NFL Playoffs - Divisional Round

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,738
Pet peeve and I see it all the time in pro and college…….

The fair catch at end of the half when you’re simply going to kneel. What is the upside? We know the downside especially with snow coming down in a guys face and at least a damp ball.

Edit: Nm, I thought Buffalo only had 2 TO. I still see it when it makes no sense.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,533
AZ
Why would a catch in the end zone be different than a catch in the field of play? Does this “millisecond” rule apply to interceptions by the defense in the end zone?
I guess one reason is that one of the reasons you don’t want to make catches too easy is you don’t want fumbles to be too easy. But an offensive player cannot fumble in the end zone, so you don’t have that concern.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
49,219
I also think there’s an element - obviously among some hardcore fans who know the rules - of not liking the rule and ascribing confusion to where there is really disagreement with the rule.
Makes sense. Again, I am assuming that the NFL likes any form of controversy that doesn't involve any current allegations of domestic violence.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
74,271
Pet peeve and I see it all the time in pro and college…….

The fair catch at end of the half when you’re simply going to kneel. What is the upside? We know the downside especially with snow coming down in a guys face and at least a damp ball.
They’re not kneeling Buffalo has 3 TO
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
44,943
Here
Pet peeve and I see it all the time in pro and college…….

The fair catch at end of the half when you’re simply going to kneel. What is the upside? We know the downside especially with snow coming down in a guys face and at least a damp ball.
Buffalo has 3 timeouts, you don’t want to be down inside the 3.
 

Pablo's TB Lover

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 10, 2017
6,073
Why would a catch in the end zone be different than a catch in the field of play? Does this “millisecond” rule apply to interceptions by the defense in the end zone?
I'm not saying it should apply now, just if I were to rewrite the rule book that would be my definition. Yes, it can apply both ways. But actually I would probably change the sideline rule as well to not need to possess after hitting the ground, to make things consistent. In the spirit of all the other rule changes or emphasis of rules benefit the offense, but this hasn't.
 

Dollar

Member
SoSH Member
May 5, 2006
11,254
I would like to see what would happen if the replay system only allowed full-speed replay reviews at multiple angles. I feel like the big issue is we're slowing down a super-fast game into a microscopic replay millisecond-by-millisecond. If it's inconclusive, it's inconclusive and we move on.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
74,271
That didn’t make sense to me

throw it and get 2 more downs
Or go oob
And don’t take chance to get hurt
 

CFB_Rules

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2016
1,637
I would like to see what would happen if the replay system only allowed full-speed replay reviews at multiple angles. I feel like the big issue is we're slowing down a super-fast game into a microscopic replay millisecond-by-millisecond. If it's inconclusive, it's inconclusive and we move on.
I would much rather do this. I think the catch rule is fine and it’s an easy line to draw (and you always need to draw a line). But replay screws everything up.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
36,195
Maui
I am developing a strong dislike for Cecily Strong and Paul Giamatti and sadly I love them.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,335
Hartford, CT
I would much rather do this. I think the catch rule is fine and it’s an easy line to draw (and you always need to draw a line). But replay screws everything up.
What do you think about eliminating the standard of review that favors the call on the field? It honestly doesn’t seem to solve any problems, and it forces fans and the actual reviewers to not only try to apply the rules to the play but also apply a rebuttable presumption to the call on the field. And the call on the field might be a seat of the pants determination anyways because the game moves so fast and the officials can’t possibly see everything well.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
27,290
Newton
I would like to see what would happen if the replay system only allowed full-speed replay reviews at multiple angles. I feel like the big issue is we're slowing down a super-fast game into a microscopic replay millisecond-by-millisecond. If it's inconclusive, it's inconclusive and we move on.
I would much rather do this. I think the catch rule is fine and it’s an easy line to draw (and you always need to draw a line). But replay screws everything up.
I agree with this. But I would also like there to be a time limit on how long his reviews can go. If you can’t get it fixed in 90 seconds, they call the field stands.

Again, these rule changes haven’t remotely helped to make this game more enjoyable.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,533
AZ
What do you think about eliminating the standard of review that favors the call on the field? It honestly doesn’t seem to solve any problems, and it forces fans and the actual reviewers to not only try to apply the rules to the play but also apply a rebuttable presumption to the call on the field. And the call on the field might be a seat of the pants determination anyways because the game moves so fast and the officials can’t possibly see everything well.
Especially because we now have principles, because of replay, where they make certain calls on the field on purpose. Like they call close plays fumbles to let it play out.

Before deferring to the ref on the field, it would actually be nice to know how certain the ref even is. I bet there are calls where the ref might honestly say, if asked, “I am not sure, I just called it a catch because I know TDs are automatically reviewed.”
 

Justthetippett

New Member
Aug 9, 2015
2,590
If you’re going to make these guys “survive the ground” on sideline and end line catches maybe think about clearing out the circus of bodies so close to the playing field (not to mention the carts, camera installations and other dangerous obstacles).
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
47,335
Hartford, CT
If you don’t have a returner back there no player would be in that position which is my point.
Preventing the very real risk of a downed ball inside your own 5 is important because that would make your playcalling more conservative and therefore more likely to end up in a punt that sets BUF up near midfield. A downed punt in really adverse field position is a higher risk than your trusted PR muffing the ball.

I also disagree with your original post’s premise that the Bengals were gonna kneel there. They didn’t and shouldn’t have, especially with BUF holding onto three TO.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
33,016
Gronk’s montage pays homage to at a minimum Rocky 4, Vision Quest, and Kickboxer. Anything else?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
43,533
AZ
As the guy who finds a reason to hate every commercial, I am gonna give that Vegas broccoli commercial a thumbs up.
 

Jnai

is not worried about sex with goats
SoSH Member
Sep 15, 2007
16,159
<null>
Is there any practical reason why guys play these conditions in short sleeves or is it just dumb macho bullshit?