I don't know I'm glad some of these archaic rules exist. Yes you could remove them from the rule book and it wouldn't change the game fundamentally at all. But then you would lose out on these cool little moments like Doug flutie's dropkick.
Sadly the Penalty Goal is worth 3 in Rugby Union, if it wasn't for a moment of brilliance from Jason Robinson in the 2003 Rugby World Cup final England would have a score divisible by 3 due to their "Fly Half" scoring Penalty and Drop Goals. In my book Johnny Wilkinson a glorified punter/kicker and a true "fly half" only good for using his boot, unlike 5/8 backs that wore number 10 like Spencer & Larkham in the same World Cup. Rugby Union is a running game and when it is played that way it is entertaining 😀
@@waverod9275 In Aussie rules, the mark happens way more frequently than the fair catch and does actually open the possibility of dramatic game endings; there's a few compilations of game-winning kicks after the siren (when the clock hits zero at the end of the game), granted after particularly difficult marks My two cents: the fair catch kick should stay, it's a cool feature of the rule book and I want to be here to see the first-ever game-winning walk-off fair catch kick in NFL history.
Some people want to remove kicking out of the game altogether. These people want to make football less interesting, more one dimensional… make it like basketball, soccer, hockey.
Having a fair catch interference penalty is the whole point. The receiving team is giving up the chance to advance the ball so the penalty for the kicking team messing with that even if it's just a slight touch needs to be severe.
What a difference a week makes. Denver capitalized on a touchdown gone wrong by Indy and shut them down and the Fair catch kick after the penalty spelled Doom for Denver
We spent an exorbitant amount of time practicing this play in high school, and it never came up. But it was the first time I had heard of it. Its an awesome rule. It rewards teams for winning the field position game, and doesn't let a team bail itself out at the end of a game or half, by punting the ball out of its end zone.
If they can use up all the time on the clock, they can bail themselves out by punting directly out of bounds. Can't make a fair catch there! Federation rules make the attempt much less risky than NFL rules. In Fed if it doesn't score, it's like any other kick. If it makes it to the end zone, it's a touchback, no runback allowed. And you can even have onside recovery like a kickoff.
as many of your videos have gone to show American Football is not merely a game of inches or a game of Xs & Os it is essentially a game of clock management - if the team possessing the ball as the seconds diminish is not able to convert to a first down then the opposing team would still have the advantage of the clock being stopped at change of possession, by choosing to punt on fourth down the team possessing the football gains the advantage of the opposing team having to attempt a longer field goal- the rule makes perfect sense
If we're being fair here, the Broncos utilized clock management perfectly. There was literally no time left on the clock. The only reason why this was allowed to happen was because of a fair catch interference penalty which allowed an untimed down. Had there been no penalty the teams would have gone into the locker room with Denver up 21-10.
@@Rockhound6165 if you have watched the NFL for even a day you know that THE GAME CAN NOT END ON A DEFENSIVE PENALTY - so your assertion that the Broncos managed the clock perfectly is 100% incorrect
@@ThePrufessa I just checked the NFL rule book and you are correct: "Article 5. Extension Of A Period If time expires during a play in which a player has signaled for a fair catch, the following shall apply: If the player makes a fair catch, the receiving team may elect to extend the period with a fair-catch kick, but does not have the option to extend the period by a snap from scrimmage. If the kicking team interferes with a receiver who has signaled for a fair catch, the receiving team will have the option to extend the period by attempting a fair catch kick or by a snap from scrimmage after enforcement of any applicable penalties."
