wds2@akgua.UUCP (w.d. seddon ) (12/08/83)
How about making the person scoring a touchdown actually place the ball down in the end zone in order for the TD to count?
wds2@akgua.UUCP (w.d. seddon ) (12/09/83)
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.
zzz@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mike Konopik) (12/10/83)
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 genrad!mit-eddie!zzz (UUCP) ZZZ%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC (ARPA)
halle1@houxz.UUCP (J.HALLE) (12/12/83)
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.
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (12/13/83)
> With that rule change pass interference will become a frequent > DELIBERATE foul. No, that change is bad news. "houxz!halle1" didn't read the entire explanation of the USFL rule. If the foul is deliberate, the rule is the same as the NFL. The only thing wrong with this rule, again as I said in the original article, is that it is yet another judgment call on the part of the officials whether it was deliberate or not. I think this is far superior to awarding 50 yard gains for accidental bumps, which is becoming typical in the NFL these days. Greg "Broncomaniac" Woods P.S. Speaking of Broncomania, I got to go to the game yesterday. In the third quarter we were yelling for Kubiak (backup QB who came in for the first time against Seattle and had a great game when Elway had the flu), and Elway really showed us something, he *can* come through under pressure! I still can't believe it! That place was crazier than a rock concert in the 4th quarter! "Miracle John" finally does it! The Broncos *will* kick butt! Mark my words. Now that they almost have an offense at last.... (In case anyone was on Mars on Sunday, the Broncs were down 19-0 with 7:30 left, and Elway came back with 3 straight long drives for TD's, the last on a 4th and 2 with 40 seconds left) -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno} !hao!woods
tischler@ihuxv.UUCP (12/13/83)
In reply to J. Halle's article, the scenario of having a sure catch interfered with by a defender is legitimate. However, one must also cite the instance where the receiver has very little chance of snagging the ball, but yet gets his team the ball where he "would" have caught it when he was interfered with. One can never ASSUME that a receiver is going to catch the ball. Just watch the Chicago Bears games, and you'll see what I mean. If there is a 15-yard penalty for interference, that is enough of an award to help a team along in a 2:00 drill, which is where the current interference penalty is totally unfair, especially to those playing the Dallas Cowboys. Granted, it might cause the receiver to intentionally interfere more often. But that can be compensated for in a couple of ways. First of all, the clock stops with the penalty anyway (very helpful in 2:00 drills); and second of all, the referee can decide whether interference was intentional or not. If it was, then revert to the current penalty; otherwise, go with the 15-yard penalty. This eliminates the unfortunate 50-yard penalties that occur when the receiver goads the defender into bumping him.
halle1@houxz.UUCP (12/13/83)
Minor rebuttal to M. Tischler: There was a change in the pass interference rule (this year was the first I think) where the ref can decline to call it for contact when the ball could not have been caught. Previously, if the ball was 20 feet high when it reached the defender, there was a penalty. This change I believe solves your objection. Of course there still is the case where the receiver might have caught it, even though difficult. However, the principal of giving the benefit of doubt to the injured party applies. Still, when it happens against your team, or doesn't against the bad guys, then the call was an abomination. :-)
ron@uokvax.UUCP (12/19/83)
#R:akgua:-43400:uokvax:5700009:000:1771 uokvax!ron Dec 16 14:08:00 1983 holy *&$^~=+%#! i don't believe what i just heard. a PENALTY for a fumble? i just about lost control when i read that. PLEASE, PLEASE, tjt, don't even mention such a thing. you have to understand, i'm from OU, home of the fumble. even with our fabulous pair of freshman running backs, tillman and johnson (who BOTH passed dupree's freshman rushing record this year, by the by) where would we be? my god, the fumble is IN the ou playbook. you can actually hear barry calling 'wishbone - slant left, fumble right!, bradly, you pitch the ball to spencer. spencer, i want you to be looking downfield as if you're anticipating a hard hit, and let the ball knock you in the helmet and fly backwards. we have to do SOMETHING to get colorado back in the game!! on two!' with virtually our entire offense coming back next year, ou will once again be trying to leading the nation in fumbles. face it, it is EXCITING to watch an option offense. watching a q-back turn the corner, get CREAMED by a linebacker, and pitch the ball from INCHES off the rug to a trailing halfback has to be one of the most exciting plays in football. everyone remember the jcwatts to sims pitch in the orange bowl a couple of years ago for a LONG toucdown? wouldn't the play have been even better if sims had fumbled? enough on fumbles, about the 'sniper defense'. i like it. we have a 10+ story pressbox, a good rifle could hit anyone anywhere on the field. of course, knowing ou, the shooter would drop all of his bullets just when the big shot should be taking place... ron ...!ctvax!uokvax!ron ...!duke!uok!uokvax!ron ps on the serious side, the 2 point pat SHOULD be back in pro football. it adds a LOT of excitment, and let's you know which teams REALLY have balls.