Monday, January 22, 2007

Football Rules

I need some clarity on the philosophy of certain football rules that I noticed in the Colts/Pats game last night:

Rule 1: Number of players allowed to break the huddle/be in the huddle. As I understand it, having 12 players in the huddle is a no-no. Why? Isn't there already a rule in place for "too many players on the field" when the ball is snapped? Isn't that redundancy? Who cares how many players are in the huddle? I thought all that mattered was how many you had when the ball was snapped. Is it supposed to make the referee's life easier at counting players? I.e, if 3 players run on the field, then all you have to watch for is 3 to come off. Instead of always counting 11. But, I'm sure they still always count for 11 because many times after a running back gets a big play or wide receiver makes a good catch, they run out of bounds and many times take the next play off. Probably because it's a new down, and new formation package...and they weren't needed. Anyway, back to the original question. Is the rule for the defense so they know what players have entered the game so they know what kind of defense to set up or be prepared for? Are they watching if 4 players come into the huddle and 3 of them are WR's and then notice that all 3 left and so now they have to think it's going to be a run play? I don't get it.

Rule 2: Face guarding. Last night there was a pass interference penalty against the Pats for "face guarding" the WR because the defensive player didn't make a play on the ball. Keep in mind, he never touched the WR! Instead, he watched the eyes and body language of the WR and knew the ball was probably coming his direction, so he better put his arms up to knock it away. In my opinion, I would think you should be allowed to do whatever you need to do possible to not let the WR catch the ball, as long as you don't touch him. Think of it this way, if the Defense would rather play defense in the NFL by just watching the eyes of the WR without looking for the ball, then I'd say that is to the Offense's ADVANTAGE. You'll give up a lot of touchdowns if you want to rely on hoping the ball runs into your ape-like waving arms or your huge dome of a helmet.

Try to picture this: What if the defensive player was making a play on the ball and turned around to deflect it. However, what if he missed the ball completely but the action of his arms attempting to deflect the ball temporarily shielded the WR's eyes and he lost concentration on the ball and failed to catch it. What is the difference? Because the defensive player temporarily blocked the WR's vision, that is a slight form of face guarding. I just think the defense should be allowed to do whatever it takes. If he wants to stand on his hands and use his feet, that's his prerogative. It's called LUCK.

1 comment:

Stack said...

Rule 1: I think you have it at the end. I'm sure the idea is to stop you from trying to disguise your packages until the last minute and fool the defense. You KNOW Belichick would do somehting like this every play if he could.

Rule 2: If you're not grabbing the other guys facemask I don't see why it should matter.