I love the sideline and pylon cameras. Heck, I'd even go so far as to have wireless devices that signal whether or not the ball crosses the goal line or first-down marker. No more ambiguity. We have the technology.
One thing I would change is the amount of TV timeouts surrounding a kickoff. This is what causes the game to drag so much, to me. Team scores a TD, kicks the XP, then we go to 2 minutes of commercials. Come back for the kickoff, which (odds are) lasts about 10 seconds, then another couple of minutes of commercials. It's awful. If the TD was under review, then we have about 8 minutes of real time for 10-15 seconds of game. Get off the field, red man!
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yeah, I dont like the idea of a running clock because of this. Running clock = less football and the same amount of commercials in all likely hood. I almost prefer games not being on tv if I'm there in person because the flow of the game tends to be so much better.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Nice additions Andy. I agree on kickoffs and extra points. I don't think getting rid of them is good but tweaking them sure. However, I don't really like the running clock idea. Game times need to be managed better in broadcasting IMO. I would rather fewer in game TV timeouts and longer breaks between quarters, but I think the running clock is too foreign to the concept of football.
I specifically like your additions of Pass Interference, Sack yardage and Sitting out plays. To add to Sack Yardage I also want to see a negative yardage stat for defensive players. I think if you added up all the negative yardage of Dadi, Bosa, etc it would be a really fun stat. maybe they do that and I have never seen it.
Another addition I would like is Dropped Passes. I played WR and was taught dropped passes were the antichrist. You dropped a pass in practice you ran 20 yard suicides for the number of yards you lost your team. You dropped one in a game and you ran ALL WEEK. Just as the Running Back needs to be good at "running" a WR needs to be good at "receiving". Total Dropped Passes needs to be a thing. Also dropped passes need to be removed from QB ratings
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Not to fire up the "if you touch it, you should catch it" debate again, but the dropped passes thing is really subjective. If the ball is a bit overthrown and glances off the WR's hands, is it a drop, or a bad pass? If it hits him chest-high with no one else around, then it's easy (but then again, maybe someone will bring up the LT3 argument of throwing it too hard), but where do you draw the line?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
yeah, well, you know my stance. I was taught, "If you can touch it you can catch it." Doesn't matter if overthrown, underthrown, thrown too far left/right/up/down, you have to jump or dive, sacrifice yourself into a LB... you got to catch it. QB's job is to see the lanes and throw to the open man, whilst being under a barrage of 300+ DL wishing him physical harm. The least a WR can do is catch it, no matter how it gets there.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I generally agree with your stance, FWIW. I just think it's a very tough thing to decide when it comes to stats. It's one of those things that is best evaluated qualitatively.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
totally agree. Though I would say that it is unjustly being accounted for in QB ratings so even if not 100% accurate should be a stat for WRs as well, no matter what.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I am also in favor of the sack yardage change. If there is enough to call it a sack and not a tackle of a runner, this change should be made. If not, keep it the way it is and give our guys a sack every time they tackle GT's QB on an option play.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
CBS sports? Sorry if I'm cynical but most of those writers have probably never played football. I agree with jimbo that a running clock equals less football and who wants that unless the game runs overtime and cuts into Dancing with the Stars? Shorten the commercials instead. Extra points could be kicked from the hash marks, widening one side of the field and making two point play attempts more attractive. Spot fouls for interference - wasn't that an old rule that was changed? Eliminating kickoffs would eliminate one of the game's most electric plays, a kickoff return for a TD and we fans will not have a future David Wilson to gloat about for years afterward. Maybe kick off from the fifty with any ball that passes the goal line spotted at the 35.
Also tackling should be disallowed, each player should be required to grow long hair and braid it as Chinese serfs did during the Qing Dynasty. Tackles will be made dragging the opposing ball carrier down by his/her braid. Pommade use will be strictly outlawed. Of course, I'm not serious, but I don't like any of the CBS crews proposed changes except the camera views.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
That would essentially be a free kick every time wouldn't it? I think teams are already technically allowed to choose to use a punt style kick or to kick from a tee on kickoffs. I would expect a kickoff from the 50 to mostly be punts with the kicking team having the objective of kicking the ball so that it dies inside the 5. Getting the ball at the 35 would guarantee that kicking teams would do everything they can to get the ball to stay out of the endzone, and since it would be a free kick instead of a regular punt the ball would be live as soon as it hits the ground and a kick out of bounds would place the ball at the 35 the same as a kick into the endzone.
If the goal is to lessen injuries on kickoffs, then you want to find a way to incentivize both teams to take a touch back. So if you combined a shorter kickoff with a touchback spot closer to the goal line (maybe the 15?) then the Defense would be trying to kick the ball out of the endzone everytime that it isn't desirable to onside kick.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I would expect a kickoff from the 50 to mostly be punts with the kicking team having the objective of kicking the ball so that it dies inside the 5. Getting the ball at the 35 would guarantee that kicking teams would do everything they can to get the ball to stay out of the endzone, and since it would be a free kick instead of a regular punt the ball would be live as soon as it hits the ground and a kick out of bounds would place the ball at the 35 the same as a kick into the endzone.
This describes fairly well what I was thinking. Add to it the decreased length of field defenders will have to run and it might lessen the severity of impacts. I'm wondering also if it would lead to a more bunched field of blocking schemes, somewhat akin to a rugby scrum, as return teams must field the ball and return it within a shorter time frame.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The problem that I would expect is that you would have 10 players running full speed over a shorter distance without any of them having to delay their start while blocking for the kicker as they do on a punt. The recieving team would have less time to set up blocks and you would likely end up with way too many fair catches inside the 20.
Illegal Wedge Formation
6-1-10-a
A wedge is defined as two or more players aligned shoulder to shoulder within two yards of each other.
6-1-10-b
Free-kick down only: After the ball has been kicked, it is illegal for three or more members of the receiving team intentionally to form a wedge for the purpose of blocking for the ball carrier. This is a live-ball foul, whether or not there is contact between opponents.
Penalty
Noncontact foul. 15 yards, spot of the foul, or 15 yards, spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B if this is behind the spot of the foul. 15 yards, previous spot with the down repeated if the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team A. [S27]
6-1-10-c
Formation of the wedge is not illegal when the kick is from an obvious onside kick formation.
6-1-10-d
There is no foul if the play results in a touchback.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I like the idea of letting the kids enjoy scoring a bit. That's one thing that really drives me nuts about CFB. The kids are being asked to act like machines. It takes the fun out of the sport for them. I don't mind the anti-celebration rules in Pro football, but in college, these kids are technically amateur athletes. They're not (supposed to be) getting paid and they should be able to celebrate good plays. The censorship is borderline oppression.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I think the key is that the rules committees tend to view all celebrations as "taunting". There are actions that players perform that are obvious taunts (basically anything directed at the opposing bench or players) and others that are simply celebrations. I can understand wanting to control the taunt factor, but yes anything spontaneous and obviously an expression of joy or excitement should be allowed.. I would extend that to the NFL as well, celebrations are good for the fan experience and add to the excitement of the game in general.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yeah, refs can mess up a game with a bad unsportsman call on a TD celebration. BYU had a game a few years ago where their QB ran for the potential game tying TD in the final seconds and celebrated by throwing the ball straight up into the air. They flagged him, pushing the extra point back, and the Cougars missed. An exciting rally ruined by the refs.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If you do this, I think you a category I/category II. A little too much bumping should be just 15 yards. An obvious, intentional grab should be a spot foul.
