The Football Thread

[MHSL82]

My long drawn out responses with actually a lot of things that could be changed is not designed to say that football is bad. I enjoy it. I realize that I could be giving you more reasons to be confused or upset or turned off by football, but I think it’s one of those things that if you like football are going to see a different. You’re never going to get me to like soccer, even though I could end up watching a game every once in a while if we hung out. My father-in-law sends me videos of cool soccer kicks. And I am thinking, if the whole game had those things, it would be interesting to me. It’s just not because it doesn’t. I understand that people feel the same way about football sometimes when I just see a bad team, running into other players for a yard or two. Over and over and over again until they kick it to the other team.

 

[nuraman00]

There was a comedian who complained about how a vase needing a gender was stupid. It might not have been a vase, but the point was having an object have to have a gender was stupid.

In Chinese, ta means he or she when spoken. The written word is different for a he or a she, but the spoken word is the same. So when you’re explaining something, and there’s a boy and a girl involved, you have to know who is who by context. when a song is sung, the tones that use are altered in order to fit the song but then once you do that, it’s not clear what they are saying without context. Most times it’s fine because you would imagine that one is not talking about a dog when they are singing about love or something, even though I love my dog. In other words, most often the context is obvious.

Thanks.

I'm sure I would get confused about the context, even though it would be obvious to you.

 

[nuraman00]

Let me know when you’re able to watch the YouTube video in response to the lateral pass. There are some col plays where one thinks the game is over but there are multiple backwards passes where someone eventually gets loose. I think one has to accept the premise in order to enjoy those, but I think that they are entertaining. Of course if it’s my team losing, it’s upsetting.

I think, allowing more forward passes or only allowing forward passes, would change the game so much that a play really doesn’t have a natural beginning or end, which is what makes football different than soccer, in my opinion. Even basketball can go on forever if the ball doesn’t go out of bounds or in the basket or a foul/travel being called. Football is basically, with the exception of a few plays in history is over pretty quickly. However long it takes for somebody to run 100 yards is basically the longest play except for in crazy situations.

I feel that allowing multiple forward passes it would be like having a transition the whole game of the basketball. Or it’s sort of like when you want to play half court basketball at the gym but somebody suggest having for court. Then you’re going to have some people there designed to be on one side of the court because they’re obviously not athletes. In the real game that wouldn’t happen that way, but it would be a different strategy. If you could keep on just running and then just go to the next player you see. That’s why I was saying it would be like lacrosse or soccer. if there was no such thing as rugby, I could see an argument for having a game that allows what you’re talking about, I’m just saying to take the game that exists and to change it for simplicity sake or whatever, changes it for those people who do enjoy it.

Good points.

Baseball would be the other play that has quick beginnings and endings.

Sure every once in a while, there's a play where a runner is in a "pickle" in between bases, and there's a lot of throwing back and forth to try and get the runner to commit to one direction, then get him out.

But most of the time, these are the sequences:

1) Pitch is thrown, batter takes.
2) Pitch is thrown, batter either misses or fouls it.
3) Pitch is thrown, ball is in play. Fielder fields it, and tries to throw to a certain base as quickly as possible, before a runner reaches there.

Sometimes you can have a play like this, where pitch is thrown, fielder catches it, then also gets an existing base runner out. But those are more rare.

You are right, basketball can go on for minutes without a dead ball situation.

Baseball, and football, have dead ball situations in under a minute. In under 30 seconds, most of the time.

 

[nuraman00]

It’s only one player who does, the player with the ball.

So players without the ball can't stiff arm? A defensive linebacker can't stiff arm an offensive linebacker?

 

[nuraman00]

If you couldn’t pressure him, that would be unfair.

What defines a pressure, and what defines a non pressure?

 

[nuraman00]

My long drawn out responses with actually a lot of things that could be changed is not designed to say that football is bad. I enjoy it. I realize that I could be giving you more reasons to be confused or upset or turned off by football, but I think it’s one of those things that if you like football are going to see a different. You’re never going to get me to like soccer, even though I could end up watching a game every once in a while if we hung out. My father-in-law sends me videos of cool soccer kicks. And I am thinking, if the whole game had those things, it would be interesting to me. It’s just not because it doesn’t. I understand that people feel the same way about football sometimes when I just see a bad team, running into other players for a yard or two. Over and over and over again until they kick it to the other team.

Soccer is dumb in that they have penalty kicks decide outcomes.

It's like they play one game for 90-100 minutes, then play a completely different game to decide the outcome.

Hockey has a similar issue. But I think shootouts decide games less often then penalty kicks in soccer. I don't have any stats, I just think it happens less in hockey.

 

[nuraman00]

for those people who do enjoy it.

People don't really like football.

They like using those 3.5 hours to tailgate, gamble, drink, and eat fatty foods. That's what football has become, to many.

 

[nuraman00]

There are stupid ways of trying to enforce the rules by determining what is considered a catch and what is not or what is roughing the passer and what is not. They used to have issues with not being able to have instant replay.

Yes, all of these are open to interpretation, sometimes.