This seems like an aspect of the game that should become more common with kickers becoming more accurate at further distances. Also surprised more teams don’t utilize offload passes like the Allen to amari cooper back to Josh Allen td
The rule originated from the rugby code of football from which American Football originated in the first place. Rugby union abolished the rule in the late 1970s (by which point it had already become a very rare play like it is in NFL). In rugby the equivalent to fair catch free kick, was called "Goal from a Mark". The concept was exactly the same. If a team caught a kick from their opponent, the catcher could call for a "mark" (ie fair catch"), and then was able to have a free unopposed kick of the ball, which if they wanted could be used to try and score points by kicking through the goalposts (although in rugby it had to be the same player attempt the kick who caught the ball). Over the years rugby started introduced restrictions concerning where on the field a mark could be called. Originally it was anywhere on the field (like NFL is today still), then they restricted it to catches made in the player's own half only, which made the goal from a mark become very rare. Then they moved it back further to within 22 metres of the player's own goal line only, making a goal from a mark virtually impossible. Finally rugby introduced the concept of a separate category of free kick for minor infringements by opponents whereby no points could be scored directly from the free kick. This new "lesser" type of free kick was assigned to the free kick awarded after a called mark, and from that point the "Goal from a Mark" scoring play became officially defunct in rugby union football.
The NFL basically ended the Fair Catch Kick when they moved the goal posts back in 1974. That's why there have only been two successful attempts since then.
The Packers' offense could've earned a new set of downs to prevent that scenario. The Packers sowed the seeds for their own doom. The Packer who complained can have several seats.
TBF, 56 years later the Giants would invent a play where the offense couldn't do anything but stand there and let the defense stop em so the football universe balances out.
Considering that only two have been made in the past 50 years, I think anyone complaining about the rule is being whiny. The rare and obscure stuff makes for special moments where you get people talking at length about it. I've literally never been alive to see a completed fair catch free kick until Dicker The Kicker pulled it off, that's a moment that I'm going to remember even not being particularly invested in either team involved.
You don't know the complete rule! Only get the option to kick the ball when there is an infraction on the kicking team AND the receiver DOES NOT have to catch the ball. They also could choose to run a scrimmage play.
What's stupid about it is that you can prevent a fair catch (or any runback) by kicking directly out of bounds. A team should have the option of a fair catch when an opposing kick goes directly out of bounds. The fair catch is so ancient a rule, it was shared by most types of football from the British Isles (which is most football overall). Even soccer had a fair catch with a free kick opportunity until 1867. Australian and Gaelic football have a much more generous fair catch: You can get one from your opponent's or your own side's kick. And the resulting fair catch is the commonest way to score in Australian Rules. You don't see the fair catch kick in NCAA because they abolished it in 1950. Actually they abolished the fair catch, period, shortly after Canadian football abolished it. However, NCAA reinstated the fair catch in 1951, but without the free kick choice. Federation rules still allow it.
The founders and inventors of American football truly have a lot of bases covered. Before this, I never knew that such a rule existed. Goes to show that Jim Haurbauh (sorry for my spelling) is the best coach the chargers have had in quite some time.
The one thing it does do, force the offense to compete at the end of 2nd qt. I'm sure more teams now will try to stop the clock & force a punt instead of taking a knee to end the half. All Things Considered I think it's pretty good
The laat successful fair catch kick was so long ago that when it happened, Jimmy Carter was only the President Elect. Gerald Ford was serving out his term.
You can try it any time following a fair catch if you want to, at any point in the game. It's just tactically it doesn't make sense to, except at the end of a half or game.
Time can run out in a half while the ball is in the air, and even then, if a fair catch is called for, and then is made, or else is interfered with by batting away or blocking the view of the ball before the ball reaches the kick receiver or by running into or shoving the receiver, then a fair catch kick is still an option by the receiving team. Long long ago, back in the 19th Century, it was viewed as a little bit too much as a rules exploit time management tactic to stop the receiving team from having even one play from scrimmage by using a short kick tactic in such a way that time expired in the half while a kick was in the air. A short kick meant that potentially a mob of 10 players on the kicking team could set up to simutaneoudly pile onto a kick returner, thus pretty much cutting out a chance of a good kick return, which is the rationale for the receiving team having a free kick option, in order to sometimes punish use of a short kick strategy. Having the clock expire while the ball is still in the air meant there couldn't be a play from scrimmage afterward either. Genius level time management combination tactic, but in 19th Century thinking just a little too exploitative of the rules to in such a manner give the receiving team almost no chance at trying for a score. In short, it was felt that that the time management tactic of having time expire while a kick is in the air was just a little bit too unfair, and as such a fair catch kick was allowed by rule even if time expired during a kick that was then fair caught (or was interfered with, for example by trying to stop the fair catch from happening by leaping up and batting away the kick just before it got to the receiver.) As such, even if the clock has run out while the kick is in the air and there is no penalty that would then allow one play from scrimmage to take place after time has expired, a fair catch kick is still allowed. A basic 19th Century football belief was that if a team has earned a situation of getting the ball punted to them and then called for a fair catch and then successfully fielded the ball on the fly (or in some unusual situations fielded the ball on the 1st bounce), they should at least have some sort of chance to do something with the ball, regardless of whatever sneaky time management tricks the kicking team had set up in order to run down the clock while the ball was still in the air. Still allowing a fair catch kick, even if time had run out, thus granted the receiving team the ability to at least still do something with the ball that it had worked so hard to earn.
10 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2
You can do it at anytime. But if you have, let's say 1 minute you snap the ball and try to score for 6. That's why it's so rare, a lot of conditions have to be in place so the team would go for one, distance, time, score.
@@matttyrer9096 , more than 55 years ago, when a fair catch kick had a punt option and when a non-scoring fair catch kick, whether punt or place kick or drop kick, was treated like ultra long distance onside kick recoverable by whoever got to the ball first, a fair catch kick was a viable niche option at any time beyond the first 3 or so possessions in especially muddy field conditions in intermittent or continuous heavy rain. There are long ago stories of coaches on both teams in such games calling for punts on 1st down since there was sometimes simply too much chance, with all of the game balls after the first 20 minutes or so of such a game having eventually become both wet and muddy, of a turnover happening even on a normally safe and stodgy running play. In such situations in which a team record might have been long ago set for both punts made and punts received, if you make a fair catch and are going to punt the ball on 1st down anyway due to a combination of a truly muddy field and torrents of rain, why punt on 1st down a dozen or so yards back from the line of scrimmage when instead after a fair catch you can punt in that long ago era from the spot of the fair catch, and without who knows how many muddy and frustrated players on the opposing team trying to mob the punter? Of course, punters would know the field position danger of allowing the other team a fair catch in those conditions, and would either punt for distance to encourage a run back in muddy conditions instead of a fair catch, or else kick somewhat toward the sideline hoping the receiver would either fall down in the mud before getting there or else simply not be able to slog the required distance in the mud to make a fair catch. Thus, there might be a couple dozen or even more punts in such a game, but with only 1 or 2 fair catches called and successfully made. One college game in the late 1930s in such conditions was said to have had more than 60 total punts in the game, but with only one fair catch achieved. The punters knew their business when playing in muddy conditions, in an era when the fair catch kick rules allowed the fair catch kick to be an actual field position threat, in addition to being a scoring threat. Short version: Under the old set of fair catch kick rules, in an era when artificial turf was at best just an experiment in some scientist's laboratory, there used to be a field position niche use for a fair catch kick in especially muddy and rainy conditions that could be used in a practical manner anytime in the game beyond the first 20 minutes or so. Now in the 21st Century when most stadiums have artificial turf and many football fields are indoors, muddy field conditions in combination with heavy rain hardly ever happens. In any event, with the fair catch kick rules change of about 55 years ago that brought back a non-scoring fair catch kick to where the kick was made from and then (unless time has run out in the half) awards the ball to the other team at that spot, a fair catch kick can no longer be used as a means to give away the ball in exchange for field position. As such, a fair kick under the modern rules and under modern field conditions is mostly just either a "you better be right" scoring mechanism or else a "there's probably nothing to lose" or "it's our only real chance" scoring mechanism that's essentially limited to the last 3 minute or so of a half.
@AcousticDuck9 it also adds some strategic nuances to the end of the game. Fox example your up 3 but backed up inside the 5 in the shadow of your goalline. Risk a punt being fair catched within FG range where the recieving team doesn't have to worry about being blocked so you can maximize launch angles. Or try to run out the clock risk a fumble Or take a safety and allow an easier free kick.
