site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   3942 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for February 12, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Resident Eagles fan: I'm profoundly NOT salty about that game. It was very much a good Super Bowl, the Eagles proved they are the second best team in the league, and Hurts proved he's a real QB at that level playing Mahomes to a 4th quarter field goal. No one can walk out of this game saying the Eagles were frauds, which concerned me way more than them losing in the Super Bowl.

At the end of the day, the Eagles win if it weren't for that Fumble Recovery TD given up to the Chiefs. The tendency is to focus on the mistakes in the 4th quarter, but any 3 expected points swing from any play is equally culpable.

The thing about the NFL and "defecting" against making it an entertaining game is that the NFL has the power to change the rules. It's likely that the Hurts QB Push is going to be made illegal next year, for example, because it's such a wild cheat code for the Eagles all season. At most you can defect for one season, and if it becomes an issue the collective will act to limit it. It wouldn't be hard for the NFL to institute a penalty for, eg, "Non Competitive Play" where Pacheco would have been required to run into the endzone on that play or something like that.

It's likely that the Hurts QB Push is going to be made illegal next year, for example, because it's such a wild cheat code for the Eagles all season.

CFB pleb here. What’s wrong with the QB push? Is this different from a sneak? Getting rid of that in cfb would seem wild to me. So many 4th and goals would turn into kicks without it.

The Eagles, through a mix of having essentially the pro-bowl offensive line, a QB who squats 600lbs and will do anything to win, and tremendous full team buy-in, call a QB sneak and get 2-3 guys behind Hurts who push him into the line scrum style. Hurts is the ball carrier, but in a very real sense he just curls up and becomes the ball, with 2-3 guys behind and 2-3 guys in front doing the actual moving.

It amounted to a cheat code for a lot of the season to get 1-2 yards automatically. Where that might get banned:

  1. Physical toll, or a public perception of the physical toll. It's actually relatively unlikely to result in injury, it is the big open field hits that do the worst damage, but it looks brutal and the NFL might not like that. QBs who aren't physical specimens might or might not use the NFLPA to bring this up.

  2. Changing strategy. The Eagles had a LOT of boring wins, part of which was that they could run the ball for 3 yards on 1st-3rd downs, and then push on 4th. I think 4 down football makes the game more exciting personally, but I could see teams complaining that it allowed the Eagles to just sit on 7-14 point leads and smother the game rather than play aggressively or give the ball back to the other team.

  3. Aesthetics. Some NFL magnates might not like how it looks. Just flat out think it is ugly, unentertaining, bad for the TV brand.

Its a maul rather than a scrum, probably (maul has a player with the ball being shoved forward by his pack, scrum has the ball at the feet of the players while the packs try to push each other back). I think the current rules for mauls are once forward momentum is arrested you have 5 seconds to make another push or work the ball free or they call the ball dead.

A ruck would be interesting in American Football (player goes to ground, ball behind him and your forwards push over the top, basically), and maybe legal? You can choose to fumble the ball gently behind you while your offensive line push over and you recover the controlled fumble from behind them? You'd have to drop the ball before you went down, unlike in rugby where you can place it behind you, generally.

Changing strategy. The Eagles had a LOT of boring wins, part of which was that they could run the ball for 3 yards on 1st-3rd downs, and then push on 4th. I think 4 down football makes the game more exciting personally, but I could see teams complaining that it allowed the Eagles to just sit on 7-14 point leads and smother the game rather than play aggressively or give the ball back to the other team.

One could argue that this is just because 4 downs make football boring...

No one can walk out of this game saying the Eagles were frauds, which concerned me way more than them losing in the Super Bowl.

Going a step further, I watched this game through the eyes of a Bills fan and texted friends that the silver lining is that this Eagles team would have absolutely annihilated the Bills if they'd made it there.

It's likely that the Hurts QB Push is going to be made illegal next year, for example, because it's such a wild cheat code for the Eagles all season.

This, on the other hand, Bills fans watch and say, "why the fuck are we not doing that with our giant quarterback?".

It wouldn't be hard for the NFL to institute a penalty for, eg, "Non Competitive Play" where Pacheco would have been required to run into the endzone on that play or something like that.

You could potentially come up with a ruleset that would stop the clock when a player gave himself up. You'd have to tune it to situation to avoid it being used for advantageous clock-stopping, but that seems potentially feasible. This wouldn't be entirely novel, we already have the opposite of it at the boundary - if an offensive player goes out of bounds backwards, the clock doesn't stop, you have to be advancing the ball to get the clock stoppage.

