Pondering Off-Season Rule Adjustments

Beaglebay

Houndsight is 20/20
Joined
Dec 16, 2010
Messages
26,917
Reaction score
10,308
Points
113
Location
Eastham, MA
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/p...key-word-in-nfl-kicking-changes-and-elsewhere

(For all Inside Slant posts, follow this link.)

The NFL's competition committee will meet this week to debate proposals that would fundamentally change the game, a list ranging from an expansion of instant replay to extension of the postseason to a reimagining of the extra point. So now is a good time to recount a story that Troy Vincent, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations, told a small group of reporters two days before Super Bowl XLIX.

A few weeks earlier, Vincent found himself listening to talk radio in Green Bay as he drove to Austin Straubel Airport, reliving the controversial divisional playoff game between the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packers. He wanted to know how fans were reacting to a rule that disallowed what by all evidence looked like a legal catch by Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant in the fourth quarter of the Packers' 26-21 victory.

"A guy was saying, 'You know, I'm watching the game now and I feel like I have to have a rule book,'" Vincent said. "I parked. I paused and wanted to listen further. I'm [thinking], if he feels that way, and [his team] won, then imagine how other people feel across the country. [They're like], 'I used to know the rules. Football used to be so simple. You run. You throw. You tackle.' When you hear those things around the country, and you read different comments, you say, 'This is something we have to think about. How do we get a culture where there is clarity and consistency for all?'"

What Vincent heard and articulated was a sense that the NFL neared a tipping point with its most loyal fans during the 2014 season. These are the people who look past the league's off-field stumbles, who can stomach concerns about the long-term health of players, and just want to consume football. Even that group has been confused and at times outraged by a labyrinth of NFL rules, exceptions and points of emphasis that impacted games throughout the season.

Among Vincent's duties, one is quite basic: He must ensure that football makes sense and agrees with the average consumer, a task hardened by decades of unintended consequences from rule changes designed to correct a specific flaw. And yet, even when one of its executives recognizes the situation, the NFL is pursuing another set of inorganic changes that would further complicate the game.

NFL kicking percentages

<table><thead><tr><th>Year</th><th>Overall FG pct.</th><th>FG pct. 40-49</th><th>FG pct. 50+</th><th>XP pct.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr class="last"><td>2014</td><td>84</td><td>77.4</td><td>61</td><td>99.3</td></tr><tr class="last"><td>2013</td><td>86.5</td><td>83</td><td>67.1</td><td>99.6</td></tr><tr class="last"><td>2012</td><td>83.9</td><td>80.2</td><td>60.9</td><td>99.5</td></tr><tr class="last"><td>2011</td><td>82.9</td><td>74</td><td>64.3</td><td>99.4</td></tr><tr class="last"><td>2010</td><td>82.4</td><td>73.2</td><td>54.6</td><td>99.1</td></tr><tr class="last"><td>2005</td><td>81</td><td>71.5</td><td>52.2</td><td>98.7</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>76.3</td><td>59.8</td><td>52.1</td><td>98.1</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="5">* Source: ESPN Stats & Information</td></tr></tfoot></table>

The league appears obsessed at its highest levels with changing the near-automatic extra point, as evidenced by commissioner Roger Goodell's prominent mention during his annual news conference last month. It's true that place-kickers have been converting extra points at a rate above 99 percent for five consecutive years, as the chart shows. But two possible changes, expected to be on the competition committee's agenda this week, appear flawed as well.

The possibilities stem from a pair of experiments conducted in the past six months. In the first two weeks of the 2014 preseason, extra points were placed at the 15-yard line and thus became 33-yard kicks. The conversion rate dropped to 94.3 percent for the resulting 141 attempts. Then, in the Pro Bowl last month, the league narrowed the uprights by four feet -- from 18 feet, 6 inches to 14 feet, 6 inches -- and watched as place-kicker Adam Vinatieri uncharacteristically missed a field goal and two extra-point attempts.

"When you adjust it down, it's not automatic," Vincent said. "... I think that will be something that will be discussed, absolutely, just seeing what we saw in the Pro Bowl. I think it was good."

There is no debating that a 33-yard extra point and/or narrower goalposts would make kicks more difficult. But would it make sense within the context of the game? And would it really be more entertaining?

I spoke with both Super Bowl kickers last month about the possible changes. Neither the Seattle Seahawks' Steven Hauschka nor the New England Patriots' Stephen Gostkowski were enthused, and not simply because it would make their jobs more difficult.

"They just want more entertainment," Hauschka said. "If that's what they think is entertainment, then go for it. I think it will affect the games in more ways than they think."

Consider a late-season game at Chicago's Soldier Field. Each team scores three touchdowns but the game is decided by a missed extra point. Would that process and result be more entertaining? Or just annoying?

Meanwhile, Hauschka theorized that conversion rates on field goals would drop from their current spot (84 percent in 2014) to the 70s or lower with narrower goalposts. Gostkowski wondered whether decision-makers understand how often kicking technique requires use of the uprights' periphery.

"When you play in a place like New England or Buffalo or anywhere in the Northeast, there is a lot of wind," Gostkowski said. "You don't always aim down the middle. You have to play the wind. It's a guessing game with the wind, and given a couple of feet less on each side, it becomes [an] extremely, extremely more difficult task at hand."

The chart suggests the sharp rise of field goal accuracy might have leveled off. And an argument could be made that long-distance field goals actually increase scoring and entertainment. "If a team decides to go for a 55-yard field goal and has a good kicker and he makes it," Hauschka said, "I think they should be rewarded for it. You won't see those kinds of attempts anymore if they narrow the goalposts."

The NFL hasn't changed the width of the uprights since it began recording field dimensions prior to the 1920s, according to a league spokesman. The upright is as much a part of the game as a 100-yard field. And if the league moves the spot on extra points, it would introduce an inorganic scenario in which a 19-yard field goal could count for three points while a 33-yard extra point would count for one.

So for what it's worth, I'll return to a suggestion a number of coaches made last summer.

Instead of changing the uprights or moving the spot of the extra point in the name of entertainment, why not give teams an incentive to go for two points after a touchdown? Simply shifting the line of scrimmage from the 2-yard line to the 1 is probably enough. Multiple coaches said they would be more likely to go for two from the 1-yard line, given its reduced difficulty and increased play-calling possibilities.

Since 2001, which is as far as ESPN Stats & Information's records go, the conversion rate for two-point plays from the 1-yard line (after a penalty) is 69.7 percent. By definition, that makes it a substantially more difficult -- and genuinely entertaining -- play without disrupting an efficiency in the kicking game that the league should be trying to preserve.

Would the NFL consider it? I haven't detected any substantive discussion. But if Vincent is hearing about frustration over complex rules, and he knows they originate from attempts to straighten out specific objections, you would hope there is a chance.
 
I heard that one new rule being proposed is that whenever the Patriots play the Ravens, the Pats receivers have to run directly at the Raven DBs, and not allow themselves to get more than one yard away from the nearest DB.

The Pats receivers must also wear the bright pink "eligible receiver" jersey (which has the letters ER on it, instead of a number), a helmet with a blinking light on it, and must douse themselves with a special perfume as well (a sound-emitting device was considered, but was rejected because of previous failures of the Ravens to heed audible clues about which receivers were eligible and which one weren't).

The Ravens will be allowed to comment on this rule during the pre-season. If they feel it's unworkable, then Plan B will be adopted. In addition to the strictures described above, the Patriots will have to tell the Ravens exactly which receiver will be targeted, on what part of the field he will receive the ball, and which hand he will be using to make the catch (only one hand will be allowed).
 
There is no way to make a rule governing what is or isn't a catch that is going to satisfy all the people all the time. Part of the problem and reason why it's so complicated is because every time something controversial happens (like this year's Dez Bryant), people demand the rules be changed. All these changes make the whole thing more complicated.
 
There is no way to make a rule governing what is or isn't a catch that is going to satisfy all the people all the time. Part of the problem and reason why it's so complicated is because every time something controversial happens (like this year's Dez Bryant), people demand the rules be changed. All these changes make the whole thing more complicated.

