Jump to content

stretching the ball over the goal line


BIGBAD

Recommended Posts

first bowl game of the year: the utah reciever stretches the ball as he is going out of bounds, he fumbles, the ball hits the pylon and goes out

Lou Holtz says that it should be ruled a touchback, and it would be good for college football if it is ruled a tb

well it was ruled utahs ball at the one, lucky for utah

michigan is going for a 2 touchdown lead of heavily favored florida, hart stretches the ball out and it is knocked loose, only his 3rd fumble all year, florida gets the ball and goes down and scores to tie the game

kansas running back mcanderson, as he is falling on his back, on first down, tries to stretch the ball across the line, it is knocked loose and kansas recovers at the 5, but gets a 15 yd penalty, is forced to throw, and throws an interception.

had these guys not stretched they all woulkd have hand another play from the 1 yard line

if i was a coiach i would sit there buts if they were gonna do that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many more touchdowns have been scored or first downs been gained as a result of stretching out with the ball? It's called effort, and a coach would be stupid to sit a player for trying his hardest to get the extra yard or the score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its like going for it on 4th and short

yeah 80% of the time your gonna get 1 or 2 yards

but coaches usually dont go for it because the risk outweighs the gain

if the player is stretching on 3rd or 4th down for a first down ok

but on first down or at the goal line the worst you will get is a field goal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called forward progress for a reason. The point is to get as many yards as possible.

Yes, the risk exists of fumbling or turnovers. But those exist on every play.

The ball is spotted wherever it is when the ballcarrier is considered down. If stretching adds another foot to the spot, then it benefits the offense even more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called forward progress for a reason. The point is to get as many yards as possible.

Yes, the risk exists of fumbling or turnovers. But those exist on every play.

The ball is spotted wherever it is when the ballcarrier is considered down. If stretching adds another foot to the spot, then it benefits the offense even more.

Absolutely. If I have someone whose ball-handling ability I had faith in (no perverted jokes there, please), I'd have him do it whenever it was called for - that stretch can in some cases add an extra 2, maybe even 3 feet in a carry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. I know that rule about forward progress came in handy in many a situation back when we had Vick's crazy scramblin' ass. I remember one situation in particular he basically knocked over the pylon with the ball, but fell out of bounds. It was ruled a touchdown, and I remember a certain Saints fan on this board coming on and whining about how that rule needed changing, IRRC. :P

But yeah, the rule makes sense: Name of the game is forward progress, and if THE BALL crosses a certain line...then they should get their new set of downs or six points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus...how many football-themed movies have we seen in which a player was shown, mostly in slow motion, doing all he can to ssssttttttttrrrrreeeeeetttccchh out for each and every extra inch he can get?

Pick a football movie...I betcha there's probably a sequence in which someone is seen ssssssttttttttrrrrrrreeeeeeeettttccccchhhiinnng himself thinking he Mr. Fantastic or something, doing all he can for them extra inches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so the same thing just happpened in the steelers playoff game

and john madden said what a stupid thing that is to do

so i may be the only one on this board that thinks that

but i do have john madden and lou holtz agreeing with me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but i do have john madden and lou holtz agreeing with me

So you have a guy who hasn't coached in nearly 30 years, and a half-senile old man agreeing with you. Nice.

(and before you play the HOF card for Madden....he's in it for his video game, not because of what he did with the Raiders, regardless of what the NFL or the media says.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but i do have john madden and lou holtz agreeing with me

So you have a guy who hasn't coached in nearly 30 years, and a half-senile old man agreeing with you. Nice.

(and before you play the HOF card for Madden....he's in it for his video game, not because of what he did with the Raiders, regardless of what the NFL or the media says.)

Okay... I was with you right up to the HOF comment. You think John Madden's in the HOF because of a video game franchise? Seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but i do have john madden and lou holtz agreeing with me

So you have a guy who hasn't coached in nearly 30 years, and a half-senile old man agreeing with you. Nice.

(and before you play the HOF card for Madden....he's in it for his video game, not because of what he did with the Raiders, regardless of what the NFL or the media says.)

