Game-Play changes you'd like to see

jman0war

So i was thinking about what sort of game-play changes i'd like to see in American Football and thought i'd post them up just for discussion.

I know there are folks that are simply anathema to change but infact american football has evolved and changed hugely over the years.
For example prior to 1906 there was no forward pass.

Anyway one place that could use improvement is the "Point-After".
This has become a rather uneventful affair.
It seems quite rare for a miss, or even a blocked attempt.
So why not do it like rugby, where the attempt must be taken perpendicular to where the ball crossed the line?
I'm sure there would be a lot of misses, and also a lot of teams foregoing the usual and instead go for the 2 point conversion.
It would also put more pressure and more context to those touchdowns that barely hit the pilon.

The other place i'd like to see amended is the Drop Kick Goal.
What's that you say?
Yep, the Drop Kick Goal is still in the rules, but it's never utilised cause it's only worth 3pts.
So a team is never really in a position to attempt such because if they are in the area and it's 1st thru 3rd down, they'll attempt a TD instead.
And if they want 3pts, then it's better to wait til 4th down and line up properly in a manner of a set-piece.
But, what if the Drop Kick Goal was worth 4pts, or even 5pts?

Danger_dave1

Your idea's intrigue me . Do you have a newsletter i can subscribe to ?

darragh16

jman0war wrote: »

Anyway one place that could use improvement is the "Point-After".
This has become a rather uneventful affair.
It seems quite rare for a miss, or even a blocked attempt.
So why not do it like rugby, where the attempt must be taken perpendicular to where the ball crossed the line?
I'm sure there would be a lot of misses, and also a lot of teams foregoing the usual and instead go for the 2 point conversion.

Could move it back to the five yard line or something from either hash mark instead of up the middle?

ReacherCreature

Anyway one place that could use improvement is the "Point-After".
This has become a rather uneventful affair.
It seems quite rare for a miss, or even a blocked attempt.
So why not do it like rugby, where the attempt must be taken perpendicular to where the ball crossed the line?
I'm sure there would be a lot of misses, and also a lot of teams foregoing the usual and instead go for the 2 point conversion.
It would also put more pressure and more context to those touchdowns that barely hit the pilon.

'If it ain't broke...'. I don't agree with this change. It takes considerable cool to constantly nail those extra-points. If you're a good kicker, the touchdown will always be seven points rather than six. Can prove to be game changers.

The other place i'd like to see amended is the Drop Kick Goal.
What's that you say?
Yep, the Drop Kick Goal is still in the rules, but it's never utilised cause it's only worth 3pts.

Don't like it. Drop kick can go awry; kickers are used to having someone place the ball down and then kicking it. Kicks go awry too but lets stick at it.

Seems like you're being influenced by Rugby too much. People would want to get over it: they're different sports.

I was expecting stuff like time limits, faster gameplay, restricting rules etc.

mikemac

At the moment you get two challenges and if you win both you get a third

But if you win all your challenges I think you should keep getting challenges.

I'm not sure how you'd structure exactly but it could be looked at.

And I don't mean give coaches unlimited challenges but if you win all of yours why stop at three?

Peyton Manning

Dont like the rule that if you get one challenge right and another one wrong, you have none left. It should be if you get one right, you still get another one regardless of what happens your second one. That's really all I'd change off the top of my head. Oh and also if a player goes down injured after the 2 minute warning, he should not be allowed back for the remainder of the half unless a timeout is called. Would stop players going down just to stop the clock.

ReacherCreature

While I'm here. I don't like the overtime rules. Just don't agree with going 20-40 yards and then kicking it. Rubbish.

SantryRed

ReacherCreature wrote: »

While I'm here. I don't like the overtime rules. Just don't agree with going 20-40 yards and then kicking it. Rubbish.

They've been changed now. If the team who first receives the ball scores a FG, the other team has one possession to either score a FG or a TD. If they score a FG and the scores are tied again, then it is next score wins.

