UNI Post Game Thoughts & Discussion

[OrygunBison]

He threw the ball backwards, it traveled forwards, and the pitching player stayed behind it when it was touched. It’s an extremely weird play and has definitely been talked about on other platforms.

Good lord, people. This isn't even remotely weird. The rule is incredibly simply.

[EC8CH]

Good lord, people. This isn't even remotely weird. The rule is incredibly simply.

Relativity isn't even involved here people!

[OrygunBison]

Also the NFL changes rules all of the time.

Who fucking cares? They haven't changed this rule. They never will. It would be stupid to do so because it would confuse other types of plays tremendously. This was rule number 2 when they were first etched in stone by the cavemen.

[scottietohottie]

Good lord, people. This isn't even remotely weird. The rule is incredibly simply.

Let's keep the religion stuff where it belongs.

[WeAreThePride]

I sure hope the people prattling on about frames of reference are trolling. Oklahoma won a fistful of title rings on legal laterals. They didn’t whine about how it looked from the quarterback’s frame of reference. They executed a game according to the rules.

[CAS4127]

Sounds like MVFC officials are admitting blown targeting call on Watson hit. Haven’t read this thread completely, but guessing Indy defended the no-call.

[Kevin]

Sounds like MVFC officials are admitting blown targeting call on Watson hit. Haven’t read this thread completely, but guessing Indy defended the no-call.

Refs are the cops of the football field bro they stick together even if it gets young black men murdered.

[CAS4127]

He threw the ball backwards, it traveled forwards, and the pitching player stayed behind it when it was touched. It’s an extremely weird play and has definitely been talked about on other platforms.

is this post in purple? Can’t tell on my IPhone. If not, how do you throw a ball backwards, but have it go forward? Magic?

[bisonaudit]

Who fucking cares? They haven't changed this rule. They never will. It would be stupid to do so because it would confuse other types of plays tremendously. This was rule number 2 when they were first etched in stone by the cavemen.

If it’s so old and fundamental how’d it get to be different than the rugby interpretation then?

Look, I’ve got no problem with the rule. I’d have no problem if they changed it either.

I just think it’s silly to think that people who make the rules can’t or won’t change their mind about this one. Maybe they will maybe they won’t, but none of these things are written in stone. Forward passes were illegal until like WWI and my dad is old enough to remember when linemen were eligible receivers.

[OrygunBison]

If it’s so old and fundamental how’d it get to be different than the rugby interpretation then?

It got that way because they aren't the same game. They have different rules. This particular and incredibly simple rule is foundational to the game football and is one of the things that makes it unique...not rugby. The game is different than most sports in that there are individual plays that are initiated by either a kick or snapping the ball. The shape of the ball in unique. We have goalposts. Play is divided into 10 yard chunks even though it takes more than that to score. Changing the definition of a backward pass such as is being suggested would be similar to changing any one of these foundational elements. It also most definitely would not improve the game but rather confuse other parts of the it.

Sorry, I'll stop. I can't believe that I got sucked into this.