Packers Huddle

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 11:13

williewasgreat wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 04:34

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2024 20:13

They absolutely need to change that rule.

Easy fix, don't fumble!

That doesn’t fix a stupid rule.

I like the rule. I think you need to be careful with making it too easy on the offense.

Take a QB entering the out of bounds. He is untouchable. Both the QB and Defensive player knows this and therefore the QB can do some extra yardage "risk free"

If you apply the "no risk" to the offensive near the EZ, they will always stretch out. Why not? You get to keep the ball if it goes out of bounds or you get to score if a fleck of leather crosses the plane. I like this rule. Provide some risk. Make the offense WANT to keep that ball. Always protect the ball.

I’ve seen it enough times, i won’t be convinced otherwise. It’s an awful rule, i hate it.

BF004 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 11:24

I’ve seen it enough times, i won’t be convinced otherwise. It’s an awful rule, i hate it.

I agree, the EZ should not give the defense possession simply because the fumble went through the EZ out of bounds, the same rule in play field should be the same in that circumstance to, it is a dumb rule, last player to have possession should be held up then as well.

on that particular play I thought Hardeman was down before ever losing possession, and since the rules state the ground can't cause a fumble, it should have been Chiefs ball on the spot his knee touched, Chiefs imho where screwed by the refs.

and why should it go back to the offense? because they possessed it last? BFD. The most important job they have is not to lose it, they just did. Why just get it back? you committed a mortal sin on offense. I'd be fine if they lost every fumble. Maintain possession or you'll no longer have possession. But they'll never do that. But change the rule that's been here since the dawn of football, you lose a ball in the enemy's house? yeah, you're not getting it back.

musclestang wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 11:51

and why should it go back to the offense? because they possessed it last? BFD. The most important job they have is not to lose it, they just did. Why just get it back? you committed a mortal sin on offense. I'd be fine if they lost every fumble. Maintain possession or you'll no longer have possession. But they'll never do that. But change the rule that's been here since the dawn of football, you lose a ball in the enemy's house? yeah, you're not getting it back.

Well because they last had possession
and here we have a vote for defensive football the guy with the ball has to not only protect the ball, but also himself against people that will do anything to strip it, aint easy, why penalize him, specially when no one from the other team ever had possession of the ball? this is one convo where I have to disagree with ya MS

For those that don't like the rule: Think of the football as a big wad of cash. If I throw that wad of cash over the US-Mexico border, should I expect to get it back?

Crazylegs Starks wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 12:43

For those that don't like the rule: Think of the football as a big wad of cash. If I throw that wad of cash over the US-Mexico border, should I expect to get it back?

well thats different, you willingly gave up possession of that money so you would be labeled a Indian giver, and the natives would possibly scalp you, don't mess with the Indians

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 11:59

musclestang wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 11:51

and why should it go back to the offense? because they possessed it last? BFD. The most important job they have is not to lose it, they just did. Why just get it back? you committed a mortal sin on offense. I'd be fine if they lost every fumble. Maintain possession or you'll no longer have possession. But they'll never do that. But change the rule that's been here since the dawn of football, you lose a ball in the enemy's house? yeah, you're not getting it back.

Well because they last had possession
and here we have a vote for defensive football the guy with the ball has to not only protect the ball, but also himself against people that will do anything to strip it, aint easy, why penalize him, specially when no one from the other team ever had possession of the ball? this is one convo where I have to disagree with ya MS

But they don’t lose it in neutral territory, they lost it in the enemies house.

It's consistent. A fumble out of your own end zone is 2 points to the opponent and you kicking to them. A fumble out of the opponents end zone is a touchback for the opponent.

musclestang wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:10

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 11:59

musclestang wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 11:51

and why should it go back to the offense? because they possessed it last? BFD. The most important job they have is not to lose it, they just did. Why just get it back? you committed a mortal sin on offense. I'd be fine if they lost every fumble. Maintain possession or you'll no longer have possession. But they'll never do that. But change the rule that's been here since the dawn of football, you lose a ball in the enemy's house? yeah, you're not getting it back.

Well because they last had possession
and here we have a vote for defensive football the guy with the ball has to not only protect the ball, but also himself against people that will do anything to strip it, aint easy, why penalize him, specially when no one from the other team ever had possession of the ball? this is one convo where I have to disagree with ya MS

But they don’t lose it in neutral territory, they lost it in the enemies house.

actually what we are discussing happened prior to the enemy's house, the ball rolling through the enemy's house and then out of bounds is still possession lost and out of bounds, same as in the field of play, to me it's just a tit for tat rule by the nfl attempting parody, it's just another way to keep offenses in check.

but this is JMO

Did any of you guys see that Bills fan after the game sobbing? It sucks to lose as we know all too well but to cry like that after a football game? This poor guy needs a hobby...

