HawkShack.com

Bad Ideas.

Like this one.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/25/no-vote-yet-but-owners-want-to-change-extra-points-this-year/#comments

I got no reverence for the current point after system. Some of the suggestions I got no problem with:

Moving the kick to the 15 yard line makes sense to me, incentive to make it a football play and go for two instead of a completely unimpressive kicking exercise.

I also like allowing the defense to score on a turnover, one point or two depending on the attempt.

Moving it from the 1 1/2 to the 1 might incentivise a two point try or two.

None of it's worth much more than an acknowledgment of understanding of the new rule and getting back to real football from a coaching (or my) standpoint.

Jesus leave the game alone already!!!!!!If it aint broke dont fix it...

Seems to me the NFL has bigger fish to fry. Really getting tired of the tweaking of the game. Enough is enough!

Hawktawk wrote:Jesus leave the game alone already!!!!!!If it aint broke dont fix it...

Ditto.

There is absolutely no one nor was there any talk last year from anyone saying that the NFL needs to change up the game by making the extra point conversion much more meaningful to the outcome of football games.

It is fine the way it is - teams can go for two points when they feel its beneficial now. No fan that I have ever heard has asked for the current rule to be changed. I would have no issue if they did modify the rule so that the defense can score off a turnover that they successfully returned for a TD on the extra point(s) attempt.

They did pass some other rule changes, but mostly closed "loopholes" that allowed either a team... cough, New England, cough... to bend the equality rules and crackback blocks, pushing on punts and some other small stuff. No new anti LOB rules, now that they've all copied us in some form. (Brandon Browner lasted one year, by the way and was basically dumped.)

Nothing to clarify what a 'catch' is and I think that rule really needs to be modified.

Extra Points? I don't care, but I don't want a new version of that WWE promoted football league, either, so no '3 points' on a TD rule.

js

jshawaii22 wrote:They did pass some other rule changes, but mostly closed "loopholes" that allowed either a team... cough, New England, cough... to bend the equality rules and crackback blocks, pushing on punts and some other small stuff. No new anti LOB rules, now that they've all copied us in some form. (Brandon Browner lasted one year, by the way and was basically dumped.)

Nothing to clarify what a 'catch' is and I think that rule really needs to be modified.

Extra Points? I don't care, but I don't want a new version of that WWE promoted football league, either, so no '3 points' on a TD rule.

js

I think the consensus was that any "clarification" of the rule would have unintended consequences, such as more fumbles. Besides, it's actually not unclear at all and is very easy to interpret, at least on replay.

Old but Slow wrote:I could accept a rule that gave the extra point without a kick, and allowed a team to go for two as an alternative.

The extra point kick is a joke, but the alternative of going for two is attractive and very football.

My thoughts exactly. I understand the "if it's not broke..." sentiment, and the extra point isn't significant enough to "break" anything. But that's the point to me. It's a throwaway play that adds unnecessary length to the game.

My only reservation is that it further devalues special teams. I could also get behind something like the 3 point line in basketball; kick an extra point from the 20 or try for two with a kick from the 40. And if the defense blocks the kick and returns it, they get the number of points the kicking team was going for.

As long as the rule change reduces throwaway plays and makes 2 point tries more common, I could support a rule change.

I mentioned last year that I think they should raise the cross bar 3 yards.
Some extra points just barely make it over the bar every year as it is and is like moving it to the 15 yard line, it would eliminate "dunking" without adding another penalty, and it would cause teams to go for it on 4th downs instead of FGs more often (giving us a more exciting game).

NorthHawk wrote:I mentioned last year that I think they should raise the cross bar 3 yards.
Some extra points just barely make it over the bar every year as it is and is like moving it to the 15 yard line, it would eliminate "dunking" without adding another penalty, and it would cause teams to go for it on 4th downs instead of FGs more often (giving us a more exciting game).

I could be talked into raising the cross bar and/or narrowing the uprights more than I would messing with the PAT. But even that seems unnecessary. So what if it's nearly automatic? It's not like there has to be non stop action to keep us entertained.

The game is already the most popular spectator sport in the nation and is gaining in world wide popularity, so I don't see the need to make substantive rule changes based on making the game more exciting. If you're bored of watching a football game, I'd hate to see what you'd be like watching a soccer game.

