4th down
Carl Banks
the limited options on fourth down. You either have very low risk
options (punt, field goal) or very high risk (go for it, fake), but
nothing that gives you a sort of medium-risk.
What I'd like to see is a medium risk option, such as something that
gives you a reasonable chance of conversion, but, if you fail, you
still probably advance the ball 20 yards or so so it's not quite as
risky as a fake. A sort of on-side kick from scrimmage, if you will.
Not sure of what the mechanics of it would be, though.
Suppose a kick that lands closer than ten yards from the line of
scrimmage is a live ball. So you could do a sprintout and a squib
punt and try to get it, and you'd still have to advance it enough
yards to get a first down if you want to retain possession. I don't
think that'd work too well in practice, though, and it's leave a team
prone to big returns.
Anyone else got thoughts about what could be a good medium risk play
for fourth down?
Carl Banks
GrtArtiste
> One thing about football that I always thought was a little boring was
> the limited options on fourth down. You either have very low risk
> options (punt, field goal) or very high risk (go for it, fake), but
> nothing that gives you a sort of medium-risk.
<snip>
I'm not sure I understand why doing anything to decrease risk in the
game would be desirable. It's a toss-up as to whether risk or skill is
the more entertaining aspect of the game. For myself, risk is what
makes football much more entertaining than either baseball or
basketball. These are much more skill-based yet derive their
entertainment value from the fact that many split-second decisions
must be made on how to react to the ball and the actions of other
players.
GrtArtiste
Goro
An onside kick is medium risk?
-goro-
Carl Banks
I don't know where you're getting the idea that this would decrease
risk-taking. Obviously, if a medium-risk option for fourth down could
be implemented, it would increase the amount of risk coaches are
willing to take. Right now, coaches do the low-risk boring thing
maybe 95 percent of fourth downs, and probably even 75 percent of
fourth and under a yard. You add a medium risk play and some of those
punts might turn into conversion attempts.
Carl Banks
Carl Banks
> On Nov 16, 5:31 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What I'd like to see is a medium risk option, such as something that
> > gives you a reasonable chance of conversion, but, if you fail, you
> > still probably advance the ball 20 yards or so so it's not quite as
> > risky as a fake. A sort of on-side kick from scrimmage, if you will.
> > Not sure of what the mechanics of it would be, though.
>
Yes, compared to a conversion attempt or fake.
First of all, it wouldn't be an "on-side kick" really. (If you want
to get technical, any kickoff is an on-side kick--in fact I think that
was the original name of the play, distinguishing it from a scrimmage
kick and a free kick, but common usage changed to refer specifically
to the play where the kicking team tries to recover the kickoff.) I
called it an on-side to communicate the idea I would be after, but it
wouldn't actually be that.
If a "scrimmage live kick" (let's call it that) is recovered by the
opposing team, it's likely to be 10-20 yards downfield, whereas on a
conversion there might be no gain.
Unlike for an on-side kick, for the scrimmage live kick the ball is in
play on the snap and the kicking team's players have time to go
downfield before the actual kick, significantly increasing the kicking
team's chances of recovery.
Finally, the opposing team would have to be prepared to cover both a
kick and a conversion attempt, which gives the kicking team a little
bit of advantage.
Given these factors and no unforseen drawbacks, this would make the
scrimmage live kick a decent medium risk option. (However, I'm not
sure there are no drawbacks. The play could be unacceptably injury
prone, for example. It might turn out to be too difficult for the
kicking team to cover the field, making it too easy for the receiving
team to return the kick. It might turn out that getting an fairly
accurate live kick off is too difficult, or that the risk of not
getting the kick off is too great.)
Also, I wonder if there are some other possibilities for medium risk
plays.
Carl Banks
Jaybyrd
your idea sounds like the XFL which was kind of fun IMO. Although
Jessie Ventura kept reminding us (too much) of how that made the XFL
so much better.
J.C. Watts Enslin
Yeah. Leave it alone. It's fine the way it is.
Jon
Carl Banks
Well, that's too much excitement for Wisconsin, I realize. If
football were to add a medium risk play, you Wisconsinites might end
up doing something extreme, like bringing liveliness to your streets.
Carl Banks
J.C. Watts Enslin
Football is full of medium risk plays. It's called the short passing
game.
Jon
Jefferson N. Glapski
news:ac507f68-6cb5-4862...@f37g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> One thing about football that I always thought was a little boring was
> the limited options on fourth down. You either have very low risk
> options (punt, field goal) or very high risk (go for it, fake), but
> nothing that gives you a sort of medium-risk.
>
> What I'd like to see is a medium risk option, such as something that
> gives you a reasonable chance of conversion, but, if you fail, you
> still probably advance the ball 20 yards or so so it's not quite as
> risky as a fake. A sort of on-side kick from scrimmage, if you will.
> Not sure of what the mechanics of it would be, though.
Someone has to be behind the punter, I believe. That play does exist in CFL
and CIS rules. I've been victimized by it.
The punter in the CFL and CIS game can recover his punt as well, as long as
he's the first to do so. However, if you want to incorporate that, the fair
catch would have to be eliminated.
