Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Change/Add/Delete 1 NFL Rule


ColtRider

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, ColtRider said:

 

Change the OT rule to allow at least one offensive possession for each team, thus ending the rule of winning the game on a TD by the first opening drive. 

I really can't go with that one because a teams defense needs to be part of a win. Losing a game because of a long field goal is not the same as giving up a TD IMO. Just a different point of view I guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, crazycolt1 said:

I really can't go with that one because a teams defense needs to be part of a win. Losing a game because of a long field goal is not the same as giving up a TD IMO. Just a different point of view I guess?

 

Sure, I understand. However, if both sides get a chance at possession, it does include both teams utilizing their offense & defense just as in regulation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ruksak said:

Defenders are not allowed to target a receiver at or below the knees while in the process of establishing possession (making a football move). 

 

do1zdg.gif

 

16e4528f53807be23ae70f96e91435e8_large

 

Randall-Cobb-hit.gif

I get your point but it would change football all together. Defenders already cant hit high and now you want them not to be able to hit low? Might as well just do away with defenders all together. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, ColtRider said:

 

Sure, I understand. However, if both sides get a chance at possession, it does include both teams utilizing their offense & defense just as in regulation. 

But your team's defense gets a pass on the first possession of overtime if they give up a TD?  Also something to keep in mind is players are pretty tired at the end of regulation and that brings on more injuries with the added extra time? On a personal level it wouldn't bother me to go back to the days of ties. It makes for a more interesting match ups as far as playoffs IMO. Good debate I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ColtRider said:

 

Change the OT rule to allow at least one offensive possession for each team, thus ending the rule of winning the game on a TD by the first opening drive or KO.

 

This isn't a viable solution.  There will always be one team that unfairly doesn't get a defensive pass.

 

The only logical way to settle ties requires so much game time that it isn't realistically plausible.  Too much risk for injury just to settle a game that can easily just be tied.  The only time overtime should be enforced is upon elimination.  Regulation games shouldn't have an overtime even if it does appease the fans.  This is double if the league keeps adding games (as apparently they want to).  You can't keep giving and giving and not expect the value of the game to degrade eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearer rules regarding intentional grounding when a QB is throwing a ball away to avoid a sack. Far too many times, in the Patriots-Denver preseason game, Brady threw the ball when no receiver was in the area while he was in the box, and no one called it. What the hell? I posted about this on this forum and the chatroom, and many others were equally confused.

 

I wish I could find examples, but because they went in the books as incomplete passes, I can't find highlights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ReMeDy said:

Clearer rules regarding intentional grounding when a QB is throwing a ball away to avoid a sack. Far too many times, in the Patriots-Denver preseason game, Brady threw the ball when no receiver was in the area while he was in the box, and no one called it. What the hell? I posted about this on this forum and the chatroom, and many others were equally confused.

 

I wish I could find examples, but because they went in the books as incomplete passes, I can't find highlights.

Keep in mind any rules that you think favor Brady also favors Luck. If the NFL all of a sudden change the way they call it, it will effect Luck just the same. At least it was a pre-season game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

Clearer rules regarding intentional grounding when a QB is throwing a ball away to avoid a sack. Far too many times, in the Patriots-Denver preseason game, Brady threw the ball when no receiver was in the area while he was in the box, and no one called it. What the hell? I posted about this on this forum and the chatroom, and many others were equally confused.

 

I wish I could find examples, but because they went in the books as incomplete passes, I can't find highlights.

 

This was proposed but turned down by the owners this year. A change to Rule 8 Section 2 Article 1 of the NFL rule book would've provided a more clearer & sharper definition as to what "intentional grounding" would encompass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ColtRider said:

 

This was proposed but turned down by the owners this year. A change to Rule 8 Section 2 Article 1 of the NFL rule book would've provided a more clearer & sharper definition as to what "intentional grounding" would encompass.

 

Not sure why they would have turned that down, unless they feel the NFL has too many rules, or they want to protect Tom Brady? In this case, if I were Brady, I would just throw the ball into the dirt when I'm about to get sacked and see what happens. They probably won't call it if the Patriots are at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

 

Not sure why they would have turned that down, unless they feel the NFL has too many rules, or they want to protect Tom Brady? In this case, if I were Brady, I would just throw the ball into the dirt when I'm about to get sacked and see what happens. They probably won't call it if the Patriots are at home.

That don't fit into what the Patriot fans are saying. According to them the NFL, Goodell, the Pope, Putin, John Wayne, Paul McCartney and the whole world has something against the Patriots.   :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2016 at 3:23 AM, ColtRider said:

 

Change the OT rule to allow at least one offensive possession for each team, thus ending the rule of winning the game on a TD by the first opening drive or KO.

The CFL plays a full quarter if OT occurs. I have always like that rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the change in the OT rules, but I have another one.

 

You get 2 reviews as now but you don't lose a review if the call is overturned in your favor.  So specifically the call on the field must stand in order for you to lose a review.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 9, 2016 at 8:28 PM, crazycolt1 said:

No more John Gruden?

Are we talking no longer on TV/MNF or just disappear without a trace? 

 

I'd rather have chucky on TV than say Michael Irvin or Prime Time Deion Sanders. 

