Why in God's name is there a penalty for "ineligible receiver downfield" or whatever it is?

5/3/2006 12:35:53 AM

b/c the o-line is not allowed to catch a pass so if they went downfield it would appear that there was another receiver to cover for the D

5/3/2006 12:38:13 AM

Okay, my fault.

Clarification: Why aren't all the offensive players eligible to receive a pass?

5/3/2006 12:39:28 AM

i cant give you a strict answer to that

just one of the rules

i assume it would just be too damn confusing if you had to, while rushing the qb, cover 10 players in case he threw it to them

5/3/2006 12:40:38 AM

I'm under the impression that it's a rule that has no purpose at all other than to limit creativity and natural playmaking on the part of all participants.

That's why I was wondering.

5/3/2006 12:42:11 AM

wouldn't it make it easier to get one of your guys to the quarterback then if one less o-linemen was present? they can catch laterals.

5/3/2006 12:42:35 AM

i don't know all that much about hockey


why is there a penalty for going offsides?

5/3/2006 12:42:45 AM

so that players can't just cherry pick in the other team's defensive zone.

5/3/2006 12:43:31 AM

it would be easier, but if a lineman got past a blocker, that blocker would essentially become a wide open player which would almost make rushing the passer counterproductive. you would have football scores looking like nba scores

it makes sense to a football mind

5/3/2006 12:44:44 AM

I understand why it's a dumb idea to send eight men downfield or whatever, I just can't figure out why there's a rule forbidding it.

5/3/2006 12:46:36 AM

^^^ perhaps that's similar to the reason there's a penalty for ineligible receiver

hear me out:

you have eleven players on each side of the line of scrimmage. mainly fat guys on the line to protect the QB and quick skilled guys spread out. if every player were eligible for a pass, you could just put your 11 most athletic guys out there, snap the ball about 10 yards back and the QB can dance around for a few seconds and heave the ball downfield for one of his ten tall, fast receivers to catch. if the defenders chose to rush the QB, it would leave a few receivers wide open. if they all chose to play pass coverage, the qb could dance around in the backfield for a few minutes.

[Edited on May 3, 2006 at 12:50 AM. Reason : g]

5/3/2006 12:48:02 AM

if the o-linemen could catch a pass

then you have essentially turned the game into one huge 1on1 match b/c ANYBODY could end up wiht the ball

every single player would be a blocker/pass catcher

just trust me when i say it would be a horrible idea

5/3/2006 12:49:36 AM

and having a QB stand in the backfield for 10 minutes wouldn't make for an interesting game either

5/3/2006 12:50:20 AM

in football

in one on one matchups

the offense always has the advantage

w/out the rule, it would be nothing but one on one matchups and game scores would get absolutely ridiculously high

5/3/2006 12:50:54 AM

So, it keeps the game from being too exciting/increases parity?

I'm just thinking that less rules like that would lead to some more variety between teams.

5/3/2006 12:52:45 AM

^sounds like some wierd xfl strategy

5/3/2006 12:53:01 AM

icing

5/3/2006 12:53:17 AM

dumb hockey question:


why is there a penalty for purposely hitting the puck out of play? i think that would be a great way to get out of trouble when the other team is peppering your goalie

[Edited on May 3, 2006 at 12:55 AM. Reason : g]

5/3/2006 12:54:36 AM

i understand the rule, but i think it'd be cool if an o-lineman could run downfield to catch a pass if the pocket breaks down.

5/3/2006 12:55:08 AM

It's just something that popped into my head.

Seems like a rule the exists unneccessarily. Most likely, no one in their right is going to run an entire offense around an all-skill group and let their QB get murdered...but if they can pull it off, I don't see why the creativity and skill involved should be punished.

The trapezoid in hockey is similar...why punish a goaltender who has learned how to properly quarterback his defense?

^^^ That's a penalty because it involves no skill or quality play. Kinda like throwing the ball out of bounds in football SHOULD be a penalty. FWIW, it used to be that only a goaltender who shot the puck over the glass in the defensive zone got a penalty; only this year did they make it any defensive player.