ReacherCreature

SantryRed wrote: »

They've been changed now. If the team who first receives the ball scores a FG, the other team has one possession to either score a FG or a TD. If they score a FG and the scores are tied again, then it is next score wins.

Christ above I'm slow tonight. Completely forgot about anything about this. Cheers SantryRed.

helimachoptor

SantryRed wrote: »

They've been changed now. If the team who first receives the ball scores a FG, the other team has one possession to either score a FG or a TD. If they score a FG and the scores are tied again, then it is next score wins.

Il don't think that's reflected in madden 11

Neil3030

Double points if a defensive lineman intercepts the ball and has to run it in from more than 10 yards out.

Triple points if he then dances.

bobby wade

SantryRed wrote: »

They've been changed now. If the team who first receives the ball scores a FG, the other team has one possession to either score a FG or a TD. If they score a FG and the scores are tied again, then it is next score wins.

It's a worse rule now. Remember that if the opening kickoff is returned for a TD it's game over

jman0war

ReacherCreature wrote: »

'If it ain't broke...'. I don't agree with this change. It takes considerable cool to constantly nail those extra-points. If you're a good kicker, the touchdown will always be seven points rather than six. Can prove to be game changers.

What is the failure rate of the point-after?
Less than 1% i'll bet.
Which means it is so automatic that there is little need to perform it.
I believe most people think in terms that a TD = 7pts, because the point-after is considered a given.
It strikes me as a waste of time in a spectator sport, to score a TD, quick break for ads, then gather 2 Special Teams units on the field for something so malign as a "point-after" that takes about 2 seconds of play, then cut to 7 mins of ads.
Sorry but let's make it more challenging.
I want the PA to count.

I wonder if there were a time where a defender could get a "leg up" to attempt a block, like they do in rugby on the throw-ins?
I imagine there've been plenty of tweaks to the rules governing Point After through the last century.

ReacherCreature wrote: »

Don't like it. Drop kick can go awry; kickers are used to having someone place the ball down and then kicking it. Kicks go awry too but lets stick at it.
Seems like you're being influenced by Rugby too much. People would want to get over it: they're different sports.

American football comes from rugby.
But i agree i don't think the Drop Kick will even be utilised, so should be dropped from rules probably.

adrian522

SantryRed wrote: »

They've been changed now. If the team who first receives the ball scores a FG, the other team has one possession to either score a FG or a TD. If they score a FG and the scores are tied again, then it is next score wins.

Thats only for the post season though as far as I know. Regular season was the old rules.

ReacherCreature

jman0war wrote: »

What is the failure rate of the point-after?
Less than 1% i'll bet.

Which means it is so automatic that there is little need to perform it.

It's one of those unspoken things in football. Like when you've a kicker for three years who has a say, 90% success rating on making points/Field goals, when it comes to a kick, you expect him to make it. All hell breaks lose when he misses it. If you're talking failure rates at less than 1% then why not leave it? If the failure rates were higher then there'd be concern. I understand you want the challenge.

I wonder if there were a time where a defender could get a "leg up" to attempt a block, like they do in rugby on the throw-ins?
I imagine there've been plenty of tweaks to the rules governing Point After through the last century.

Again, the Rugby adaptations? It's a skill enough alone to block extra points/field goals. No need for "leg up"s. I think teams need to make a more of an effort in blocking.

American football comes from rugby.

Doesn't mean it needs to be still heavily influenced.

But i agree i don't think the Drop Kick will even be utilised, so should be dropped from rules probably.

Doug Flutie, QB for the Patriots kicked one some years back. It's there for the taking but no team uses it.

jman0war

ReacherCreature wrote: »

It's one of those unspoken things in football. Like when you've a kicker for three years who has a say, 90% success rating on making points/Field goals, when it comes to a kick, you expect him to make it. All hell breaks lose when he misses it. If you're talking failure rates at less than 1% then why not leave it?

Because i want the action. I want the misses, the blocked attempts.
I want more opting for the 2 point conversion.
Currenlty the PAT is like kids stuff.
They don't get blocked because it's too difficult to block when it's just a short chip shot, taken directly infront of the uprights.

