OzTitan Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 1 minute ago, flaming_thumbtack said: I mean one way to change it would be to change the entire forward progress rule, but that would be stupid. I'm not saying you should, but you could just easily add a clause making it an exception to the forward progress rule. Something like, "If a player is tackled out of bounds after forward progress, forward progress is given, and the clock is stopped (after 2 min/5min)." It's not consistently logically, but its implications are clear, and it doesn't change much. Again, not saying they should do that but saying it is a "sweeping rule change" is dramatic. It forces the ball carrier to prioritize getting to the sideline vs making more yards, not sure why the offense should be granted the option to do both really, seems an unfair advantage. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 7 minutes ago, abenjami said: Yes I agree with this. But this is somewhat of an extreme as compared to the "forward progress" play we saw tonight when Schultz clearly was getting out of bounds to stop the clock and not trying to pick up another yard. It is kind of ridiculous, but to change the rule would mean changing it in its entirety or carving out something for the end of both halves. I agree with you btw. I've always thought it was crazy that in such an instance the clock doesn't stop. It's really obvious he caught the ball and was attempting to get out of bounds. As noted though, it would take a big rule change to stop that kind of situation from happening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 @flaming_thumbtack I'm not sure what you're laughing about. I just read where you quoted me and I'm saying something similar to what you said. It would take a carve out/exemption to not totally change the rule. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
9 Nines Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 I think there should be no boundaries, and players can take plays into stands and sidelines and other places. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzTitan Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 Giving the offense both the forward progress and the stopped clock makes no sense at all. Now maybe if they could choose between either, but even then it's too much dicking around for what is a failure of the offense to achieve its primary objective in those situations (stop the clock). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanruss Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 It's pretty easy to say，out of bounds = clock stops. Pretty funny Mitchell didn't get out properly. He should've gotten down.... but now we are going to have a game where a guy goes to the sidelines and they have to challenge if he was running forwards or backwards on the exit... what if it is straight perpendicular? Do we judge on intent? You have to curl away from downfield like turning away from first base? it is too much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 17 minutes ago, titanruss said: It's pretty easy to say，out of bounds = clock stops. Pretty funny Mitchell didn't get out properly. He should've gotten down.... but now we are going to have a game where a guy goes to the sidelines and they have to challenge if he was running forwards or backwards on the exit... what if it is straight perpendicular? Do we judge on intent? You have to curl away from downfield like turning away from first base? it is too much. If he's going perpendicular he's awarded forward progress and the clock stops as long as he wasn't intentionally going backwards before going perpendicular. The difference in those situations is the defender. Schultz wasn't going perpendicular after moving forward. The defender stopped his forward momentum in bounds. The rule essentially is that if the player is stopped in the field of play forward progress ends there and as a result of that the clock keeps running. If a player runs out of bounds going backwards it's similar to a QB giving himself up and the clock runs. It really is a strange rule, but it makes sense in that to stop the clock a player must go forward and not be stopped in bounds. If a player goes forward and then sidesteps of his own volition the clock is stopped because his forward progress wasn't stopped in the field of play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 The forward progress rule makes sense. The “clock restarts on ready to play after out of bounds except when there’s less than 2m left in the half” feels completely arbitrary. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsntLifeFunny Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 11 minutes ago, pat said: The forward progress rule makes sense. The “clock restarts on ready to play after out of bounds except when there’s less than 2m left in the half” feels completely arbitrary. It isn't arbitrary. It's intentional to allow comebacks at the end of the half while making sure the game itself doesn't take upwards of 4+ hours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 19 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said: It isn't arbitrary. It's intentional to allow comebacks at the end of the half while making sure the game itself doesn't take upwards of 4+ hours. Because it’s stupid to have rules that only apply at the end of the game. It’s like if baseball made 4 fouls count as a strikeout except in the 9th inning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reo Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 Offenses get tons of benefits from the forward progress rule as it is. They don't need to change anything and make it even better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SleepingTitan Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 I believe they keep subjectivity in the game because it allows the NFL a measure of control. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
titanruss Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 10 hours ago, IsntLifeFunny said: If he's going perpendicular he's awarded forward progress and the clock stops as long as he wasn't intentionally going backwards before going perpendicular. The difference in those situations is the defender. Schultz wasn't going perpendicular after moving forward. The defender stopped his forward momentum in bounds. The rule essentially is that if the player is stopped in the field of play forward progress ends there and as a result of that the clock keeps running. If a player runs out of bounds going backwards it's similar to a QB giving himself up and the clock runs. It really is a strange rule, but it makes sense in that to stop the clock a player must go forward and not be stopped in bounds. If a player goes forward and then sidesteps of his own volition the clock is stopped because his forward progress wasn't stopped in the field of play. i completely understand the rule. but if you want the sport to grow to be international, the rules need to be simplified. there's too much leeway for referee opinion and then even eventually getting to reviews of that opinion when it all could be simplified so easily. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 I'm ok with this rule. Players should know it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted January 23, 2023 Report Share Posted January 23, 2023 25 minutes ago, japan said: I'm ok with this rule. Players should know it. I'm OK with the rule. It makes sense with forward progress. Adding another exception as has been discusses is just going to make the rules even more bloated. Maybe we just get rid of forward progress entirely! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.