[Edited on May 3, 2006 at 12:57 AM. Reason : d]

5/3/2006 12:55:55 AM

if you have ever played flag football you understand this rule bc as soon as you rush the qb hard then the lineman can just turn around and catch the ball which makes it extremely easy to score points...just compare this to why can't hockey players check the goalie and knock him out of the way and then score. This is because it would be too easy to score

5/3/2006 12:56:56 AM

Quote :

"o, it keeps the game from being too exciting/increases parity?"

i mean

it depends what you mean by more exciting

if you think scoring is the only exciting thing in sports (which doesnt make sense if you like hockey) then, sure, i guess it would make it more exciting


think of some hockey rule that would be absurd to change but would increase scoring and you would have a good analogy

[Edited on May 3, 2006 at 12:58 AM. Reason : ^good analogy]

5/3/2006 12:57:26 AM

b/c hitting the puck out of play stops the play and gives you an unfair advantage in getting a short breath. it takes away from the other teams momentum. icing is called, b/c less talented team could just keep sending the puck down the ice whenever they get in trouble in their own end, and can't keep the other team out. it makes them actually play instead of playing keep away.

5/3/2006 12:58:15 AM

wouldnt getting rid of offsides make hockey more exciting?

more breakaway goals are always exciting

5/3/2006 12:59:06 AM

my question was rhetorical

5/3/2006 12:59:51 AM

I'll admit I was being a bit facetious with the excitement remark...people watch hockey and soccer and scream "NOT ENOUGH SCORING" as if scoring (instead of scoring chances) is all that matters.

Getting rid of offsides would only increase garbage goals, not breakaways. All quality, one-on-one breakaways are established in the neutral zone.

[Edited on May 3, 2006 at 1:01 AM. Reason : d]

5/3/2006 1:00:36 AM

no it wouldn't. as having played defensemen for most of my playing time, i hated when one guy would just try to stay back behind me so as to get a quick break away. it keeps the defensemen from keeping the puck in play in the offensive zone, therefore taking away good scoring chances, especially on a power play.

5/3/2006 1:01:12 AM

i'll be the first to admit that I am not a hockey fan until the playoffs roll around

but the final 3-5 minutes of tonight's game were some of the best hockey I've seen (in my limited experience)

LOTS of shots, lots of crashing the boards, lots of pushing and shoving....VERY entertaining

5/3/2006 1:02:39 AM

i never said ono-on-one breakaway

i just said breakaways

if offsides were removed, a forward could spring ahead and have a defenseman pass him the puck in front of the defender

5/3/2006 1:03:10 AM

well the reason it's there is so that a guy can't just camp out beside the goal. it makes him actually play defense as well as offense.

5/3/2006 1:04:22 AM

but wouldn't that be one less defenseman and make it easier for the team with the advantage to score?

5/3/2006 1:05:23 AM

Ineligible receiver penalties happen because of miscommunications in the huddle or playcalls I would guess. O Linemen aren't allowed to break downfield (on a pass play) until the throw is released from the QB, so as long as the OL know it's a pass play, shouldn't happen, of course audibles and miscommunications of the sort cause the flag. You sometimes see ineligible man down filed on punts because of the same scenario. Desginated players ( don't know how many, but know that OL cannot) can immediately break downfield to tackle on a punt, but OL have to stay near the LOS until the punt is away. You sometimes see a punter drop the ball, then kick, or snap is bad and he has to pick it up run several yards and then kick it. All of these can cause an OL to break downfield to tackle before the punt is kicked by the punter, and thus a flag.

5/3/2006 1:05:53 AM

A breakaway, by definition, is one attacker versus the goaltender. In some cases, a backchecker might catch the attacker before he can get a shot off.

^^ A winger never really plays defense lower than the circles anyway.

[Edited on May 3, 2006 at 1:07 AM. Reason : j]

5/3/2006 1:06:04 AM

a puck is actually hard to hang onto, as seen when a player just whacks a guys stick. it's not like football where you have to do a lot more work to force the ball out of the ball carriers hands. it's quite easy for a group of 4 guys to take away the puck from 5 guys for a second and rocket it down the ice. then the guy sitting there next to the goal could just grab the puck, while the other team takes a few seconds to come down, and have a shooting fest with the opposing goalie.

5/3/2006 1:08:14 AM

Hell, he asked me first... I coach football... I gave him a few answers, but couldn't really think of a COMPELLING one. Like he said, it's just part of the game... live-action fuill-contact chess. I got called for ineligible rec. downfield my roockie year.

We teach them to take a step in and "down" (towards the center) esp on "30 blocking" three step drops by the QB... on sprint passes we'll collapse half the line, the backside (we usually have good scramblers)

5/3/2006 1:08:28 AM

yes, excitement argument i would equate to hockey doing away with goalies.

5/3/2006 1:45:12 AM