RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => General Discussion => Topic started by: Covid 22 on March 12, 2021, 09:57:02 AM
-
We have talked about the ability of a "R" to make calls not covered by the rules (God rule). But what if you were the football Czar and could change one rule or play within a rule, what would it be?
For me it would be the shuttle pass to a player running in front of the QB. I would add that any forward pass behind the NZ between the tackles has to travel at least 1 yard. From 15 yards back to see some of these shuttles travel 5 inches is extremely difficult.
Have you ever thrown a beanbag when this type of play results in the ball on the ground? I have and then the coach starts screaming.
-
Only one that immediately comes to mind is Elvis' NCAA discussion rule change about blockers just laying on defenders, for the sole reason that they are stronger, and can. I see this a lot and it annoys me, there's no substantive value in continuing to hold him down, and only leads to escalation. I'd love to see that codified in the rule book.
-
I'd change Instant Replay back to a Coach's Challenge system.
I'm all for getting it right. But when I watch a game as a fan just to relax, Replay is starting to annoy me. They seem to be trying to make everything perfect, regardless of competitive advantage or not. And that many delays in the game just takes away from my enjoyment in watching it.
-
Cut out blocking below the waist except by interior linemen while the ball is still in the tackle box.
Also, this isn't a rule change, but I would love to see the number of TV timeouts reduced. In a typical ESPN, CBS, ABC, etc. game, TV timeouts take around 1 hour. If the game moves along really well, that's almost 1/3 of the time of the broadcast taken up in media timeouts.
-
I'd change Instant Replay back to a Coach's Challenge system.
I don't disagree at all about replays resulting in rulings that are far too technical. Would love to see some level of tolerance, as it would be without replay.
But, as a point of accuracy, Replay was NEVER a Coach's Challenge system, exclusively, in the NCAA. Coach's have always had the ability to challenge (once per game), but the primary and initial review has always been with the RO in the booth.
-
I'd required that there be no exposed skin above the elbows on the arms, and no exposed skin anywhere else on the body or legs. And I'd require that jerseys be long enough to be - and stay - tucked into the pants.
Yes, this is all cosmetic stuff, but the image of the game has deteriorated immensely in the past two decades.
Not so much cosmetic, but equipment related, I'd also prohibit the wearing of gloves. By anybody. Use your natural hands to catch the ball. Be tough enough to tackle and block with your bare hands.
-
I'd required that there be no exposed skin above the elbows on the arms, and no exposed skin anywhere else on the body or legs. And I'd require that jerseys be long enough to be - and stay - tucked into the pants.
Yes, this is all cosmetic stuff, but the image of the game has deteriorated immensely in the past two decades.
Not so much cosmetic, but equipment related, I'd also prohibit the wearing of gloves. By anybody. Use your natural hands to catch the ball. Be tough enough to tackle and block with your bare hands.
Like these uniforms? ;D
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTx7PpWhaP2L8dC2hJ9lOHSgNfSiciL1E3t-w&usqp=CAU)
-
Like these uniforms? ;D
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTx7PpWhaP2L8dC2hJ9lOHSgNfSiciL1E3t-w&usqp=CAU)
Uuuuuuuuuuu. No helmets... I like it!
-
Definitely takes TGT out of the equation
-
Snapper and Carol1955 have hit the nails on the heads — between constant replays and innumerable commercials, college football games take way too long.
I get it — TV is the 500-lb gorilla that funds most college athletic departments and allows for non-revenue sports to exist, and for schools to comply with Title IX. But don’t they realize that most viewers “channel surf” during extended commercial breaks, thereby diluting the value of said commercials?
The NFL addressed this problem several years ago by passing timing/replay rules to ensure that (as much as possible) games fit into a 3-hour window. No reason why college football can’t do the same.
-
Cut out blocking below the waist except by interior linemen while the ball is still in the tackle box.
Also, this isn't a rule change, but I would love to see the number of TV timeouts reduced. In a typical ESPN, CBS, ABC, etc. game, TV timeouts take around 1 hour. If the game moves along really well, that's almost 1/3 of the time of the broadcast taken up in media timeouts.
Cant agree more that games are way too long. This past season I was sitting with someone from another country watching "american football" for the first time.
Imagine their confusion (and my attempt at explaining) when the opening kick goes for TB - and essentially nothing happens..or a TB after the 3-minute commercial break (not a discussion regarding the relevance of TB but the time involved).
By no means am I any any fan but the most popular game in the world, but soccer has games that hardly ever exceed 2 hr. and even a silly regular season game has far more world viewers than even the super bowl.
