Game-Play changes you'd like to see

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.

adrian522

vetinari wrote: »

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.

ha ha Tell it to Belichick

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16/bill-belichicks-4th-2-cal_n_358907.html

tallaghtoutlaws

vetinari wrote: »

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.

I disagree. Sometimes 2 yards is harder than 10 especially when the opposing team knows that's all you need it makes it increasingly harder. Look at goal line situations, 4th and short situations when a coach decides to go for it.

vetinari

You're not comparing like with like.

As an example, there's two minutes left and the offence has the ball on their own 40 on 1st down. Teams can try and crowd the line of scrimmage but its not the same as goal line as there is potential for deep pass plays. Furthermore if the offence does not pick up 2 yards, they still have the ball so again it's not similar to 4th down.

Fact is, your typical first down play of running straight up the gut yields 2 to 3 yards on average. When a defence has to defend the pass then 2 yards is likely the majority of the time.

tallaghtoutlaws

vetinari wrote: »

You're not comparing like with like.

Yes I am.

As an example, there's two minutes left and the offence has the ball on their own 40 on 1st down. Teams can try and crowd the line of scrimmage but its not the same as goal line as there is potential for deep pass plays. Furthermore if the offence does not pick up 2 yards, they still have the ball so again it's not similar to 4th down.

I know the difference between formation I do coach the game after all. But with very little time on the clock no team is going to risk passing the ball especially deep if they are trying to run the clock. So taking passing out of it the defense will stack the line in preparation for stopping the run especially when knowing that is the favourable option.

Fact is, your typical first down play of running straight up the gut yields 2 to 3 yards on average. When a defence has to defend the pass then 2 yards is likely the majority of the time.

Your typical first down play isn't at the end of the game in a situation where only a couple of yards is needed. Different kind of pressure and different situation so in fact if you are going to say I am not making a fair comparison this is most certainly has no relevance to your situation.

jman0war

You know, "taking a knee" isn't always a negative sort of play.
Sometimes it's respectful and good sportsmanship.
Check it out:

Say the offense is up by 21 pts, inside 2 mins and is basically driving down the field in total command of the game. They get down to the 2 yard line and then take a knee for the remaining plays. Killing time remaining and ending the game.

They could of course, have continued pounding the ball and basically run up the score even more, but in taking a knee, they did a rather sportsmanlike thing. They showed respect for their opponents.

vetinari

I know teams do it in blowouts but I was more on about close games where the game just peters out with 2 minutes of the game left. In most sports, teams have a chance to win it up to the last whistle. American Football is definitely rare with the notion that a game is completely over before the final whistle. (There is no actual tactic a defense can take against a kneel down?)

I get your points tallaghtoutlaws but teams can and have passed the ball in these type of situations. Pittsburgh did it twice against the Jets in the AFC championship. I'll concede that they probably won't go for long post routes but screens and crossing routes would definitely be used. In fact, I'd expect most plays to be pass plays as an incomplete pass would be the same as a rush play that didn't make 2 yards.

The offence would still probably see out the game 90% of the time but at least the defence would have a chance.

jman0war

Ok i'm resurrecting an old thread but after the Ravens vs Browns game i couldn't resist.

After the Browns scored, in the ensuring kick-off, the kicker kicked the ball out of bounds (along the sidelines).
Flags went flying as though it were a big deal.

But if you saw that kick, it was a beauty.
Just found the sidelines at like, the Ravens 2
In Rugby the crowd would have really enjoyed it.

But no, for some reason in the NFL it's a real no-no.
But why?

If a kicking team attempts to kick the ball out of bounds intentionally, they run the risk of giving up good field position.
If the kicker is good enough to put it inside the 15, fair play.
I don't see any particular reason the Receiving team can't return it.
And they could even spread their players across the field to cover for such tactics.

Itssoeasy

I'd love the league to make the definition of what's a catch and what's not so much clearer.

bruschi

jman0war wrote: »

Ok i'm resurrecting an old thread but after the Ravens vs Browns game i couldn't resist.

After the Browns scored, in the ensuring kick-off, the kicker kicked the ball out of bounds (along the sidelines).
Flags went flying as though it were a big deal.

But if you saw that kick, it was a beauty.
Just found the sidelines at like, the Ravens 2
In Rugby the crowd would have really enjoyed it.

But no, for some reason in the NFL it's a real no-no.
But why?

If a kicking team attempts to kick the ball out of bounds intentionally, they run the risk of giving up good field position.
If the kicker is good enough to put it inside the 15, fair play.
I don't see any particular reason the Receiving team can't return it.
And they could even spread their players across the field to cover for such tactics.

couple of things with it. Kickoffs are a live ball, meaning whoever gets the ball first keeps it (unlike punts).

Secondly, you are kicking a stationary ball, there is no snap, hold, kick, and is therefore far easier to execute the kick.

Also, by reasoning of kicking off, bar the first kick of each half, you have just scored, so it would be highly unfair to have a kicker kicking a stationary ball and pin the defending team back inside the 10, which most kickers would be able to do regularly enough.

At the end of it all, I suppose it's about fairness and entertainment. And we all know how highly the NFL values integrity.