New NFL Rule Change Proposal: -1 Point for each punt (1 Viewer)

[GroveDiesel]

This article is about college football, but I find it intriguing! There would be all sorts of problems with it of course, but it sounds awesome to me!

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2018/7/19/17587956/punting

Rule change would be pretty simple: every time you punt, it costs you a point.

Up by 1 at the end of a game and want to run 3 times and punt? Now you have a tie game. 

4th and 1 at the opponents 45 yard line and you're going to be a wuss and punt? Now your opponent ends up with the ball at their own 20 and you lose a point.

Etc, etc.

 

[Steeler]

No offense, but this seems dumb.  Punting is a key element in managing field position which is a pretty big part of the game.

 

[Interseptopus]

Hate it.

Tie game, on your own 20 4th and 8. 25 seconds left... that's a lose-lose scenario. Basically you punt and lose just because you had the ball last at the end of the game. Or you go for it, fail, and your opponent can kick a FG. That, to me, is a dumb rule. 

Might as well call this rule the "hot potato rule" Because that's all it is; a game of hot potato
 

 

[GroveDiesel]

No offense, but this seems dumb.  Punting is a key element in managing field position which is a pretty big part of the game.

Managing field position would still be a big part of every game, this just changes the calculus and forces teams to be more aggressive overall as well. 

The positive is that it rewards both good defenses and good offenses. What it really does is punish mediocre teams that want to just try to grind out a game hoping to keep it close and luck out a win through some stupid high variance play.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Hate it.

Tie game, on your own 20 4th and 8. Opposing team burned all 3 time outs. 25 seconds left... that's a lose-lose scenario. Basically you punt and lose just because you had the ball last at the end of the game. Or you go for it, fail, and your opponent can kick a FG. That, to me, is a dumb rule. 

But the reason they had the ball last and are 4th and 8 on their own 20 is because the other team did a great job of putting them in that situation both with their defense and time out management and the offense failed to gain a measly first down.

Watching a team with a 1 point lead run it into the line 3 times or kneel 3 times and then punt is boring and silly. I'd rather force the offense to keep trying.

 

[menobrown]

 What it really does is punish mediocre teams that want to just try to grind out a game hoping to keep it close and luck out a win through some stupid high variance play.

Sounds like you just described me trying to play Madden on-line.

I truly would hate to see teams like this punished.  This is a viable strategy to take especially when your talent is inferior.

 

[Steeler]

Watching a team with a 1 point lead run it into the line 3 times or kneel 3 times and then punt is boring and silly. I'd rather force the offense to keep trying.

I think you are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.  In this scenario the teams played 59+ minutes and one of them earned the one point lead - why do you want to force the offense to keep trying when the team did enough over 59+ minutes to earn a one point lead?

 

[-X-]

Ridiculous.  It would never fly.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Watching a team with a 1 point lead run it into the line 3 times or kneel 3 times and then punt is boring and silly. I'd rather force the offense to keep trying.

So you want to punish a team that has the lead by forcing them to do something illogical?

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think you are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.  In this scenario the teams played 59+ minutes and one of them earned the one point lead - why do you want to force the offense to keep trying when the team did enough over 59+ minutes to earn a one point lead?

Because games are 60 minutes. Win the whole game, not just 59.5 minutes.

 

[GroveDiesel]

So you want to punish a team that has the lead by forcing them to do something illogical?

Running into the line 3 times or kneeling 3 times to win a game is what's illogical. 

If teams have been so evenly matched over 59.5 minutes as to be only 1 point apart, then a team should only win it if they truly play and win the entire 60 minutes.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I think if you wanted the idea to catch on, it can't be framed as losing a point by punting.  Instead, you get a point by forcing a punt.  It's not a punishment, it's a reward for the defense.  

But then if that's the case, why not also reward the defense a point for turnovers?  Any time there's a change of possession, the defense gets a point?

 

[Elevencents]

No chance in hell this ever goes through. Intriguing and fun idea on the surface but way too many issues with it. 

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Running into the line 3 times or kneeling 3 times to win a game is what's illogical. 

Protecting a lead is highly logical.

 

[Matt Bitonti]

"And at the end of the first quarter, it's Cleveland -2, the Jets -1."

 

[Interseptopus]

But the reason they had the ball last and are 4th and 8 on their own 20 is because the other team did a great job of putting them in that situation both with their defense and time out management and the offense failed to gain a measly first down.

Watching a team with a 1 point lead run it into the line 3 times or kneel 3 times and then punt is boring and silly. I'd rather force the offense to keep trying.

We can keep going backwards here: The previous drive the winning team's defense stopped the losing team's offense close to FG range, resulting in a punt to the winning team. So IMO the winning team earned the right to take 3 knees by the play of their defense. 