It's a bit like when they changed the goalposts in football (soccer).
They first made the poles round, to get more unpredictable deflections.
Later they widened the goals because the goal keepers were too successful at defending everything. They wanted more action, more scores etc. Naturally there were plenty of nayers. But you know what?
I think they need to go wider still.

ReacherCreature wrote: »

Again, the Rugby adaptations? It's a skill enough alone to block extra points/field goals. No need for "leg up"s. I think teams need to make a more of an effort in blocking.

I think they don't block them because it's virtually impossible, unless the kicker really balls it up and gets no height to his chip shot.

Mr. Guappa

The fact that a PAT is almost a given adds to the tension in some tight games IMO.. i.e. do we take the PAT or go for a 2-point conversion? Also, if you make a PAT harder then you are dissuading teams from going for it on 4th & goal as the rewards are potentially less.

I'd agree that the coaches challenges should be looked at. If you are successful on either of your 1st 2 then you get a 3rd.

Some of the penalties for excessive celebration and using the ball as a prop are ridiculous too.

FreeOSCAR

Helmet to Helmet tackles on defenseless players.

Ejection from the game instead of fine's.

mikemac

Mr. Guappa wrote: »

Some of the penalties for excessive celebration and using the ball as a prop are ridiculous too.

In the Superbowl a Packers player was penalised for going to the ground as in having two knees on the ground.
It may be the only Superbowl he plays in his life!

Celebrations rules have their place.
I don't agree with the baiting that DeSean Jackson gives out

But at the same time it can be relaxed somewhat

Chucky the tree

Wouldn't mind if coaches could challenge certain penalties like pass interference. Will never happen though.

jman0war

I like idea of retaining # of challenges after being successful with one, but there is a little room for abuse here.
A coach could get rather challenge-happy (succeeding everytime), resulting in stopping the game a lot and also making the refs look like idiots.
I'm sure there are reputations at stake.

Peyton Manning

If they get it right every time, then fair play to them, but that rarely happens. If I was employed head coach of a team tomorrow (one can but dream) then one of the first things I would do is hire Mike Perreira or someone like him simply to look at instant replays and tell me if I should challenge them. Get an expert in, your success ratio would skyrocket.

jman0war

Tom_Brady wrote: »

If they get it right every time, then fair play to them, but that rarely happens. If I was employed head coach of a team tomorrow (one can but dream) then one of the first things I would do is hire Mike Perreira or someone like him simply to look at instant replays and tell me if I should challenge them. Get an expert in, your success ratio would skyrocket.

Yeah i suppose.
Puts the pressure on the refs.
But then they might be hesitant to actually make the call in the first place.

Anyway, no team would be able to pay your man's wages just to scrutinize instant replay.

I wouldn't review PI, since that was done in the past and it proved highly controversial.

But, what about the whole PI penalty -> automatic 1st down and ball is placed at the spot of the foul? Seems a little harsh when sometimes it's fairly incidental contact on a 50/50 ball.

tallaghtoutlaws

Now I am back I thought I would wade in here

jman0war good thread by the way kudos.

Just a couple of things on what changes you would like to see though:

PAT: 4 of the 11 misses this season cost the respective team their game and were crucial. Although very low the PAT is the easy option for points after. Teams do have a right to make life difficult for themselves if they so wish choose by going for 2 which we all know is a gamble.

But as for changing the 1 point and angles and all of that. No thanks. You are asking kickers to change their method not just in the NFL but all the way back through college and high school. You change the Pros you would have to change High school and College games also where Kicking is already a lot harder than the Pros. HS and College football have high amount of PAT misses every year where they are truly not a given. Pros make it look a lot easier than it really is.

To kick a PAT you need a strong solid line, A long snapper is literally inch perfect every time, a holder you know is going to bring that ball in and down and set it up on time and a kicker who can make the kick while under pressure.

I just think as easy as it sounds to change it, you are asking a lot more than you think.

Drop Goals: Have you ever tried to drop kick an American Football? Not as easy as a Rugby ball thats for sure. American Footballs are lighter and smaller than Rugby balls and dont have that flat nose so when it hits the ground the point will make it go away from your foot almost every time. I have Rugby players in UCD on my AF team and they have tried and failed trying to drop kick a ball when they do it regularly in Rugby. Now add the pressure to the ball in motion. Bad idea.


Some things I would like to see changed:

The penalty for PI as someone pointed out. In the NFL the penalty is enforced from the point of contact of the PI. In the NCAA its from the previous spot. I think I would rather see the NCAA ruling of it in the Pros.

Also PI itself. Far too much lenience given to Offensive players. Needs to change.

The umpire put back in the spot he was before they move him behind the Defense. So many more holding calls missed this past NFL season.

Few more may come to mind.

tallaghtoutlaws

FreeOSCAR wrote: »

Helmet to Helmet tackles on defenseless players.

Ejection from the game instead of fine's.

100% agree with this. But I would also like to see the refs and NFL get more control on Head to Head overall. Some players are on the fringe of dangerous hits on ball carriers. The lead with their heads or drop them into players. So easy to spot. They need to find a line between accident and leading with.

I cringe every time I see this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_5kJJWNj6M

The NFL has a lot to blame for sh1t like this. Obviously the coaches are also carrying a lot of the blame especially if this happens a lot on their practice and game field. But this is Pee Wee football and all you have to do is you tube pee wee and look at some of the hits. Kids are impressionable and what they think is the norm from watching the NCAA and Pros they will do themselves.

ReacherCreature

That video above is sickening. The coaches for these kids are setting a terrible example.

jman0war

Was reading an article about nfl and concussions.
And they said that it's not only the big hits that matter.
Neurosurgeon was quoted as saying that all the little blows add-up over time.

Article also made the point that in Aussie Rules Football, which is another rough contact sport, the concussion rate is way way lower, even tho they wear no pads whatsoever.

You can see in that video that the kids are "top heavy", it's true with NFL as well. Thus they lean their upper body and head into hits. You can see the difference in aussie rules, they shoulder-in and look to be more upright, not leading with their head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiGoqObb0YQ

tallaghtoutlaws

jman0war wrote: »

Was reading an article about nfl and concussions.
And they said that it's not only the big hits that matter.
Neurosurgeon was quoted as saying that all the little blows add-up over time.

Article also made the point that in Aussie Rules Football, which is another rough contact sport, the concussion rate is way way lower, even tho they wear no pads whatsoever.

You can see in that video that the kids are "top heavy", it's true with NFL as well. Thus they lean their upper body and head into hits. You can see the difference in aussie rules, they shoulder-in and look to be more upright, not leading with their head.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiGoqObb0YQ

I do agree that American Footballers are top heavy but comparing to the AFL is not a fair comparison.

If you tried using your shoulder to tackle a ball carrier in AF a high % of the time you wont bring them down or stop them in their tracks the majority of the time. The ball carrier who will also have his shoulder dropped will counter act you coming at him with your shoulder.

Shoulder blocks are more a form of blocking someone or bringing them down when they dont see you coming or have not prepared to take the hit i.e a WR catching the football or making a play on the ball. Or hitting the ball carrier side on where he is blindsided. Or laying a shoulder on someone to take him out of a play to protect you ball carrier.

But I will say the AFL are starting to take note of increasing concussions and shoulder injuries over the last decade. Throwing your shoulder into someone without pads is not as safe as people make out and can cause long term damage. As athletes get faster and stronger as the years go by it will eventually become a major concern like any contact sport.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/shoulder-injuries-speed-of-game-afl-looks-for-link-20100420-srq0.html

In AF The only way to cut out long term damage is to remove the pads and it will cut down on how fast and how high they will tackle each other. But lets be real it will never happen as AF is what it is. The best they can do is find ways to teach better technique and methods to slow it down and give these athletes a better future.

Guys like James Harrison who is always in the media launches himself in head first a lot and if he were a high school or college player now growing up the coaches of said team should be correcting his technique to stop going in head first. Thus minimising to an extent the amount of contact with ones head.

