Some Football Observations

Problems of the Hurry Up Offense

It seems to me that, even though the fast-paced Philadelphia Eagles/Oregon Ducks-type hurry up offenses have seemed powerful and sometimes unstoppable in their rapid fire, helter skelter pace, they appear to have a weakness. That weakness is that the fast, fast, fast pace that they play at offensively, with play after play after play going on at a break neck pace, will sometimes backfire on another part of their team, their defense.

They can run one fast play, gain two yards, hurry up to the line, run another running play, gain three more yards, then, hurry up to the line again, trying to catch the defense off guard, and throw an incomplete pass, making their offense go three plays and out in less than a minute’s time. That means, the defense has to go back onto the field with next to no rest. If the opponent can grind out long, twelve-play, eight minute drives, and end up putting seven points on the scoreboard, the defense will get very tired and worn out.

Then, if the offense goes out there and runs their rapid offensive attack, and FAILS to hold onto the ball again, and is forced to punt again after another one minute possession, the already tired defense will have to go out on the field again way too early. Another long drive resulting in still more points will tire the defense out even more. That will put on still more pressure onto the offense, that will possibly make them play anxiously during their next time out (being forced to do SOMETHING on offense to give the D a rest), along with that already tired defense being nearly desperate to have the offense get some first downs.

In other words, the failure of fast paced offenses to DO SOMETHING positive on offense can have the effect of screwing up the defense and cause the teams to have a serious imbalance of the offensive and defensive units. It can result in serious highs and lows for these teams. They can get the whole thing rolling and simply blow out opponents. Or, they can allow a mis-firing offense to put too much pressure on the defense, and they, an otherwise powerful team, can get seriously outplayed, and blown out themselves.

Coffin Corner kicks

Why is it that when teams have to punt the ball away to the other team from somewhere inside the 50, they never try to kick it out of bounds, and aim for the area inside the five yard line anymore? The kick to the middle of the field leaves a whole field to cover, instead of half. The ball USUALLY goes into the end zone, putting the ball on the 20 yard line, with a net gain of only about 20 yards (which can be erased by one quick strike passing play). The kicking team usually bumbles the play where they try to down the ball deep. And sometimes, the punt gets returned for some significant yards.

The kick out of bounds usually either goes out where you aim it (no return, ball deep in opponents’ territory), it goes out of the end zone (same ball on the 20 as the kick to the middle of the field), or it goes out BEYOND the 20, which, if the kicker is any good, should never happen. The kick cannot be returned if it goes out of bounds.

I would like to see the statistics of success rates of directional kicks trying to go out of bounds vs. the kicks that go to the center of the field that the kicking team HOPES they can cover properly. Which one would really be a more effective use of the kicking game? I’d bet on the coffin corner.

Pass Interference Penalties

I’m sorry, but the NFL is making a huge mistake by not having a variable version of penalization for the infraction of pass interference. Not all pass interference infractions are the same. In some, the defensive player barely does anything at all, and yet, the penalty can sometimes be 40 yards and more. Some infractions can be a major slight of the rules, a defensive player outright cheating, and those are worthy of the maximum pass interference penalty.

College football has a maximum pass interference penalty of 15 yards. On some plays, a long bomb for instance, where a defensive player is badly beaten, and a touchdown is avoided because of obvious pass interference cheating, that penalty is not enough.

And the pros have a 5 yard penalty and a first down for illegal contact or defensive holding. Sometimes, that penalty does not seem to be enough, and sometimes it is a bail out for an offensive team that doesn’t deserve such a big break.

And sometimes, there is pass interference in the end zone that gives the rewarded team the ball on the one yard line and an almost guaranteed touchdown. Sometimes, THAT penalty is too harsh, sometimes it seems like the proper call for an infraction that is obvious cheating and an obvious maneuver to skirt the rules on a play where they had been beat.

I have a proposal. Pass interference penalties should follow the concept of “the punishment fits the crime.” Obvious plays where the defensive player has been beaten, and there is the strong likelihood that the act of cheating has otherwise prevented the pass completion, the penalty should remain the same as now, the ball goes to the spot of the foul. The current five yards and a first down for holding or illegal contact should remain the same also. The one difference? When the pass play is over 5 yards, and the interference infraction is less obvious, less “cheating” and more “accidentally illegal,” it should be like the college rule of 15 yards and an automatic first down.

This would keep the officials from having to assess a 40 to 50 yard penalty for something that really only deserves 15 yards. It would give them the choice of what they think should be the proper punishment for the penalty that being their interpretation of the crime being a 15 yards and automatic first down penalty, or a long, spot of the foul penalty (the whole amount of yards pass interference penalty we have now), depending on the severity of the crime. It would give referees a “manslaughter” alternative to the “Murder One” that they are forced to either call or not call now.

And perhaps, they could give the referees a discretionary ability to call an accidental, less severe pass interference penalty in the end zone as “the ball on the three yard line” (instead of on the one), or half the distance to the goal. The key would be to give the referees SOMETHING they could use to punish the perpetrators, besides the rigid, sometimes too unfair penalties they have to use now.

Sometimes, the punishment is too much for the crime. Wouldn’t it be fairer if it actually fit the crime?