Football Rules that Need to Change

[Gothamite]

Actually, isn't QBR the name for ESPN's 1-to-100 quarterback stat, not the original Quarterback Rating?

[OnWis97]

Actually, isn't QBR the name for ESPN's 1-to-100 quarterback stat, not the original Quarterback Rating?

That's what I thought.

Not that I have the first clue as to what goes into either one.

[Sean F&F]

Not so much a change to the rules but to statistics... interceptions should be scored like errors in baseball. If a receiver is clearly responsible, it shouldn't count against a QBs stats or QBR.

That's an interesting idea, seeing how there of plenty of INT's that are results of tipped or juggled passes by WRs. The thing is, it could cause the stats for defenses to be a little off.

For example, the total number of INTs thrown by QBs in a season could be 400, but defenses could have 420. Would the WRs get a new stat that would account for the other INTs?

[JayMac]

Not so much a change to the rules but to statistics... interceptions should be scored like errors in baseball. If a receiver is clearly responsible, it shouldn't count against a QBs stats or QBR.

That's an interesting idea, seeing how there of plenty of INT's that are results of tipped or juggled passes by WRs. The thing is, it could cause the stats for defenses to be a little off.

For example, the total number of INTs thrown by QBs in a season could be 400, but defenses could have 420. Would the WRs get a new stat that would account for the other INTs?

The WR should get an "interception assist". The QB, therefore, is not charged.

[Mac the Knife]

it shouldn't count against a QBs stats or QBR.

WTF is a "QBR?"

QuarterBack Rating

Thanks, ESPN.

Actually, isn't QBR the name for ESPN's 1-to-100 quarterback stat, not the original Quarterback Rating?

That's what I thought.

Not that I have the first clue as to what goes into either one.

Yeah, this ESPN bull**** of "QBR" needs to stop, unless they're prepared to make public the precise formula for its calculation. I know what how to calculate the NFL's official passer rating, complicated as it is:

Step 1:

Determine a passer's completion percentage and format it as a whole number. For example, 6 completions in 10 attempts would be 60.0%. Take that number, subtract 30 from it (30.0), then divide that number by 20. This gives you a category rating of 1.500.

Step 2:

Determine a passer's average yards gained per attempt. For example, 49 yards gained in 10 attempts would be 4.9 yards per attempt. Subtract 3 from this number (1.9), then divide that number by 4. This gives you a category rating of 0.475.

Step 3:

Determine a passer's touchdown percentage by dividing the number of touchdown passes by the number of attempts. 2 touchdowns in 10 attempts would be 20.0%. This number you divide by 5, which would be 4.000, but the rating formula has a "category cap" of 2.375, and a "floor" of 0.000 (no negative ratings). So in our example, the rating would be 2.375.

Step 4:

Determine a passer's interception percentage by dividing the number of interceptions thrown by the number of attempts. 1 interception in 10 attempts would be 10.0%. This number you divide by 4 (2.5), then subtract it from the maximum category rating of 2.375 (2.375 - 2.500 = [0.125]). As -0.125 is below the "floor" for category ratings, in this case the rating would be 0.000.

Step 5:

Add the category ratings together (1.500 + .475 + 2.375 + 0 = 4.350). Then take that number, and divide it by .06 to get the passer rating (4.350 / .06 = 72.5).

Simple!

[JayMac]

it shouldn't count against a QBs stats or QBR.

WTF is a "QBR?"

QuarterBack Rating

Thanks, ESPN.

Actually, isn't QBR the name for ESPN's 1-to-100 quarterback stat, not the original Quarterback Rating?

That's what I thought.

Not that I have the first clue as to what goes into either one.

Yeah, this ESPN bull**** of "QBR" needs to stop, unless they're prepared to make public the precise formula for its calculation. I know what how to calculate the NFL's official passer rating, complicated as it is:

Step 1:

Determine a passer's completion percentage and format it as a whole number. For example, 6 completions in 10 attempts would be 60.0%. Take that number, subtract 30 from it (30.0), then divide that number by 20. This gives you a category rating of 1.500.

Step 2:

Determine a passer's average yards gained per attempt. For example, 49 yards gained in 10 attempts would be 4.9 yards per attempt. Subtract 3 from this number (1.9), then divide that number by 4. This gives you a category rating of 0.475.

Step 3:

Determine a passer's touchdown percentage by dividing the number of touchdown passes by the number of attempts. 2 touchdowns in 10 attempts would be 20.0%. This number you divide by 5, which would be 4.000, but the rating formula has a "category cap" of 2.375, and a "floor" of 0.000 (no negative ratings). So in our example, the rating would be 2.375.

Step 4:

Determine a passer's interception percentage by dividing the number of interceptions thrown by the number of attempts. 1 interception in 10 attempts would be 10.0%. This number you divide by 4 (2.5), then subtract it from the maximum category rating of 2.375 (2.375 - 2.500 = [0.125]). As -0.125 is below the "floor" for category ratings, in this case the rating would be 0.000.

Step 5:

Add the category ratings together (1.500 + .475 + 2.375 + 0 = 4.350). Then take that number, and divide it by .06 to get the passer rating (4.350 / .06 = 72.5).

Simple!

It's complicated but it's not difficult like everyone makes it out to be. Some people think you need to have taken advanced calculus to figure it out.

