Episode 1: How to Fix the...NFL - Page 2

MorseMoose · 11-29-2009, 05:47 PM

Creep on college football territory. Play games on Saturday. And get rid of NFL Network only games. No blackout rules, as well.

His Own Bad Self · 11-29-2009, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Stop making it so easy for offences by bringing back intentional grounding. It's almost impossible to be called for it nowadays.

I'd go even further. If a passer is under pressure, make it intentional grounding for him to throw the ball away under any circumstances. The defense has done its job, and may very well get a sack or interception out of the deal. Why should the passer simply be allowed to find an alternate receiver somewhere in the tenth row? Make him find the nearest available target, let him eat the ball and slide, or whatever else. I know the easiest objection is "what about quarterback safety". In response, I'm not sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The simplest way to do overtime is to play a ten minute overtime period. The club ahead after the end of that extra ten minutes is the winner. The overtime period is thus played under the same rules and conditions as the rest of the game. During the regular season, if the game is tied after ten minutes, it stays a tie. In the post-season, you keep playing ten minute periods until one club finishes ahead of the other.

I fully agree. And I'm also OK with ties - I don't understand why they're so revolting to some.

I have one other suggestion: move extra points back about ten yards. (I stole this one from The Hidden Game of Football.)

MorseMoose · 11-29-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by His Own Bad Self

I fully agree. And I'm also OK with ties - I don't understand why they're so revolting to some.)

What good is a tie? You play a 70 (60+10 minute OT) minute game only to end in a tie? What a slap in the face to the fans.

norva13x · 11-29-2009, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

What good is a tie? You play a 70 (60+10 minute OT) minute game only to end in a tie? What a slap in the face to the fans.

I really don't understand the american sentiment of despising tie games. It seems here your either a winner or a loser. I would enjoy a hard fought exciting game ending in a tie much more then I would a blow out.
There is nothing wrong with an exciting action-filled game ending with a tie. I would hardly call it a slap in the face to the fans.

MorseMoose · 11-29-2009, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by norva13x

I really don't understand the american sentiment of despising tie games. It seems here your either a winner or a loser. I would enjoy a hard fought exciting game ending in a tie much more then I would a blow out.
There is nothing wrong with an exciting action-filled game ending with a tie. I would hardly call it a slap in the face to the fans.

If it's a blow-out, I can stop watching or watch casually. If I'm watching a game for three hours, I better be satisfied with SOMEONE winning. I'd rather see my team lose by 3 (or 6) than to see a tie.

To be invested in a game for hours only to end with naught, worthless.

BaseballMan · 11-29-2009, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

If it's a blow-out, I can stop watching or watch casually. If I'm watching a game for three hours, I better be satisfied with SOMEONE winning. I'd rather see my team lose by 3 (or 6) than to see a tie.

To be invested in a game for hours only to end with naught, worthless.

Well i would rather have a winner if they are gonna play overtime. If not why bother playing ot. Still even if you just have a tie at the end of the day your team is either a half game up or half game behind. Not like the tie doesnt result in any changes.

MorseMoose · 11-29-2009, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Well i would rather have a winner if they are gonna play overtime. If not why bother playing ot. Still even if you just have a tie at the end of the day your team is either a half game up or half game behind. Not like the tie doesnt result in any changes.

A tie is so anti-climatic.

Afino · 11-29-2009, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

A tie is so anti-climatic.

Don't tell hockey fans that.

MorseMoose · 11-29-2009, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Afino

Don't tell hockey fans that.

It doesn't happen in the NHL though...they fixed that, no?

Le Grande Orange · 11-30-2009, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

What are the CFL's punt return rules?

The kicking team has to stay at least five yards away from the player receiving the punt. Once the ball is caught, then the kicking team can then try to tackle him. The advantage of this rule is that there is always a punt return, meaning there's always the chance of something interesting happening. If the kicking team gets within that five yards restraining zone, it's a penalty ('no yards,' usually a five yard penalty applied from the point the receiver catches the ball).

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

I thought that was done. I thought they ended the force-out rule.

No, I mean the idea that a receiver can be standing on tip-toes and still have it considered as being a genuine reception. A foot fully planted is more legitimate as really being inbounds I would argue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

It's a gimmick that works, though. It's better than sudden death OT.

I don't think so. At least the current system involves playing the game under the exact same rules and conditions as the rest of the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by His Own Bad Self

I'd go even further. If a passer is under pressure, make it intentional grounding for him to throw the ball away under any circumstances. The defense has done its job, and may very well get a sack or interception out of the deal. Why should the passer simply be allowed to find an alternate receiver somewhere in the tenth row? Make him find the nearest available target, let him eat the ball and slide, or whatever else.

That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, and would like to see enacted.

His Own Bad Self · 11-30-2009, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

What good is a tie? You play a 70 (60+10 minute OT) minute game only to end in a tie? What a slap in the face to the fans.

The only result that should be promised to the fans is a fair one. They're not paying (or watching) for a specific result. They're paying for entertainment. The entertainment comes from watching the events in the 60 or more minutes of game action.

