BringBackTheVet

my NFL rules change to reduce reliance on kicking

Recommended Posts

It's long been my opinion that kicking is too important in football (yes, I get the irony there.)  The existence of soccer kickers who can easily kick 50+yard field goals, the occasional 60+yarder, and chip-shot XPs simply wasn't a factor when the rules were designed.  Nowadays, you only need to get to the 35 to have a relatively "easy" 52-yard attempt, and teams regularly try from the 40.  It discourages taking risks to gain yards, though it can make last-minute comeback drives more exciting.

 

Anyway, my "easy" idea to make the game better is simply to narrow the goalposts.  Kickers are just too good these days, so making the goal posts even a few feed narrower could bring back the balance between gaining yards and just taking a nearly-automatic 3 points just for crossing midfield.

 

My not-so-easy idea is to make TDs worth 7.  TD+PAT = 8.  

 

Currently, if Team A gets 2 TDs+PATs, that's 14 points, and they lose to Team B gets 5 FGs for 15.  I think that getting a TD should be worth more.  If you make it 7, then in this scenario, Team A has 16, and Team B only 15.  

 

A TD + 2pt Conversion would = 9, which equates it to 3 FGs, which seems fair to me.  Honestly I'd even consider making TDs worth 8, just to encourage more risk taking.

 

I plan on  forwarding the URL to this thread to Roger Goodell in hopes of getting the rules changed, so let's come up with something good.  Discuss. 

 

 

 

*I thought we had a topic for sports rules discussion, but couldn't find it.  Please merge if appropriate.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

It's long been my opinion that kicking is too important in football (yes, I get the irony there.)  The existence of soccer kickers who can easily kick 50+yard field goals, the occasional 60+yarder, and chip-shot XPs simply wasn't a factor when the rules were designed.  Nowadays, you only need to get to the 35 to have a relatively "easy" 52-yard attempt, and teams regularly try from the 40.  It discourages taking risks to gain yards, though it can make last-minute comeback drives more exciting.

 

Anyway, my "easy" idea to make the game better is simply to narrow the goalposts.  Kickers are just too good these days, so making the goal posts even a few feed narrower could bring back the balance between gaining yards and just taking a nearly-automatic 3 points just for crossing midfield.

 

My not-so-easy idea is to make TDs worth 7.  TD+PAT = 8.  

 

Currently, if Team A gets 2 TDs+PATs, that's 14 points, and they lose to Team B gets 5 FGs for 15.  I think that getting a TD should be worth more.  If you make it 7, then in this scenario, Team A has 16, and Team B only 15.  

 

A TD + 2pt Conversion would = 9, which equates it to 3 FGs, which seems fair to me.  Honestly I'd even consider making TDs worth 8, just to encourage more risk taking.

 

I plan on  forwarding the URL to this thread to Roger Goodell in hopes of getting the rules changed, so let's come up with something good.  Discuss. 

 

 

 

*I thought we had a topic for sports rules discussion, but couldn't find it.  Please merge if appropriate.

 

 

I’d also expand the hashmarks while narrowing the posts.

 

worse angle+ smaller posts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the wider hashmarks idea a lot. You could start by making them as wide as they are in college football.

 

I kind of hope the XFL just goes without PAT's at all. Instead, after a touchdown you have a 1-point conversion from the 2-yard line, a 2-point conversion from like the 10, and fulfill Woody Hayes' dream of going for a 3-point conversion from the 15 or 20 or so.

 

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

It's long been my opinion that kicking is too important in football (yes, I get the irony there.)

 

They're using their feet to stand and run, aren't they? I see no issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, DiePerske said:

I’d also expand the hashmarks while narrowing the posts.

 

worse angle+ smaller posts. 

 

I like it, but the thing with expanding the hash marks is that it could also impact the offenses by having short and long sides of the fields.  You wouldn't see a lot of wide runs, because defenders are just so much faster in the NFL than college, but you'd probably see a lot of trips or weak-side runs.  Could actually be better though - I'd need to see it.

 

It'd also be harder on the coaches since they don't really need to worry about plays to call based on hash mark since it's all pretty much in the middle.  

 

10 minutes ago, Red Wolf said:

They're using their feet to stand and run, aren't they? I see no issue.

 

By that rationale, we have football, base football, ice football, and basket football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

I like it, but the thing with expanding the hash marks is that it could also impact the offenses by having short and long sides of the fields.  You wouldn't see a lot of wide runs, because defenders are just so much faster in the NFL than college, but you'd probably see a lot of trips or weak-side runs.  Could actually be better though - I'd need to see it.

 

It'd also be harder on the coaches since they don't really need to worry about plays to call based on hash mark since it's all pretty much in the middle. 

 

College offenses rack up stupid numbers, so I don't think it would really hurt them. If anything, wider areas could open up bigger plays, and then use that as a way to fake wide only to go to the short side of the field.

 

3 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

By that rationale, we have football, base football, ice football, and basket football.

 

I don't see the issue here. We just shorten the name, or in the case of ice football, use a totally different name since there's not even a ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DiePerske said:

I’d also expand the hashmarks while narrowing the posts.

 

worse angle+ smaller posts. 

I kinda think the NFL and college should swap hashmarks.  Not enough good kickers in college.  Things should get more difficult, not easier, from college to pro.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Red Wolf said:

 

College offenses rack up stupid numbers, so I don't think it would really hurt them. If anything, wider areas could open up bigger plays, and then use that as a way to fake wide only to go to the short side of the field.

 

College offenses aren't playing against pro defenses.  We'd have to see it, but I'm not sure that some of those option offenses would work too well in the pros.  Maybe you're right from a passing standpoint - I don't watch enough college to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

College offenses aren't playing against pro defenses.  We'd have to see it, but I'm not sure that some of those option offenses would work too well in the pros.  Maybe you're right from a passing standpoint - I don't watch enough college to know.

Changing the hash marks won’t change the style of play that much. Greater than 50% of the plays are gonna be btwn the NFL hash marks being outside of the hash marks doesn’t change play calling too much other than you might have to flip formations to fit them. But receivers are gonna run the same routes and Runners will hit the same holes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2019 at 12:34 PM, BringBackTheVet said:

I plan on forwarding the URL to this thread to Roger Goodell in hopes of getting the rules changed, so let's come up with something good. Discuss.

Not sure if serious or not. But regardless, I have an interesting anecdote related to Goodell and rule changes. 

 

To preface, this occurred the season right before the overtime rules were changed, or, at least tested in the playoffs. I was on NFL.com one day and noticed there was an upcoming "Chat with the Commissioner" live event. The chat was that day, and I had had this idea for new OT rules for a couple years now, so you can basically see where this is going. Long story short: I mentioned in the chat that the overtime period should simply be: the first team to score 6 (obviously, a touchdown or two field goals). The next season the rules were tested in the playoffs and then put into full practice the following year. So, maybe the internet may have some pull.

 

I do wish Goodell would have commented on my post as he did many others. At least to say, "Hey that's not a bad idea" or something. (And if you really are serious about sending this to the commish, let me know and I can edit this part out). 

-----

I like both ideas. Narrowing the goalposts, IIRC, has been brought up before by the NFL but obviously we haven't seen any indicators that that will happen in the near future. The point change is a little complex, but it makes sense. I've often thought that it would be interesting if field goal points were based on distance. It's a little more difficult to scale now that an extra point is ~33 yards, but I think it could still work at some capacity. 20 yards or shorter = 1pt, 21-49 = 2pts, 50+ = 3pts. That would definitely up the risk taking for going for the TD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well considering the rule was completely different to what you are suggesting and he didn’t reply to you I doubt he even saw your post. Also the rule was being discussed before by the owners and competition committee and needed to be voted upon to be approved before the announcement could be made. So it was already been in the system before you decided to chat with the commissioner. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, dont care said:

Well considering the rule was completely different to what you are suggesting and he didn’t reply to you I doubt he even saw your post. Also the rule was being discussed before by the owners and competition committee and needed to be voted upon to be approved before the announcement could be made. So it was already been in the system before you decided to chat with the commissioner.

I understand that it is different, but I'd argue that it isn't completely different seeing as whichever team scores 6 first does, in fact, win the game. Beyond neither team scoring a TD on their first possession, the game winning field goal does make sense in an effort to keep OT shorter on the basis of a 15 minutes period. The 10 minute period, I feel, is too short. 

 

And yeah, it was probably being discussed beforehand but I just thought it to be coincidental that the rules were tested the next season. At the time, I personally had not heard of any overtime rule changes being talked about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Heitert said:

. (And if you really are serious about sending this to the commish, let me know and I can edit this part out). 

 

 

Of course not.  The extent of my caring is to post about it here.  Even if I was serious, I'd just forget or see a dog with a curly tail and never get it done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Heitert said:

. I've often thought that it would be interesting if field goal points were based on distance. It's a little more difficult to scale now that an extra point is ~33 yards, but I think it could still work at some capacity. 20 yards or shorter = 1pt, 21-49 = 2pts, 50+ = 3pts. That would definitely up the risk taking for going for the TD. 

