College football rules or NFL?

wadesworld

Well-known member
Albatross 2024 Club
Joined
Aug 31, 2012
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
3,831
Location
Nashville, TN
Handicap
11
I've always preferred the college rules. Rules I prefer:

- Receiver down after a catch (if their knee, arm, etc, goes down). I've always thought it was stupid you could be laying on the ground after a catch in the NFL and get up and run.
- Overtime. The college format is better, giving both teams a chance.
- Pass interference. Run 50 yards down the field, get a guy to handfight a bit too much and it's a spot foul - what? 15 yards from the LOS makes much more sense.
 
I don't agree with receiver down after a catch. What if you have to lay out to catch something but no one touched you, how or why should you be considered down? If they didn't get you, keep running!
 
I don't agree with receiver down after a catch. What if you have to lay out to catch something but no one touched you, how or why should you be considered down? If they didn't get you, keep running!

Still disagree, but you reminded me of another:

I prefer the college "one-foot down" rule.
 
Still disagree, but you reminded me of another:

I prefer the college "one-foot down" rule.
Disagree here. If a runner is considered OB when one foot steps out a pass catcher should have to establish both feet in bounds in order to complete a pass.

NFL overtime should be sudden death after the first possession regardless of the outcome. College FB has a tiebreaker, not overtime. How anything can be called “overtime” when the game clock is no longer running is beyond me.
 
I don't agree with receiver down after a catch. What if you have to lay out to catch something but no one touched you, how or why should you be considered down? If they didn't get you, keep running!
You are literally down...
 
Disagree here. If a runner is considered OB when one foot steps out a pass catcher should have to establish both feet in bounds in order to complete a pass.

If the pass catcher's one foot touches out-of-bounds, the pass will be incomplete. A runner could take a handoff on one foot and hop down the field on that foot and as long as that foot doesn't out of bounds, he can advance the ball and even score.
 
You are literally down...
I disagree, you are on the ground. The definition of down changes whether your are college or pro. No one would argue that you are not on the ground, I'm saying I don't agree with the definition of down on the college side. The semantics that say yes you are down on the ground cant be argued in my mind since we know there are two different definitions depending on which rule book you are following.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
If the pass catcher's one foot touches out-of-bounds, the pass will be incomplete. A runner could take a handoff on one foot and hop down the field on that foot and as long as that foot doesn't out of bounds, he can advance the ball and even score.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here.
 
I disagree, you are on the ground. The definition of down changes whether your are college or pro. No one would argue that you are not on the ground, I'm saying I don't agree with the definition of down on the college side. The semantics that say yes you are down on the ground cant be argued in my mind since we know there are two different definitions depending on which rule book you are following.
Yes, semantics but in either league that would be down.

NFL requires down by contact for some reason.


Wouldn't it be weird if they require out of bounds by contact?
 
Yes, semantics but in either league that would be down.

NFL requires down by contact for some reason.


Wouldn't it be weird if they require out of bounds by contact?
Are you defining down as in the end of the play? If so then in the NFL you are not down. You are simply on the ground, but the play continues until the play ends by one of the ways that can happen, contact oob score penalty etc.

I think out of bounds by contact would be absolutely ridiculous and it is in a completely different conversation than being on the ground vs down vs down by contact. You could just run out of bounds and into the stadium in the fans and then use them as a screen while you make your way to the end zone or you could just run out time as long as you could get out of sight, it would be like playing tackle tag.
 
Not a fan of the two minute warning. Who are they warning? Like the college rule where the clock stops on a first down then starts up when the referee spots the ball.
Just like the 7th inning stretch. You need to be reminded to move a little in baseball. Hah
 
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here.

The point I'm making is the runner doesn't have to have two feet on the ground at any point. Why should the pass receiver?
 
The point I'm making is the runner doesn't have to have two feet on the ground at any point. Why should the pass receiver?
Okay.

But if any part of one foot touches the boundary they are out of bounds. Why do receivers deserve an exception? Frankly, offenses already have plenty of advantage and don’t need any more.
 
Okay.

But if any part of one foot touches the boundary they are out of bounds. Why do receivers deserve an exception? Frankly, offenses already have plenty of advantage and don’t need any more.

It's not an exception. Receivers must get one foot completely inbounds. Obviously we're not on the same page on this one though.
 
