Backpack3r Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 that's true. I'm not a fan of subjectivity, but there are places it is needed. i.e. late hits, roughing, and catch in bounds. Trust me, just a matter of time before someone goes up for a jump ball and gets carried 3-5 yards out of bounds And there is nothign wrong with that cause its within the rules, its the QBs fault for throwing so high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 We did beat Tampa. It was those pesky Seahawks. ****ing Rogers! I know we beat Tampa but the play I'm referring to would itself have not necessarily determined the outcome (would have been tied). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostx08 Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Football is not a constant sport...it can be predictable. A rule book...which is constant will NEVER be able to account for the unpredictability of the NFL. Trust me...there would be an opposite controversial situation where they'd have to change the rule yet again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Rule is fine as written, no harm came from it and I doubt that it will even be a topic at the next rules committee meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 The down by contact rule is just fine the way it is, what I get tired of is every week seeing another call for a rule change based on plays that would have helped us in the previous game, not thinking about the trillion different times that the same rules have benefited us in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 It sucks that Landry went down like that but meh, I'm okay with the rule. The last thing we need is more subjectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enzo Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 If you fall down it's your fault. The rule is fine. He didn't fall down, he was diving for an interception. I'd actually like to see that play again to see if he was touched before he had complete possesion of the ball. I don't really like the rule myself. It seems that the player should have to be trying to touch or tackle the player. But if they change it then we have another judgement call for the refs & the NFL doesn't need anything else to confuse the refs. They have enough trouble throwing flags for obvious penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 I think he should go back to the 1905 rule. You must be held on the ground for five seconds before you are down by contact. That would be awesome, beacuse people could die on any play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TE#80 Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 If the rule is so clear cut, Then why was Kareem Moore not called down after his interception against the Saints last year??? His thigh pad slid against the recievers back as he was going to the ground after making the interception. If this had been called correctly it would have prevented the strip for a touchdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 If the rule is so clear cut, Then why was Kareem Moore not called down after his interception against the Saints last year???His thigh pad slid against the recievers back as he was going to the ground after making the interception. If this had been called correctly it would have prevented the strip for a touchdown. Calling a rule correctly versus changing a rule to suit your whim are two different things. The rule as written is fine. Refs need a crash course in officiating from time to time and need to be suspended by the league when they severely screw up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Calling a rule correctly versus changing a rule to suit your whim are two different things. Exactly my point, every time there is something that doesn't go exactly the way that would advantage us we want to change the rules, at a certain point it's just silly, and if they changed the rules every time that something went against us then ball carriers would never be down, and we'd score on every drive. Change terrible rules; i.e. force out incompletions, but leave simple things like down by contact alone. BTW, Landry's foot hit the WR's thigh and calf, it was as clear a day, and there was no question about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fullnelson9999 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Some of you remind me of my dad. Whenever I say this or that is stupid and shouldn't be that way, he always responds "well, that's the rule." Well, no crap. The question is does that rule promote football as you imagine it ideally in your head. In my world, a "tackle" requires effort and, at the very least, intent. The receiver in this case was kicked in the butt while Landry rolled after making the interception. So, yes, technically, he's "down by contact" and was "tackled," I don't think he should have been. So I'd be fine with adding something in the rule about intentionally touching the down runner. And I don't think it would be too hard to judge. I guarantee you situations would come about where it would be difficult to judge intent. The rule is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Okay, I've given this some thought. Keep the rule the same, but start calling it "down with contact". .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Okay, I've given this some thought. Keep the rule the same, but start calling it "down with contact"..... Down with contact or down by contact, what's the difference? It seems like a lot of folks around here are nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. You were either touched or you weren't, there's not much else to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD.C RedskinsFan Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 You were either touched or you weren't, there's not much else to it. What about when no one touches you? but you touch someone else? (as what happened in this situation) Down with contact! If I go outside and ball my hand up into a fist and hold it arm length from my body and someone decides that they would like to walk into it, did I punch them? Did they punch themselves? Did they hit me with their face? Who knows? But I'd love to have a word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sir Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 I just wish they were consistent with it, that Robert Meachem TD against the Saints last year or two years ago or whenever it was should not have counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 What about when no one touches you? but you touch someone else? (as what happened in this situation) Down with contact! If I go outside and ball my hand up into a fist and hold it arm length from my body and someone decides that they would like to walk into it, did I punch them? Did they punch themselves? Who knows? But I'd love to have a word for it. Does it matter? I don't know, I'd say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Bay Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 I'm fine with this rule the way it is. The more judgment calls a ref and crew has to make the more inconsistent it becomes. It also gives a chance for them to think rather than react, and that again leads to a greater opportunity for a mistake. Make it black and white with no interpretation. That's the main reason I like the force out rule, or lack there of. It's all clear cut now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 KDawg, Were you good at playing the "I'm not touching you" game with your siblings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 KDawg,Were you good at playing the "I'm not touching you" game with your siblings? I don't have any siblings, so I was great at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 Down with contact or down by contact, what's the difference? It seems like a lot of folks around here are nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. You were either touched or you weren't, there's not much else to it. the word 'by' implies a causal relationship. But backing up for a moment, it was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDawg Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 the word 'by' implies a causal relationship. Not to be confused with "bi", which can mean different kinds of relationships Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.