Seapig
I think it's illegal to intentionally bat the ball forward, but if
that wasn't the case, maybe the quarterback/punter could knock the
ball downfield, with something like a volleyball serve, and have it
treated like a long fumble. That would be similar to the sort of
"onside punt" you're talking about.(I'm not totally sure what the
rules are now about who can recover and/or advance a fumble on fourth
down; they might have to tweak that as well.)
mianderson
> One thing about football that I always thought was a little boring was
> the limited options on fourth down. You either have very low risk
> options (punt, field goal) or very high risk (go for it, fake), but
> nothing that gives you a sort of medium-risk.
>
> What I'd like to see is a medium risk option, such as something that
> gives you a reasonable chance of conversion, but, if you fail, you
> still probably advance the ball 20 yards or so so it's not quite as
> risky as a fake. A sort of on-side kick from scrimmage, if you will.
> Not sure of what the mechanics of it would be, though.
oh jesus....thats *fundamentally* changing the rules of the game.
Thats fundamentally changing what football is.
I don't mind small rules alterations(ie overtime, two point
conversions, moving the kickoffs back, etc). But your idea is
ridiculous.
Side note: Teams in general are WAY too conservative on fourth down.
every single study has shown that teams should go for it far more
often. Like in a 10-10 game in the second qtr and one team has the
ball at midfield and it's fourth and two and half. The proper thing
to do is go for it. But almost every team punts.
SG
>
> Side note: Teams in general are WAY too conservative on fourth down.
> every single study has shown that teams should go for it far more
> often. Like in a 10-10 game in the second qtr and one team has the
> ball at midfield and it's fourth and two and half. The proper thing
> to do is go for it. But almost every team punts.
>
that's more like it, you're starting to get your groove back
Jaybyrd
> On Nov 16, 7:31 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One thing about football that I always thought was a little boring was
> > the limited options on fourth down. You either have very low risk
> > options (punt, field goal) or very high risk (go for it, fake), but
> > nothing that gives you a sort of medium-risk.
>
> > What I'd like to see is a medium risk option, such as something that
> > gives you a reasonable chance of conversion, but, if you fail, you
> > still probably advance the ball 20 yards or so so it's not quite as
> > risky as a fake. A sort of on-side kick from scrimmage, if you will.
> > Not sure of what the mechanics of it would be, though.
>
> oh jesus....thats *fundamentally* changing the rules of the game.
> Thats fundamentally changing what football is.
>
> I don't mind small rules alterations(ie overtime, two point
> conversions, moving the kickoffs back, etc). But your idea is
> ridiculous.
>
> Side note: Teams in general are WAY too conservative on fourth down.
> every single study has shown that teams should go for it far more
> often. Like in a 10-10 game in the second qtr and one team has the
> ball at midfield and it's fourth and two and half. The proper thing
> to do is go for it. But almost every team punts.
I'd be interested in reading 3 or 4 of those studies. Thanks in
advance for the link.,,, especially the studies that reference your
type of scenario.
Gozer the Traveler
By "every study", he means "a study". Specifically, this one.
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/users/dromer/papers/PAPER_NFL_JULY05_FORWEB_CORRECTED.pdf
--
TO
Carl Banks
> On Nov 16, 4:31 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > One thing about football that I always thought was a little boring was
> > the limited options on fourth down. You either have very low risk
> > options (punt, field goal) or very high risk (go for it, fake), but
> > nothing that gives you a sort of medium-risk.
>
> > What I'd like to see is a medium risk option, such as something that
> > gives you a reasonable chance of conversion, but, if you fail, you
> > still probably advance the ball 20 yards or so so it's not quite as
> > risky as a fake. A sort of on-side kick from scrimmage, if you will.
> > Not sure of what the mechanics of it would be, though.
>
> > Suppose a kick that lands closer than ten yards from the line of
> > scrimmage is a live ball. So you could do a sprintout and a squib
> > punt and try to get it, and you'd still have to advance it enough
> > yards to get a first down if you want to retain possession. I don't
> > think that'd work too well in practice, though, and it's leave a team
> > prone to big returns.
>
> > Anyone else got thoughts about what could be a good medium risk play
> > for fourth down?
>
> that wasn't the case, maybe the quarterback/punter could knock the
> ball downfield, with something like a volleyball serve, and have it
> treated like a long fumble. That would be similar to the sort of
> "onside punt" you're talking about.(I'm not totally sure what the
> rules are now about who can recover and/or advance a fumble on fourth
> down; they might have to tweak that as well.)
I like it.
I don't even think the fumble advance rules would have to be tweaked
that much, at least not in college.
Carl Banks
mianderson
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/users/dromer/papers/PAPER_NFL_JULY05_FORWEB_CORRECTED.pdf
.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
mianderson
well it's right. For starters, people typically overestimate what net
punting average is, dont take into account the risk of a blocked punt,
dont take into account the risk of a huge return, etc,
Plus, the fundamental problem with punting is that it is a TURNOVER.
You're turning the ball over to another team. Now obviously it's
situation dependent, but on fourth and 2 at midfield in the second
qtr.,....unless your offense is atrocious and your defense is great,
go for it.
Jefferson N. Glapski
news:87c65244-114a-4ab9...@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...
http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/users/dromer/papers/PAPER_NFL_JULY05_FORWEB_CORRECTED.pdf
===========
The Lucas Critique holds for a lot of this.