View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Mar 26, 2007, 10:48am
Robert Goodman Robert Goodman is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonTX
Quote:
An advantage of my rules is that they'd eliminate consumption or conservation of time by fouling. The further elimination of clock tactics -- making the clock stop & start the same regardless of how it became dead, mostly -- can be viewed as either an advantage or disadvantage, depending on your view of the game.
Is this any different than the rules that are already in place that deal with unfair clock tactics?
The first part, "consumption or conservation of time by fouling", only a subtle difference. Under current rules you get an extension of the period for accepted penalties when time has expired, but you don't get the time back if, say, a team fouls on the next to last play of a half or game. My idea is that if you're repeating a down, you should also "repeat the time".

The second part depends on what's considered "unfair". Where the word appears in the rule book, i.e. its official meaning, it refers only to actions that are already specifically illegal but under-penalized by the specified penalty, or to actions unanticipated by the written rules but which would be obviously against the spirit of the game or of fair play -- like, say, switching the lights off to keep the visiting team from completing a pass.

But people can have a more general idea of fair & unfair that's just a matter of individual taste, or what they think should or shouldn't be part of the game. I think it's silly the way North American football has evolved clock tactics that cause teams to favor one type of play or another based on the timing rules. Sure, they add an extra dimension to the game that can be interesting; it's just that I think they detract from the game overall. It's no different from arguing over the designated hitter in baseball, which provides added interest of its own but affects the tactics and whose overall effect on the game can be taken as positive or negative. Anyway, my rules would make it just about immaterial whether a team that's ahead or behind chooses to run or pass, or to keep the ball in bounds or go out of bounds with it, which the current rules make a very consequential decision. As a side effect, they'd reduce variation in the length of games.

Robert
Reply With Quote