F*CK IOWA

[ZRF]

I mean, this isn't true, you can see players starting to slow up because of it.

I think that had more to do with the positioning on the sideline more than anything else. Not only that, when a catch is imminent, players have to slow up or they're going to fly right by the catcher (more times than not anyway). I think the anti-Iowa crowd (not specifically you) is seeing what they want to see.

I think that was a terrible call and that this rule needs to be reviewed and abolished. If someone doesn't know how to signal for a proper fair catch let them get blown the **** up. Or create a hand signal for a waive off that players have to follow (and make waves about it's dissemination). Not to have a clearly defined way of waiving teammates off, which is not only part of the game but fundamental, is so boneheaded I don't know where to begin.

You know those old town rules that "technically" exist, as they were created in a different time, but never actually abolished because everyone in their right mind knows they are stupid, therefore never enforced, and therefore never stricken? Well, this rule feels like one of those. "Sorry sir you were seen kissing on mainstreet which is technically illegal under city code 'Dumb-1a'. Here's a $100 citation."

 

[alarson]

I think that had more to do with the positioning on the sideline more than anything else. Not only that, when a catch is imminent, players have to slow up or they're going to fly right by the catcher (more times than not anyway). I think the anti-Iowa crowd (not specifically you) is seeing what they want to see.

I think that was a terrible call and that this rule needs to be reviewed and abolished. If someone doesn't know how to signal for a proper fair catch let them get blown the **** up. Or create a hand signal for a waive off that players have to follow (and make waves about it's dissemination). Not to have a clearly defined way of waiving teammates off, which is not only part of the game but fundamental, is so boneheaded I don't know where to begin.

You know those old town rules that "technically" exist, as they were created in a different time, but never actually abolished because everyone in their right mind knows they are stupid, therefore never enforced, and therefore never stricken? Well, this rule feels like one of those. "Sorry sir you were seen kissing on mainstreet which is technically illegal under city code 'Dumb-1a'. Here's a $100 citation."

No. These rules exist for a reason and they aren't just antiquated. You just don't understand the reasoning despite it being explained multiple times in this thread.

 

[NorthCyd]

No. These rules exist for a reason and they aren't just antiquated. You just don't understand the reasoning despite it being explained multiple times in this thread.

Besides, is the rule even that old? Seems like the rules for punt returns have been among the ones that have seen the most adjustment in recent years.

 

[iahawks]

That's not what he said in his "presser". Acted like he knew what was going on the entire time after the fact. What a dunce.

Yeah, I don't buy that for a second with the way he looked after the play occurred.

 

[madguy30]

I think that had more to do with the positioning on the sideline more than anything else. Not only that, when a catch is imminent, players have to slow up or they're going to fly right by the catcher (more times than not anyway). I think the anti-Iowa crowd (not specifically you) is seeing what they want to see.

I think that was a terrible call and that this rule needs to be reviewed and abolished. If someone doesn't know how to signal for a proper fair catch let them get blown the **** up. Or create a hand signal for a waive off that players have to follow (and make waves about it's dissemination). Not to have a clearly defined way of waiving teammates off, which is not only part of the game but fundamental, is so boneheaded I don't know where to begin.

You know those old town rules that "technically" exist, as they were created in a different time, but never actually abolished because everyone in their right mind knows they are stupid, therefore never enforced, and therefore never stricken? Well, this rule feels like one of those. "Sorry sir you were seen kissing on mainstreet which is technically illegal under city code 'Dumb-1a'. Here's a $100 citation."

Do you know how stupid this sounds?

 

[isufbcurt]

Do you know how stupid this sounds?

So like everything ZRF posts.

 

[2speedy1]

Nope, PJ Fleck thought it was a legal play because after it happened he had his bald head down with his hands on his knees dejected at what just occurred. I don't think anyone in that stadium saw any infraction on the play because most people don't know about that rule.

That's not what he said in his "presser". Acted like he knew what was going on the entire time after the fact. What a dunce.

Just because he was dejected as it happened doesnt mean he didnt know the rule or that it had happened. There were people that knew the rule and had seen it, but just didnt know if it was going to be called correctly. So yeah you can be down and worried but that may have just been worry that the refs didnt catch it.

 

[Ozclone]

I really doubt it. Had he not been on sideline I don't even think it gets reviewed. I think majority of fans on both sides were confused after ruling. It was a long review too to your point of being magnified. Time it takes to snap an extra point probably wouldn't of even give officials enough time imo

Did you ever think that the ref felt like it was an invalid signal and was planning to review it after the return but was letting it play out in case his real-time assessment was wrong? It wasn't a stay-away signal, if it was he sucks at stay-away signals. He waves his hand in a circle at or above his shoulder, who does that to tell people to stay away?

 

[KidSilverhair]

Do you know how stupid this sounds?

Yeah, I have a hard time with people thinking a rule that says you can’t return any kick if you wave your arms at all is 1) confusing 2) unfair or 3) in need of rewriting or abolishment.

Especially when the outcome of both a valid and invalid fair catch signal is exactly the same (dead ball at the point where it’s caught/recovered).

How do you rewrite that to make it simpler?

 

[ZRF]

Do you know how stupid this sounds?

Are you ******* kidding me? In comparison to not having a way for a player to waive off his teammates when trying to catch (or abort catching) a ball?

The latter is such a routine occurrence that EVERY football fan knows what it is. By comparison nobody even knew this stupid ******* rule existed. Why? It's rarely called and (again...by comparison) serves no purpose.

 

[2speedy1]

I think that had more to do with the positioning on the sideline more than anything else. Not only that, when a catch is imminent, players have to slow up or they're going to fly right by the catcher (more times than not anyway). I think the anti-Iowa crowd (not specifically you) is seeing what they want to see.

