What if American football used soccer-style rules?

[Jukester]

I happen to think soccer is as boring as watching paint dry. A game averages only 26 shots on goal for both teams. That's a shot every 3.46 minutes. So for 3-1/5 minutes all you see are guys kicking a ball around and very little action. Just not my cup of tea. As for the name football used to describe American football, any ball game that was not played on horseback is referred to as football. I don't know how to create a link but here is a website that describes the reasoning... http://www.todayifou...he-word-soccer/

 

To each his cup of tea. But your point makes no sense considering you're comparing it to a game that has only 11 minutes of actual play in a 3 hr game.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406

[CodeMonkey]

Having just one referee officiate the entire game: That boggles my mind.

 

Am I being silly?

The rest have been addressed, but as to the one ref (actually 3 like was explained above). But the rules of soccer are not as anal as American football where if, for example, a offensive linemans leg muscle twitches the game clock stops and the team is penalized. Soccer rules try to keep the game moving (which is why even if there is a foul it will not be called if the team being fouled maintains possession of the ball).

 

Also a reason why your stopwatch test didn't work is because even in stoppage time the ref can add time if need be due to injury, a goal being scored etc. Everyone knows about when it will end, regulation because if you notice the coaches and fans look at their watches when the game starts and it is running time. The exact stoppage time is not a huge concern.

 

The rules what they are in American football you need all the additional refs. They are not needed in soccer. I prefer how soccer games generally keep moving and think American football could benefit from some simplification of the rules to keep the game flowing. But if this happened there would not be as many commercials so I guess that would not work.

 

You are being a little silly maybe because the games are very different. But a few points, like the refs for example, are valid and interesting to discuss.

 

Keep in mind too that what we are seeing now in the World Cup is the best of the best from the entire world. Some European top leagues come close to this quality, but if like what you are seeing now, do not expect to tune into a MLS match and see the same quality

Edited June 16, 2014 by CodeMonkey

[bladiebla]

To each his cup of tea. But your point makes no sense considering you're comparing it to a game that has only 11 minutes of actual play in a 3 hr game.

http://online.wsj.co...002852055561406

 

That's just a lame argument, as from a spectators point of view there is plenty of action pre-snap (seeing tactic versus tactic). Then there is also the fact that those 11 minutes all consist out of 100% explosive action whereas a soccer game of 90 minutes can have as much as zero explosive actio and on average maybe 2-3 minutes tops a game. Soccer can be like MikeSpeed describes, this World Cup we have been treated to some great games though. A good soccer game can be made into a summary of 5-10 minutes where as a good NFL summary would require 30 minutes to an hour (to show actual drives).

[xsoldier54]

Right. And that's fine because those are the rules of soccer. But you made my point. No one knows when a soccer game will end but the ref.

Stoppage time is pretty closely regulated, but I understand if you don't get it.

[bladiebla]

The rules what they are in American football you need all the additional refs. They are not needed in soccer. I prefer how soccer games generally keep moving and think American football could benefit from some simplification of the rules to keep the game flowing.

 

Officiating is actually a huge issue with soccer, too many judgement calls depend on what a single guy sees (sure he has his line judges but they rarely interfere) and most of the calls are judegement calls. Even a really good ref only gets about 90% of his calls right. Bad refs as seen earlier in the WC can go as low as 70%. If you consider the huge impact that poor or wrong or none calls can have and that refs can actually decide games in soccer then you'll realise how poor the officiating system is.

[CodeMonkey]

Officiating is actually a huge issue with soccer, too many judgement calls depend on what a single guy sees (sure he has his line judges but they rarely interfere) and most of the calls are judegement calls. Even a really good ref only gets about 90% of his calls right. Bad refs as seen earlier in the WC can go as low as 70%. If you consider the huge impact that poor or wrong or none calls can have and that refs can actually decide games in soccer then you'll realise how poor the officiating system is.

When humans are involved there will always be human error. But is American football any better? Come here any Monday-Wednesday after a Bills loss and you will read how horrible NFL officiating is

[bladiebla]

So stoppage time end exactly when the ref says so? Uh, no. I ran a stop watch and stop time always goes longer than they say, sometimes by more than a minute.

So as a fan of both "beautiful games" let me try to address each of your points individually.

 

Running time and stoppage time: Imagine if NFL officials decided when games would end? A team could be driving for the win and an official could end the game just before you score, or let the clock run until a team scores. Actually the referee tells how much stoppage time there will be at the end of regulation. Both teams should know and there should be a sense of urgency. And when the stoppage time is over, the game ends, regardless if a team is driving for a score or not, just like when the regular clock runs out.

 

Penalties in the red zone: Imagine is instead of yards, the penalty was giving a RB the ball at the two yard and you only had one tackler to stop him from crossing the goal line? This could be modified for American football and could be administered like the two point conversion for example. Give them one extra play in addition to the yardage.

 

Red cards: Making teams play short-handed the entire game for a roughing the QB call. I personally don't see anything wrong with making them play a man short for a flagrant foul. Could be applied the same way for American football.

 

Having just one referee officiate the entire game: That boggles my mind. Actually there are two assistant referees. When they put their flag up, it indicates that they have seen a foul. The center referee relies heavily upon the two assistant referees.