The NFL Rule Book is running smack into Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Note that's Gödel not Goodell. :coffee:

Regardless of how one writes strict rules, there will always be something that needs a separate "rule" to address.

Take the Dez Bryant catch.

As I understand it, the intent of the rule, as written, is to prevent a play where a WR puts both hands on the ball, has two feet on the ground, is simultaneously hit by a DB, and drops the ball, from being ruled a fumble.

If the rule is that two hands and two feet = catch, then that has to be a fumble.

I don't think most people would think that's an appropriate rule, so that's why we have the rule we have.

Can they modify the rule to Call the Dez Bryant play a catch and the alternate not a fumble?

Sure, but according to Gödel that simply means thee is some other type of play lurking out there that will be equally vexing.

The only possible solution to eliminate having plays being gray, is to grant the Refs far more judgment in how they make the call.

So in this example, a Ref could conclude that Bryant clearly had a catch and still conclude the other bang bang play is just an incomplete pass.

However, this solution brings up a separate problem.

The more you allow judgment to be the basis for the Ref's decisions, the more you're going to have fans, players, etc. pisssed off that the wrong decision was made.

I'm not sure that's a better situation.
 
meh, I have no problem with them ruling the Bryant a non catch, this is a classic situation where the fans are being heavily biased by the outcome, if the same play had happened at mid-field and a packers D-back has landed on the ball instead you would be hearing the same fan bases making the opposing arguments.

I mean you can take the position "it should have been a catch because it looked like a catch so we should change the rules so that it is a catch" or you can take the most more reasonable position

"it wasn't a catch."
 
I've just watched that Bryant play for the first time, prompted by this thread. If the rule is that he has to maintain control all the way to, and including contact with, the ground, then I don't think an incomplete pass is an unreasonable call.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
The NFL Rule Book is running smack into Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem.

Note that's Gödel not Goodell. :coffee:

Regardless of how one writes strict rules, there will always be something that needs a separate "rule" to address.

Take the Dez Bryant catch.

As I understand it, the intent of the rule, as written, is to prevent a play where a WR puts both hands on the ball, has two feet on the ground, is simultaneously hit by a DB, and drops the ball, from being ruled a fumble.

If the rule is that two hands and two feet = catch, then that has to be a fumble.

I don't think most people would think that's an appropriate rule, so that's why we have the rule we have.

Can they modify the rule to Call the Dez Bryant play a catch and the alternate not a fumble?

Sure, but according to Gödel that simply means thee is some other type of play lurking out there that will be equally vexing.

The only possible solution to eliminate having plays being gray, is to grant the Refs far more judgment in how they make the call.

So in this example, a Ref could conclude that Bryant clearly had a catch and still conclude the other bang bang play is just an incomplete pass.

However, this solution brings up a separate problem.

The more you allow judgment to be the basis for the Ref's decisions, the more you're going to have fans, players, etc. pisssed off that the wrong decision was made.

I'm not sure that's a better situation.
Basically you just said everything I was trying to say, only you said it about 1,000 times better than I could.

You're absolutely right: If we modify the rules yet again, that only means some other more vexing play waits on the sidelines. And giving the referees judgment will create far more problems than it solves.
 
I've just watched that Bryant play for the first time, prompted by this thread. If the rule is that he has to maintain control all the way to, and including contact with, the ground, then I don't think an incomplete pass is an unreasonable call.
Posted via Mobile Device

Except that the rules say it is a catch if the player maintains control and makes a football move. In Bryant's case, he took 2 steps with the ball & his football move was to stretch for the goal line. The rules say 1) stretching for extra yardage is a football move and 2) the ground can't cause a fumble since the ball is dead where it hits the ground.

Now look at the play again. I'd be pissed if that play cost the Pats a chance to move forward.
 
Except that the rules say it is a catch if the player maintains control and makes a football move. In Bryant's case, he took 2 steps with the ball & his football move was to stretch for the goal line. The rules say 1) stretching for extra yardage is a football move and 2) the ground can't cause a fumble since the ball is dead where it hits the ground.

Now look at the play again. I'd be pissed if that play cost the Pats a chance to move forward.

