Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp
The rule that makes no sense to me is the "Scoring free kick following a fair catch/awarded fair catch" rule; ie: the only time in a football game that one team has the possibility of scoring points without the other team being able to realistically prevent the kick.
|
The idea of this very old rule was that it was the play leading up to the scoring attempt which culminated in a relatively easy score, although previously the other team was allowed to rush as soon as the ball touched the ground for the place kick. And a free kick (at goal or otherwise) was also allowed from a fair catch from a punt-out (from goal) or punt-on (as its own free kick) by the kicking side.
The games that today preserve that type of scoring sequence are Gaelic and Australian Rules football, most closely the latter, in which most of the scores come off fair catches of teammates' kicks. It is thus said that most of the scoring plays in Aussie Rules are anticlimactic. The idea was that the opposing team had the opp'ty to prevent the team's setting up their own shot like that, but very little chance of preventing the shot's own success. Similarly in American football one can say that it was in the play leading up to the fairly caught kick, or the kick itself, where the defense was possible.
NCAA abolished the fair catch in 1950 and didn't bring the free kick back when the fair catch was reinstated in 1951. Canadian football had abolished the fair catch in the 1940s. Rugby Union abolished the kick at goal from the fair catch in 1976 IIRC, and Rugby League in the 1960s.
NFL, Fed, Gaelic, and Australian Rules football are the outliers in this regard. It would change their games enormously for Gaelic & Australian Rules to disallow scoring off such free kicks. However, in Fed & NFL the play is so rare, it's not obvious why they haven't abolished it, especially given Fed's predilection for abolishing rare plays.
Then again, I can't see why American & Canadian football haven't abolished the try/convert.