Okay... I was with you right up to the HOF comment. You think John Madden's in the HOF because of a video game franchise? Seriously?

Video Game and announcing....Something tells me if his coaching career was actually HOF-worthy he would have gotten in prior to 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LT just stretched the ball across the goal line for a touchdown. If he didn't do that, it would be a one possession game and the Titans would have the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LT just stretched the ball across the goal line for a touchdown. If he didn't do that, it would be a one possession game and the Titans would have the ball.

Or if he hadn't been illegally pushed forward by his lineman...

Sorry. Pet peeve of mine. Plus I'm rooting for Tennessee. Therefore...figure I'll bring it up a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but i do have john madden and lou holtz agreeing with me

So you have a guy who hasn't coached in nearly 30 years, and a half-senile old man agreeing with you. Nice.

(and before you play the HOF card for Madden....he's in it for his video game, not because of what he did with the Raiders, regardless of what the NFL or the media says.)

Okay... I was with you right up to the HOF comment. You think John Madden's in the HOF because of a video game franchise? Seriously?

Video Game and announcing....Something tells me if his coaching career was actually HOF-worthy he would have gotten in prior to 2006.

Uh... how much exactly do you know about John Madden, the coach of the Oakland Raiders? My guess from your comments is, not a whole helluva lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but i do have john madden and lou holtz agreeing with me

So you have a guy who hasn't coached in nearly 30 years, and a half-senile old man agreeing with you. Nice.

(and before you play the HOF card for Madden....he's in it for his video game, not because of what he did with the Raiders, regardless of what the NFL or the media says.)

Okay... I was with you right up to the HOF comment. You think John Madden's in the HOF because of a video game franchise? Seriously?

Video Game and announcing....Something tells me if his coaching career was actually HOF-worthy he would have gotten in prior to 2006.

Uh... how much exactly do you know about John Madden, the coach of the Oakland Raiders? My guess from your comments is, not a whole helluva lot.

Regardless of how good the Raiders were in the Regular Season...he only coached for ten years, and only won one Super Bowl. If he had coached longer and still encountered that success, or had won more championships, I would feel differently. He was a good coach, but his coaching career isn't necessary HOF-worthy. The fact he didn't get in until 2006, well after he had established a different legacy and done more for the league as a builder and an ambassador, tends to lend credence to this thought.

What he's done for the game since then....that's HOF-worthy, though. Coaching? I'm not sure you can make a "Gale Sayers" argument for coaching.

EDIT-What I'm trying to say is that while the NFL is too pompous to admit that giving your name to a very popular video game franchise that also bolstered the NFL's popularity over the last generation, in addition to being one of its most recognizable voices, qualifies you as a "builder", that's what he's in for...he's a "builder".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how good the Raiders were in the Regular Season...he only coached for ten years, and only won one Super Bowl. If he had coached longer and still encountered that success, or had won more championships, I would feel differently. He was a good coach, but his coaching career isn't necessary HOF-worthy. The fact he didn't get in until 2006, well after he had established a different legacy and done more for the league as a builder and an ambassador, tends to lend credence to this thought.

Maybe ONLY one Super Bowl, but his record was very good in those ten years, 112-39-7. Maybe had Otto Graham and Jim Brown played ten seasons.... uhh... never mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how good the Raiders were in the Regular Season...he only coached for ten years, and only won one Super Bowl. If he had coached longer and still encountered that success, or had won more championships, I would feel differently. He was a good coach, but his coaching career isn't necessary HOF-worthy. The fact he didn't get in until 2006, well after he had established a different legacy and done more for the league as a builder and an ambassador, tends to lend credence to this thought.

Maybe ONLY one Super Bowl, but his record was very good in those ten years, 112-39-7. Maybe had Otto Graham and Jim Brown played ten seasons.... uhh... never mind

Maybe that record was partly the result of the talent on his roster....I'm looking at it and see 6-7 Hall of Famers playing for him, as well as several other good players.

The reason I say, "If he coached longer", is because we don't know what he would have done with a less-talented roster. If he had coached longer, that would likely be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.