Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
x close
If this big ass 300 lb. behemoth is feeling a little vulnerable, maybe he could ask his two 300 lb. friends standing to his left, or his other two 300lb. friends standing to his right to help him out a little
Illuminator is a good poster. He sticks to his guns and makes good points. Some don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t like that.
Quote from: caradoc on December 03, 2012, 03:19:35 PMQuote from: JDouble on December 03, 2012, 03:16:32 PMAutomatic clock stoppage after a play that results in a loss of yards seems brilliant and simple to me. Is there some drawback I am not thinking of?QB gets sacked in a 2 minute drill? Huge gift to an offense.Not like he's gonna take the sack on purpose to stop the clock....so it's not being abused. It would be a nice change for offenses though in that situation.Not only would it eliminate the kneel down, but a team trying to run out the clock would have to actually run the ball for positive yardage to do so. I think it sounds great. You wanna run the clock out? Earn that sh!t.
Quote from: JDouble on December 03, 2012, 03:16:32 PMAutomatic clock stoppage after a play that results in a loss of yards seems brilliant and simple to me. Is there some drawback I am not thinking of?QB gets sacked in a 2 minute drill? Huge gift to an offense.
Automatic clock stoppage after a play that results in a loss of yards seems brilliant and simple to me. Is there some drawback I am not thinking of?
Quote from: JDouble on December 03, 2012, 03:23:04 PMQuote from: caradoc on December 03, 2012, 03:19:35 PMQuote from: JDouble on December 03, 2012, 03:16:32 PMAutomatic clock stoppage after a play that results in a loss of yards seems brilliant and simple to me. Is there some drawback I am not thinking of?QB gets sacked in a 2 minute drill? Huge gift to an offense.Not like he's gonna take the sack on purpose to stop the clock....so it's not being abused. It would be a nice change for offenses though in that situation.Not only would it eliminate the kneel down, but a team trying to run out the clock would have to actually run the ball for positive yardage to do so. I think it sounds great. You wanna run the clock out? Earn that sh!t.You really miss the point here. It wouldn't be a "nice change" It would completely change how both teams play at the end of a game. If sacking a QB stops the clock, a defense would have to NOT rush the QB. If stopping a RB in the backfield stops the clock, how do you deal with a reverse late in the game?You would basically require a defense to give up yardage on every play late in a game.
So your idea is to change the rules of the game based on the score? There is no way that is ever going to happen.
Quote from: caradoc on December 03, 2012, 03:19:35 PMQuote from: JDouble on December 03, 2012, 03:16:32 PMAutomatic clock stoppage after a play that results in a loss of yards seems brilliant and simple to me. Is there some drawback I am not thinking of?QB gets sacked in a 2 minute drill? Huge gift to an offense.It should only be within 2 minutes of the end of the game, and only apply to the team that is leading. If the team with the ball is losing or the game is tied, the clock does not stop.
Quote from: TheAman on December 03, 2012, 03:44:03 PM And if other teams are going to start cheap shotting us, which is clear that they are since they did yesterday, the question is, is it worth it for a low percentage play. And the refs are allowing the other team to cheap shot the Bucs since they have zero respect for Schiano and his bush league college crap.
And if other teams are going to start cheap shotting us, which is clear that they are since they did yesterday, the question is, is it worth it for a low percentage play.
They aren't going to change the rules based on the score though. It's one thing to change the rules regarding Out of Bounds depending on how much time is left on the clock, but they're not going to say "this is the new rule, but it's only the new rule if the team that has the ball is up by 8 or less". It's an intriguing solution, but a completely impractical one.
I don't deny it'd make the game more interesting, but it's not feasible that the rules committee would have the rules completely change based on what the score of the game is.