|
I don't see a real problem with number 3. Consider that play from the point of view of the intentional grounding not happening ... what do you have - a sack in the endzone for a safety - same thing you have with the intentional grounding (whether accepted or not).
Basically you have a coach complaining because he can't decline a safety. Sorry sir.
My pet peeve with the rules (and one you touch on in the first example) is ANY play where the result would be a touchback, but a foul occurs in the end zone, turning a play that could NOT result in a safety had the player been tackled INTO a safety because of basically a glitch in the rules. There are a number of sitches that fit this bucket... but it makes no sense logically. The reason a BIB or Hold in the EZ is normally a safety is because the illegal act prevented the possibility of a safety. But if the runner is simply in the EZ after a change of possession (punt, kickoff, fumble, int), the illegal act simply prevented the ballcarrier from being tackled in the EZ - and NOT a safety.
If I had the power to change one rule - I would change this one to enforce from the 20.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|