|
Chilichimp posted:I mean... the words arguably and possibly... these are concrete terms. He needs a better nickname. JJ Swatt is nice and all but it's no Minister of Defense.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Grittybeard posted:He needs a better nickname. JJ Swatt is nice and all but it's no Minister of Defense. JJ SWAT Boom, terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Yeah but even saying possibly is really, really premature
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
Rooney McNibnug posted:I'll be a Bears fan until the end, but Oakland always holds a special place in my heart. A little sibling rivalry. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Blackula69 posted:Yeah but even saying possibly is really, really premature No, see the correct response is that like... some loving 7th round draft pick from 2013 is possibly the GOAT. It could happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
JJ watt has the physical abilities of the Incredible Hulk and they translate well to football.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
JJ Watt is incredible. Even weighing in at 250+ can still jump like 4 feet in the air with those incredible leg muscles. Basically make your kid athlete have mandatory leg days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
cujojp posted:A little sibling rivalry. who is this and did it happen at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
alanthecat posted:who is this and did it happen at the same time? If you look at the score you can see that different teams are playing. The Raiders fan plays Santana in Glee or something. I guess she has a sibling on the Raiders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:If you look at the score you can see that different teams are playing. The Raiders fan plays Santana in Glee or something. I guess she has a sibling on the Raiders. Don't equivocate, it's okay to tell us all you like to watch Glee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Don't equivocate, it's okay to tell us all you like to watch Glee. Given the way people in TFF slobber all over that .gif I'd say 90% of the people in here watch it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Or it could be because she's hot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Oh Tom
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Also interesting, that Randall Cobb gave Rob Bironas a penalty here for kicking the ball out of bounds. Never knew that worked
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:Also interesting, that Randall Cobb gave Rob Bironas a penalty here for kicking the ball out of bounds. Never knew that worked Leon Washington did that a long time ago for the Jets back when their special teams were actually good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Blitz7x posted:Also interesting, that Randall Cobb gave Rob Bironas a penalty here for kicking the ball out of bounds. Never knew that worked What? Is that really what happened here? That rule is loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
I thought they changed it last year because it was a stupid rule, no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
I don't think they changed that rule actually. They should, since he's voluntarily gone out of bounds so it should probably be illegal touching and a five yard spot foul.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:What? Is that really what happened here? That rule is loving stupid. Yep. I guarantee it's coached in practice, and announcers will often bring it up when the ball is in the corner by the end zone like that. quote:I don't think they changed that rule actually. They should, since he's voluntarily gone out of bounds so it should probably be illegal touching and a five yard spot foul. But does the voluntary have anything to do with it? He's technically out of bounds, so is it actually an illegal touch since the ball is dead on OoB on a kick? He doesn't reestablish in bounds. You'd know better than I would.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
I think the point of the rule is, "don't even kick the ball close to going out of bounds," as the receiving team deserves a fair chance to return it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I think the point of the rule is, "don't even kick the ball close to going out of bounds," as the receiving team deserves a fair chance to return it. I guess it nets about the same yardage that catching it in the end-zone would.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:I guess it nets about the same yardage that catching it in the end-zone would. It takes the receiving team out to the 40 instead of the 20, so I think I am getting whooshed here?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
I love rules like that because you can see who has the most awareness
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Edit: Wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Arctic Baldwin posted:I love rules like that because you can see who has the most awareness I agree totally, I only wish my team would pull poo poo like that off.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
Bort Bortles posted:It takes the receiving team out to the 40 instead of the 20, so I think I am getting whooshed here? Maybe I'm retarded, but how does that work? Is it half the distance from the spot of the foul or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:09
|
|
|
It's just the penalty for a kickoff that goes out of bounds is all  I don't think it changed when they moved the spot you kick off from.e: were you thinking that was a punt or something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:It's just the penalty for a kickoff that goes out of bounds is all Alright, this rule is poo poo after all. Thanks for helping me through it. Kicking to a corner without going out of bounds should be a kicking skill that is rewarded, not punished by a lame rule that makes no sense. The ball should be spotted where the returner went out of bounds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Alright, this rule is poo poo after all. Thanks for helping me through it. Kicking to a corner without going out of bounds should be a kicking skill that is rewarded, not punished by a lame rule that makes no sense. The ball should be spotted where the returner went out of bounds. Yeah my first assumption was that was a perfect kick
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
