The NFL has a bunch of stupid rules. We all know that. And this year some of those dumb rules have become incredibly problematic. We've gotten to the point where they're starting to affect the outcome of games. Then, as the Minneapolis Miracle showed us, there are rules that make absolutely no sense, yet they enforce them anyway.
Let's start there since it's the freshest in all of our minds. The Vikings won the game on that incredible 61-yard touchdown pass on the final play. But, since they scored in regulation, they were required, by rule, to "attempt the extra point." Why? The game was over! Worst yet, they had to clear all of those people off the field (and bring the Saints back out of their locker room) for them to run the most anticlimactic "play" in football history after like 10 minutes! And all they did was take a knee!
This is the second instance I can think of where a team "attempted" an unnecessary extra point. The same thing happened in that infamous Packers-Seahawks Monday night game that brought an end to the replacement refs. Exact same situation. The Seahawks won on the final play (on a touchdown that was highly debatable), the Packers left the field, they told them they had to kick the extra point, and Seattle eventually did five minutes later.
Meanwhile, if a team scores a touchdown in overtime, they're not required to attempt an extra point. Why not? I know why not, but my point is the same. The game-winning touchdown at the end of regulation ends the game just the same as the touchdown in overtime. And the solution to this is so simple, too. Change the rule so that an extra point is only required if there's still time on the clock and/or the extra point has a bearing on the outcome (essentially if it ties or wins it). If the extra point with no time left makes the final score go from three points to four, don't bother.
That one at least didn't decide a game. But the forward fumble rule in the Cowboys-Raiders game did. Late in the fourth quarter of the Week 15 Sunday night game, Oakland was driving for a potential go-ahead touchdown. That's when Derek Carr, while reaching for the end zone, fumbled. The ball hit the pylon and rolled out of the end zone...for a Cowboys touchback! (Now that I'm thinking of it, wasn't this also the Gene Steratore index card game?)
When a fumble goes out of bounds anywhere else on the field, the team that fumbled it keeps it where the ball went out of bounds (or at the spot of the fumble in the last two minutes, when you can't advance one). So why was this a Dallas touchback? The officials interpreted the rule correctly here, so it's not anything of their doing. But Dallas gets the ball and a free 20 yards simply because the ball hit the pylon? Seems a bit harsh.
In order to gain possession, you should have to actually fall on (or actually cause) the fumble. Otherwise, the fumbling team should retain it. Just like they would anywhere else on the field. And, if you're so content on having it be a turnover if the fumble goes out of the end zone untouched, the other team shouldn't get it at the 20. They should get it where the fumble occurred.
Speaking of touchbacks, when they changed the rule that touchbacks go to the 25 on kickoffs, how come that only applied to kickoffs? Why do touchbacks only come out to the 20 after a punt or turnover? It doesn't make sense that you only have to go 75 yards after the other team scores, but it's still 80 if they punted. Either bring the all to the 25 or move kickoffs back to the 20. I don't care which. Just make it consistent.
Now on to the two rules that were absolute game-changers this season. One is my "favorite" dumb NFL rule, and it cost the Detroit Lions a game in Week 3. I'm, of course, talking about the 10-second run off in the last two minutes.
Here's what happened: Golden Tate scored what appeared to be the game-winning touchdown, but, after checking the replay, the officials ruled that he was actually down on the 1-yard line. Since he was down in bounds, the clock technically should've been running and, since the Lions didn't have any timeouts, that also required a 10-second run off. And since there were only eight seconds left on the clock, that meant the game was over. The Lions had a score taken off the board, and never got the chance to run another play. Four months later, that still doesn't sit well with me.
Detroit deserved an opportunity to try and win the game. Not to have that chance taken away because of a rule. A rule that had nothing to do with them! How was it their fault the officials incorrectly ruled the play a touchdown initially? If the officials call him down by contact on the 1, maybe they get up and spike it. Maybe they don't. But they at least have some control of the play. The 10-second run off was unusually harsh in this situation, and it cost the Lions the game.
So what's the solution? To me, it's pretty simple. When the officials determine that a scoring play should be overturned because the ball carrier was down in bounds, there is no 10-second run off. The officials were the ones stopped the clock, so neither team should be penalized as a result. Instead, the clock starts when the ball is marked ready for play. That way you still have your running clock, but they still get a chance to run a play.
Then there's the play that basically decided home field advantage in the AFC. The game-winning touchdown turned non-catch in the Pittsburgh-New England game. Now, I'm not going to get into the debate about what constitutes a catch. That's the never-ending NFL argument that has no right answer (mainly because the league refuses to issue any sort of easy-to-understand clarification). Instead, I want to focus on the one key element of the play that led to the officials determining (I think correctly) it wasn't a catch.
"A receiver must maintain possession of the ball throughout the process of making a catch," is the basic definition of a catch. But, here's where the rule gets confusing (and frustrating): when is the act of "making a catch" complete? When does he go from receiver to runner? Because if a runner drops the ball, it's no harm, no foul. He can pick up the ball and advance it, as long as he isn't touched.
I get that it's a fine line between being a receiver and turning into a runner. But it seems like there's a much larger burden placed on the receiver than on the runner. Once a receiver establishes possession (which, I think we can all agree, happened in the Steelers-Patriots game), he becomes a runner. Because the idea of "maintaining control" throughout the entire play is very arbitrary.
Of course, the biggest problem with the Pittsburgh non-touchdown wasn't that he became a runner, it's that he "didn't survive the ground." Which, again, is a complete contradiction. Because it's long been understood that the ground can't cause a fumble. But it can, evidently, cause an incomplete pass. Even if the catch has clearly been completed and the receiver is simply trying to gain more yards.
If a running back leaps over the pile, the ball can get knocked out of his hand, but is still a touchdown as long as it crosses the goal line first. Same thing if he extends the ball while going out of bounds. Yet if a receiver does it, that most likely will make the pass incomplete. Runners can get extra yards, but receivers can't.
To me, the solution to this one is also simple, and it would make understanding the rule a lot easier, too. If you get both feet down in bounds with clear control of the ball, it's a catch, regardless of what happens after. If not, it's incomplete. Because, in the case of the Pittsburgh play, the act of catching the ball was finished. It only became incomplete when he tried to extend into the end zone. But, under my new interpretation of the rule, he's down at the 1 (which he would've been had he simply tucked the ball into his body instead of going for the touchdown).
There's a committee that looks at the rules and makes changes every offseason. I've got a feeling that some of these will be revisited and maybe even changed. Because these situations were high-profile and game-changing. And they've exposed flaws in the rule book that need to be addressed. Kinda like how the "tuck rule" was eliminated right after Brady's clear fumble wasn't in that playoff game against the Raiders back before we all hated the Patriots.
No comments:
Post a Comment