There is no "slap in the face" to the fans if they know going in that a tie is a possible result. That implies that they were cheated or robbed. How? Did they not get their money's worth? Was their time not well spent? Was that 34-34 game a total waste simply because someone missed a field goal here or there?

Now, if circumstances result in something like the 2002 MLB All-Star Game, then yes, the fans have a right to feel cheated. Otherwise... I don't see it.

Le Grande Orange · 11-30-2009, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by His Own Bad Self

There is no "slap in the face" to the fans if they know going in that a tie is a possible result. That implies that they were cheated or robbed. How? Did they not get their money's worth? Was their time not well spent?

[Gladiator] "Are you not entertained?" [/Gladiator]

Kekkonen · 11-30-2009, 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

It doesn't happen in the NHL though...they fixed that, no?

For sufficiently screwed-up definitions of 'fixing', yes.

MorseMoose · 11-30-2009, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by His Own Bad Self

The only result that should be promised to the fans is a fair one. They're not paying (or watching) for a specific result. They're paying for entertainment. The entertainment comes from watching the events in the 60 or more minutes of game action.

There is no "slap in the face" to the fans if they know going in that a tie is a possible result. That implies that they were cheated or robbed. How? Did they not get their money's worth? Was their time not well spent? Was that 34-34 game a total waste simply because someone missed a field goal here or there?

Now, if circumstances result in something like the 2002 MLB All-Star Game, then yes, the fans have a right to feel cheated. Otherwise... I don't see it.

I'm watching to be entertained and to see if my team wins or loses. A tie is not and should not be a valid outcome.

jaxmagicman · 11-30-2009, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turdfurgeson

I say remove field goals from the game. Every possesion ends in a punt, touchdown or turnover on downs. Two point conversion attempt after every touchdown.

If that is too radical, just remove extra points and make it two point conversion only.

I go one futher. No kicks what-so-ever. There are no punts or kickoffs. Almost every kick-off has a block in the back. I don't care if it is not called (most are), I see a guy getting blocked in the back on every kick-off. And punting these days in the NFL is ridiculus. I saw Pittsburgh punt from Baltimore's 40 last night. That is just dumb. You gained 20 yards when you punted it into the end zone. The try for a first down has to be worth 20 yards.

Cooleyvol · 11-30-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

I go one futher. No kicks what-so-ever. There are no punts or kickoffs. Almost every kick-off has a block in the back. I don't care if it is not called (most are), I see a guy getting blocked in the back on every kick-off. And punting these days in the NFL is ridiculus. I saw Pittsburgh punt from their own 40 last night. That is just dumb. You gained 20 yards when you punted it into the end zone. The try for a first down has to be worth 20 yards.

Wouldn't punting from your OWN 40 for a touchback net you 40 yards?

Opponents get it on their own 20 and would need 40 yards to get to YOUR 40.

TribeFanInNC · 11-30-2009, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

...There are no punts...

Why would you eliminate the most important play in football?

/Sweater Vest fanboy

jaxmagicman · 11-30-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

Wouldn't punting from your OWN 40 for a touchback net you 40 yards?

Opponents get it on their own 20 and would need 40 yards to get to YOUR 40.

Ok. I meant, Baltimore's 40. They were 40 yards from the goal.

Cryomaniac · 11-30-2009, 10:09 AM

Regarding punts, I think something like Rugby Leagues 40-20 rule would be interesting. Basically if you punt from inside your own 40 and it goes out of bounds inside their 20 they take over where it goes out of bounds, other wise they take over at the previous spot.

Sweed · 11-30-2009, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

[*]Take away spiking the ball as a cheap way to stop the clock. Make clubs use their timeouts wisely instead of wasting them stopping the clock for no reason and then relying on spiking the ball.

I don't like the spike and would like to see it done away with but it isn't really going to change anything in the big picture teams will still stop the clock with incomplete passes.

When I first started watching football the spike didn't exist. The QB would simply take one step back and throw the ball over the head and out of bounds of one of the WR. Legal pass and the clock would stop. Current spiking probably saves 1-2 seconds over the "old" way. One or two seconds though at the end of a game can be a difference maker so another reason to do away with the spike and make the QB make a legitimate play.

I know part of the rational was QB safety but really was anyone getting hurt doing it the old way? To me it's an illegal pass as there is no legitimate target though you can't say it's intentional grounding as it's not done to avoid a sack. I've always wondered though what is the call if a DT pushes the C or G back far enough that the ball hits an offensive lineman? Illegal touch and a penalty? Are they going to call it? It's just a stupid rule, along with many others, that the NFL has come up with.

11-30-2009, 10:09 AM	#39
Cryomaniac Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hucknall, Notts, UK Posts: 4,902	Regarding punts, I think something like Rugby Leagues 40-20 rule would be interesting. Basically if you punt from inside your own 40 and it goes out of bounds inside their 20 they take over where it goes out of bounds, other wise they take over at the previous spot. __________________

11-29-2009, 05:47 PM	#21
MorseMoose Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 6,023 Infractions: 1/1 (1)	Creep on college football territory. Play games on Saturday. And get rid of NFL Network only games. No blackout rules, as well.