02-28-2018, 06:37 PM
(02-28-2018, 06:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Well, I thought about what you are saying, and I agree. However, as I continued to think about it, what '67 said, was the first thing that came to mind.
I agree with this. AND, if it appears to be blatant, or a "hard foul", they could also tack on a "flagrant" foul penalty to the play. How does that rule go? Two flagrant fouls and you're out the next game?
I do understand '67's thoughts on the ejections cause that takes away intentionally interfering the 2nd time
but still you will have it the first time...
(02-28-2018, 06:28 PM)BMK Wrote: Totally disagree with the proposal.
1. Committing a penalty would become an actual strategy.
2. There would be no reason to have real speed at WR. If the DB is beat, he just has to dive at the WR and trip him up. Takes away a sure big play or TD and makes it just a 15 yd gain.
3. They'll be less long passes and "splash" TD's, making the game less exciting.
They really just need to sharpen the rule as to what's interference and what's incidental contact. Some refs are sticklers, other refs "let 'em play'. The answer is to leave the penalty, but eliminate the ambiguity.
Very well said BMK.
