With the 3yd rule the officials are not going to call it unless the blocker is around 4-5yds or more down field. Same will go for the new 1yd proposal and it will around 3yds before they call. Still think it is a good proposal.Referring to the play in the 2013 Bama vs AU game:
Even with the current rule, Alabama fans still contend it was an illegal play because replays show Auburn linemen right on the threshold of that 3-yard minimum. "I'd say that was a pretty important play in the game and our season," Malzahn said. "We were 3 yards downfield and it was a well executed play as far as the current rule was concerned."
Who reviewed this play and can state "right on the threshold"? The other big violation during that play was the eligible reciever (fullback) blocking well downfield before and during the pass...
I'm not surprised that the AU coach doesn't like the idea.
I think someone mentioned in a related post that the new rule would at least get the plays that violate the current 3-yard rule flagged (something to that effect). In the heat of the game it is tough to ask a ref if a player is 2.5, 3, or 3.5 yards downfield but with the new rule they will be albe to tell that a player 3 yards downfield is well beyond the 1-yard allowance. Am I making sense here?
With the 3yd rule the officials are not going to call it unless the blocker is around 4-5yds or more down field. Same will go for the new 1yd proposal and it will around 3yds before they call. Still think it is a good proposal.
I would say throwing the flag when it should not have been. Can make an argument either way.Or whatever the distance is, if it is close, throw the flag and let the replay official figure it out...this is now a squeeky wheel, and might just get more visibility...
A question just occurred to me...what is worse for a ref--miss a call by not throwing a flag when he should have, or throw the flag and have it over turned by the replay booth? Is one worse than the other when officials are graded after a game?
Probably agree on reviewable plays. I was thinking of all fouls...holding, pass interference, etc.I've always heard that you throw the flag on the play then let it get overturned.
Sent from my HTC6525LVW using Tapatalk
I wonder who that shot's aimed at?Rodriguez said. "There has to be a better way to do this. "I just want to know who's the person behind the curtain. Who's the grand pooh-bah driving this? The whole process needs to be reviewed."
I have to point this out, Rich Rod from what I recall was one of the people that was cheering for the clock rule that created the gimmicky HUNH as we know it. He fought the 10 second rule that would have allowed substitutions, you know like has always been intended, or this... but he sure as heck seemed happy to have a rule that forces football players to stay in the game when they want to leave. He has no room to talk.I wonder who that shot's aimed at?
The problem with this is that most penalties are not reviewable. False start, offsides, PI, holding etc are not reviewable. I'm sure this penalty would fall under the same category of being a judgement call on the field. The referee can't just throw a flag and tell the replay booth to figure it out..Or whatever the distance is, if it is close, throw the flag and let the replay official figure it out...this is now a squeeky wheel, and might just get more visibility...
A question just occurred to me...what is worse for a ref--miss a call by not throwing a flag when he should have, or throw the flag and have it over turned by the replay booth? Is one worse than the other when officials are graded after a game?
Why not? They do it when they call targeting.The problem with this is that most penalties are not reviewable. False start, offsides, PI, holding etc are not reviewable. I'm sure this penalty would fall under the same category of being a judgement call on the field. The referee can't just throw a flag and tell the replay booth to figure it out..