3. Make players have to sit out a few plays for committing unsportsmanlike conduct penalties or personal fouls.
I like this idea, but same concept - you have to institute a level I/II system (think Flagrant I/Flagrant II in NBA). Maybe an aggressive shoulder bump is 15 yards, but an outright push, or a Marcus Vick should require someone to sit out.
There really does need to be some change in the clocking system. Not a clock that's always running, but something has to change.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
There really does need to be some change in the clocking system. Not a clock that's always running, but something has to change.
it seems that a majority of fans agree that what needs to change is the number of commercials. However, this is capitalism, so that's never going to change in our favor. Those in charge know that games are just going to continue getting longer and longer because commercials are going to continue creeping into the game and they're trying to shorten the games without affecting the prevalence of commercials. To them a running clock is the only solution.
Unfortunately, we're never going to have the proper solution. Commercials are never going to be reduced so the clock will inevitably go to a running clock. If not this year it will change sometime in the future.
/conspiracy rant over
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
You'd still have defensive holding, so there kind of already is a category I/II already in place. You could rewrite the rules to make the spot foul PI occur only when the contact obviously prevented a catch that would have otherwise been made. Anything short of that would be the ten yard defensive holding.
This would actually reduce the impact of the ticky-tack PI calls, as they'd now be 10 yards instead of 15, while blatantly tackling a receiver to prevent a catch would place the ball where it would have been without interference.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I've been saying for years that the biggest flaw with football is pass interference as it is penalized by both the pros and college. But if you combined the two (as you suggest) you could minimize that flaw.
Two problems though. One, you introduce even more judgement into the hands of officials. Two, you're the only other person I've ever known who thought it was a good idea...
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I have never understood PI being fifteen at the college level. It simply doesn't make sense. TBH, I'm shocked we don't see more blatant tackles on deep balls because of that rule.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Can't say that I agree with many of the CBS guys' proposals, except for the helmet communication and cameras.
I HATE the spot foul on PI idea/rule. Pass interference is poorly called as it is, even in the NFL. Instances where DBs get called for non-existent or ticky-tacky pass interference calls happen just as often as guys who are beaten intentionally interfering. Don't give college refs more influence over games than they already have, especially on a fairly subjective call like PI. Hell, if you absolutely have to, institute an intentional foul system like in basketball as Bar1990 proposed.
Also, as for celebrations- absolutely. I'm still mad they flagged Bucky against OSU last year and Tyrod years ago against Miami (I believe) for throwing up Roc nation.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Pass interference is a spot foul.
All I see with this is ref's being to quick with the flags and teams using this as a strategy if their offense blows. Think how OSU game last year would of went if we had ref's with an itchy finger.
Make players have to sit out a few plays for committing unsportsmanlike conduct penalties or personal fouls
How about you just make them sit out the rest of the drive or quarter... then things get interesting.
My new rule I would I thought of the other day watching VT Rugby was instead of messing with what yard line the kicker kicks the extra point... how about who ever scores the TD must be the one that kicks the XP? Could you imagine a running back, quarterback, TE!!! Kicking an XP?!
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The local sports guy for channel 29 said after reporting Lambert's move to GA, "If Greyson Lambert is the starting quarterback for Georgia this year, they're not going to be very good." You rarely hear the LOLUVA cheerleaders on ch. 29 say that kind of stuff. It sounded almost butthurt. LOLUVA indeed.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I would LOVE to see Lambert seize the starting job by the throat and then set the world on fire at UGA. Just to watch one more thing blow up in Mike London's face.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I've heard this a few times lately. London is gone. We need to accept that the only reason he was retained this season was financial reasons. He won't be back next year unless he shocks everyone (including the UVA athletics department) and goes on the most improbably championship run since the move Major League.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
My money is the mid-season mark. They could seriously be winless all season, so with an 0 - 6 start, or even a 1 - 5 start he's gone. Tom O'Brien will finish the season out while the do their search.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If they fire him midseason, I think they still have to pay him his buyout. I think they're all in with London this year, and will be conducting the coaching search behind the scenes throughout the season. Expect to see some true dysfunction out of that program if they do start ohfer for a long stretch. We talk about coaches losing the locker room; Mike London might not have the locker room to start the year.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I thought they just had to pay him out to the end of the season as long as he started the season. Anyway, good point. yeah, locker room is gone already. Hell the whole stadium has been gone for years!
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
You might well be right. There is no definitive way a buyout has to be structured. But even if they just had to pay his his current year's salary, the state of finances in the UVA athletics department probably are dire enough that they aren't going to pay two coaches' salaries, especially if the AD knows he's going to have to pony up next season to bring in a coach capable of fixing this dumpster fire. Then again, maybe the culture of losing is so ingrained at this point in Hooville that we'll get a James Johnson type hire.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The real question here in hooville, is whether the current administration has the spine to clean house in the athletic department administration. A lot of boohoos are realizing that the whole London coaching debacle is more symptomatic of a larger problem. If they boot Craig Littlepaige and Jon Oliver, then the new AD would be able to hire his guy. However, don't underestimate the ability of the LOLUVA administration to botch up the AD hiring. The famed LOLUVA Fail Chart could be adapted to the athletic department, but it would have longer timelines, and there would be some additional choices that would include basketball, baseball, etc. Personally, I don't think that the powers that be will do anything about the AD situation until Littlepaige decides to retire. All bets are off at that point, but I'd hope that Oliver is next in line, because we could expect more London-esqe hires.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I wish they would just leave it like it is or even more like it was maybe 10-15 years ago. If I plan to watch football, why do I want to make the game shorter? It can go quicker without messing with the clock. The nature of college football makes the game more exciting when there is more time for comebacks etc. The college game doesn't need to be like the pro game. The two are very different and each can be good without making them more alike. The "imperfections" of the college game make for a more exciting product when there is more time on the clock. When you keep shortening the game there will be less great moments and great moments is what college football is about. Quit ruining the damn game!
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
it's a safety thing. If a player is on the ground, in many instances, he'll be fairly defenseless. They don't want to encourage a LB to take off the receiver's head as he's trying to get off the ground with the ball. By killing the play as soon as he's down, you don't have to worry about making new rules about exactly how much violence is too much when you've got to contact a guy on the ground.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
One thing that drives me insane is the case where a runner is tackled, but falls on a defender, spins, gets back up and takes off while everyone has stopped playing. Any guy that drills him is getting a 15 yard penalty and likely a targeting call, but he can get up and carry on no problem? Horse crap. It's a major safety issue along with being incredibly unfair for defensive players who are essentially penalized for trying to play within the rules and not take cheap shots at an opponent.