It's not an exception. Receivers must get one foot completely inbounds. Obviously we're not on the same page on this one though.
Let me ask this, is it okay then for a receiver to run a route and be eligible as long as just one foot stays inbounds? Not forced out by the defender but just as part of the route.
 
Let me ask this, is it okay then for a receiver to run a route and be eligible as long as just one foot stays inbounds? Not forced out by the defender but just as part of the route.

If the other foot doesn't touch out-of-bounds, then yes.

Pardon me for asking, bit do you perhaps have a misunderstanding of the rule? One-foot-inbounds means that one foot must touch completely in-bounds and no other part of your body may touch out-of-bounds. The way you phrase this conversation makes me think perhaps you believe the rule allows for a receiver to come down with one foot touching out-of-bounds and the second foot in-bounds and the play will be called in-bounds. It does not. One foot must be fully in-bounds. The second foot must either touch fully in-bounds as well, or it must stay in the air while the receiver touches a foot in bounds. Additionally, the receiver must maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground (even though by that time they may be out-of-bounds).
 
A lot of things in the college game wouldn't work in the pros because the players are too good and because the wear and tear is greater when you play up to 21 games and none of them are against Jacksonville State or Marshall.

The one foot thing wouldn't be terrible but would be pretty huge in a game that is already arguably too pass heavy with that level of skill.

The knee down rule would probably be for the best just to avoid some subjectivity.

The overtime gets into those wear and tear issues, the kickers are too good, and NFL coaches risk averse.

There aren't any good answers. I'd just have regular season ties and in the playoffs just exchange 2 point conversions. Maybe move it back a yard. Might as well get to the point.


The PI penalty would be better if the spot foul was reserved for cynical intentional violations rather than careless clumsiness.


I'd like to see an NFL game played with some past college ruleset. Like when an incomplete pass was a turnover or something like that.
 
I have always really enjoy the way College Football deals with ties. Super fun to watch unless one of the teams comes out and throws an egg right away haha
 
I like the NFL pass interference rule better but college for tie breaker and everything else I can think of now
 
There are some rules I like better in each. I'm not one that wants the college OT rules in the NFL though.
 
I don't know that I agree with the PI penalty. I agree that sometimes a 50 yard penalty for a ticky-tack is a bit much. But I don't want DBs tackling WR if they are burnt.

Definitely prefer College OT rules. You would probably have to make it from the 35 or 45 in the NFL but I like the intent of the rule.
 
I don't know that I agree with the PI penalty. I agree that sometimes a 50 yard penalty for a ticky-tack is a bit much. But I don't want DBs tackling WR if they are burnt.

That could be dealt with by making it a spot foul, sort of the way basketball deals with intentional fouls with 2 shots plus possession.
 
If the other foot doesn't touch out-of-bounds, then yes.

Pardon me for asking, bit do you perhaps have a misunderstanding of the rule? One-foot-inbounds means that one foot must touch completely in-bounds and no other part of your body may touch out-of-bounds. The way you phrase this conversation makes me think perhaps you believe the rule allows for a receiver to come down with one foot touching out-of-bounds and the second foot in-bounds and the play will be called in-bounds. It does not. One foot must be fully in-bounds. The second foot must either touch fully in-bounds as well, or it must stay in the air while the receiver touches a foot in bounds. Additionally, the receiver must maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground (even though by that time they may be out-of-bounds).

Link to quoted rule:
ARTICLE 3.
  1. To catch a ball means that a player:
    1. Secures control of a live ball in flight before the ball touches the ground, and
    2. Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
    3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., and
    4. Satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.
 
Link to quoted rule:
ARTICLE 3.
  1. To catch a ball means that a player:
    1. Secures control of a live ball in flight before the ball touches the ground, and
    2. Touches the ground in bounds with any part of his body, and then
    3. Maintains control of the ball long enough to enable him to perform an act common to the game, i.e., long enough to pitch or hand the ball, advance it, avoid or ward off an opponent, etc., and
    4. Satisfies paragraphs b, c, and d below.
Anyway, no I don’t think the college catch standard should apply to the NFL, and I absolutely don’t think you should remain an eligible receiver, at any level of play, if any part of your body leaves the field of play unless forced by a defender.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JB
Back
Top