Watch this video from the NFL, starting about the 7:20 mark.

It's a video the league made prior to the 2011 season to explain the rule changes to the players and coaches.

They differentiate between the "football" move aspect and the "control throughout going to the ground".

The last video they show of an Eagles player looks an awful lot like the Dez Bryant play and they call it incomplete.

If you look at the actual rule, the going to the ground is a seperate item.

Clearly the various Items listed in the rule apply if that scenario occurs.

COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS
Article 3 Completed or Intercepted Pass. A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

(a) secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
(b) touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
(c) maintains control of the ball long enough, after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled, to enable him to perform any act
common to the game (i.e., maintaining control long enough to pitch it, pass it, advance with it, or avoid or ward off an opponent, etc.).

Note 1: It is not necessary that he commit such an act, provided that he maintains control of the ball long enough to do so.
Note 2: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.


If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1: Player Going to the Ground. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Item 2: Sideline Catches. If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of making a catch at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or the pass is incomplete.

Item 3: End Zone Catches. The requirements for a catch in the end zone are the same as the requirements for a catch in the field of play.

Note: In the field of play, if a catch of a forward pass has been completed, after which contact by a defender causes the ball to become loose before the runner is down by contact, it is a fumble, and the ball remains alive. In the end zone, the same action is a touchdown, since the receiver completed the catch beyond the goal line prior to the loss of possession, and the ball is dead when the catch is completed.

Item 4: Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided that the player continues to maintain control.

Item 5: Simultaneous Catch. If a pass is caught simultaneously by two eligible opponents, and both players retain it, the ball belongs to the passers. It is not a simultaneous catch if a player gains control first and an opponent subsequently gains joint control. If the ball is muffed after simultaneous touching by two such players, all the players of the passing team become eligible to catch the loose ball.

Item 6: Carried Out of Bounds. If a player, who is in possession of the ball, is held up and carried out of bounds by an opponent before both feet or any part of his body other than his hands touches the ground inbounds, it is a completed or intercepted pass.

You can argue it's a stupid rule, but the Refs made the correct call, according to the rule book.
 
Watch this video from the NFL, starting about the 7:20 mark.

It's a video the league made prior to the 2011 season to explain the rule changes to the players and coaches.

They differentiate between the "football" move aspect and the "control throughout going to the ground".

The last video they show of an Eagles player looks an awful lot like the Dez Bryant play and they call it incomplete.

If you look at the actual rule, the going to the ground is a seperate item.

Clearly the various Items listed in the rule apply if that scenario occurs.



You can argue it's a stupid rule, but the Refs made the correct call, according to the rule book.
It's Item 1 that did the Cowboys in. The whole concept of "a football move" applies when, for example, a WR catches the ball and gets hit by a defender and the ball pops out. It doesn't come into play if a WR is in the act of going to the ground following a catch.

I think the rule is just fine as it is, and I am sick of them tweaking it every single time something even remotely controversial happens. Instead of solving the problem, every tweak makes it worse.
 
Thanks, OPT. I still it differently. I see Bryant securing the ball for 2 full strides, long enough to make a common football play...stretching for extra yards. To me that was a catch while CJohnson's was not a catch.

But that's just me. popcorn
 
Thanks, OPT. I still it differently. I see Bryant securing the ball for 2 full strides, long enough to make a common football play...stretching for extra yards. To me that was a catch while CJohnson's was not a catch.

But that's just me. popcorn

Fair enough, but I see him "going to the ground" for those two steps, much as that Eagles player does in the video.
 
You can argue it's a stupid rule, but the Refs made the correct call, according to the rule book.

Respectfully, no. Whether it was the "correct call" turns on whether or not he went to the ground in the act of catching a pass. The official ruled that he did and it was correctly not overturnable. But the argument is that first he made the catch, then he took a couple of steps and then he dove for the endzone, that in fact he went to the ground in the act of attempting to score, NOT in the act of making the catch. Had the official ruled it to be a catch, that too would have been, correctly, not overturnable. In cases precisely like this (catch first or not) the ruling of whether he went to the ground while catching it or whether he had the catch and then dove to score is a hairline judgement call. Nothing clear at all about making that call. The problem seems to be that no matter how hard they try to build parameters that make the call clear, it still in the end requires a judgement call.