I'd love to see the rule changed to say that the runner isn't down, and can extend the ball as far as he can (like Shai's reach for the end zone against OSU), but that's it. He can't get up and start running. For example, if the only thing keeping him from being down is the fact that his butt is on a defender instead of the ground, he can reach the ball out until his butt leaves the defender or another part of his body touches the ground (like his knee) and that's the spot of the ball. That way, he can still fight for extra yardage, and defenders can still defend, but there's no reason for them to come in full-bore and take him out because he isn't getting much more than an extra half-yard at best. Safe and fair.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
That's a good point about what defenders are taught about hitting someone who appears down. It is a lucky play when everyone thinks your down, but your not, so you can take advantage of that.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I laugh at the college down by contact rule, because technically every field goal and extra point should be down by contact the moment the snap is caught by the holder with his knee on the ground.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
GuitarMan, do you know if the rule is specifically for the purpose of kicking points or is there an exception for that guy to get up for a fake FG?
I remember the over-the-back-bouce-pass the LSU holder had a few years back and thought to myself, "You know, he isn't down because of the rule exception, but if he doesn't actually hold the ball for the kicker, isn't he just a QB, in the shotgun, throwing a lateral? How is this legal?"
Of course, it must have been, but I just don't know where to draw the lines around the rule.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
As it has been explained to me, the holder is considered "in formation" with one knee down. He can only have one knee down. If he whiffs the snap catch and puts both knees on the ground, he is down and play is over. The holder may execute a fake with either his original knee down in formation (eg. shovel pass) or by standing. Once the knee is off the ground if it makes contact again the player is down and play is over.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Correct. From the NCAA rulebook (I found the 2011-2012 version quickly online, but I assume the language is still the same), Rule 4-1-3:
When any part of the ball carrier's body, except his hand or foot, touches
the ground or when the ball carrier is tackled or otherwise falls and loses
possession of the ball as he contacts the ground with any part of his
body, except his hand or foot [Exception: The ball remains alive when an
offensive player has simulated a kick or at the snap is in position to kick the
ball held for a place kick by a teammate. The ball may be kicked, passed or
advanced by rule] (A.R. 4-1-3-I).
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I have two suggestions, and I'm sure I will be in the minority on these, but what the hell. I've always felt that a touchdown should be a touchdown. Get rid of all of this "breaking the plane of the goal line" and reaching out and touching or grazing a pylon. If a player is going to score, get in the damn endzone! Second, get rid of the BS (in my opinion) "ground can't cause a fumble". The hell it can't! In all my years I have seen about 1000 fumbles caused by the ground, only they weren't called that way because of this stupid rule. If you are going to play the game, hold onto the damn ball! (I realize that my first suggestion might be construed as a denial of a Pussy Touchdown.. far from it, I'm just saying let a TD be fully dipped!)
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
So are you saying you want the entire body of the ball carrier to break the plane, or the entire football, or what? I'm just having trouble visualizing what you mean.
And the whole ground can't cause a fumble thing is because the player is down at that point. You could revise the rule that says a ball carrier has to maintain control of the ball all the way through the act of being tackled, but you have to have a way to decide when the tackle is over and the ball carrier is safely down with possession.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I would like to see the entire ball in the end zone, that in my mind is ultimately the goal of a score. Even if the player stretches it across and maintains control, but the whole football should be across the line, not just breaking the plane. As far as the fumble situation, if the ball comes out immediately on hitting the ground it should be ruled a fumble. To me, the player must have possession of the ball until he is solidly down. If the ball comes out on impact, it is a fumble, or at least have the player be down for a second or two before losing the ball before ruling him down with possession. My concern is the "bang, bang" plays where the player hits the ground and the ball immediately pops out. To me, that is a fumble.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
so what happens when a guy's knee is on the ground but as his upper body makes contact with the ground he loses the ball. When is he considered down is now the question. Is he down when his knee touches or does he have to be prone on the ground to be down. If his elbow is down is he now down or no?
As for the TD I could go eitherway I guess. I think the majority of time the entire ball crosses the goal-line but I understand where you're coming from. I've always thought that a strange rule to have this deep end-zone but the tip of the ball only has to touch the front of the line. At least have the tip of the ball touch the actual endzone and cross the goal-line.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The whole idea is, the goal line is...well...a line. It's not the entire width of the white stripe that represents the "0 yard line" but instead the two-dimensional very beginning of that line. So really, the entire width of the white stripe that represents the goal line is actually a part of the endzone. Having a ten yard endzone really is more for passing plays than running plays, giving receivers more space to run routes. If the forward pass were eliminated from the game, there wouldn't even need to be an "endzone." The field could just end at the goal line.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Outside of the few bizarre TDs, where a player is flying sideways out of bounds and grazes the top of the pylon with the ball (Tyrod did that a few times, IIRC), I don't really see how this is much different. I get where you're coming from about wanting a more "definitive" TD, but all your proposal does is change the rule from "does the nose of the ball break the plane of the line" to "does the heel of the ball break the plane of the other edge of the line." From a game logistical standpoint, it doesn't really do much. You'd also have to apply the same rule to first downs, because the line markers all act the same way. The leading edge of the goal line is the end zone; the line dividing the field from the end zone is also the end zone.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Yeah, I totally get what you guys are saying, and these are arguments that have been beaten to death for a while. I guess my thing is that I am "old school" when it comes to football, having begun my fandom in the '70's, so I see a lot of the current rules as being a watering down of the game I love. I started also to throw the "in the grasp" rule in there as well, but I do admit to the safety aspect of it from a realistic standpoint. I stand by my thoughts and my reasoning. I just feel that in those cases, the actions should be more "definitive". 1) Get the ball in the end zone 2)if it is out it's a fumble.. and of course the double whammy, if the ball crosses the goal line and pops out, it's a fumble, not a touchdown. Bottom line, as has been stated, these would all end up being as much judgement calls on the part of the officials as they are now, still I think the current rules kind of allow for a lazy style of play ie: a player doesn't have to try as hard to score knowing that all he has to do is break the plane or graze a pylon, and ball security is a little more lax since a player knows that if he is ruled down he will be ok even if he loses the ball. Again, it's probably a case of me being one of the old men in the room. It's all about perspective.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
if the ball crosses the goal line and pops out, it's a fumble, not a touchdown
Woah.
The only problem I have with your suggestions is, I'm having a really hard time figuring out exactly when you want a play to end. I don't think there's anything wrong with what you are wanting to happen to the game. I'm looking at it from a rule enforcement/interpretation standpoint. The refs need a definitive end to a play. I don't know where that is in the rules you're proposing.
If I'm following you, you're saying a play does not end the moment a ball is in the endzone (regardless of whether we're talking about the front end or the hind end of the ball). So a ball can be live in the endzone, in the possession of a ball carrier, and it isn't a touchdown. So when does the play end? Does he have to be tackled? What if the opposing team simply refuses to tackle him? Does he have to take a knee in the endzone to end the play?
I don't think anything you're suggesting is out of line, and I don't think it has to do with you being an older football fan. I just want to know how you want the rules to work.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Hmmm well the play ends when the whistle blows, again I am thinking of the quick "bang,bang" situations, and am having a hard time creating a visual, but I am sure that we all have seen it many times. I'm thinking about situations such as ones where a player stretches out to put the ball over the goal line and immediately loses control (whether on his own or upon being hit). The current rule calls that a touchdown simply because the ball crossed the plane. I have trouble with that. To me, the player should maintain possession after crossing the goal until the play is whistled dead or a TD is indicated. If the player loses control before either of these things, it would be considered a fumble. Once he crosses into the end zone with possession of the ball, the play is dead. No one could, for example, knock the ball out of his hand after he is in. If he loses it in the act of crossing the plane, then it would be a fumble. I'm thinking that the problem here is that I am visualizing specific situations and rules don't tend to be situation specific. But I hope that you get the gist.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
"When is the play over?"