Likewise, the average F1 race (again 2 hr time from start to end) has higher viewership than nascar's 3+ hour races.
I understand the commercial dollar drives the length of these games but goodness if these marathon broadcasts could be shortened it seems more would stay interested.
-
I understand the commercial dollar drives the length of these games but goodness if these marathon broadcasts could be shortened it seems more would stay interested.
I don't work in the advertising business so this is probably a very simplistic and uninformed approach, but here's a thought I've had.
A typical ESPN game on Saturday has 14 commercial breaks during the quarters. This does not include the breaks between quarters or at halftime. The breaks vary in length, but let's say they are all 2:30 (time for five 30-second commercials). This would equal seventy 30-second commercials. If they charge $1000 per 30-second commercial, they are bringing in $70,000 per game (I know it's a lot more than that, but for ease of math, I'm using $1000 per commercial). If they would cut out one break per quarter, that would reduce the game by 10 minutes and 20 commercials. So, if they only had 50 commercials, they would need to charge $1400 per commercial to make the same amount of money they would have made with 70 commercials.
I don't know what a commercial typically costs, but I've never seen a game where they didn't have a commercial during the break. There is always some company willing to pay whatever the networks are charging.
Again, I'm sure folks with a knowledge of the industry would be able to poke lots of holes in this, but it seems that TV could make the same amount of money and reduce the number of breaks thus reducing the game times with a similar approach to this. Plus, we are already seeing commercials being put in when there really isn't a break in the game. They are using a split screen to show a shorter commercial, etc. So, TV is going to figure out a way to make their money no matter how many true commercial breaks they are given in a game.
-
Raise your hand if you are still watching true broadcast (VHF and UHF) TV. Remember that? It used to be free, except you had to put up with commercials.
Then along came cable and satellite. Now we’re paying for those ‘services’ ($300/mo for BASIC cable bundled with internet and telephone) AND STILL HAVING TO PUT UP WITH COMMERCIALS! Commercials are now around 40% of a non-sporting event broadcast hour. The days of an opening/closing sequence with a jingle/theme song are long gone.
I’m gettin’ grumpier in my older age.
-
I don't work in the advertising business so this is probably a very simplistic and uninformed approach, but here's a thought I've had.
A typical ESPN game on Saturday has 14 commercial breaks during the quarters. This does not include the breaks between quarters or at halftime. The breaks vary in length, but let's say they are all 2:30 (time for five 30-second commercials). This would equal seventy 30-second commercials. If they charge $1000 per 30-second commercial, they are bringing in $70,000 per game (I know it's a lot more than that, but for ease of math, I'm using $1000 per commercial). If they would cut out one break per quarter, that would reduce the game by 10 minutes and 20 commercials. So, if they only had 50 commercials, they would need to charge $1400 per commercial to make the same amount of money they would have made with 70 commercials.
I don't know what a commercial typically costs, but I've never seen a game where they didn't have a commercial during the break. There is always some company willing to pay whatever the networks are charging.
Again, I'm sure folks with a knowledge of the industry would be able to poke lots of holes in this, but it seems that TV could make the same amount of money and reduce the number of breaks thus reducing the game times with a similar approach to this. Plus, we are already seeing commercials being put in when there really isn't a break in the game. They are using a split screen to show a shorter commercial, etc. So, TV is going to figure out a way to make their money no matter how many true commercial breaks they are given in a game.
Absolutely. someone, somewhere is always going to pony up money...
But those other, more popular sports broadcasts seem to thrive/survive without commercials ad nauseam. supply/demand
-
Raise your hand if you are still watching true broadcast (VHF and UHF) TV. Remember that? It used to be free, except you had to put up with commercials.
Then along came cable and satellite. Now we’re paying for those ‘services’ ($300/mo for BASIC cable bundled with internet and telephone) AND STILL HAVING TO PUT UP WITH COMMERCIALS! Commercials are now around 40% of a non-sporting event broadcast hour. The days of an opening/closing sequence with a jingle/theme song are long gone.
I’m gettin’ grumpier in my older age.
Some things never change, as a (really) old song warned, "the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, but in the mean time, in-between times, ain't we got fun'..... and the beat goes on.