Everyone seems so worried about leaving things the same even while ignoring the fact that to stop "tinkering" would be the biggest change in recent memory.

When was the last time an offseason went by with no rules modifications?

This constant evolution of the game has been it's single most consistent element, why stop now? If it ain't broke don't fix it right?

js[/quote]

I think the consensus was that any "clarification" of the rule would have unintended consequences, such as more fumbles. Besides, it's actually not unclear at all and is very easy to interpret, at least on replay.[/quote]

RD, Unintended Consequences resulting from hitting the ground? That's simply a way to not have to deal with the bad rule. I don't think the current rules make it easy to see on relay at all. Dez Bryant's 'catch' was clearly (if you use common sense) a catch. Didn't the Ref "expert" on FOX call it a catch?
Replay didn't change my mind or millions of others. He caught it, made a football move (Control, One step forward and then falling toward the end zone to try to score) and while falling then the ball touched the ground. The ground can't cause a fumble. It should of been a catch and down with Dallas's ball on the 2 yard line.

js

jshawaii22 wrote:RD, Unintended Consequences resulting from hitting the ground? That's simply a way to not have to deal with the bad rule. I don't think the current rules make it easy to see on relay at all. Dez Bryant's 'catch' was clearly (if you use common sense) a catch. Didn't the Ref "expert" on FOX call it a catch?
Replay didn't change my mind or millions of others. He caught it, made a football move (Control, One step forward and then falling toward the end zone to try to score) and while falling then the ball touched the ground. The ground can't cause a fumble. It should of been a catch and down with Dallas's ball on the 2 yard line.

js

No, he didn't. He said immediately that it would be overruled. The refs on the field would have called it incomplete, too, had they been at the proper angle.

If you grant possession on plays like that, it will be ruled as a fumble rather than an incomplete pass. Dez's 'catch' was right by the sidelines so it would have gone out of bounds had he not recovered so it wouldn't have been an issue. But had it occurred in the middle of the field, it would be a live ball.

RD Wrote: "If you grant possession on plays like that, it will be ruled as a fumble rather than an incomplete pass. Dez's 'catch' was right by the sidelines so it would have gone out of bounds had he not recovered so it wouldn't have been an issue. But had it occurred in the middle of the field, it would be a live ball."

and that's not confusing? Damn! Someday it's going to be a Seahawk play that we're talking about and everyone will want the rule changed. If that rule was called correct, then It's illogical and needs to be changed. I don't have it, but I could of sworn the booth Ref called it a catch. How about the dynamic FOX duo of Buck and Aikman?

js

jshawaii22 wrote:js

I think the consensus was that any "clarification" of the rule would have unintended consequences, such as more fumbles. Besides, it's actually not unclear at all and is very easy to interpret, at least on replay.[/quote]

RD, Unintended Consequences resulting from hitting the ground? That's simply a way to not have to deal with the bad rule. I don't think the current rules make it easy to see on relay at all. Dez Bryant's 'catch' was clearly (if you use common sense) a catch. Didn't the Ref "expert" on FOX call it a catch?
Replay didn't change my mind or millions of others. He caught it, made a football move (Control, One step forward and then falling toward the end zone to try to score) and while falling then the ball touched the ground. The ground can't cause a fumble. It should of been a catch and down with Dallas's ball on the 2 yard line.

js[/quote]

I cannot stand by this statement. By rule it was not a catch, to your eye, it was. Along with millions of others. Sorry bud!!!

c_hawkbob wrote:Everyone seems so worried about leaving things the same even while ignoring the fact that to stop "tinkering" would be the biggest change in recent memory.

When was the last time an offseason went by with no rules modifications?

This constant evolution of the game has been it's single most consistent element, why stop now? If it ain't broke don't fix it right?

To stop tinkering with the game would be the BIGGEST AND BEST change to have ever happened, IMO. Also, the more it changes, the further it gets to be able to compare things to the past.

If football were still being played in leather helmets and canvas breeches the NFL would be no bigger than the U.S. Pro Rugby Initiative and you'd get virtually zero nationally televised games.

I would be fine with rule changes to padding and helmets as this may, or in some cases may not, make it safer to play the game to eliminate injury as much as possible. On the other hand, i am not too big on tinkering with rules like where they kick from or what constitutes a catch or not. IMO, the catch rule is the best it can get anyway without opening up a whole new HUGE can of worms. Hold on to the ball and it is complete, let it go and it is incomplete. Pretty simple to me???

c_hawkbob wrote:If football were still being played in leather helmets and canvas breeches the NFL would be no bigger than the U.S. Pro Rugby Initiative and you'd get virtually zero nationally televised games.

So did the owners of the NFL approve a rule change that caused the league to move away from leather helmets and canvas breeches?

There has been and will be plenty of changes in the game without the owners tinkering with stuff like the PAT.

Yes, of course the owners had everything to do with implementing the 'head protector" rule in 1943. (Until then helmets or any head protection was optional, just like hockey) And if you're interested the first plastic helmet was introduced in 1940.

Who do you imagine was making the rules back then?

c_hawkbob wrote:Yes, of course the owners had everything to do with implementing the 'head protector" rule in 1943. (Until then helmets or any head protection was optional, just like hockey) And if you're interested the first plastic helmet was introduced in 1940.

Who do you imagine was making the rules back then?

And the canvas breeches?

I don't actually guess they bothered legislating breeches material choices, then or now. But I could be wrong about that ...

Dez caught the ball. Thats why the league *visited* the wording of the rule. The oily sleazeball used car salesman Blandino was careful to tell us it still wasn't a catch even though millions of us could see it was either a catch or the rule was idiotic to begin with. Pierra can be more honest and said the new language doesn't clarify the rule at all. So Seratore and his arrogant dishonest buddies can call it however they want, that much is clear. Nothing got any better at the meetings IMO. Its a good thing the NFL is fail safe because these ass clowns would destroy it other wise.

The rule is confusing because it tries to describe a catch using a lot of words - something a lawyer would add that many would think unnecessary.
Simplify the wording such as:
A catch requires 2 feet or other body part not including the hands in bounds and possession of the ball. You could add taking one step if you want, but it might not be necessary.

That's it. Nothing more is required. No "football move", falling to the ground, or completion of the catch need be described as it has been defined previously.
A fumble on a pass play would be defined as once the receiver has a valid completion, any loss of the ball in bounds is a fumble.
The ground cannot cause a fumble.
If the ball is being juggled or not fully controlled before it is dropped or knocked out or lost, it is incomplete.

That would clear up and remove any interpretation of a rule and is something everyone could understand.

Pete thinks like I do:

Retweet to your followers?

Pete Carroll @PeteCarroll

Our idea for the extra point:
-Automatic 7pts for a TD
-Mandatory try from the 2 for 1pt
-Defense can score 1pt by returning a fumble or INT

10:24 AM - 25 Mar 2015

That would mean 8 points for each TD (as the extra point is almost automatic).
It also takes away the try for 2.

Why not just add:
-Defense can score 1pt by returning a fumble or INT

NorthHawk wrote:That would mean 8 points for each TD (as the extra point is almost automatic).
It also takes away the try for 2.

Why not just add:
-Defense can score 1pt by returning a fumble or INT

No because you're not kicking the extra point, it's a run or pass extra point try.

c_hawkbob wrote:Pete thinks like I do:

Retweet to your followers?

Pete Carroll @PeteCarroll

Our idea for the extra point:
-Automatic 7pts for a TD
-Mandatory try from the 2 for 1pt
-Defense can score 1pt by returning a fumble or INT

10:24 AM - 25 Mar 2015

Wasn't his last idea before this one was to throw on 2nd and goal form the one in the Superbowl?

You had to go there? and it probably wasn't Pete, but the OC ... and we had a better percentage of scoring via the pass then the run on short yardage. It was the right call, but the wrong play. That's all it was.

Bob is right about changes. At one time the Forward Pass was illegal.

js

NorthHawk wrote:The rule is confusing because it tries to describe a catch using a lot of words - something a lawyer would add that many would think unnecessary.
Simplify the wording such as:
A catch requires 2 feet or other body part not including the hands in bounds and possession of the ball. You could add taking one step if you want, but it might not be necessary.