"When the ref blows his whistle."
"Oh, I see. So when does the ref blow his whistle?"
"When the rulebook says the play is over."
"I gotcha. So when does the rulebooks say the play is over?"
"When the ref blows the whistle..."
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
For the record, the whistle doesn't end the play. The play ends the play. The officials are just there to let everyone else know. Also, adding more rules so that the runner has to maintain control through the goal line or whatever would make officiating those situations a nightmare. If anything, you want to remove gray areas to make the game as black/white as possible and take the responsibility out of the hands/minds of the officials. If we can see the ball break the plane and whistle it dead and throw up a signal for a TD, our lives are much easier than if we need to dig through bodies to see if the kid held onto the ball, or figure out how long we need to wait to confirm that it's actually a TD in case someone comes in and knocks the ball out of the guy's hands after he's held it over the goal line for a couple seconds. General rule for having a game that's easy to officiate (and therefore less open to officials screwing things up): more simple = more better.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Okay, so you're saying, for example, that you're only proposing a rule change for a player who is in the process of being tackled while crossing the plane. A clean reception for a touchdown in the endzone is an immediate touchdown and end of the play. But just like that receiver has to maintain possession during the catch, the ball carrier has to maintain possession all the way through the tackle into the endzone.
I don't have a problem with what you're suggesting. I think changing the rule to how you're proposing it would actually have very little impact on touchdowns. The fumble rule would have huge implications, though, and might lead to a more pass-happy game, since running plays become riskier propositions. A receiver losing control during a catch results in an incompletion, but a ball carrier losing control during a tackle results in a fumble. I'm not sure the result of your proposal is actually what you'd want to see happen to the game.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Well, as he said below, Dez Bryant. A receiver "catches" the ball and in a controlled manner places it on the ground...incomplete pass. A falling running back has the ball completely pop out of his hand...touchdown.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
As far as the fumble situation, if the ball comes out immediately on hitting the ground it should be ruled a fumble. To me, the player must have possession of the ball until he is solidly down. If the ball comes out on impact, it is a fumble, or at least have the player be down for a second or two before losing the ball before ruling him down with possession. My concern is the "bang, bang" plays where the player hits the ground and the ball immediately pops out. To me, that is a fumble.
My understanding is that once the player's knee or elbow touches the ground, that player is down. If the player has possession at the instant that his knee/elbow makes contact, it is not a fumble. If the player does not have possession at the instant he is down, it is a fumble. I think the rule is very clear. Refs should NOT blow the whistle here as I believe this is reviewable?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If I'm understanding him correctly, I think he wants to apply the same rules of maintaining possession through the act of falling to the ground/being tackled that are applied to receivers to establish possession. If the ground jars the ball loose from a receiver's hands, it wasn't a catch. Under his proposed rule change, the same thing happening to a ball carrier would be a fumble.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Exactly, I was actually thinking of the "continuation" idea as with a receiver maintaining control/making a "football move" to facilitate possession. In the above cases, the referee would follow the same guidelines that he would with a receiver making a catch. Of course we have seen how those things play out (thank you Dez Bryant). Again, my thought is to make the actions more definitive, but again "definitive" tends to be subjective.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Hate the spot PI. And if can cost the defense 40 yds for PI, the offense ought to be risking the same. Honestly, the passing game is already skewed so far to the offense - they don't need any more help. "Creating separation?" Sorry, that's offensive pass interference; call it that, then we can talk. Ditto "rub routes". Before, they were at least acknowledged as "pick plays", although "schematic offensive pass interference" would be more accurate. I know, it's a fantasy driven sport now, and apparently nobody wants defense anymore. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If you're gonna disallow rub routes, you have to disallow jamming receivers within five yards of the LoS, in my opinion. Clean is clean.
How about on true offensive PI, the yardage penalty is the inverse of the spot foul? If it occurs 30 yards downfield, it's a 30 yard penalty from the LoS?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I LOLed, but Ol' Sourpuss loves to pull a bullshit 30 yard bomb out of his bag of tricks at least once a game against us. I assume he does it against other opponents, too. I'm surprised he hasn't worked up a trick play B-back pass off the pitch. He should also roll the pocket on every pass they attempt because it would just look like a standard play up until the QB throws it.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
There's really only one answer...less commercials. The game's have become bloated to the point of almost being unwatchable. If I didn't have a pretty substantial emotional investment already, I doubt I could get into football now, and the lagging popularity among younger generations is showing that. The sad thing is it's not even good business. Destroying a product for short-term financial gain is a terrible way to make money and they're essentially guaranteeing some other sport is going to take over down the road.
Whatever, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Best option for the clock rules is to cut down the commercials. But a more realistic option would be for ESPN to start scheduling the games in larger windows. What bugs me the most about games running long is that it affects the next game on the schedule.
After all, NFL games have pretty much set the standard for a 3:1 broadcast ratio. By rule, college games last longer. With the clock stopping for the chains to be reset, and 8 extra minutes of halftime...most games should be scheduled in a minimum of a 3 1/2 hour window.
Now, the flip side of that is that TV needs to stop scheduling certain games so late. It's pretty much a given that playoff and championship games are going to be pushing the 4 hour mark, regardless of outcome. So there's no need to wait until 9 PM on a weeknight to start the game.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
It's continued to go down as well. 30 minute tv shows used to have ~24 minutes of content, they're down to around 18 now which is a 3:2 ratio. I'm kind of curious to see how low they'll take it.
I'm always shocked when I see old syndicated tv shows on dvd/streaming with scenes I haven't seen in years. Old Simpsons episodes always catch me off guard with scenes/jokes I forgot existed because they were cut entirely in more recent airings.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I recently heard that shows in syndication on TBS (Seinfeld, HIMYM, etc) are sped up by 7% to get in an extra commercial. The overdubbed audio makes it obvious, and it's kind of funny.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I agree that they need to schedule games in larger windows. When I record the games for analysis, I find I have to record the game's scheduled slot, and then about an hour or so afterwards just to be safe. I have some games where it filled the entire slot, then filled up the 1 hour Sports Center slot after, and the very beginning of whatever is in the next slot.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I had to DVR the Military Bowl this past season (traveling, unavoidably) and I set the DVR for an extra 90 minutes. My wife looked at me and said, "Really? You think you need an extra 90 minutes?" I looked at her and said, "We went into triple OT with Marshall last year. Anything is possible." Didn't need the full 90, but better safe than sorry.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
I love the sideline and pylon cameras. Heck, I'd even go so far as to have wireless devices that signal whether or not the ball crosses the goal line or first-down marker. No more ambiguity. We have the technology.
One thing I would change is the amount of TV timeouts surrounding a kickoff. This is what causes the game to drag so much, to me. Team scores a TD, kicks the XP, then we go to 2 minutes of commercials. Come back for the kickoff, which (odds are) lasts about 10 seconds, then another couple of minutes of commercials. It's awful. If the TD was under review, then we have about 8 minutes of real time for 10-15 seconds of game. Get off the field, red man!
