Quote:
Originally Posted by hbk314
It still has merit. There's no logical reason to legislate an advantage for one player on the field when in reality he's not any more "defenseless" than any other play. If he doesn't want to get hit like any other player, he should stay away from the play.
Even the Colts' punter more or less agrees with me.
Indianapolis Colts punter Pat McAfee -- Defenseless label a setback - ESPN |
Good for him. The NFL doesn't care. The NFL won't change the rule any time soon just like they won't change the rule with quarterbacks being considered defenseless during a change of possession (which means they're getting all the same protections as a kicker/punter).
I already gave you the logic behind the rule. You just don't like and/or agree with the reasoning. It's not a matter of the punter/kicker not wanting to get hit...the NFL doesn't want kickers/punters exposed to what is in their eyes is unnecessary (especially when what would happen if a team were to lose a kicker/punter during a game)...go ahead and blow him up...just don't hit him illegally.
__________________
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.
|
Thu Dec 19, 2013, 01:54pm
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode
