NFL 2012
- Thread starter skeptik
- Start date
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
^ Yup
If the ball crosses the line of scrimmage, regardless of whether the kicking team recovers or not, possession goes to the defensive team.
If the ball crosses the line of scrimmage, regardless of whether the kicking team recovers or not, possession goes to the defensive team.
Dak
mentat
What do you think made me bring it up?
Seriously though, thanks for all of you reiterating the rule, and the fact that it is currently the rule. That's not the fucking question. I'm saying it's illogical. It's still legal last time I checked to dropkick a field goal, but no one does it (excluding Flutie), and there is really no point in it being an available option. But it's "the rule". I'm sure much thought went into that.
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
It's a play that forfeits possession. That is the logic. If you attempt a field goal, you accept that your possession is over regardless of the outcome of the kick. That is what a field goal is. Would you care if it were the Ravens losing on a game-ending field goal miss? It's not like one team is at a disadvantage because of the rule.
Dak
mentat
Thank you for repeating what the rule is. Again. Apparently you guys think I don't understand what the rule is. I do. Obviously I have to understand what it is to question the why and what for.
Today reminded me of it, but it is a question I have had for a while. Why is the rule this way? If you try a kick on 3rd down and miss, logically you should have it 4th down on the spot of the hold. Not forfeit possession on the spot of the hold (actually it is even more logical whether possession is retained or forfeited to get possession on the original spot, not the hold, but I digress. One thing at a time).
Please do not repeat the current rule as it pertains to field goal attempts and possessions.
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
A field goal is not an offensive play. It is a special teams play. It is a kicking play, and kicking plays are plays of exchange of possession. The reason that a field goal changes possession even if it's on first down is the same reason that a punt is a change of possession even if it's on first down. Just because nobody punts on first down doesn't change that reality. It's not a turnover on downs, so your argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what down it is. The rule is that way for the same reason that every rule is the way it is: because somebody decided that that is what the rule is. Why do you get four downs? Why do you get new downs after 10 yards? Why is a touchdown worth 6 points? Why is a field goal worth 3 points? Why do you have to have both feet inbounds for it to be a catch? Why is an incomplete pass not a fumble? Why do they play with 11 men on the field? Why can't you have more than 5 eligible receivers on a play?
Can you answer any of those questions? Thoses rules are no more or less logical than the one you're questioning because your team happened to be at a disadvantage because of it today.
Can you answer any of those questions? Thoses rules are no more or less logical than the one you're questioning because your team happened to be at a disadvantage because of it today.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Dak
mentat
Ok. You started off with what I thought was going to be a well thought out, constructive post and it devolved completely by the end, wrapping up by repeating a charge that I've already dismissed twice before (at least). The site probably doesn't have the space for the amount of facepalm gifs and jpgs you warranted here so I will skip posting those.
Lets look at your actual points:
A field goal is a special teams play:
But it doesn't have to be. Teams prefer to use special teams to accomplish this because it encourages the highest liklihood of success. However, anyone can dropkick a field goal on any down. So it does not have to be a special teams play.
Kicking in football involves change of possession:
Except when it doesn't. Kicking the ball through the uprights on an extra point try (the other time the [offense] attempts to score points by putting the ball through the uprights via kicking) leads to a kickoff on the following play, not a turnover there. Splitting hairs yes, but it stands. Kicking a field goal =/= kicking off/punting. The purpose is entirely different. If a punt happened to go through the uprights it isn't three points.
Then we get to the rapid descent of the post into the same mental morass that all previous posts on this have grown from. Yes it's the rule. Yes, sports and their respective rules are completely arbitrary constructs. However, within those arbitrary constructs, there should be a degree of logical consistency and over time a striving to refine the game. At one point someone like myself was probably defending the concept of the forward pass to people offering similar non-arguments to those you are currently presenting.
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
First of all, drop your fucking condescending dickhead attitude please.
Secondly, a dropkick is still a special teams play. A drop kick, when used in an offensive formation, is still a special teams play, as a fake punt or fake field goal is still an offensive play.
And an extra point is obviously the exception to the rule. Actually, to be more accurate, it is the continuation of a scoring play. That's why only the offensive team can score on an extra point try. That is not the case under any other circumstance, clearly differentiating it.
You're looking for a reason to a question that doesn't have a reason outside of the one that is self-evident: it is so because it is so. What is the point in fabricating educated guesses as to what logic may have been behind the decision? Maybe they just decided that it worked. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it is the only circumstance (outside of the extra point) where you can score without a player physically crossing the goal line, so having multiple opportunities to score in that manner if you miss is too big of an advantage, and thus turning the ball over at the spot of the kick presents a reasonable discouragement from kicking long field goals. Because they found that it worked well and saw no reason to change it. That is the only that if you kick a field goal on third down and miss, you don't get to kick again.
Now move on. I wanted the Ravens to lose that game too.
Secondly, a dropkick is still a special teams play. A drop kick, when used in an offensive formation, is still a special teams play, as a fake punt or fake field goal is still an offensive play.
And an extra point is obviously the exception to the rule. Actually, to be more accurate, it is the continuation of a scoring play. That's why only the offensive team can score on an extra point try. That is not the case under any other circumstance, clearly differentiating it.
You're looking for a reason to a question that doesn't have a reason outside of the one that is self-evident: it is so because it is so. What is the point in fabricating educated guesses as to what logic may have been behind the decision? Maybe they just decided that it worked. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it is the only circumstance (outside of the extra point) where you can score without a player physically crossing the goal line, so having multiple opportunities to score in that manner if you miss is too big of an advantage, and thus turning the ball over at the spot of the kick presents a reasonable discouragement from kicking long field goals. Because they found that it worked well and saw no reason to change it. That is the only that if you kick a field goal on third down and miss, you don't get to kick again.
Now move on. I wanted the Ravens to lose that game too.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
The Ravens might have lost much more
Baltimore Ravens Injury Report:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ng-down-impact-of-season-threatening-injuries
Baltimore Ravens Injury Report:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ng-down-impact-of-season-threatening-injuries
Dak
mentat
I get quickly irritated when I have to repeat myself ad nauseum because of either poor reading comprehension or inattention.
If you are defining it as a special, team play then yes. However, the members of the team involved are what I was referring to. The "special teams" personnel vs the standard offensive personnel, such as an actual kicker, long snapper, etc.
This is more like it. Although I would think that having the spot moved back to the hold would be a similar deterrent from kicking long field goals every time within striking distance. A missed 45 yarder becomes a potential 52 yarder, and also instead of 3rd and whatever it is now 4th and whatever + 7 yards.
An example of where this would be a big deal is overtime, where a team gets down to chip shot range, and it would be much safer to attempt a few field goals than try and punch it in, or take a chance on a miss. Obviously the possibility of a block is still present.
Rules for the game change all the time, for better or for worse. I think this is something that warrants a look.
@Jimmy: Dallas may have lost Murray for a while, and Claiborne was limited. Think Murray gets an MRI today.
Dak
mentat
Gonna be a big question mark for the next few weeks over whether the Dallas and NYJ rushing performance on Sunday was a flash or for real.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Dak
mentat
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
So Vick still sucks. More stupid turnovers and once again really bad playcalling by Reid + Mornhinweg. The defense played good for three quarters but fell apart at the end. Honestly I'm just so ready for Vick to be gone and to a lesser degree Reid. This season has basically turned into a waiting game for this Vick nightmare to just end.
League is interesting right now. Very few teams are standing out as elite. Looks like another year of very unpredictable playoffs with a lot of underdogs winning.
League is interesting right now. Very few teams are standing out as elite. Looks like another year of very unpredictable playoffs with a lot of underdogs winning.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
Me too. I want to at least get a sense of what we have going into the 2013 draft. But there's no way Reid is gonna go to Foles in a make or break year until the team gets eliminated.
That's insane.
Dak
mentat
So instead of dumping Vick, Reid fires Castillo.....
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/44427/castillo-firing-shows-reids-desperation
Reid is going to be gone soon. I think he's losing his mind.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfceast/post/_/id/44427/castillo-firing-shows-reids-desperation
Reid is going to be gone soon. I think he's losing his mind.
Jimmy... Dead.
contemplative curmudgeon
Dumping Vick would just be dumb. They're 3-3, not 1-5 jesus fuck!
Yes he is a turnover machine, yes he's hurting the team more than helping but to abandon ship at 3-3 is illogical.
I guarantee Vick and the Eagles turn this around and make the playoffs.
Yes he is a turnover machine, yes he's hurting the team more than helping but to abandon ship at 3-3 is illogical.
I guarantee Vick and the Eagles turn this around and make the playoffs.
rms
Active Member
I don't know why the Eagles went with Vick other than for marketing/profiting. He is a constant injury reminder and hasn't done anything in a playoff setting, probably should have given Kolb a chance or maybe got in the Flynn sweepstakes, I don't see a future there.
Similar threads
