Ideas for the NFL

[SoCalDukeFan]

Colt McCoy got clocked by James Harrison who was leading with his helmet.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1138694.html

1. Have a doctor at every game.
2. Lead with a helmet and cause injury, then the player who led with his helmet is out of the game and every future game until the injured player is cleared to play.

SoCal

[weezie]

1. Have a doctor at every game.

I think there are at least two doctors-orthos, etc., on either side of the field, probably more.
Suspensions, big fines sure but how else do you tamp down the violence in a violent game?
And does the NFL really want to change the nature of the game?

Just asking, don't know. Please don't yell!

[tommy]

Here's another idea for a rule change: no timeouts before attempted scoring kicking plays. Meaning, can we please forget about "icing the kicker?" It's a silly thing, has no impact on professionals, and it just breaks the momentum of an exciting, down-to-the-wire game. Let's grow up some, huh?

[jimsumner]

Here's another idea for a rule change: no timeouts before attempted scoring kicking plays. Meaning, can we please forget about "icing the kicker?" It's a silly thing, has no impact on professionals, and it just breaks the momentum of an exciting, down-to-the-wire game. Let's grow up some, huh?

I understand the sentiment.

But the devil, as they say, is in the details.

Are there no circumstances in which the defense can call timeout?

How about if a player is injured?

If the defense discovers they have 10 men on the field?

Or 12? It can get confusing out there.

You see where I'm heading. If you make these exceptions, teams will work with them. Oh my leg!! It's cramping. Oh it hurts, ever so much. Can't move.

Which would lead to more rules. And countermoves.

Or we could just leave it the way it its. One man's momentum breaker might be another man's tension builder.

[tommy]

I understand the sentiment.

But the devil, as they say, is in the details.

Are there no circumstances in which the defense can call timeout?

How about if a player is injured?

If the defense discovers they have 10 men on the field?

Or 12? It can get confusing out there.

You see where I'm heading. If you make these exceptions, teams will work with them. Oh my leg!! It's cramping. Oh it hurts, ever so much. Can't move.

Which would lead to more rules. And countermoves.

Or we could just leave it the way it its. One man's momentum breaker might be another man's tension builder.

Yes, teams always do whatever they can to creatively get around the rules.

But I'd say no, no exceptions. If you have too many or too few men on the field, you're going to get penalized on the play, meaning if they miss the kick, they'll get a do-over. That's fine with me.

Injuries are trickier, I admit. I'd think about something like a rule stating that if you stop play for an injury in this situation, the purportedly injured player may not play in a minimum of the next quarter of action, whether it be in the current game (or overtime) or the next one if it's a game-ending kick. That'll stop the faking of injuries, won't it?

What would the countermoves be to that? Leaving guys in who are really seriously injured? I doubt it. How many guys suffer serious injuries in the play leading up to a scoring kicking play? (By the way, the "no timeouts before a scoring kicking play rule would only apply to end of game situations, maybe last two or three minutes or so. If you want to try to "ice" the kicker before a FG in the middle of the second quarter, go ahead.)

[tommy]

Stupid thing happened again, with huge impact in Giants-Cowboys tonight. The Cowboys kicker nailed the game-tying FG at the buzzer, but no, that Coughlin, that oh-you-are-so-clever Tom Coughlin, with his beady eyes locked on the clock, waiting for the very last possible instant to get in the ref's ear and call that timeout, well he just outfoxed everyone now didn't he? What a football mind! So the Cowboy kicker has to make the kick again, and what do you know but Pierre-Paul (who is a beast, but that's another issue) blocks it. The "icing" didn't work -- the guy didn't flub the kick. But when this kind of thing happens it just emboldens the supporters of this pseudo-"strategy." What nonsense.

Just let the game play out naturally, please!

[jimsumner]

Stupid thing happened again, with huge impact in Giants-Cowboys tonight. The Cowboys kicker nailed the game-tying FG at the buzzer, but no, that Coughlin, that oh-you-are-so-clever Tom Coughlin, with his beady eyes locked on the clock, waiting for the very last possible instant to get in the ref's ear and call that timeout, well he just outfoxed everyone now didn't he? What a football mind! So the Cowboy kicker has to make the kick again, and what do you know but Pierre-Paul (who is a beast, but that's another issue) blocks it. The "icing" didn't work -- the guy didn't flub the kick. But when this kind of thing happens it just emboldens the supporters of this pseudo-"strategy." What nonsense.

Just let the game play out naturally, please!

How about icing the foul-shooter in basketball? Should that be banned, also?

Here's the way I see it. Timeouts are a resource. A valuable resource and a finite resource. If a team saves that resource for the end of the game, they likely have had to make a conscious decision to do so somewhere along the line, possibly to their detriment. So, if they've hoarded that resource, they should be allowed to use it as they see fit.

Should a losing team on defense be allowed to call timeout on three consecutive plays? Surely, that disrupts the natural flow of the game more than a single timeout to ice the kicker.

Besides, that ship sailed along time ago. Around the time the TV folks decided they could have a TV timeout following an extra point, have a kickoff, and then have another TV timeout. Have that sequence around the end of a quarter and you can have two or three plays from scrimmage in real-world time of seven or eight minutes. That jerks my chain a lot more than icing the kicker.

One of these the Pats will stop icing the kicker. NFL coaches, being members of the herd, will follow soon after.

Problem solved.

[rasputin]

How about icing the foul-shooter in basketball? Should that be banned, also?

Here's the way I see it. Timeouts are a resource. A valuable resource and a finite resource. If a team saves that resource for the end of the game, they likely have had to make a conscious decision to do so somewhere along the line, possibly to their detriment. So, if they've hoarded that resource, they should be allowed to use it as they see fit.

Should a losing team on defense be allowed to call timeout on three consecutive plays? Surely, that disrupts the natural flow of the game more than a single timeout to ice the kicker.

Besides, that ship sailed along time ago. Around the time the TV folks decided they could have a TV timeout following an extra point, have a kickoff, and then have another TV timeout. Have that sequence around the end of a quarter and you can have two or three plays from scrimmage in real-world time of seven or eight minutes. That jerks my chain a lot more than icing the kicker.

One of these the Pats will stop icing the kicker. NFL coaches, being members of the herd, will follow soon after.

Problem solved.

The Patriots don't ice the kicker. They bring out a snow-removing machine to clear a patch for the kicker.

[Doug.I.Am]

Does all this mean Jason Garrett won't be able to ice his own kicker?

[tommy]

How about icing the foul-shooter in basketball? Should that be banned, also?

Here's the way I see it. Timeouts are a resource. A valuable resource and a finite resource. If a team saves that resource for the end of the game, they likely have had to make a conscious decision to do so somewhere along the line, possibly to their detriment. So, if they've hoarded that resource, they should be allowed to use it as they see fit.

Should a losing team on defense be allowed to call timeout on three consecutive plays? Surely, that disrupts the natural flow of the game more than a single timeout to ice the kicker.

Besides, that ship sailed along time ago. Around the time the TV folks decided they could have a TV timeout following an extra point, have a kickoff, and then have another TV timeout. Have that sequence around the end of a quarter and you can have two or three plays from scrimmage in real-world time of seven or eight minutes. That jerks my chain a lot more than icing the kicker.

One of these the Pats will stop icing the kicker. NFL coaches, being members of the herd, will follow soon after.

Problem solved.

Ha!

Actually, I've long been a proponent of limiting the number of timeouts a team can call in the last, say, 2 minutes of a basketball game. It's worse in the pros than in college, but even in college it totally can ruin the flow of the game and make an otherwise exciting, action-filled contest just gasp to get to the finish line. Awful for the fans when you find yourself saying at the end of an otherwise great game, "please just end already."

I guess the difference for me between the defense calling 3 straight timeouts in football or other similar delay-causing tactics on the one hand and "icing the kicker" on the other, is that the former seem to me to be real, legitimate strategic and tactical decisions. If you're behind and need to save time so you can get the ball back in order to score and perhaps win the game, then there's a legitimate need for the use of your timeouts at that point.

But there's no legitimate need to call a timeout before the kicker attempts the winning kick. There's no empirical evidence that I've ever seen that calling that timeout decreases the FG% of professional kickers. It just seems to me that this is symptomatic of coaches overcoaching, trying so hard to prove that they're so smart, they're masters of some sort of psychological game going on, and it seems more self-aggrandizing than it does helpful to the team winning the game. When you combine the idea that it shouldn't be about the coach trying to make himself look good, with the lack of evidence that it has any impact on the success rate of the kick, with the negative impact on the flow of the game and the enjoyment of the fans, I say ban it.


and PS - I hate the extra TV timeout after the kickoff too.

[Doug.I.Am]

But there's no legitimate need to call a timeout before the kicker attempts the winning kick. There's no empirical evidence that I've ever seen that calling that timeout decreases the FG% of professional kickers.

This from ESPN:

With 10 seconds or less remaining in the 4th quarter, kickers who are not iced have made 70.2 percent of field goals since 2001.

When a timeout is called immediately before the try, they made 83.0 percent of attempts. That increase of 12.8 percentage points means recent attempts to ice a kicker at the end of a game actually increased the kicker’s chances of success by 18.2 percent.

Leave it to Dallas to go against all odds.

[cf-62]

First of all, I am a Giants fan, and I'm happy with the win, but there was a problem with the end of the game. Not with Coughlin's timeout to ice the kicker. As mentioned previously, it's a hit or miss strategy and one that is part of the game. My real issue is that he didn't appear to actually GET the timeout before the ball had been snapped. He was trying to make it so that the first kick would occur, but without counting, so he was trying to time at that instant after the kicker gives his indication to the holder, but before the snap occurs. In my book, he didn't get it done Sunday night. The kick should have counted.

[Jarhead]

Ha!

Actually, I've long been a proponent of limiting the number of timeouts a team can call in the last, say, 2 minutes of a basketball game. It's worse in the pros than in college, but even in college it totally can ruin the flow of the game and make an otherwise exciting, action-filled contest just gasp to get to the finish line. Awful for the fans when you find yourself saying at the end of an otherwise great game, "please just end already."

My preference for college or NBA --Non-shooting fouls in the final 2 minutes of a game are considered deliberate fouls with only one free throw and possession granted . The only reasons these fouls are committed are to stop the clock, and to gain possession of the ball. Committing these fouls is rarely successful, and unsportsmanlike.

[snowdenscold]

This from ESPN:

With 10 seconds or less remaining in the 4th quarter, kickers who are not iced have made 70.2 percent of field goals since 2001.

When a timeout is called immediately before the try, they made 83.0 percent of attempts. That increase of 12.8 percentage points means recent attempts to ice a kicker at the end of a game actually increased the kicker’s chances of success by 18.2 percent.

I've wondered about this and those stats actually confirm my thoughts.

After being iced, there's less tension for the kicker because you know that you'll be kicking it this time no matter what. That first (and possibly only) go-round, you're wondering if it will actually go through, or if things will be stopped, and are you truly mentally prepared, knowing that there's a decent chance you won't kick now anyway.

I've often thought in my head - "I wonder if not calling a TO right now when he's expecting it would mess with him more than doing so".

[tommy]

My preference for college or NBA --Non-shooting fouls in the final 2 minutes of a game are considered deliberate fouls with only one free throw and possession granted . The only reasons these fouls are committed are to stop the clock, and to gain possession of the ball. Committing these fouls is rarely successful, and unsportsmanlike.

The problem with this, though, is that you're making it almost impossible for a team to come back at all. The way teams should have to come back is by playing solid, aggressive defense -- not by fouling intentionally, but by playing good defense. Sometimes, that's going to result in a foul -- an unintentional foul. They shouldn't be penalized for making an intentional foul when that's not what they're doing.

I think a better approach would be to choose a number, maybe 14 or 15, and have the rule state that once a team gets to 14 or 15 fouls in the half, then all non-shooting fouls become 2 shots and the ball, or one shot and the ball if you prefer. You may commit 10 or 12 fouls in a half just by trying to honestly play good aggressive defense. If you get to 15, though, you probably are in the realm of the intentional, and they should be treated accordingly. Let a team try to come back with good D, but not by intentionally fouling. That should, IMO, be the goal.

[-jk]

My preference for college or NBA --Non-shooting fouls in the final 2 minutes of a game are considered deliberate fouls with only one free throw and possession granted . The only reasons these fouls are committed are to stop the clock, and to gain possession of the ball. Committing these fouls is rarely successful, and unsportsmanlike.

I've thought the rule should be to give the team in the double bonus (10 fouls) the choice of the shots or the ball out of bounds with a fresh 35.

It's not in the spirit of the game (sorry, V) to win through deliberate fouling. You don't get a pass for dithering the first 38 minutes away. It's a 40 minute game.

It might also get games to end on time.

-jk

[Jarhead]

The problem with this, though, is that you're making it almost impossible for a team to come back at all. The way teams should have to come back is by playing solid, aggressive defense -- not by fouling intentionally, but by playing good defense. Sometimes, that's going to result in a foul -- an unintentional foul. They shouldn't be penalized for making an intentional foul when that's not what they're doing.

I think a better approach would be to choose a number, maybe 14 or 15, and have the rule state that once a team gets to 14 or 15 fouls in the half, then all non-shooting fouls become 2 shots and the ball, or one shot and the ball if you prefer. You may commit 10 or 12 fouls in a half just by trying to honestly play good aggressive defense. If you get to 15, though, you probably are in the realm of the intentional, and they should be treated accordingly. Let a team try to come back with good D, but not by intentionally fouling. That should, IMO, be the goal.

We disagree. End game fouls by the trailing team are planned events. Don't let them run off minutes. Don't foul the better free throw guys. It's as simple as that.

[throatybeard]

The Patriots don't ice the kicker. They bring out a snow-removing machine to clear a patch for the kicker.

In Soviet Russia, kicker ices you.

I've thought the rule should be to give the team in the double bonus (10 fouls) the choice of the shots or the ball out of bounds with a fresh 35.
-jk

Didn't they try that as a test rule in the early season maybe a decade ago? I want to say they discarded it because there was some side effect they didn't like. The fresh 35 doesn't matter if there are less than 35 on the game clock.

[rasputin]

In Soviet Russia, kicker ices you.



Didn't they try that as a test rule in the early season maybe a decade ago? I want to say they discarded it because there was some side effect they didn't like. The fresh 35 doesn't matter if there are less than 35 on the game clock.

I thought they just made all fouls 2 shots late in the game, and it led to muggings.

[Blue in the Face]

I thought they just made all fouls 2 shots late in the game, and it led to muggings.

Yeah, that was put in place at the start of the 1983/1984 season. It only lasted about a month before it was changed back.