Stoppage time is pretty closely regulated, but I understand if you don't get it.

 

The rules are as follows:

Two halves of 45 minutes each, time doesnt stop, unless when consulting goalline tech.

Each halve gets extended by a number of minutes determined by the 4th official (basicly the reserve ref, the one that also holds the player change sign).

If during the extended time delay of game happens (intentionally or by injuries or other events), the ref will extend the game based on his sole disgression.

Often when all time is up the ref will let the final action finish through, but again at his disgression.

 

Bottomline is; FIFA always makes sure there is some room for bribery...

 

When humans are involved there will always be human error. But is American football any better? Come here any Monday-Wednesday after a Bills loss and you will read how horrible NFL officiating is

 

Yes American Football is a lot better in my experience. Sure wrong non reviewable calls like wrongly called PI or holding can influence the outcome of a game, however the NFL refs always consult each other before making the final call and as such it doesnt depend on the disgression of a single person. Then there are a lot of calls that can be reviewed where as in soccer not a single decision made by the ref is reviewable, no matter how wrong it is and even not if he realises he's wrong. In the end though both games would improve immensely from having a real time video ref that can advise the refs in real time on the field as happens with fieldhockey.

 

With regards to NFL refs, these crews seem to favor teams with the higher/better reputation, being bottom dwellers we always seem to end up at the short end of the stick as a result. The difference was clear with the replacement refs, they were far more fair then the normal crews. Sure the replacements made some critical errors but so do the normal crews each week, the difference is that the normal crews make sure not to call it in doubt when a big market team is involved. Ok, maybe I'm biased here because we received good officiating with the replacement refs and got the shaft the first week the normal crews were back (offcourse that was against the Pats*).

 

Simple statistic, the first 3 (or was it 4) games of this world cup featured 3 wrongly dissalowed goals and 3 falsely awarded penalties. That's a total of 6 scores, which is huge.

Edited June 16, 2014 by bladiebla

[xsoldier54]

I happen to think soccer is as boring as watching paint dry. A game averages only 26 shots on goal for both teams. That's a shot every 3.46 minutes. So for 3-1/5 minutes all you see are guys kicking a ball around and very little action. Just not my cup of tea. As for the name football used to describe American football, any ball game that was not played on horseback is referred to as football. I don't know how to create a link but here is a website that describes the reasoning... http://www.todayifou...he-word-soccer/

I happen to think soccer is as boring as watching paint dry. A game averages only 26 shots on goal for both teams. That's a shot every 3.46 minutes. So for 3-1/5 minutes all you see are guys kicking a ball around and very little action. Just not my cup of tea. As for the name football used to describe American football, any ball game that was not played on horseback is referred to as football. I don't know how to create a link but here is a website that describes the reasoning... http://www.todayifou...he-word-soccer/

I happen to think soccer is as boring as watching paint dry. A game averages only 26 shots on goal for both teams. That's a shot every 3.46 minutes. So for 3-1/5 minutes all you see are guys kicking a ball around and very little action. Just not my cup of tea. As for the name football used to describe American football, any ball game that was not played on horseback is referred to as football. I don't know how to create a link but here is a website that describes the reasoning... http://www.todayifou...he-word-soccer/

I happen to think soccer is as boring as watching paint dry. A game averages only 26 shots on goal for both teams. That's a shot every 3.46 minutes. So for 3-1/5 minutes all you see are guys kicking a ball around and very little action. Just not my cup of tea. As for the name football used to describe American football, any ball game that was not played on horseback is referred to as football. I don't know how to create a link but here is a website that describes the reasoning... http://www.todayifou...he-word-soccer/

To each their own. Keeping the clock running keeps the game moving at all times. Stopping it every 11 seconds to huddle up and run another play is very monotonous to some. If it isn't your cup of tea, then don't watch. Most of the rest of the world will be. And any game not played primarily with the feet should not be called football.

[CodeMonkey]

To each their own. Keeping the clock running keeps the game moving at all times. Stopping it every 11 seconds to huddle up and run another play is very monotonous to some. If it isn't your cup of tea, then don't watch. Most of the rest of the world will be. And any game not played primarily with the feet should not be called football.

It's not the huddling up that bother me. It's all the artificial stoppages to allow for TV commercials. I record Bills games and watch with all commercials and halftime stripped out and it is very watchable for me. Watching a game live is excruciating, which is why I HATE the 4pm starts (those I generally have to watch live as we watch as we eat dinner))

[All_Pro_Bills]

I am by no means a soccer fan although I'll watch a little of something like the World Cup. One thing I do like about Soccer over US Football is the flow of the game with very few stoppages. NFL games have way too many stoppages generally for commerical time. Team 'A' scores a TD and kicks the extra point, Then 3 minutes of commericals. Team 'A'' kicks off and the ball sails out of the end zone. Change of possession to Team 'B'. 1st and 10. Now 3 more minutes of commericals. Worst case a 3 and out followed by a punt followed by 3 more minutes of commericals. So in about 12 minutes of clock time you see 3 minutes of action and 9 minutes of commericals. If somebody calls a time out we go to commerical. Only in OT are there no commerical breaks.

