Safeties should be worth more than touchdowns

[jfra78]

I agree that it should be counted as a touchdown witht he team scoring the points kicking the ball off.  Its hard enough to describe the point system in football to a newb before getting to safeties.  As soon as you get to safeties you lose them every time.

As far as FG points go, I feel we should just get rid of them all together.  Maybe once you cross the 50 you have to use all 4 downs.

[LinvilleGorge]

I can't see FGs going away. The concept is just too ingrained in the game of football at this point.

[Snake]

2 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

I agree that it should be counted as a touchdown witht he team scoring the points kicking the ball off.  Its hard enough to describe the point system in football to a newb before getting to safeties.  As soon as you get to safeties you lose them every time.

As far as FG points go, I feel we should just get rid of them all together.  Maybe once you cross the 50 you have to use all 4 downs.

Wouldn't be a terrible idea but kicking is one part of the game that can be as exciting and game changing as any play. Just moving it out to the 30 was game changing. 

[jfra78]

3 minutes ago, Snake said:

Wouldn't be a terrible idea but kicking is one part of the game that can be as exciting and game changing as any play. Just moving it out to the 30 was game changing. 

I think it would be more exciting seeing a defense stop a team 4 times inside the 5 and getting the ball back.  But yeah it will never happen

[Snake]

9 minutes ago, jfra78 said:

I think it would be more exciting seeing a defense stop a team 4 times inside the 5 and getting the ball back.  But yeah it will never happen

It won't when we still have kick returns even though they are just stupid at this point. 

[4Corners]

49 minutes ago, Snake said:

Another cool concept would be instead of a coin flip each team would kick a unblocked FG. Whoever gets the longest distance gets ball or can take the ball in the second half. Would make kickers much more important. 

Yeah no 

[woahfraze]

53 minutes ago, Snake said:

It would be two kicks. The longest would win. If both missed you could just give the ball to the visiting team. Two kicks would be quicker than one replay in the NFL to determine what is a catch so stop being a dick. It's just hypothetical. 

 

How would you determine which team kicked their field goal first?  The team going second would have the advantage of choosing a longer kick if the other team made their's, or a shorter one if the other team missed.

A coin toss?

[Sgt Schultz]

<Sigh>  I have to ask, what problem is this trying to solve?  Or, is it just daring the NFL to screw around with the rules again (and eff it up in the process)?

A safety is worth two points and the ball back after a kick.  Before kickers started booming the ball the distances they have in the last 10 or 15 years, the big advantage for the defensive team was that the ball was kicked from the 20, not the 35 (or 40 originally).  It used to be that the receiving team wound up getting the ball back between their own 40 and midfield most of the time.  That was a pretty big deal. 

If the goal is to restore the advantage that once existed, have the team giving up the safety kick off from their own goal line.  That would mean most times the receiving team, the one that scored the safety, would receive the kick somewhere around their own 25 and would, most likely, return it to somewhere between the 40 and 50 again. 

If we want to impact FG's, narrow the goal posts a little.  I'm not talking about arena football narrow, but there is nothing magical about 18'-6".  Shave that to 15', or 14'-6", leave the hash marks alone and see what happens. 

Anyone have an idea whether the number of FGs attempted changed with the addition of the 2-point conversion?  Before that, kicking field goals meant points were lost and could not be made up.  There was no way for 2 FGs to equal a TD.  The lost point was just that: lost.  So, a team down 28-17 in the final quarter did themselves little good by kicking a FG.  If they got to the final 5 or 6 minutes, they pretty much had to go for the end zone. 

In the league's effort to "make the game more exciting," they may have actually made it less so more often than not.  There is that old thing about for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (Newton's Third Law), but the league never believes it applies to them. 

[MHS831]

1 hour ago, Snake said:

That's just a laughable concept. Football is all about pushing your way down for a TD. No one wants to see FGs. Long distance FGs just mean your teams offense sucks. Now changing two point conversations to 4 points would be cool. 

I hate the idea myself.  You are right.  If I had the ball on the 45 yard line and I was down by 4, I would take a delay of game and kick for a tie--instead, we get the hail mary--a pretty exciting play. 

[t96]

2 hours ago, Eazy-E said:

I’ve always felt it should be counted as a defensive touchdown. 6 points, kick the extra point or go for 2, and then a regular kickoff. No more keeping possession and the weird safety kickoff.

I think it should be 6, extra point and possession with the safety punt the same.

[Happy Panther]

Quote

Imagine a team getting the ball down by 9 points with a few minutes left, driving all the way to the one-yard line and then kneeling on fourth down. Deliberately surrendering the ball to give their defense a chance to win the game with a safety? That might sound far-fetched. But now that the NFL’s new, safety-minded onside kick rule has resulted in a recovery rate of just 10.4 percent in the last two seasons, a team down by 9 points or more in the game’s final minutes has precious little hope of getting back-to-back offensive scores. An 11-point safety would do the trick.

Interesting tidbit

[MHS831]

I don't understand why we call it football, now that I think about it--you just say it and don't realize how dumb the name really is.  Like the Buffalo Bills.  That is stupid if you give it some thought. That would be as dumb as the Colts changing their name to the Indiana Joneses.

Deep thoughts, by MHS.

[Happy Panther]

10 minutes ago, Sgt Schultz said:

<Sigh>  I have to ask, what problem is this trying to solve?  Or, is it just daring the NFL to screw around with the rules again (and eff it up in the process)?

 

The article doesn’t really suggest the NFL change the rules. It more of a statistical aside.

[MHS831]

I mean, there is already a sport called football all around the world.  We call it "American Football," but that does not describe the CFL, does it?  Heck, if we are going to share a name with a sport using adjectives, why not call the Sport they play in South America and Europe, "Helmetless, scoreless, or sissy futball"  or call the game we play here, "Warball or CTEball."

Deep thoughts

-by MHS