Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth
Since they have not been kicking it more than 5 feet higher, your first argument is moot, they have been barely going over. If we someday develop superkickers who can routinely launch it over the new height, we can deal with it then.
Your 2nd point is dumb. If you want to argue about nit-picky technicalities that no one cares about, have at it. It is, effectively, not a new rule, and not an added cost.
Going back to your suggestion, the reason why your suggestion is dumb is because it departs from the spirit of the rules. A rule saying it must be all the way in is dumb because we allow field goals that deflect in, and won't accept removing that. A rule saying if its partially in its good is dumb because then to be consistent we should allow any "field goal" that bounces off the post.
|
Your argument is laughable. There's nothing sacrosanct about the "spirit of the rules" here. There is literally no valid reason why they can't have the deflection rule when the goal post is hit and the "all in" or "partially in" rule when the ball sails above. There's also no reason they can't go with the 5 extra feet alternative either, but it is a new rule and it does create new expense and it is subject to the same problem the current rule has when the kick goes over the new, extended post. I prefer the former, but I'm not going to mimic you and take a huge, idiotic stand against the latter.