 

[Interseptopus]

"And at the end of the first quarter, it's Cleveland -2, the Jets -1."

 true

 

[Interseptopus]

This seems like a rule drawn up by guys who play Madden too much

 

[-X-]

...or Fantasy Football.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Protecting a lead is highly logical.

And protecting a lead by running into the line 3 times or kneeling 3 times is only logical under the current rules. If you change the rules, it's no longer logical.

But outside the rules, trying to win by accomplishing nothing is dumb.

 

[tombonneau]

What's really interesting is if you eliminated the punt completely.

Then, like time outs, give each team 3 flips a half where instead of going for it on fourth they flip the field and opponent is first and ten from opposite yard line. 

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What's really interesting is if you eliminated the punt completely.

I like this. 

Then, like time outs, give each team 3 flips a half where instead of going for it on fourth they flip the field and opponent is first and ten from opposite yard line. 

I don't like this.

 

[tombonneau]

I like this. 

I don't like this.

I'm conflicted myself. As a fan of simplicity, I agree. As a fan of game strategy, I disagree. 

 

[Bronco Billy]

Maybe they can have the teams come out and watch the QBs play checkers.  Best 2 out of 3 wins the game.  Everybody is completely safe except for the potential of a QB getting carpal tunnel syndrome.

 

[GroveDiesel]

We can keep going backwards here: The previous drive the winning team's defense stopped the losing team's offense close to FG range, resulting in a punt to the winning team. So IMO the winning team earned the right to take 3 knees by the play of their defense. 

So basically you have 3 scenarios, each with Team A on Team B's 40 yard line and it's 4th and 2:

Scenario 1:

Team A is down by a point but elects to punt with 3 TO left. Team B gets the ball at their own 18 with 35 seconds left and runs 3 plays up the gut and gets 2 yards. It's now 4th and 8 at their own 20 with 20 seconds left and they elect to punt the ball, netting about 40 yards and leaving 15 seconds on the clock. Team A now will essentially have just 1 option of trying to get back to around that 40 yard line again in 15 seconds to try that same long FG again.

Scenario 2:

Team A is tied with Team B, but passes up a 57 yard FG with 40 seconds left and all their TOs and elect to punt. They lose a point for punting but put Team B at the 18 yard line. Team B plays ultra conservatively and runs up the gut 3 times for 2 yards leaving it 4th and 8 at their own 20 with 20 seconds left and a 1 point lead. Now Team B is faced with a choice, go for it to get 8 yards and then run one more play and win, or punt it resulting in a tie or Team B possibly scoring.

Scenario 3:

Team A and B are tied. A 57 yard FG is no gimme, but Team A goes for the FG on 4th and 2 because they don't want to give the lead to Team B. Or Team A goes for it on 4th and 2 knowing that if they convert they can try for a closer FG and use more clock. If they don't convert, they still have 3 TOs and Team B still has to get in FG range. OR they punt and give the lead to Team B when they lose a point and Team B plays aggressively to actually get a first down because they want to win rather than give up the lead by punting.

Scenarios 2 and 3 sound way better to me than Scenario 1, with Scenario 3 sounding the most enjoyable as a fan to me.

Why fans would rather see teams run it up the gut or kneel it out to shorten games is beyond me. I would rather see teams forced to play out the whole game and not play boring conservative football with 20 punts a game.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Maybe they can have the teams come out and watch the QBs play checkers.  Best 2 out of 3 wins the game.  Everybody is completely safe except for the potential of a QB getting carpal tunnel syndrome.

I have no idea what this means. Can you unpack this?

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

Interesting, for sure. I don't think this is the way to get teams to be more aggressive, though.

The idea of eliminating the punt altogether is even more interesting to me. I just think it would result in a lot of 40-0 scores at half time, as sucky teams would get stuck at their 20 over and over. With a widened field, some rule tweaks to make it a bit easier to gain yardage could make it work. Then again, the defense has already been put at more and more of a disadvantage the past 20 years.

 

[Dismattle]

Funny the header says "NFL rule change"  (Links for College ball)   fwiw,,, I kinda like when the winning team has to KO following a score

 

[Bronco Billy]

I have no idea what this means. Can you unpack this?

IMO the NFL is changing the game for the sake of change.  I don’t understand the need to change the fundamentals of what has been an incredibly great sport.  There have been some really odd ideas for rules thrown out for consideration in recent years.   It’s seems like we’re on our way to football’s version of Windows 8.

.

 

[IHEARTFF]

First thought is it would trick dumb teams into making smart decisions. 

 

[Interseptopus]

I would rather see teams forced to play out the whole game and not play boring conservative football with 20 punts a game.

there's a new football league starting in 2020 with gimmicks just like this proposal. I think that league may better meet your expectations for level of excitement 

 

[Cowboysfan8]

"And at the end of the first quarter, it's Cleveland -2, the Jets -1."

