Author Topic: Radical Sensible Rule Change Proposals  (Read 12296 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 669
  • FAN REACTION: +37/-47
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: Radical Sensible Rule Change Proposals
« Reply #50 on: December 03, 2019, 10:26:33 PM »
  To whom would that give an advantage?
Suggestion was meant to be frivilous.  I will try to remember to use emojis next time.  hEaDbAnG  However, umpire could spend more time working on a snikers bar instead of having to keep track of where the ball was spotted on each previous down.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2116
  • FAN REACTION: +301/-25
Re: Radical Sensible Rule Change Proposals
« Reply #51 on: December 05, 2019, 08:52:59 AM »
However, umpire could spend more time working on a snikers bar instead of having to keep track of where the ball was spotted on each previous down.


That extra down indicator can be used to count the number of snickers bars eaten during the game.  haha!

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 721
  • FAN REACTION: +633/-113
  • See it, Think about it, Pass on it if possible!
Re: Radical Sensible Rule Change Proposals
« Reply #52 on: December 11, 2019, 02:56:49 PM »

Reducing playing time, for the pure and sole sake of reducing playing time, without any clear or relevant purpose or objective that offers a specific benefit, seems totally unnecessary and foolish.

Jesus H Christ - I actually find myself in total agreement with Alf!
SEE everything that you CALL, but; Don't CALL everything you SEE!
Never let the Rules Book get in the way of a great ball game!

Respectfully Submitted;
Some guy on a message forum

Offline brettjr2005

  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-3
  • CIF
Re: Radical Sensible Rule Change Proposals
« Reply #53 on: December 11, 2019, 10:22:38 PM »
Reducing playing time, for the pure and sole sake of reducing playing time, without any clear or relevant purpose or objective that offers a specific benefit, seems totally unnecessary and foolish.

The purpose is to adapt the rules to keep up with the evolution of the game. When the current rules were put in place there was a substantially higher percentage of run plays, practically zero fast paced offenses outside of hurry up situations, and less scoring. A much higher percentage of plays back then ended with the clock still running.

Now that the game has evolved we have a significantly higher percentage of pass plays (and incompletions), more up tempo offenses, more first downs, and more scoring in general. Those things have led to longer duration games and, more importantly, more plays per game. As most have seen via hudl or other sources, the number of plays per game nowadays rivals or even exceeds the number of plays that college and NFL teams typically run. In my opinion, high school (and younger) kids should not be playing games that consist of more plays than college and NFL games.

The point wouldn't be to make a change just for the sake of change. The point would be to adapt the timing rules that were fine for the gameplay styles of the past when they were implemented, but are now leading to game lengths and play counts that are higher than they should be.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 10:26:57 PM by brettjr2005 »

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3848
  • FAN REACTION: +99/-283
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Radical Sensible Rule Change Proposals
« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2019, 10:23:04 AM »
The point wouldn't be to make a change just for the sake of change. The point would be to adapt the timing rules that were fine for the gameplay styles of the past when they were implemented, but are now leading to game lengths and play counts that are higher than they should be.

Very valid points, but the way to "fix" that is by clear and unambiguous rules changes.  ie: 1.  shorten the periods, 2. wind the clock once the ball is placed down and truly RFP after runs out of bounds and/or incomplete passes, etc.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline brettjr2005

  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-3
  • CIF
Re: Radical Sensible Rule Change Proposals
« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2019, 11:34:32 AM »
Very valid points, but the way to "fix" that is by clear and unambiguous rules changes.  ie: 1.  shorten the periods, 2. wind the clock once the ball is placed down and truly RFP after runs out of bounds and/or incomplete passes, etc.

Agreed; i should have quoted my comment as well for context. The original comment of mine that he replied to was my suggestion to remove the clock stoppage for a first down. I think that would be less confusing and be better optically than shortening periods or winding after an incompletion, but i wouldn't disagree with using those instead as a compromise.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4654
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Radical Sensible Rule Change Proposals
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2019, 12:00:37 PM »
Prior to our adoption of the running time  rule while using "TIPS", we - with mutual agreement of the coaches - would use a modified version of running time. The clock would start with each RFP if it had been stopped for anything else. A second half would often last around 30 minutes. We need to be careful of what we wish for, as a game lasting 1:15 (with halftime) seems a bit short. I've strongly supported cranking the game clock on RFP after OOB, such as NCAA. The objection has been in returning to snap in last 2 minutes of a half. IMHO, the adoption of the fouled team choosing when to start in last 2 minutes should weaken that objection.