Warnings/45 yards on Post-in-goal.

[Kanga-Kucha]

I'm having a little tourble remembering, but after the warning, the clock and play clock start after the hurdles are broken, and the ref whistles in play? if so, do you think that gives QB more time to play an audible?

and I have a proposal for my (now dubbed) post in goal rule, and that is that after a ball hits the post (worth a single in this case), the return team can then start their drive from the 45 instead of the 35. For those of you who don't like my rule, and will never agree to it, does this little change help prewade your vote?

[Al]

no

[Kanga-Kucha]

I've added it to solve two issues with the rule.

1. because the ball doesn't travel 20 yards (not counting the sidelines) though the end zone despite the fact the rule book states that just a touch on the dead line is necessary for a single.

2. Biggest reason of all, to discourage teams for deliberately kicking towards the post on a punt or FG situation, which may be dangerous to the returner.

[Al]

Where do you expect the kicker to kick the ball besides the posts on a field goal attempt????????

[Kanga-Kucha]

What a meant to say was that they would intensional kick the ball into the post on the FG, as funny as it sounds (I would go for the 3 on FG myself as well), it's something that can't be ignored, and I had to say both FG and punt, as their is no no yard penalty on the kickoff, and therefore there is no single on the kickoff unless it's made contact with the player. Therefore the current rules about the post would apply on the kickoff, etc etc etc.

[Al]

There is absolutely no time ever in the history of the Game has a team deliberately tried to hit the post instead of going for the 3 points!

What possible advantage is there is doing it.......not to mention the fact that even if they tried they would do it once in 100,000 tries!

If he makes the field goal, its 3 points and the ball is placed on the 35. If he hits the post, zero points and the ball is placed on the 25. What possible advantage is there? Give up 3 points for 10 yards? I dont think so

[Kanga-Kucha]

well excuse me!

and in this case, it would be a point and the ball is placed on the 45 yard line, thank you very much.

bottom line, it discourages a team for hitting the post for a point, more on punts than on FGs yes, but if you had a to choice beteew having the post be a point and either start at 35 or 45 (that's the ONLY two options here), you would go with 45 right? and when the new rule in place, if you were on a punt/FG situation you would go for the 3 points/a single on the sideline or back of the endzone (as the ball goes to the 35 in either case) or a single on Post-in-goal and the ball goes to the 45? you would chose the former in either case, correct? I rest my case.

Where is Prairiedog and Joe? they don't agree with this either, but at least they give me meaningful feedback.

[Al]

What kind of case is that!

You want to implement a rule to stop something that never happens in the first place? No-one ever, I repeat, ever deliberately tries to hit the post so why come up with a rule to discourage it! Even if there was a point for hitting the post no-one would ever go for an impossible single when they can go for 3.
I have been watching the CFL longer than you have been alive and I have never seen a punt go off the post!

What kind of feedback do you want?
I gave you reasons why the idea is pointless! What more meaning do you need?

[wildthing1971]

well excuse me!

and in this case, it would be a point and the ball is placed on the 45 yard line, thank you very much.

bottom line, it discourages a team for hitting the post for a point, more on punts than on FGs yes, but if you had a to choice beteew having the post be a point and either start at 35 or 45 (that's the ONLY two options here), you would go with 45 right? and when the new rule in place, if you were on a punt/FG situation you would go for the 3 points/a single on the sideline or back of the endzone (as the ball goes to the 35 in either case) or a single on Post-in-goal and the ball goes to the 45? you would chose the former in either case, correct? I rest my case.

Where is Prairiedog and Joe? they don't agree with this either, but at least they give me meaningful feedback.

KK you need to understand one thing. Currently if you hit the post and the ball does not go through the upright no points are awarded period! It is a dead ball and moved to scrimmage on the 25. So why implement a rule change that gives a point for a post and move the ball to the 45? The current rule works perfectly as no points are awarded. A FG that hits a post and goes through the uprights gets 3 points as it should, if it bounces back into the field of play or makes the FG miss, no points are awarded. I can't recall the last time I saw a punt hit the posts? But I assume treatment would be the same deadball and no points.