 

[nuraman00]

Here’s one for you that you probably don’t like, there are certain times, where when a ball is fumbled, the office can advance it, and times were only the defense get rancid. And the reason for this is because I don’t want to many purposeful, fumbles forward or backwards, I suppose. I don’t know the exact rules on this because it doesn’t usually come in to play much. In other words, most times you can advance, just a certain situation where you can’t. You can still recover the ball, but the ball is down there.

I can't recall seeing a situation yet where a team got a fumble, and couldn't advance it.

 

[nuraman00]

There is one interesting rule where if the defender touches the ball after a punt the ball is still alive, but it’s also dead at the same time. What that means is that if the offensive player grabs the ball after the defender touched it, and then he fumbled it, he doesn’t really lose the ball because the play was over where the defender touched it. But if that offensive player returns it for again, then the ball is down wherever the player gets to.

Can you give examples, using Team A and Team B?

The rules on punt returns are a little confusing to me sometimes, but not to the point where I don't understand it at all.

 

[nuraman00]

If a defender starts a play before the play is started, it’s called encroachment (?), and sometimes the quarterback basically gets a “free play where the result of the play because it was the defense fault has no negative consequence. So if that was an interception, it doesn’t really matter because the play is over at the time the defender started incorrectly. But if the offense throws or runs for a gain or a touchdown, then he gets that result. That’s why it’s called the Free Play.

Is encroachment basically the defensive side version of False Start? Is "false start" limited to the offense only?

 

[nuraman00]

This is not really a rule issue, but it could be adjusted by adjusting the rule: there was a coach who challenged a play, saying that the player did not catch the ball, even though the player caught it and ran 8 yards with it. He challenged the call because that player fumbled at the end of the play and the whistle had blown. His argument was that the ball came out before the whistle was blown, but that wasn’t challengeable so when he challenged the catch, the whole play was reviewed. The Chiefs lost the ball in that play as well. I get that it’s smart, but it seems disingenuine, that if it’s not challengeable, that should not be challengeable. Or they should open it up to be challengeable and that’s that. But I feel that if he says that he’s challenging to catch. The NFL should be able to say it was a catch.

So he challenged the catch, even though you can't challenge catches? How did he pull that off?

Why didn't the referees say "you can't challenge whether it was a catch"?

I agree it's disingenuous to say he didn't catch it, just because he fumbled it after the catch.

 

[nuraman00]

ust like that example I talked about spiking the ball or taking a knee being important for the quarterback to know, a player should also know that a kickoff is live and so you have to get the ball and down it. There was a game where the receiver didn’t remember that and let the ball just sit and so the defense ran and grabbed it in the end zone for a touchdown. i’m not sure if that is both college and NFL.

So when is it still a live ball, when the kicking team touches the ball after they punt it?

And when is it considered a "touch back", and if the defense touches it, the play is dead, and the offense still keeps the ball?

 

[MHSL82]

So he challenged the catch, even though you can't challenge catches? How did he pull that off?

Why didn't the referees say "you can't challenge whether it was a catch"?

I agree it's disingenuous to say he didn't catch it, just because he fumbled it after the catch.

He couldn’t challenge whether it was a fumble because the whistle had been blown maybe before the fumble or at the same time as the fumble or before the recovery of the fumble. So he challenged the catch which was challengeable. But I wish they could just say nope that’s a catch.

 

[MHSL82]

So players without the ball can't stiff arm? A defensive linebacker can't stiff arm an offensive linebacker?

You can’t grab a player or hit them in the head or other things that are for safety or for times where it seems utterly unfair. If you could just tackle everybody, you wouldn’t need to block. It would be too easy to win. Of course, you would get both sides winning every once in a while, but whenever one did, I would be to easy to score or two easy to start from scoring. (Pass interference being ok would be a killer to the game.) And I don’t think it will be interesting to let both of them try.

In some situations, it almost would be like letting some players besides the goalie use hands. For example, if they said that you could use hands when you’re on the opposite side of where you’re trying to score in soccer. It might sound like it’s not that big of a deal, but it would be.

Here is some info: Football Stiff Arm

 

[MHSL82]

What defines a pressure, and what defines a non pressure?

Just being close to the quarterback, to affect him to either run, rush, the throw, back up, or fluster him. Basically, it’s just getting really close to hitting him or hitting the ball, or tackle (sack).

 

[MHSL82]

I can't recall seeing a situation yet where a team got a fumble, and couldn't advance it.

 

[MHSL82]

Is encroachment basically the defensive side version of False Start? Is "false start" limited to the offense only?

Yes.

 

[MHSL82]

Can you give examples, using Team A and Team B?

The rules on punt returns are a little confusing to me sometimes, but not to the point where I don't understand it at all.

There is a section on this in the same link as the advancing a fumble information:

 

[MHSL82]

People don't really like football.

They like using those 3.5 hours to tailgate, gamble, drink, and eat fatty foods. That's what football has become, to many.

Blasphemy. I watch my games, sober by myself most times or with my dad every once in a while. Other sports are the same or sometimes it is for one gender or another. I would still enjoy basketball, but I have so much watching the WNBA. A lot of women, not all, go to basketball games just for the experience, but not the game. Most of the people at soccer game are not watching the game unless everyone else gets loud. I am exaggerating, and obviously talking more about American audiences of soccer, but still.