Rule I would like to changed

HawkRiderFan

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
760
This is from the Hawks game but thought maybe it fit better here. It's goes to the play where Lockett caught the first down pass late that should have clinched it, but it wasn't completely over because of the declined penalty on the Panthers stopped the clock. All that declined penalty did was help the Panthers in that scenario. In that scenario with a declined penalty on the defence wouldn't it make sense to give the offence the option of letting the clock run?

I can't remember which one, but I think I saw that scenario play out in a different game yesterday too.
 

hawksfansinceday1

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
24,629
Reaction score
3
Location
Vancouver, WA
HawkRiderFan":27dae036 said:
This is from the Hawks game but thought maybe it fit better here. It's goes to the play where Lockett caught the first down pass late that should have clinched it, but it wasn't completely over because of the declined penalty on the Panthers stopped the clock. All that declined penalty did was help the Panthers in that scenario. In that scenario with a declined penalty on the defence wouldn't it make sense to give the offence the option of letting the clock run?

I can't remember which one, but I think I saw that scenario play out in a different game yesterday too.
The Buffalo vs. stealers game iirc. And yeah, BS rule.
 

HawksBrazil

New member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
hawksfansinceday1":1rbkj921 said:
HawkRiderFan":1rbkj921 said:
This is from the Hawks game but thought maybe it fit better here. It's goes to the play where Lockett caught the first down pass late that should have clinched it, but it wasn't completely over because of the declined penalty on the Panthers stopped the clock. All that declined penalty did was help the Panthers in that scenario. In that scenario with a declined penalty on the defence wouldn't it make sense to give the offence the option of letting the clock run?

I can't remember which one, but I think I saw that scenario play out in a different game yesterday too.
The Buffalo vs. stealers game iirc. And yeah, BS rule.

Different situations, actually. In the Sunday Night game, the foul was against the team that was leading the game, so it makes sense to stop the clock there. In the Seahawks game, it was a foul against the trailing team, so the leading team should have the option to decline the clock stopping.

But yeah, this should definitely be a rule change. It gives the defense an unexpected and unintended way to prevent the game to be over. The foul could even be made after the play and before the 2 minute warning. It goes from 3 kneel-downs and game over to actually having to run 3 plays (and risking TO's) and potentially giving the opponent the ball back with ~25 seconds left in the clock.
 

Seahawk Sailor

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
22,963
Reaction score
1
Location
California via Negros Occidental, Philippines
I'm not sure I'd like that rule changed, even as I know it would benefit the Seahawks maybe more often than not. It's something that occasionally gives more life to games that were otherwise over. Adds more suspense to the game, and forces a team to be a little more decisive if they really want to put the game away and win it.

I say keep the "loophole" and let teams exploit it if they will. Adds a little more strategy to the game. The team with the ball still has the opportunity to accept or decline the penalty, and penalties are generally bad for the team committing them.
 

Sports Hernia

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,372
Location
The pit
Get rid of the Brady rule. That rule/call single handily extended a SF drive in the last game on a 3rd down play as it gave the digits an automatic first down when they would have otherwise been forced to punt.

Total BS call. If something looks malicious then call it, if a guy is trying to sack a QB during a play don’t call it.
 

5_Golden_Rings

New member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
2,199
Reaction score
0
Sports Hernia":7l1fgd3c said:
Get rid of the Brady rule. That rule/call single handily extended a SF drive in the last game on a 3rd down play as it gave the digits an automatic first down when they would have otherwise been forced to punt.

Total BS call. If something looks malicious then call it, if a guy is trying to sack a QB during a play don’t call it.
The same call has robbed Nick Bosa of two key third down sacks this season.
 

Sports Hernia

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,755
Reaction score
3,372
Location
The pit
5_Golden_Rings":3362uv3i said:
Sports Hernia":3362uv3i said:
Get rid of the Brady rule. That rule/call single handily extended a SF drive in the last game on a 3rd down play as it gave the digits an automatic first down when they would have otherwise been forced to punt.

Total BS call. If something looks malicious then call it, if a guy is trying to sack a QB during a play don’t call it.
The same call has robbed Nick Bosa of two key third down sacks this season.
Yes! The one in the same!
 

olyfan63

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 17, 2012
Messages
5,662
Reaction score
1,696
5_Golden_Rings":3s0n89wb said:
Sports Hernia":3s0n89wb said:
Get rid of the Brady rule. That rule/call single handily extended a SF drive in the last game on a 3rd down play as it gave the digits an automatic first down when they would have otherwise been forced to punt.

Total BS call. If something looks malicious then call it, if a guy is trying to sack a QB during a play don’t call it.
The same call has robbed Nick Bosa of two key third down sacks this season.

Video link(s) or it didn't happen.

JK. I am interested in seeing videos of those plays as I've forgotten what the "Brady rule" is, get it confused with the "Tuck Rule", which involved Brady in a key role. Links anyone?
 
Top