Rule Changes: The half interception

[Burgold]

I like the idea of "Earned Interceptions" vs "Unearned Interceptions". Just like in baseball. If the pic was the result of a drop, then it would go into the Unearned Interceptions category. Then at the end of the year we could compare QBs based on their Earned interceptions.

 

The only problem with this is the question of how to determine this cause we don't really know when the QB makes the wrong read, held the ball too long, if the WR ran the wrong route, if the defender made a great play etc. But there are obvious cases, like those of drops where this could count.

 

But the question becomes would Morris's drop in the last Ravens game count against Morris or RG3.

That's where I like the idea of halves.  You can make the argument that Morris should have caught it, but you can also argue that Griffin shouldn't have thrown it there.  Both bare responsibility for the interception. Mind you, I always have believed that if a ball hits a receivers hands they ought to catch it or at make sure the other guy doesn't.

[bentskin]

While I do like the topic of this thread interceptions are really a statistic and not a rule. No matter how you track it or who you place the blame on the outcome is the same. Turnover.

I liked the new extra point rule this year. While it did not have a major impact I think it does add a degree of difficulty to the play. I also think later in the season as the weather changes it could have a bigger impact. As for the defense knowing or not knowing what you're going to do? I cant remember the last time a team did a fake PAT and went for 2. The offense pretty much always lines up for the 2 point conversion, not the PAT team, eliminating the element of surprise from the get go.

No matter how the league determines what plays are eligible for review (I think more should be, not penalties, except interference over 15 yards) the coach should be able to challenge as long as he has a timeout to use if he is wrong. Each coach gets 3 game stoppages per half, that's it. Official review inside 2 minutes can stay. Automatic review of POTENTIAL scores and turnovers too. Not just scores and turnovers. It stinks when a guy gets right to the goal line and because the official says no the coach is required to use a challenge that he may not have. Or may not be able to get the interception that the official said hit the ground.

Last one. I would like to see the kicking team awarded 1 point on kick offs that go through the uprights. A 15 yard penalty on scoring plays is worthless. All it does is guarantee the ball on the 20 for the penalized team. I would think the NFL would want to incentivize teams to kick the ball out of the end zone since they are trying to cut down / eliminate returns anyway.

I also had the thought this past weekend you could make this the EXTRA point.

Award 6 for the touchdown.

Go for 2 on the 1 yard line.

Or kick off from the 40. If you kick it through the uprights you get the PAT.

If you go for 2 and fail you kick off from the 35 without the PAT opportunity.

The 15 yard penalty mentioned earlier would only effect where the kicks take place not the eligibility of the PAT.

 

HTTR

[pjfootballer]

Keep the XP where it is. What bothers me about putting the PAT back to the 33 is, you are basically penalizing a team for scoring a TD. Imagine a long grueling 87 yard, 20 play drive for the tying or go ahead score, then missing a "long" XP, deflating momentum. Nah, keep it where it is. I don't want XPs determining the outcomes of games.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Get rid of XPs all together. A touchdown is 7pts. That's all we need. You can go for a 1pt conversion if you want to get to 8pts which is the current 2pt conversion ie run a play from the 2.

If you miss you lose a point and drop to 6. So that's the gamble. Gain a point or lose a point.

The 1pt XP kick is the most worthless thing in football.

[SWFLSkins]

I like the idea, gives a truer sense of just poor play, one problem though is tips at the LOS, which is also the QB's fault. 

[Burgold]

Yeah, I'm not sure why someone thinks the XP should be tough.  It should be basically a gimmee.  It's just an extra after all.  Mind you, I think if they really make the extra point kick from the 15 I'd probably want our team to go for two 2/3s of the time at least. A play from the two is probably almost as likely as a 30 some yard field goal.

[tibbidoe]

I think there should be a lightweight tracker in the ball itself. Would give an exact location of the ball in relation to the first down line/out of bounds/goal line. Would also give a specific LOS for punts landing out of bounds, and so on.

 

It would also give a sure call on the FG that goes over top of the upright.

[Burgold]

I think there should be a lightweight tracker in the ball itself. Would give an exact location of the ball in relation to the first down line/out of bounds/goal line. Would also give a specific LOS for punts landing out of bounds, and so on.

It would also give a sure call on the FG that goes over top of the upright.

I've thought the same. They really should do this.

[tibbidoe]

I've thought the same. They really should do this.

 

Absolutely. With all of the technology available, why not do something really functional for the game?

[bentskin]

Yeah, I'm not sure why someone thinks the XP should be tough.  It should be basically a gimmee.  It's just an extra after all.  Mind you, I think if they really make the extra point kick from the 15 I'd probably want our team to go for two 2/3s of the time at least. A play from the two is probably almost as likely as a 30 some yard field goal.

 

I dont think it should be a gimmee / automatic. It is an EXTRA point. A TD is 6. When they came up with the extra point / PAT it was attempted by a regular player, not a specialist like we have today. It was simply an opportunity to award 1 point for doing something a little challenging. Kicking the ball through the uprights. But with all the specialization in today's game it has become not so challenging.

I say, move back and make it a real kick. The 15 or 20 yard line is good to me.

But I still like the idea of getting 1 point for the kick off that goes through the uprights. Imagine starting the game off 1 - 0 or being behind late in the 4th. Score the touchdown, successful 2 point conversion and then put the kick off through the uprights. Bamb! 9 points.

The 4 point lead would allow the trailing team to kick the field goal and then attempt the kick off to tie. Drama on a kick off from the kicking team. Imagine that.

 

HTTR

[Larry]

Now, for what it's worth, I do, from time to time, like to at least try to claim credit for an NFL rule change. 

 

It was more than a decade ago.  When a lot of folks hadn't heard of the Internet. 

 

I was watching a MNF game (back when MNF was a big thing, too.)  It wasn't a Skins game.  I think one of the teams was Denver. 

 

There was one play.  WR goes deep.  Ball was thrown high.  WR has to leap, and stretch, to get to the ball.  But he does it. 

 

They showed the play in super slow mo, afterwards. 

 

The WR goes up, really high.  Manages to grab the ball in one, outstretched hand.  And there he is, in mid air, with the ball in one hand, looking kinda like the Air Jordan logo. 

 

A defensive player (safety?), coming the other direction, hits the airborne WR.  but the safety was still in the ground, so the safety's shoulder pads hit the still wide-spread WR's legs (which aren't touching the ground.) 

 

The WR begins to rotate around his center of gravity, as he begins to descend.  Rotating and descending.  Still with the ball in his outstretched hand. 

 

The first thing that touches the ground is the ball, still in the now-upside-down receiver's hand.  The receiver's arm bends, as he continues downward. 

 

The first part of the receiver that hits the ground is his helmet. 

 

After absorbing the impact from the ground, the receiver winds up on the ground, on his back, still with the ball in one hand. 

 

He jumps up, tosses the ball to the official, and heads back to the huddle.  It's an incomplete pass. 

 

Because the ball touched the ground before the receiver's feet came down. 

 

In those days, the web page at NFL.com had a place where people could type things in, and make suggestions to the NFL.  I used that space.  Described the play.  Told them that I thought that that receiver demonstrated a remarkable feat of athleticism.  To grab the ball in mid-leap.  Take the collision with the safety.  Take the collision with the ground.  And to maintain a continuous grip on the ball, with only one hand, throughout those collisions. 

 

I said that I understand that the pass was incomplete, by the rules in effect at the time.  But that I thought that catches like that ought to count, in the future. 

 

I suggested that they should have a rule something like baseball's:  That, if the receiver held on to the ball throughout his collision with the ground (or other object), then that was proof that he had control, before the collision. 

 

A year and a half later, they changed the rule. 

 

(I suspect that "my" rule change was advocated by somebody with a little more influence than me.  But I intend to take credit, anyway.) 

[RabidFan]

I always cite my wife's comment watching a game last year, from a person who doesn't watch football.

Player drew flag for celebrating a touchdown. Ref comes on screen and announces, 'unsportsmanlike penalty for celebrating in a group'...

My wife than asks 'isn't that how you're supposed to celebrate, in groups?'

No Fun League

If it wasn't for gambling, I swear this league would go belly up. But as far as half-INT, I think it's more of a metric. It's a good one, more for talent scouting though

Your wife in onto something....hopefully you

No offense but I'm with her....and by that I mean I agree with her. Lol

[GoDeep81]

Scanned all the posts and didn't see it, so if it's been mentioned I apologise.. But I'd like to see the grounding/sack rules changed.. We all know when a QB is throwing the ball away.. Being out of the pocket or making it to the line of scrimmage is a cheap way out of a sack in my opinion.. Flacko got a cheap out the other night when he was all but done, but since he flung the ball at the sideline it was just an inc. pass.. Blah!!! Should of been a sack, he got got and everyone knew it! Seriously though, I don't want to hear how "stong" someone is. Throw the thing in the vacinity of someone "eligable" or take your medicine!!

[ddub52]

That would be a major change to fantasy football.  Anyways, I don't think the stat matters enough. So maybe (statistically) Eli would have thrown 24 picks last year instead of 27. What's the difference?

[Old Bay]

Expand the practice squad and loosen restrictions on who is eligible. 

[Burgold]

Expand the practice squad and loosen restrictions on who is eligible. 

I'd even consider dropping the practice squad and just make the rosters that much bigger.  I mean do NFL teams really need to hire players on the cheap (I think practice squad is way under minimum plus incentives).  I guess there is value to having a rookie or grooming group, but it seems just a cheap way to underpay longshots or almosts. I do think that the NFL roster could easily be expanded regardless.

[Old Bay]

I also dislike having to sit players.  If you have 53 guys you should be able to use all of them.

[slappy434]

 Eliminate punting. 1st down starts at your own 40, you got 4 downs to get 10 yds; if not, the opposing team takes over there.

 Or, you could give the offense 10 plays to drive from their own 20. No 1st downs, if you're close enough for a FG, great. If you miss, the other team gets it where you missed from.

 Also, FGs over 50 yds get 4 points [FF-esque ].

 

 

Why does everyone hate the kicking game?  Don't get me wrong here.  Punts are normally pretty mundane, but I love the Kicking Game in the context of its importance to determining Field Position.  I would hate to lose that aspect.

 

 

On top of the field position argument (which I agree with), if they start eliminating the plays that actually involve the "foot", we're going to be having a different "name change" conversation.

 

 

Edit:  Sorry...to the OP, I see the point and agree that it would be more accurate.  The .5 sack is comparable but that's putting 1/2 of an achievement on a player.  The .5 INT would be putting 1/2 of the fault on the QB.  But I guess it's also putting .5 achievement on the defensive player so maybe that's not a great counter point.  I do think it's a bunch of BS that QBs get faulted for things that aren't their actual fault.  Conversely, a defender getting credit for a ball landing in his hands is a bunch of BS too, but I guess that's luck.  At any rate, I'd be fine with it.  The more accurate the better.

[Bonez3]

Your wife in onto something....hopefully you

No offense but I'm with her....and by that I mean I agree with her. Lol

Holy crap man... That's like 3 sexual innuendos in 1 post about my wife I think?!?!

It's all good... She likes celebrating with me

[Springfield]

I think that's a great idea.

I agree that an interception after a receiver has bobbled the ball is a terrible mark on the QB and no fault to the WR. Perhaps an interception should be labeled as such but if the War makes contact with the ball and it's intercepted you charge the WR with an error and don't tally an INT to the QB.

[darrelgreenie]

When people assess QB they account for your current idea.

When you grade a throw you look at a bunch of factors decision, timing, ball location and touch etc.

If the QB does those right you don't grade them down based on what the receiver does.

A good pass is a good pass regardless if the WR punches the pass into the stands.

That's why qualitative stats like PFF are better then raw counting stats.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

I'm not sure about the 1/2 interception, but while we're on the topic...

 

I would love to see the fumble rule changed.  If the ball carrier fumbles before the whistle, it a fumble.  Period.  And the refs would have to go through the trouble of actually sorting through the pile to determine which team has possession of the football.  None of the awarding one side possession when a player from the opposing team actually has the football.

 

Of course its highly unlikely.  But wouldn't the games get even more interesting?

 

Are you strictly talking about when forward progress is stopped and during the pile push and the ball pops out?  Or are we talking when one of the body parts is down (knee, elbow, etc.) then the defender pops the ball out before the whistle? 

 

Cause this would possibly be the worst rule change imaginable.  

[Diehard Otis]

Are you strictly talking about when forward progress is stopped and during the pile push and the ball pops out?  Or are we talking when one of the body parts is down (knee, elbow, etc.) then the defender pops the ball out before the whistle? 

 

Cause this would possibly be the worst rule change imaginable.  

Simply put, if the Ballcarrier fumbles or is stripped of the Football at any point before the whistle is blown (period!), then it is a fumble. Since everybody wants more points blah blah blah, then this would be a fine countermeasure.

 

Truthfully, I'm tired of all of the tinkering.  In my simple-minded world, the rulebook is best left ALONE.  I don't want to watch NFL games devolve into Fantasy Football.  And I'm tired of Goodell & the League Office tilting the table so shamelessly towards the Offense to achieve their shortsighted goal.

 

Would Drew Brees have broken Johnny U's record had defenses been allowed to stifle his attack?

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Simply put, if the Ballcarrier fumbles or is stripped of the Football at any point before the whistle is blown (period!), then it is a fumble. Since everybody wants more points blah blah blah, then this would be a fine countermeasure.

 

Truthfully, I'm tired of all of the tinkering.  In my simple-minded world, the rulebook is best left ALONE.  I don't want to watch NFL games devolve into Fantasy Football.  And I'm tired of Goodell & the League Office tilting the table so shamelessly towards the Offense to achieve their shortsighted goal.

 

Would Drew Brees have broken Johnny U's record had defenses been allowed to stifle his attack?

This would be the worst rule ever, imo.  Every run would turn into a battle royale for the ball and if the runners knee was down and they piled on him before the whistle was blown and snatched the ball under the pile, it would be a huge mess.  

 

The game is what it is, I prefer smash mouth football and dominating defenses like back in the old days as much as the next person.  Those days are over though, they aren't coming back, gotta move on bro.  Look at those guys that played years ago with reckless abandon with no worry about penalties, fines, etc.  Most of them can barely walk and have health problems, not to mention all the brain trauma from head shots/concussions.  

 

They also sued the league.  No way the NFL can go back to those days, or anywhere close.  Players are a lot more educated now about their bodies and long term health.  Sure you can say they know what they are getting into, they get paid millions, etc.  But they don't have to worry about it now, they can get paid with a softer rule-set.

[Diehard Otis]

they can get paid with a softer rule-set.

That sends an icy chill down my spine.  

 

Listen, I fully understand how the circumstances have changed.  But what I don't like is the tinkering of the rulebook to aid Offensive production.  It violates the spirit of the game.  But casual fans that 'watch football' through sportscenter highlights only cheer Skill Positions.  And the whore that Goodell is will sacrifice the integrity of our beautiful game to draw in the Johnny-come-lately set.

 

But of course no one wants to hear a diehard lament over the purity of the game.