Yeah, I dont like the idea of a running clock because of this. Running clock = less football and the same amount of commercials in all likely hood. I almost prefer games not being on tv if I'm there in person because the flow of the game tends to be so much better.
Something like this?
Nice additions Andy. I agree on kickoffs and extra points. I don't think getting rid of them is good but tweaking them sure. However, I don't really like the running clock idea. Game times need to be managed better in broadcasting IMO. I would rather fewer in game TV timeouts and longer breaks between quarters, but I think the running clock is too foreign to the concept of football.
I specifically like your additions of Pass Interference, Sack yardage and Sitting out plays. To add to Sack Yardage I also want to see a negative yardage stat for defensive players. I think if you added up all the negative yardage of Dadi, Bosa, etc it would be a really fun stat. maybe they do that and I have never seen it.
Another addition I would like is Dropped Passes. I played WR and was taught dropped passes were the antichrist. You dropped a pass in practice you ran 20 yard suicides for the number of yards you lost your team. You dropped one in a game and you ran ALL WEEK. Just as the Running Back needs to be good at "running" a WR needs to be good at "receiving". Total Dropped Passes needs to be a thing. Also dropped passes need to be removed from QB ratings
Not to fire up the "if you touch it, you should catch it" debate again, but the dropped passes thing is really subjective. If the ball is a bit overthrown and glances off the WR's hands, is it a drop, or a bad pass? If it hits him chest-high with no one else around, then it's easy (but then again, maybe someone will bring up the LT3 argument of throwing it too hard), but where do you draw the line?
yeah, well, you know my stance. I was taught, "If you can touch it you can catch it." Doesn't matter if overthrown, underthrown, thrown too far left/right/up/down, you have to jump or dive, sacrifice yourself into a LB... you got to catch it. QB's job is to see the lanes and throw to the open man, whilst being under a barrage of 300+ DL wishing him physical harm. The least a WR can do is catch it, no matter how it gets there.
I generally agree with your stance, FWIW. I just think it's a very tough thing to decide when it comes to stats. It's one of those things that is best evaluated qualitatively.
totally agree. Though I would say that it is unjustly being accounted for in QB ratings so even if not 100% accurate should be a stat for WRs as well, no matter what.
Couldn't it be viewed similar to errors in baseball?
Beat me to it. Have an official scorer that rules on these things and if ruled a drop take it out of the QB stats similar to an unearned run.
Same thing with picks. If the QB hits the receiver in the hands and he drops it or bounces off for a pick, the QB shouldn't be punished.
An official scorer is needed.
Like Michael Vick's completion percentage at VT. A whole bunch of those incompletions bounced off chests and onto the ground.
LT's as well.
I am also in favor of the sack yardage change. If there is enough to call it a sack and not a tackle of a runner, this change should be made. If not, keep it the way it is and give our guys a sack every time they tackle GT's QB on an option play.
CBS sports? Sorry if I'm cynical but most of those writers have probably never played football. I agree with jimbo that a running clock equals less football and who wants that unless the game runs overtime and cuts into Dancing with the Stars? Shorten the commercials instead. Extra points could be kicked from the hash marks, widening one side of the field and making two point play attempts more attractive. Spot fouls for interference - wasn't that an old rule that was changed? Eliminating kickoffs would eliminate one of the game's most electric plays, a kickoff return for a TD and we fans will not have a future David Wilson to gloat about for years afterward. Maybe kick off from the fifty with any ball that passes the goal line spotted at the 35.
Also tackling should be disallowed, each player should be required to grow long hair and braid it as Chinese serfs did during the Qing Dynasty. Tackles will be made dragging the opposing ball carrier down by his/her braid. Pommade use will be strictly outlawed. Of course, I'm not serious, but I don't like any of the CBS crews proposed changes except the camera views.
according to this, if they kicked off from the 50 every ball would be spotted at the 35 just about. They kick from the far 35 right now.
That would essentially be a free kick every time wouldn't it? I think teams are already technically allowed to choose to use a punt style kick or to kick from a tee on kickoffs. I would expect a kickoff from the 50 to mostly be punts with the kicking team having the objective of kicking the ball so that it dies inside the 5. Getting the ball at the 35 would guarantee that kicking teams would do everything they can to get the ball to stay out of the endzone, and since it would be a free kick instead of a regular punt the ball would be live as soon as it hits the ground and a kick out of bounds would place the ball at the 35 the same as a kick into the endzone.
If the goal is to lessen injuries on kickoffs, then you want to find a way to incentivize both teams to take a touch back. So if you combined a shorter kickoff with a touchback spot closer to the goal line (maybe the 15?) then the Defense would be trying to kick the ball out of the endzone everytime that it isn't desirable to onside kick.
I would expect a kickoff from the 50 to mostly be punts with the kicking team having the objective of kicking the ball so that it dies inside the 5. Getting the ball at the 35 would guarantee that kicking teams would do everything they can to get the ball to stay out of the endzone, and since it would be a free kick instead of a regular punt the ball would be live as soon as it hits the ground and a kick out of bounds would place the ball at the 35 the same as a kick into the endzone.
This describes fairly well what I was thinking. Add to it the decreased length of field defenders will have to run and it might lessen the severity of impacts. I'm wondering also if it would lead to a more bunched field of blocking schemes, somewhat akin to a rugby scrum, as return teams must field the ball and return it within a shorter time frame.
The problem that I would expect is that you would have 10 players running full speed over a shorter distance without any of them having to delay their start while blocking for the kicker as they do on a punt. The recieving team would have less time to set up blocks and you would likely end up with way too many fair catches inside the 20.
As for bunched blocking schemes, I think that would fall under the umbrella of wedge blocking which has been illegal since 2010
Here is the specific rule:
I like the idea of letting the kids enjoy scoring a bit. That's one thing that really drives me nuts about CFB. The kids are being asked to act like machines. It takes the fun out of the sport for them. I don't mind the anti-celebration rules in Pro football, but in college, these kids are technically amateur athletes. They're not (supposed to be) getting paid and they should be able to celebrate good plays. The censorship is borderline oppression.
I think the key is that the rules committees tend to view all celebrations as "taunting". There are actions that players perform that are obvious taunts (basically anything directed at the opposing bench or players) and others that are simply celebrations. I can understand wanting to control the taunt factor, but yes anything spontaneous and obviously an expression of joy or excitement should be allowed.. I would extend that to the NFL as well, celebrations are good for the fan experience and add to the excitement of the game in general.
Yeah, refs can mess up a game with a bad unsportsman call on a TD celebration. BYU had a game a few years ago where their QB ran for the potential game tying TD in the final seconds and celebrated by throwing the ball straight up into the air. They flagged him, pushing the extra point back, and the Cougars missed. An exciting rally ruined by the refs.
Jake Locker did this against BYU while he was playing for UDub:
Thanks for the correction and for the clip of the play. What an exciting finish that could have been only for the zebras to unfairly alter things.
While I agree the unsportsmanlike penalty is b.s., that kick was blocked.
If you do this, I think you a category I/category II. A little too much bumping should be just 15 yards. An obvious, intentional grab should be a spot foul.
