Captain Hindsight Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 It's a good idea to close that loop-hole now. Giants could have (and probably should have), played 12 men again on the next play. I would have put 46 and the assistant special teams coach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Oh goodie. My biggest complaint has always been that NFL games aren't long enough. Next year hopefully they'll expand it to reviewing all first downs. And holding penalties. The time replays extend games is insignificant compared to the TV commercial timeouts. Best game I have ever been too was a few years ago when a transformer got knocked out shortly before game time and there wasn't power to televise the game until the 4th quarter. Imagine if you will, a game where after each change of possession instead of watching the players stand around for a couple minutes watching the commercials on the scoreboard, they just went out and played. It was a beautiful thing. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'love Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Why is too many men on the field a dead ball foul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 The time replays extend games is insignificant compared to the TV commercial timeouts. Obviously, but you aren't going to have a multi billion dollar business without the commercials so that's a pointless comparison. The additional wasted time by such rule changes is almost always incremental, but they continue to add up. How much time do we spend on replay now vs. 30 years ago (when it was zero)? How much more will be spent ten years from now with more and more pointless and unnecessary rules? Why is too many men on the field a dead ball foul? Because of the play in the last minute of the Super Bowl where the Giants had 12 men and the Pats lost 8 seconds on an incompletion. The Giants could have simply chosen to keep 12 on the field for the next play too and traded 5 yards for several more seconds off the clock and repeated that until the Pats were left with time for only one last play. It's a small loophole but it could be exploited in the right circumstance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted April 13, 2012 Share Posted April 13, 2012 Obviously, but you aren't going to have a multi billion dollar business without the commercials so that's a pointless comparison. The additional wasted time by such rule changes is almost always incremental, but they continue to add up. How much time do we spend on replay now vs. 30 years ago (when it was zero)? How much more will be spent ten years from now with more and more pointless and unnecessary rules? Not quite pointless. Your issue was making an already too long game even longer with more replays. My point is that replays is insignificant noise compared to the real culprit, TV timeouts. TV money is obviously necessary to pay the obscene player salaries. No way in hell just ticket sales for so few games could cover that. But they could cut the number of ads in half, and charge twice as much for them for example. Do we really need to see 10 Budweiser ads per game? Wouldn't 5 be enough to get their point across? That way the money stays the same but the game moves along quicker. That's just one example of going after the biggest offender and not worrying about the little stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts