Patriots Four Rule Proposals

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Thanks for your input. I'm not too impressed with it though.

You don't think kickers can kick the ball 5 feet higher and produce the same result? BTW, extending the goal post *is* a new rule and an additional cost.

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.

[patteeu]

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.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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.

The fact that nearly everyone in the football world wants the goalposts extended and you are pretty much alone on this suggests otherwise, and kicks aren't going over the new goalpost, every time this controversy has flared up the past few years, 5 feet would have done it.

Your suggestion is dumb, and no one agrees with it.

edit: by the way, we do have a rule on this, we currently have the "partially in = good" standard for going over. Its not unclear, it just sucks. If that was acceptable, there would not have been a controversy.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The fact that nearly everyone in the football world wants the goalposts extended and you are pretty much alone on this suggests otherwise, and kicks aren't going over the new goalpost, every time this controversy has flared up the past few years, 5 feet would have done it.

Your suggestion is dumb, and no one agrees with it.

You have no idea whether "nearly everyone in the football world" wants the goalposts extended. All you know is that a sufficient number of owners voted for it and that numerous commentators said they were for it after it was proposed. Even I said I don't have anything against it, so that doesn't really tell you much. You should stop making things up and you should stop using weak arguments like your appeal to popularity.

Originally Posted by alnorth

edit: by the way, we do have a rule on this, we currently have the "partially in = good" standard for going over. Its not unclear, it just sucks. If that was acceptable, there would not have been a controversy.

Which brings me back to my earlier comment, then. I don't see why there's any controversy at all. The official should be able to get it right every time. And given your opposition to changing rules and adding expense, leaving it alone would have been superior in that regard. Unless you were just making things up to throw garbage weight onto your argument again.

See you later alnorth. Now that we've come full circle and every one of your arguments from "spirit of the rule" to "new rule" and "added cost" turns out to be flawed, I think we're done here.