Like I said before, it's about as rare as in chess underpromoting to a bishop and it actually makes sense to do so (I'm counting only real world/game conditions, not chess puzzles/problems!).
Its only stupid because you don't know sht about football. You didn't know it even Existed. I was at the game in 1976 when the last time it was made...
I'm thinking of other quirky rules that nobody has an issue with until it negatively affects them or their team. It's not sports but the Electoral College would be one of those rules.
Yes but the electoral college acts exactly like it should. If it didn't exist the most populated areas would control the presidential election and the rest of the country could go scratch. These high population states to get a lions share of the electoral votes. Imagine if it was 1 state, 1 vote(which is what would happen if the electoral count ended in a tie).
@@baronvonslambert so you're perfectly fine with the election being up to 3 or 4 states. So if you live in Wyoming or the Dakota's screw you, NY and California should decide who's president every 4 years.
This is the equivalent of a free throw. This is dumb because the amount frequency this happens is extremely low compared to basketball. However, it obviously changes the momentum of a game. This just smells of game manipulation. Considering that the chargers were only penalized twice for 8 yards... yeah. I'm just glad Tom Brady Patriots didn't take advantage of this rule.
@matthewdaley746 That's the point... in a broader perspective... it only changes the outcome of a game by adding points. Nothing more. Kickers now are not kickers that your grandpa used to watch. Modern kickers can consistently hit 50 yards. No pressure and a free FG does nothing but manipulate the game.
@matthewdaley746 By that logic, Adam Vinatieri should've played until he was 100... player's age, Tucker is no different. However, it applies nothing to the topic at hand.
@@gv1071 There's an innovative solution to preventing a fair-catch kick attempt at the end of the half: Just simply punt the ball well out of bounds, thereby giving the receiving team no opportunity to fair-catch the punt in the first place.
The fair catch kick is fine. What they have done to the onside kick is stupid.
I don't know I'm glad some of these archaic rules exist. Yes you could remove them from the rule book and it wouldn't change the game fundamentally at all. But then you would lose out on these cool little moments like Doug flutie's dropkick.
I have no issue keeping it
The rule is great! It rewards defense at the end of the half and the end of the game.
Its one of if not the last bastion that connects football to rugby
I say keep it
Here's the irony: both rugby league and rugby union have abolished it. Its closest equivalent is now in Australian Rules Football.
That and the drop kick
Sadly the Penalty Goal is worth 3 in Rugby Union, if it wasn't for a moment of brilliance from Jason Robinson in the 2003 Rugby World Cup final England would have a score divisible by 3 due to their "Fly Half" scoring Penalty and Drop Goals. In my book Johnny Wilkinson a glorified punter/kicker and a true "fly half" only good for using his boot, unlike 5/8 backs that wore number 10 like Spencer & Larkham in the same World Cup. Rugby Union is a running game and when it is played that way it is entertaining 😀
@@waverod9275 In Aussie rules, the mark happens way more frequently than the fair catch and does actually open the possibility of dramatic game endings; there's a few compilations of game-winning kicks after the siren (when the clock hits zero at the end of the game), granted after particularly difficult marks
My two cents: the fair catch kick should stay, it's a cool feature of the rule book and I want to be here to see the first-ever game-winning walk-off fair catch kick in NFL history.
@waverod9275 The rugby mark is different than Aussie rules. In rugby you had to call Mark, and you had to kick it.
As rare as the fair catch kick is in the NFL, it's still way more common than the one-point safety.
The opposite is true at the college level. There have been at least two 1-point safeties in college, but the fair-catch kick is not allowed there.
Some people want to remove kicking out of the game altogether.
These people want to make football less interesting, more one dimensional… make it like basketball, soccer, hockey.
If we're being fair, this wouldn't have happened if there wasn't a penalty for fair catch interference.
Having a fair catch interference penalty is the whole point. The receiving team is giving up the chance to advance the ball so the penalty for the kicking team messing with that even if it's just a slight touch needs to be severe.
As a Broncos fan, there was still a part of me that thought it was cool to see this scenario play out because it's so rare. God Bless Bo Nix.