[Kanga-Kucha]

well excuse me!

and in this case, it would be a point and the ball is placed on the 45 yard line, thank you very much.

bottom line, it discourages a team for hitting the post for a point, more on punts than on FGs yes, but if you had a to choice beteew having the post be a point and either start at 35 or 45 (that's the ONLY two options here), you would go with 45 right? and when the new rule in place, if you were on a punt/FG situation you would go for the 3 points/a single on the sideline or back of the endzone (as the ball goes to the 35 in either case) or a single on Post-in-goal and the ball goes to the 45? you would chose the former in either case, correct? I rest my case.

Where is Prairiedog and Joe? they don't agree with this either, but at least they give me meaningful feedback.

KK you need to understand one thing. Currently if you hit the post and the ball does not go through the upright no points are awarded period! It is a dead ball and moved to scrimmage on the 25. So why implement a rule change that gives a point for a post and move the ball to the 45? The current rule works perfectly as no points are awarded. A FG that hits a post and goes through the uprights gets 3 points as it should, if it bounces back into the field of play or makes the FG miss, no points are awarded. I can't recall the last time I saw a punt hit the posts? But I assume treatment would be the same deadball and no points.

I would like it a ball hitting the post to be counted as singles, as I hate the idea of a dead ball on any kicking play (FG, Punt, Quick Kicks, except kickoffs since they are different (no no yard penalty)) and it's a Aussie ball element that I would like to add to the game (ball hitting the post in that game counts as a point, then is return to the field, that's the only element I'd add btw). It can work with a very small change of the rule book (ball has to touch or cross the deadline, as the post would noe be apart of, to count as a single, eliminate the touchs/cross then hit something else (which is a bit weild anyway as a ball can cross/touch the line and then becase of the wind blow it back on to the feild, it's a live ball and not a single? very strange)) however, many have crticesed this rule (like Al above) as they feel it doesn't go totally threw the endzone and it's retunable (which isn't ture IMO, as once apon a time, the ball off the poat was a LIVE ball) it shouldn't count as a single, so I have come up with a compromise in that after this play, and fater the single is awarded, the ball goes to the 45 instead of the 35 yard line, to conpesate for the distance/not return, and if you think about it, starting at the 45 can be desvesating to the team that scored the single (think a close game, winner/loser scores a single by PIG(ok, everyone one two three ), opposite team starts at the 45 and gets in range for a FG and scores? not good eh?).

Joe also bought up the idea of a team on a punt tries to hit the post intensionally to get the single, despite the large endzone. That could also posse harm to the returner (runs looking at the ball toward the post, BLAM!, etc.), so having the next play start at the 45 helps decorange this unless it's a sistuation like with BC and Saskatchewan.

[Kanga-Kucha]

What kind of case is that!

You want to implement a rule to stop something that never happens in the first place? No-one ever, I repeat, ever deliberately tries to hit the post so why come up with a rule to discourage it! Even if there was a point for hitting the post no-one would ever go for an impossible single when they can go for 3.
I have been watching the CFL longer than you have been alive and I have never seen a punt go off the post!

What kind of feedback do you want?
I gave you reasons why the idea is pointless! What more meaning do you need?

Whill I agree with you that it's very unlikly it will happen new rule or not, I can't just ignore the fact that it COULD happen.

Besides, there are other reaons that I have stated for the modefication.

[Kanga-Kucha]

I want to add one more think to my rule, and it will likly be the last time I'll add to it (a fellow I know called Sambo will love this one), it comes after I looked at this pic again and that some have stated that the u shaped part of the uprights doesn't, in fact, rest over the goal line as some of my pics show.

therefore, I propose that the post be moved back a bit (about a yard) so that the u part of the u rights rest directly over the goal line to help my rule that a ball that hits it counts as a single makes as much sense as counting a TD for a ball breacking the plane (aka just touching the "white" line, or in the example below, the yellow line).

what do y'all think? it would effect the game much, as most QB throw passes in areas that will not be effected at all by this change (to the sides of the endzoone).