|
|
Post by gnawitall on Dec 25, 2017 18:09:13 GMT -8
I was thinking about the 'surviving the ground rule' for receivers and think; that should be the same rule for runners in the endzone/line to gain. I believe the term 'touchdown' comes from the beginning days of football when the offensive player had to literally touch the ball to the ground. This idea of crossing the plane is ridiculous IMHO. I think it's much more interesting that a player who has the ball must survive the endzone/line to gain. Crossing the plane stuff wimpifies* the game.
I'm all for a safer game but not a softer game.
*my word
Had to edit. With all the computer generated effects on the tv screen they should put a vertical view of the endzone or line to gain so the commentators can point out that the ball just has to touch the vertical field for a first or TD.
|
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 26, 2017 10:01:15 GMT -8
I was thinking about the 'surviving the ground rule' for receivers and think; that should be the same rule for runners in the endzone/line to gain. I believe the term 'touchdown' comes from the beginning days of football when the offensive player had to literally touch the ball to the ground. This idea of crossing the plane is ridiculous IMHO. I think it's much more interesting that a player who has the ball must survive the endzone/line to gain. Crossing the plane stuff wimpifies* the game. I'm all for a safer game but not a softer game. *my word Had to edit. With all the computer generated effects on the tv screen they should put a vertical view of the endzone or line to gain so the commentators can point out that the ball just has to touch the vertical field for a first or TD. While I don't agree that the rule should be the same for runners and receivers, I do like your take. The thought I've had in the past was that if a player were able to run out of the back of the end zone, the team would get 7 points instead of 6, and be relieved from attempting the extra point. I've always thought that getting to/through the end zone unscathed ought to be worth something more than barely sneaking into the end zone - but not like a whole point. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Post by mbabeav on Dec 26, 2017 11:23:51 GMT -8
I was thinking about the 'surviving the ground rule' for receivers and think; that should be the same rule for runners in the endzone/line to gain. I believe the term 'touchdown' comes from the beginning days of football when the offensive player had to literally touch the ball to the ground. This idea of crossing the plane is ridiculous IMHO. I think it's much more interesting that a player who has the ball must survive the endzone/line to gain. Crossing the plane stuff wimpifies* the game. I'm all for a safer game but not a softer game. *my word Had to edit. With all the computer generated effects on the tv screen they should put a vertical view of the endzone or line to gain so the commentators can point out that the ball just has to touch the vertical field for a first or TD. While I don't agree that the rule should be the same for runners and receivers, I do like your take. The thought I've had in the past was that if a player were able to run out of the back of the end zone, the team would get 7 points instead of 6, and be relieved from attempting the extra point. I've always thought that getting to/through the end zone unscathed ought to be worth something more than barely sneaking into the end zone - but not like a whole point. SaveSaveI don't like the thought of having to take shots to get farther into the endzone - I just think back to what an endzone hit cost JR. Everyone living with the same rule evens the playing field. It's those dam catch/not catch judgment calls that really screw with the game. Pittsburgh last week, Buffalo this week, and by happenstance against the same team............ |
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 27, 2017 15:58:31 GMT -8
While I don't agree that the rule should be the same for runners and receivers, I do like your take. The thought I've had in the past was that if a player were able to run out of the back of the end zone, the team would get 7 points instead of 6, and be relieved from attempting the extra point. I've always thought that getting to/through the end zone unscathed ought to be worth something more than barely sneaking into the end zone - but not like a whole point. SaveSaveI don't like the thought of having to take shots to get farther into the endzone - I just think back to what an endzone hit cost JR. Everyone living with the same rule evens the playing field. It's those dam catch/not catch judgment calls that really screw with the game. Pittsburgh last week, Buffalo this week, and by happenstance against the same team............ The Pittsburgh catch was clearly NOT a catch, by NFL or college rules. There's not really a controversy there for anyone who has been watching football for the past 10 years. The Buffalo overturn was an over-reach by the replay staff, since there wasn't really any "clear and convincing" evidence to overturn the call on the field. As for taking shots in the end zone, as long as guys know they are still "live" in the end zone, they should be as safe as anywhere on the field. James Rodgers probably thought he was "safe" when he got tackled, since he had already scored the TD. So, IMO, Rodgers probably wouldn't have been injured on that play if my goofy rule were enacted. SaveSave |
|
|
|
Touchdowns
Dec 27, 2017 16:49:34 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by gnawitall on Dec 27, 2017 16:49:34 GMT -8
My thought was generated from the Steeler controversy in the end zone and the Eagle game when a tight end, I believe, caught the ball and ran about ten yards, was tripped up and as he flew, no pun intended. to the ground his elbow hit first and then lost the ball and was ruled down.
The 'ol ground can't cause a fumble. I'd like to see the ball spotted where a runner is tackled with control of the ball and that includes across the white line in the end zone.
Just my take.
PS... I think it's so hokie(?) When a QB jumps up and places the ball over the plane of the line to gain. Yuk
|
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Dec 28, 2017 9:02:10 GMT -8
My thought was generated from the Steeler controversy in the end zone and the Eagle game when a tight end, I believe, caught the ball and ran about ten yards, was tripped up and as he flew, no pun intended. to the ground his elbow hit first and then lost the ball and was ruled down. The 'ol ground can't cause a fumble. I'd like to see the ball spotted where a runner is tackled with control of the ball and that includes across the white line in the end zone. Just my take. PS... I think it's so hokie(?) When a QB jumps up and places the ball over the plane of the line to gain. Yuk Except, there really wasn't any "controversy" on the Steeler game. People just don't like the catch rule. If I'm understanding you correctly on the Eagles play, once the guy became a "runner" (ran about ten yards), he's like anyone with the football - the ground can't cause a fumble. That rule has never changed. The ground CAN'T cause a fumble. The ground CAN cause you to fail to complete a catch. There HAS to be some sort of delineation between what is and is not a catch, and the current rule seems to me to be the best definition of that we've had in football history. |
|
|
|
Post by beaver94 on Dec 28, 2017 10:13:14 GMT -8
My thought was generated from the Steeler controversy in the end zone and the Eagle game when a tight end, I believe, caught the ball and ran about ten yards, was tripped up and as he flew, no pun intended. to the ground his elbow hit first and then lost the ball and was ruled down. The 'ol ground can't cause a fumble. I'd like to see the ball spotted where a runner is tackled with control of the ball and that includes across the white line in the end zone. Just my take. PS... I think it's so hokie(?) When a QB jumps up and places the ball over the plane of the line to gain. Yuk Except, there really wasn't any "controversy" on the Steeler game. People just don't like the catch rule. If I'm understanding you correctly on the Eagles play, once the guy became a "runner" (ran about ten yards), he's like anyone with the football - the ground can't cause a fumble. That rule has never changed. The ground CAN'T cause a fumble. The ground CAN cause you to fail to complete a catch. There HAS to be some sort of delineation between what is and is not a catch, and the current rule seems to me to be the best definition of that we've had in football history. The ground can cause a fumble if the player goes down without contact though. |
|