 

That would totally make the problem I'm trying to solve even worse

 

There'd be no reason to advance the ball, knowing that you could take 3, but if you go for the TD and don't make it, you're actually penalizing yourself.  You would see teams intentionally taking a sack or running backwards and kneeling just to get into the 3-point range.

 

Your plan would only work if it was reversed, and that the shorter field goals were worth more.  I could get behind something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

That would totally make the problem I'm trying to solve even worse.

 

There'd be no reason to advance the ball, knowing that you could take 3, but if you go for the TD and don't make it, you're actually penalizing yourself. You would see teams intentionally taking a sack or running backwards and kneeling just to get into the 3-point range.

 

Your plan would only work if it was reversed, and that the shorter field goals were worth more. I could get behind something like that.

A field goal from 50+ is not a guaranteed 3, though.

 

Through the first four games this season, 36 attempts have been made from 50 yards or greater. 21 were good and 15 were no good (58.3% success rate). Last season, 63.8% of field goal attempts from 50 yards out were good. From the 2015 season to present, 63.6% of field goals from 50+ were successful, with an average length of 53.1 yards. They're not necessarily gimmes.  

 

Kicking a 50+ yard field goal or trusting your offense to go down and score a TD makes for different styles of play and coaching, adding more risk since there is now an element of choice of how to win the game. Especially when you consider how good a team's kicker is compared to their offense. 

 

A couple of close 4th quarter game scenarios: 

(Note these all depend on time left in regulation, timeouts left, etc.)

 

Team A is down 3 late in the game (around 2 or 3 minutes) they have the choice to try a 50+ yarder just to tie, or go down and win the game with a TD. If Team A crosses midfield too quickly, do they sit on the ball for the chance to tie? Probably not. Most coaches would push for the game-winning TD. Even if Team A decides to attempt the field goal, and it is good, Team B in some cases may have a little bit of time to get the ball back and score.

 

Team A is down 7 and the 4th quarter is more than halfway over. They're going to need the touchdown, obviously. Say Team A marches down inside the redzone but can't punch the ball in. Depending on how much time is left in the game, Team A can opt to go for the touchdown to tie or kick for a point and hope that they can stop Team B from scoring with enough time left on the clock for them, Team A, to try again for the TD (which, assuming the PAT is good, is the game-winning touchdown). 

 

EDIT: You mentioned a team running backwards to get into 3-point range. All the NFL has to do in that case is apply a "back field violation" penalty for any team inside the 15 yard line from intentionally running backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never support any system in which a team is not encouraged to keep matriculating the ball down the field.  Like I said, the only tiered-FG system I'd support is one that gives more points for shorter FGs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, soccer is a game where you can’t use your hands. I think (American) football should try to do something really out there, and just be the inverse of that. Make it a sport where you’re not allowed to use your feet. For anything. Like, just get rid of em. If you have a foot and it touches the playing surface, that’s an automatic 5 yard penalty against your team, pal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Bucfan56 said:

So, soccer is a game where you can’t use your hands. I think (American) football should try to do something really out there, and just be the inverse of that. Make it a sport where you’re not allowed to use your feet. For anything. Like, just get rid of em. If you have a foot and it touches the playing surface, that’s an automatic 5 yard penalty against your team, pal. 

 

I'm fine with that, but rather than make the guys try to stand and run on their hands, let's get each player a hawk or condor or something that can grasp him and carry him wherever he needs to go.  If a player gets dropped (and BOTH feet hit the ground), he's disqualified from that play.

 

Each play technically starts with the players on the ground, but as soon as the ball is snapped, their bird needs to pull them up.  Line play might be tough at first, but they'll adapt.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do Gorilla Plays fit into all this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don’t get why you’d want to make kicking less important. It’s not really unless the situation calls for it. Also you’d be agreeing with skip bayless if you think kicking needs to be de-emphasized so you are probably on the wrong side of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you just like arguing with me lately, but as I’ve explained, I don’t like that you only have to drive to the 35 or 40 to come away with points, and that once teams get into FG range at end of games (like LAR did vs SEA) they shut it down and just take the assumed 3 pts (which didn’t work out for LAR, but that’s the exception).  I want teams to have to keep matriculating the ball and not go into conservative mode as soon as they hit the 30. 
 

the rules were written in a different era, before specialized kicking was really a thing. I just think the rules should update with the times, like how the NBA changed it’s lanes once 7’2” centers were invented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.