The Official Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl Thread

[cougjunkie]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...eak-tomfoolery

This guy is a weenie.

Signed Boise State and the Statue of Liberty play.

[WashingtonCoug]

I hope he feels the same way about play action pass.

[Donuthole]

The fake spike was good, old-fashioned trickery. Outwitting the opponent, if you will.

Those fake punts Utah always runs, however, are total weenie plays.

[All-American]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...eak-tomfoolery

This guy is a weenie.

"Therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem." Alma 43:30.

[TripletDaddy]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...eak-tomfoolery

This guy is a weenie.

yep

[Eddie]

So - if this dude doesn't like the fake spike, what else does he not like?

Apparently play action is OK.

What about a pump fake on the pass? Is that OK or is it dishonest?

What about a RB juking? I mean, wouldn't it be more honorable to not try to fake out the defender, but take him on like a man and beat him with honor?


I get that there are some plays out there that are questionable. And I kind of smirk at the 49er's play he references - where a player acts like he is leaving the field but doesn't. At the same time - isn't it the defense's job to know where everyone is? Shouldn't someone be counting players to make sure everyone is accounted for?

To me, a weenie play is one like the old "wrong ball coach" play.

Anytime you hike the ball like normal - the defense has been put on notice that they are now in live action and need to stop the offense from doing something with it. And at that point - as long as it is within the rules I say it is fair game.

[il Padrino Ute]

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1...eak-tomfoolery

This guy is a weenie.

The objective of the game is to win. Apparently, Doyel doesn't understand that.

[Top Ute]

So - if this dude doesn't like the fake spike, what else does he not like?

Apparently play action is OK.

What about a pump fake on the pass? Is that OK or is it dishonest?

What about a RB juking? I mean, wouldn't it be more honorable to not try to fake out the defender, but take him on like a man and beat him with honor?


I get that there are some plays out there that are questionable. And I kind of smirk at the 49er's play he references - where a player acts like he is leaving the field but doesn't. At the same time - isn't it the defense's job to know where everyone is? Shouldn't someone be counting players to make sure everyone is accounted for?

To me, a weenie play is one like the old "wrong ball coach" play.

Anytime you hike the ball like normal - the defense has been put on notice that they are now in live action and need to stop the offense from doing something with it. And at that point - as long as it is within the rules I say it is fair game.

I would have no problem if the fake spike were made illegal. Spiking the ball is relatively new rule and is an exception that's granted to what is otherwise an obvious penalty (intentional grounding). The QBs and offenses were given a break by getting this concession, so the loophole (the fake spike) should be closed up.

It's not much different than failure to give a clear fair catch signal. That's a penalty, so the fake spike should be as well (I understand that it's not, but it should be changed).

[All-American]

I would have no problem if the fake spike were made illegal. Spiking the ball is relatively new rule and is an exception that's granted to what is otherwise an obvious penalty (intentional grounding). The QBs and offenses were given a break by getting this concession, so the loophole (the fake spike) should be closed up.

It's not much different than failure to give a clear fair catch signal. That's a penalty, so the fake spike should be as well (I understand that it's not, but it should be changed).

It's not a penalty to fail to give a clear fair catch signal. You just risk getting plastered if you don't.

[Eddie]

I would have no problem if the fake spike were made illegal. Spiking the ball is relatively new rule and is an exception that's granted to what is otherwise an obvious penalty (intentional grounding). The QBs and offenses were given a break by getting this concession, so the loophole (the fake spike) should be closed up.

It's not much different than failure to give a clear fair catch signal. That's a penalty, so the fake spike should be as well (I understand that it's not, but it should be changed).

I think it is a fair trade off - you get to stop the clock in exchange for a loss of down. If they did away with it, instead you would have WR's lining up close to the nearest sideline and QB's taking a 2 step drop and sailing the ball out of bounds over their head instead. You might lose an extra second or two, but still get what you're looking for.

I'm not ever sure how well a fake spike works when it comes to fooling the DB's. With the OL and DL between them and the QB, can they even see what he's doing? Keep an eye on the guy you are supposed to defend and it never becomes an issue.

I'm not sure I understand the comparison to the failure to give a clear fair catch signal. How are they similar? And if they are, does this mean that you are also against the pump fake?

[TripletDaddy]

I would have no problem if the fake spike were made illegal. Spiking the ball is relatively new rule and is an exception that's granted to what is otherwise an obvious penalty (intentional grounding). The QBs and offenses were given a break by getting this concession, so the loophole (the fake spike) should be closed up.

It's not much different than failure to give a clear fair catch signal. That's a penalty, so the fake spike should be as well (I understand that it's not, but it should be changed).

Please provide the rule for intentional grounding and let's walk through whether a fake spike would actually meet the criteria. I don't mean to put imminent pressure on you but I think it would be an interesting exercise.

[Jarid in Cedar]

It's not a penalty to fail to give a clear fair catch signal. You just risk getting plastered if you don't.

There is a penalty for an illegal fair catch

[Top Ute]

Please provide the rule for intentional grounding and let's walk through whether a fake spike would actually meet the criteria. I don't mean to put imminent pressure on you but I think it would be an interesting exercise.

Ball doesn't pass the line of scrimmage, QB isn't outside the tackle box and the pass doesn't go to an eligible receiver. The spike is a pretty clear cut case of intentional grounding, but as stated, a concession was made to allow it.

I'm trying to find the exact date in which the rule was changed, but my guess is it was around the late 80s, early 90s.

[Top Ute]

There is a penalty for an illegal fair catch

Should've been one called on Alabama in the BCS title game, which gave me the idea for the comparison.

[Flystripper]

I think it is a fair trade off - you get to stop the clock in exchange for a loss of down. If they did away with it, instead you would have WR's lining up close to the nearest sideline and QB's taking a 2 step drop and sailing the ball out of bounds over their head instead. You might lose an extra second or two, but still get what you're looking for.

I'm not ever sure how well a fake spike works when it comes to fooling the DB's. With the OL and DL between them and the QB, can they even see what he's doing? Keep an eye on the guy you are supposed to defend and it never becomes an issue.

I'm not sure I understand the comparison to the failure to give a clear fair catch signal. How are they similar? And if they are, does this mean that you are also against the pump fake?

yeah you could line the receiver up on the near sideline or line the rb up next to the qb behind the guard and spike it at his feet there as well. Complaining about the fake spike is evidence of needing to pull the string as goat would say.