Started By
Message
re: If you could change/create a rule for CFB.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 8:15 am to bamawriter
Posted on 5/29/17 at 8:15 am to bamawriter
quote:
It's not dumb. Any play that ends on a dead ball in the endzone results in a change of possession. It's not a hard concept.
no one is arguing that this isn't the current rule. This thread is about what rules you would change, if you could.
And we're talking about a ball fumbled through the endzone, not a dead ball in the endzone.
Guess the concept was too hard for some.
This post was edited on 5/29/17 at 8:17 am
1
Posted on 5/29/17 at 8:41 am to ALA2262
quote:
Do away with the dead ball illegal procedure. Throw the flag, keep the ball live, and let the defense take the penalty or the result of the play. Too often the offense further fricks up and then benefits because the play has already been blown dead.
Yeah, I was coming here to post this. Obviously it'd be a "judgement call" situation not unlike offsides, but I've seen too many potential mishaps get erased just because an OL flinched at the LOS...
This post was edited on 5/29/17 at 8:42 am
Posted on 5/29/17 at 9:01 am to G2160
Stepping OOB in the endzone creates a dead ball in the endzone resulting in a change kf possession. Same goes for fumbling thru the endzone. It's fine if you think that fumbling thru the endzone should be treated differently than all other dead ball situations that occur in the endzone. But I was responding to someone who seemed confused as to why the rule is what it is.
This post was edited on 5/29/17 at 9:03 am
Posted on 5/29/17 at 9:17 am to bamawriter
quote:
Stepping OOB in the endzone creates a dead ball in the endzone resulting in a change kf possession
How can you have possession of the ball, cross the plane, (everything after this point is meaningless) then step oob in the endzone you're trying to score in?
quote:
It's fine if you think that fumbling thru the endzone should be treated differently than all other dead ball situations that occur in the endzone.
And it's fine that you think that fumbling the ball forward into, and out of bounds through, the endzone should be treated differently than fumbling the ball forward and out of bounds at any other place on the field.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 9:29 am to G2160
quote:
How can you have possession of the ball, cross the plane, (everything after this point is meaningless) then step oob in the endzone you're trying to score in?
If it happens in your own endzone, it's a safety.
quote:
And it's fine that you think that fumbling the ball forward into, and out of bounds through, the endzone should be treated differently than fumbling the ball forward and out of bounds at any other place on the field.
The endzone is treated differently than the rest of the field in literally every other situation.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 9:41 am to bamawriter
You are the first person to bring up "own" endzone.
I realize that the endzone is treated differently than the field of play.
Please explain why it should make logical sense that if you fumble the ball at the 5 (opponent's end of the field) and it goes out of bounds at the 1, you retain possession at the 5 because you can't advance the ball with a fumble.
If you fumble at the 5 and it goes out of bounds on the goal line, the ball can be considered to have been advanced and the defense gets the ball at the 20.
I get that these are the rules, but please explain why it makes logical sense.
I realize that the endzone is treated differently than the field of play.
Please explain why it should make logical sense that if you fumble the ball at the 5 (opponent's end of the field) and it goes out of bounds at the 1, you retain possession at the 5 because you can't advance the ball with a fumble.
If you fumble at the 5 and it goes out of bounds on the goal line, the ball can be considered to have been advanced and the defense gets the ball at the 20.
I get that these are the rules, but please explain why it makes logical sense.
This post was edited on 5/29/17 at 9:43 am
Posted on 5/29/17 at 9:52 am to G2160
quote:
If you fumble at the 5 and it goes out of bounds on the goal line, the ball can be considered to have been advanced and the defense gets the ball at the 20.
I get that these are the rules, but please explain why it makes logical sense.
Again, the logic is really uncomplicated:
Any play that ends with a deadball in the endzone (yours or theirs, doesn't matter) results in a change of possession.
You may not like that logic, or agree with it, but it is absolutely logical, nonetheless.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 9:57 am to bamawriter
quote:
Any play that ends with a deadball in the endzone (yours or theirs, doesn't matter) results in a change of possession.