Now I'm curious if it was always like that or if it changed at some point. The idea behind the rule is probably partially a a competitive thing and may by influenced by kickoffs being an unsnapped play. Team A scores and then immediately pins Team B inside their 10 yard line when there's nothing at all they can do about it sucks for them, and I'd imagine would really suck back in the early days of football. At least you get a chance to rush the punter. If the rule was around back when games were ending 7-6 a lot then it makes perfect sense. Well it still makes sense to me now, I'm pretty sure I'd hate it if kickoffs out of bounds were spot calls. edit: was trying to look up the history and can't find anything, but now that I think about it they did change things when they moved the kickoff back. I think the actual rule is 25 yards from the spot of the kick, so theoretically you'd probably get it at the 45 if the kicking team went offside first and then kicked out of bounds. Grittybeard fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:Now I'm curious if it was always like that or if it changed at some point. If it isn't an artifact of old times, it may be deliberate just for consistency. In any other situation, if the player touching the ball is out of bounds, the ball is considered out of bounds. This applies particularly to recovering a fumble. A kickoff is a live ball, and one bouncing around on the field after it's gone ten yards is technically identical to a fumble. So if a man recovering a fumble when out of bounds makes the ball out of bounds, it ought to apply the same way to a kickoff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Alright, this rule is poo poo after all. Thanks for helping me through it. Kicking to a corner without going out of bounds should be a kicking skill that is rewarded, not punished by a lame rule that makes no sense. The ball should be spotted where the returner went out of bounds. Doh I completely skipped over this part and didn't notice, I thought you were just railing about the entire rule instead of that part. Yeah as to that I'd imagine Deteriorata's right and it's just consistent with other rules so they call it that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Yeah, Deteriorata's reading is correct, though my personal belief is that a player that voluntarily goes out of bounds can't be the first player to touch the ball should also come into play, and make doing that a penalty, but whatever, it comes up like once a year at best and trying to coffin corner a kickoff is a poor idea. Also, I thought that rule was one of the AFL additions to the sport, but I can't find any documentation about it, so who knows. It may also have been one of the post WW2 additions like when they allowed the tee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Illegal Kick (kick-off going out of bounds), puts the ball at the returning team's 40 yard line, or where the ball went out (41, 42, etc). Whichever is better for the returning team.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Yeah, Deteriorata's reading is correct, though my personal belief is that a player that voluntarily goes out of bounds can't be the first player to touch the ball should also come into play, and make doing that a penalty, but whatever, it comes up like once a year at best and trying to coffin corner a kickoff is a poor idea. Doesn't the fact that he is technically out of bounds when he touches the ball matter, though? If a wide receiver is fully out of bounds before touching the ball and catches a pass it's not a foul for illegal touching, it's just out of bounds and a dead ball. e: whoops, you said voluntary so your point is not a rule judgement it's a morality judgement (for lack of a better term). I just don't think you can officiate this differently than any other player that is technically out of bounds. Badfinger fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jul 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
The implication here is that a ball can land perfectly in bounds on the kick-off, but be so close to one side of the field that the player recovery the ball can stand out of bounds and pick it up, triggering a 40 yard penalty on the kicking team. Like I said before, that ball was kicked perfectly, and the skill/luck involved in that bounce happening shouldn't punish the kicking team. It should absolutely punish the receiving team. There are boundaries on a football field for a reason, because everything inside those boundaries is considered a fair ball. The receiving team shouldn't in essence be allowed to shrink the size of the boundaries by the distance from foot to hand of return man... or is someone here really gonna say that roughly 5 feet off the sideline is an imminently more returnable placement than 2 feet off the sideline. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:The implication here is that a ball can land perfectly in bounds on the kick-off, but be so close to one side of the field that the player recovery the ball can stand out of bounds and pick it up, triggering a 40 yard penalty on the kicking team. The reason it is a rule is because the receiving team is supposed to have a fair chance to return the kick (because they can not oppose the kick like you can with a punt), and the rule is the way it is so that the kicking team kicks it to a spot that is feasibly returnable, which the NFL has deemed to be far enough in bounds that if the receiving player can have a foot out of bounds, it is a penalty. Now, I am not saying I agree with this rule or think it should be as it is, but I understand why it is there and I think it makes sense from a principals standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I understand that might very well be the intent, I just think it's stupid. The game is supposed to at least kind of make sense to the viewer, but almost any fan watching a game where his/her team gets screwed by a savvy return guy is gonna be scratching their head, throwing poo poo at the TV, or raising their hands in the air bitching about the rules. Mike Pereira is cool and everything, but if he's REQUIRED to come on screen to explain some archaic poo poo so the fans can digest what just happened... It's because the rule is a pile of garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
They arent going to change the rule and will use player safety as an excuse. Its actually a good excuse too but not the original reason for it. A guy waiting for a ball to go out that isnt will result in him getting hammered if he waits that long.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:58 |
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Don't get me wrong, I understand that might very well be the intent, I just think it's stupid. Devin Hester did this a few times while he was with the Bears, and all the announcers did was say "And with the kickoff being out of bounds, the Bears will get it at the 40". Mike Pereira never showed up, because it's not an obscure or difficult rule. Now, what was confusing and obscure rule last year was Eric Weems doing trying to recover a punt in the end zone during the Bears and Vikings game. The Vikings touched a punt within the five yard line but did not actually down the ball, so Weems knocked it out of the Endzone for a touchback when it looked like he was being an idiot and going to cause the Bears to lose a possession, but it was a smart veteran play because he knew the rule. Mike Pereira was unable to show up that day, but that was due to technical issues from Fox that Thom Brennemann kept apologizing for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 07:07
|
|
