ken@ihuxq.UUCP (12/07/83)
Have you ever sat through a horribly one-sided rout just
waiting for the clock to run out? I usually turn it off,
but sometimes I try to think of rule changes that could
keep the suspense going until the last second. For instance,
a-la backgammon, introduce a doubling cube, which
would multiply any points generated from a given possession.
Or tunable goal posts so that a kicker could score 15-20
points for a field goal that splits uprights which had been
moved together so that only 2-3 feet separate them.
(This score vs separation curve would have to be experimented with
for the best dramatic effect.) At least bring back the 2-point
conversion in the pros, for pete's sake, & while they're
at it, an optional 4-point conversion from the 20.
& then I thought, why not get the net in on this?
So, if you have any similarly bizarre rule changes you'd
ever thought about, mail them to me (not the net, so as to
avoid the rage of serious football devotees). I'll post
a comprehensive & possibly indexed list in time for all
the post-season action. Thanks or sorry, as the case may be.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ******
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (12/07/83)
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.
walsh@ihuxi.UUCP (12/07/83)
"Broncomaniac", Excuse me for my ignorance, but what is the USFL's pass interferance policy (that you mentioned you preferred)? B. Walsh
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (12/08/83)
-----
Actually, football players have an amazing ability to learn
all sorts of rule changes quickly and well--illegal blocks
come immediately to mind. My query for bizarre modifications
should perhaps have gone in net.jokes, or carried the ":-)"
disclaimer, but (1) it still stands, & (2) it didn't. How about
a penalty box for unsportsmanlike conduct (they'd have to
play with 10 men, maybe fewer)?
Again, post your strangest ideas (or flames) to me, NOT the net,
so that hopeless reality addicts may discuss their boring game
in peace.
--
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ******
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-7261 ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl) (12/13/83)
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
Tektronix, Inc.tjt@kobold.UUCP (T.J.Teixeira) (12/13/83)
Would the proposed "sniper" rule be in effect on Monday night football
too? :-)
--
Tom Teixeira, Massachusetts Computer Corporation. Westford MA
...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax,ucbcad,tektronix}!masscomp!tjt (617) 692-6200tjt@kobold.UUCP (T.J.Teixeira) (12/13/83)
Clay Phipps <...!fortune!phipps> has suggested that treating a fumble
through the endzone as a touchback and handing the ball over to the
other team on the 20 yard line. Instead, he suggests that this be
treated like a fumble out of bounds and the team getting the ball back
on the 1, 3 or 20 yard line.
Come on! Why not just treat fumbles as five yard penalties?! If you
fumble the ball, you don't deserve a break like this (i.e. another
chance).
If the inconsistency bothers you, change the rules about fumbles
throught the sidelines to turn the ball over also.
--
Tom Teixeira, Massachusetts Computer Corporation. Westford MA
...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax,ucbcad,tektronix}!masscomp!tjt (617) 692-6200woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (12/13/83)
Rule changes are always cleared through the NFL bureaucracy, and as such,
they are likely to be minor and long in coming. However, I strongly agree that
they should bring back the two-point conversion. This adds lots of excitement
to many college games, and I can think of many pro games I've seen that should
have been much more exciting with the two-point conversion. I don't favor too
many radical rules changes, as they will hopelessly confuse the players,
coaches, fans and even officials (most important of all!). Besides, football
is mostly a physical game. You can't "backgammon-ize" it too much without
changing the very nature of the game. Part of football's popularity in this
country is that it provides a relatively harmless outlet for the hostility
that *all* of us feel at one time or another. How many totally non-violent
people have you seen yell "Nail that mother! Knock him on his ass!" while
watching a game? Cursing the refs is usually good for letting off a little
steam too.
Some minor but important rules changes (that have at least a snowball's
chance in hell of being passed) that *I* would like to see are:
1) Bring back the two-point conversion!
2) The USFL-style pass interference penalties. How many games I've seen
the &*$*@! Cowboys win on questionable 50-yard pass interference calls
in the closing moments! (Substitute your own least-favorite team for
Cowboys and you will see what I mean).
Well, this is already long enough. I would love to see *serious* suggestions
for rules changes (a doubling cube? Come on!) posted here.
Greg "Broncomaniac" Woods
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!brl-bmd | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
!hao!woodslab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (12/14/83)
Perhaps a better way of handling fumbles: If the fumble is not recovered by either team because the ball leaves the field of play, it is placed at the spot where the fumble occurred, with the team of possession retaining possession. If the ball goes out of bounds on a muff (e.g., on reception of kick), it goes to the receiving team. Larry Bickford, ihnp4!decwrl!qubix!lab
phipps@fortune.UUCP (Clay Phipps) (12/16/83)
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
--
{allegra,amd70,cbosgd,dsd,floyd,harpo,hollywood,hpda,ihnp4,
magic,megatest,nsc,oliveb,sri-unix,twg,varian,VisiA,wdl1}
!fortune!phippswoods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (12/21/83)
> From: tjt@kobold.UUCP (T.J.Teixeira) > > Would the proposed "sniper" rule be in effect on Monday night football > too? :-) And if it is, can I be the one to shoot Howard? -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno} !hao!woods