That's it. Nothing more is required. No "football move", falling to the ground, or completion of the catch need be described as it has been defined previously.
A fumble on a pass play would be defined as once the receiver has a valid completion, any loss of the ball in bounds is a fumble.
The ground cannot cause a fumble.
If the ball is being juggled or not fully controlled before it is dropped or knocked out or lost, it is incomplete.

That would clear up and remove any interpretation of a rule and is something everyone could understand.

I like that. This control all the way to the ground thing is ridiculous. Squeeze it and get 2 feet down its a catch. It makes too much sense for the NFL though.

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't actually guess they bothered legislating breeches material choices, then or now. But I could be wrong about that ...

So you're half right. The league dictated to the teams some of the of equipment/uniforms worn by players in the spirit of player safety, which IMO justifies the rule. Other equipment, ie the canvas breeches, didn't have anything to do with player safety or competitiveness, so they left it to the discretion of the teams. Would that be a fair summation?

The PAT initiative has nothing to do with player safety or competitiveness, so IMO that rule change should be held to a much higher standard. There should be a larger demand for such a change, and I don't see the need for such a drastic change. Stadiums are sold out and the market value of game tickets are at all time highs, television revenue is going through the roof, and sales of merchandise is as high as it's ever been. So what's so wrong with the game that they have to screw with it?

RiverDog wrote:So you're half right.

Huh? half right about what? I never said owners legislated pants and helmets, in fact I only addressed the issue in answer to your question other than to use it as an example of change.

RiverDog wrote:The league dictated to the teams some of the of equipment/uniforms worn by players in the spirit of player safety, which IMO justifies the rule. Other equipment, ie the canvas breeches, didn't have anything to do with player safety or competitiveness, so they left it to the discretion of the teams. Would that be a fair summation?

I don't know if it would or not. It makes sense but I already told you I don't know about the pants. Don't care either.

RiverDog wrote:The PAT initiative has nothing to do with player safety or competitiveness, so IMO that rule change should be held to a much higher standard.

Well, if you hadn't added the bolded portion you may be correct, but as for your "higher standard", why? Who besides you is saying rules changes can only be safety related?

RiverDog wrote:There should be a larger demand for such a change, and I don't see the need for such a drastic change. Stadiums are sold out and the market value of game tickets are at all time highs, television revenue is going through the roof, and sales of merchandise is as high as it's ever been. So what's so wrong with the game that they have to screw with it?

Again, owners make changes every year and I'm sure they'd tell you that's what has gotten the game to the point it is now, not being afraid to make such changes. It's a freaking useless kicking exhibition, It adds nothing whatsoever to the game. Get rid of it.

c_hawkbob wrote:Huh? half right about what? I never said owners legislated pants and helmets, in fact I only addressed the issue in answer to your question other than to use it as an example of change.

I don't know if it would or not. It makes sense but I already told you I don't know about the pants. Don't care either.

Well, if you hadn't added the bolded portion you may be correct, but as for your "higher standard", why? Who best ides you is saying rules changes can only be safety related?

Again, owners make changes every year and I'm sure they'd tell you that's what has gotten the game to the point it is now, not being afraid to make such changes. It's a freaking useless kicking exhibition, It adds nothing whatsoever to the game. Get rid of it.

My response about your being half right was directed at your positive response when I asked if the owners made a rule regarding leather helmets AND canvas breeches. You admitted that you didn't think they ever regulated canvas breeches, thus the half right comment. I didn't mean it as an insult.

I never said that all rule changes had to be safety related. I said that if they didn't, that they had to rise to a higher standard. Perhaps the 'higher standard' part isn't quite the right term, but my point is that safety related rules have a much different, loftier objective and are easier to justify IMO.

I realize that owners do make changes every year, but most are in response to a complaint or some type of demand, such as the change regarding the Pats skirting the ineligible receiver rule. I am not against those types of changes. I just don't see the need for the changes in the PAT. I'm perfectly fine with the way it is. Saving a few minutes a game isn't worth the change IMO. Besides, sometimes I can't complete all of my business during a 60 second commercial break, especially if I'm in the stadium. The XP gives me a 30 second or so start towards the bathroom, one less play that I might miss.