Jump to content

Field Goals in the NFL


BBTV

Recommended Posts

The first to five rule doesnt work. What happens when a team kicks a field goal to make the score 23-20. If time expires is it a 23-20 tie? OT is fine the way it is. If you give up points, you probably arent going to win.

I think it should be First to 5 and if the scores is 23-20 at the end of OT then the team with the FG wins. I could rally behind that suggestion.

Yep. Exactly.

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The first to five rule doesnt work. What happens when a team kicks a field goal to make the score 23-20. If time expires is it a 23-20 tie? OT is fine the way it is. If you give up points, you probably arent going to win.

I think it should be First to 5 and if the scores is 23-20 at the end of OT then the team with the FG wins. I could rally behind that suggestion.

Yep. Exactly.

First to 5 works in the playoffs because now they play till someone scores. With that rule they'd play till somebody scored 5.

Here's a thought for OT that keeps all elements of the game and the rules, one I can't recall seeing discussed. The concept is similar to college where each team has a possession, but instead of using downs, use the clock instead.

Each team gets two timeouts per possession. Have the coin flip as usual; winner has the choice to kick off or receive. Set the clock to 2:00. Receiving team gets the kickoff and has their 2:00 to put up a score. Then the other team receives a kickoff, also with 2:00 and two timeouts. Continue until there's a winner.

For the first team up, a turnover 'fast forwards' to the opposing team's possession. If the opposition scores, obviously it's over, if not, the process starts over. If the first team scores on their possession, a turnover by the second team ends the game.

With either team, a safety or defensive score by the opposition ends the game. Continue till there's a winner.

It would actually be pretty exciting because of the strategy and clock management skill such an approach would bring into the process. QBs who run a good two minute drill would have an obvious advantage, and in my opinion that kind of thing should be involved and rewarded in OT.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really didn't want to talk about OT here, but since we are...

I think the 2:00 thing is a bad idea. It's just like how the NHL playes OT at 4 on 4 instead of 5 on 5. The "game" in OT should be the same as the game that the teams played against each other to get there. Putting a shot clock in totally changes the way that the teams play the game, and penalizes a team who is built to sustain long drives and accumulate first downs. It's gimmicky - the NFL doesn't need gimmicks.

For the record, I'd be down with a "first to 5" kind of thing, or also a modification of the college rule - start from the 30 or 35 instead of the 20 (though I get how some would call that gimmicky because it takes kicking off and punting out of the equation.)

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really didn't want to talk about OT here, but since we are...

I think the 2:00 thing is a bad idea. It's just like how the NHL playes OT at 4 on 4 instead of 5 on 5. The "game" in OT should be the same as the game that the teams played against each other to get there. Putting a shot clock in totally changes the way that the teams play the game, and penalizes a team who is built to sustain long drives and accumulate first downs. It's gimmicky - the NFL doesn't need gimmicks.

For the record, I'd be down with a "first to 5" kind of thing, or also a modification of the college rule - start from the 30 or 35 instead of the 20 (though I get how some would call that gimmicky because it takes kicking off and punting out of the equation.)

Gimmicky? How is it gimmicky? I based the idea on Peter King's assertion that the Competition Committee will flatly refuse to consider the college format and wants a solution that keeps all the elements of a regular game. There's also concern about making the games any longer than they already are. My suggestion addresses both, and every team in the league practices a two-minute offense. With the need to move downfield quickly, it would be exciting to watch, and there would be incentive to score a TD, reducing the chance of losing by a FG.

It would be a lot better than watching two teams exchange punts for a quarter-and-a-half until somebody finally stumbles into FG range.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you widen the NFL hashes, it would make it easier for teams to get out of bounds in a 2-minute drill. I mean you occasionally see someone get kept in bound to keep the clock running. Making the hashes closer to the sidelines only makes it harder for the D to keep someone in.

It could also make it much harder to use one side of the field if given less room to work with considering how much more sophisticated the defenses are.

Also, with wider hashes, it does make field goals harder. You have to kick the ball further to go through from the hash then on the same yard line right down the middle (remember geometry class? If you're kicking a 30 yard field goal it becomes more than 30 as you move off to either side, think of the distance to the goalpost and the distance from the hash to the middle of the goalpost as your 2 sides of a right triangle and the straight line that connects the two points as the hypotenuse...which would be > 30 yards).

It also makes CLOSER field goals harder I'd imagine since the angle that you have to kick it becomes much more exaggerated.

While you view all of these as negatives, I view every one of them as a positive change to the game. That is why I favor going really old school -- have the hash marks divided the field into thirds, as was originally the case.

It would be easier to get out of bounds if you run a play to the short side of the field, but it would be harder to get open for a pass. Conversely, running a play to the wide side would give more room for receivers to operate while making it much harder to get out of bounds. Forcing offenses to choose between those options would add an interesting layer of strategy to the game.

