Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=hooskins;436933]hmm, or if you playing a team like the Bears, you might want to kick to them twice because their offense may give better field position rather than going against their D. Interesting.[/quote]


Only if they kick it out of bounds and away from Devin Hester! LOL

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

I am concerned about the force out for receivers.
Now there will be an incredible incentive to drill a WR on a sideline patters....especially if they are moving.

There is gunna be some serious hitting on the sidelines because of this.
Hopefully they don't go low to drive the legs out of bounds.

Although I hate the earlier subjective "force out" rule....I worry about the lack of it....especially year 1. After that, things should settle down.

All I can say is WRs should be prepared for a whale of a hit if they are near the sidelines.
Smaller WR's watch out!

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=skinsnut;436986]I am concerned about the force out for receivers.
[B]Now there will be an incredible incentive to drill a WR on a sideline patters....especially if they are moving.[/B]

There is gunna be some serious hitting on the sidelines because of this.
Hopefully they don't go low to drive the legs out of bounds.

Although I hate the earlier subjective "force out" rule....I worry about the lack of it....especially year 1. After that, things should settle down.

All I can say is WRs should be prepared for a whale of a hit if they are near the sidelines.
Smaller WR's watch out![/quote]

Isn't there always an incentive to drill someone if the opportunity is there?

The rule was too subjective, I like that they are taking it away.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=hooskins;436931]Basically if you are to much of a vag and you can't make a decision you let the other team.[/quote]

I didn't know this was a rule in the NFL, but I had always noticed that in the NFL teams will always take the ball if they win the toss, but in college teams often choose to kick off (actually, what they do is defer the choice). I am assuming, then, that previously when you won the toss in the NFL you could choose to kick or receive, but if you chose to kick then you would actually end up kicking twice because winning the toss simply gave you the opportunity to choose kick/receive for the first half and in the opening of the second half the other team would obviously choose to receive (since they lost the coin toss in the first half they would then be given the chance to choose in the second). Now a team could defer the choice to the second half, thereby giving themselves the ability to receive coming out of the half - whereas previously that was not possible.

Previously, just because you kicked off in the first half did not give the right to receive in the second. It only worked that way because the team that won the toss would always choose to receive (so as not to kick off twice) and thus in the second half the other team would (essentially by default, because who would give up a possession) receive. If you chose to kick in the first you would end up kicking off in both halves because the team that lost the toss in the first would get first choice in the second [url=http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/cointoss]NFL Rules Digest: Coin Toss[/url]. It doesn't work like this in Madden (perhaps where some of the confusion stems from) because there if you choose to kick in the first half you automatically receive in the second.

So that is a long way of saying it has nothing to do with being a "vag", as you put it.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;437043]I didn't know this was a rule in the NFL, but I had always noticed that in the NFL teams will always take the ball if they win the toss, but in college teams often choose to kick off (actually, what they do is defer the choice). I am assuming, then, that previously when you won the toss in the NFL you could choose to kick or receive, but if you chose to kick then you would actually end up kicking twice because winning the toss simply gave you the opportunity to choose kick/receive for the first half and in the opening of the second half the other team would obviously choose to receive (since they lost the coin toss in the first half they would then be given the chance to choose in the second). Now a team could defer the choice to the second half, thereby giving themselves the ability to receive coming out of the half - whereas previously that was not possible.

Previously, just because you kicked off in the first half did not give the right to receive in the second. It only worked that way because the team that won the toss would always choose to receive (so as not to kick off twice) and thus in the second half the other team would (essentially by default, because who would give up a possession) receive. If you chose to kick in the first you would end up kicking off in both halves because the team that lost the toss in the first would get first choice in the second [URL="http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/cointoss"]NFL Rules Digest: Coin Toss[/URL]. It doesn't work like this in Madden (perhaps where some of the confusion stems from) because there if you choose to kick in the first half you automatically receive in the second.

So that is a long way of saying it has nothing to do with being a "vag", as you put it.[/quote]

Honestly I think the way it is in Madden messed me up too on this.

Most of the time in Madden I choose to kickoff so I can have the ball first in the 2nd half. I guess I just thought that was the way it is in the NFL too.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=Mattyk72;437047]Honestly I think the way it is in Madden messed me up too on this.

Most of the time in Madden I choose to kickoff so I can have the ball first in the 2nd half. I guess I just thought that was the way it is in the NFL too.[/quote]

I do too, which is why I thought maybe that was where the confusion stemmed from (being that it is such a cultural icon). I actually didn't know you couldn't defer in the NFL until I saw this thread and saw that they were instituting the rule. I had actually always wondered why I had never seen a team win the toss and do anything but choose to receive, even though that happens all the time in high school and college. Now that makes perfect sense.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;437001]Isn't there always an incentive to drill someone if the opportunity is there?

The rule was too subjective, I like that they are taking it away.[/QUOTE]

You are right about it being too subjective, but you have now penalized the offense (yeah I know, "who cares, everything favors the offense).

I see very little complaints with the NCAA rule of no force out but only one foot in. This would give the receiver a better chance dealing with the DB's as the mechanics of getting one down is far easier than two.

Point is, take something, give something.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

i think deferring the toss means you can choose the wind to be on your side in the 4th instead of kicking or recieving first

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;437053]I do too, which is why I thought maybe that was where the confusion stemmed from (being that it is such a cultural icon). I actually didn't know you couldn't defer in the NFL until I saw this thread and saw that they were instituting the rule. I had actually always wondered why I had never seen a team win the toss and do anything but choose to receive, even though that happens all the time in high school and college. Now that makes perfect sense.[/quote]

Interesting, and I was wrong. Well I was kinda joking about the whole "vag" thing because I did not know what deferring met.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

Didn’t hear this until today. They are looking at the stiff arm to the facemask as a legal maneuver. Without details, it may be premature to speculate but if they get rid of it, good riddance.

I’m as old school as anyone, but why have ball carriers been immune from what everyone else isn’t. With apologies to Walter Payton fans, this has to go.

I have been very critical of the rash of rule changes, but I must admit, I approve of this.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=lwiedy;437501]Didn’t hear this until today. They are looking at the stiff arm to the facemask as a legal maneuver. Without details, it may be premature to speculate but if they get rid of it, good riddance.

I’m as old school as anyone, but why have ball carriers been immune from what everyone else isn’t. With apologies to Walter Payton fans, this has to go.

I have been very critical of the rash of rule changes, but I must admit, I approve of this.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, if defense got communication thing then why not make them completely even and make offensive facemask a penalty.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=skinsguy;436908]The force out rule is kind of iffy in my opinion. So are they saying the receiver has to clearly be coming down in bounce? Are they basically saying there is no more force out rule established? If so, DB's certainly have an edge now. I guess it's ok though. I mean most of the rule changes have been for the WR's. About time they paid attention to the defense.[/quote]This is a good rule change. Too many times we have seen critical forceout calls made that were strictly a judgement call. The biggest problem is that it was not open to review. Now any sideline reception will be open to review, and two feet will have to come down inbounds.

Having Landry playing deep safety might be an advantage on deep sideline throws where he uses his range to force the receiver out. Lord, what might have been with Landry AND Taylor playing a 2-deep zone.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;436933]hmm, or if you playing a team like the Bears, you might want to kick to them twice because their offense may give better field position rather than going against their D. Interesting.[/QUOTE]

Who in the hell would want to kick to Hester twice?

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=lwiedy;436875]Couple things, the changing the force out rule without giving some “compensation” to the receiver (how about one foot in bounds, a la NCAA) will hurt receivers. What about if a DB was able to carry a receiver coming down out of bounds? The wording implies that that would be ok and that would be stupid.

On the facemask penalty, where was the outcry for this? Does this mean that ALL grabbing the mask is 15 yards or only the more egregious? This will be far more difficult for officials since there is an all or nothing element to something that if they weren’t quite sure there would be at least some penalty.

They just can’t keep from screwing around with things that aren’t broken, IMO.[/QUOTE]

Carry outs are against the rules, other articles I've read on it have mentioned this.

The receivers have been given enough compensation on everything else that the db's SHOULD get something.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;436931]Basically if you are to much of a vag and you can't make a decision you let the other team.[/QUOTE]

You're deferring your choice to the 2nd half, not giving up your decision altogether.