AF is most likely up there at the top of the list when it comes to health issues in the long term. But Rugby and Aussie Rules and Rugby League are all looking into the increasing concerns over player safety. As I said as Athletes get bigger and faster these injuries will increase across the board regardless of the method used.

DonkeyPokerTour

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

The penalty for PI as someone pointed out. In the NFL the penalty is enforced from the point of contact of the PI. In the NCAA its from the previous spot. I think I would rather see the NCAA ruling of it in the Pros.

The problem with the NCAA ruling is that it makes it far too easy to stop the long bomb. Say its first and 10 on the defensive 40yard line. Most pro quarterbacks can throw the ball all the way or almost all the way to the end zone from there. So say the corner gets beat on a deep route to the end zone well he can give up the touchdown or he can just do anything he likes to prevent the player from catching the ball and his punishment will only be 15yards moving the ball to the attacking 45yard line. Its just not harsh enough. Where as the current rule would mean its first and goal at the 1 a much harsher penalty. Which such flagrant rule breaking deserves.

jman0war

Maybe the answer then is a sliding scale of PI penalty.
10-15 yrds or to the spot of the foul. Depending upon which is greater and nature of the foul.

Perhaps bring in instant replay to assess the degree of the foul only, and maybe make that challenge-able.

DonkeyPokerTour

jman0war wrote: »

Maybe the answer then is a sliding scale of PI penalty.
10-15 yrds or to the spot of the foul. Depending upon which is greater and nature of the foul.

Perhaps bring in instant replay to assess the degree of the foul only, and maybe make that challenge-able.

The problem then is consistency. With a strict 15yards or Spot of the foul definition if its pass interference, its pass interference. Trying to determine intent is a disaster and would cause more problems for the referees. As for making it challengeable that would be a pretty pointless as referees are told to not flag pass interference unless there sure it is pass interference so it would 99.99% of the time be "the ruling on the field is confirmed"

Hazys

Can't anything be said for multi-ball?

If teams are tied at the end of the game instead of overtime, Rodger Goodell should fly over the center of the field in a helicopter and lob 11 footballs onto the field and see what happens. Whoever gets the most footballs into the oppostion's endzone wins, no down by contact, no rules, some good old fashioned MULTI-BALL!!

tallaghtoutlaws

DonkeyPokerTour wrote: »

The problem with the NCAA ruling is that it makes it far too easy to stop the long bomb. Say its first and 10 on the defensive 40yard line. Most pro quarterbacks can throw the ball all the way or almost all the way to the end zone from there.

So are you saying that College QBs cant throw that deep?

So say the corner gets beat on a deep route to the end zone well he can give up the touchdown or he can just do anything he likes to prevent the player from catching the ball and his punishment will only be 15yards moving the ball to the attacking 45yard line. Its just not harsh enough. Where as the current rule would mean its first and goal at the 1 a much harsher penalty. Which such flagrant rule breaking deserves.

I would agree with you if the rule was enforced properly. As it stands NFL refs don't have a handle on it so it kind of makes your flagrant rule breaking theory look flawed especially when its rampant right now. Offensive players are getting far too much leniency and abuse the rule especially as they know statistically the flag will be thrown on the defensive player. How many times have we seen a WR hang out of a CB and the CB puts minimal contact in return and gets flagged for it.

DonkeyPokerTour

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

So are you saying that College QBs cant throw that deep?

I wasn't implying that, if you took that from it that wasn't my intention.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

I would agree with you if the rule was enforced properly. As it stands NFL refs don't have a handle on it so it kind of makes your flagrant rule breaking theory look flawed especially when its rampant right now. Offensive players are getting far too much leniency and abuse the rule especially as they know statistically the flag will be thrown on the defensive player. How many times have we seen a WR hang out of a CB and the CB puts minimal contact in return and gets flagged for it.

