Jump to content

A rule change that needs to be a thing


pf9

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Tk3 said:

okay fair, mea culpa

I'm just saying, it feels like it fits the definition of a lateral

that being said.. I'm super pumped about the result, so idk why I'm dying on this hill right now

Did he PASS the ball backwards?  A lateral is defined as a backwards pass.  A pass requires intent.  How do we know this?  The empty hand rule.  If a QBs arm is struck and he loses control of the football before his arm can move forward, that is a fumble.  If his arm is moving forward with control of the football it is an incomplete pass.  By your definition you are trying to use a QB could never fumble, only pass backwards or forwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ET80 said:

If I'm a RB who knows I'm about to fall short on 4th/1, I'm just going to roll the ball forward to a WR so we can keep a drive alive.

This is similar to what I'd do...

 

Man, featuring Grady Jackson and Samkon Gado in the same clip! I know you’re not a GB fan but you’ve brought a big smile to a guy who loves all the obscure underdogs on his team and this was a walk down underdog lane. Have a football. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:
22 minutes ago, Tk3 said:

I mean.. do we have humans judging INTENT anywhere else?

I guess if you ask me what the DEFINITION of a lateral is, I have a hard time disqualifying what happened from being a lateral

Yeah. Intentional grounding. 

wrong

on CLEAR intentional grounding, i mean without a doubt the qb was trying to ground it to avoid a sack, the refs wont call a foul if a wr/rb was "in the area"

not intent. objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Malfatron said:

wrong

on CLEAR intentional grounding, i mean without a doubt the qb was trying to ground it to avoid a sack, the refs wont call a foul if a wr/rb was "in the area"

not intent. objective.

None of this is important until we make it legal to throw passes 70 yards past the LOS. Stop wasting time even talking about it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Malfatron said:

wrong

on CLEAR intentional grounding, i mean without a doubt the qb was trying to ground it to avoid a sack, the refs wont call a foul if a wr/rb was "in the area"

not intent. objective.

That in itself is judging intent tho, too.  But that rule is stupidly overcomplicated now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Norm said:

None of this is important until we make it legal to throw passes 70 yards past the LOS. Stop wasting time even talking about it.

The important question is...what happens if you throw an imcomplete pass 50 yards beyond LOS?

does it go back to the original LOS, or dead ball right there? And what about the clock?

I could see a WR catching a pass over the middle with little time left and chucking it oob to stop the clock.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Malfatron said:

The important question is...what happens if you throw an imcomplete pass 50 yards beyond LOS?

does it go back to the original LOS, or dead ball right there? And what about the clock?

I could see a WR catching a pass over the middle with little time left and chucking it oob to stop the clock.

 

Which is why we need to drop the other bull**** and focus on important questions like these. 

We need to get the ball rolling on this as ASAP

Edited by Norm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...