JavaScript must be enabled to use this chat software. Holmgren supports runoff rule as is - Page 2

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 17 of 17
  1. #16
    SavageRam's Avatar
    SavageRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Maine, USA
    Rep Power

    Re: Holmgren supports runoff rule as is

    Quote Originally Posted by RamWraith View Post
    Mike Holmgren:
    "This type of play might happen once a year, once every two years, and
    typically that wasn't enough to change rules. I don't think you want to change every rule that comes up kind of quirky like that."
    True, until teams start exploiting it. I wonder if he'll still think it's "quirky."

    Mike Holmgren:
    "The example that (Linehan) used, to have two receivers run down there and one snap the ball like you're on the playground, you can't do it," Holmgren said. "The official's holding the ball. He's holding the ball. You're not going to grab the ball from the official ... and nothing can be done till he sets the ball down."
    Everyone knows you can't snap the ball until the officials set the ball down, but that "playground" play would still take a lot less time than waiting for a lumbering, tired offensive line to run down there.

    And if the ball was caught down the middle of the field for say 20 or 30 yards -- which is easier to do against a prevent defense that's protecting the sidelines -- it would take three or four seconds for the official to set the ball down and have one receiver snap it to another receiver while the rest of the team stands still. That would result in an offensive illegal formation penalty and defensive encroachment penalty... offsetting penalties... and it would stop the clock with no 10 second runoff.

    Now, that's a play I wouldn't hesitate putting in my playbook after last weekend.
    Last edited by SavageRam; -10-22-2006 at 07:58 PM.

  2. #17
    Fat Pang's Avatar
    Fat Pang is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Hong Kong
    Rep Power

    Re: Holmgren supports runoff rule as is

    I'm not sure that the majority of fans on these forums have suggested that there was a deliberate attempt by the Seahawks to cheat, but looking at the rule objectively (Or at least trying to ) I'm not sure anyone can tell me why one penalty is worth a run-off and one isn't.

    The result of the game is never going to change and no-one ever expected it to but one of the key characterisitics of any rule in any game is that it should at least make sense.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts