Started By
Message
Leaping Penalty
Posted on 10/7/12 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 10/7/12 at 2:19 pm
This is one of most rediculous rules I've seen. Leaping? Realy? Can someone explain the theory behind this rule? What it is place to prevent? Whats the difference between leaping over blockers to block a punt and leaping over the line for TD? This shits what drives me crazy. It worse than the helmet rule.
2
Posted on 10/7/12 at 3:08 pm to jafo
This is what happens when there are permanent committees that are constantly trying to tweak the rules to justify their jobs. They come up with dumb rules like this one, and the helmet rule.
The new kick off rule has pretty much ruined the return game too... imo.
You're allowed to jump, just not leap over someone. From what I saw, I think he jumped up and was kinda of undercut and flipped over the guy..
The new kick off rule has pretty much ruined the return game too... imo.
You're allowed to jump, just not leap over someone. From what I saw, I think he jumped up and was kinda of undercut and flipped over the guy..
Posted on 10/7/12 at 3:25 pm to mograyback
quote:
I think he jumped up and was kinda of undercut and flipped over the guy.
Which is what the rule is supposed to prevent. Extremely dangerous play. We call it hurdling in the high school/youth football world. It's actually a top 10 violation for officials to look for safety wise.
You just don't see it a lot, because it's tough to do.
Posted on 10/7/12 at 3:50 pm to Mizzeaux
quote:
Extremely dangerous play
Note that is every play in football, no one forces someone on the field and yes I am a former player that thinks these modern rules pretty much suck arse
Posted on 10/7/12 at 3:54 pm to Tackle74
Hurdling's been around forever. It's not a modern rule by any means.
Posted on 10/7/12 at 4:01 pm to Mizzeaux
Consulting the book, the penalty was a "leaping" penalty because he either landed on another player or jumped over anyone trying to block a punt behind the NZ and inside the box.
I'd only seen the play once yesterday live (and drinking), and I assumed he was jumping over a defender and continuing. In NFHS rules, that play (as I understand it) would not be a penalty.
You learn something new every day.
I'd only seen the play once yesterday live (and drinking), and I assumed he was jumping over a defender and continuing. In NFHS rules, that play (as I understand it) would not be a penalty.
You learn something new every day.
Posted on 10/7/12 at 4:13 pm to jafo
why do rules like this exist. seriously?
Posted on 10/7/12 at 5:08 pm to Mizzeaux
I'd agree it's dangerous, but like I said, how many times have you seen leaping at the goal line by RB's? I've seen it plenty. To me, ones just like the other. Your still jumping over someone and there is always the possibility of being hit in the air and flipping, which I've seen in the same situation.....which begs the question of why is one more dangerous and deserves a penalty over the other?
This post was edited on 10/7/12 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 10/7/12 at 5:12 pm to Tackle74
quote:
Note that is every play in football, no one forces someone on the field and yes I am a former player that thinks these modern rules pretty much suck arse
I tend to have to agree.
In this case, the defense had the offense stopped. This joke of a rule gave the offense a second wind and yards undeserved. This was most certainly a turning point in the game, on the backs of the refs.
Posted on 10/7/12 at 5:17 pm to mograyback
quote:
You're allowed to jump, just not leap over someone. From what I saw, I think he jumped up and was kinda of undercut and flipped over the guy..
again, thinking back to the play you have a point. It did appear he was undercut, but then were back to a judgement call...possibly. Either way it's an ignorant rule.
Posted on 10/7/12 at 5:18 pm to zou_keeper
quote:
why do rules like this exist. seriously?
Mogray probably had that answered in his post.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News