 

Of well, whatever floats your boat my man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-examine & modify the "roughing the passer" penalty. Any QB take down or sack is allowed as long as no field general is driven firmly into the ground like a pile driver. In addition, if the ball is either thrown away or connects with a TE or WR, no LB, DE, or safety is allowed to hit the QB once the ball is clearly gone. 

 

I also want to eliminate incidental contact face mask penalties too. It drives me nuts when a finger grazes a face mask bar & a flag is thrown regardless. To me, the QB's helmet has to be visually pulled or spun on camera before  yellow laundry is thrown on the field. 

 

I get that the league wants to reduce concussions & head trauma but I'm old school man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

Are we talking no longer on TV/MNF or just disappear without a trace? 

 

I'd rather have chucky on TV than say Michael Irvin or Prime Time Deion Sanders. 

 

Of well, whatever floats your boat my man. 

I am not knocking anyone who likes him I just don't see the fondness for him. I watch him and he lights up like the forth of July when a camera gets within 50 feet of him. I also don't care for Irvin or Sanders either. The only thing I seen that I cared for was a fishing show that used to have Sanders on it. It was only on a short time but I thought it was OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

I am not knocking anyone who likes him I just don't see the fondness for him. I watch him and he lights up like the forth of July when a camera gets within 50 feet of him. I also don't care for Irvin or Sanders either. The only thing I seen that I cared for was a fishing show that used to have Sanders on it. It was only on a short time but I thought it was OK.

It's cool CC1. I knew what you meant. I was just goofing around buddy. Yeah, when Gruden scrunches up his face & gets excited, he's like a cartoon character brought to life. Comedian Frank Calendo does a perfect impression of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Consensus?  Huh?   I have no idea what that means?   I offered MY opinion.  That’s all.      But I can’t keep up with you.  You just wrote a very long post about how 32 teams have very similar looking Big Boards.   If I had $1 for every time in 13 years I’ve posted that there are 32 teams and 32 completely different looking big boards, I’d be filthy RICH!!     In any given year 32 teams may all agree on the top player, but that the further you get away from the first pick the big boards look very very different.   The exact opposite of what you speculated.  I didn’t agree with one sentence of what you posted here.  You’re entitled to whatever opinion you want but it’s not supported by anything.      I’ve pretty much disagreed with everything you’ve written since the draft started.  But that works to your advantage.  I couldn’t possibly point out all the flaws, so I’ll try to be selective.      Here’s one argument you’ve repeated the last two years.   That Ballard lucked into getting both Woods and Raimann and that he wasn’t even smart enough to realize that Raimann was the better player.  What gets me is that I’ve explained the reasoning to you multiple times and I’ve read other posters explain it to you multiple times.   And we all say the same thing:  That Ballard calculated correctly that because Raimann was 24 and would turn 25 during the season, he stood a better chance of lasting to pick 77 while Woods was taken at 73.   But you keep posting the negative Ballard viewpoint as if NO ONE has explained it to you.  I think it’s both insulting and rude.   It’s what you do when you can’t handle an argument, you just avoid it.  Ballard was smart and right and not only do you not acknowledge it, you try to belittle him every time.    There is sooo much more I could discuss with you but this post is enough.  I’ll be curious if you’ll even respond. 
    • Great episode!  Gotta couple notes here I took:   - confirms we were indeed looking to trade up.  My gut tells me it was definitely for one of the big 3 WRs or bowers based off Ballard remark “Let’s try and if it doesn’t happen, we’ll let the draft play itself out.” (Paraphrased).     - they were interested in Latu but didn’t think he’d be there.  I don’t think anyone thought he’d be there at 15 lol.  Don’t know where Latu was at on our board but he was obviously toward the top.  Also can tell he was toward the top based on Ballard reaction “we got the best pass rusher in the entire draft”   - I’m guessing WR was definitely on the top of our board.  Ballard mentioned wanting speed at the position.  AD falling into his lap couldn’t have played out any better.  Also, good to see Reggie happy about his new toys in AD and Gould.     - No side remarks or mentions of any corners.  I’m going to stick with what I said before the draft and that corner was never on our radar.  What also makes me believe that more than ever is that we had the option to choose between the top 2 corners and even in later rounds other corners and we chose not to.  I’ve said it before, Ballard is straightforward.  If he says “I like what we have” he’s not drafting it unless there’s a player that you can’t miss on.  If he says “this draft is deep in ___” you can bet that’s what he has his eyes on and will most likely double dip.  He said he likes our corners, didn’t draft one.  He said this draft was deep in receivers and OL, we drafted 2 of each.
    • That is a very good point, and if I am not mistaken, Turner profiled more as a 3/4 OLB by many scouts.
    • I’d say yes.  Would have to see what would be fair what he provides, but id say yes.  
  • Members

    • NFLfan

      NFLfan 17,441

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • w87r

      w87r 14,196

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Fluke_33

      Fluke_33 5,081

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 21,262

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Goatface Killah

      Goatface Killah 2,030

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Mike06181

      Mike06181 324

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • MFT5

      MFT5 326

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • TheNewGuy

      TheNewGuy 8

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Aaron86

      Aaron86 440

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • AwesomeAustin

      AwesomeAustin 2,410

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...