Meadowlands

My thought exactly. Many here are probably too young to remember that play. Wasn't that Herm's claim to fame (outside of saying 'You play to win the game'?) I bet a few Giant fans still remember that one.

 

[DoubleG]

I have no idea why people think this has anything to do with FF. It's barely significant in the FF World and huge in the real world

You are WAY overusing the word "huge"...unless of course by "huge" you mean the 12 people who voted they'd like a new rule implemented (which still doesn't mean they have a major issue with it) - but to 90%+ of FF geeks (And probably even less to the society as whole) - it doesn't really matter.

 

[qimqam]

Miracle at the Meadowlands

My thought exactly. Many here are probably too young to remember that play. Wasn't that Herm's claim to fame (outside of saying 'You play to win the game'?) I bet a few Giant fans still remember that one.

I'm a Giants fan and remember it well ... By the way Eagles fans that will never happen again and may as well be erased from history since 90 % of people on this board agree that it should not have been allowed.

 

[qimqam]

I have no idea why people think this has anything to do with FF. It's barely significant in the FF World and huge in the real world

You are WAY overusing the word "huge"...unless of course by "huge" you mean the 12 people who voted they'd like a new rule implemented (which still doesn't mean they have a major issue with it) - but to 90%+ of FF geeks (And probably even less to the society as whole) - it doesn't really matter.

Take a look above u junior ... That was not only huge but NFL historical!

 

[Priestly]

I like it but I also like kneel downs when the Pats are doing it, lol. On the flip side, I'd like to see field goals over 55 yards count as 4 points in the last 2 minutes. So a team that is down 4 can choose that option at the end. Maybe FG's over 60 could be 5 points. No more time outs right when the kicker is about to kick either, that's lame.

Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't shorter FG's be worth more than longer FGs? Especially if it's in the last few minutes of the game? Otherwise teams that are trailing would be be content to drive to around mid field and start booting 50 and 60 yarders for big points. I always thought the solution to the FG problem(all FGs shouldn't be scored the same) was a PAK(point after kick) for all red zone field goals. Just like PAT's, teams can kick an extra point or try a 2 pt conversion after a sucessful red zone FG. Not only does this reward offenses for effectively moving the ball, but it also allows more strategy in certain game situations... 1. It encourages coaches(Lovie Smith!) to kick the FG on 4th and goal from inside the 3, since you can kick for 3 and then run the play you were going to run on 4th down for the 2 pt conversion. And if successful, put 5pts on the board which is much nicer than settling for just 3 at the goal line. And if you don't convert, you still walk away with 3.2. Teams that trail by 4 pts late in the game are not forced to score a TD. Offenses can usually move the ball fine until the red zone, where it becomes very difficult to score TD's because of the shorter field and tighter defense. Here, offenses can kick the Red Zone FG, and convert the extra point for the tie. And because of the double threat(TD to win or FG + PAK to tie), defenses can't just sit in the prevent. They really can't afford to let the offense move the ball.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

Kneel downs are part of the game.On a side note: When teams go into the Victory formation and they put a player deep. This tends to be a WR or RB. Why wouldn't you put in a safety or CB? Someone with excellent speed and that has tackling skills too in case something like Miracle in the Meadowlands happens again.Will having a potential poor tackler back there cost a team sometime?

 

[VaTerp]

Miracle at the Meadowlands

My thought exactly. Many here are probably too young to remember that play. Wasn't that Herm's claim to fame (outside of saying 'You play to win the game'?) I bet a few Giant fans still remember that one.

I'm a Giants fan and remember it well ... By the way Eagles fans that will never happen again and may as well be erased from history since 90 % of people on this board agree that it should not have been allowed.

This shows the problem. You are not comprehending basic common sense. Show one person on this board who thinks that play "should not have been allowed."The victory formation is a direct result of that play. Teams realized that there was no need to risk a handoff when they have already secured a victory. You are advocating for a rule to artificially help a losing team get back in the game simply for the sake of a minimal chance for adding entertainment. That would be an awful rule that would move sports even further away from true competition and closer to the fabricated reality TV world to which our society is slowly deteriorating.

 

[Hopeless]

Yeah, and in Baseball, if the visiting team is behind at the top of the 9th inning then the home team should be required to get 4 outs before the game is over. You know, just to make it more interesting and to give the losing team another chance.Right.

Actually the analogy would be "the Picther takes a knee in the 9th with 2 outs and the base loaded" rather than taking a chance of letting up a big hit.

You realize in baseball the pitcher is on defense, not offense right?No, if you want to use baseball, it's why the home team doesn't bat in the bottom of the 9th with the lead. They already are winning. HTH.

Exactly.

 

[qimqam]

Miracle at the Meadowlands

My thought exactly. Many here are probably too young to remember that play. Wasn't that Herm's claim to fame (outside of saying 'You play to win the game'?) I bet a few Giant fans still remember that one.

I'm a Giants fan and remember it well ... By the way Eagles fans that will never happen again and may as well be erased from history since 90 % of people on this board agree that it should not have been allowed.

This shows the problem. You are not comprehending basic common sense. Show one person on this board who thinks that play "should not have been allowed."The victory formation is a direct result of that play. Teams realized that there was no need to risk a handoff when they have already secured a victory. You are advocating for a rule to artificially help a losing team get back in the game simply for the sake of a minimal chance for adding entertainment. That would be an awful rule that would move sports even further away from true competition and closer to the fabricated reality TV world to which our society is slowly deteriorating.

Wow. What the hell was that ?

 

[VaTerp]

Miracle at the Meadowlands

My thought exactly. Many here are probably too young to remember that play. Wasn't that Herm's claim to fame (outside of saying 'You play to win the game'?) I bet a few Giant fans still remember that one.

I'm a Giants fan and remember it well ... By the way Eagles fans that will never happen again and may as well be erased from history since 90 % of people on this board agree that it should not have been allowed.

This shows the problem. You are not comprehending basic common sense. Show one person on this board who thinks that play "should not have been allowed."The victory formation is a direct result of that play. Teams realized that there was no need to risk a handoff when they have already secured a victory. You are advocating for a rule to artificially help a losing team get back in the game simply for the sake of a minimal chance for adding entertainment. That would be an awful rule that would move sports even further away from true competition and closer to the fabricated reality TV world to which our society is slowly deteriorating.

Wow. What the hell was that ?

Like I said.

 

[FantasyTrader]

You want the last two minutes of the game to mean something.

I wanted the last two minutes of my life to mean something.

We can't always get what we want.