another Silly rule

G

GTBlazer

Guest
okay so while we are on the topic of rule clarification or rules that need to change here is one I really don't get.

Okay so take the "Un-catchable ball ruling". Waive off PI because a ball was thrown out of the reach of a receiver. SO basically it wouldn't have mattered anyways. Right? No penalty, I can grasp that.

If that rule exists then why do they throw flags for block in the backs on kickoffs or punt returns when the defender really had no chance at all?...

Just doesn't really make sense to me that you would allow one penalty to happen because it didn't really matter but you'd allow the other one to stand, when it really didn't matter...


oh well
 
Pretty stupid.

I also hate every penalty that deserves a flag "when the refs feel like it" like holding.

Offensive lineman with his hands full of a DL's jersey? No big deal.

WR with his hands full of a CB's jersey? Unacceptable.

Its either a penalty or its not. People say "well if they called every hold the game would take all day" but if you called every hold PEOPLE WOULD STOP HOLDING!!! It would become such a problem that holding would get you benched until eventually people learned. I am completely in favor of thick fingerless mitts for offensive lineman that they can't grab with.
 
GTBlazer said:
okay so while we are on the topic of rule clarification or rules that need to change here is one I really don't get.

Okay so take the "Un-catchable ball ruling". Waive off PI because a ball was thrown out of the reach of a receiver. SO basically it wouldn't have mattered anyways. Right? No penalty, I can grasp that.

If that rule exists then why do they throw flags for block in the backs on kickoffs or punt returns when the defender really had no chance at all?...

Just doesn't really make sense to me that you would allow one penalty to happen because it didn't really matter but you'd allow the other one to stand, when it really didn't matter...


oh well
Click to expand...

I'm under the impression that Block in the Back is a rule designed to protect the players.

This is, from your example, opposed to PI and uncatchable where it is designed to regulate how passes are to be fielded.
 
GTBlazer said:
okay so while we are on the topic of rule clarification or rules that need to change here is one I really don't get.

Okay so take the "Un-catchable ball ruling". Waive off PI because a ball was thrown out of the reach of a receiver. SO basically it wouldn't have mattered anyways. Right? No penalty, I can grasp that.

If that rule exists then why do they throw flags for block in the backs on kickoffs or punt returns when the defender really had no chance at all?...
Click to expand...

Because the defender can still chase the ball carrier down. The ball carrier might stop. Trip over his shoe laces. Fumble the football. Whatever.
 
beej67 said:
Because the defender can still chase the ball carrier down. The ball carrier might stop. Trip over his shoe laces. Fumble the football. Whatever.
Click to expand...

after the play--the ref should be able to pick up his flag and say--you know what--the guy danced into the endzone untouched and there is no way that anyone would have caught him that was involved in the penalty

the same way they pick up the PI flag and say it was not catchable
 
Hobojacket said:
I'm under the impression that Block in the Back is a rule designed to protect the players.

This is, from your example, opposed to PI and uncatchable where it is designed to regulate how passes are to be fielded.
Click to expand...

most PI's are basically blocks in the backs.
 
Can they still call PI on an uncatchable ball when the interference is egregious? Or if a ball is uncatchable is it just time to have a field day on the receiver?
 
I dont know?? I know they can call it if it happens before the throw-because that's holding...
 
GTBlazer said:
most PI's are basically blocks in the backs.
Click to expand...

Except WR and DB both are aware in this situation. Block in the Back is a block that the defender has no way of being prepared for (other than the fact that he is, of course, on the football field). Now, of course, there are instances where the BiB is obviously not risking life or limb...thats why I say I think it was designed for one purpose and has found itself serving another, competitive, purpose as well.
 
ITJacket said:
Can they still call PI on an uncatchable ball when the interference is egregious? Or if a ball is uncatchable is it just time to have a field day on the receiver?
Click to expand...

If it happened early enough: Defensive Holding. (situations where the DB intentionally grabs and slows down the receiver, the ball may not be catchable but it could be because he grabbed him and slowed him.)

If it was a ridiculous and dangerous takedown: PF Unnecessary Roughness

If it prevented the Receiver from a fair chance at the ball: PI
 
If we had PI for uncatchable balls, then couldn't PI be called on a CB across the field from where the ball is going?

The "catchability" of the ball hasn't usually been an issue with PI calls, at least not nearly as much as whether PI happened or not.
 
no, he was asking why block in the back matters if it doesn't change the outcome of the game.

The reason is that it was implemented for safety, not fairness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top