What a difference a week makes. Denver capitalized on a touchdown gone wrong by Indy and shut them down and the Fair catch kick after the penalty spelled Doom for Denver
We spent an exorbitant amount of time practicing this play in high school, and it never came up. But it was the first time I had heard of it. Its an awesome rule. It rewards teams for winning the field position game, and doesn't let a team bail itself out at the end of a game or half, by punting the ball out of its end zone.
If they can use up all the time on the clock, they can bail themselves out by punting directly out of bounds. Can't make a fair catch there!
Federation rules make the attempt much less risky than NFL rules. In Fed if it doesn't score, it's like any other kick. If it makes it to the end zone, it's a touchback, no runback allowed. And you can even have onside recovery like a kickoff.
The packers complaining about rules??? What!!! I’m shocked!!!
Truth: Rules are only "dumb" when they go against your team. Period.
as many of your videos have gone to show American Football is not merely a game of inches or a game of Xs & Os it is essentially a game of clock management - if the team possessing the ball as the seconds diminish is not able to convert to a first down then the opposing team would still have the advantage of the clock being stopped at change of possession, by choosing to punt on fourth down the team possessing the football gains the advantage of the opposing team having to attempt a longer field goal- the rule makes perfect sense
If we're being fair here, the Broncos utilized clock management perfectly. There was literally no time left on the clock. The only reason why this was allowed to happen was because of a fair catch interference penalty which allowed an untimed down. Had there been no penalty the teams would have gone into the locker room with Denver up 21-10.
@@Rockhound6165no. If you call a fair catch with no time left then you can do the free kick. The penalty only moved them into FG range.
@@Rockhound6165 if you have watched the NFL for even a day you know that THE GAME CAN NOT END ON A DEFENSIVE PENALTY - so your assertion that the Broncos managed the clock perfectly is 100% incorrect
@@ThePrufessa I just checked the NFL rule book and you are correct: "Article 5. Extension Of A Period
If time expires during a play in which a player has signaled for a fair catch, the following shall apply:
If the player makes a fair catch, the receiving team may elect to extend the period with a fair-catch kick, but does not have the option to extend the period by a snap from scrimmage.
If the kicking team interferes with a receiver who has signaled for a fair catch, the receiving team will have the option to extend the period by attempting a fair catch kick or by a snap from scrimmage after enforcement of any applicable penalties."
@@theycallhimwoods so it's the coaches fault his player committed a stupid penalty?
I think it's hilarious a literal DAY AFTER you made a video
This EXACT situation occurred again
It's been on the book forever. I like it, it rewards a coach knowing the rules for one thing.
This seems like an aspect of the game that should become more common with kickers becoming more accurate at further distances. Also surprised more teams don’t utilize offload passes like the Allen to amari cooper back to Josh Allen td
Uh oh, looks like somebody lost money on the game.
The rule originated from the rugby code of football from which American Football originated in the first place. Rugby union abolished the rule in the late 1970s (by which point it had already become a very rare play like it is in NFL). In rugby the equivalent to fair catch free kick, was called "Goal from a Mark". The concept was exactly the same. If a team caught a kick from their opponent, the catcher could call for a "mark" (ie fair catch"), and then was able to have a free unopposed kick of the ball, which if they wanted could be used to try and score points by kicking through the goalposts (although in rugby it had to be the same player attempt the kick who caught the ball). Over the years rugby started introduced restrictions concerning where on the field a mark could be called. Originally it was anywhere on the field (like NFL is today still), then they restricted it to catches made in the player's own half only, which made the goal from a mark become very rare. Then they moved it back further to within 22 metres of the player's own goal line only, making a goal from a mark virtually impossible. Finally rugby introduced the concept of a separate category of free kick for minor infringements by opponents whereby no points could be scored directly from the free kick. This new "lesser" type of free kick was assigned to the free kick awarded after a called mark, and from that point the "Goal from a Mark" scoring play became officially defunct in rugby union football.