I like this idea, but same concept - you have to institute a level I/II system (think Flagrant I/Flagrant II in NBA). Maybe an aggressive shoulder bump is 15 yards, but an outright push, or a Marcus Vick should require someone to sit out.
There really does need to be some change in the clocking system. Not a clock that's always running, but something has to change.
it seems that a majority of fans agree that what needs to change is the number of commercials. However, this is capitalism, so that's never going to change in our favor. Those in charge know that games are just going to continue getting longer and longer because commercials are going to continue creeping into the game and they're trying to shorten the games without affecting the prevalence of commercials. To them a running clock is the only solution.
Unfortunately, we're never going to have the proper solution. Commercials are never going to be reduced so the clock will inevitably go to a running clock. If not this year it will change sometime in the future.
/conspiracy rant over
You'd still have defensive holding, so there kind of already is a category I/II already in place. You could rewrite the rules to make the spot foul PI occur only when the contact obviously prevented a catch that would have otherwise been made. Anything short of that would be the ten yard defensive holding.
This would actually reduce the impact of the ticky-tack PI calls, as they'd now be 10 yards instead of 15, while blatantly tackling a receiver to prevent a catch would place the ball where it would have been without interference.
They changed a few clock rules a few years ago to shorten the game, and the coaches complained that they were losing drives.
I've been saying for years that the biggest flaw with football is pass interference as it is penalized by both the pros and college. But if you combined the two (as you suggest) you could minimize that flaw.
Two problems though. One, you introduce even more judgement into the hands of officials. Two, you're the only other person I've ever known who thought it was a good idea...
I have never understood PI being fifteen at the college level. It simply doesn't make sense. TBH, I'm shocked we don't see more blatant tackles on deep balls because of that rule.
Can't say that I agree with many of the CBS guys' proposals, except for the helmet communication and cameras.
I HATE the spot foul on PI idea/rule. Pass interference is poorly called as it is, even in the NFL. Instances where DBs get called for non-existent or ticky-tacky pass interference calls happen just as often as guys who are beaten intentionally interfering. Don't give college refs more influence over games than they already have, especially on a fairly subjective call like PI. Hell, if you absolutely have to, institute an intentional foul system like in basketball as Bar1990 proposed.
Also, as for celebrations- absolutely. I'm still mad they flagged Bucky against OSU last year and Tyrod years ago against Miami (I believe) for throwing up Roc nation.
Pass interference is a spot foul.
All I see with this is ref's being to quick with the flags and teams using this as a strategy if their offense blows. Think how OSU game last year would of went if we had ref's with an itchy finger.
Make players have to sit out a few plays for committing unsportsmanlike conduct penalties or personal fouls
How about you just make them sit out the rest of the drive or quarter... then things get interesting.
My new rule I would I thought of the other day watching VT Rugby was instead of messing with what yard line the kicker kicks the extra point... how about who ever scores the TD must be the one that kicks the XP? Could you imagine a running back, quarterback, TE!!! Kicking an XP?!
But who kicks it on a TD reception. Stat wise both QB's and WR/TE/RB get a touchdown to their credit.
One is the holder and the team can pick who does what.
Danny Coale, duh
The QB is credited with throwing a TD pass, but then scoring is credited to the receiver.
Fat man touchdowns would go to another level of awesome.
I would give this a leg if it wasn't against Cal Poly when up 20pts in the second quarter.
Liked the pass-interference rule suggested by Andy.
I also thought this was funny....
the bold part is mine for emphasis
The local sports guy for channel 29 said after reporting Lambert's move to GA, "If Greyson Lambert is the starting quarterback for Georgia this year, they're not going to be very good." You rarely hear the LOLUVA cheerleaders on ch. 29 say that kind of stuff. It sounded almost butthurt. LOLUVA indeed.
I would LOVE to see Lambert seize the starting job by the throat and then set the world on fire at UGA. Just to watch one more thing blow up in Mike London's face.
But then London might get fired...
I've heard this a few times lately. London is gone. We need to accept that the only reason he was retained this season was financial reasons. He won't be back next year unless he shocks everyone (including the UVA athletics department) and goes on the most improbably championship run since the move Major League.
My money is the mid-season mark. They could seriously be winless all season, so with an 0 - 6 start, or even a 1 - 5 start he's gone. Tom O'Brien will finish the season out while the do their search.
TOB retired. I don't expect him to return to coach a dumpster fire.
did he? oh snap... that just makes it so much more comical. that just proves how much I actually follow lolUVA's recreational football team
If they fire him midseason, I think they still have to pay him his buyout. I think they're all in with London this year, and will be conducting the coaching search behind the scenes throughout the season. Expect to see some true dysfunction out of that program if they do start ohfer for a long stretch. We talk about coaches losing the locker room; Mike London might not have the locker room to start the year.
I thought they just had to pay him out to the end of the season as long as he started the season. Anyway, good point. yeah, locker room is gone already. Hell the whole stadium has been gone for years!
You might well be right. There is no definitive way a buyout has to be structured. But even if they just had to pay his his current year's salary, the state of finances in the UVA athletics department probably are dire enough that they aren't going to pay two coaches' salaries, especially if the AD knows he's going to have to pony up next season to bring in a coach capable of fixing this dumpster fire. Then again, maybe the culture of losing is so ingrained at this point in Hooville that we'll get a James Johnson type hire.
The real question here in hooville, is whether the current administration has the spine to clean house in the athletic department administration. A lot of boohoos are realizing that the whole London coaching debacle is more symptomatic of a larger problem. If they boot Craig Littlepaige and Jon Oliver, then the new AD would be able to hire his guy. However, don't underestimate the ability of the LOLUVA administration to botch up the AD hiring. The famed LOLUVA Fail Chart could be adapted to the athletic department, but it would have longer timelines, and there would be some additional choices that would include basketball, baseball, etc. Personally, I don't think that the powers that be will do anything about the AD situation until Littlepaige decides to retire. All bets are off at that point, but I'd hope that Oliver is next in line, because we could expect more London-esqe hires.
Jon Oliver, you say?
(yes I know it's spelled differently)
I wish they would just leave it like it is or even more like it was maybe 10-15 years ago. If I plan to watch football, why do I want to make the game shorter? It can go quicker without messing with the clock. The nature of college football makes the game more exciting when there is more time for comebacks etc. The college game doesn't need to be like the pro game. The two are very different and each can be good without making them more alike. The "imperfections" of the college game make for a more exciting product when there is more time on the clock. When you keep shortening the game there will be less great moments and great moments is what college football is about. Quit ruining the damn game!
i would like to see CFB put the NFL "down by contact" rule in place. If you fall on your own power you can get up and run.
it's a safety thing. If a player is on the ground, in many instances, he'll be fairly defenseless. They don't want to encourage a LB to take off the receiver's head as he's trying to get off the ground with the ball. By killing the play as soon as he's down, you don't have to worry about making new rules about exactly how much violence is too much when you've got to contact a guy on the ground.
One thing that drives me insane is the case where a runner is tackled, but falls on a defender, spins, gets back up and takes off while everyone has stopped playing. Any guy that drills him is getting a 15 yard penalty and likely a targeting call, but he can get up and carry on no problem? Horse crap. It's a major safety issue along with being incredibly unfair for defensive players who are essentially penalized for trying to play within the rules and not take cheap shots at an opponent.
