Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66
Of course it is! However you have to look at it in the content of the time it was written. A new variable has since been added, therefore a revision is in order. Either allow the A-11 or dis-allow it.
|
You don't need a revision to allow it, it's already allowed.
Quote:
|
Anyone who thinks there is a problem with the NCAA wording is just being plain ridiculous. While there is nothing preventing a team from punting on first and ten, that certainly isn't an obvious kicking situation. Late in the game, A is winning by 3 TD's, 4th and 20 from their own 20, is certainly an obvious kicking situation even though they don't have to kick. Come on now, any of you that do not know what an obvious kicking situation is doesn't belong anywhere near the game. As far as all of the situations that fall between those 2, well that's what we get paid for, making judgement calls.
|
Oh, that's just swell -- bring up the extremes and then just
claim to be able to make the judgement in all intermediate cases. I've seen punts and place kicks on 1st down, and we know that other plays are frequently run from kick formations. So...what mental calculation of odds do you have to do to determine whether a kick is likely enough to allow the numbering exception to be used? What odds do you have to give in your head (knowing the bet will never have to be collected) on a kick?
Quote:
|
Once in a while someone will slip one in, just as many things getted slipped in now. However the NCAA wording will no doubt prevent it from becoming the entire offense.
|
From the quote of David Nelson in this thread, it seems the only way the NCAA wording "works" is that there's a gentleman's agreement not to exploit it. Like the one that came about after someone discovered the loophole re batting the ball forward -- but at least that loophole was patched up before the next season.
Robert