The Kneeling BS has got to stop! (1 Viewer)

[zDragon]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

 

[zDragon]

OK I'm sold ... All of these great responses from brilliant football minds have convinced me that kneeling to run out the clock is a great part of football.So I offer the following suggestion that is sure to get a positive response.I think we should increase the play clock to 80 seconds ... That's right double the current clock!!!! Now the team that is leading after 56 minutes can run off the final 4 minutes of the game!!! Ya feelin it!?!?!F... the other team !!!!! They should have never gotten behind in the first place!!!!You guys gotta love this right?!?!? Whose on board? Let's hear it!

Personally, the victory formation is my favorite play. But, as a Dolphins fan, I don't see it as often as I would like. When you've put yourself into position to win, why wouldn't you enjoy running the clock out? Not every game has to end with a Hail Mary.What is your point anyway? You want a RB to bang into the line 3 times so the defense can try to claw the ball out? No thanks. I have the lead and the ball and you have wasted your timeouts so it is time to accept defeat graciously.

Well then maybe you would like No play clock ... The first team to get the lead and possession after halftime can run the rest of clock down by kneeling every 5 to 10 minutes. You would get to watch you favorite play for up to 30 minutes a game..

Personally I think if one of the teams is ahead by too much they should add extra time on. Make the 4th quarter twice as long. Or maybe roll some dice and randomly subtract points from the leading team. Let's completely change the game, make the first half meaningless and make the leads that teams earned meaningless. Just start doing hail marys until somebody hits one.

Nice. Your way more creative than I am. I love the dice roll idea.

 

[mad sweeney]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

 

[zDragon]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

I like that kneel down idea seems fair to add about 50 seconds per kneel down. So that it penalizes them not running a play by giving the losing team an extra ten seconds.

 

[Deamon]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

Instead of a kneeldown, teams will just hand the ball off and fall down on the ground then. Same result as a kneel down, but not technically kneeling down.

 

[mad sweeney]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

Instead of a kneeldown, teams will just hand the ball off and fall down on the ground then. Same result as a kneel down, but not technically kneeling down.

And how exactly would that be fair to the defense?

 

[Deamon]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

Instead of a kneeldown, teams will just hand the ball off and fall down on the ground then. Same result as a kneel down, but not technically kneeling down.

And how exactly would that be fair to the defense?

I'm in the camp that "fair" to the defense is not being in that position in the first place. But for the sake of this case, if you don't do the "must gain 1 yard" thing and just penalize 'kneel downs', then teams will rush the ball and fall over. Are we going to have a ref make the decision if he "tried hard enough" to get over the line or not? Too subjective. There's nothing at all wrong with the current system.

 

[zDragon]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

Instead of a kneel down, teams will just hand the ball off and fall down on the ground then. Same result as a kneel down, but not technically kneeling down.

I think you are close. I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain. It would be a battle of inches regardless.

 

[mad sweeney]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

Instead of a kneeldown, teams will just hand the ball off and fall down on the ground then. Same result as a kneel down, but not technically kneeling down.

And how exactly would that be fair to the defense?

I'm in the camp that "fair" to the defense is not being in that position in the first place. But for the sake of this case, if you don't do the "must gain 1 yard" thing and just penalize 'kneel downs', then teams will rush the ball and fall over. Are we going to have a ref make the decision if he "tried hard enough" to get over the line or not? Too subjective. There's nothing at all wrong with the current system.

You're missing the gigantic sarcasm associated with my posts on this silly subject.

 

[monk]

So what you guys are saying is you like ending it with a kneel down ...

 

[mad sweeney]

So what you guys are saying is you like ending it with a kneel down ...

What does liking it have to do with it? Why would we like it any more if the losing team gets an artificially induced extra possession? Why would I like it any more if a defensive stand is nullified so the losing team can have an artificially induced extra possession? Teams have possessions, they have 4 downs, they have timeouts. If the end of the game falls within the winning team's possession time, then why should we like having that changed? It's as stupid as giving points for winning the coin toss.

 

[DropKick]

So what you guys are saying is you like ending it with a kneel down ...

What does liking it have to do with it? Why would we like it any more if the losing team gets an artificially induced extra possession? Why would I like it any more if a defensive stand is nullified so the losing team can have an artificially induced extra possession? Teams have possessions, they have 4 downs, they have timeouts. If the end of the game falls within the winning team's possession time, then why should we like having that changed? It's as stupid as giving points for winning the coin toss.

There should be a special replay official who can determine if a team is "stalling" or truly trying to advance the ball. He'll have the right to go medieval on the stalling QB - amputating one finger for each wasted play. That will get the game moving.

 

[TxBuckeye]

The NFL isn't changing the rule. Therefore, the folks saying that say the rule needs to be changed lose and are making themselves look foolish by carrying on this inane argument.But, since we all know you are to bullheaded to stop, please continue to carry on.

 

[zDragon]

So what you guys are saying is you like ending it with a kneel down ...

What does liking it have to do with it? Why would we like it any more if the losing team gets an artificially induced extra possession? Why would I like it any more if a defensive stand is nullified so the losing team can have an artificially induced extra possession? Teams have possessions, they have 4 downs, they have timeouts. If the end of the game falls within the winning team's possession time, then why should we like having that changed? It's as stupid as giving points for winning the coin toss.

 

[bryhamm]

So what you guys are saying is you like ending it with a kneel down ...

No, what we are saying is that there is nothing wrong with the way it is done now ... and that you are being idiotic.

 

[monk]

So what you guys are saying is you like ending it with a kneel down ...

No, what we are saying is that there is nothing wrong with the way it is done now ... and that you are being idiotic.

So its the kneeling that you like? in other words you like to kneel

 

[monk]

So what you guys are saying is you like ending it with a kneel down ...

What does liking it have to do with it? Why would we like it any more if the losing team gets an artificially induced extra possession? Why would I like it any more if a defensive stand is nullified so the losing team can have an artificially induced extra possession? Teams have possessions, they have 4 downs, they have timeouts. If the end of the game falls within the winning team's possession time, then why should we like having that changed? It's as stupid as giving points for winning the coin toss.

For a re tard

 

[monk]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

Instead of a kneel down, teams will just hand the ball off and fall down on the ground then. Same result as a kneel down, but not technically kneeling down.

I think you are close. I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain. It would be a battle of inches regardless.

I was thinking the old statue of liberty play myself ...I've never seen it fail.

 

[Deamon]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

Instead of a kneeldown, teams will just hand the ball off and fall down on the ground then. Same result as a kneel down, but not technically kneeling down.

And how exactly would that be fair to the defense?

I'm in the camp that "fair" to the defense is not being in that position in the first place. But for the sake of this case, if you don't do the "must gain 1 yard" thing and just penalize 'kneel downs', then teams will rush the ball and fall over. Are we going to have a ref make the decision if he "tried hard enough" to get over the line or not? Too subjective. There's nothing at all wrong with the current system.

You're missing the gigantic sarcasm associated with my posts on this silly subject.

With all the garbage in this thread sometimes I can't even tell what's sarcasm and what's just plain stupidity.

 

[ThaPenguin]

Is this real life?

 

[John 14:6]

I'm sure someone has already mentioned this, but if you don't like the kneel downs why not just stop watching at that point and do something else?

 

[zDragon]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

Instead of a kneel down, teams will just hand the ball off and fall down on the ground then. Same result as a kneel down, but not technically kneeling down.

I think you are close. I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain. It would be a battle of inches regardless.

I was thinking the old statue of liberty play myself ...I've never seen it fail.

All your post does is show your lack of actual football knowledge at this point. If I were you i would grab a and let it drop.

 

[monk]

Ok here is a quick made up example for the mentally challenged.

Team A takes over @ their own 20 yd line with 2:00 min on the clock and a 1 point lead

2:00 - 1st and 10 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clocked stopped at 1:55)

1:55 - 2nd and 10 - hand off up the middle for gain of 1 (clock still running play took 5 seconds - team uses 40 second clock)

1:10 - 3rd and 9 - hand off up the middle stopped for no gain (play took 5 seconds clock stopped at 1:05)

1:05 - 4th and 9 - Punt

*Even if the defense only stopped Team A short once (on 3rd down) ... Team B would still get the ball back with time on the clock and only needing a field goal to win.