[Balu the Bare]

Is it still a rule that the defense crossing into the neutral zone can cause the offense to move before the snap stopping the play and causing a neutral zone infraction on the defense? If so, get rid of that. Offenses have enough advantages.

[Gothamite]

I don't see any reason to get rid of that one. First one enters the neutral zone before the snap earns a penalty. That's fair.

The offense is already at a disadvantage at the line - they can't move before the snap.

[Balu the Bare]

But they know when the ball is going to be snapped.

Edit: My original post comes from my understanding that the defense may get out of the neutral zone without penalty as long as they don't make contact with an offensive player and/or the ball hasn't been snapped by the offense. Is that wrong?

[HedleyLamarr]

But they know when the ball is going to be snapped.

...unless their name is Bob Whitfield.

My understanding is that it's a NZI if the defensive player makes a forward move into the neutral zone and causes the offensive player across from them to false start. (If any other offensive player has a false start, the penalty goes on the offense. For example, if the D-lineman across from the Right Tackle jumps into the neutral zone and the offense's Left Guard makes a move out of his set stance, the LG gets popped for the false start.)

A NZI becomes an offsides penalty for the defense if no offensive players move and the ball gets snapped. (Or the "offsides, unabated to the QB" if the offsides defensive player continues to move towards the QB and no one is there to block before the ball is snapped.)

On occasion, you'll see a defensive player jump across the line of scrimmage and scurry back to his side of the ball unpenalized. As long as no offensive player moves and the ball doesn't get snapped before the defensive player gets back to his side of the LoS, no penalty is called.

[Balu the Bare]

But they know when the ball is going to be snapped.

...unless their name is Bob Whitfield.

My understanding is that it's a NZI if the defensive player makes a forward move into the neutral zone and causes the offensive player across from them to false start. (If any other offensive player has a false start, the penalty goes on the offense. For example, if the D-lineman across from the Right Tackle jumps into the neutral zone and the offense's Left Guard makes a move out of his set stance, the LG gets popped for the false start.)

Ok good, I'm talking about the right thing then. If our understandings of the rule are correct, the offensive lineman over the jumping defensive lineman should -in theory- know when the ball is going to be snapped and, therefore, when it is ok for him to move. The defender jumping into the neutral zone should have no effect on that.

[HedleyLamarr]

I mean, in theory, all the offensive players should know when the ball will be snapped.

But the offensive lineman or whomever is lined up on the line of scrimmage (excluding the 4 offensive guys that are off the LoS...if they flinch, they'll get penalized for a false start every time) can flinch or jump without being penalized for a false start only when the defensive player in front of them jump into the neutral zone pre-snap. The linemen are given that leeway to react (whether it be to defend himself or whatever).

[Balu the Bare]

Guess it's just my bias then. I don't agree that they -need- the leeway to move if the guy just goes into the neutral zone. The D is already out of position, why award a cheap penalty on top of it?

[Gothamite]

Because "out of position" isn't always a hindrance. By jumping early the defender could have a clear line to the quarterback between offensive linemen, who can't move to counter him.

If the defender is rushing the line, he cant really be "out of position" no matter how far into or through the neutral zone he is.

[Balu the Bare]

If he's in the neutral zone when the ball is snapped, isn't that a dead ball penalty?

[HedleyLamarr]

If he's in the neutral zone when the ball is snapped, isn't that a dead ball penalty?

No.

A neutral zone infraction only happens when the offensive player reacts and no snap of the ball.

If the ball is snapped and a player is in the neutral zone, it's an Offsides call and the offense basically gets a free play, since the worst thing that can happen to the offense is they gain five yards.

[Balu the Bare]

Even more of a reason that the offensive player should not be allowed to move regardless of what the defender is doing. I'd say allow it for tackles when an outside rusher crosses, but interior linemen should have to stay put.

Out of position meaning the defender in that position is now scrambling back to the defensive side of the ball and resetting himself before the ball is snapped. Not only is the defender vulnerable, but now he's tipped his hand and the offense should know how to neutralize him.

[BBTV]

Even more of a reason that the offensive player should not be allowed to move regardless of what the defender is doing. I'd say allow it for tackles when an outside rusher crosses, but interior linemen should have to stay put.

Out of position meaning the defender in that position is now scrambling back to the defensive side of the ball and resetting himself before the ball is snapped. Not only is the defender vulnerable, but now he's tipped his hand and the offense should know how to neutralize him.

If he's vulnerable, then there's a safety concern, which is what they're all about trying to limit. Any jump - O or D should be a dead-ball foul.

When the Federation enters the Neutral Zone, the Romulans get PISSED and war could break out. The NFL neutral zone should't be any different (with the exception of not having photon torpedoes.)

[dolphins91]

1. No more targeting ejections. Make it a 15 yard penalty and automatic 1st down with the person sitting out the next play.

2. Stop the clock after 1st down at all levels. It gives trailing teams a better shot at a comeback.

3. One foot in bounds is a catch at all levels. Come on, you can make a lot more catches and it is easier than getting 2 feet in

[BBTV]

Seriously - if you throw a swing to a receiver, and they hop on one foot all the way out of bounds, is it incomplete? Or is two of the same foot the same as two feet?