Let's Fix Things That May or May Not Be Broken

[BBTV]

3 hours ago, McCall said:

 are literally the only person I have ever heard complain about this.

im going to disagree with this. Not that I have a problem with the rule, but I feel like every time it actually comes into play, there’s always people - whether the announcers, or (usually) fans of the team that it went against, who bring it up and question it.   I’d assume that if there was a referendum among NFL fans, changing it would win. 
 

that said, yeah - the end zone is different and I don’t have an issue with different rules, even though something like that that’s so game changing seems like a pretty harsh penalty. I don’t think it’s comparable to a safety, since you can’t snap the ball from within your own end zone so it needs to be a turnover, whereas a fumble can’t be advanced, so there’s an argument to be made for simply returning the ball to the spot of the fumble. 
 

 

[jmoe12]

3 hours ago, McCall said:

 You are literally the only person I have ever heard complain about this.

As a Bears fan, I complain about this rule, if only because it came into play on perhaps the worst challenge of all time.

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/john-fox-executed-a-challenge-that-was-so-terrible-it-gave-the-ball-to-the-other-team/

[DCarp1231]

Ineligible man downfield rule in football needs to be loosened up.

 

There was a game this weekend I was watching where the lineman blocked a defender and was standing five yards beyond the line of scrimmage for all of 2 seconds when it was called. Lineman should be able to move laterally five yards beyond the line of scrimmage without penalty.

[BBTV]

40 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Ineligible man downfield rule in football needs to be loosened up.

 

There was a game this weekend I was watching where the lineman blocked a defender and was standing five yards beyond the line of scrimmage for all of 2 seconds when it was called. Lineman should be able to move laterally five yards beyond the line of scrimmage without penalty.

 

"Laterally" means that they'd be on the LOS, not 5-yards beyond it.

 

Is the rule 5 yards?  I thought it was much tighter - like one or two.  It gets called against the Eagles all the time since they do options and have a QB that starts to run then stops and throws (but the linemen are already engaging the linebackers because they think he's running.)  I've also seen it called when a lineman is engaged with his guy, his guy falls, and the lineman's momentum takes him forward a yard or two (even though he doesn't touch anyone or impact the play.)  It's kinda dumb for there to be 

 

I think if they're not engaging anyone that's not moving towards them, it shouldn't be a big deal.  For example - if a lineman knocks his guy down and goes after a linebacker that's not blitzing and is either spying or covering a RB, then that would be a foul.  But if he goes down field a few yards and just stands there, then I don't see the big deal unless he ends up setting a pick by accident.  We're only talking about a couple of yards, not faking like they're running a pattern.

[DCarp1231]

6 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

"Laterally" means that they'd be on the LOS, not 5-yards beyond it.

 

Is the rule 5 yards?  I thought it was much tighter - like one or two.  It gets called against the Eagles all the time since they do options and have a QB that starts to run then stops and throws (but the linemen are already engaging the linebackers because they think he's running.)  I've also seen it called when a lineman is engaged with his guy, his guy falls, and the lineman's momentum takes him forward a yard or two (even though he doesn't touch anyone or impact the play.)  It's kinda dumb for there to be 

 

I think if they're not engaging anyone that's not moving towards them, it shouldn't be a big deal.  For example - if a lineman knocks his guy down and goes after a linebacker that's not blitzing and is either spying or covering a RB, then that would be a foul.  But if he goes down field a few yards and just stands there, then I don't see the big deal unless he ends up setting a pick by accident.  We're only talking about a couple of yards, not faking like they're running a pattern.

I meant it in the sense of the lineman have a 5 yard “box” they can move freely. Just nothing beyond it.

[ManillaToad]

4 hours ago, BBTV said:

im going to disagree with this. Not that I have a problem with the rule, but I feel like every time it actually comes into play, there’s always people - whether the announcers, or (usually) fans of the team that it went against, who bring it up and question it.   I’d assume that if there was a referendum among NFL fans, changing it would win. 
 

that said, yeah - the end zone is different and I don’t have an issue with different rules, even though something like that that’s so game changing seems like a pretty harsh penalty. I don’t think it’s comparable to a safety, since you can’t snap the ball from within your own end zone so it needs to be a turnover, whereas a fumble can’t be advanced, so there’s an argument to be made for simply returning the ball to the spot of the fumble. 
 

