In association football (soccer,) a red card causes the team to have to play one man down for the remainder of the game, which is a significant disadvantage (although not a crippling one, since there are teams that have won games anyway despite being outnumbered this way.)
In NFL football, however, an ejection merely means that particular player can’t continue. The team still plays with 11 guys. So his team isn’t at much of a disadvantage (unless it was a particularly important guy being ejected, such as Tom Brady himself.)
What would be the ramifications if the NFL imitated soccer and had rules that an ejection means the team having to play with only 10 men? (But they get to choose which position gets undermanned. So even if your quarterback is ejected, you can still have a QB, but maybe now you have to go without your fullback.)
Would this be a much more significant disadvantage than in soccer? (Given that in soccer, it’s merely kicking the ball around, but in American football, the lack of one man may actually mean the defense has a much easier time rushing to your quarterback)
I think the team playing a man down would generally get crushed. Not only would the man down situation hurt, but plays on both offense and defense assume certain players in each position.
It’d likely be a pretty substantial disadvantage for an undermanned team. As gridiron football is all about one-on-one matchups, the team which still has 11 players is going to have a player who is essentially “unaccounted for” on every play.
Also, there’s another complication for an undermanned offense: there is a very strict rule about offensive formations. You must have seven players on the line of scrimmage, and the players on each “end” are eligible receivers. So, offenses which only had 10 players would be even further limited in what they could do from a formation standpoint.
It would certainly be a big disadvantage in the course of an entire game. But there have been occasions where a team accidentally used fewer than 11 players. One of the more notable instances is perhaps when Tony Dorsett of the Cowboys ran for a 99 yard touchdown while the Cowboys only had 10 men on the field.
The team that lost a player would lose the game, nearly every time, no matter which teams were playing. The matchups between players are critical and being a man down means the other team has an open receiver or an extra rusher. It pretty much assures an insurmountable advantage over the course of a game.
Yeah, football is not like soccer where a team that’s winning or tied, and playing a man down, can basically try to play keep-away to run out the clock.
Huge disadvantage because each play is heavily scripted and begins from a set position. Once the team knows their opponent is a man down, they will select plays and execute those plays to specifically take advantage of that deficit.
That and every player on the field can be intimately and immediately involved in every play. There are no players on the field too far away or in a position where they cannot be involved in success or failure during the next 5 seconds.
Not a fan of American football, and don’t know much more than the basics, whenever the Dope discuss it it quickly degenerates into jargon I can’t follow. Curious though, if this is a such a big advantage, would an 11 man college team have a good chance against a 10 man NFL team or would they still get trounced?
Assume the missing man is a “ghost” that can be considered to be anywhere to comply with rules of layout.
They’d very likely still get trounced. Even the very best college team (say, Alabama, these days) may have only a dozen or so players who are good enough, at that point in time*, to even make an NFL roster – the talent level and experience of an NFL team, in most cases, is probably still going to be enough, even down a player.
*- They likely also have underclassmen who will be NFL-caliber in a year or two, but who aren’t at that level yet.
There were 23 players ejected from games during the 2020 season and 1 during the playoffs. One player, Javon Wims of the Bears, besides being ejected was suspended for 2 games. Would the Bears have only 10 players on offense for those 2 games?
If the defense is down a man, this might be solved (somewhat) by bringing up one or both of the safeties and having them play cornerback 1-on-1 to cover the receivers, such that every opposing wide receiver has at least one DB guarding them. But it would mean no deep help available on a long pass downfield.
I’m thinking if you just do five wide for every play, surely there’s got to be a way to make that work consistently with one undefended receiver. Or do you think an NFL zone defense can contain that? Or would the O line just be obliterated by the NFL defense that the QB barely had time to get of passes? Just curious where the flaw in my strategy is.
If you do 5 wide, that implies you have a quarterback and five linemen. Assuming the defense doesn’t blitz, those five linemen would just be doing their usual task and there would be no un-accounted for pass rushers.
Since the defense is forced to play minus one guy, they’d presumably prioritize defensive backs above all other players, since allowing an opposing receiver to go uncovered would be fatal. They’d subtract maybe a linebacker or lineman but make sure every opposing WR had a cornerback or safety guarding him.
When going up against a five-wide offense, such a 10-man defense might then, for instance, use three pass rushers, one linebacker to spy on the QB, five cornerbacks (one for every opposing receiver,) and a free safety deep downfield as the last line of defense.
I think this is where the college team falls down. The NFL team can play a standard defense, but with 3 rushers instead of 4. This is a far better defense downfield than a normal college team, and the pass rush can still be at least functional down one man against a lesser line. Play a second man down, and I think the game is in play.
11 vs 10 for any length of time would be a blowout every time, IMO. But perhaps a good way to help motivate teams to exercise better discipline and avoid ejection would be to penalize the offending team with the loss of one player for the next play from scrimmage. That could be a major penalty on 4th down situations or other critical plays, and even on a non-critical play (say 2nd and 7 from mid field, early in the game) would put the offending team at a significant disadvantage for a single play. If the offense knows the defense is missing a player, they’re a lot more likely to try a riskier play, like a long pass. And if the defense knows the offense is missing a player, they may stack up a greater blitz, or something like that.
How about the hockey approach, and make them play short for a set period of time? This could make for especially exciting plays when the missing player gets to return in the middle of the play.
Note: this is a really stupid idea and is not meant seriously. But the idea of an extra receiver running onto the field just after the quarterback drops back would be awesome.
There was controversy in the 2018 World Cup when a Senegal player did something similar - he subbed onto the field, but he did it in such a sneaky and unnoticed way that he was able to score a goal without the Polish team seeing him in time.