As opposed to the current Ending

2:00 - 1st and 10 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

1:20 - 2nd and 11 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds)

:40 - 3rd and 12 - Kneel (run off 40 seconds) Game Over

Why should team B get a bunch of extra timeouts? Didn't they get their 3 already? Why should Team A get punished for stopping B and getting the ball back with 2:00 left? I get the semantic nonsense you're trying to create. But it's a flawed nail in a flawed cardboard treehouse built in a river bed during flood season. In other words, the entire idea is as stupid as you can get.

That's what I was wondering. I guess we could just give each team 4 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute of the game. Wait know they might waste them on offense and have 40 seconds left so the other team would kneel. So lets make it 8 time-outs in the last 1:00 minute. Dang, then again the offense might be able to use eight of them moving the ball so lets give the 16 just in case. That would be plenty to score and tie the game I think.

You know that would make the game to long. Lets just say if the team behind is within 7 we call it a tie and go to overtime.

You're an embarrassment to the other kids in your class

Nope. That's this thread and people still supporting absurd new rules.So since you don't like the time-out idea how about we just stop the clock the entire fourth quarter after every play. If you don't like that we can take 2 downs away from the team in the lead in the 4th. This will get you going.

Let's give the losing team one extra play for every kneel down that the winning team performs. That way have a predetermined number of plays to score form let's say the leading teams 20yd line.

Or maybe a kneel down would actually add time to the clock. I was going to suggest taking away a point for every kneeldown, but that's not fair for the team that's down by more than 3 points, who have clearly EARNED the right to get the ball back.

Instead of a kneel down, teams will just hand the ball off and fall down on the ground then. Same result as a kneel down, but not technically kneeling down.

I think you are close. I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain. It would be a battle of inches regardless.

I was thinking the old statue of liberty play myself ...I've never seen it fail.

All your post does is show your lack of actual football knowledge at this point. If I were you i would grab a and let it drop.

Or run a simple wedge ... it's guaranteed.

 

[zDragon]

Or run a simple wedge ... it's guaranteed.

"Run it, and let's get the hell out of here!" Again with your football knowledge lacking.

 

[Jetdoc]

I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain.

If this were the case, there would never be a 3rd and inches or 4th and inches that isn't converted in the NFL.

 

[zDragon]

I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain.

If this were the case, there would never be a 3rd and inches or 4th and inches that isn't converted in the NFL.

The conversion rate on third and one for the QB is 87% and on fourth and one 82%. Just as a reminder that third and inches can be from 1 to 35 inches. So a lot of those were trying to gain more than 1 or 2 inches. So in the crazy scenario where a team must make some forward progress to keep the clock running I'm pretty sure a full-back under center could gain a few inches of forward progress the majority of the time. Sure they will be stopped for less occasionally but the QB already converts this play at 82%. Remember that is a full yard not just forward progress or inches. Of course all the stats I look at come from game theory sites and stats sites. I have never seen a study on 3rd and 3 inch conversions. They usually just use one as the minimum.

 

[monk]

I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain.

If this were the case, there would never be a 3rd and inches or 4th and inches that isn't converted in the NFL.

The conversion rate on third and one for the QB is 87% and on fourth and one 82%. Just as a reminder that third and inches can be from 1 to 35 inches. So a lot of those were trying to gain more than 1 or 2 inches. So in the crazy scenario where a team must make some forward progress to keep the clock running I'm pretty sure a full-back under center could gain a few inches of forward progress the majority of the time. Sure they will be stopped for less occasionally but the QB already converts this play at 82%. Remember that is a full yard not just forward progress or inches. Of course all the stats I look at come from game theory sites and stats sites. I have never seen a study on 3rd and 3 inch conversions. They usually just use one as the minimum.

Sorry but you are a complete Jackazz ... when have you ever heard anyone say 3rd and 35 inches or 4th and 13 inches?!?!?! 3rd and about a foot ... Yes if it's close to a foot.

But third and inches usually means 6 in or less

And most teams are going to be reluctant to slam their QB into the line 3 or 4 consecutive times.

