breaking the plane

[therealjohncarlson]

I understand what the OP is saying on an emotional level even though he hasnt really thought out his platform. Whats funny though is that I disagree with what hes saying mostly on an emotional level. I am generally for things that make the game more exciting and imo theres not many things more exciting than a player heroically diving for the endzone in hopes of just crossing that goal line. Like Tates play for example. He weaved through multiple players and put his body on the line to dive head first into the endzone. You would see a lot less of that if they made OPs suggested rule change. Players would worry more about protecting the ball going into the endzone, so Tate would have likely just tried to run in and would have came up a couple yards short.

 

[hawker84]

sorry i don't like the rule, if you have a problem with that, they're plenty other threads..

It isn't that, I don't care one way or another. But from the very start claiming that the rules were different when you played, to not having any real semblance of what should and shouldn't be considered maintaining possession in your opinion, your argument comes out flat. We can talk about what rules we like and dislike all day long, there are many that I think are stupid and detract from the game. It is just odd to hear someone denounce a rule that has been in place for so long and is a fundamental part of the game at all levels.

Either way, I think this thread has run its course. Have a good day, hopefully you are enjoying the win to the fullest.

never said the rules were different, i said it was not enforced the same, at least not in the leagues i played in... and just because a rule has been around for 100+ years doesn't mean it's a good one. but i do agree with Largent, putting more reviews in the hands of the officials could cause more harm than good..

 

[hawker84]

bottom line, we all have our difference of opinions on rules that would or would not improve the game, what's exciting to watch for you persay, could be unexciting for me... some are into stats, some just wins and loss's... i have absolute zero problem with people disagreeing with my opinions.. something i've always thought of lately , and wanted to see what others thought. that's all.

i love the death defying, whirley bird , flipporama td's as much as the next person, just wished they'd hang on to the ball a little more once they landed..

 

[Mistashoesta]

A lot of things are upgraded as time goes on. In "the day" computers were as big as Volkswagen's, casette tapes were revolutionary, and women wore frumpy clothing. Now, you can drive to your nearest gas station and buy coffee from an aspiring porn star while browsing the web on your mobile device all while never leaving the confines of your vehicle.

Entertain me.

 

[sturg78]

I like the rule, if the defense actually made a play, the guy wouldn't be in the position to score anyway. It isn't without benefits for the defense. If a RB thinks he is close he may reach the ball out and get it stolen before the line (something we see a lot of the time). For every Rice fumble after crossing the goal line there is one of these: [urltargetblank]http://www.jsonline.com/sports/badgers/179834941.html[/urltargetblank]

 

[Obie]

true, they're getting killed now.. crossing the plane then fumbling i can kind of see, but if you're stretching out for the goal line and fumbled should be a fumble, or if you're in the air, catch the ball, get hit as you land and the ball is dislodged , i think the defense made the play and should be awarded the stop... ]

not everyones cup of tea, JMO

If you are in the endzone when you are making a catch, you must still continue through to make the catch legal before it's a touchdown. The defense can knock the ball out or knock you out of bounds to make it not a catch and therefor not a touchdown. This is the rule and has been enforced many times.

How long has this rule been in effect anyway? I remember in 05 against the Giants, jeremy shockey jumped up and caught a pass in the endzone and only the tips of his toes came to the ground for a split second before he was blown up by Marquand Manuel and the ball came loose. The play was reviewed and called a TD.

 

[mikeak]

First of all more interpretation = more ways the Seahawks can get screwed. We get screwed enough on what shouldn't be an interpretation.

To the last post - two rules

1) having possession outside the end zone and bringing it in. The play is over when the player crosses the plane if the end zone.

2) catching it in the end zone. Catch and come to the ground with full control of the ball / maintaining possession as you go to the ground even if you land out of bounds (feet in bound). Rule was clarified a few years ago and subsequently the lions were screwed after Calvin Johnson put the ball on the ground after a one-handed catch

 

[kobebryant]

I think it would pretty cool if we took this idea to hockey. Not only does the puck have to cross the goaline but it has to stay in the net - imagine the battles in front/inside the net.

I do think it is cool that a self proclaimed "old guy" is quoting Notorious B.I.G in his sig.

 

[SeaTown81]

This is a crazy silly thread. Not only has breaking the plane been a rule forever. Watch the Tate TD again. The ground causes the fumble. He would've been ruled down even if not in the endzone.

 

[kearly]

The rule always made sense to me. A football field is supposed to be 100 yards long, not 100 yards and 8 inches long.

 

[hawker84]

I think it would pretty cool if we took this idea to hockey. Not only does the puck have to cross the goaline but it has to stay in the net - imagine the battles in front/inside the net.

I do think it is cool that a self proclaimed "old guy" is quoting Notorious B.I.G in his sig.

lol, i'm not that old, plus i was saying it way before he was ever biggy smalls...

anyways i look at it like this... you take that exact same play, redo it exactly as it unfolds with the exact same results.. but instead of him falling into the endzone, he falls at the one,the ball is jarred loose.. would it still be considered a catch? i don't think so.. and that is why i don't like the rule..