-
I would prefer previous spot enforcement for fouls by B when the end of the run occurs behind the LOS, IMHO, our current rule treats a QB sacked by FM behind the LOS as a spot foul, WHILE if he had fumbled, back to previous spot. An eligible receiver could be held with a QB sack with the same unfairness. I've proposed, using Bossman's help, several times but ran into opponents hEaDbAnG who demanded the same would hold true for A fouls. I refused to tie them together as ,IMHO, A's holding deep in his backfield may have prevented a defensive sack. I have authored several changes with success ( free kick OOB flagged if untouched by R NOT last touched by K, probable intended receiver has be DPI, illegal touching NOT OPI for forward pass touched by ineligible downfield, dueling DBPFs & USC cancel NOT in order of occurance), but don't see success with this, but will keep on trying.
tR:oLl
-
Cut out blocking below the waist except by interior linemen while the ball is still in the tackle box.
Also, this isn't a rule change, but I would love to see the number of TV timeouts reduced. In a typical ESPN, CBS, ABC, etc. game, TV timeouts take around 1 hour. If the game moves along really well, that's almost 1/3 of the time of the broadcast taken up in media timeouts.
I'd vote for removing cut blocking altogether.
-
I'd vote for removing cut blocking altogether.
I wouldn't. Goal line and short yardage defense would be almost impossible.
-
Well isn't the reason it's restricted now due to safety concerns? I'd argue that it's not any less dangerous just because the ball hasn't left the tackle box.
-
IMHO, a lunge at the LOS into an opponent's knees is far less injury-prone than the momentum of a pulling lineman leading a sweep. The NFHS doctor confirmed that the contact was just as dangerous as a block below the waist on a downfield play.
-
I'd vote for removing cut blocking altogether.
Not me. Physically smaller teams would have almost no chance against much larger opponents.
That typically isn’t the case in college & pro ball, where linemen are of similar size.
-
Not me. Physically smaller teams would have almost no chance against much larger opponents.
That typically isn’t the case in college & pro ball, where linemen are of similar size.
If you bother to think about it, although the game is (essentially) the same, but the ACTUAL differences between the participants is consistent and significant.
-
Like these uniforms? ;D
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTx7PpWhaP2L8dC2hJ9lOHSgNfSiciL1E3t-w&usqp=CAU)
If you prohibit gloves, you leave an area of the body uncovered. Just saying..
-
I'd change DPI to be an automatic 1st down, and exempt from half the distance if inside the B-20. This would be fair and prevent the defense from deliberately interfering with pass receivers to take away a potential score.
-
I'd change DPI to be an automatic 1st down, and exempt from half the distance if inside the B-20. This would be fair and prevent the defense from deliberately interfering with pass receivers to take away a potential score.
When NCAA removed DPI as a spot foul they also removed halving the distance if foul occurred within B's 30. Would you NFHS guys be in favor of that?
:sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: (5-man crew)
-
Would you NFHS guys be in favor of that?
Another NFHS "we don't like exceptions except when we do", Ralph? I'll pass.
-
Another NFHS "we don't like exceptions except when we do", Ralph? I'll pass.
Agreed, HL, I, like many of you, had a phobia of the removal of AFD being a problem but have yet to hear of it occurring. If an obvious intentional interference prevented a touchdown, I wouldn't have a problem with applying 9-9-1 as it was truly an unfair act.
-
Only problem I have with the DPI no AFD is probably once a year I still get asked "Why wasn't that a first down?" It happened last Thursday in a JV game. We had 4th and goal at the B3 and DPI so me and the U walk off a yard and a half in and I keep the box on 4. The next play was unsuccessful and we change the ball over on downs. My sideline HC walks over after I've set the chains the other way and asks why that wasn't a first down.
I replied that it hasn't been for a few years now. I so wanted to add "and I don't think you are old enough to know when it was" but I held my tongue.
-
We've talked only about HS and college here, but in the NFL I'd change DPI to the college rule and get rid of illegal contact completely.
-
Makes sense. What is illegal contact?
-
Makes sense. What is illegal contact?
That's an NFL thing. Don't worry about it until you get there.
-
Makes sense. What is illegal contact?
There's a good chance I'm wrong on this so someone please correct me if so, but I think clearwall is talking about the rule in the NFL where the defensive backs basically can't touch a receiver after he has gone 5 yards.
-
There's a good chance I'm wrong on this so someone please correct me if so, but I think clearwall is talking about the rule in the NFL where the defensive backs basically can't touch a receiver after he has gone 5 yards.
I ,too, assume that was what clearwall was referencing. In NFHS a potential receiver is considered to be a potential blocker UNTIL he has turned away from the D-back or is shoulder-to-shoulder with him. If the D-back then contacts the potential receiver ,it become a flag for illegal use of hands -10 yards w/signal 42.