Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike L
No it wouldn't. It's an argument for enforcing the penalty as per the current rule set.
|
No, it's not. "[N]othing stops that kind of BS faster than taking 6 pts off the board" means only that you're satisfied in that particular instance. It's not an argument for enforcing penalties "by the book"
in general, because one could just as easily come up with cases that don't elicit such a statement from you.
Quote:
|
It's a live ball foul by the offense behind the basic spot. I have no problem eliminating the "philosphy" of only calling penalties at the point of attack/effect the play when an egrigious safety related foul like this happens. Today is not the football of yore when it was mayhem on the field. What if the next hit causes serious injury because someone decides risking only the PAT is worth payback?
|
But it has
exactly the same risk of causing serious injury whether it takes 6 points off the board or occurs on a play where the penalty has so little effect that the other team declines it. So you can't use the danger of injury as a reason to enforce it
in general as a live rather than dead ball foul.
It would not be unreasonable for the rules to penalize fouls with loss of points (or award to the other team of points) in the score irrespective of the play situation. Penalty points are given in other sports, it's just that football has traditionally not done so.
Robert