Try this on for size

Ok, I'll admit that most of the rule changes I'd like to see haven't gone over well with the poster community. One last one and I'll stop.

Punter or kick returner is in the end zone and runs around to kill the clock and then steps out of bounds. We've all seen it and booed.

I think that if that player steps out of bounds on his own, or does not take a knee immediately on a consession, then a delay of game penalty should be called. So long as the player is tackled or forced out of bounds then the play would be legit.

Any thoughts all you gamers?

No that cannot be a penalty. Running around the endzone is sometimes used as a strategy (like running dwon the play clock to one second before snapping the ball) for various reasons (your team is winning in the fourth quarter, your team is going against the wind, i.e.) It is also hard to call because the player could be looking for a lane to run through. Levingston did this for Toronto this year on a missed field goal. He was running around in the end zone and found an opening and took the ball to the house for a td.

what i do not get is why do kickers always run around in the endzone before taking a knee. so often regardless of the score or time of the game ie even in the first quarter there they are wasting time. they have no idea if they will be wanting that time on a drive at the end of the half. if you are winning dramatically yes i can justify it but if you are losing or tied it just doesn't make sense to me.

Sometimes the wind plays a factor other than that I don't understand why they just don't take a knee right away.

You can't make that a "delay of game" penalty, because the play is going on, and the defence can put an end to it at any time by knocking him into the next time zone.

It's only a delay of game if one team delays putting the ball into play.

I agree with you, blackdale, about doing that in any quarter but the fourth (or possibly the second if you want to limit the time the other team will have with the ball.) Who knows, they may need those seconds later on.

And if you're going to do that anyway, why does everyone put their kicker back there? Why not put in a receiver or running back who: (a) is faster and able to elude tacklers, thereby killing more time; (b) is more adept at handling the ball and less likely to fumble, which would be disastrous in the end zone; and (c) is more expendable in the event of an injury? It's not like it's a surprise play: everyone knows when a safety is going to be conceded.

Delay of game is a dead ball call.

Plus, kick returner often roam the endzone to see if there's an opening. They don't like to step out of bound either. They know its not their job to concede points.

Roughfyfan - If a guy is running around in the endzone looking for a lane he can be tackled or he can concede. Stepping out of bounds after running around is a waste of time and my ticket money.

Blackdale - You hit the nail on the head.

Sure running around is a strategy and as of right now there is no rule to prevent anyone from doing it. I have no problem with trying to run out of the endzone. I have no problem with trying to find a lane and then conceding. I do have a problem with lame kickers dancing around putting on a show and then mincing out of bounds, leaving the real athletes less time to do what I paid to see.

The only reason I can see for the kickers wandering around the end zone is that maybe they are trying to catch the defensive team napping with their return man out of the play. If the cover team gets far enough downfield, the kicker could hammer one down there and maybe catch the return guy out of position? Of course, I've never seen this happen

I have seen Noel Prefontaine take a botched snap, roll out to his left and kick a good 50-yarder on the fly though, so I suppose it's possible.

Generally speaking though, the conceded safety is a strategic play and part of that strategy may be to run a little time off the clock. Teams generally don't do that play when they are down by a lot.

Think about how this would work in practice, You are running around trying to find a lane, just as you think you have one near the side line you see a guy coming for you. Now under your rule, to avoid a penalty, I would have to start going down on a knee, which when you are running is a hard thing to do. My guess is you would get a lot of people hit on their way down and injured with this type of rule or not even bother trying to see if a lane might come open!

Frankly I think you would find that your rule would make the game more boring.

One rule that would not make the game more boring is the single point given when a ball is kicked through the endzone. In reality, the Grey Cup could come down to a team missing a last second field goal, and still winning the damn game. That is retarded. I have always hated it.

If the defence doesn't want to give up a single point at the end of the game (for the loss) then they should stop the offence before they move the ball upfield. The single point rewards the offence for moving the ball upfield and penalizes the defence for not being able to stop the offence and get the ball out of the endzone.

no, no. It is just dumb. I love the CFL and all of the other rules. But this one has puzzled me for some time. It is the same thing as if you gave a reciever a first down, even after he dropped the pass. Doesn't make sense.

it's bad football, but you can't put a rule agist that, it's also statagly.

but it's amusing if this on the other end, seeing some guy pussy foot around trying to get out, wasting time for his losing team. funny.

Think about how this would work in practice, You are running around trying to find a lane, just as you think you have one near the side line you see a guy coming for you. Now under your rule, to avoid a penalty, I would have to start going down on a knee, which when you are running is a hard thing to do. My guess is you would get a lot of people hit on their way down and injured with this type of rule or not even bother trying to see if a lane might come open!

Frankly I think you would find that your rule would make the game more boring.
[/quote]
I don’t follow your logic. If I’m trying to get out of the endzone I’m trying to avoid tackles and run through people. Why would I chicken out at the last second and take a knee to avoid a hit?

I think you misread my original proposal. What I’m saying is, if a player takes a knee, that’s fine, so long as it’s done right away. Once he starts running he’s fair game.
If however he runs around and then runs out of the endzone without being forced out, then that would be a penalty.
Taking a knee is conceding a point while signaling to the opponant that you’re no longer fair game for a hit. So taking a knee after running around is exactly the same time wasting as running out of the endzone. That’s why I think that not taking the knee right away should be a penalty as well. We’d seldom see that situation anyway but you need to have the situation covered in the rules.
Better?

Yeah I kind of agree with Big Dave there. I remember the Eskimos did that two years ago with Terry Vaughn. They'd put him back there and he'd dodge tackles and run around and he actually wasted about 20 seconds off the clock when they were trying to run it down at the end.