I also like the impact that wider hashmarks have on the kicking game. For example, if an offense is on the wide hash mark at the 5-yard line and facing 3rd-and-goal, it may have to consider the tough angle of the kick in to its play calling in case the next play is an incomplete pass. The same is true for running on 3rd-and-goal from the 2. Then, assuming a field goal has to be attempted from the hash, the kick becomes much more dramatic than a 19-yard field goal from the current hashmarks.

The same consideration comes into play for long kicks as well. If an offense has 3rd down at the 30, a 2-yard gain to the middle of the field may be of more help than a 7-yard gain to the sideline (key word being "may" since I didn't do the math).

As for overtime, I think the solution is pretty simple -- keep the regular play format while ensuring each time gets one possession. If the team receiving the kickoff scores, then the other team gets a chance to match or beat that score. If they don't match it, or if they beat it, the game ends. If they do match the first score, play the remainder of overtime as sudden death. That format would certainly discourage the team that wins the toss from driving to the 25 and saying, "This is close enough, so we'll stop trying to advance the ball." Instead, they would need to keep at least trying to score a touchdown to avoid being beaten by a touchdown by the other team.

Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017     /////      Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008

Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005  🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really didn't want to talk about OT here, but since we are...

I think the 2:00 thing is a bad idea. It's just like how the NHL playes OT at 4 on 4 instead of 5 on 5. The "game" in OT should be the same as the game that the teams played against each other to get there. Putting a shot clock in totally changes the way that the teams play the game, and penalizes a team who is built to sustain long drives and accumulate first downs. It's gimmicky - the NFL doesn't need gimmicks.

For the record, I'd be down with a "first to 5" kind of thing, or also a modification of the college rule - start from the 30 or 35 instead of the 20 (though I get how some would call that gimmicky because it takes kicking off and punting out of the equation.)

Gimmicky? How is it gimmicky? I based the idea on Peter King's assertion that the Competition Committee will flatly refuse to consider the college format and wants a solution that keeps all the elements of a regular game. There's also concern about making the games any longer than they already are. My suggestion addresses both, and every team in the league practices a two-minute offense. With the need to move downfield quickly, it would be exciting to watch, and there would be incentive to score a TD, reducing the chance of losing by a FG.

It would be a lot better than watching two teams exchange punts for a quarter-and-a-half until somebody finally stumbles into FG range.

I think it's gimmicky, much in the way that (like I said) NHL OT and shootout are gimmicky. You're changing the way that the teams run their offense. Sure, every team has a 2-minute drill, but some teams build themselves in such a way that they just don't operate with that kind of efficiency, and don't have "quick strike" capability. Just because a team has one, doesn't mean that they ever want to actually use it. They'd have to have a package of plays, and possibly even different personnel packages strictly for OT. It'd be like an NHL team of "muckers and grinders" having to go out and get a couple of guys strictly in case they end up in a shootout. These guys are useless to them in regulation. I know that the NHL example is way more extreme than the NFL one, but I still think that it is changing the way that teams have to play the game, and it could put some teams at a disadvantage.

Frankly, I'm not concerned about what the competition committee says, because none of what we post here will actually get implemented, so it's just what I feel I'd like to see. Kind of like when we make concepts that change elements of identities that will never change.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask a possibly stupid question. Why not get rid of hash marks altogether? Just snap the ball where it is spotted? If its out of bounds, spot the ball a yard in from touch and play on?

Further to Leopard's point, though, you could get some interesting decisions surrounding field goals. Say you have a second and 10 within field goal range, but on one side of the field. I guess the obvious thing to do would be to run the ball around the edge of the line of scrimmage, but would a passing play be a more reliable way to get the kick more central? Do you try and get the ball central or go for a first down (depends on the game situation I would imagine.)

Though i disagree with Leopards solution to overtime, as I explained before all that does is move the advantage to the team that get the ball second- make sure the first team does no better than a field goal, then we can go for a win.

Though personally in favor of retaining the status quo, perhaps with the change of deciding first possesion by who has made more first downs in the game, or something similar, I think the first to 5 suggestion has some merit (though why not make it first to 4?)

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE GOAL OF THE GAME IS NOT TO GET FIRST DOWNS. Why not decide possession by who has the most completed passes? Or who's cheerleaders are hotter?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I ask a possibly stupid question. Why not get rid of hash marks altogether? Just snap the ball where it is spotted? If its out of bounds, spot the ball a yard in from touch and play on?

Further to Leopard's point, though, you could get some interesting decisions surrounding field goals. Say you have a second and 10 within field goal range, but on one side of the field. I guess the obvious thing to do would be to run the ball around the edge of the line of scrimmage, but would a passing play be a more reliable way to get the kick more central? Do you try and get the ball central or go for a first down (depends on the game situation I would imagine.)

Though i disagree with Leopards solution to overtime, as I explained before all that does is move the advantage to the team that get the ball second- make sure the first team does no better than a field goal, then we can go for a win.

Though personally in favor of retaining the status quo, perhaps with the change of deciding first possesion by who has made more first downs in the game, or something similar, I think the first to 5 suggestion has some merit (though why not make it first to 4?)

You have to have them somewhere because you need 1-yard 'ticks' to determine exactly how far the ball has been advanced, to measure for first downs, etc. The three-hash suggestion is interesting.

92512B20-6264-4E6C-AAF2-7A1D44E9958B-481-00000047E259721F.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with field goals and their increase as an element of game play. If OT concerns exist, the solution for that is fairly simply achieved by making a slight mod to the rules: a "first to 5" rule as opposed to sudden death. That way a team would have to score two field goals, a touchdown, or a field goal and a safety in overtime.

First to 4. I want someone to win on two safeties.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't snap the ball from one yard in from the sidelines. Teams would have to develop so many more plays and formations to account for the unbalanced lines, plus it would nearly eliminate any passes near the sidelines or sweeps. Also, there is currently a rule about how close to the sideline a WR can line up (has to be somewhere near the yard numbers - not exactly sure where) so that teams can't run "tricks" where it looks like a guy is trying to run off the field, but in reality, he's a legal player who goes out for a pass.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't snap the ball from one yard in from the sidelines. Teams would have to develop so many more plays and formations to account for the unbalanced lines, plus it would nearly eliminate any passes near the sidelines or sweeps. Also, there is currently a rule about how close to the sideline a WR can line up (has to be somewhere near the yard numbers - not exactly sure where) so that teams can't run "tricks" where it looks like a guy is trying to run off the field, but in reality, he's a legal player who goes out for a pass.

Hmmm well I get what you are saying, but I am not convinced that any of the problems you point to would be that great. (Though obviously its too revolutionary a change to expect it to happen!)

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my opinion that kickers have become so good that it is too easy to kick FGs in the NFL.

There were a lot of in-season kicking changes this season, mainly due to performance.

The only difference today is that kickers are stronger-legged than kickers before, just as the health practices of any other professional athlete are getting better and better.

Good point, and along with that, the change in kicking dynamics from the really old days (pre 60s 70s)of "straight-on" kicking to the soccer-style kickers of today (Thank you, Pete Gogolak). Anybody who's ever kicked a football knows you get much more control and distance in a soccer-style kick.

And all those who want to change the rules to make it harder for kickers to score remind me of those who whined when the Vikes "ran up the score" on the Cowboys. Just as the retort to that was: well, it's the defense's job to stop the offense from scoring; similarly in a field goal try, it is the defense's job to:

"BLOCK THAT KICK!!"

It is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't snap the ball from one yard in from the sidelines. Teams would have to develop so many more plays and formations to account for the unbalanced lines, plus it would nearly eliminate any passes near the sidelines or sweeps. Also, there is currently a rule about how close to the sideline a WR can line up (has to be somewhere near the yard numbers - not exactly sure where) so that teams can't run "tricks" where it looks like a guy is trying to run off the field, but in reality, he's a legal player who goes out for a pass.

That's my problem with the NFL. The league punishes creativity. Rules on motion, few trick plays, hash marks that mean every play is started from basically the same spot. If the NFL could change these little things, it would open up the game so much, and reward coaches who think out of the box. IMO this would make the game much more entertaining.

(I'm not saying get rid of hash marks like Saintsfan, but at least move them out wider like in the NCAA.)

1zqy8ok.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with moving them out wider, just not to NCAA levels. Maybe somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't want the league to turn into a sandlot kind of game. Those plays are great and exciting every now and then because of just that - you only see them every now and then. It'd get old and frustrating after a while. I think there's actually a lot of outside-the-box thinking that does happen, it's just that it's not noticable. There's different and creative ways to get guys open, or to force mismatches, or to open a whole, etc. Also, we're seeing more creativity right now with the wildcat (and I think that if the Eagles dump McNabb after this year, they'll use much more wildcat next year, like they did early in this season when Kolb started two games. They only really stopped it because McNabb (and I'm not saying he wasn't justified for feeling this way) thought it disrupted his rhythm and didn't feel that a star qb should be taken out of games.)

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE GOAL OF THE GAME IS NOT TO GET FIRST DOWNS. Why not decide possession by who has the most completed passes? Or who's cheerleaders are hotter?

The point is that its a bit more to do with the game than simply tossing a coin, so when teams complain 'we didn't get an overtime possession' the reason would be football related, 'well you didn't get enough first downs in the game!', than 'well you didn't call the toss of a coin correctly'. It wouldn't HAVE to be first downs, but some football related criterion. (First downs seems the most logical to me mind!)

Wembley-1.png

2011/12 WFL Champions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE GOAL OF THE GAME IS NOT TO GET FIRST DOWNS. Why not decide possession by who has the most completed passes? Or who's cheerleaders are hotter?

The point is that its a bit more to do with the game than simply tossing a coin, so when teams complain 'we didn't get an overtime possession' the reason would be football related, 'well you didn't get enough first downs in the game!', than 'well you didn't call the toss of a coin correctly'. It wouldn't HAVE to be first downs, but some football related criterion. (First downs seems the most logical to me mind!)

And that says it all.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.