Pugger wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:33

Did any of you guys see that Bills fan after the game sobbing? It sucks to lose as we know all too well but to cry like that after a football game? This poor guy needs a hobby...

I couldn't watch/consume anything football until April after the 2014 loss in Seattle...

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:29

musclestang wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:10

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 11:59

Well because they last had possession
and here we have a vote for defensive football the guy with the ball has to not only protect the ball, but also himself against people that will do anything to strip it, aint easy, why penalize him, specially when no one from the other team ever had possession of the ball? this is one convo where I have to disagree with ya MS

But they don’t lose it in neutral territory, they lost it in the enemies house.

actually what we are discussing happened prior to the enemy's house, the ball rolling through the enemy's house and then out of bounds is still possession lost and out of bounds, same as in the field of play, to me it's just a tit for tat rule by the nfl attempting parody, it's just another way to keep offenses in check.

but this is JMO

It's a football rule. It's been around I believe since the beginning of the game. I don't think there was thoughts of "parody" when it was created.

All football leagues follow it for the exception fo the USFL/XLF changed the rule in its league in 2023.

It is not a new rule. It also not unique to the NFL.

Pugger wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:33

Did any of you guys see that Bills fan after the game sobbing? It sucks to lose as we know all too well but to cry like that after a football game? This poor guy needs a hobby...

The Bills are his hobby.

The Packers are my hobby.

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:37

Pugger wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:33

Did any of you guys see that Bills fan after the game sobbing? It sucks to lose as we know all too well but to cry like that after a football game? This poor guy needs a hobby...

I couldn't watch/consume anything football until April after the 2014 loss in Seattle...

I hear ya, but to cry?

Pugger wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:41

Pckfn23 wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:37

Pugger wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:33

Did any of you guys see that Bills fan after the game sobbing? It sucks to lose as we know all too well but to cry like that after a football game? This poor guy needs a hobby...

I couldn't watch/consume anything football until April after the 2014 loss in Seattle...

I hear ya, but to cry?

Good thing you didn't hang out with me in January 2021 and January 2022.

I havent cried over a Packers game since February 6th, 2011.

go pak go wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:38

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:29

musclestang wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:10

But they don’t lose it in neutral territory, they lost it in the enemies house.

actually what we are discussing happened prior to the enemy's house, the ball rolling through the enemy's house and then out of bounds is still possession lost and out of bounds, same as in the field of play, to me it's just a tit for tat rule by the nfl attempting parody, it's just another way to keep offenses in check.

but this is JMO

It's a football rule. It's been around I believe since the beginning of the game. I don't think there was thoughts of "parody" when it was created.

All football leagues follow it for the exception fo the USFL/XLF changed the rule in its league in 2023.

It is not a new rule. It also not unique to the NFL.

when did it become the rule, I seriously see NO reason for it other then to limit the offense, which the officials where able to do by not calling Hardeman down prior to the fumble, if they had we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 14:04

go pak go wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:38

Yoop wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2024 13:29

actually what we are discussing happened prior to the enemy's house, the ball rolling through the enemy's house and then out of bounds is still possession lost and out of bounds, same as in the field of play, to me it's just a tit for tat rule by the nfl attempting parody, it's just another way to keep offenses in check.

but this is JMO

It's a football rule. It's been around I believe since the beginning of the game. I don't think there was thoughts of "parody" when it was created.

All football leagues follow it for the exception fo the USFL/XLF changed the rule in its league in 2023.

It is not a new rule. It also not unique to the NFL.

when did it become the rule, I seriously see NO reason for it other then to limit the offense, which the officials where able to do by not calling Hardeman down prior to the fumble, if they had we wouldn't even be discussing this.

It's been a rule since about the inception of the game. The reason for it is because it is consistent all the way around, a ball out of the end zone without possession is a touchback. Happens on kickoffs, punts, and fumbles. Even a fumble out of your own end zone results in a change of possession.

The 2014 NFCCG was literally traumatic. It took months for me to stop having flashbacks to the terrible plays we inflicted on ourselves. The onside kick fail, the 2pt conversion, sliding on that one INT... all those bad plays would just pop into my head over and over. It was brutal.

I did feel a little better after seeing Richard Sherman's soul get stolen when Russell Wilson threw that INT to lose the game. F that team.