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

evenly matched

They aren't evenly matched.  One team has done enough to have the lead and also have the ball.  Why would you reward bad teams?

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

What about, no players can be beyond the line of scrimmage until the ball is kicked? (And strictly enforce it.)

I suspect that would change the average field position by 5-10 yards, which may help achieve the goal of eliminating the ultra-conservative approach many teams take.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

They aren't evenly matched.  One team has done enough to have the lead and also have the ball.  Why would you reward bad teams?

A one point lead in the fourth quarter doesn't qualify as "evenly matched" in your book?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

A one point lead in the fourth quarter doesn't qualify as "evenly matched" in your book?

A team with a one-point lead and the ball is an enormous favorite very late in a game.  Like 90/10 or something.  On average, they earned that advantage.  No idea why you'd want to punish them for it.

 

[GroveDiesel]

A team with a one-point lead and the ball is an enormous favorite very late in a game.  Like 90/10 or something.  On average, they earned that advantage.  No idea why you'd want to punish them for it.

They're enormous favorites precisely because the current rules make them enormous favorites despite just a 1 point difference. Seems silly.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

A team with a one-point lead and the ball is an enormous favorite very late in a game.

You're missing the point...

We're not talking about punishing anyone. We're not talking about trying to give anyone any advantage. We're just talking about eliminating the the super-conservative turtle-shell so many teams go in to at the end of games. It's not entertaining. We're just discussing ways to make the game more entertaining.

(For the record, I really don't like this particular proposal, but I also don't like the current state where going into the shell is the perceived best option. As many folks have been saying for many years, all NFL coaches, outside of Belichick are cowards.)

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

We're just talking about eliminating the the super-conservative turtle-shell so many WINNING teams go in to at the end of games.

Losing teams don't go into conservative turtle shells because they haven't earned the right to do it in the first 58 minutes of the game.

You are talking about giving the losing team an advantage compared to the current rules.  It hurts the winning team.

 

[DropKick]

Managing field position would still be a big part of every game, this just changes the calculus and forces teams to be more aggressive overall as well. 

The positive is that it rewards both good defenses and good offenses. What it really does is punish mediocre teams that want to just try to grind out a game hoping to keep it close and luck out a win through some stupid high variance play.

I can see it now... Buffalo leads the Jets -4 to -3 early in the second quarter.

 

[Interseptopus]

Losing teams don't go into conservative turtle shells because they haven't earned the right to do it in the first 58 minutes of the game.

You are talking about giving the losing team an advantage compared to the current rules.  It hurts the winning team.

he is a Bills fan

 

[amnesiac]

brilliant. 

 

[domvin]

At this point, allow ten point field goals from MTV jock jams circles on the field.   Ed Lover can kick the field goals

 

[Bronco Billy]

Running into the line 3 times or kneeling 3 times to win a game is what's illogical. 

If teams have been so evenly matched over 59.5 minutes as to be only 1 point apart, then a team should only win it if they truly play and win the entire 60 minutes.

I don’t get it.  Do you keep posting to continually reinforce that you don’t understand football?

 

[GroveDiesel]

I don’t get it.  Do you keep posting to continually reinforce that you don’t understand football?

I'm still waiting on your explanation of your rant about checkers and keeping guys safe as I still have no idea how your rant about protecting players had anything to do about this thread. 

Until then, I'll assume that you still don't really understand what we're talking about here.

 

[voiceofunreason]

I have no idea what this means. Can you unpack this?

He’s trying to come up with a worse idea. Not sure he made it.

 

[voiceofunreason]

Maybe the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. Only thing I can suggest is the people who thought of this should be immediately fired. It’s people with no understanding of the game who want “more excitement” to keep the millenials entertained between Snapchat messages. This is what happens when the head of the marketing department fills in for the manager on vacation.

ps-I made the mistake of reading the article. This wasn’t a rule change proposal as I thought reading the title of this post. Just one idiot writing an article on sbnation.

 

[jeaton6]

A team with a one-point lead and the ball is an enormous favorite very late in a game.  Like 90/10 or something.  On average, they earned that advantage.  No idea why you'd want to punish them for it.

What if they “earned” it by forcing 10 punts vs only 5 for their opponent? Their opponent is winning in the traditional score book and seemingly earned it more than the team with the actual 1 point lead.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

You know what's really boring?  A blowout

I'd like to suggest that any team that's losing by more than 20 points at the start of the 4th quarter be given 10 points.  To make it more exciting, you see.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I'm still waiting on your explanation of your rant about checkers and keeping guys safe as I still have no idea how your rant about protecting players had anything to do about this thread. 

Until then, I'll assume that you still don't really understand what we're talking about here.

I wouldn’t expect any less from you after reading your previous posts in this thread.