Let's Fix Things That May or May Not Be Broken

[PERRIN]

I'm personally an advocate for XFL-style kickoffs, makes them as close to a punt as possible whilst still allowing for long kicks and returns. Not perfect by any means, but probably my favorite change that still feels like a kickoff greatly reducing their injury risk. I wouldn't want to see them go entirely, but if they were to go, I'd be completely down for the Schiano proposal. 

 

As goofy and perhaps unbalanced as it is, I love the idea of a kickoff through the uprights being worth 2 points. Makes comebacks easier if you're down 9 or 10, reduces the number of runbacks, - and injuries, by extension - and helps give kickers more opportunities to flex their skills. Plus, it's just plain fun. Perfect idea for a spring league, would love to see how it fares in an actual game. Making one would be rare, no doubt, (it's a 75 yard attempt from the 35) but it'd add another layer of strategy to the most mundane and dangerous play in football.

 

As for other rule changes, one sticks out to me.

 

Forward progress should be a reviewable play. Far too many fumbles are called back or allowed to stand based on a subjective whistle or lack thereof. Teams should be allowed to challenge an iffy ruling that doesn't go their way, in almost every scenario.

 

Even some penalties, if they occur on key plays, like on 4th down within 2:00 minutes of each half, contentious penalties should be reviewed in the booth the same way turnovers or scoring plays are. The league should have a ref in the booth in direct contact with New York overseeing how rulings and penalties are dished out. 

[BBTV]

21 minutes ago, PERRIN said:

Forward progress should be a reviewable play. Far too many fumbles are called back or allowed to stand based on a subjective whistle or lack thereof. Teams should be allowed to challenge an iffy ruling that doesn't go their way, in almost every scenario.

 

Even some penalties, if they occur on key plays, like on 4th down within 2:00 minutes of each half, contentious penalties should be reviewed in the booth the same way turnovers or scoring plays are. The league should have a ref in the booth in direct contact with New York overseeing how rulings and penalties are dished out. 

 

I agree that penalties should be challengeable.  In fact, that shouldn't even be necessary.   If Mike Pererra can figure it out in a split second on the broadcast, then they should be able to simply buzz down and fix it.

 

Other than that, I disagree with every single idea that makes kickers a bigger part of the game.  The sport was not invented with the thought that there would ever be kickers that were specialists and able to nail 60+ yard FGs.  Teams should be rewarded for getting closer to the goal line, not rewarded for getting to the 40 yard line.

[AnPheitseog]

I want the rouge in the NFL.

[sky1324]

1 hour ago, AnPheitseog said:

I want the rouge in the NFL.

I disagree solely on the grounds that it would make Scorigami much less fun.

[DCarp1231]

I do like the 1-2-3 pt try rule in the XFL.

 

NFL could experiment with it in the preseason.

[BBTV]

Of all the things broken in the NFL (mostly the officiating), the scoring system is not one of them.  We've seen so much drama that the 2-point conversion has allowed for, I don't see a need for 3.  I thin it would cheapen comebacks when 27 points is only a 3-score game.

 

Fix the officiating, fix some of the rules, and narrow the goal posts to make teams actually have to gain yards in order to score.  That's all that's needed.

[DCarp1231]

6 minutes ago, BBTV said:

Of all the things broken in the NFL (mostly the officiating), the scoring system is not one of them.  We've seen so much drama that the 2-point conversion has allowed for, I don't see a need for 3.  I thin it would cheapen comebacks when 27 points is only a 3-score game.

 

Fix the officiating, fix some of the rules, and narrow the goal posts to make teams actually have to gain yards in order to score.  That's all that's needed.

Could always put goal posts along the sides of the end zone. Make it more challenging to get that PAT.

 

/s

[BBTV]

20 minutes ago, DCarp1231 said:

Could always put goal posts along the sides of the end zone. Make it more challenging to get that PAT.

 

/s

 

I'd rather them put the goal posts right at mid field (they'd probably use the old H style.)  

