Dumbest football rules

[Bootie]

These things are negatively affecting my enjoyment of football.

1) A player whose helmet comes off has to leave the field for at least one play. From my memory, this rule was created when players would intentionally remove their helmet after a big play to show his face in order to flaunt and satisfy the ego. Can't the refs just make a judgement call here and let it fall under the old "Unsportsmanlike Conduct"?? Taunting should also be eliminated and categorized under UC.

2) Blowing the ball dead on a kickoff when the ball goes into the end zone. This drives me nuts. Can someone explain the reasoning behind that rule change?

I'm sure there are more but that's my starter list.

[gofurman]

-

[gofurman]

These things are negatively affecting my enjoyment of football.

1) A player whose helmet comes off has to leave the field for at least one play. From my memory, this rule was created when players would intentionally remove their helmet after a big play to show his face in order to flaunt and satisfy the ego. Can't the refs just make a judgement call here and let it fall under the old "Unsportsmanlike Conduct"?? Taunting should also be eliminated and categorized under UC.

2) Blowing the ball dead on a kickoff when the ball goes into the end zone. This drives me nuts. Can someone explain the reasoning behind that rule change?

I'm sure there are more but that's my starter list.

Bootie, again, good to see you at the pizza joint this summer!

On number one I agree with you. As taunting the rule makes sense - if you are such an aaz that you take off your helmet to stare down an opponent then you should be disqualified.. honestly, I think that one should maybe be for 5 plays or so. That would shut it down. And you honestly don't see kids take off helmets to taunt much anyway - it's more hotdogging, high-stepping or pointing at an opposing player. The last of which should be called. The problem has become some helmets just fall off and - unintended consequence! - some teams are told to try and pull a players helmet off so a star QB or someone has to sit a play. That has become more common than any 'remove helmet to taunt someone'. so I agree rule number one needs some adjustment. You have a good point (like targeting or whatever there should be review or judgement) and if a helmet just 'falls' off - no bad intent - then there is no reason to kick the kid to the sideline. You make a good point. In a game of inches losing a player or two for a play or two could hurt

[ksummerlin]

1) The helmet rule was supposedly added to
make players strap that chin strap tighter. Those things are uncomfortable. An ulterior motive was likely tied to celebration type scenarios you mentioned. The refs need to do a better job of allowing players to remain in the game as helmets are ripped off by the opposing player.

2) is a result of concussion research. Kickoffs are one of the only plays where players get running starts at each other. Even minor looking collisions during KOs can result in concussions. It looks silly to go through the motions. Soon the onside kick will be gone too.

[The Jackal]

Kickoffs are, I think, by far the most dangerous part of a collision sport. Football's a physical game, but its the only time that both sides are running at each other full speed.

Rules committees haven't legislated away kickoffs, but they've basically made the rules where you don't have to return kicks if you don't want to.

[Flagman]

A good example of poor administration of the helmet rule came in our Clemson game when Tyler Huff's helmet was essentially ripped off by an aggressive Clemson player. In that case, it forced an unprepared player (without an opportunity to warm up) to enter the game, increasing the likelihood of injury.

The new kick-off rule has always puzzled me. The kick-off was always a "live" ball. Now, the player can simply ignore the kick-off and let the ball lay in the endzone. They should at least be required to retrieve the ball and down it. A good example of this occurred during a SC State-Clemson game where the kick returner caught the ball in the endzone and just flipped it to the ref, without downing the ball. Result: Clemson touchdown. Granted, the SC State player was obviously confused because he didn't signal a "fair catch", but the rule probably contributed to his confusion.

[The Jackal]

If memory serves, we were bitten by the new kick catch rule early on in its new implementation at a close loss to ETSU.

My recollection is that maybe our returner (Bell?) took a knee instead of waiving for a fair catch, resulting in Furman starting the drive in the shadow of its goal posts.

[Paul C]

Rule i hate....when the offense fumbles a ball through the end zone and out of bounds there's a change of possession and touchback.

[FUBeAR]

Rule i hate....when the offense fumbles a ball through the end zone and out of bounds there's a change of possession and touchback.

What would you propose as the alternative ?

[Bootie]

Rule i hate....when the offense fumbles a ball through the end zone and out of bounds there's a change of possession and touchback.

