Thread: Football Patriots Four Rule Proposals
View Single Post
Old 03-26-2014, 10:01 AM   #72
alnorth alnorth is offline
.
 
alnorth's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Casino cash: $57176239
Quote:
Originally Posted by patteeu View Post
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.
__________________
how many emo kids does it take to change a lightbulb?
HOW MANY?!
none they just sit in the dark and cry
Posts: 36,130
alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.alnorth is obviously part of the inner Circle.
    Reply With Quote