Considerably? At least the pass comes after some action of the QB/offence trying to make a play and the defence harassing the QB
Very interesting. Things that make a man go hmmmm. You make a good case here.
Oh come on now! No less actions occurs when the defensive team attempts to harass the kicker on a kick play. They rush in to block the kick and potentially pick up a loose ball for a touchdown. There's your money's worth on that play. No more , no less than a pass thrown intentionally out of bounds. A kick with intended distance is actually hard to place out of bounds accurately than is a QB pass intended to just end the play. In both instances (kick vs pass play) the entertainment of the plays are intentionally being cut short to the usual benefit of the offensive team, 1) no kick return, 2) no loss of yardage. Penalize the kicker for intentionally putting the ball out of play and spoiling entertainment value, so too should the QB be penalize for spoiling entertainment value. While we're at it let's get rid of "putting a knee down in the endzone" and give the fans more for their entertainment money. Somehow though, I can't think of a reason to penalize a team for a fumble out of bounds that stops the entertainment abruptly too. Lol, Changing the kick out of bounds rules simply for entertainment reasons by removing strategy out of the kicking game is nonsensical.
What strategy is removed? Kickers can still try for coffin corner kicks, but they have to make sure the ball lands in bounds first.
Precisely! And the principle that all kicks/punts should theoretically be returnable is preserved.
Ruling the ball must land in the field of play removes the strategy from a team to aim for absolutely no kick return. The fact that kickers are penalized now for some punts going out of bounds is ridiculous. At present a punter looking to place a punt out of bounds, and does so, but not where intended in effect has already punished his team. Why penalize a shitty punt? Do offensive team punt return ball carriers, running backs or pass receivers get penalized for intentionally carrying the ball out of bounds to end plays and stop the clock? Of course not! Shouldn't those players also be made to make every attempt to remain on the field for action which entertains the fans?
There is no such theory.
Dead on. The CFL punt return game is so much more exciting that those fair catch and touchbacks in the NFL. In most instances the ball is allowed to bounce out the end zine for a touchback when they could have easily been fielded and an attempt made to run them out. My Denver cousin and son visited us in Mb a few years back. Her son played high school football as a D.B. and punt returner. When Intold him "no fair catch" in Canadian football his eyes went wide as if he was envisioning the possible carnage
Really? Well perhaps you are right in that we have elbow room in the rules for coffin corner kicks or even place kicks or dribbled balls kicked out of bounds legally. But there definitely is a "pro-return" rationale / philosophy to the illegal punt out of bounds, illegal kickoff and no-yards rules.
Balticfox is simply extending that idea to all punts or even all kicks. So the theory exists and its fair to debate the extent to which said theory should be employed in the game.
The kickers can still try to kick for absolutely no kick returns. They just have to be more skilled about it. I agree it's not a perfect rule when a shanked punt gets a penalty on top of the poor field position from the shank.
The offensive teams players who intentionally run out of bounds are penalized with the limited field position. They are giving up the opportunity of gaining more yards by going out.
But, as per the argument in this thread of keep the ball in play for the entertainment value, ball carriers who intentionally sacrafice yardage are cheating the fans too.
While not actually called a penalty, the offense is penalized by a loss of down and there is the added factor that the ball must cross the original line of scrimage in bounds before going out of bounds.
Sorry but I don't see it as a loss of down. It's an opportunity to use an out of bounds option by grounding the ball. It's a wasted down but intended to end the play, just as does an intentional kick out of bound does.
What I can never agree with is the 'entertainment factor' that is used as an excuse for the rules applied to punting. So fans only want to see passes in the air, running backs gaining first downs on the ground, and a punt out of bounds is boring? What about the fans in their seats that can appreciate the 'factor' of strategy in football? Have we completely lost our attention span to the game unless something huge is happening at every single moment? If fans don't understand why a team would want their punter to punt the ball out-of-bounds then I guess the TV guys should explain it on the replay. But, those guys don't want to necessarily dumb everything down. The fan base for a team starts with loyalty, intrigue, and an event where learning is always on the menu. That adds appreciation and continued support.
Changing the rules (constantly) suggests to people, "sorry, but you've wasted your money and time so far, but we're going to fix that now."
I'm not sure about all this yet, but I like the spirit of this sort of strategic and "strategeric" thinking and feel like this will get us to a better place other than BORING.
Carry on, thank you for taking my call again, and I'll go ahead and hang up and listen.
Whats bugging me on punts now is that they took out the wedge for defending put returns to allow for more return yards.
So now the wedge forms downfield in front of the ball carrier. It's exactly the same except the players run downfield before forming the wedge...
I disagree it is not the same. I do not know how the restrictions on wedge blocking are being enforced or not based on the distance from the returner and ball carrier, but it is part of the cover team's job to bust up or skirt that 3+ man wedge closer to the line of scrimmage now too.
If the cover team does not for whatever reason, that's on the cover team.
I'm okay with the rule the way it has been changed and nothing else is needed on this front.
Sure, if you want to split hairs about it. I think the difference between the situations is pretty clear though.