3 ms·

I'm pretty sure that if you took that approach to American football, you'd wind up with a greater chance for injury on the short side. Physical contact is nearl

I'm pretty sure that if you took that approach to American football, you'd wind up with a greater chance for injury on the short side. Physical contact is nearly ubiquitous in American football, and a team with an extra body to throw around is far more likely to produce dangerous contact than otherwise. I like the idea behind sending a player off or even suspending them from the next game if they start behaving dangerously. The NFL's current crackdown on dangerous hits is only sending a lot of extra money to charity (where all fines go) and not really modifying player behavior.

brudgers 16y ago
I think the most likely outcome of sending a player off is that his team would lose. A huge disincentive to dangerous play. After an opponent was sent off, the potential loss of the significant advantage an extra player affords would be a strong disincentive regarding dangerous play. But to put it in perspective, it is extremely rare for a player to be ejected under the current rules which allow replacement. The penalties typically associated with dangerous play are purely tactical - 15 yards or less (1/2 the distance to the goal line).
- bartonfink 16y ago
  Right, I'm familiar with the current rules and that they don't do very much to curb the problem of concussions or bad (read dangerous) technique. I'm not convinced that the tactical penalties need to change - they're severe enough. What I think needs to happen is that everyone, both players and referees, need to be held more accountable for their actions on the field than they currently are. That said, though, I'm still not convinced that forcing a team to play with a 10-man team is even workable given the rules of American football, or even desirable. For instance, would you propose that both offense and defense play with one fewer man for the rest of the game in a "send-off" scenario? What about special teams? If you used a "power-play" rule like ice hockey does, how does clock management (a huge part of American football strategy) interact with that rule? Even if you could iron all this out, there's still the fact (which you acknowledged above) that a team playing with 10 players is extremely likely to lose to a team playing with 11. Couple this with the fact that referees are far from infallible (and are currently not held accountable for bad calls in any serious or transparent way), and you've got a case where one bad call early on could literally cost a team a game. To the best of my knowledge, personal fouls aren't contestable, and you can't appeal for a game to be replayed. This would be a huge problem even if you could iron out all the other problems with forcing a team to play undermanned. That's why I don't support that plan. Ejecting a player is fine, but not allowing substitutions is overboard given the nature of American football.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    A modest proposal in keeping with the love for complexity embodied by the rules. In lieu of sending off without replacement, allow the opponent to select any player on the field to be ejected or to defer their selection until later in the game. In other words, a team on offense could defer the selection of the player to be ejected until their opponent's best quarterback entered the field.
  - awj 16y ago
    Especially considering the skill discrepancy between first and second string in almost all positions, ejecting the player with substitution is still a huge penalty. I also wouldn't be surprised if teams responded to this by rewriting their contracts to clarify what happens to the salary a player would earn for a given game when they are ejected. Those two factors are likely to be control enough. My concern with it is more that we'd end up with the same silliness that soccer gets where someone is barely touched and falls over looking to draw a foul.

brudgers 16y ago

I think the most likely outcome of sending a player off is that his team would lose. A huge disincentive to dangerous play. After an opponent was sent off, the potential loss of the significant advantage an extra player affords would be a strong disincentive regarding dangerous play. But to put it in perspective, it is extremely rare for a player to be ejected under the current rules which allow replacement. The penalties typically associated with dangerous play are purely tactical - 15 yards or less (1/2 the distance to the goal line).

bartonfink 16y ago
Right, I'm familiar with the current rules and that they don't do very much to curb the problem of concussions or bad (read dangerous) technique. I'm not convinced that the tactical penalties need to change - they're severe enough. What I think needs to happen is that everyone, both players and referees, need to be held more accountable for their actions on the field than they currently are. That said, though, I'm still not convinced that forcing a team to play with a 10-man team is even workable given the rules of American football, or even desirable. For instance, would you propose that both offense and defense play with one fewer man for the rest of the game in a "send-off" scenario? What about special teams? If you used a "power-play" rule like ice hockey does, how does clock management (a huge part of American football strategy) interact with that rule? Even if you could iron all this out, there's still the fact (which you acknowledged above) that a team playing with 10 players is extremely likely to lose to a team playing with 11. Couple this with the fact that referees are far from infallible (and are currently not held accountable for bad calls in any serious or transparent way), and you've got a case where one bad call early on could literally cost a team a game. To the best of my knowledge, personal fouls aren't contestable, and you can't appeal for a game to be replayed. This would be a huge problem even if you could iron out all the other problems with forcing a team to play undermanned. That's why I don't support that plan. Ejecting a player is fine, but not allowing substitutions is overboard given the nature of American football.
- brudgers 16y ago
  A modest proposal in keeping with the love for complexity embodied by the rules. In lieu of sending off without replacement, allow the opponent to select any player on the field to be ejected or to defer their selection until later in the game. In other words, a team on offense could defer the selection of the player to be ejected until their opponent's best quarterback entered the field.
- awj 16y ago
  Especially considering the skill discrepancy between first and second string in almost all positions, ejecting the player with substitution is still a huge penalty. I also wouldn't be surprised if teams responded to this by rewriting their contracts to clarify what happens to the salary a player would earn for a given game when they are ejected. Those two factors are likely to be control enough. My concern with it is more that we'd end up with the same silliness that soccer gets where someone is barely touched and falls over looking to draw a foul.