 

Sometimes for a 1 PM Bills game I'll set the game to record, go outside and do some work in the yard for about 1 1/2 hours, clean up, not peek at any scores or game updates, and then watch the game from the start on tape delay. By about half way through the 4th quarter I'm usually up to real-time.

[gumby]

The injury time aspect isn't completely black and white. The referee won't stop the game if a team is just about to shoot it into an empty net to tie the game. Its more of a judgement call when the required time has passed. The next goal kick, or throw-in, or even clear into midfield brings about the close to a game.

 

+1

The ref will not end the match if a team is threatening to score, even if it exceeds the extra injury time. He will wait until the defensive team clears the ball out of danger before whistling the game over.

[elroy16]

That's just a lame argument, as from a spectators point of view there is plenty of action pre-snap (seeing tactic versus tactic). Then there is also the fact that those 11 minutes all consist out of 100% explosive action whereas a soccer game of 90 minutes can have as much as zero explosive actio and on average maybe 2-3 minutes tops a game. Soccer can be like MikeSpeed describes, this World Cup we have been treated to some great games though. A good soccer game can be made into a summary of 5-10 minutes where as a good NFL summary would require 30 minutes to an hour (to show actual drives).

 

 

 

Sorry, but this is some ignorant thinking. You're looking at football like a huge fan who pays attention to all of the little things, versus a fair weather soccer fan who doesn't know much about the game or doesn't care much. It's ignorant, because there are plenty of soccer fans who pay attention to the little things and want to see every second of the game, just like there are people who just kind of like football and only want to see the big plays or TDs.

[CodeMonkey]

Sorry, but this is some ignorant thinking. You're looking at football like a huge fan who pays attention to all of the little things, versus a fair weather soccer fan who doesn't know much about the game or doesn't care much. It's ignorant, because there are plenty of soccer fans who pay attention to the little things and want to see every second of the game, just like there are people who just kind of like football and only want to see the big plays or TDs.

Case in point the red zone channel.

[Webster Guy]

Imagine if the ball couldn't be thrown after a receiver had passed the last defender and would be offsides.

 

or If they put a stupid blue line on both sides of the field that you couldn't put the ball past unless EVERYONE on your team was behind the line.

 

Oh wait, they tried that in Hockey and somehow it stuck. Talk about a useless rule that kills the momentum of an otherwise amazing sport. I can't watch hockey because of it.

 

For some real fun, try arguing with a Canadian about the hockey blue line rule and watch them attempt to defend it. They think it ADDS to the sport.

[CodeMonkey]

or If they put a stupid blue line on both sides of the field that you couldn't put the ball past unless EVERYONE on your team was behind the line.

 

Oh wait, they tried that in Hockey and somehow it stuck. Talk about a useless rule that kills the momentum of an otherwise amazing sport. I can't watch hockey because of it.

 

For some real fun, try arguing with a Canadian about the hockey blue line rule and watch them attempt to defend it. They think it ADDS to the sport.

I'm not Canadian, but it does add to the sport. If that was not in place all you would see is constant cherry pickers camping down in front of the goal looking for the long pass. Yeah I imagine there would be more goals scored and fewer icings, but if you enjoy the game of hockey at all how could you want no blue lines or some form of offsides??

[bbb]

So stoppage time end exactly when the ref says so? Uh, no. I ran a stop watch and stop time always goes longer than they say, sometimes by more than a minute.

 

I read that a game yesterday (I believe) was "said" to have four minutes of stoppage time and it was six minutes in real time.

 

It makes no sense. Meanwhile, in US sports, they are reviewing plays to put 4/10s of a second back on the clock.

 

Meanwhile, I'm getting hounded by a bunch of soccer lovers on the other thread football vs. football. Didn't know this was the new thread to bring up these questions!

 

The bolded part is the one that I never could understand. Why don't they just stop the clock during play, then start up again instead of adding the extra minutes?

 

Because that would make sense.

[QB Bills]

 

 

or If they put a stupid blue line on both sides of the field that you couldn't put the ball past unless EVERYONE on your team was behind the line.

 

Oh wait, they tried that in Hockey and somehow it stuck. Talk about a useless rule that kills the momentum of an otherwise amazing sport. I can't watch hockey because of it.

 

For some real fun, try arguing with a Canadian about the hockey blue line rule and watch them attempt to defend it. They think it ADDS to the sport.

Haha..what do those silly Canadians know about the sport anyway?

 

Hockey should be played with no offsides? I'm guessing you don't really know much about the game. You ought to give it a shot. It's quite good.

[bbb]

The whole game is about offsides. I can't even imagine what it would look like if there was no offsides.

 

BTW, the soccer offsides rules is another ridiculous rule in that sport. It would really open up the game if they got rid of that.

[Ronin]

Am I being silly?

 

Yes

[IslandBillsFan]

Here is a different spin on this thread, what is the NBA adopted soccer type clock rules. This would eliminate the endless fouling and timeouts in the last few minutes.

 

The end of basketball games always seem so anticlimactic to me due to the stoppages in play.