Rule I would like to changed

[HawkRiderFan]

This is from the Hawks game but thought maybe it fit better here. It's goes to the play where Lockett caught the first down pass late that should have clinched it, but it wasn't completely over because of the declined penalty on the Panthers stopped the clock. All that declined penalty did was help the Panthers in that scenario. In that scenario with a declined penalty on the defence wouldn't it make sense to give the offence the option of letting the clock run?

I can't remember which one, but I think I saw that scenario play out in a different game yesterday too.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

This is from the Hawks game but thought maybe it fit better here. It's goes to the play where Lockett caught the first down pass late that should have clinched it, but it wasn't completely over because of the declined penalty on the Panthers stopped the clock. All that declined penalty did was help the Panthers in that scenario. In that scenario with a declined penalty on the defence wouldn't it make sense to give the offence the option of letting the clock run?

I can't remember which one, but I think I saw that scenario play out in a different game yesterday too.

The Buffalo vs. stealers game iirc. And yeah, BS rule.

 

[HawksBrazil]

This is from the Hawks game but thought maybe it fit better here. It's goes to the play where Lockett caught the first down pass late that should have clinched it, but it wasn't completely over because of the declined penalty on the Panthers stopped the clock. All that declined penalty did was help the Panthers in that scenario. In that scenario with a declined penalty on the defence wouldn't it make sense to give the offence the option of letting the clock run?

I can't remember which one, but I think I saw that scenario play out in a different game yesterday too.

The Buffalo vs. stealers game iirc. And yeah, BS rule.

Different situations, actually. In the Sunday Night game, the foul was against the team that was leading the game, so it makes sense to stop the clock there. In the Seahawks game, it was a foul against the trailing team, so the leading team should have the option to decline the clock stopping.

But yeah, this should definitely be a rule change. It gives the defense an unexpected and unintended way to prevent the game to be over. The foul could even be made after the play and before the 2 minute warning. It goes from 3 kneel-downs and game over to actually having to run 3 plays (and risking TO's) and potentially giving the opponent the ball back with ~25 seconds left in the clock.

 

[Maulbert]

I thought the same thing in both the Hawks game and the Pissburgh game. If you decline the penalty, the clock should resume immediately.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

I'm not sure I'd like that rule changed, even as I know it would benefit the Seahawks maybe more often than not. It's something that occasionally gives more life to games that were otherwise over. Adds more suspense to the game, and forces a team to be a little more decisive if they really want to put the game away and win it.

I say keep the "loophole" and let teams exploit it if they will. Adds a little more strategy to the game. The team with the ball still has the opportunity to accept or decline the penalty, and penalties are generally bad for the team committing them.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Get rid of the Brady rule. That rule/call single handily extended a SF drive in the last game on a 3rd down play as it gave the digits an automatic first down when they would have otherwise been forced to punt.

Total BS call. If something looks malicious then call it, if a guy is trying to sack a QB during a play don’t call it.

 

[5_Golden_Rings]

Get rid of the Brady rule. That rule/call single handily extended a SF drive in the last game on a 3rd down play as it gave the digits an automatic first down when they would have otherwise been forced to punt.

Total BS call. If something looks malicious then call it, if a guy is trying to sack a QB during a play don’t call it.

The same call has robbed Nick Bosa of two key third down sacks this season.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Get rid of the Brady rule. That rule/call single handily extended a SF drive in the last game on a 3rd down play as it gave the digits an automatic first down when they would have otherwise been forced to punt.

Total BS call. If something looks malicious then call it, if a guy is trying to sack a QB during a play don’t call it.

The same call has robbed Nick Bosa of two key third down sacks this season.

Yes! The one in the same!

 

[ivotuk]

Such a subjective rule, and too easy for a ref to play favorites.

 

[olyfan63]

Get rid of the Brady rule. That rule/call single handily extended a SF drive in the last game on a 3rd down play as it gave the digits an automatic first down when they would have otherwise been forced to punt.

Total BS call. If something looks malicious then call it, if a guy is trying to sack a QB during a play don’t call it.

The same call has robbed Nick Bosa of two key third down sacks this season.

Video link(s) or it didn't happen.

JK. I am interested in seeing videos of those plays as I've forgotten what the "Brady rule" is, get it confused with the "Tuck Rule", which involved Brady in a key role. Links anyone?