 

 

The only time you can't advance a recovered fumble is if it's 4th down, or inside the two-minute warning.

[Bmac]

In college football, are conference championship games:

 

good, because they require the best teams to prove they belong and really earn it? It does help narrow the pool a bit.

 

or

 

bad, because one extra game can ruin someone's season? Like, you can have have an undefeated regular season and be in line for a top 4 spot, but lose in the conference championship and drop a few spots. Whereas a one-loss team who didn't make the conference championship because of conference divisions isn't required to play that extra game, and can move into a top spot.

 

Right now, for example, USC is going to drop out of the top 4 and Ohio State, who isn't in the B1G championship game because of the divisional setup, will move up.

[GrayJ12]

7 minutes ago, Bmac said:

In college football, are conference championship games:

 

good, because they require the best teams to prove they belong and really earn it? It does help narrow the pool a bit.

 

or

 

bad, because one extra game can ruin someone's season? Like, you can have have an undefeated regular season and be in line for a top 4 spot, but lose in the conference championship and drop a few spots. Whereas a one-loss team who didn't make the conference championship because of conference divisions isn't required to play that extra game, and can move into a top spot.

 

Right now, for example, USC is going to drop out of the top 4 and Ohio State, who isn't in the B1G championship game because of the divisional setup, will move up.

It's a Catch-22, really. If you beat another great team, you can solidify your claim to be in the CFP - and if not, it backfires on you. It's a tough question that does not have a simple "yes-no" question...however, I am still mad that the B1G didn't let IU play in the championship game a few years ago. Would a playoff system work for the major conferences? I don't know, but it is a discussion that may need to be had.

[MilSox]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:34 PM, Bmac said:

In college football, are conference championship games:

 

good, because they require the best teams to prove they belong and really earn it? It does help narrow the pool a bit.

 

or

 

bad, because one extra game can ruin someone's season? Like, you can have have an undefeated regular season and be in line for a top 4 spot, but lose in the conference championship and drop a few spots. Whereas a one-loss team who didn't make the conference championship because of conference divisions isn't required to play that extra game, and can move into a top spot.

 

Right now, for example, USC is going to drop out of the top 4 and Ohio State, who isn't in the B1G championship game because of the divisional setup, will move up.

 

They're just a cash grab and trivialize all it has ever meant to have a good season.

 

I was never a huge college football fan. But I remember what a big deal it was in 1993 when the Badgers finally made it to the Rose Bowl. Now that there's a playoff, it should mean the same thing. But if an inferior team just happens to have your number during championship week, it undoes everything you've accomplished during the season. Not a fan.

[Sport]

I get why soccer offsides is the way it is, but I'd love to watch a game where it's not a rule just out of curiosity to see what that game would look like. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

13 minutes ago, Sport said:

I get why soccer offsides is the way it is, but I'd love to watch a game where it's not a rule just out of curiosity to see what that game would look like. 

 

You'd just station a striker at the box so they could cherry pick goals, right? It's the same logic for hockey offsides?

 

It's interesting though, because basketball doesn't have an offsides rule and it's got basically the same amount of guys as hockey, though a much smaller playing surface.

 

Does lacrosse have an offsides rule?

[McCall]

5 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

You'd just station a striker at the box so they could cherry pick goals, right? It's the same logic for hockey offsides?

Hockey has a clearly defined line of offsides on the ice. Soccer's is ever moving (and more confusing).

[OnWis97]

An oldy but a goody:

https://www.theonion.com/every-bar-patron-watching-world-cup-has-different-inco-1826831918

As a soccer novice, I find the offside rule confusing and it feels like a defender can just stop moving in order to force an offside. It's strange that the line can just move (or stop moving) at various times.

 

The way it's done in hockey is much clearer.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

2 minutes ago, McCall said:

Soccer's is ever moving (and more confusing).

 

Offense can't be ahead of the defense before the ball gets there. I think the logic is the same as hockey.

 

I've been watching soccer since the Sounders' rise to MLS, and I think it took me a couple seasons to really understand the rules (corners were confusing to me for a while), so I get it.