I'd love to see the rule changed to say that the runner isn't down, and can extend the ball as far as he can (like Shai's reach for the end zone against OSU), but that's it. He can't get up and start running. For example, if the only thing keeping him from being down is the fact that his butt is on a defender instead of the ground, he can reach the ball out until his butt leaves the defender or another part of his body touches the ground (like his knee) and that's the spot of the ball. That way, he can still fight for extra yardage, and defenders can still defend, but there's no reason for them to come in full-bore and take him out because he isn't getting much more than an extra half-yard at best. Safe and fair.
That's a good point about what defenders are taught about hitting someone who appears down. It is a lucky play when everyone thinks your down, but your not, so you can take advantage of that.
I laugh at the college down by contact rule, because technically every field goal and extra point should be down by contact the moment the snap is caught by the holder with his knee on the ground.
There is an exception written into the rules specifically for the holder.
I guess that makes sense, but it still seems strange. It's hard to explain the rules when there are exceptions to each one of them.
Kind of like how spiking the ball to kill the clock isn't intentional grounding.
GuitarMan, do you know if the rule is specifically for the purpose of kicking points or is there an exception for that guy to get up for a fake FG?
I remember the over-the-back-bouce-pass the LSU holder had a few years back and thought to myself, "You know, he isn't down because of the rule exception, but if he doesn't actually hold the ball for the kicker, isn't he just a QB, in the shotgun, throwing a lateral? How is this legal?"
Of course, it must have been, but I just don't know where to draw the lines around the rule.
As it has been explained to me, the holder is considered "in formation" with one knee down. He can only have one knee down. If he whiffs the snap catch and puts both knees on the ground, he is down and play is over. The holder may execute a fake with either his original knee down in formation (eg. shovel pass) or by standing. Once the knee is off the ground if it makes contact again the player is down and play is over.
Correct. From the NCAA rulebook (I found the 2011-2012 version quickly online, but I assume the language is still the same), Rule 4-1-3:
I have two suggestions, and I'm sure I will be in the minority on these, but what the hell. I've always felt that a touchdown should be a touchdown. Get rid of all of this "breaking the plane of the goal line" and reaching out and touching or grazing a pylon. If a player is going to score, get in the damn endzone! Second, get rid of the BS (in my opinion) "ground can't cause a fumble". The hell it can't! In all my years I have seen about 1000 fumbles caused by the ground, only they weren't called that way because of this stupid rule. If you are going to play the game, hold onto the damn ball! (I realize that my first suggestion might be construed as a denial of a Pussy Touchdown.. far from it, I'm just saying let a TD be fully dipped!)
So are you saying you want the entire body of the ball carrier to break the plane, or the entire football, or what? I'm just having trouble visualizing what you mean.
And the whole ground can't cause a fumble thing is because the player is down at that point. You could revise the rule that says a ball carrier has to maintain control of the ball all the way through the act of being tackled, but you have to have a way to decide when the tackle is over and the ball carrier is safely down with possession.
I would like to see the entire ball in the end zone, that in my mind is ultimately the goal of a score. Even if the player stretches it across and maintains control, but the whole football should be across the line, not just breaking the plane. As far as the fumble situation, if the ball comes out immediately on hitting the ground it should be ruled a fumble. To me, the player must have possession of the ball until he is solidly down. If the ball comes out on impact, it is a fumble, or at least have the player be down for a second or two before losing the ball before ruling him down with possession. My concern is the "bang, bang" plays where the player hits the ground and the ball immediately pops out. To me, that is a fumble.
so what happens when a guy's knee is on the ground but as his upper body makes contact with the ground he loses the ball. When is he considered down is now the question. Is he down when his knee touches or does he have to be prone on the ground to be down. If his elbow is down is he now down or no?
As for the TD I could go eitherway I guess. I think the majority of time the entire ball crosses the goal-line but I understand where you're coming from. I've always thought that a strange rule to have this deep end-zone but the tip of the ball only has to touch the front of the line. At least have the tip of the ball touch the actual endzone and cross the goal-line.
The whole idea is, the goal line is...well...a line. It's not the entire width of the white stripe that represents the "0 yard line" but instead the two-dimensional very beginning of that line. So really, the entire width of the white stripe that represents the goal line is actually a part of the endzone. Having a ten yard endzone really is more for passing plays than running plays, giving receivers more space to run routes. If the forward pass were eliminated from the game, there wouldn't even need to be an "endzone." The field could just end at the goal line.
Outside of the few bizarre TDs, where a player is flying sideways out of bounds and grazes the top of the pylon with the ball (Tyrod did that a few times, IIRC), I don't really see how this is much different. I get where you're coming from about wanting a more "definitive" TD, but all your proposal does is change the rule from "does the nose of the ball break the plane of the line" to "does the heel of the ball break the plane of the other edge of the line." From a game logistical standpoint, it doesn't really do much. You'd also have to apply the same rule to first downs, because the line markers all act the same way. The leading edge of the goal line is the end zone; the line dividing the field from the end zone is also the end zone.
Yeah, I totally get what you guys are saying, and these are arguments that have been beaten to death for a while. I guess my thing is that I am "old school" when it comes to football, having begun my fandom in the '70's, so I see a lot of the current rules as being a watering down of the game I love. I started also to throw the "in the grasp" rule in there as well, but I do admit to the safety aspect of it from a realistic standpoint. I stand by my thoughts and my reasoning. I just feel that in those cases, the actions should be more "definitive". 1) Get the ball in the end zone 2)if it is out it's a fumble.. and of course the double whammy, if the ball crosses the goal line and pops out, it's a fumble, not a touchdown. Bottom line, as has been stated, these would all end up being as much judgement calls on the part of the officials as they are now, still I think the current rules kind of allow for a lazy style of play ie: a player doesn't have to try as hard to score knowing that all he has to do is break the plane or graze a pylon, and ball security is a little more lax since a player knows that if he is ruled down he will be ok even if he loses the ball. Again, it's probably a case of me being one of the old men in the room. It's all about perspective.
Woah.
The only problem I have with your suggestions is, I'm having a really hard time figuring out exactly when you want a play to end. I don't think there's anything wrong with what you are wanting to happen to the game. I'm looking at it from a rule enforcement/interpretation standpoint. The refs need a definitive end to a play. I don't know where that is in the rules you're proposing.
If I'm following you, you're saying a play does not end the moment a ball is in the endzone (regardless of whether we're talking about the front end or the hind end of the ball). So a ball can be live in the endzone, in the possession of a ball carrier, and it isn't a touchdown. So when does the play end? Does he have to be tackled? What if the opposing team simply refuses to tackle him? Does he have to take a knee in the endzone to end the play?
I don't think anything you're suggesting is out of line, and I don't think it has to do with you being an older football fan. I just want to know how you want the rules to work.
if the ball carrier runs into the end zone untouched and spikes the ball as a celebration, it's a fumble.