What would you propose as the alternative ?

Maybe the same as what happens when the ball is fumbled by the offense out of bounds in the field... ball is spotted where it went out of bounds, offense still controls it. The question should be why the ball should be taken away from the offense just because the ball goes out of bounds after crossing the goal line vs before.

[FUBeAR]

Rule i hate....when the offense fumbles a ball through the end zone and out of bounds there's a change of possession and touchback.

What would you propose as the alternative ?

Maybe the same as what happens when the ball is fumbled by the offense out of bounds in the field... ball is spotted where it went out of bounds, offense still controls it. The question should be why the ball should be taken away from the offense just because the ball goes out of bounds after crossing the goal line vs before.

Hmmm….well the goal line is sort of a special place on the old gridiron. On one side of it is the land of 0 points and on the other, well actually on the 1st molecule of it, is the Land of 6 Pints.

Inbounds, vis a vis out of bounds, is a good place, but not the same as the Land of 6 Pints.

If we spot the ball where it went out of bounds, it would be spotted in the Land of 6 Pints, which requires the advancing Team to be awarded with 6 pints. But, if they were unable to maintain possession of the Football into the Land of 6 Pints, do they deserve those 6 pints? Of course they don’t. If you are proposing that we spot the ball on the 1st molecule outside of the goal line, or, by rule, on, say, the 1 yard line, FUBeAR could see that as a possible alternative…but here’s the thing…

…when inside the 5 yard line, fumbling the ball ‘accidentally’ (read intentionally) toward an open spot in the back of the Endzone on 3rd, maybe even 2nd, down could become a ‘thing.’ The risk/reward might make it make sense to do that…kinda like hockey teams will just dump the puck into the scoring zone to increase their chances to score on a carom / rebound vs. completing a pass and executing a perfect shot on goal to score. Don’t think we wanna see that, do we?

Nah…you can’t control the ball all the way across the goal line, you ain’t deserve those 6 pints.

[Bootie]

Rule i hate....when the offense fumbles a ball through the end zone and out of bounds there's a change of possession and touchback.

What would you propose as the alternative ?

Maybe the same as what happens when the ball is fumbled by the offense out of bounds in the field... ball is spotted where it went out of bounds, offense still controls it. The question should be why the ball should be taken away from the offense just because the ball goes out of bounds after crossing the goal line vs before.

Hmmm….well the goal line is sort of a special place on the old gridiron. On one side of it is the land of 0 points and on the other, well actually on the 1st molecule of it, is the Land of 6 Pints.

Inbounds, vis a vis out of bounds, is a good place, but not the same as the Land of 6 Pints.

If we spot the ball where it went out of bounds, it would be spotted in the Land of 6 Pints, which requires the advancing Team to be awarded with 6 pints. But, if they were unable to maintain possession of the Football into the Land of 6 Pints, do they deserve those 6 pints? Of course they don’t. If you are proposing that we spot the ball on the 1st molecule outside of the goal line, or, by rule, on, say, the 1 yard line, FUBeAR could see that as a possible alternative…but here’s the thing…

…when inside the 5 yard line, fumbling the ball ‘accidentally’ (read intentionally) toward an open spot in the back of the Endzone on 3rd, maybe even 2nd, down could become a ‘thing.’ The risk/reward might make it make sense to do that…kinda like hockey teams will just dump the puck into the scoring zone to increase their chances to score on a carom / rebound vs. completing a pass and executing a perfect shot on goal to score. Don’t think we wanna see that, do we?

Nah…you can’t control the ball all the way across the goal line, you ain’t deserve those 6 pints.

That was a most logical, reasonable, well-articulated and entertaining explanation, and it makes my question now seem as idiotic to me as it must’ve seemed to you upon your initial reading. Bootie thanks you for the enlightenment.

[Furman Sports Report]

If the helmet comes off due to a penalty, the player doesn't have to leave for a play. But if the refs keep the hanky in their pocket, I guess they have to leave.
Kind of a stupid rule on the whole that probably needs to go. Don't understand what's so unsportsmanlike about taking your helmet off to celebrate. Seems really antiquated in 2022, when players rush to the sideline to put on a turnover chain, a turnover rasslin' championship belt or pull the handle on a turnover slot machine, etc.