Cheers
 
Respectfully, no. Whether it was the "correct call" turns on whether or not he went to the ground in the act of catching a pass. The official ruled that he did and it was correctly not overturnable. But the argument is that first he made the catch, then he took a couple of steps and then he dove for the endzone, that in fact he went to the ground in the act of attempting to score, NOT in the act of making the catch. Had the official ruled it to be a catch, that too would have been, correctly, not overturnable. In cases precisely like this (catch first or not) the ruling of whether he went to the ground while catching it or whether he had the catch and then dove to score is a hairline judgement call. Nothing clear at all about making that call. The problem seems to be that no matter how hard they try to build parameters that make the call clear, it still in the end requires a judgement call.
If I understand what you're saying, you're saying that this is not a reviewable call. Well, not only is a reviewable call, but the Dez Bryant non-catch was originally ruled complete on the field and then overturned on replay.

IMHO it is pretty clear he was falling down in the act of making the catch. He was not running free and then taking a dive for the end zone. He simply stretched for the end zone as he was falling.
 
If I understand what you're saying, you're saying that this is not a reviewable call. Well, not only is a reviewable call, but the Dez Bryant non-catch was originally ruled complete on the field and then overturned on replay.

IMHO it is pretty clear he was falling down in the act of making the catch. He was not running free and then taking a dive for the end zone. He simply stretched for the end zone as he was falling.

Certainly not saying that it's not reviewable,. Just saying that the ruling either way would stand. Obviously saying should stand would have been less stupid. :spock: (my memory fails. In my mind I somehow altered my memory to believe it was ruled incomplete and stood on review. :shrug:
Probably just about time to put down the shovel.

Cheers, BostonTim
 
Fair enough, but I see him "going to the ground" for those two steps, much as that Eagles player does in the video.

I view it a little differently.
I see 2 options for Bryant once he high pointed the ball.
1. he could have tucked the ball away while going to the ground or
2. he could have stretched out for the goal line.

He made a split second conscious decision (a football move) to go for the TD by stretching out for the goal line with the football cradled securely in his left arm and hand. That made it a catch to me.

The Eagles guy was already in the end zone (going by memory since I didn't go back and watch the video) and needed to come up clean with the football for it to be a catch. No football move, he lost control, no catch in my mind.

The plays are similar but they aren't the same.
 
I've just watched that Bryant play for the first time, prompted by this thread. If the rule is that he has to maintain control all the way to, and including contact with, the ground, then I don't think an incomplete pass is an unreasonable call.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm with chev.

A catch. A couple of strides. And conscious extension for the goal line constituting a football move.

The millisecond the nose of that ball breaks the plane it should be ruled TD, just like when a RB runs it. We've all seen many times a RB lose posession after crossing the goal line. But it's already been called TD. Shouldn't be different because he plays a different position. Point breaks the plane in control of WRs hands, TD. What happens when he lands is irrelevant.

Watch this video from the NFL, starting about the 7:20 mark.

It's a video the league made prior to the 2011 season to explain the rule changes to the players and coaches.

They differentiate between the "football" move aspect and the "control throughout going to the ground".

The last video they show of an Eagles player looks an awful lot like the Dez Bryant play and they call it incomplete.

If you look at the actual rule, the going to the ground is a seperate item.

Clearly the various Items listed in the rule apply if that scenario occurs.



You can argue it's a stupid rule, but the Refs made the correct call, according to the rule book.


It is a stupid rule.
 
The rule states:
“If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.”






The 'act of catching' the ball was completed by Bryant. No juggling, no bobbling.



Bryant did not lose control of the ball until he hit the ground, and so he did not have to 'regain control'.


https://vine.co/v/ODZI5HU6gX6







 
The fact that he is going to the ground as he is catching it overrules any notion of whether or not he made a football move while in the process of going to the ground.

He really should have just left well enough alone and concentrated on securing the ball and being happy with 1st and goal from the 2, especially since that was a possession down for Dallas.
 
Back
Top