One situation where the defense need not catch the ball to make an out that seems particularly topical: strikeout on a foul bunt. That putout, incidentally, goes to the catcher.
I’m not much good at searchng video, but here is a blog post on a recent occurrence with Jim Thome at bat. It’s quite common, and while I doubt that anybody is keeping statistics, my perception is that it is increasing.
I understand that there is a related controversy about exploding bats, of which shards fly hither and yon. This is different–I’m talking about batters flinging intact bats, because they swing too hard and lose their grip on the bat.
Agreed 100%. NFL overtime is fine. Make it “touchdowns only” or whatever and say hello to a lot more ties.
Did they change the broadcasting rules again this year? If they didn’t, as far as I know, they have to cut away from the first game at 3:15 PM and go to the second game no matter what’s happening if the latter features a local market team.
Since you didn’t get an answer to this one: because it enables whole teams to push forwards, as opposed to having to leave a bunch of guys behind to cover long balls over the top to goal-hanging forwards. Enabling teams to move forwards both assists their attacking play, and enables the opposition to play on the break, both of which make for a more aesthetic game to watch.
Offside is about eliminating a cheap attacking tactic (goal-hanging). By so doing, it requires attacking skills you otherwise wouldn’t need (the timing of a run and the perfect placement of a through-ball to meet it), both of which are pleasurable to watch.
You might as well ask why we shouldn’t allow NFL receivers to start deep in opposition territory; it’s precisely because seeing how they get there, and how they stretch the defence to do so, is what’s fun about the game.
We had a very very long and very rancorous thread about this a while back, if you’re interested.
As has been pointed out, there are other situations where a ball is not caught but an out is recorded.
But your reasonaing is, with all due respect, circular. You’re saying that a dropped third strike isn’t an out because it’s dropped. Well, yes, that’s what the rule says. What people are suggesting in this thread is changing the rule, because (in this particular case) it doesn’t appear to serve a real purpose.
And in fact the catcher CAN catch the ball and still have the rule engaged (if the catcher catches the ball on a bounce.) That’s inconsistent with other examples - you’re still out at first if the first baseman catches a bounced throw from the shortstop, right?
For the NFL I’d change the point after touchdown (PAT) because place kicks are too easy. What’s the success rate on them, 99.995%? Borrrinnng! Either just make a touchdown worth 7 points and eliminate the PAT, or make the line of scrimmage for a place kick attempt be from the 35 yard line, making the PAT the equivalent of a 52 yard FG.
The current 2 point extra points would stay the same.
If you did that you’d have to make them worth more or no one would ever opt to kick. I think it’s good the way it is now precisely because PATs are easy. It adds an element of risk and strategy to games where the coach has to decide whether to take the easy point or risk going for two if he feels like he’ll need the extra point later.
That alleged “risk and strategy” isn’t worth sitting through and watching all of the other PATs. If you don’t want to make the kick itself a challenge then just make the TD worth 7 points, or six points if the team wants to go for 2.
There’s a difference between “easy” and “automatic”. There has to be something they could do to get the success rate down to say, 95%. Or even 98%. Maybe they should just make the goal posts a little narrower. That would also help some of the overtime problems by making it less attractive to kick as soon as you get into field goal range.
Not that I’m disagreeing, just thought I should point out that during the 2007 regular season, 1130 PATs were made in 1142 attempts, which is a success rate of 98.9%.
But if there’s a botched snap, then you have to go 35 yards to get 2 points. It would also eliminate fake kicks.
When is the last time anyone ran a fake kick on a PAT attempt? If it happened more than once in the last 5 years I’d be surprised. Eliminating the possibility of something happening that never happens anyway isn’t such a big deal, is it? As for snaps being botched, well, if its botched, so be it. I can live with that. The point is to make the thing non-automatic. If it is botched, why give them an another relatively easy way to make the point?
On the upside, eliminating the PAT might be a good way to help the NFL get game times down closer to 3 hours.
Upon further review, I kinda like the thought of a TD being worth 7 unless you declare you will be going for 2, at which point, the TD counts as 6.
The kicker’s union might be upset that they won’t be the top scoring players anymore, but they’ll appreciate the fact they have less work to do.
The NFL has been around for 88 years, but someone broke his leg, time for a rule change. While we’re at it lets make it illegal to sack the quarterback, that has ruined more careers than horse-collaring.
Are you asserting that horse-collar tackles were prevalent in the NFL prior to Roy Williams?
According to Wikipedia, six players suffered major injuries as a result of horse-collar tackles in 2004. Four of those players were injured by Roy Williams, not incidentally.
It’s not incidental, but there are millions of ways football players ‘make it hurt’. 27 to 5 voted to make it illegal, fine, I just think it’s a weak rule and I’d like to see it done away with as per the OP.
You could try and take a leaf out of rugby’s book.
As you might know, in rugby, when you score a touchdown (called a try) you also get to attempt a kick, similar to the NFL. The difference is that you have to kick the ball from in line with where the try is scored. So, if the try is scored right in the middle of the field, you get to kick from right in front of the goalposts. But if the try is scored right out near the sidelines, you have to take your kick from way out there, making the distance and the angle considerably more difficult.
But then Italy could never field a team…
I agree with the ball-blocking on foul kicks to stop play and love the “autoadvance” of the ball for violaters. Everyone has played for years and knows what ten yards is, it pisses me off especially when playing amateur leagues.
But then we would be deprived of the sheer artistry demonstrated by Ronaldo in the presence of Lampard last weekend.