OT - Upcoming NFL Changes?

[Adam]

A solution in search of a problem.

[Andy]

I've also heard a rumor that there is discussion about awarding additional points for a FG based on the distance of the kick.

Anybody have any info about this?

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

A solution in search of a problem.

Exactly how I feel also.

[Altor]

The Europeans already joke about how American footballs aren't shaped like a ball and rarely get touched by a foot. I've heard the phrase "hand-egg" from more than one person. I can only imagine what they will say when the NFL does away with kickoffs and tries.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Altor

The Europeans already joke about how American footballs aren't shaped like a ball and rarely get touched by a foot. I've heard the phrase "hand-egg" from more than one person. I can only imagine what they will say when the NFL does away with kickoffs and tries.

Telephones and radios still have dials, and telephones are still dialed. I haven't seen basketball players called "cagers" in a while, though, so maybe that one's finally passe -- and how often was basketball ever played in a cage, anyway? (Or was the basket itself the cage, and they were trying to cage the ball?)

[MD Longhorn]

Hey grandson... back in the day they used to have these posts on each end of the field, and if you could kick it between them it was worth 3 points. No, really, I promise. And even more kechny (the slang used in 2035), after a T-Down you only got 6 points and had to kick it through these posts to get the 7th point. No, I'm not filching you - honest truth!

If you can get your head around that, it's even weirder. They used to have people on the field in striped shirts deciding where the play ended and whether someone was cheating or not. And I was one of them.

[Welpe]

"So when were you replaced by robots, grandpa?"

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Welpe

"So when were you replaced by robots, grandpa?"

Back in about 2020, they began gradually replacing the on-field officials with electronics. Sensors in the ball and gloves and pads and electronics under the field and the many cameras allow us to know precisely where forward progress was stopped on a play or where the ball was when out of bounds was touched, as well as whether a ball was caught near a sideline. That also tells us whether a ball crossed a goal line before their knees were down. Heck, they didn't even used to require gloves - most players played barehanded - and not just the QB like today!

We even used to have guys holding sticks to tell you whether 10 yards was made. They would start each series basically guessing where the series started, yet despite the inaccuracy of the starting point, they would get down on their hands and knees to measure the ending point sometimes.

Crazy stuff, lad.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Welpe

"So when were you replaced by robots, grandpa?"

"your grandma replaced me with a robot about three years after we were married.

Oh -- you mean in officiating."

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Altor

The Europeans already joke about how American footballs aren't shaped like a ball and rarely get touched by a foot. I've heard the phrase "hand-egg" from more than one person. I can only imagine what they will say when the NFL does away with kickoffs and tries.

These would be people ignorant of the etymology of the name of their own game.

They probably also don't realize that the English are responsible for the name soccer.

Regarding the elimination of the try, I guess I'm ambivalent. It's far from a foregone conclusion at any level as far as I'm concerned however Aggie has a point I'm. The kicking game's days appear to be numbered with all of the new kicking rules being implemented to make the game safer.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Adam

A solution in search of a problem.

See, you're thinking of only addressing problems. If there were really a problem with football, the solution would be simple: Don't play it.

Football is discretionary, so it's not a matter of remedies, but one of what can be done to make it more attractive. To look closest to the question at hand, when the 2-pt. conversion was introduced, it was not to address a problem. Or to look at other examples from football, when NCAA abolished the free kick from a fair catch, it was not to address a problem, nor was it doing so the year previous to that, when they abolished the fair catch entirely (nor was the CRU when they did similarly). Yes, frequently rule changes are made or considered to address drawbacks in safety or in ease of administration, or to redress a change in balance that was introduced by some other rule change or a change in play techniques. But the rest of the time it's that they think people will like it better a certain way.

[Robert Goodman]

I've also pointed out here that often rule changes have been sold on the basis of safety, when in reality safety was at best a secondary motiv'n. If they wanted to they could say abolishing the try improves safety by abolishing that many downs in the game!

If you think that's silly, remember the chief tool the NCAA wielded for making football "safer": shortening the season in length & number of games. At the time the NCAA was organized, there were some in it who hoped to taper off football to at most a single annual ceremonial game per pair of institutions within a few years.