Should the forward pass be disallowed?

[DanS]

In 1905, responding to many deaths and serious injuries on the football field, President Teddy Roosevelt called upon intercollegiate football to reform its rules. In 1906, the forward pass was allowed, in order to open up the game. In 1913, the effective use of the forward pass by Notre Dame in its high-scoring thrashing of top-ranked Army irreparably split football from its Rugby heritage by making the forward pass an essential part of the American game.

This season is the 100th anniversary of the forward pass.

Sometimes I think that the forward pass did more harm than good to the game, because an incomplete pass leads to a long stoppage of play. A 50% completion rate makes for a long, boring ass game. But completion rates above that are difficult to manage, even in the professional ranks.

Recently, some passing attacks have managed to put together a string of completion rates above 60%, and those attacks are very fun to watch. This has given me hope that a big transformation of the game has taken place. But the amount of practice needed to accomplish this is rather extreme. It seems as if many of the serious high school and college programs now play 7-on-7 "skelly" almost year-round.

So the question is, do you think that it is realistic to raise the completion percentages across the board enough so that the forward pass is more consistently enjoyable to watch? Or do you think that it is all futile, and we would be further ahead getting rid of the forward pass?

[Zkribbler]

I think you're going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Eliminating the forward pass would reduce the game to 3-years-and-a-cloud-of-dust.

Eons ago, when I was still in high school, my P.E. coached introduced us to "throw-away football." It was incredibly exciting and fast paced. The modifications were simple:

(1) You had four downs to get a touchdown; there was no going ten yards to get a first down.

(2) You had to complete at least one pass before you could run the ball over the line of scrimmage.

(3) You could pass the ball as many times as you liked, from anywhere on the field, to anywhere on the field.

(4) There was no such thing as inelible receiver downfield. Everyone was eligible.

(5) If a forward pass was incomplete, the ball was marked at the spot where the ball was thrown. When a backwards pass was incomplete, the ball was marked where it hit the ground.

The results were players scattered all over the field, flinging the ball back and forth so that it looked like a hyperactive pinball.

[snoopy369]

Um, isn't that called Ultimate, roughly?

[Kuciwalker]

And usually played with a frisbee?

[Zkribbler]

The name could have changed over the interceding years. I was translating from the original Sanskrit.

[snoopy369]

Anyway, nonforward pass football would be boring. There's a reason we don't watch rugby in this country

[snoopy369]

Oh, and the focus on stoppage time is silly. Notice how Soccer has utterly failed to catch on in terms of TV sports in the US, regardless of the legions of once-youth my age (now mid-20s and the main sports fans) who played it... it's the lack of stoppage time, meaning there's no efficient way to run commercials, and no good time to step away to grab a brew. We don't mind stoppage time, it's just arguing-time or drinking-time ...

[DanS]

I think rule reversions to increase completion percentages could be interesting. One possibility is to allow unlimited motion, like Rockne did with his "shift" from the 20s.

Weis tried introducing some interesting combination motion last year, but the refs interpreted the rules differently than he did.

[DanS]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Notice how Soccer has utterly failed to catch on in terms of TV sports in the US

I consider this an anomaly of American sports due to inefficient brand advertising making repetition necessary. The ample stoppage time in football just feeds this inefficiency. Think about how inobtrusive Google ads are.

Advertising in soccer matches (along the field, on the jerseys, and at the top right of the screen) does just fine from a business perspective.

[Sava]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Anyway, nonforward pass football would be boring.

But just think... the Bears could win about ten Super Bowls in a row!!!

(since the QB position wouldn't be important anymore)

[snoopy369]

Indeed ... Thomas Jones could take snaps and option to Cedric Benson ...

[SlowwHand]

No, it shouldn't be disallowed. No elaboration.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by DanS


I consider this an anomaly of American sports due to inefficient brand advertising making repetition necessary. The ample stoppage time in football just feeds this inefficiency. Think about how inobtrusive Google ads are.

Advertising in soccer matches (along the field, on the jerseys, and at the top right of the screen) does just fine from a business perspective.

Yet this is still how the marketplace is ...

[Sava]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Indeed ... Thomas Jones could take snaps and option to Cedric Benson ...

And with the great Adrian Peterson in the backfield also... WE CAN'T LOSE!!!

I'm convinced... no more forward passing.

[mrmitchell]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Oh, and the focus on stoppage time is silly. Notice how Soccer has utterly failed to catch on in terms of TV sports in the US, regardless of the legions of once-youth my age (now mid-20s and the main sports fans) who played it... it's the lack of stoppage time, meaning there's no efficient way to run commercials, and no good time to step away to grab a brew. We don't mind stoppage time, it's just arguing-time or drinking-time ...

Soccer is gaining ground, IIRC the ratings for this World Cup were pretty good for a sport the US is pretty noncompetitive in. Of course, nothing can compare to the behemoth that is the NFL for now, but I'm sure ABC was pleased with viewership for the matches.