I don't think this is likely to be considered though, the only commentary I ever see on a play like the Pacheco play is everyone in the room agreeing that it's a smart play. It doesn't feel like an unfair exploit, it's just less exciting than the alternative.

You could potentially come up with a ruleset that would stop the clock when a player gave himself up. You'd have to tune it to situation to avoid it being used for advantageous clock-stopping, but that seems potentially feasible. This wouldn't be entirely novel, we already have the opposite of it at the boundary - if an offensive player goes out of bounds backwards, the clock doesn't stop, you have to be advancing the ball to get the clock stoppage.

In all sports, I'm in favor of more aggressive and crazy rules to eliminate situations where the game becomes completely different during the last 2-5 minutes. For example, I think in Basketball during the last 4-5 minutes the rule should be that every penalty committed by the losing team drops 25 seconds off the clock. Because I hate watching the Hack-a-thons at the end of playoff games, I'd rather just watch Basketball.

I don't know how you make penalties sufficient to prevent time wasting plays at the end of an nfl game, but there's got to be a way.

The Elam Ending is just an objectively better way to end basketball games than the current rules. There's nothing worse than watching refs stare at a replay screen in between marches to the free throw line.

At one point the Arena League had a rule where the clock would stop in the last minute if the ball didn't cross the line of scrimmage, to eliminate end game kneel downs.

"For most of the league's history, any play that did not advance the ball across the line of scrimmage also stopped the clock; this prevented teams from kneeling to run out the clock. (This rule was repealed in 2018.) It also rewards defensive play, as a tackle for loss automatically stops the clock."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-minute_warning

Obviously wouldn't have affected the play last night as the runner was past the line of scrimmage (but I guess would have affected Mahomes subsequent kneel downs).

Yeah, that at least forces a QB sneak and creates a non-trivial turnover risk. I can't really think of any serious downside to that rule, there isn't an obvious exploit that could be done with it (intentionally stopping the clock that way is no different than spiking it).

I don't think the push from behind will get banned until someone gets injured doing it. Just seems too easy for someone to get their leg tangled up and pushed forward the wrong way. Also it basically forces the defense to try to leap the pile. The whole thing adds a lot of injury risks and the NFL is trying to reduce that.

I don't think leaping the pile is the way to stop that play.

Chris Jones did that last night, had Hurt behind the line of scrimmage, then got pushed over the first down.

You don't have any power once you've left your feet.

I think you need to meet force with force, I would line your two biggest defensive tackle over the ball, then your next two biggest tackles behind them to push on their back. And try to get your 4 biggest guys trying to push the center back into Hurts' lap. (I would put an Offensive Lineman out there if I thought they were 1 of my top 4 force generators)

Maybe put 2 more guys behind them, but at some point you have to guard against them pitching the ball wide.

To beat it you need similar coordination, talent, and full team buy in. It wasn't just about being big and strong, the whole Eagles team really bought into it. Kelce and Hurts were the offensive team leaders, and they were always putting it all out there on every sneak.

Otoh, letting Pacheco (or whoever the RB was) waltz into the EZ unmolested is also a non competitive play done solely for preserving time. So what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I like the clock management — it goes ti strategy even if it saps some drama.

I do dislike the Hurts play. There was one or two plays where Hurts was stuffed, and then pushed forward. If while stationery Hurts fumbled, the refs would undoubtedly say forward progress stopped. Yet they will give Hurts the additional yard if pushed from behind after being stuffed.

Also, the NFL should simplify that a catch is when you have two feet and possession. This element of time is awfully qualitative.

The most fascinating difference between European Football and NFL play is the difference in approach to rules. FIFA approaches all rules as vague visual guidelines, the ball is out of bounds when you can see it is out of bounds so they throw it in and keep playing, a foul is when he, ya know, fouls the other guy, the clock just kinda runs for 90 minutes and they throw on a little extra at the end. The NFL approaches rules with Talmudic discernment. What really constitutes a catch? The clock stops at the precise moment when a pass is incomplete or a player goes out of bounds, we will take a 45 second timeout to determine the incorrect presence or absence of 2 seconds from gameplay. How many pass-interference calls can occur between Angels playing a game on the head of a pin?

Also, the NFL should simplify that a catch is when you have two feet and possession.

In my dream world, the rule would basically amount to, "would everyone agree that it was a catch in a backyard football game?". This would be a much more liberal interpretation of whether a ball is fully possessed - I think a player can legitimately possess the ball even if it shifts a quarter inch in his hands as he gathers it.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats