Rules that make no sense

[HLin NC]

It was a compromise between the factions that wanted to rid OPI of the loss of down and those set against changing it.

Rumor has it they will then go back and add the automatic first down back to DPI later.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

Rumor has it they will then go back and add the automatic first down back to DPI later.

I'd be very surprised if this didn't get added back next year.

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.

[Robert Goodman]

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.

[voiceoflg]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

If FED had abolished it, we wouldn't have gems like this:

[JRutledge]

That was one the funniest videos I have ever seen about HS sports (I have seen it before BTW).

Whooooohooooooo, we got shoes!!!!

Peace

[Rich]

Reminded of this thread today -- discussion on DPIs on scoring plays. I mentioned that we should be extra patient when processing these because of the idiotic enforcement if the receiver completes the catch and then scores.

We had one earlier this season in a JV game -- BJ throws a flag for DPI and the receiver catches the ball in stride and scores. Now we're tacking 15 onto the kickoff when it probably wasn't big enough to be a flag in the first place.

They really need to look at removing non-PF / non-live-ball-enforced-as-dead-ball fouls from the provision that allows fouls to be put on the kickoff.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Rich

They really need to look at removing non-PF / non-live-ball-enforced-as-dead-ball fouls from the provision that allows fouls to be put on the kickoff.

LCD rules-making.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

Reminded of this thread today -- discussion on DPIs on scoring plays. I mentioned that we should be extra patient when processing these because of the idiotic enforcement if the receiver completes the catch and then scores.

Attempted murder is a serious crime, allowing the shooter to avoid punishment because he's a lousy shot, is not a good idea and sets a really bad prescedent. Allowing DPI, especially near the EZ, to go unpunished because it was unsuccessful, is likewise not a great idea as it would clearly encourage a "what the heck, might as well" attitude.

When the risk of not fouling, is far greater than the risk and punishment of fouling, the risk/reward ratio is tilted in the wrong direction.