 

But at the same time, we've all internalized the NFL rulebook, which is the most opaque out of all of them. Soccer has always felts so much more elegant to me in its simplicity.

[Sport]

Just now, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

You'd just station a striker at the box so they could cherry pick goals, right? It's the same logic for hockey offsides?

 

It's interesting though, because basketball doesn't have an offsides rule and it's got basically the same amount of guys as hockey, though a much smaller playing surface.

 

Does lacrosse have an offsides rule?

 

I'm trying to imagine what it would look like. You would also hang a defender back to counter the cherry picking in open play so I think it mostly cancels each other out, but I feel like it would open the field more and you'd get more goals off set pieces because you could run like a post play, similar to American football. I just want to see 4 or 5 games without offsides and if it sucks then I'll shut up forever. 

 

I actually think hockey offsides should be a hybrid thing because at the NHL level they're getting too big and too fast for the size of the ice, which they can't easily change. You can't do away with offsides entirely because clearing the zone is a key part of playing defense. My idea is first guy into the zone can cross the blue line without the puck, but once the whole team is in the zone then you still have to hold the line because that's a critical and exciting part of the game.

 

[MJWalker45]

46 minutes ago, Sport said:

I get why soccer offsides is the way it is, but I'd love to watch a game where it's not a rule just out of curiosity to see what that game would look like. 

 

19 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

I'm trying to imagine what it would look like. You would also hang a defender back to counter the cherry picking in open play so I think it mostly cancels each other out, but I feel like it would open the field more and you'd get more goals off set pieces because you could run like a post play, similar to American football. I just want to see 4 or 5 games without offsides and if it sucks then I'll shut up forever. 

 

I actually think hockey offsides should be a hybrid thing because at the NHL level they're getting too big and too fast for the size of the ice, which they can't easily change. You can't do away with offsides entirely because clearing the zone is a key part of playing defense. My idea is first guy into the zone can cross the blue line without the puck, but once the whole team is in the zone then you still have to hold the line because that's a critical and exciting part of the game.

 

 

25 minutes ago, McCall said:

Hockey has a clearly defined line of offsides on the ice. Soccer's is ever moving (and more confusing).

Futsal does not have this rule and if you look up MISL games on YouTube you'll see how it works. For full field, you'd see more teams play a version of man coverage throughout the match to make sure the guy's cherry picking don't just get to stroll in on goal.  I want to say there's a version of a blue line in some leagues as well, but that may just be in amateur leagues where the boards are in play as well. 

 

[DCarp1231]

Basketball’s backcourt violation feels like a reverse offsides to me

[leopard88]

2 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

Does lacrosse have an offsides rule?

 

Yes, but it's about how many players can be in the offensive and defensive ends of the field, not when they get there.

 

In men's outdoor/field lacrosse six players are allowed in the offensive or defensive end of the field at any time, excluding the goalies. Typically, attackers and defenders stay in their areas and the midfielders move back and forth.  However, there are occasional overlaps requiring a midfielder to stay back (usually because a defender is carrying the ball on a fast break opportunity).

 

Cherry picking is allowed since attackers can be anywhere in the offensive end at any time.  However, attackers and defenders usually stay at the midfield line when the ball is at the other end of the field to control any loose balls that come over the line (usually in the form of errant passes).

 

For the record, I have no idea what the rules are in box lacrosse.

[Digby]

Soccer offsides seems straightforward in most cases to me, but you have the sometimes cases getting to dangerously-NFL-existential debates about who's involved in the play, which is where I think the problem lies. That and the VAR/technical assist where a forward imperceptibly has a centimeter of their boot offsides, which doesn't feel like the spirit of the rule to me. I kinda want to say that offsides can't be VAR'ed or there needs to be a length rule, like the whole of the forward's boot needs to be off for it to be called. In theory maybe the phrase "clear and obvious" should have clarified this but it's done the opposite.

[BrySmalls]

It's time to reign in the absurdly high contracts that are given to players in the NBA, MLB, and NFL. Fortunately, the NHL doesn't have ridiculous  contracts that pay more than $120M to one player (at least not yet). At the rate things are going, no one will be able to afford going to a major league game anymore.