Warpath  

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




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-22-2012, 03:09 PM   #16
Living Legend
 
Monkeydad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 35
Posts: 16,275
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
I could see a creative team cycling IR's like the Giants cycle their defensive linemen. (heck, maybe the giants would combine the fake fall with the IR cycling ... hmmm)
Yeah, they're blatant cheaters so I could see that.

Instead of a whole-season IR, I'd like to see a 4-game, an 8-game and an all-year IR choice.

Even just half and whole season would work.
__________________
Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster
Monkeydad is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 03-22-2012, 03:39 PM   #17
Playmaker
 
los panda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: los angeles, ca
Age: 29
Posts: 4,051
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeydad View Post
Even just half and whole season would work.
i like it, pick 1 date during mid-season, if you place a player on ir before then, he's eligible on that date, if you place him on ir after that date, he's done for the season. limit the number of spots to 2 or something, the rest have to go on standard, season-long ir
__________________
7 9 21 28 33 42 43 44 49 65 70 81
los panda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 11:58 AM   #18
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,539
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

Good change

NFL changes regular-season overtime to match postseason overtime | ProFootballTalk
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 12:13 PM   #19
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,539
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

NFL expands defenseless player rule to crackback blocks | ProFootballTalk
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 12:33 PM   #20
Playmaker
 
los panda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: los angeles, ca
Age: 29
Posts: 4,051
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

i don't like either of those 2 changes. i liked the real sudden death ot. i also don't think officials should compensate for an unaware player. i understand a receiver tracking the ball, but i don't see many other examples of players who should be excused as defenseless
__________________
7 9 21 28 33 42 43 44 49 65 70 81
los panda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 12:38 PM   #21
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,496
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

I like the change in OT! As far as the crack back blocks on the defensive backs, might as well be consistent. Protect everybody from head shots. I think it's time the players all go back to learning how to tackle, textbook style, instead of relying on the highlight reel big hit.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 12:45 PM   #22
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 41
Posts: 80,539
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

I'd like to see them take away being able to blow up the QB after an INT.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 12:49 PM   #23
Playmaker
 
los panda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: los angeles, ca
Age: 29
Posts: 4,051
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk View Post
I'd like to see them take away being able to blow up the QB after an INT.
if it's viewed as unnecessary, the official can call it w the current rules
__________________
7 9 21 28 33 42 43 44 49 65 70 81
los panda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 01:02 PM   #24
Impact Rookie
 
Bubba305-ST21-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Age: 26
Posts: 683
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

ok i like the OT change but whats up with the crack back block? how can you penalize someone for blocking someone that didnt see them? thats crazy, what if the guy sucks and doesnt have good awareness? this is just like the denfenseless receiver rule, is the defense just suppose to let a player catch it in front of him. He is defenseless because he is trying to catch the ball and score, i guess they jsut want the defender to let him do that and then catch him in their chest! i understand the speering at the head, thats understandable but head to head contact happens every play. come on man this is football
__________________
never another.....R.I.P. Sean T #21
Bubba305-ST21- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 02:25 PM   #25
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,496
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by los panda View Post
if it's viewed as unnecessary, the official can call it w the current rules
I agree. By that point, the QB becomes a defender and is open to getting blown up as much as the other defenders on the field. As long as they're not cutting him low or hitting in the head, then I see no problem with that.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 02:31 PM   #26
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,993
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

I don't like the OT rule, but I like this adaptation of it. If you will have it at all, don't wait until the playoffs to use it.

Everything else seems like a step in the right direction.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2012, 10:25 PM   #27
The Starter
 
PWNED's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ZOMGZZZ!!111
Age: 22
Posts: 1,153
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I don't like the OT rule, but I like this adaptation of it. If you will have it at all, don't wait until the playoffs to use it.

Everything else seems like a step in the right direction.
:confused:

?
__________________
143 lbs of twisted steel and sex appeal.
PWNED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 01:16 PM   #28
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
Maybe they could add any face mask is a penalty. It's one thing to stiff arm a defensemen by using his body it's another to grab the CB's facemask and try to hold him off. If the defense can't do it neither should the offense.
I would like that rule change a lot...
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 01:22 PM   #29
Playmaker
 
sportscurmudgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
I never understood the point of having a player on IR being done for the season. Why don't they have an injury policy more like MLB with a 30-60-90-120 day injury list. That allows players hurt in preseason to contribute down the stretch. I guess stashing could be an issue but the way its done now is kinda dumb.
Actually, the IR rule as it stands comes from the days when "stashing" was very prevalent in the NFL. With a salary cap system in place, it becomes more difficult - - but not impossible - - to do any significant amount of "stashing".

The NFL actually does had a MLB-like system but without the duration designations. If a contributing player is hurt but it looks as if he will be OK to play again in whatever is left of the season at the time of the injury, he does not go on IR but does not dress for future games. He is one of the 53-man roster who is in street clothes until he is well...

A compromise rule that might demonstrate how all of this is beneficial to NFL teams would be to allow each team to designate ONE player a year for "Injured Reserve-Eligible For Reactivation". After that demonstrates that it is not Earth-shattering", they can increase the limit to TWO per year for each team. And then...
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon
www.sportscurmudgeon.com
But don't get me wrong, I love sports...
sportscurmudgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2012, 02:01 PM   #30
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15,754
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

Any word on whether they are moving the trade deadline? I always thought week 6 was wayyyy too early.
__________________
R.I.P. #21

New words created on The Warpath:
Rewalsr - Somretimes - Fualt - Jersesy - Itiot - Composetory
Afeard - Storgn - Empliment - Gaissn - Saftys - Minnisota
Faviort - Hatter - Phsyched - Foof - Heloing - Brutual
Stroried

"Give an opinion and move on. Your life doesn't depend on winning the internet." -FRPLG
Ruhskins 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 10:31 PM.


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 0.27697 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