Competition Committee's proposal of rule changes

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by Jimmors, Mar 19, 2014.

  1. draw2anderson35

    draw2anderson35 Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +76 / 1 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    Irsay while on his most recent bender must have written some of those rule proposals!
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. 4dabers

    4dabers Veteran DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2013
    Messages:
    624
    Likes Received:
    554
    Ratings:
    +639 / 0 / -0
    ßearz ßuckz:
    23ß
    Ya know Roger, it's a pretty good game the way it is. Just sayin. I understand you are worried about injuries and all, but it's not like anyone is hiding secret IED's throughout the field of play. I know we sometimes say "he blew up his knee", but they are never REALLY blown up. These guys know what the risks are and if that isn't good enough for the lawyers, then make it a requirement in every contract in big bold letters that you are exempt from litigation. I know that only goes so far in court, but it should (that's a whole other soap box).
    • Like Like x 1
  3. soulman

    soulman Pro-Bowler SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,832
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Ratings:
    +1,467 / 0 / -2
    ßearz ßuckz:
    701ß
    The Competition Committee and the Owners Committee need to spend more time in the sack getting laid and less in the bar thinking up stuff like some of this crap and drunk dialing one another at 3:00 AM with just "one more thing". They've already made the game too difficult to play and officiate as far as some of these borderline calls go. It's a rough sport so let 'em play it the way it's been played for decades.

    They want to move the kickoffs up to eliminate one of the more exciting plays in the game because they fear too many injuries result and on the other hand keep a stupid play like a kicked PAT in the game but move it back so it'll be more challenging. Stupid. Just eliminate the kicked PAT completely. Teams make 98% of those and if you move it back kickers will practice it from the 25 yard line until they make 90% plus of those too. Practice make perfect. Keep the KOR. It was nothing more than an anti Devin Hester rule anyway so that "haves" with a returner as good a Hester (well at least close to Hester) wouldn't have such and advantage over the "have nots" and win a game on what they may have considered to be a cheap quick score.

    I like the idea of only allowing a run or pass for one PAT and I like the idea of taking a point away if it fails. The more conservative coaches will probably forego it most of the time until they really need it to either win or set up a two score advantage late in the game. That will also make the FB or Power Back position a more valuable one than it is now and teams will look for taller receivers who can win jump ball battles on short throws. Now the PAT becomes interesting again from a tactical sense. Succeed and you score 8 points but fail on you only get 6. Now there's a two point swing on a play that may only succeed 70% of the time or less. That adds some excitement to the game. Moving a PAT attempt back to the 25 doesn't. It nothing more than another 1 point FG. And leave the KOR alone too. They've done enough damage to that already.

Share This Page