The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:18pm
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
You're calling a player defenseless when he isn't defenseless. How is that at all logical? I can't like or dislike what isn't there.
I'm calling him defenseless because I recognize that the term is a rule book term used to denote special protections afforded to a player due to actions he's performing...or due to his position and the effect on a team that would come if they were opened up to what in the NFL see as unnecessary roughness as a means to complete the given task by a blocker. The exact same protections are given to a QB on a change of possession!

If you can't see the NFL's logic/reasoning behind the rule (and I'm not even saying you have to agree with it...but it is there plain as day), then there's nothing anyone else can say that will shed anymore light.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:20pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by APG View Post
I'm calling him defenseless because I recognize that the term is a rule book term used to denote special protections afforded to a player due to actions he's performing...or due to his position and the effect on a team that would come if they were opened up to what in the NFL see as unnecessary roughness as a means to complete the given task by a blocker. The exact same protections are given to a QB on a change of possession!

If you can't see the NFL's logic/reasoning behind the rule (and I'm not even saying you have to agree with it...but it is there plain as day), then there's nothing anyone else can say that will shed anymore light.
I understand what the NFL's reasoning is (I wouldn't call it logic), obviously I don't agree with it. If teams are so concerned about losing a punter or QB, they should coach them not to put themselves in a position to get laid out. Most players have the sense not to put themselves in that position to begin with. See Pat McAfee's comments.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
You're calling a player defenseless when he isn't defenseless. How is that at all logical? I can't like or dislike what isn't there.
No he's not. You have invented your own definition of "defenseless" that doesn't match the NFL's. The punter and kicker are specifically defined as being defenseless throughout the down for the purposes of this rule.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 02:48pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn View Post
No he's not. You have invented your own definition of "defenseless" that doesn't match the NFL's. The punter and kicker are specifically defined as being defenseless throughout the down for the purposes of this rule.
I understand that they're defenseless by rule, but they're not defenseless in reality. They're free to pursue or not pursue the play just like anyone else on the field.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:03pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 537
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
I understand that they're defenseless by rule, but they're not defenseless in reality. They're free to pursue or not pursue the play just like anyone else on the field.
And they're free to be blocked, just not above the shoulders or launched into.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:03pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrounge View Post
And they're free to be blocked, just not above the shoulders or launched into.
Like I said, no logic to it.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:05pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
Like I said, no logic to it.
So what do you want from us?
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:10pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
So what do you want from us?
I was just curious if there was a logical reason that I couldn't think of for the punter being "defenseless" for the duration of the play by rule. Seems there isn't one, or at least not one that's been stated so far.

There's a reason you don't generally see a lot of QBs throwing blocks or going all out for a tackle after an interception. It's not something that should be legislated.

Last edited by hbk314; Thu Dec 19, 2013 at 03:15pm.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:14pm
Medium Kahuna
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: At home
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
I was just curious if there was a logical reason that I couldn't think of for the punter being "defenseless" for the duration of the play by rule. Seems there isn't one, or at least not one that's been stated so far.
The rationale was stated in the very first reply to your question, in post #2.

Are you just quibbling about the word "defenseless?" Some players receive special protections due to the fact that there is no substitute for them. Would you prefer "protected player?" That's all that's at stake here.
__________________
Never trust an atom: they make up everything.
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 03:18pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by maven View Post
The rationale was stated in the very first reply to your question, in post #2.

Are you just quibbling about the word "defenseless?" Some players receive special protections due to the fact that there is no substitute for them. Would you prefer "protected player?" That's all that's at stake here.
It would make slightly more sense, but it's still not a situation that calls for a special rule.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 04:12pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
It would make slightly more sense, but it's still not a situation that calls for a special rule.
Apparently, people with far higher pay grades than you or me disagree.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 04:16pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
It would make slightly more sense, but it's still not a situation that calls for a special rule.
Do you realize that the NFL only dresses about 45 players for a game out of a 53 man roster and there's no back up punter or kicker?
There's your situation that calls for a special rule.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 04:24pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by HLin NC View Post
Do you realize that the NFL only dresses about 45 players for a game out of a 53 man roster and there's no back up punter or kicker?
There's your situation that calls for a special rule.
The solution is to coach your punter not to put himself in the "war zone" or to stay out of the play altogether. Not to legislate things to protect people from their own stupidity.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 04:27pm
APG APG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314 View Post
The solution is to coach your punter not to put himself in the "war zone" or to stay out of the play altogether. Not to legislate things to protect people from their own stupidity.
Okay...and then each punt/kick off return...or anytime there's a change of possession with the QB, it would be 10 v. 11.
__________________
Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, given a chance to climb, they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions.

Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 19, 2013, 04:28pm
In Time Out
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by APG View Post
Okay...and then each punt/kick off return...or anytime there's a change of possession with the QB, it would be 10 v. 11.
That's the risk you take.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
running punter tidefanintenn Football 3 Wed Nov 23, 2011 03:04pm
Ron Winter gets a scare....Bengals v. Ravens HLin NC Football 4 Mon Nov 21, 2011 09:35pm
Kill the Punter parepat Football 36 Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:47pm
Steelers-Bengals - okay, I know this is the Basketball forum... canuckrefguy Basketball 2 Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:23am
Broncos @ Bengals Monday Night Cheap Shot Simbio Football 7 Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:24pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:15am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1