Rule changes for 2008

[Tarkus]

Quote: Originally Posted by bgeno

Tarkus, you're saying that you're worried about the DB catching a receiver and "walking" (or carrying) him out of bounds, right?

lol

Not worried, just saying that when that particular call is made correctly, it served a purpose.

Quote:

What jmood is saying (and what I'm saying, for that matter) is that what you're referring to is such an extreme case. It would take the perfect set of circumstances for a DB to actually be able to "catch" the receiver in his hands and walk him out of bounds and drop him...

Perfect? I wouldn't say that but it's happened enough in the past to warrant the rule in the first place.

Quote:

You're just not going to see that very often. You're still going to see DBs lowering a shoulder and trying to "push" the receiver out of bounds. If they were going to catch the receiver and carry him out of bounds and drop him (rather than play the ball), they would have done it before too, since the receiever was going to be rewarded the catch anyway. (Why not inflict some extra pain?)

In that description, I'd agree. My comments were only for the time that rule was put into play correctly. I've watched football for tons of years & seen the times it's happened, not too often, & I've also seen some bad calls where it didn't pertain.

Quote:

Why would a DB go through the trouble of catching and carrying a receiver out of bounds (since you make it sound so easy) when he can simply lower a shoulder on him and force him out? They used to do this and get no reward for it. Now, it'll actually be seen as a good play.

I guess where I don't see your point is that your description is more about a ref making a wrong call than about a force out. I think this is just too hard of a topic to describe well enough. Like I said before, it doesn't happen enough to go into such great detail & without a vid, too hard to see each other's point tho I think I see where yours is coming from..

[bgeno]

I don't care about the ref making the right call or not on the force out. I care that the force out was called in the first place, right or wrong.

IMO, it's not too hard of a topic to describe. I know what you're saying, and I disagree with you.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by jmood88

Do you have a problem with quarterbacks having headsets? It's not fair how it is right now.

Let me answer this, In a perfect world i'd like to see them going back to hand signals on BOTH sides of the ball. This isn't going to happen with how the media covers the game these days so there are compromises. I don't mind the QB having the headsets because the offense dictates the game. You can't have guys just making up an offensive play on the spot.

At least with defense the hand signals and elaborate playcalling was still being used and to good effect. (just look at some of the teams of recent vintage being dominant on defense) Yes, the MLB is often the "QB" of the defense but defense is more reactionary based on the formation by the offense so their actions don't necessarily propel the progression of a game.

At least that's how I see it. If you think MLBs having headsets will suddenly make shoddy tackling and coverage schemes better by a whole lot then you have another thing coming but in terms of the human element it just takes more out of the head coach's hands. The game has become a little TOO automated and dictated by gameplan during the week rather then adjustments in game and whatnot.

[bgeno]

Explain to me how headsets take more out of the head coaches' hands.

It's simply that now, instead of using hand-signals, they're using words. And, of course, they can point on tendencies and such. If anything, it's putting MORE in the hands of the head coaches.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by bgeno

Explain to me how headsets take more out of the head coaches' hands. It's simply that now, instead of using hand-signals, they're using words. And, of course, they can point on tendencies and such. If anything, it's putting MORE in the hands of the head coaches.

The head coach is not going to be the ones filtering most of the info through the headsets. It'll mean more delegation to the defensive coordinators. If you think those guys have a lot of power now then just wait and see. We may see more Buddy Ryan/Mike Ditka situations in the coming years.

[bgeno]

Quote: Originally Posted by SPTO

The head coach is not going to be the ones filtering most of the info through the headsets. It'll mean more delegation to the defensive coordinators. If you think those guys have a lot of power now then just wait and see. We may see more Buddy Ryan/Mike Ditka situations in the coming years.

I guess that's true... I just don't see that as a big problem. What's the big deal?

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by bgeno

I guess that's true... I just don't see that as a big problem. What's the big deal?

I guess i'm too old school

I'm sure it'll be a great innovation for the defense though. Hell, if Tom Landry were around and coaching today he'd absolutely LOVE it as the MLB in his defense was more or less the QB and orchestrated the formation to line up in and all that.

[bgeno]

I'm sure there are other who feel the same way as you, SPTO.

I just feel like I want to see good, fair football. I don't care who is running the show upstairs, as long as the football is good.