|
If it fucks up the game, they'll quietly repeal it at the end of the season.
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
I wish there was some sort of way to do live tests of rules changes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Don't they do that in preseason from time to time, use it as a testing ground? It's not the best place to do so, but better than nothing...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
I remember they tested the four point range-based field goal in NFL-E. There's three rules I'd love to see them test over a whole season to see how it changed things (or didn't, as it were): 1) Field Goals varying based on distance (one point per 10 yards distance) 2) Safeties vary based on distance (based on the most recent line of scrimmage on first down). A safety that required a loss of less than five yards is 2 points, 10 is 3, etc. 3) the "4th and 15" onside kick replacement concept Even a simple preseason test isn't going to produce much in the way of viable experimentation. You'd need almost a season's worth of live action that matters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Sash! posted:2) Safeties vary based on distance (based on the most recent line of scrimmage on first down). A safety that required a loss of less than five yards is 2 points, 10 is 3, etc. This one seems completely useless with how rare safeties are. Although given how rare they are I'd be interested in bumping the points a safety of any type is worth to 3 or 4. You might end up with more 99 yard TDs that way too if DC's are more likely to sell out trying for the safety. poo poo now I've talked myself into really liking this idea that will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
The only realistic safety from 20+ yards out is a very bad snap on a punt where it goes sailing over the punter's head and he boots it out the back to prevent a TD. Sure, sometimes there is a forward pass for -24 yards but that was a special kind of special that happened at midfield. If it was near the end zone hopefully the QB would just eat the 10 yard loss and not keep scrambling towards the end zone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
Sash! posted:I remember they tested the four point range-based field goal in NFL-E. About five years ago we did a "silly rule changes" thread and someone suggested it should work the other way round - you should get four points for a field goal if the ball was snapped/kicked inside the 20/25/30 and three points for long field goals. They had this really well-thought-out line of reasoning about how it'd completely change the dynamics of when you go for it and when you kick, and I wish I could find it again because it absolutely made sense. quote:The only realistic safety from 20+ yards out is a very bad snap on a punt where it goes sailing over the punter's head and he boots it out the back to prevent a TD. I once saw a punt that went about five yards forward and 10 feet in the air, stopped dead in its tracks, rose vertically for another 15 feet, and then the Giant Hand seized it and threw it 25 yards backward. The first bounce was two yards deep in the end zone and the ball finished up about another 100 yards away from the end line...
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:About five years ago we did a "silly rule changes" thread and someone suggested it should work the other way round - you should get four points for a field goal if the ball was snapped/kicked inside the 20/25/30 and three points for long field goals. They had this really well-thought-out line of reasoning about how it'd completely change the dynamics of when you go for it and when you kick, and I wish I could find it again because it absolutely made sense. Sounds like we should have that thread again
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:About five years ago we did a "silly rule changes" thread and someone suggested it should work the other way round - you should get four points for a field goal if the ball was snapped/kicked inside the 20/25/30 and three points for long field goals. They had this really well-thought-out line of reasoning about how it'd completely change the dynamics of when you go for it and when you kick, and I wish I could find it again because it absolutely made sense. I can see that. Take the long field goal because it's relatively easy to get close enough to bomb one. More points for being able to get closer to the goal line before kicking. Actually hitting a long field goal is hard, but getting close enough to attempt one is fairly straightforward. Foregoing the long to try to get closer for more points is not unlike how getting a touchdown is worth more than just getting close and kicking a goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:What tends to happen in college is guys don't realize they're beat/think they can still make a play until it's too late. Maybe the NFL corners will be good enough to recognize earlier or game this in some fashion but I doubt it. Well usually if the guy is close enough that he can interfere at will, he's close enough to try and break up the pass by "interfering" the instant the ball touches the receiver's fingertips. And on the flipside, sometimes guys who are beat blatantly interfere on a pass that was very unlikely to be caught anyway, giving up free yards and a fresh set of downs. It's a strategic choice with a lot of risk/reward calculation going in to it. This one broke my heart though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALRkl2Ds9Wc&t=322s
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Well usually if the guy is close enough that he can interfere at will, he's close enough to try and break up the pass by "interfering" the instant the ball touches the receiver's fingertips. And on the flipside, sometimes guys who are beat blatantly interfere on a pass that was very unlikely to be caught anyway, giving up free yards and a fresh set of downs. It's a strategic choice with a lot of risk/reward calculation going in to it. Yeah, here's an example from the Patriots: http://gfycat.com/ScalyIllegalKissingbug Hard to see: the ball slamming into the back of the defender's helmet. Also, this play is very, very funny. If a rule change makes this happen a little more often? I'm okay with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Why are o-line one group for the franchise tag, while defensive end and tackle are split? What or who is needed to change this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:Why are o-line one group for the franchise tag, while defensive end and tackle are split? I can't answer the second bit, and I'm only speculating on the first one, but I suspect it is because skilled o-linemen can usually paly multiple positions on the line and it isn't unusual for guys to move their full time position even at the pro level. The skills to play guard are very similar to those needed to play tackle, although there are differences for sure. D-line however they are totally different. Guys usually don't move between end/tackle after HS. You get locked into your position on d-line very early on compared to o-line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Depends. 4-3 studs can pretty much play anywhere on the line. JJ Watt and Richard Seymour are two I can think of. Not sure so much about 3-4, since I'm not sure if any 3-4 ends can handle playing NT, and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Small thing: you accidentally reversed 3-4 and 4-3.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:
 I guess the ruling would be 'safety' but with wind like that would you still force the team with the unfortunate wind to kick off or maybe let them just give team B the ball at B's 35?
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
So.... What would happen if an OC just said "gently caress running backs." and lined up five wide on every play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 09:20
|
|
|
VJeff posted:So.... You run the wide 9 and pass rushing DTs until he runs out of quarterbacks. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 09:45
|
|
|
VJeff posted:So.... Look at what some Air Raid coaches like Leach at Wazzu do. They don't have 0 running backs on every play, but they get very close.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
You drop ten guys into coverage and you have your fastest corner available blitz until he has to put a running back in at QB.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Sash! posted:You drop ten guys into coverage and you have your fastest corner available blitz until he has to put a running back in at QB. I'd like to imagine an OL forming a protective circle around their QB if they had no DL rushing them. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
JPrime posted:I'd like to imagine an OL forming a protective circle around their QB if they had no DL rushing them. They do in the video games. Its pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
I've been watching a lot of NFL recently and getting into it, but the rules still aren't clear to me. I'm used to rugby, which is about as similar in concept as possible, despite having almost opposite rules and play. In the NFL, is there a rule against passing the ball more than once? E.g. QB throws to a running back, who then throws on to a wide receiver after carrying the ball for a bit. Is it legal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
The short answer is yes so long as the running back doesn't cross the line of scrimmage, but the ineligible offensive players have to stay back until the pass.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
You can only throw it forward once, and it has to be from behind the line of scrimmage. You can throw it backward as many times as you like.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
The major distinction is whether the ball travels forward. You can "pass" it backwards an unlimited number of times, like in rugby, but only throw it forward once. The forward throw has to be made from behind the line of scrimmage and there are a bunch of other rules about it. edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Yeah, here's a play with two backwards passes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-AP4U0Dh5Q
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Thanks, that makes some sense now. I'd say there's opportunity for some more backwards passes interspersed with a running game than we see today, though perhaps the risk of interceptions prohibits it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
You'd see more but backwards passes are equivalent to fumbles if they hit the turf, whereas the forward ones are dead when they touch down. Turnovers are killers in American football.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
wooger posted:Thanks, that makes some sense now. I'd say there's opportunity for some more backwards passes interspersed with a running game than we see today, though perhaps the risk of interceptions prohibits it. Ball possession is hugely important in the American game. It's what turned the Rugby scrummage into the American scrimmage - Americans didn't like the randomness of the scrum, so they modified it to where the team with the ball got to keep it. Then they had to add downs and distance to be gained in order to force the team with the ball to advance it or give it up. Every time the ball changes hands, there's a chance for a mistake and a fumble. Good plays keep those to a minimum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:You'd see more but backwards passes are equivalent to fumbles if they hit the turf, whereas the forward ones are dead when they touch down. Turnovers are killers in American football. Ah, that's the key difference - it wasn't clear to me how much of a special case the first forward pass is, vs. just a normal one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
The thought I like to use to explain to Rugby Union people how killer turnovers are is something like "imagine if the punishment for a knock-on anywhere on the pitch was a 5m scrum".
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2015 11:12
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:The thought I like to use to explain to Rugby Union people how killer turnovers are is something like "imagine if the punishment for a knock-on anywhere on the pitch was a 5m scrum". I don't know rugby but hopefully that explanation helped because it sure sounded helpful. Any rugbyers care to explain what a knock-on or a 5m scrum are? For rugby folks, one thing you'll see harped on about is turnover differential, basically how many fumbles (incomplete backwards passes or the runner just straight up dropping it) and interceptions (other team catches the ball when the QB throws it) a team has netted in a game. I'm not sure what the magic number is but if you're at -3 or so on the turnover differential it's nearly impossible to win the game as you've given your opponent 3 possessions either deep in your territory on in a spot where you were likely to get at least 3 points. They're absolute killers. 3 turnovers could easily be a 21 point swing in the score. Since most NFL games are within 2 scores that makes the game nearly impossible to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
axeil posted:I don't know rugby but hopefully that explanation helped because it sure sounded helpful. Any rugbyers care to explain what a knock-on or a 5m scrum are? A knock on is any time you fumble the ball and it travels forward, then hits the ground. You can't do that, so its a foul, and give the other team possession via a scrum (probably). A scrum is the main way of restarting the game (too complicated, google it), and the 5m (metres) here is the distance from your own tryline (redzone).
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
axeil posted:I don't know rugby but hopefully that explanation helped because it sure sounded helpful. Any rugbyers care to explain what a knock-on or a 5m scrum are? A 5m scrum is a major attacking opportunity within striking distance of the opponents' line, from which points will usually follow, and if you don't get anything from it you've blown a big chance. Kind of like 1st and goal from the 10, except not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
wooger posted:A knock on is any time you fumble the ball and it travels forward, then hits the ground. You can't do that, so its a foul, and give the other team possession via a scrum (probably). Ah thanks for this. Sounds like a knock on is a fairly common occurrence. Now if only we could get some aussie rules football explanation in here it could serve as a catch all for any football-type sports. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
The umpires don't even know the rules in AFL.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The umpires don't even know the rules in AFL. As an American who lived in Australia for 2 years this is accurate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
How much trash talking/threatening behavior/gamesmanship would you expect to see each week in the league and do you think the level of respect for a players opponent has deteriorated over the years? The reason I ask is I'm watching through Superbowl XXV because it's apparently one of the most entertaining ones and I'm intrigued about watching Lawrence Taylor since he's supposed to be an all time great. Anyway in this game people are hitting each other hard obviously but after each play there seems to be a surprising amount of helping an opponent get back up, butt pats to an opponent etc. This seems a stark contrast to the behavior I've seen in the modern game for example the fight at the end of the last superbowl, Gronk throwing that guy out of bounds and just generally how I've seen players act in the modern game. I mean even Madden has my animated players getting in each others faces after plays. There seems to be a much more no nonsense approach to good plays in this bowl game too, they just sort of get up and run back to the huddle there's no posing and showboating. Was showboating and such popularized with the University of Miami sides of the mid 80's as they seem to claim in their 30 for 30 doc? After an hour of Superbowl XXV it just seems like a totally different level of respect for opponents on both sides when they played back in the day. I'd appreciate your views, I'm pretty new to the game as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:44 |
|
|
El Seano posted:How much trash talking/threatening behavior/gamesmanship would you expect to see each week in the league and do you think the level of respect for a players opponent has deteriorated over the years? Have you ever considered a career in Sports Journalism?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2015 21:20
|
|