So basically your saying we should change the rule because the referees are not enforcing it properly?? Would it not make more sense to train the referees to enforce the rule properly rather than just change the rule. Also if we make it a 15yard penalty it doesn't really matter as without correcting the refereeing issue you will still see the O get all the rulings. So I think its better to train the referees rather than just change the rule

tallaghtoutlaws

DonkeyPokerTour wrote: »

So basically your saying we should change the rule because the referees are not enforcing it properly??

I never said that. In fact I never gave a reason why I think they should change it. I was merely pointing out the flaw to your theory. You said it was flagrant rule breaking and I am telling you it is not because the refs are the ones throwing more flags for DPI than they should. I should have bolded the

Which such flagrant rule breaking deserves.

As for my own opinion. The way the rule is set now is to favour the spectacle that is a long pass. The NFL want it to be a show and want more long passes to happen because after all thats what fans want. It is too easy to say a WR could have caught that ball if the defender hadn't touched him and this fuels many arguments to keep the current ruling in place.

The days of a DB purposely hitting a WR are long gone to stop a TD happening due to the severe penalty. But the problem is now that the refs and the NFL have favoured the Offensive player with their rulings.

The reason I favour the college ball system is because you don't see many defenders purposely give up a PI call because they are disciplined and you know as well as I do, if you did it even here in the IAFL and took a gamble on hitting a WR as a DB and giving the opposition free yards your Coach would give you a rollocking.

jman0war

I'm still on for changing the PAT.
It just strikes me as a phase of the game that is stale, and could be more exciting.

I like the earlier suggestion of using the hash marks, corresponding to the end zone where the TD was made.
In fact, currently in the rules the kicker gets to decide where he wants the ball placed, and sometimes in High School they actually do move the spot to the side. This is because the condition of the field, it can be a mud puddle in the middle, as i'm sure we've all observed. Although this isn't an issue in the NFL where they employ serious grounds crew.

I also still believe that the reality that 99% of PAT are made, means it's too easy. If it were a challenge, there'd be more misses.
If there were more misses, then there would be more 2point attempts the next time the team scores. More misses = more drama, more 2 point attempts = more drama.

Sure the kicking unit suffers a bit, or at least gets put under pressure, but why not? Sporting is an entertainment industry afterall.

I don't understand the point someone suggested before, that we'd see less TD attempts on 4th down. Tbh, i'd say going for it on 4th and goal depend on the score, what the team needs to put up and how the offense is playing. I doubt a concern about a 75% PAT success would make much difference to that decision.

tallaghtoutlaws

jman0war wrote: »

I'm still on for changing the PAT.
It just strikes me as a phase of the game that is stale, and could be more exciting.

I like the earlier suggestion of using the hash marks, corresponding to the end zone where the TD was made.
In fact, currently in the rules the kicker gets to decide where he wants the ball placed, and sometimes in High School they actually do move the spot to the side. This is because the condition of the field, it can be a mud puddle in the middle, as i'm sure we've all observed. Although this isn't an issue in the NFL where they employ serious grounds crew.

You do realise the PAT is always kicked from the same spot right?

jman0war

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

You do realise the PAT is always kicked from the same spot right?

In the NFL it is, and that's what i'd like to change.
So that if the team scores a TD by just nicking the right pylon, the subsequent PAT attempt is taken from the corresponding hash mark.

In HS, they sometimes have to move the spot due to the conditions of the field.

tallaghtoutlaws

jman0war wrote: »

In the NFL it is, and that's what i'd like to change.
So that if the team scores a TD by just nicking the right pylon, the subsequent PAT attempt is taken from the corresponding hash mark.

In HS, they sometimes have to move the spot due to the conditions of the field.

