Rule Change
Question for you football fans…
What would you think about changing the rules to where field goals had different point values based on distance. For example, 30 yards and under is 3 points, 31-40 yards is 4 points, and over 41 yards is 5 points.
It would change the dynamic of the game so that coaches have to make calculations whether or not to attempt a 4 or 5 point field goal in the face of a stiff defense instead trying for the touchdown and perhaps settling on a 3 point field goal. Also, it would precipitate a rash of building domed stadiums.
I haven’t decided if I like it or not, but what do you think? How would it affect the game?
Ummm… ICK!!!
Posted by silent E on August 29, 2009 at 2158 hrs
My initial thought was that it would be great, but the more I think about it the less I think that.
It would reduce attempts to actually score a touchdown in a close game in which a team is down by 4 or 5 points.
Or we may see a team on the 20 yard-line with 3rd down simply run backwards 25 yards and kneel to set up for the extra points.
At the end of the day, the touchdown is the fundamental score in football and I think adding more than 3 points to any field goal would dilute that.
Posted by Joey on August 29, 2009 at 2202 hrs
What about something like 1 point for 0-30 yards, 2 points for 30-40 yards, and 3 points for more than 40 yards?
Posted by Owen on August 29, 2009 at 2205 hrs
Hmm…better, but you would still be penalizing a team that’s down by 3 who goes for a touchdown on 3rd down from the 45 and winds up landing on the 10-yard-line. Seeing teams go for touchdowns less often would hurt the game.
Posted by Joey on August 29, 2009 at 2210 hrs
Hmmmm…. good point. But in that event, the field goal is merely an attempt at some pity points if a team fails to make a touchdown. If that’s the case, then let’s do away with them all together. As it is now, the field goal is a strategic element of the game. By changing the point values, it becomes moreso. I agree that it changes the touchdown from the fundamental score of the game, but it retains its supremacy as the maximum single score.
Posted by Owen on August 29, 2009 at 2213 hrs
Absolutely, it would be a HUGE change in the strategy and would add a whole new layer. Instead of simply, “Get across that line,” it would be, “Get across that line unless you decide you can’t make it, in which case don’t cross this line.” While it may be great for people who love that kind of strategy, I’m guessing football’s mass audience wouldn’t appreciate it as much.
I do like the fact that a team down 3 past the 40 on 4th down would have to go for a TD rather than simply tying the game and sending it to overtime.
Posted by Joey on August 29, 2009 at 2220 hrs
You’re probably right as far as the mass audience is concerned. Coaches would spend days explaining themselves on these kind of calculations. But for a guy like me, it would, as you say, add another layer of “strategery” to the game.
Posted by Owen on August 29, 2009 at 2224 hrs
How ‘bout passing through the uprights is 1 point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2009 at 2229 hrs
Yeah, I get enough guff from my brother because I can’t remember all the positions on a football team. I don’t need him chastising my inability to figure out the scoring, too.
At least I know now how to keep score.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2009 at 2234 hrs
The more I think about it, the less I like it. Touchdowns would go way down. Sitting on the 30, with 15 seconds left, you’d have to kick the field goal, rather than try for a touchdown first, because if you missed the touchdown you’d have gotten closer and lost possible points. And even as a soccer player who kicked abit, I’d hate to have kickers become the most important possition on a team.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2009 at 2346 hrs
Gotta agree with Curt. Even my eldest son (17) made the comment about the kicker becoming the MVP on the team, perhaps demanding high compensation and holding the limelight to, say, the QB. Just a thought. Adds a different dimension to the value on positions.
Posted by GAMazy on August 30, 2009 at 0043 hrs
Anything under 40 yards for a field goal is almost automatic in the NFL. I’d support anything over 40 yards is worth 4 points.
If someone wants to run backwards for a longer field goal - I don’t have a problem with that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2009 at 0636 hrs
I like the idea of rule changes except those friggin’ Texans and their recently instituted “do over” at the new Cowboys stadium
Your proposal would probably work better if the points values were lowered slightly. If your kicker was better than your QB you would probably go for a 5 point field goal instead of trying to drive for a 6 point TD. I would rather see a team go for the TD than watch a kicking contest.
A better rule change would be instituting a “time-in”. Football would have constant tension if a couple of times during the game a team was allowed the opportunity to restart the game 30 seconds after the opposing team had called a time-out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2009 at 0716 hrs
Maybe a field goal of more than 45 or 50 yards being worth 4 pts, but even that would change the dynamics of the game, and I’m not sure it would be for the better. I really do not think that, as a rule, there is too little scoring in football. If you are within 3 or 4 pts at the end of a game, you should have enough confidence in your offense to go for the TD. Remember the Packer-Viqueen game last year where McCarthy settled for a 50+yd FG try instead of trying to get closer? Didn’t work out so well. I’d almost favor moving the uprights closer together to reduce FG tries.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2009 at 0726 hrs
I dont like the rule change only for the fact that the kickers in a dome have an advantage, over outdoor stadiums.
a home team kicker in a dome would have the air conditioner kicked up a notch or 2 in there favor and against the away team.
if all were played outside than i wouldnt have a problem with it make it 5 for over 50 yards or something.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2009 at 1147 hrs
I have been beaten to nearly all the arguments against this idea, and—so sorry—I have seen no good arguments in favor of it.
silent E said it best right off the bat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2009 at 1426 hrs
Anything that increases the value of a field goal and makes coaches even more conservative is bad in my opinion. This would be bad. I’d rather see a missed field goal cost the kicking team a point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2009 at 1506 hrs
Imagine what it would do to the price of a good free agent kicker.
Posted by Lance on August 31, 2009 at 0930 hrs
I ask the question ... Has the three point arc improved or hurt the NBA? is this not the same thing? If you increase the benefit of the long field goal, I would suggest also increasing the penalty for missing one from that distance. For example, the coach could call for a 3 point field goal from 45 yards, or a 4 pointer from the same distance. The difference being a 10-15 yard penalty from the point of a missed 4 point kick to determine the position the opposing team takes over.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 31, 2009 at 1506 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 102
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 02:45 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).