Like an incomplete pass?
Posted on 5/29/17 at 9:58 am to AU24
quote:
For me i would like to see extra points ended no drama/exciement to them at all
Until you miss one and lose by a point.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 10:01 am to G2160
On an incomplete pass, the deadball spot is the previous line of scrimmage regardless of where the pass wound up.
Again, you can disagree with the logic. You cannot make it illogical.
Again, you can disagree with the logic. You cannot make it illogical.
This post was edited on 5/29/17 at 10:02 am
Posted on 5/29/17 at 10:03 am to AUsteriskPride
For me, it'd definitely be pass interference. A 15 yard penalty isn't enough to compensate for a deep ball that could have been caught. It should mimic the NFL with no maximum for spot of foul.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 10:11 am to bamawriter
And on a fumble that advanced before going out of bounds in the field of play, the dead ball spot is where it was fumbled.
We're just going in circles here. I get that the rule exists. What I don't get is why the rule exist.
Repeating [paraphrasing] "the ball was killed in the endzone, a change of possession must occur" does not answer why it makes logical sense. You're repeating that the rule exists and not why the rule exists.
A change of possession does not have to happen in this particular fumble case. They can make the rules say whatever they want.
We're just going in circles here. I get that the rule exists. What I don't get is why the rule exist.
Repeating [paraphrasing] "the ball was killed in the endzone, a change of possession must occur" does not answer why it makes logical sense. You're repeating that the rule exists and not why the rule exists.
A change of possession does not have to happen in this particular fumble case. They can make the rules say whatever they want.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 10:18 am to G2160
Why does a tackle in the endzone result in 2 points for the defense and a change of possession?
Why does a kickoff or punt downed in the endzone, or kicked thru the endzone, result in a change of possession with the receiving team taking possession at the 25 or 20?
The logic behind those rules is the same as the logic you're arguing against.
Why does a kickoff or punt downed in the endzone, or kicked thru the endzone, result in a change of possession with the receiving team taking possession at the 25 or 20?
The logic behind those rules is the same as the logic you're arguing against.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 10:34 am to bamawriter
quote:
The logic behind those rules is the same as the logic you're arguing against.
Just the same, a fumble advanced through the endzone goes against the rules regarding where the ball is spotted when a fumble is advanced out of bounds elsewhere.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the whole point of the thread was what rules would you change, if you could. We could easily change the fumble rule while keeping the downed punts, etc...intact.
I'm done arguing this one.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 10:42 am to G2160
Chip in the nose of the football to determine touchdowns and when the ball goes out of bounds that links to a computer to show real time movement .could also work with field goals if you put sensors on top of goalpost.
Posted on 5/29/17 at 10:46 am to G2160
I don't care whether or not you think the rule should be changed. You argued that there is no logic behind the current rule, and I explained the logic. Just because you disagree with a rule does not mean it's illogical. Your position is also perfectly logical, even though I disagree with it.
Have a good one.
Have a good one.
This post was edited on 5/29/17 at 10:47 am
Posted on 5/30/17 at 9:18 am to AU24
Limited substitution - go back to "one platoon" football.
and
Ban signalling in plays from the sideline - require QBs (and the defensive equivalent) to call the plays.
and
Ban signalling in plays from the sideline - require QBs (and the defensive equivalent) to call the plays.
Posted on 5/30/17 at 9:48 am to BammerDelendaEst
If you banned signaling from the sidelines would you allow earpieces like in the NFL?
A fumble into the endzone that then goes out of bounds shouldn't result in a turnover.
A fumble into the endzone that then goes out of bounds shouldn't result in a turnover.
Posted on 5/30/17 at 10:28 am to Bamafan4evr12
NM
This post was edited on 5/30/17 at 10:32 am
Posted on 5/30/17 at 10:36 am to bfniii
quote:
no more field goals. it's just not (american) football for a kicker to be able to score 3 points whether from 1 yard out or from 70. kickoffs and punts are cool. field goals are stupid.
some of y'all 
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News