In HS they can only move the spot to the left or right or back off the original 3 yard spot and it must stay within the hash marks. Its a very rare occasion it happens though. Have seen HS games played in heavy rain and even in 2 or 3inches of snow and the PAT is generally in the same spot or slightly off the the spot. Only difference between the Pros and College and HS is a yard. NFL being on the 2 yard line and college and HS on the 3.

jman0war

Here's a video of WR Chad Ochocinco kicking a PAT, because the kicker was out injured.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYBhMqTmYsQ&feature=related

Now, i'm sure Chad is a very skillful athlete but he sure as hell didn't spend HS and College years practicing PAT.
If a player on the field can step in and kick a PAT, without previous experience, then it must be a tad easy.

helimachoptor

tbh i think if i was at a game and they asked me to kick a PAT or FG i'd make it handy enough.

tallaghtoutlaws

jman0war wrote: »

Here's a video of WR Chad Ochocinco kicking a PAT, because the kicker was out injured.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYBhMqTmYsQ&feature=related

Now, i'm sure Chad is a very skillful athlete but he sure as hell didn't spend HS and College years practicing PAT.
If a player on the field can step in and kick a PAT, without previous experience, then it must be a tad easy.

Kicking a PAT in the Pros is a hell of a lot easier than it is in HS or College. The reason for it is you have the best of the best protecting your holder and kicker. You also have a long snapper who is a dedicated long snapper so you know he will get the ball there.

I will put the invite to any of you who think its easy to come down to UCD's practice and give it a go. You will then see the difference between the Pros and the rest. I know kickers in HS and College and they have missed many PATs in the past. The main errors are bad snaps or blocked kicks and then the odd shanked kick.

Remember just because it looks easy in the pros doesn't mean a kicker hasnt practiced those kicks over and over in HS and college. It isn't the distance that is the problem its the variables around it that are out of the Kickers hands that are.

adrian522

I was in the US earlier this year and saw a college game on TV, team came back from 17 points down in the 4th quarter only needed to kick the PAT to send the game to over time.

I'm sure you can guess the rest.

There are plenty of games decided at this level by missed PAT's...

tallaghtoutlaws

jman0war wrote: »

Here's a video of WR Chad Ochocinco kicking a PAT, because the kicker was out injured.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYBhMqTmYsQ&feature=related

Now, i'm sure Chad is a very skillful athlete but he sure as hell didn't spend HS and College years practicing PAT.
If a player on the field can step in and kick a PAT, without previous experience, then it must be a tad easy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULW1AI_e2Sc

Suh missing a PAT just shows that not anyone can just step up. As for Ocho. He plays soccer in his spare time and has practiced field goals in the Bengals practices. If you follow him on twitter you would know he has taken a big interest in it.

But again I re-iterate my point. Its not the distance of the kick that is the problem. It is the variables around it that are. Just ask the kickers still in HS and College.

jman0war

adrian522 wrote: »

There are plenty of games decided at this level by missed PAT's...

Not in the NFL.
It's exceedingly rare.
Have a gander at team stats and look at the kickers stats.
Every kicker's career stats are in the 99+ % for PAT.

adrian522

jman0war wrote: »

So i was thinking about what sort of game-play changes i'd like to see in American Football and thought i'd post them up just for discussion.

I know there are folks that are simply anathema to change but infact american football has evolved and changed hugely over the years.
For example prior to 1906 there was no forward pass.

Anyway one place that could use improvement is the "Point-After".
This has become a rather uneventful affair.
It seems quite rare for a miss, or even a blocked attempt.
So why not do it like rugby, where the attempt must be taken perpendicular to where the ball crossed the line?
I'm sure there would be a lot of misses, and also a lot of teams foregoing the usual and instead go for the 2 point conversion.
It would also put more pressure and more context to those touchdowns that barely hit the pilon.

The other place i'd like to see amended is the Drop Kick Goal.
What's that you say?
Yep, the Drop Kick Goal is still in the rules, but it's never utilised cause it's only worth 3pts.
So a team is never really in a position to attempt such because if they are in the area and it's 1st thru 3rd down, they'll attempt a TD instead.
And if they want 3pts, then it's better to wait til 4th down and line up properly in a manner of a set-piece.
But, what if the Drop Kick Goal was worth 4pts, or even 5pts?

Interesting article on pro football hall of fame website.

It has the minutes from a 1933 meeting where the forward pass rule was modified.

