|
Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-22-2012, 04:09 PM | #16 | |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: PA
Age: 45
Posts: 17,460
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
Quote:
Instead of a whole-season IR, I'd like to see a 4-game, an 8-game and an all-year IR choice. Even just half and whole season would work.
__________________
Not sent from a Droid, iPhone, Blackberry or toaster |
|
Advertisements |
03-22-2012, 04:39 PM | #17 |
Pro Bowl
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,230
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
i like it, pick 1 date during mid-season, if you place a player on ir before then, he's eligible on that date, if you place him on ir after that date, he's done for the season. limit the number of spots to 2 or something, the rest have to go on standard, season-long ir
__________________
9 21 28 33 42 43 44 49 65 81 |
03-28-2012, 12:58 PM | #18 |
\m/
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NY
Age: 52
Posts: 99,518
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
|
03-28-2012, 01:13 PM | #19 |
\m/
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NY
Age: 52
Posts: 99,518
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
|
03-28-2012, 01:33 PM | #20 |
Pro Bowl
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,230
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
i don't like either of those 2 changes. i liked the real sudden death ot. i also don't think officials should compensate for an unaware player. i understand a receiver tracking the ball, but i don't see many other examples of players who should be excused as defenseless
__________________
9 21 28 33 42 43 44 49 65 81 |
03-28-2012, 01:38 PM | #21 |
Pro Bowl
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,766
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
I like the change in OT! As far as the crack back blocks on the defensive backs, might as well be consistent. Protect everybody from head shots. I think it's time the players all go back to learning how to tackle, textbook style, instead of relying on the highlight reel big hit.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!" |
03-28-2012, 01:45 PM | #22 |
\m/
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NY
Age: 52
Posts: 99,518
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
I'd like to see them take away being able to blow up the QB after an INT.
|
03-28-2012, 01:49 PM | #23 |
Pro Bowl
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,230
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
if it's viewed as unnecessary, the official can call it w the current rules
__________________
9 21 28 33 42 43 44 49 65 81 |
03-28-2012, 02:02 PM | #24 |
Impact Rookie
Join Date: Apr 2008
Age: 36
Posts: 683
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
ok i like the OT change but whats up with the crack back block? how can you penalize someone for blocking someone that didnt see them? thats crazy, what if the guy sucks and doesnt have good awareness? this is just like the denfenseless receiver rule, is the defense just suppose to let a player catch it in front of him. He is defenseless because he is trying to catch the ball and score, i guess they jsut want the defender to let him do that and then catch him in their chest! i understand the speering at the head, thats understandable but head to head contact happens every play. come on man this is football
__________________
never another.....R.I.P. Sean T #21 |
03-28-2012, 03:25 PM | #25 |
Pro Bowl
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,766
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
I agree. By that point, the QB becomes a defender and is open to getting blown up as much as the other defenders on the field. As long as they're not cutting him low or hitting in the head, then I see no problem with that.
__________________
"Fire Up That Diesel!" |
03-28-2012, 03:31 PM | #26 |
Living Legend
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 36
Posts: 15,994
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
I don't like the OT rule, but I like this adaptation of it. If you will have it at all, don't wait until the playoffs to use it.
Everything else seems like a step in the right direction.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation. |
03-28-2012, 11:25 PM | #27 | |
The Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: ZOMGZZZ!!111
Age: 32
Posts: 1,160
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
Quote:
?
__________________
143 lbs of twisted steel and sex appeal. |
|
03-29-2012, 02:16 PM | #28 |
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
I would like that rule change a lot...
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports... |
03-29-2012, 02:22 PM | #29 | |
Playmaker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,159
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
Quote:
The NFL actually does had a MLB-like system but without the duration designations. If a contributing player is hurt but it looks as if he will be OK to play again in whatever is left of the season at the time of the injury, he does not go on IR but does not dress for future games. He is one of the 53-man roster who is in street clothes until he is well... A compromise rule that might demonstrate how all of this is beneficial to NFL teams would be to allow each team to designate ONE player a year for "Injured Reserve-Eligible For Reactivation". After that demonstrates that it is not Earth-shattering", they can increase the limit to TWO per year for each team. And then...
__________________
The Sports Curmudgeon www.sportscurmudgeon.com But don't get me wrong, I love sports... |
|
03-29-2012, 03:01 PM | #30 |
Living Legend
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 22,341
|
Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
Any word on whether they are moving the trade deadline? I always thought week 6 was wayyyy too early.
__________________
R.I.P. #21 |
|
|