Around the NFL Week 12

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Because if it could end on a defensive penalty nobody would ever score at the end of a game. There would be pass interference, face mask tackling, etc etc.
What the Ravens did was basically run out the clock, but when you have the lead and the ball that is your choice.
I guess the nfl thinks if you have the ball and need to score that you should be given a fair opportunity to do so, but if you need to get the ball back AND score that you are fucked anyway.
Plus remember that if you have the ball and it is the last play and you are losing - it obviously is not fair that if you commit a penalty that you should get another shot. It is a very fair rule in that way.

I totally get why the game can't end on a defensive penalty... what I disagree with is that it can end on an offensive penalty. I think it should always be the choice of the team "victim" of the penalty.

[punch it in]

RG-3 cleared for full contact. Look out. Lol

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

I hope kirk becomes lethal like drew.. That man is fun to watch

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Cannot be anymore lethal than he has been....

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

I totally get why the game can't end on a defensive penalty... what I disagree with is that it can end on an offensive penalty. I think it should always be the choice of the team "victim" of the penalty.

That is a really good, common sense idea. It fixes a potential abuse of the rules without impacting anything other than the specific loophole it is designed to remedy.

For those reasons, it'll never be enacted.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

Time for a rule change to close that loophole. Holding is a foul, which means it is considered to be unfair. For the game to be closed out via a mass violation of the holding rule doesn't seem to me to be what the League would want.

Pretty sure after all the media attention the NFL will discuss it this offseason. But like most rule changes they do, it will be overkill vs. a simple solution like what Frenchskin suggested.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

I totally get why the game can't end on a defensive penalty... what I disagree with is that it can end on an offensive penalty. I think it should always be the choice of the team "victim" of the penalty.

Why should a team be rewarded with an extra play at the end of the game when they commit a penalty?
The team is backed up all the way in their own end. They are going to try some lateral crap or just heave one long rite? So the quarterback snaps the ball and doesn't like what he sees. Or they are lateraling the ball down the field and it becomes quite apparent that the play is about to end. What to do? I know commit a blatant penalty and try again. So it has to end on an offensive penalty.



On a defensive penalty it can just never end.

If the offensive team is winning (unlike the example above) and commits a penalty. well tough shit. You are talking about one play where a miracle would have to happen anyway. They would have to differentiate the rules depending on whether the offensive team is winning or losing during the last play of the gameand all because a miracle finish just might happen? If you are in a situation where you need a miracle to win well than you probably deserve to lose anyway.

Im trying hard to see it from the other angle. I mean they would have to differentiate between whether the offense is winning or losing? If you are losing and commit a penalty it should definitely be over. If you are winning and commit a penalty than you replay the down?
Seems hokie.

[J. Falcon]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Cannot be anymore lethal than he has been....

Yes, he can. He needs to be lethal in the redzone.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by J. Falcon

Yes, he can. He needs to be lethal in the redzone.

bingo...garbage in the redzone has cost us multiple games....I put that on McVay too.

[FrenchSkin]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Why should a team be rewarded with an extra play at the end of the game when they commit a penalty?

I'm saying the exact opposite. Should be the choice of the team that DIDN'T commit the penalty: do you accept the penalty and replay the down or decline the penalty and the game is over? To me that works in every situation, doesn't it?

That's what I meant by "victim" of the penalty. Maybe there's a better word for it but english isn't my native language...

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

I'm saying the exact opposite. Should be the choice of the team that DIDN'T commit the penalty: do you accept the penalty and replay the down or decline the penalty and the game is over? To me that works in every situation, doesn't it?



That's what I meant by "victim" of the penalty. Maybe there's a better word for it but english isn't my native language...

Well if the defense commits the penalty the game should never be over. If the offense is winning they are taking a knee anyway. I think we all understand that.
So....that leaves us the offense committing a penalty. If they are losing when they commit the penalty I think the game has to end right?
Which leaves us the Baltimore example - a team has the ball and they are winning when they commit a penalty on the last play.....
I suppose that the league could tweak the rules so that the game cannot end on a penalty committed by a winning team who is on offense.
I still think it is silly because it will still take a miracle.
My question is what if , for example in the Baltimore game, when the defense realized what was going on one of their players just blatantly grabs a facemask to get a call on the defense? Than what?

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by punch it in

RG-3 cleared for full contact. Look out. Lol

he didn't work out here, but lots of failed first round picks recover somewhat during second acts elsewhere. Do you ever wonder what might happen with him if he would have landed on a team that was more talented than Cleveland?

I think the RG3 hate here is over, but i kind of wonder if he could have at least reached game-manager type status somewhere else, instead of being literally looked upon at one time as the savior by Hue Jackson...

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

he didn't work out here, but lots of failed first round picks recover somewhat during second acts elsewhere. Do you ever wonder what might happen with him if he would have landed on a team that was more talented than Cleveland?

I think the RG3 hate here is over, but i kind of wonder if he could have at least reached game-manager type status somewhere else, instead of being literally looked upon at one time as the savior by Hue Jackson...

No, because he's not a pocket passer, he can't read defenses, he's lost his superior speed and elusiveness due to injuries, and he is now too injury prone to stay on the field long enough to improve the things that he could improve.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by FrenchSkin

I'm saying the exact opposite. Should be the choice of the team that DIDN'T commit the penalty: do you accept the penalty and replay the down or decline the penalty and the game is over? To me that works in every situation, doesn't it?

That's what I meant by "victim" of the penalty. Maybe there's a better word for it but english isn't my native language...

Apparently, it's not his either.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

Apparently, it's not his either.

Who?
Me? I am just having a Monday conversation with French. I do not really have a problem with the rules as they are now. Not sure what you mean about not speaking English but whatevs.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by J. Falcon

Yes, he can. He needs to be lethal in the redzone.

I put that totally on McVay. Cousins makes every throw he is asked too minus the stupid fades that have no chance.