Interestingly one of the proposed changes was to make the PAT from where the TD was scored rather than from the centre, but it was not carried

"Newspaper reports leading up to the meeting claimed that the owners were surely going to eliminate the point-after-attempt following touchdowns. The rationale for this proposed rule change was that weather conditions sometimes gave one team an advantage over another in evenly-contested games with much scoring. The change was never brought to the table. However, there was more debate about the extra point that day. One motion that was later withdrawn focused on moving the location of the point-after-attempt from the center of the field to the spot where the ball crossed the goal line. Another proposal called for the extra point to be attempted from the three-yard-line instead of the two. That motion lost."

Link: http://www.profootballhof.com/blog/under-the-dome/2011/02/25/airing-it-out/

vetinari

I'd like a change related to the last two minutes where you have to advance the ball 2 yards in order to keep the clock running. I've never been a fan of the kneeling to finish out the game. I know the argument about a team having the entire game to win it but it's still unsightly in my view.

jman0war

adrian522 wrote: »

Interesting article on pro football hall of fame website.

It has the minutes from a 1933 meeting where the forward pass rule was modified.

Interestingly one of the proposed changes was to make the PAT from where the TD was scored rather than from the centre, but it was not carried

"Newspaper reports leading up to the meeting claimed that the owners were surely going to eliminate the point-after-attempt following touchdowns. The rationale for this proposed rule change was that weather conditions sometimes gave one team an advantage over another in evenly-contested games with much scoring. The change was never brought to the table. However, there was more debate about the extra point that day. One motion that was later withdrawn focused on moving the location of the point-after-attempt from the center of the field to the spot where the ball crossed the goal line. Another proposal called for the extra point to be attempted from the three-yard-line instead of the two. That motion lost."

Link: http://www.profootballhof.com/blog/under-the-dome/2011/02/25/airing-it-out/

Interesting.
I also read an article that they originally believed there would be PAT misses, and these little points would decide games.
But it looks like they underestimated SP kicking units, as we can see 50 years on, a miss is a rare bird indeed.

jman0war

vetinari wrote: »

I'd like a change related to the last two minutes where you have to advance the ball 2 yards in order to keep the clock running. I've never been a fan of the kneeling to finish out the game. I know the argument about a team having the entire game to win it but it's still unsightly in my view.

It's a neat idea and i agree it's not very exciting seeing a team "take a knee" but i don't think it's fair to burden the offensive unit with such a dramatic change to how the game clock operates.

Take for example a team that is geniunely trying to advance the ball (inside 2 min), but the defense makes a play in the backfield resulting in a lose of yards. It seems unfair to stop the clock. I suspect such a rule change would result in a very passing-centric 2 mins.

johnmcdnl

vetinari wrote: »

I'd like a change related to the last two minutes where you have to advance the ball 2 yards in order to keep the clock running. I've never been a fan of the kneeling to finish out the game. I know the argument about a team having the entire game to win it but it's still unsightly in my view.

give them 2 attempts to get 2 yards maybe?? that'd let them run clock for a good bit seeing as they've done so much in the first 58 minutes to be able to run the clock down

that way they can't just kneel it but have to at least try to get a HB dive or something 1-2 times to keep the clock going without really affecting the way the clock works but still giving the defense something to fight for in the last 2 minutes rather than standing there watching a QB kneel down 3 times

if a team has done enough to be winning and be in control in the last 2 minutes surely they should be given the upper hand rather than giving the defense a massive chance just because it's the last 2 minutes..

it'd also have a huge impact on how timeouts are used - instead of saving them all for last 2 minuteish to stop the clock they could be used more freely throughout the game - that'd be interesting to see in practice but it could change the entire tactics of the game

it'd be very interesting to see a few challenge matches with these rules in place to see how it pans out but I dunno about 2 yards every play...

vetinari

fair enough, maybe one yard then to keep the clock running?

But I mean, 1 yard or 2 yards, every offence should be able to pick up 2 yards easily enough on a play. The offence would still be a healthy favorite to pick up 2 yards but at least the game would end with football being played as opposed to kneeling.