According to your stats 18% of the time the QB does not make it on 4th and 1 thats nearly 1 out of 5 trys they will stop them.

If this scenario happens 10 - 15 times a weekend ... the fans would see 2 or 3 better ending games than they do now... I'll take those odds

 

[mad sweeney]

I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain.

If this were the case, there would never be a 3rd and inches or 4th and inches that isn't converted in the NFL.

The conversion rate on third and one for the QB is 87% and on fourth and one 82%. Just as a reminder that third and inches can be from 1 to 35 inches. So a lot of those were trying to gain more than 1 or 2 inches. So in the crazy scenario where a team must make some forward progress to keep the clock running I'm pretty sure a full-back under center could gain a few inches of forward progress the majority of the time. Sure they will be stopped for less occasionally but the QB already converts this play at 82%. Remember that is a full yard not just forward progress or inches. Of course all the stats I look at come from game theory sites and stats sites. I have never seen a study on 3rd and 3 inch conversions. They usually just use one as the minimum.

Sorry but you are a complete Jackazz ... when have you ever heard anyone say 3rd and 35 inches or 4th and 13 inches?!?!?! 3rd and about a foot ... Yes if it's close to a foot.

But third and inches usually means 6 in or less

And most teams are going to be reluctant to slam their QB into the line 3 or 4 consecutive times.

According to your stats 18% of the time the QB does not make it on 4th and 1 thats nearly 1 out of 5 trys they will stop them.

If this scenario happens 10 - 15 times a weekend ... the fans would see 2 or 3 better ending games than they do now... I'll take those odds

 

[monk]

I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain.

If this were the case, there would never be a 3rd and inches or 4th and inches that isn't converted in the NFL.

The conversion rate on third and one for the QB is 87% and on fourth and one 82%. Just as a reminder that third and inches can be from 1 to 35 inches. So a lot of those were trying to gain more than 1 or 2 inches. So in the crazy scenario where a team must make some forward progress to keep the clock running I'm pretty sure a full-back under center could gain a few inches of forward progress the majority of the time. Sure they will be stopped for less occasionally but the QB already converts this play at 82%. Remember that is a full yard not just forward progress or inches. Of course all the stats I look at come from game theory sites and stats sites. I have never seen a study on 3rd and 3 inch conversions. They usually just use one as the minimum.

Sorry but you are a complete Jackazz ... when have you ever heard anyone say 3rd and 35 inches or 4th and 13 inches?!?!?! 3rd and about a foot ... Yes if it's close to a foot.

But third and inches usually means 6 in or less

And most teams are going to be reluctant to slam their QB into the line 3 or 4 consecutive times.

According to your stats 18% of the time the QB does not make it on 4th and 1 thats nearly 1 out of 5 trys they will stop them.

If this scenario happens 10 - 15 times a weekend ... the fans would see 2 or 3 better ending games than they do now... I'll take those odds

Yes better or what you know as gooder. I added one those hilarious to keep you amused for the rest of the day ... watch it spin ... it funny!

Count how many times it spins and update me tomorrow.

 

[mad sweeney]

I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain.

If this were the case, there would never be a 3rd and inches or 4th and inches that isn't converted in the NFL.

The conversion rate on third and one for the QB is 87% and on fourth and one 82%. Just as a reminder that third and inches can be from 1 to 35 inches. So a lot of those were trying to gain more than 1 or 2 inches. So in the crazy scenario where a team must make some forward progress to keep the clock running I'm pretty sure a full-back under center could gain a few inches of forward progress the majority of the time. Sure they will be stopped for less occasionally but the QB already converts this play at 82%. Remember that is a full yard not just forward progress or inches. Of course all the stats I look at come from game theory sites and stats sites. I have never seen a study on 3rd and 3 inch conversions. They usually just use one as the minimum.

Sorry but you are a complete Jackazz ... when have you ever heard anyone say 3rd and 35 inches or 4th and 13 inches?!?!?! 3rd and about a foot ... Yes if it's close to a foot.

But third and inches usually means 6 in or less

And most teams are going to be reluctant to slam their QB into the line 3 or 4 consecutive times.

According to your stats 18% of the time the QB does not make it on 4th and 1 thats nearly 1 out of 5 trys they will stop them.

If this scenario happens 10 - 15 times a weekend ... the fans would see 2 or 3 better ending games than they do now... I'll take those odds

Yes better or what you know as gooder. I added one those hilarious to keep you amused for the rest of the day ... watch it spin ... it funny!

Count how many times it spins and update me tomorrow.

The awesomest part of this post is that it's intelligenter than your football ideas.

 

[packseasontix]

This is so stupid they need to get ride of the 2 min warning, give teams 4 timeouts and let teams run whatever they want. If that's a kneel that's fine. Clock runs unless your out of bounds.Also, most teams get 1-2 possessions in the final 5 mins of the game. It's your own damn fault if you turn the ball back over.The only rule change might be a shorter play clock with under 2 mins in a half, maybe 30 seconds?

 

[monk]

I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain.

If this were the case, there would never be a 3rd and inches or 4th and inches that isn't converted in the NFL.

The conversion rate on third and one for the QB is 87% and on fourth and one 82%. Just as a reminder that third and inches can be from 1 to 35 inches. So a lot of those were trying to gain more than 1 or 2 inches. So in the crazy scenario where a team must make some forward progress to keep the clock running I'm pretty sure a full-back under center could gain a few inches of forward progress the majority of the time. Sure they will be stopped for less occasionally but the QB already converts this play at 82%. Remember that is a full yard not just forward progress or inches. Of course all the stats I look at come from game theory sites and stats sites. I have never seen a study on 3rd and 3 inch conversions. They usually just use one as the minimum.

Sorry but you are a complete Jackazz ... when have you ever heard anyone say 3rd and 35 inches or 4th and 13 inches?!?!?! 3rd and about a foot ... Yes if it's close to a foot.

But third and inches usually means 6 in or less

And most teams are going to be reluctant to slam their QB into the line 3 or 4 consecutive times.

According to your stats 18% of the time the QB does not make it on 4th and 1 thats nearly 1 out of 5 trys they will stop them.

If this scenario happens 10 - 15 times a weekend ... the fans would see 2 or 3 better ending games than they do now... I'll take those odds

Yes better or what you know as gooder. I added one those hilarious to keep you amused for the rest of the day ... watch it spin ... it funny!

Count how many times it spins and update me tomorrow.

The awesomest part of this post is that it's intelligenter than your football ideas.

You're not counting

Start Over

 

[zDragon]

I think they would actually run a simple Wedge with the FB (or reliable back) under center. While the defense would know it's coming it is very hard to force a turn-over since it's an under center snap and even when it fails you should get a small positive gain. I can't ever recall this play being stopped for absolutely no gain.

If this were the case, there would never be a 3rd and inches or 4th and inches that isn't converted in the NFL.

The conversion rate on third and one for the QB is 87% and on fourth and one 82%. Just as a reminder that third and inches can be from 1 to 35 inches. So a lot of those were trying to gain more than 1 or 2 inches. So in the crazy scenario where a team must make some forward progress to keep the clock running I'm pretty sure a full-back under center could gain a few inches of forward progress the majority of the time. Sure they will be stopped for less occasionally but the QB already converts this play at 82%. Remember that is a full yard not just forward progress or inches. Of course all the stats I look at come from game theory sites and stats sites. I have never seen a study on 3rd and 3 inch conversions. They usually just use one as the minimum.

Sorry but you are a complete Jackazz ... when have you ever heard anyone say 3rd and 35 inches or 4th and 13 inches?!?!?! 3rd and about a foot ... Yes if it's close to a foot.

But third and inches usually means 6 in or less

And most teams are going to be reluctant to slam their QB into the line 3 or 4 consecutive times.

According to your stats 18% of the time the QB does not make it on 4th and 1 thats nearly 1 out of 5 trys they will stop them.

If this scenario happens 10 - 15 times a weekend ... the fans would see 2 or 3 better ending games than they do now... I'll take those odds

Damn. I wrote a response to this before I realized it was you. Had to delete it. Not discussing this anymore with someone who does not understand the game.Nice way of avoiding the language filter though. Shows a lot about you right there.