So, if a guy catches the ball by the sideline and his heel touches first, but his toes touch out of bounds, you would make that a completed pass? Disagree on that one.
I agree with the poster about the spot of the foul on a pass interference call.
If you could change one rule in football...
- Thread starter BlueBallz_rivals30790
- Start date
I agree with the poster about the spot of the foul on a pass interference call.
Legalize holding. It would really level the playing field, and give the refs a lot less to have to think about. Let the big uglies hold...
Take the skirts off and allow physical football.
Overtime possessions start at the 40 yard line.
Overtime possessions start at the 40 yard line.
On this I disagree vehemently; I don't know when the rule changed in the last twenty five years, but an ineligible man downfield used to be an ineligible man downfield when they were anywhere beyond the line of scrimmage. Somewhere there became a three yard neutral zone and I don't know when or why the standard was relaxed. The end result is the types of absurd situation where you have five down linemen three to five yards downfield and a wide receiver sprung for a completely uncovered 80 yarder in the Ole Miss Alabama game...because the safeties were following the age old principle of letting a guard key whether it was run or pass. Their guards were well downfield.
I'd bet the ranch this will be reviewed in the off-season and something iron clad enforced; to me downfield is downfield and you can't hamstring defenses any further with the vaguery of a three yard downfield standard.
Down by contact rule. I hate if a player slips or catches a ball on his knees and there is nobody within 10 yards of him, that he can't get up and run...
Well the toe thing is kinda crappy when when toe - no heel down is a catch, but toe down first then heel follows makes it an incompletion....both got toes in first, but the result is different. So it could basically be a toe down and then knee hits oobs and that's a catch, but toe down and heel follows - not catch.
I would add intentional grounding as a penalty, even when QBs are outside the pocket...
That's a very interesting idea, had never thought of it before but I like it. How many times have we watched one team get a 5 yard penalty from the one and go back a half yard, and then the other team gets a five yard penalty and they go forward 5 yards.
I didn't think about that. I was introduced to CFB around the mid 2000's. I don't really remember a time when there weren't a ton of linemen downfield. Makes sense, though.
I think it's still that way in the pros. I would be OK with allowing the 3 yards if, and only if they were engaged with a defender.
Just abandon American football for Rugby football and drive the rest of the English speaking world completely nuts within 1/2 generation.
I've already had my say, but it's Christmas so I can say more.
Five yards for a procedure penalty is too much for too little of an infraction & really sets the O back too much. Reduce to two or three yards.
No OT's. All the systems are hokey. Change to whichever team scored last to tie the final score loses since the other team got to the same score in less time; i.e., was more scoring efficient. It would do away with teams playing to tie (& thus force OT under today's rule). Thus with 5, even 10 minutes left in game, the team scoring a TD to get within one point would now likely go for two as who knows if they'll ever get another chance to score. If down 3 late, must play to get ahead (Crazy concept, huh?) vs. tying. Also, likely does away with the silliness of winning the game coin toss & what, deferring!!! All this would drive coaches nuts - no better thing. Another consequence is that an 8 point lead is now a two score lead vs. 9 today.
Five yards for a procedure penalty is too much for too little of an infraction & really sets the O back too much. Reduce to two or three yards.
No OT's. All the systems are hokey. Change to whichever team scored last to tie the final score loses since the other team got to the same score in less time; i.e., was more scoring efficient. It would do away with teams playing to tie (& thus force OT under today's rule). Thus with 5, even 10 minutes left in game, the team scoring a TD to get within one point would now likely go for two as who knows if they'll ever get another chance to score. If down 3 late, must play to get ahead (Crazy concept, huh?) vs. tying. Also, likely does away with the silliness of winning the game coin toss & what, deferring!!! All this would drive coaches nuts - no better thing. Another consequence is that an 8 point lead is now a two score lead vs. 9 today.
The biggest difference in your example (hard to explain through words) is that when the toe touches down and they proceed out of bounds, the heel never touches the ground, so the toe is considered the foot in that instance. The heel is part of the foot, so when the toe and heel both come down and they are not all in bounds, then it's out of bounds. What you're saying is that if a guy makes a catch near the sideline and half his foot touches down in bounds and a split second later, half of his foot touches out of bounds, it would be a catch.
I agree with intentional grounding.
That would be ok, but we can't have the QB running so take the opposing QB cannot run against UK