No announcement yet.

Rule question.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rule question.

    Watching the bowl games through the latest days (and especially Oregon - USF (or is it SFU, I never remember)), I found that there was one thing I did not understand and that is the offsetting of penalties. Sure, I understand how it works but is there any good reason for it?

    I have no problem with an offensive 5-yarder and a defensive 5-yarder offsetting each other, but if the offense comitted a 10-yard foul should it be offset against a five-yarder? I can sort of understand that.

    But, when there are three fouls on a play (Like in Ducks - Bulls where you hade three personal fouls on the same play). Would it not be fairer if two of the fouls were offset but the third one was actually applied?

    Does anybody know why this off-setting thing is the way it is?
    Forgive me I'm Swedish!

  • #2
    I'll add to your side on the confusion and agree that if there are three fouls 2 on one team and 1 on the other they 1 vs. 1 should offset and then be left with the remaining penalty
    Check out my new site Today!
    Live 4 The Story


    • #3
      I agree, I never understood that either... Just like I never understood why they don't have a playoff haha
      2016 NFL Mock Draft

      Sales Tips, Sales Techniques, Sales Planning and Sales Blogs to Increase Sales Commissions


      • #4
        Originally posted by Walter View Post
        I agree, I never understood that either... Just like I never understood why they don't have a playoff haha
        lol I think Walter that question was answered last night when SC wacked Illinois out of the starting gate (Illinois got back in the game though and blew it) and Hawaii doesn't even belong on the same football field as most SEC schools.

        FAct of the matter is that Georgia lost early in the season and I will tell you why the don't deserve to play in a national title: THEY HAVE NO PASSING GAME!!!!

        They lost to South Carolina and Tennessee because those teams exposed Stafford. He isn't a very good quarterback yet. Georgia has a great running game and a good (not great) defense.

        The two teams that deserve to play for the national title game are OSU and LSU. SC didn't deserve to play in the title game. They lost to STANFORD. How many D1 Champs lose to STANFORD? They also lost to Oregon because they could not score on Oregon's defense. Oregon's defense. Not LSU's defense: Oregon's defense.

        The BCS got it right this year lets just bring out the facts. OSU lost to an emerging Illinois team that has an underrated defense and LSU lost to a very very good Kentcky team in TRIPLE OVERTIME and they lost to Arkansas when Casey Dick decided to have the greatest game of his career.

        LSU has a better passing game than Georgia. They have much better receivers. They have a better defense. I'd even say Flynn is a better quarterback than Stafford. The BCS got it right (as far as the national title game).

        As far as the Sugar Bowl they got it right. You don't put Hawaii in that game and everyone is going to ask "Why not Hawaii" and if Hawaii beats Illinois in the Fiesta Bowl people are going to say "Why not Hawaii?" Hawaii deserved to get exposed. They have had it coming a long time, June Jones talks smack every week about how great Colt Brennan is and how great his offense is.
        Last edited by Matt McGuire; 01-02-2008, 11:34 AM.
        2014-2015 Kentucky Wildcats (38-1)

        Congrats to Wisconsin. Even more congrats to UK haters.