NFL Gameday Week 1 • Page 29

Ugh, go McCorkle. Night all lol

 

the rule is for giving the defense a fair chance to pursue the QB, on a play that the offense could theoretically score a touchdown on. It could not be clearer that that is the point. They accounted for one scenario of this (QB instantly grounding the ball to avoid having to escape a sack) but not the other (QB instantly grounding the ball unless the defense makes an immediate mistake at the snap.)

 

oh my god randall you are not correct and literally several people have pointed out multiple times in multiple ways how lol come on lol

 

Here we go again. Lol. My opinion that the rule should be changed is not a factual matter. I’m saying the rule is what it is but i think it should change because it’s easily undermined in a clock management situation. I factually misinterpreted the rule at first, now my opinion is that it should change

 

"here we go again" like this wasn't your fault lmao

Yup. Footballs back boys lol.

 

I think the QB should not be allowed to intentionally ground the ball unless 1) there are no eligible receivers to catch the ball or 2) the QB made a good faith effort to escape the pocket. That’s my opinion. That’s not the rule, that’s fine. But calling full plays with the intent of throwing it away “just in case” Dallas fucks up just feels sketchy to me.

 

It can feel sketchy. You can also say that PAGES ago instead of what you were actually arguing lol

 

what I mean is, you’re always on that “you’re not correct” stuff. I admitted I was incorrect. Now I’ve moved to, “well I just think that sucks and shouldn’t be allowed” haha

 

Randall’s also ignoring that baiting the play and throwing OOB has tons of ways it can fail unlike a spike situation

It’s not a “loophole” it’s just a completely different thing with different consequences because they’re there for different scenarios

 

When you do that, you're supposed to stop arguing lol

 

nah, “I was wrong about the rule” doesn’t automatically mean “okay I think the rule is fine” lol. I am allowed to explain my position on it

 

Your position was explained lol. And you also kept posting as if you still did not understand the rule. What you did was continue to argue lol.

 

I think if I were to simplify it, my problem is that its something that benefits a losing offense in multiple ways that the defense can’t do anything about. Isnt this why rules are constantly changing, so we can adapt to new context that can imbalance the game (even if slightly?)

 

The defense can do things about it

 

Their only options are 1) mess up or 2) the play isn’t actually a real play. That’s not exactly fair in my opinion. We could say the same thing about a team kneeling down too but at least that team is already winning and doesn’t have an extra little trick they can use to no-risk have a like, 18 play drive in 60 seconds in that kind of situation (and also potentially luck into a touchdown when they aren’t even trying that hard)

 

How is it UNFAIR though

 

I don’t know. I’ve explained all I can explain. I don’t like it, y’all don’t have to agree. if you don’t think it’s slightly unfair to the defense trying to protect a lead then fine we disagree haha

 

You can blitz and go for a swat, you can hide behind a complicated coverage to deceive and trick a QB into a bad throw, you can break through the OL before the pass goes out to bring pressure and force a rollout, you can draw OPI (if it actually gets called, too soon)

Brady wasn’t prone to any of those things so they didn’t happen. But they are all options and pretending the defense is infantile and needs extra rulebook protection here is kinda insulting to what is actually happening in a play

 

Those are fair points that directly address what I am saying, thank you

 

As far as my liberal use of “getting away with”…

I see it kinda like companies “getting away with” price gouging haha, it’s legal and if it it’s done by a single company rather than a conglomerate (or if prices are independently raised by each company in the chain and collusion cannot be proven) then it’s not explicitly outlawed by antitrust regulations… if they can make even the flimsiest argument that the product is either 1) not necessary or 2) has a cheaper alternative then it’s not challenged by the consumer protection act.

In reality, the company(ies) know exactly what they’re doing and why there are other laws that exist against tangential scenarios - so long story short, I think “getting away” with something sketchy because it’s technically legal is a thing

“I wasn’t under pressure” is, to me, a silly reason to be able to intentionally ground the ball, and an obvious deflection for what is essentially a very low risk lottery ticket play (as if the defense had committed PI). But as Dustin explained, a QB with less discipline than Brady can still be tricked into thinking a guy is open or not seeing a blitz… so I guess it’s not completely making a mockery of the game.

So basically i still think it’s a lame thing that offenses do, but now agree with Dustin that the defense isn’t exactly helpless and it’s not as lopsided as I thought

 

You cannot, by definition, intentionally ground the ball if there is no pressure. I still don't even get how it's sketchy.

 

I’m using those words literally man haha

 

Putting this in quotes to make clear that I’m only elaborating on an opinion and not still arguing

 

I wish I didn’t read the pages I missed

 

Whew I’m glad I went to bed right after the game.