 

1.  If you complete a pass and the ball goes through the H, you get automatic first down.

2.  To kick a field goal, you have to be on the other team's side of the H (at midfield), and the kicker would have to do a bicycle kick and kick the ball backwards through the uprights.

3.  Any passes that hit the uprights and bounce backwards are considered fumbles and can be recovered by anyone.

 

Discuss.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

On 10/24/2022 at 1:35 PM, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

On pass interference, a good rules adjustment would be the abolition of offensive pass interference.  The very concept of offensive pass interference is ridiculous, as it's the offence's damn ball.  The DB and the receiver are not equals; the rules should explicitly state that the receiver is allowed to make physical contact with the defender in ways that the defender is not allowed to do with the receiver.

 

This is what I'm talking about.

 

 

 

That move by Damion Willis of Seattle should be perfectly legal.

 

[See Red]

3 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

This is what I'm talking about.

 

 

 

That move by Damion Willis of Seattle should be perfectly legal.

 

 

Hard disagree on that one.  It would be awful if wide receivers could just two hand shove defenders to catch a ball. It would make it impossible to play defense.  How would you defend anybody one-on-one knowing the offensive player could just shove the defender away as the ball arrives?

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, See Red said:

Hard disagree on that one.  It would be awful if wide receivers could just two hand shove defenders to catch a ball. It would make it impossible to play defense.  How would you defend anybody one-on-one knowing the offensive player could just shove the defender away as the ball arrives?

 

Note that I am not advocating that the offensive player be able to wrap the defender up and throw him to the ground, or push him in the back.  I am saying that the receiver should be able to push off the defensive player's chest or (as Willis did here) push off the defender's side.

 

It should be a formalised principle that there exists some level of contact that the receiver can initiate but that the defensive back cannot initiate, a good example of which is contact of the type that is shown in this clip.  For an analogy, look at the line of scrimmage, where there is a degree of movement that is allowed only to a defensive lineman but not to an offensive lineman.

[MJWalker45]

53 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Note that I am not advocating that the offensive player be able to wrap the defender up and throw him to the ground, or push him in the back.  I am saying that the receiver should be able to push off the defensive player's chest or (as Willis did here) push off the defender's side.

 

It should be a formalised principle that there exists some level of contact that the receiver can initiate but that the defensive back cannot initiate, an good example of which is contact of the type that is shown in this clip.  For an analogy, look at the line of scrimmage, where there is a degree of movement that is allowed only to a defensive lineman but not to an offensive lineman.

Nope, have to disagree on that. One shouldn't be allowed to do one thing that the other can't. 

[See Red]

47 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Note that I am not advocating that the offensive player be able to wrap the defender up and throw him to the ground, or push him in the back.  I am saying that the receiver should be able to push off the defensive player's chest or (as Willis did here) push off the defender's side.

 

It should be a formalised principle that there exists some level of contact that the receiver can initiate but that the defensive back cannot initiate, an good example of which is contact of the type that is shown in this clip.  For an analogy, look at the line of scrimmage, where there is a degree of movement that is allowed only to a defensive lineman but not to an offensive lineman.

 

It would be impossible to play defense. Watch that play again and consider how easy that completion would be if the WR didn't have to be subtle with his push-off

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

49 minutes ago, See Red said:

It would be impossible to play defense. Watch that play again and consider how easy that completion would be if the WR didn't have to be subtle with his push-off

 

I have watched that play many times.  It so perfectly embodies the type of contact that should be legal that I put the clip aside just so that I could use it as a reason to revive this thread.

 

If a receiver could legally push off in the manner of the receiver in that clip, playing defence would certainly be harder (which is a desireable thing); but it would by no means be impossible. The defensive back would just have to be stronger than the receiver, or else he'd have to concentrate on out-positioning the receiver on a ball that is underthrown or overthrown.

 

 

59 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

It should be a formalised principle that there exists some level of contact that the receiver can initiate but that the defensive back cannot initiate....

Nope, have to disagree on that. One shouldn't be allowed to do one thing that the other can't. 