I think that was a terrible call and that this rule needs to be reviewed and abolished. If someone doesn't know how to signal for a proper fair catch let them get blown the **** up. Or create a hand signal for a waive off that players have to follow (and make waves about it's dissemination). Not to have a clearly defined way of waiving teammates off, which is not only part of the game but fundamental, is so boneheaded I don't know where to begin.

You know those old town rules that "technically" exist, as they were created in a different time, but never actually abolished because everyone in their right mind knows they are stupid, therefore never enforced, and therefore never stricken? Well, this rule feels like one of those. "Sorry sir you were seen kissing on mainstreet which is technically illegal under city code 'Dumb-1a'. Here's a $100 citation."

This rule is not an old rule, it was put in years after the fair catch rule was added. Because just as you describe people were not properly calling the fair catch and/or trying to decieve players with it. So this is the rule to correct the problems.

Key here is if you are a punt returner.....know the applicable rules.

What do you want, them to have to send up a flare to signal, and anything else is not a signal.

You have a "valid fair catch, and an "invalid fair catch" The rules are pretty clear on both.

 

[madguy30]

Are you ******* kidding me? In comparison to not having a way for a player to waive off his teammates when trying to catch (or abort catching) a ball?

The latter is such a routine occurrence that EVERY football fan knows what it is. By comparison nobody even knew this stupid ******* rule existed. Why? It's rarely called and (again...by comparison) serves no purpose.

You're suggesting that players get smoked which is what this type of rule helps prevent.

 

[houjix]

I think that had more to do with the positioning on the sideline more than anything else. Not only that, when a catch is imminent, players have to slow up or they're going to fly right by the catcher (more times than not anyway). I think the anti-Iowa crowd (not specifically you) is seeing what they want to see.

I think that was a terrible call and that this rule needs to be reviewed and abolished. If someone doesn't know how to signal for a proper fair catch let them get blown the **** up. Or create a hand signal for a waive off that players have to follow (and make waves about it's dissemination). Not to have a clearly defined way of waiving teammates off, which is not only part of the game but fundamental, is so boneheaded I don't know where to begin.

Most punt returners yell something like "peter" or "poison" to tell his teammates to be aware and get away from the ball. Signaling anything with his hands does nothing for the guy locked up with a punting team player and being pushed backwards. You hear "peter", you bail out of the block and try to locate the ball to get away from it.

 

[2speedy1]

Are you ******* kidding me? In comparison to not having a way for a player to waive off his teammates when trying to catch (or abort catching) a ball?

The latter is such a routine occurrence that EVERY football fan knows what it is. By comparison nobody even knew this stupid ******* rule existed. Why? It's rarely called and (again...by comparison) serves no purpose.

You can wave off your players anytime you want.....you just cant return the ball if you do. This is not a difficult concept.

 

[ZRF]

Yeah, I have a hard time with people thinking a rule that says you can’t return any kick if you wave your arms at all is 1) confusing 2) unfair or 3) in need of rewriting or abolishment.

Especially when the outcome of both a valid and invalid fair catch signal is exactly the same (dead ball at the point where it’s caught/recovered).

How do you rewrite that to make it simpler?

This almost comes across as a rhetorical question that basically answers itself. If you ask every football fan "do you see players waive off teammates and know what that looks like" every ******* one will say yes and replicate the exact some motion you saw from DeJean. I also am willing to bet, in a decisive landslide, that most fans think (at this point) it's part of the general game. So if we see it routinely, rarely see confusion or issues when the waive offs occur, why is this so ******* hard to grasp?

There's my rub. So many people are here trying to justify a rule that serves no real purpose, if people are being honest. Yet these same people are minimizing plays that occur much more frequently (waive offs) and a plays that are easily acceptable/recognizable from players, coaches, and fans.

It's really not ******* hard, folks.

 

[madguy30]

So like everything ZRF posts.

2 weeks to basketball season when we can start to get suggestions for players to play that literally don't do more than the player ZRF can't rip on enough.

 

[isufbcurt]

2 weeks to basketball season when we can start to get suggestions for players to play that literally don't do more than the player ZRF can't rip on enough.

Exactly. I can't wait for John Wooden's expert analysis.

 

[madguy30]

This almost comes across as a rhetorical question that basically answers itself. If you ask every football fan "do you see players waive off teammates and know what that looks like" every ******* one will say yes and replicate the exact some motion you saw from DeJean. I also am willing to bet, in a decisive landslide, that most fans think (at this point) it's part of the general game. So if we see it routinely, rarely see confusion or issues when the waive offs occur, why is this so ******* hard to grasp?

There's my rub. So many people are here trying to justify a rule that serves no real purpose, if people are being honest. Yet these same people are minimizing plays that occur much more frequently (waive offs) and a plays that are easily acceptable/recognizable from players, coaches, and fans.

It's really not ******* hard, folks.

You're doing the thing where you're talking yourself out of reality and not making sense.

Your last sentence is correct but misplaced; it's really not that hard: you can't wave and advance the ball.

The penalty Iowa didn't get called for on the same play doesn't happen often either but has a reason. So...get rid of it? What else should we get rid of? Intentional grounding?

 

[madguy30]

Exactly. I can't wait for John Wooden's expert analysis.

The players just gotta do what they've shown over and over that they can't do, or else someone off the bench should come in and do it even though they're not even playing for some super obvious reason that the coaches know from watching them every ******* day.

 

[madguy30]

Most punt returners yell something like "peter" or "poison" to tell his teammates to be aware and get away from the ball. Signaling anything with his hands does nothing for the guy locked up with a punting team player and being pushed backwards. You hear "peter", you bail out of the block and try to locate the ball to get away from it.

I always thought 'peter' was a random word to pick for the situation; is it because it doesn't sound like anything else being yelled?