 

[HawksFTW]

anyways i look at it like this... you take that exact same play, redo it exactly as it unfolds with the exact same results.. but instead of him falling into the endzone, he falls at the one,the ball is jarred loose.. would it still be considered a catch? i don't think so.. and that is why i don't like the rule..

Which play? Rice's TD catch? If so, yes it would still be a catch, and in fact there is chance it wasn't even a fumble as his knee is down at almost the exact same time as he is being hit. At worst, it would have a been a catch and fumble, as he had clear possession and turned up field to run.

Now that you are starting to question whether or not it was even a catch, makes me wonder if you truly understand the rules of the game to begin with? :|

 

[hawker84]

i think it was a catch, but i think if it was in the field of play it would have been reviewed as a possible fumble...as boom boom of a play as it was , i think it could have been ruled a fumble, if it happened on the one...

the fact that you can't except the fact that i know what the rule is and i just don't like it is laughable at this point... you don't have to agree with my opinions dude... doesn't mean i don't know the rules.. K

 

[HawksFTW]

i think it was a catch, but i think if it was in the field of play it would have been reviewed as a possible fumble...as boom boom of a play as it was , i think it could have been ruled a fumble, if it happened on the one...

the fact that you can't except the fact that i know what the rule is and i just don't like it is laughable at this point... you don't have to agree with my opinions dude... doesn't mean i don't know the rules.. K

Fumble yes, I agree with, that would have been up for review. But this is what you said:

would it still be considered a catch? i don't think so.. and that is why i don't like the rule..

So what are you trying to argue? That it wouldn't be a catch, a fumble, or a TD? Between your vague reasoning, inability to keep your argument straight, and your defensiveness, not sure what you are hoping to accomplish here.

 

[hawker84]

i'll agree with you , i didn't word that post right... yes i thought it was a catch, but i also think if he had come down on the one instead of in the endzone it would have been ruled a fumble... sorry for the confusion.

 

[HawksFTW]

i'll agree with you , i didn't word that post right... yes i thought it was a catch, but i also think if he had come down on the one instead of in the endzone it would have been ruled a fumble... sorry for the confusion.

So you don't like the rule that a play is over as soon as the ball crosses the end line because...get this...if he was a yard short of the endzone, it would have been a fumble? Am I reading this correctly?

 

[hawker84]

no... had nothing to do with being stopped short of the endzone...

i don't like the rule because if that same play happend in the field of play, it would have at the least been reviewed as a possible fumble. my whole point was i feel they should have to make the same plays in the endzone just like on the field... having said that, i understand there are other situations that the endzone offers that you do not get on the field of play such as diving for the corner and hitting the pileon with the ball, etc... so there would have to be some exceptions..

since it was the seahawks that scored on that play, i love the call.. had it been a bears TD, i would have been pissed..

 

[HawksFTW]

no... had nothing to do with being stopped short of the endzone...

i don't like the rule because if that same play happend in the field of play, it would have at the least been reviewed as a possible fumble. my whole point was i feel they should have to make the same plays in the endzone just like on the field...

It was reviewed as a possible fumble, you realize that, yes? It was confirmed to be a touchdown.

The play is no different than a runner's forward progress being stopped, and then the ball coming out; the play is dead in that situation as well, as soon as the whistle blows, as you can't challenge forward progress. Obviously there are some arbitrary rules that are unique to scoring plays, but the essence of the rule is the same across the board.

 

[jammerhawk]

call me old fashioned or whatever, but i hate that rule, where only the ball has to cross the plane to be considered a touchdown.. i played in an era where not only the ball had to cross the plane, you had to actually maintain possesion of it... i can't count how many td's have been scored in the last few years where the ball has been fumbled emmediately after the ball crossed the goal.

before you attack, don't get me wrong, i'm very grateful for the Rice and G Tate TD's yesterday, but i just think this game is getting too damn soft, can't touch qb's any more even when there outside the pocket, can't touch recievers any more, a slight hands to the face is a huge penalty... just go ahead and purchase the flags, because that's the direction this league is heading to, flag football..

guess i'm just longing for the old days, when football was about blood and guts, and players like Tatum and LT were to be feared when you cross the middle or run the ball.. guess i'm just getting old and stuck in my ways.. your opinions?

Wow, so what you are saying is that any vulnerable player is free game to blow up so he can be separated from the ball and if that happens there is no TD even if the ball crosses the plane of the goal line clearly in the possession of that player. This is an interesting approach but contrary to the present rules and an approach which would lead to more than one serious injury.

The game can still have physicality but there is no need to encourage a situation where players can get hurt. I disagree with you.

 

[hawker84]

all scoring plays are reviewed, again i know it's a shocker but i do know and understand most of the rules... and you're trying to tell me the whistle was blown before that ball came out... beg to differ.. apples and oranges..


let's just agree to disagree because at this point we're just repeating ourselves... i respect your opinions and everyone elses , just don't agree with a rule that's been around forever.. i also don't like the horse collar rule, we can debate that and get a fresh start? NO? :1: