Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: Suggested Rule Changes

  1. #1

    Suggested Rule Changes

    Remove the PAT.

    It's a waste of time -- dragging units on and off the field, commercial breaks, given how long the game takes now, and increased scoring per game means more PATs. Especially too as over 98% of PATs are converted, so it's a useless facet of the game. No unpredictability.

    Suggestions....replace kicking PATs for offensive PATs...but make them all worth 1 pt. Or, force all kicking PATs to be done via drop-kick. This would at least reduce the success rate of PATs.

    In replacing kicking PATs with offensive PATs, then allow fumbles/interceptions to be returned for a defensive 2 point 'TD'. Or, add a rule where if a team goes for a 2 Pt PAT then the defense can score a defensive 2 Pt TD.

    Field Goals still 3 points.
    Safeties still 2 points.

    Bring in a refined CFL 'Rouge' (1 pt for trapping the ball from a punt/kick in the opponent's endzone). In Canadian football, they're allowed to kick the ball in general play. However, for the NFL, I propose to still outlaw the ability to kick in general play. Just bring in the ability to trap a punt inside the endzone for 1 point.

    With the above '1 Point' Punt, some relaxation of the 'roughing the kicker' rule on Punters would be required.

    All this would add more tactical facets. For instance, in regards to 1 point punts, you could be at your opponents 40 yard line, on 4th and 2, and could either try the 57 yard 3 point FG, or punt the ball and trap it for 1 point, or execute a fake punt.


    In Summary:-
    1 point = Trapped Punt, Offensive PAT
    2 points = Safety, Defensive PAT 'TD'
    3 points = Field Goal
    6 points = Touchdown

    Or:-
    1 point = Trapped Punt, Drop-Kick PAT
    2 points = Safety, Offensive PAT, Defensive PAT 'TD'
    3 points = Field Goal
    6 points = Touchdown


    Thoughts? Suggestions?
    Last edited by GGEden; 12-08-2012 at 09:45 PM.
    Kilroy was here

  2. #2
       
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    1,418
    No.
    Too complicated.
    You ask me why I lift, I wonder why you don't.

  3. #3
       
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    2,850
    Blog Entries
    32
    I'm all for eliminating the EP but that might be too many changes.
    Twitter @vancemeek "I wish I could say something classy and inspirational, but that just wouldn't be our style. Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory...lasts forever."-Shane Falco

  4. #4
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    3,869
    Blog Entries
    5
    I am not persuaded by this argument. At all.
    @kocsan

  5. #5
       
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    11,544
    I'm not clear on why you'd want to relax the roughing the punter rule. If ever there's a defenseless player on the field, it's a punter after his kick.

    While the PAT is typically a formality, the 2-point option is not. I like the choice.

    The other scoring options, I only have one question: Why? As you say, there's already lots of scoring in the NFL. (That may change if they ban all blocks below the waist. I would think running games would suffer greatly under such a rule.)

    Philosophically, it seems to me that you only change the rules to fix a problem. I don't see a problem that would be fixed by these proposed changes.

  6. #6
    I believe that the NFL has only made one change to scoring in the history of the league, adding the 2-point conversion.

  7. #7
    PAT's slow the game down very little. Especially now that every score is reviewed.

  8. #8
    Appreciate all the feedback so far.

    Just to reply to a question asked....


    Quote Originally Posted by wxwax View Post
    I'm not clear on why you'd want to relax the roughing the punter rule. If ever there's a defenseless player on the field, it's a punter after his kick.
    I didn't properly explain why. It is for two reasons...punts now are like PATs, they have a 98% success rate due to the lack of pressure being applied. It becomes a boring non-event most of the time (the punting part) whether there's a block or not. The interest is more from whether there's a return or not. Due to the punter being too untouchable, you get better punts, better hang time/distance, and punting teams focusing more on coverage than protection, which means a bigger increase in fair catches. The second reason is....adding the 1 point punt, return teams have extra options to worry about. Do they peel back and provide more blockers downfield to prevent a 1 point trap? Do they go for the punt block as a way to minimize the 1 pt potential (like blitzing an Elite QB instead of giving him more time in the pocket), and in certain situations (4th and 2, own 45) are more susceptible to fake punts which option they decide to go for (block punt or prevent 1 pt punt).

    While the PAT is typically a formality, the 2-point option is not. I like the choice.
    Exactly, that's the aim. Replace a useless non-event with something full of more possibility.

    The other scoring options, I only have one question: Why? As you say, there's already lots of scoring in the NFL. (That may change if they ban all blocks below the waist. I would think running games would suffer greatly under such a rule.)
    In replacing all kicking PATs with offensive PATs, it's worth bringing in something like the traditional football rule (eg, NCAA) allowing returned PATs for 2 pts by the defensive team. Except I'd make it 4 pts, just because it'd be twice as hard and twice as unlikely as a converted offensive PAT.

    Philosophically, it seems to me that you only change the rules to fix a problem. I don't see a problem that would be fixed by these proposed changes.
    The "problem" itself being the non-event of the kicking PAT. And it has been a non-event for many decades. The other "problem" is punting again becoming a non-event too (the ratio for blocks or not, ratio for fair catches or not, significantly on the rise.)

    Just like the NFL decided to change the kick-off from the 30 to the 35, for safety reasons, it started to make kick-offs a non-event play. League officials themselves talking about THEN replacing kick-offs with some other device DUE TO the non-event of that play now with so many touchbacks. Obviously, the kick-off should stay, and should be brought back to the 30 to fix that issue. The NFL created the problem and then looking to eliminate it is a far worse train of thought. My proposal instead didn't change a rule that created a problem. Rather, the problem is already there (that increased non-event) and finding a way to make it more interesting and lively.
    Kilroy was here

  9. #9
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    3,869
    Blog Entries
    5
    I understand your logic here, but the high level of professionalism in the NFL makes the PAT the non-event you describe. It, like a punt, quite a sophisticated play involving a unique set of skills. Lots of things can--and very occasionally do--go wrong. The solutions you're proposing are certainly innovative, but we might be coming at this from fundamentally different perspectives because you haven't effectively sold me on the fact that there is a problem. By this logic, we should also ban field goals of less than 35 yards because they are basically 'a non-event.' A team down by one point late kicking an extra point is still plenty tense, and the falling action after the touchdown before the start of the next drive is not necessarily a bad thing. In soccer, after a goal, there is a whole interval of celebrating, collecting the ball, reforming the sides, and kicking off again which paces the game. I think any time delays around the PAT could be fixed by altering the automatic review procedure to make it more sensible--though I doubt the NFL, or more importantly their advertisers, would enjoy that very much--and these rule changes are needlessly baroque. I don't, however, mind the idea of allowing a defense to return a turnover on a PAT for a score, though I would keep it at two points. I would be concerned about changing it to 4, because there is no precedence for a four point play at any level of football. I really don't like the one-point idea on punt coverage, because it sounds like a bizarre way to ape the Canadian Football League 'single,' or a field goal which is no good but travels into the end zone. There's a place for the Arena League and the CFL, but I think there should be more, not less, consistency among NFL, college, and high school football.
    @kocsan

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by mkocs6 View Post
    I understand your logic here, but the high level of professionalism in the NFL makes the PAT the non-event you describe. It, like a punt, quite a sophisticated play involving a unique set of skills. Lots of things can--and very occasionally do--go wrong. The solutions you're proposing are certainly innovative, but we might be coming at this from fundamentally different perspectives because you haven't effectively sold me on the fact that there is a problem. By this logic, we should also ban field goals of less than 35 yards because they are basically 'a non-event.' A team down by one point late kicking an extra point is still plenty tense, and the falling action after the touchdown before the start of the next drive is not necessarily a bad thing. In soccer, after a goal, there is a whole interval of celebrating, collecting the ball, reforming the sides, and kicking off again which paces the game. I think any time delays around the PAT could be fixed by altering the automatic review procedure to make it more sensible--though I doubt the NFL, or more importantly their advertisers, would enjoy that very much--and these rule changes are needlessly baroque. I don't, however, mind the idea of allowing a defense to return a turnover on a PAT for a score, though I would keep it at two points. I would be concerned about changing it to 4, because there is no precedence for a four point play at any level of football. I really don't like the one-point idea on punt coverage, because it sounds like a bizarre way to ape the Canadian Football League 'single,' or a field goal which is no good but travels into the end zone. There's a place for the Arena League and the CFL, but I think there should be more, not less, consistency among NFL, college, and high school football.
    Thanks for the feedback and critique.

    I would be happy to accept a 2 point returned offensive PAT, instead of 4. As long as the rule itself was brought in, as it's always been a part of traditional football rules.

    I don't agree with your complaint that banning a kicking PAT for being a formality 'could' be analogous to banning FGs of less than 35 yards. It's completely different due to the fact that a Field Goal is a flexible concept. It can be kicked from any part of the field. There's not a problem with FGs being formalities due to that. I don't want to eliminate the art of kicking (kick-offs, Field Goals). But the kicking PAT is a non-event due to it's fixed nature:-

    It's always placed between the hash-marks on the 2 yard line. And the stats prove it's a non-event (98-99% success rate historically). There could be an alternate way to make the kicking PAT more unpredictable without removing it from the game....which would be to ape what Rugby does. Wherever their "try" (touchdown) is scored, they bring the ball back about 20 yards in a perpendicular line as the spot where the PAT has to be kicked from.

    That, however, poses a problem in getting both teams lined up inside the field of play when a PAT has to be attempted from the sideline. Would mean having to literally copy Rugby of just having a kicker alone on the field with the ball on a tee. Whilst FGs would remain as they are.

    But that's a far less appealing idea, and even more of a drastic change away from the foundations of American football. Whereas '2-PT PATs' are already in the game, have been in the traditional rules for a longer time, and is more of a logical step forward if one were to remove kicking PATs and replace it with something else.

    The 1-pt Punt is more of a controversial suggestion by me. I personally don't like that Canadian football allows kicking in general play. But the concept of the 'rouge' isn't ridiculous. That it's been a part of Nth American football scoring for decades means there's precedence there. Just that if you're going to make the endzone 'live' for scoring a 1 pt, you must allow receiving teams to apply more pressure and ability to hit the punter during the process of kicking. If you try to envision it actually being implemented, you could see so many alignment possibilities that would make the whole 4th Down Punt concept more of an offensive/defensive formation. You could envision coaches having two punt protectors lined up side by side with the punter, receiving unit with less men on the LOS and more downfield with the returner to provide blocking protection, which then would alter the punting team's LOS, they'd take players out of there to be gunners positioned like Slot Receivers, which would then see the receiving team lining up DBs on these gunners to guard against fake punts. The Punt Formations would change, there'd be a lot more interest and X&O scheming in creating ways to apply pressure to punters and ways to create fake punts.
    Last edited by GGEden; 11-24-2012 at 09:26 PM.
    Kilroy was here

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •