or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2013 NFL Football
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2013 NFL Football - Page 16

post #271 of 1006

So you are OK with awarding 50 yards on a play that has maybe a 5% chance of success without interference?  Why don't we just let the receivers run with a 5 yard no-fly zone around them.  Then scoring would really go up.  It is the single most lopsided penalty in sports.  Offenses should earn their game winning drives and not have the refs give it to them. Half the time on these INT calls, the receiver pushes just as much.

post #272 of 1006
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

So you are OK with awarding 50 yards on a play that has maybe a 5% chance of success without interference?  Why don't we just let the receivers run with a 5 yard no-fly zone around them.  Then scoring would really go up.  It is the single most lopsided penalty in sports.  Offenses should earn their game winning drives and not have the refs give it to them. Half the time on these INT calls, the receiver pushes just as much.

I guess the way I look at it is that if it really only had a 5% chance of success, then the DB ought to be more careful and keep his hands off.

 

I mean, the play I was referencing last night ... how unfair would it be for a DB to be able to tackle a guy prior to an almost certain touchdown catch and effectively push them backwards 30 yards.  That, to me, is too much incentive to interfere.

 

But, yes, it's infuriating when refs call ticky-tack interference penalties downfield.  Totally agree.  But I don't think the rule should be changed, I think the refs should be more sure of penalties the further down the field they get.

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Speaking of unfair ... I think that penalties should be enforced equally on both teams, no matter which part of the field they are on.  [I haven't put a ton of thought into this, so there might be something obvious I'm missing here]  If the offense has the ball at the 6 yard line and the defense jumps offside, its only a 3 yard penalty.  If, on the very next play, the offense false starts, it's 5.  Why shouldn't the penalties going away from goal lines equal the "half-the-distance" penalties going towards the goal lines?

post #273 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

I guess the way I look at it is that if it really only had a 5% chance of success, then the DB ought to be more careful and keep his hands off.

 

Not only that, but the interference also robs the receiver of the ability to gain yardage after the catch.

post #274 of 1006

But we've also seen refs make huge bullshit interference calls that have helped win games with miraculous comebacks too often.  The NFL later apologizes, but never takes back the victory.  Earn your victory.  It is tough enough for defense to play against NFL offenses without the added ref factor.

post #275 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

But we've also seen refs make huge bullshit interference calls that have helped win games with miraculous comebacks too often.  The NFL later apologizes, but never takes back the victory.  Earn your victory.  It is tough enough for defense to play against NFL offenses without the added ref factor.

 

And we have equally seen them miss what should be obvious calls because the grabbing occurred on the side away from the official.  It's often obvious in the replay, yet that isn't a challengeable foul.  Again, it swings both ways.  

post #276 of 1006

They should just make PI reviewable.

post #277 of 1006

:no: News from the Broncos:

 

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- Saturday afternoon in Charlotte, N.C., Head Coach John Fox was taken to a local hospital after feeling light-headed while playing golf.

After undergoing testing and further observation, it was determined that Fox will undergo an aortic heart valve replacement early next week.

"He will take a leave of absence from coaching for at least the next several weeks," the Broncos said in a statement. “Our focus at this time is Coach Fox’s health and well-being. We extend our thoughts and well-wishes to him for a full and speedy recovery.

“Coach Fox was advised by doctors months ago that his defective aortic valve would require this procedure following the 2013 season. As part of his trip to North Carolina over the bye week, he had a preoperative appointment on Thursday with his doctor, who informed him to seek medical attention immediately if he felt any discomfort."

Executive Director of Media Relations Patrick Smyth tweeted that he spoke with Fox earlier in the day, and the coach reported that he did not have a heart attack. He was in good spirits in the hospital.

“I sincerely appreciate all of the support from friends, Denver Broncos fans and so many around the league today," Fox said in a statement. "Although I am disappointed I must take some time away from the team to attend to this pre-existing health condition, I understand that it’s the right thing to do. I have great confidence in our coaches and players, who are fully committed to our goals.

“I look forward to returning to coaching as soon as possible.”

The team has not announced an interim head coach, and that decision will be made public as soon as it is finalized.

post #278 of 1006

Hope he does OK.

post #279 of 1006

That's too bad. I like John Fox, a lot. Back to his days with Carolina.


Anyone see Kubiak collapse last night too?

post #280 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
 

That's too bad. I like John Fox, a lot. Back to his days with Carolina.


Anyone see Kubiak collapse last night too?

Yes. Luckily, the update they gave after the game seemed to indicate that it was not as serious as it seemed while it was happening. Hopefully that is the case and he is back soon. It seemed to definitely have an impact on all the momentum the Texans were building that first half. That was a fun game to watch, especially as an Andre Johnson owner ;-)

post #281 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by butt3r3dt0ast View Post
 

Yes. Luckily, the update they gave after the game seemed to indicate that it was not as serious as it seemed while it was happening. Hopefully that is the case and he is back soon. It seemed to definitely have an impact on all the momentum the Texans were building that first half. That was a fun game to watch, especially as an Andre Johnson owner ;-)

 

I was down 30 points and had TY Hilton and Foster. After Foster went out after scoring me 0.00 points, I thought I was screwed. Nope! :)

post #282 of 1006
What about them Bears... Damn that Jim McMahon can play
post #283 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by c peterich View Post

What about them Bears... Damn that Jim McMahon can play

 

Rodgers out, and they still should have lost.

 

They got lucky.....  But, a win is a win, there aren't any style points in the NFL.

post #284 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

Rodgers out, and they still should have lost.

 

They got lucky.....  But, a win is a win, there aren't any style points in the NFL.

 

In all fairness, they're playing with their backup too.

post #285 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

Rodgers out, and they still should have lost.

 

They got lucky.....  But, a win is a win, there aren't any style points in the NFL.

 

In all fairness, they're playing with their backup too.

 

Except that McCown got to practice all week with the first team, with the knowledge that he was going to start.  Wallace didn't.  (Dont get me wrong, I'm not a fan of either team - the Vikings are unfortunately my team in the NFC North.)

post #286 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

Except that McCown got to practice all week with the first team, with the knowledge that he was going to start.  Wallace didn't.  (Dont get me wrong, I'm not a fan of either team - the Vikings are unfortunately my team in the NFC North.)

 

Of course...but even with practice, Seneca blows. lol

post #287 of 1006

Just goes to show that when a QB runs, it is not if but when will he get hurt.  Rogers is too good in the pocket or just out of the pocket to be running like that.

post #288 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post
 

Just goes to show that when a QB runs, it is not if but when will he get hurt.  Rogers is too good in the pocket or just out of the pocket to be running like that.

 

This is the truth.  A quarterback can get away with it in college, but the size and speed of pro players makes a quarterback who depends on his running a liability, no matter how good he is when he does it.  Look at RGIII, Vick, Ponder, Pryor.  I don't know that all have gotten their most recent injuries while running, but all have been criticized for running too often, some for running before it's even necessary.  That takes a toll, even when not taking a major injury while running.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2013 NFL Football