ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (12/21/83)
In case my postings are getting to you backwards, there is a
summary of this compendium which was posted as a separate
article. What follows is the text of all 11 replies minus
the uucp routing info. The summary is much shorter. In fact,
if I were you right now, I'd hit "delete". Well, don't say
you weren't warned.
********
How 'bout borrowing some Canadian rules, like the rouge (1 point for
kicks downed in end zone) and the period cannot expire during the
30-second clock (a play must be made)?
Better yet, try this case: Houston leads Dallas 21-20, with 30 seconds
left, and Houston facing 4th and 15 from its 1-foot line. Houston
doesn't want to risk a punt:
a) if it's blocked, it's a safety
b) it could be returned for a touchdown
c) any return gives Dallas good field position for a field goal
Now if there were only 5 seconds on the clock, they could go into the
shotgun, and Nielsen could launch a bomb that would land just slightly
out of bounds - but by the time the ball came down, time would be
expired, and Dallas couldn't do anything. But what to do about the other
25 seconds? Simple - when the ball is hiked, the offensive team grabs
and shoves the defense out of the way so Campbell can run the length of
the field, or almost the length, since he wants to eat up as much time
as he can (double back, or run crosswise, or whatever, just DON'T LET
THE PLAY STOP!). The offense has to be sure they don't commit any fouls
in the end zone (automatic safety).
Of course everything is called back (else Houston has a 1st down), and
Houston is penalized half the distance to the goal twice (holding and
unsportsmanlike conduct). So from the 3-inch line, Nielsen throws a bomb
out of bounds and runs out the clock. Landry erupts on the sidelines,
and Schramm doesn't give Rozelle a moment of silence. (Of course, this
would HAVE to be played in Irving.)
Your move, Commissioner.
Larry Bickford, ihnp4!decwrl!qubix!lab
********
How about the rule they use in the college all star game (I think that's
the one): After a score, the team that's ahead kicks off to the team
that's losing. That ought to tighten up a few of those routs.
Jeff Bernardis, AT&T Western Electric @ Piscataway NJ
********
How about a 2-point throwing field-goal? Passing's easier to get in a straight
line at long distances, so it shouldn't be worth as many as a kicking one.
This would make crossing the 50 scoring position, and also it would make a
last-minute score take on new meaning. Say the team gets said 4-point 20-yd
conversion and now trails by one. They recover an onsides kick at the other
team's 45 and with 2 seconds left throws for 2-points. Talk about fast-scores!
A team that is *really* good at recovering onsides kicks that also has a
quarterback with a good arm could conceivably come back from a 2-touchdown
defeceit really quickly. This should probably be restricted to after the
2-minute warning, since it could easily make a boring game if used throughout.
In response to the USFL pass interference penalty, put yourself in the shoes
of the defender in such a situation. Your team leads by 6 and the other team
is on their 20 with 1 minute left. You cover a bomb and when the ball gets
to you it's at your 30. What do you do, chance giving up a 50-60 yard pass
completion or interfere for 15-yard penalty? You bet your sweet ass you'd
interfere!! That would absolutely suck.
Enough for now. I'd be interested in seeing the compilation
********
How about making the person scoring a touchdown actually place
the ball down in the end zone in order for the TD to count?
********
My brother favors a rule where each team has a twelfth member known as the
sniper. He would sit in the press box with a high-powered rifle and a single
bullet. There would be no restrictions on how he could use this bullet;
he might shoot the opposing quarterback, the ball (useful if a long pass
is about to be completed), the opposing owner, the other sniper, or anyone
or anything else, but he may only use one bullet. If the game went into
overtime, the snipers would each get another bullet. This, of course,
would be known as "sudden death."
Wayne Citrin
(ucbvax!citrin)
P.S. Ask me about my plan to lower basketball scores by putting goalies
on top of the backboards.
********
As far as I can remember, the NFL has never had a 2 point conversion.
This would, however, help eliminate ties. Another idea I have is to
align the ball up for the extra point at the point the person scoring
the touchdown actually touches the ball down in the end zone instead
of always giving the sidewinder a perfect chip shot. Another idea is
to follow the Canadian rules of allowing the defense more ways to be
able to put points on the board such as awarding points to the team
punting the ball when the receiving team cannot run the ball out of
the end zone. For those of you who have followed a NFL team that
has been close, but no cigar such as the Atlanta Falcons, I think a
basic overhaul of the way the league divides up the TV money is one
of the basic problems of the competition today. There is no incentive
for the owners to have a winning team if the first place team receives
the same revenue from TV as the last place team. The Atlanta team
has always seemed to opt for the draft choices who will not command
a high salary. When the income is fixed for the team, the only way
to make more money is to reduce expenses such as releasing a punter
who has been here several years and now earning a high salary and
bringing in a rookie who is not nearly as good but makes less money.
********
How about changing the rule on fumbles thru the end zone
by an advancing team. Presently, in both pro and college ball,
if the advancing team (nearing a touchdown) fumbles the ball
into and out of the end zone, the result is a touchback,
and the defending team is awarded the ball on its 20 yard line.
All other touchbacks I know of can happen to a team only in its own end zone.
Recall that when the ball is fumbled out of bounds thru the sidelines,
the last team to have possession retains the ball where it went out of bounds.
This should be generalized to the end zone case, with the last team
having possession being awarded the ball on either the 1, 3, or 20 yard line
(let the rule-makers pick one; all are popular yard lines).
It really hurts to see your team advancing toward a touchdown,
only to have the ball bounce out of the end zone to be handed
to your opponent at their 20; they don't even have to worry about a safety.
And why am I grinding *this* axe ? Aside from the illogic of the current rule,
Florida fumbled into Auburn's end zone in this year's game.
Auburn got the ball on their 20, and Bo Jackson scored a TD on their 1st play.
Final score: Auburn 28, Florida 21. No, I am not blaming the rule
for the loss, but those things sure don't help in a close game.
Florida Coach sure raised a rather unsportsmanlike post-game ruckus
about the fumble, which was a hotly disputed (but actually correct) call.
-- Clay Phipps
********
About putting the ball down in the end zone, why not carry it to the logical
conclusion? You could create a designated place for the ball to be, and the
offense needs to put the ball in this space about the size of the ball for
a legal score. While you're at it, you might want to change the style of the
ball to facilitate this -- you could make it a little smaller and round. And
if you made it steel, you could make the back of this depository magnetic so
there would be no doubts of its being put in the right place. Hmm, you could
make the players move faster by introducing a smooth surface, and, ho wow,
you could let 'em ride skateboards -- no, SKATES! That's it! You could also
introduce studded gloves and what not. Hey, does this give us any ideas? ...
I can even imagine a few stars of the new version of football, but one of
them is still in a mental-care facility.......
Mostly in favour of current configurations,
--
-Mike
********
There is one major problem with changing the NFL defensive pass interference
penalty to the USFL (or was it WFL) one. Here is the situation.
Ball on the 20 after a touchback. The quarterback fades back,..., and lets
it fly. There on the other twenty, the receiver is behind the defender and
the pass is on target. He has a sure cat#$%..... The safety in a desperate
effort leaps and bumps the receiver, causing him to have no chance whatsoever
to catch the ball. So now the offense gets it on their 35 instead of the
other 20? With that rule change pass interference will become a frequent
DELIBERATE foul. No, that change is bad news.
What I would like to see, though, is a change back to the old scoring rule
regarding pass interference. Until about two years ago, a pass interference
call went into the books as a completed pass. Now it is a long penalty.
I think the old way was more realistic and gave less distortion to
the statistics. Besides, that was one rule Howard always got WRONG.
********
Here`s a crazy idea. Let`s borrow from basketball.
Each player only gets so many penalties called against
him before he "fouls out" of the game. Given the
usually low # of penalties in a game, let`s say 2 or
3. Then the coach has to decide if he wants to leave
his star defensive end in the game if he has 1 penalty
to go and it`s only the 1st quarter.
Another thing I`d love to see them bring back is to have
the goal posts on the goal line, not at the back of the
end zone. It sure would pick up the scoring. Right now,
if you`ve got the ball on your opponent`s 45, most teams
punt (given a early in the game situation). Put the
goal posts back where they were, and you get a 52-yard
FG attempt. Besides that, it also makes for more interesting
pass patterns into the endzone.
Tom O`Connor
********
One rule that I'd like to see is a change in the method of applying
penalties when close to the goal line. The "half the distance to
the goal rule" sometimes is effectively no penalty at all. I would
prefer giving the non-offending team the option of either
1. half the distance to the goal, as is done now
or
2. applying the penalty yardage to the first down markers
(in the opposite direction, of course)
If the offense has first and 10 at their own 8, and commits a major penalty,
giving them first and 25 at the 8 seems more appropropriate, than first and
14 at the 4. Similarly, if the defense commits a foul that would have given
the offense a first down, but does not because they are too close to the
goal line, it makes sense that they deserve the option of getting the first
down rather than a small amount of yardage.
On another subject, I've talked to no one who likes the current NFL
tiebreakers scheme. The Baltimore/New-England situation back in '77 (?)
showed up one of its shortcomings; even more bizarre scenarios are
possible, such as a team, on the final day of the season being in a
situation in which it makes the playoffs if it loses by 40 or more points,
but misses the playoffs if it loses by less than 40 points.
Two particularly bogus features (in my opinion) of the current system are
1. Nontransitivity. E.g., Team A can wins the tiebreaker over Team B
who wins it over Team C who wins it over team A.
2. That it allows circumstances in which teams are encouraged
(or required) to run up huge scores if they want to reach the
playoffs. Aside from the fact that I detest games in which
the score is intentionally run up, it also seems to imply
that a 48-30 victory is "more significant" than a 17-0 one.
I can think of a couple of tiebreaker schemes that I would find more
aesthetically pleasing than the current one.
1. At the beginning of the season, order the teams (randomly,
or according reverse order of finish, according to some fixed
rotation, etc.) so that the each team knows where it stands
with respect to tiebreakers throughout the season. This is
equivalent to coin-flipping, except that it is done at the
beginning of the season.
2. Win/promotion and loss demotion. In this scheme any teams tied
at the end of the regular season have their records modified in
the following iterative manner until the tie is broken.
Step 0. Demote overtime wins to ties, and promote overtime
losses to ties.
Step 1. Demote 1-point wins to ties, and promote 1-point
losses to ties.
Step 2. Demote 2-point wins to ties, and promote 2-point
losses to ties.
...
In practice (with a 16-game schedule) ties will be broken by
this scheme after a very few steps, typically by the time
3-point games are considered. This has the effect that games
won by, say, over 3 points count as "full victories", while
games won by just a point or two *might* hurt you in the
tiebreakers (There are analagous statements for losses.)
This scheme therefore does not encourage Cornhuskerization of
the scoreboard. It is also transitive.
Well, enough rambling for now.
Steve Vegdahl
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ******
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***