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the principle at work is that it's the offence's damn ball, so the offence should be in an advantageous position with respect to going up for a catch.

[See Red]

41 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I have watched that play many times.  It so perfectly embodies the type of contact that should be legal that I put the clip aside just so that I could use it as a reason to revive this thread.

 

If a receiver could legally push off in the manner of the receiver in that clip, playing defence would certainly be harder (which is a desireable thing); but it would by no means be impossible. The defensive back would just have to be stronger than the receiver, or else he'd have to concentrate on out-positioning the receiver on a ball that is underthrown or overthrown.

 

 

 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the principle at work is that it's the offence's damn ball, so the offence should be in an advantageous position with respect to going up for a catch.

 

You're asking the defender to stop on a dime from a full sprint while being pushed. To defend that play, the defender would need to defy physics.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

11 minutes ago, See Red said:

You're asking the defender to stop on a dime from a full sprint while being pushed. To defend that play, the defender would need to defy physics.

 

I'm asking nothing of the sort. If the defender thinks he can withstand being pushed away, then he should go for the ball. If he does not think so, he should concede the catch and go for the tackle.

 

In either case, the laws of physics remain intact.

[BBTV]

I think pick plays should be legal.  I also think bumping on both sides - not pushing off by the offense, not shoving by the defense but more like bumper cars should be allowed.  Takes away some of the subjectivity of the calls.  If either guy shoves either other away, that should be pretty obvious.  If anyone blocks the other from getting their hands up, that should be pretty obvious.  But the ticky-tack contact penalties need to stop.

[PERRIN]

8 minutes ago, BBTV said:

I think pick plays should be legal.  I also think bumping on both sides - not pushing off by the offense, not shoving by the defense but more like bumper cars should be allowed.  Takes away some of the subjectivity of the calls.  If either guy shoves either other away, that should be pretty obvious.  If anyone blocks the other from getting their hands up, that should be pretty obvious.  But the ticky-tack contact penalties need to stop.

Everything aside from pick plays is right on the money. The problem with pick plays is that it makes it impossible for the defense to defend in most situations and almost guarantees an open receiver. I can maybe see them only being legal right at the line of scrimmage, (at least then it's possible to make up ground) but anywhere downfield it's way too cheeky to be allowed. Teams would run exclusively pick plays every down, and it makes any route running or coverage skills completely pointless. Any average joe can run a pick play to get separation and the defense would be powerless to stop it. Being a cornerback is hard enough as it is and allowing pick plays would make coverage borderline impossible. WR/CB matchups are head-to-head battles of pure skill and athleticism, and they should stay that way. 

[tigers]

On 1/24/2023 at 1:05 PM, BBTV said:

 

I'd rather them put the goal posts right at mid field (they'd probably use the old H style.)  

 

1.  If you complete a pass and the ball goes through the H, you get automatic first down.

2.  To kick a field goal, you have to be on the other team's side of the H (at midfield), and the kicker would have to do a bicycle kick and kick the ball backwards through the uprights.

3.  Any passes that hit the uprights and bounce backwards are considered fumbles and can be recovered by anyone.

 

Discuss.

 

Could we introduce a tunnel ball 4th down requirement?

[BBTV]

35 minutes ago, PERRIN said:

Everything aside from pick plays is right on the money. The problem with pick plays is that it makes it impossible for the defense to defend in most situations and almost guarantees an open receiver. I can maybe see them only being legal right at the line of scrimmage, (at least then it's possible to make up ground) but anywhere downfield it's way too cheeky to be allowed. Teams would run exclusively pick plays every down, and it makes any route running or coverage skills completely pointless. Any average joe can run a pick play to get separation and the defense would be powerless to stop it. Being a cornerback is hard enough as it is and allowing pick plays would make coverage borderline impossible. WR/CB matchups are head-to-head battles of pure skill and athleticism, and they should stay that way. 

 

Yeah maybe within 10 yards or something.   I wasn't envisioning a guy throwing the equivalent of a block 40 yards downfield.