Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Rule changes that passed

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-03-2008, 06:57 AM   #16
Inactive
 
KLHJ2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DC Metro Area
Age: 36
Posts: 5,829
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
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.

Only if they kick it out of bounds and away from Devin Hester! LOL
KLHJ2 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-03-2008, 09:33 AM   #17
The Starter
 
skinsnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,223
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!
__________________
I hate Dallas...Period
skinsnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 10:24 AM   #18
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,278
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsnut View Post
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!
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.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 12:04 PM   #19
The Starter
 
SC Skins Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,555
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
Basically if you are to much of a vag and you can't make a decision you let the other team.
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 NFL Rules Digest: Coin Toss. 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.
__________________
It has taken a long time, but I have finally realized that nothing I say about the Redskins will have any effect upon anything the Redskins do.
SC Skins Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 12:07 PM   #20
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 81,278
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan View Post
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 NFL Rules Digest: Coin Toss. 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.
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.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 12:16 PM   #21
The Starter
 
SC Skins Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,555
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
It has taken a long time, but I have finally realized that nothing I say about the Redskins will have any effect upon anything the Redskins do.
SC Skins Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 12:26 PM   #22
Special Teams
 
lwiedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 109
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk72 View Post
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.
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.
lwiedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 03:22 PM   #23
Registered User
 
chrisl4064's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lake Travis, Texas
Age: 33
Posts: 786
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
chrisl4064 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2008, 03:37 PM   #24
Most Interesting Man in the World
 
hooskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Age: 27
Posts: 8,606
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan View Post
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.
Interesting, and I was wrong. Well I was kinda joking about the whole "vag" thing because I did not know what deferring met.
__________________
Vacancy
hooskins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 12:23 PM   #25
Special Teams
 
lwiedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 109
Re: Rule changes that passed

Didnít 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.

Iím as old school as anyone, but why have ball carriers been immune from what everyone else isnít. 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.
lwiedy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 06:41 PM   #26
Special Teams
 
SeanTaylor21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Herndon, Virginia
Age: 21
Posts: 445
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwiedy View Post
Didnít 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.

Iím as old school as anyone, but why have ball carriers been immune from what everyone else isnít. 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.
Yeah, if defense got communication thing then why not make them completely even and make offensive facemask a penalty.
__________________
ďThe unexamined life is not worth living.Ē Socrates

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6...rmationgg7.jpg

http://www.thehogs.net/sean-taylor/burgundy_heart.jpg
SeanTaylor21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-05-2008, 02:51 PM   #27
Playmaker
 
SouperMeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Leesburg, VA
Age: 50
Posts: 3,075
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
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.
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.
SouperMeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2008, 05:24 AM   #28
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
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.
Who in the hell would want to kick to Hester twice?
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2008, 05:25 AM   #29
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwiedy View Post
Couple things, the changing the force out rule without giving some ďcompensationĒ 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 werenít quite sure there would be at least some penalty.

They just canít keep from screwing around with things that arenít broken, IMO.
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.
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2008, 05:28 AM   #30
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 12,514
Re: Rule changes that passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by hooskins View Post
Basically if you are to much of a vag and you can't make a decision you let the other team.
You're deferring your choice to the 2nd half, not giving up your decision altogether.
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.33780 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25