Hmmm well the play ends when the whistle blows, again I am thinking of the quick "bang,bang" situations, and am having a hard time creating a visual, but I am sure that we all have seen it many times. I'm thinking about situations such as ones where a player stretches out to put the ball over the goal line and immediately loses control (whether on his own or upon being hit). The current rule calls that a touchdown simply because the ball crossed the plane. I have trouble with that. To me, the player should maintain possession after crossing the goal until the play is whistled dead or a TD is indicated. If the player loses control before either of these things, it would be considered a fumble. Once he crosses into the end zone with possession of the ball, the play is dead. No one could, for example, knock the ball out of his hand after he is in. If he loses it in the act of crossing the plane, then it would be a fumble. I'm thinking that the problem here is that I am visualizing specific situations and rules don't tend to be situation specific. But I hope that you get the gist.
"When is the play over?"
"When the ref blows his whistle."
"Oh, I see. So when does the ref blow his whistle?"
"When the rulebook says the play is over."
"I gotcha. So when does the rulebooks say the play is over?"
"When the ref blows the whistle..."
For the record, the whistle doesn't end the play. The play ends the play. The officials are just there to let everyone else know. Also, adding more rules so that the runner has to maintain control through the goal line or whatever would make officiating those situations a nightmare. If anything, you want to remove gray areas to make the game as black/white as possible and take the responsibility out of the hands/minds of the officials. If we can see the ball break the plane and whistle it dead and throw up a signal for a TD, our lives are much easier than if we need to dig through bodies to see if the kid held onto the ball, or figure out how long we need to wait to confirm that it's actually a TD in case someone comes in and knocks the ball out of the guy's hands after he's held it over the goal line for a couple seconds. General rule for having a game that's easy to officiate (and therefore less open to officials screwing things up): more simple = more better.
Okay, so you're saying, for example, that you're only proposing a rule change for a player who is in the process of being tackled while crossing the plane. A clean reception for a touchdown in the endzone is an immediate touchdown and end of the play. But just like that receiver has to maintain possession during the catch, the ball carrier has to maintain possession all the way through the tackle into the endzone.
I don't have a problem with what you're suggesting. I think changing the rule to how you're proposing it would actually have very little impact on touchdowns. The fumble rule would have huge implications, though, and might lead to a more pass-happy game, since running plays become riskier propositions. A receiver losing control during a catch results in an incompletion, but a ball carrier losing control during a tackle results in a fumble. I'm not sure the result of your proposal is actually what you'd want to see happen to the game.
Well, as he said below, Dez Bryant. A receiver "catches" the ball and in a controlled manner places it on the ground...incomplete pass. A falling running back has the ball completely pop out of his hand...touchdown.
My understanding is that once the player's knee or elbow touches the ground, that player is down. If the player has possession at the instant that his knee/elbow makes contact, it is not a fumble. If the player does not have possession at the instant he is down, it is a fumble. I think the rule is very clear. Refs should NOT blow the whistle here as I believe this is reviewable?
If I'm understanding him correctly, I think he wants to apply the same rules of maintaining possession through the act of falling to the ground/being tackled that are applied to receivers to establish possession. If the ground jars the ball loose from a receiver's hands, it wasn't a catch. Under his proposed rule change, the same thing happening to a ball carrier would be a fumble.
Exactly, I was actually thinking of the "continuation" idea as with a receiver maintaining control/making a "football move" to facilitate possession. In the above cases, the referee would follow the same guidelines that he would with a receiver making a catch. Of course we have seen how those things play out (thank you Dez Bryant). Again, my thought is to make the actions more definitive, but again "definitive" tends to be subjective.
Hate the spot PI. And if can cost the defense 40 yds for PI, the offense ought to be risking the same. Honestly, the passing game is already skewed so far to the offense - they don't need any more help. "Creating separation?" Sorry, that's offensive pass interference; call it that, then we can talk. Ditto "rub routes". Before, they were at least acknowledged as "pick plays", although "schematic offensive pass interference" would be more accurate. I know, it's a fantasy driven sport now, and apparently nobody wants defense anymore. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
If you're gonna disallow rub routes, you have to disallow jamming receivers within five yards of the LoS, in my opinion. Clean is clean.
How about on true offensive PI, the yardage penalty is the inverse of the spot foul? If it occurs 30 yards downfield, it's a 30 yard penalty from the LoS?
Paul Johnson would love that. Death to the forward pass!
I LOLed, but Ol' Sourpuss loves to pull a bullshit 30 yard bomb out of his bag of tricks at least once a game against us. I assume he does it against other opponents, too. I'm surprised he hasn't worked up a trick play B-back pass off the pitch. He should also roll the pocket on every pass they attempt because it would just look like a standard play up until the QB throws it.
True enough. I just had a mental image of Ol' Fart Face with a despicable grin, thinking "my plan is coming to fruition."
Slightly OT, but does anyone else think he looks like Coach Beiste from Glee?
This IS the female CPJ. I think I need some type of mental hygienist to clean some bad memories out now, thanks.
There's really only one answer...less commercials. The game's have become bloated to the point of almost being unwatchable. If I didn't have a pretty substantial emotional investment already, I doubt I could get into football now, and the lagging popularity among younger generations is showing that. The sad thing is it's not even good business. Destroying a product for short-term financial gain is a terrible way to make money and they're essentially guaranteeing some other sport is going to take over down the road.
Whatever, I'll get off my soapbox now.
Best option for the clock rules is to cut down the commercials. But a more realistic option would be for ESPN to start scheduling the games in larger windows. What bugs me the most about games running long is that it affects the next game on the schedule.
After all, NFL games have pretty much set the standard for a 3:1 broadcast ratio. By rule, college games last longer. With the clock stopping for the chains to be reset, and 8 extra minutes of halftime...most games should be scheduled in a minimum of a 3 1/2 hour window.
Now, the flip side of that is that TV needs to stop scheduling certain games so late. It's pretty much a given that playoff and championship games are going to be pushing the 4 hour mark, regardless of outcome. So there's no need to wait until 9 PM on a weeknight to start the game.
Isn't that pretty much standard for most anything on TV? Most "hour" long TV shows only have about 42-46 minutes of actual content.
It's continued to go down as well. 30 minute tv shows used to have ~24 minutes of content, they're down to around 18 now which is a 3:2 ratio. I'm kind of curious to see how low they'll take it.
I'm always shocked when I see old syndicated tv shows on dvd/streaming with scenes I haven't seen in years. Old Simpsons episodes always catch me off guard with scenes/jokes I forgot existed because they were cut entirely in more recent airings.
I recently heard that shows in syndication on TBS (Seinfeld, HIMYM, etc) are sped up by 7% to get in an extra commercial. The overdubbed audio makes it obvious, and it's kind of funny.
That's incredible, I have to at least give them bonus points for being creative.
I agree that they need to schedule games in larger windows. When I record the games for analysis, I find I have to record the game's scheduled slot, and then about an hour or so afterwards just to be safe. I have some games where it filled the entire slot, then filled up the 1 hour Sports Center slot after, and the very beginning of whatever is in the next slot.
I had to DVR the Military Bowl this past season (traveling, unavoidably) and I set the DVR for an extra 90 minutes. My wife looked at me and said, "Really? You think you need an extra 90 minutes?" I looked at her and said, "We went into triple OT with Marshall last year. Anything is possible." Didn't need the full 90, but better safe than sorry.