1st episode of Star Wars? I hate to be that guy... I mean nerd...That would be episode 4. 😁
Fair catch free kick rules if they get rid of it I'll actually be upset
The rule is fine. Good even
I remember reading this rule in middle school about 30 years ago and wondering if I’d ever see it done
Is this the equivalent of a technical foul being called at the end of a game in basketball? Or a Balk to end a baseball game? This is a weird rule.
The NFL basically ended the Fair Catch Kick when they moved the goal posts back in 1974. That's why there have only been two successful attempts since then.
The Packers' offense could've earned a new set of downs to prevent that scenario. The Packers sowed the seeds for their own doom. The Packer who complained can have several seats.
TBF, 56 years later the Giants would invent a play where the offense couldn't do anything but stand there and let the defense stop em so the football universe balances out.
The stupidest rule is the touchback when the ball is fumbled out of the endzone
Considering that only two have been made in the past 50 years, I think anyone complaining about the rule is being whiny. The rare and obscure stuff makes for special moments where you get people talking at length about it. I've literally never been alive to see a completed fair catch free kick until Dicker The Kicker pulled it off, that's a moment that I'm going to remember even not being particularly invested in either team involved.
You don't know the complete rule! Only get the option to kick the ball when there is an infraction on the kicking team AND the receiver DOES NOT have to catch the ball. They also could choose to run a scrimmage play.
What's stupid about it is that you can prevent a fair catch (or any runback) by kicking directly out of bounds. A team should have the option of a fair catch when an opposing kick goes directly out of bounds.
The fair catch is so ancient a rule, it was shared by most types of football from the British Isles (which is most football overall). Even soccer had a fair catch with a free kick opportunity until 1867. Australian and Gaelic football have a much more generous fair catch: You can get one from your opponent's or your own side's kick. And the resulting fair catch is the commonest way to score in Australian Rules.
You don't see the fair catch kick in NCAA because they abolished it in 1950. Actually they abolished the fair catch, period, shortly after Canadian football abolished it. However, NCAA reinstated the fair catch in 1951, but without the free kick choice. Federation rules still allow it.
The founders and inventors of American football truly have a lot of bases covered. Before this, I never knew that such a rule existed. Goes to show that Jim Haurbauh (sorry for my spelling) is the best coach the chargers have had in quite some time.
It's foreshadowing..... Imagine a punt late in the Superbowl,Detroit fair catches it and has Bates drill it from 75 to win the game.
The rule is fine.
Rules aren’t dumb just because you haven’t heard of them. They’re part of the game.
The one thing it does do, force the offense to compete at the end of 2nd qt. I'm sure more teams now will try to stop the clock & force a punt instead of taking a knee to end the half. All Things Considered I think it's pretty good
The laat successful fair catch kick was so long ago that when it happened, Jimmy Carter was only the President Elect. Gerald Ford was serving out his term.
If it had been your Jacksonville Jaguars and they went on to win the game, I'd bet you'd think the rule is great.
The Fair Catch is a fair play. Whats stupid is the new kickoff rules
“All CFB @ NFL Playoff games “ 🎉 we have made it to the start of football heaven
I didn’t know it even existed
What about the Drop Kick? Or the Quick Kick?
It is actually really unique.
What is the maximum amount of time that needs to be left in order to try a fair catch kick?
Maybe 2 minutes if you're down between 11 to 9 points and you need to score twice quickly..
You can try it any time following a fair catch if you want to, at any point in the game. It's just tactically it doesn't make sense to, except at the end of a half or game.
Time can run out in a half while the ball is in the air, and even then, if a fair catch is called for, and then is made, or else is interfered with by batting away or blocking the view of the ball before the ball reaches the kick receiver or by running into or shoving the receiver, then a fair catch kick is still an option by the receiving team.
Long long ago, back in the 19th Century, it was viewed as a little bit too much as a rules exploit time management tactic to stop the receiving team from having even one play from scrimmage by using a short kick tactic in such a way that time expired in the half while a kick was in the air. A short kick meant that potentially a mob of 10 players on the kicking team could set up to simutaneoudly pile onto a kick returner, thus pretty much cutting out a chance of a good kick return, which is the rationale for the receiving team having a free kick option, in order to sometimes punish use of a short kick strategy. Having the clock expire while the ball is still in the air meant there couldn't be a play from scrimmage afterward either. Genius level time management combination tactic, but in 19th Century thinking just a little too exploitative of the rules to in such a manner give the receiving team almost no chance at trying for a score.
In short, it was felt that that the time management tactic of having time expire while a kick is in the air was just a little bit too unfair, and as such a fair catch kick was allowed by rule even if time expired during a kick that was then fair caught (or was interfered with, for example by trying to stop the fair catch from happening by leaping up and batting away the kick just before it got to the receiver.)
As such, even if the clock has run out while the kick is in the air and there is no penalty that would then allow one play from scrimmage to take place after time has expired, a fair catch kick is still allowed.
A basic 19th Century football belief was that if a team has earned a situation of getting the ball punted to them and then called for a fair catch and then successfully fielded the ball on the fly (or in some unusual situations fielded the ball on the 1st bounce), they should at least have some sort of chance to do something with the ball, regardless of whatever sneaky time management tricks the kicking team had set up in order to run down the clock while the ball was still in the air. Still allowing a fair catch kick, even if time had run out, thus granted the receiving team the ability to at least still do something with the ball that it had worked so hard to earn.
You can do it at anytime. But if you have, let's say 1 minute you snap the ball and try to score for 6. That's why it's so rare, a lot of conditions have to be in place so the team would go for one, distance, time, score.
@@matttyrer9096 , more than 55 years ago, when a fair catch kick had a punt option and when a non-scoring fair catch kick, whether punt or place kick or drop kick, was treated like ultra long distance onside kick recoverable by whoever got to the ball first, a fair catch kick was a viable niche option at any time beyond the first 3 or so possessions in especially muddy field conditions in intermittent or continuous heavy rain. There are long ago stories of coaches on both teams in such games calling for punts on 1st down since there was sometimes simply too much chance, with all of the game balls after the first 20 minutes or so of such a game having eventually become both wet and muddy, of a turnover happening even on a normally safe and stodgy running play.
In such situations in which a team record might have been long ago set for both punts made and punts received, if you make a fair catch and are going to punt the ball on 1st down anyway due to a combination of a truly muddy field and torrents of rain, why punt on 1st down a dozen or so yards back from the line of scrimmage when instead after a fair catch you can punt in that long ago era from the spot of the fair catch, and without who knows how many muddy and frustrated players on the opposing team trying to mob the punter?
Of course, punters would know the field position danger of allowing the other team a fair catch in those conditions, and would either punt for distance to encourage a run back in muddy conditions instead of a fair catch, or else kick somewhat toward the sideline hoping the receiver would either fall down in the mud before getting there or else simply not be able to slog the required distance in the mud to make a fair catch. Thus, there might be a couple dozen or even more punts in such a game, but with only 1 or 2 fair catches called and successfully made. One college game in the late 1930s in such conditions was said to have had more than 60 total punts in the game, but with only one fair catch achieved. The punters knew their business when playing in muddy conditions, in an era when the fair catch kick rules allowed the fair catch kick to be an actual field position threat, in addition to being a scoring threat.
Short version: Under the old set of fair catch kick rules, in an era when artificial turf was at best just an experiment in some scientist's laboratory, there used to be a field position niche use for a fair catch kick in especially muddy and rainy conditions that could be used in a practical manner anytime in the game beyond the first 20 minutes or so. Now in the 21st Century when most stadiums have artificial turf and many football fields are indoors, muddy field conditions in combination with heavy rain hardly ever happens. In any event, with the fair catch kick rules change of about 55 years ago that brought back a non-scoring fair catch kick to where the kick was made from and then (unless time has run out in the half) awards the ball to the other team at that spot, a fair catch kick can no longer be used as a means to give away the ball in exchange for field position. As such, a fair kick under the modern rules and under modern field conditions is mostly just either a "you better be right" scoring mechanism or else a "there's probably nothing to lose" or "it's our only real chance" scoring mechanism that's essentially limited to the last 3 minute or so of a half.
New onside kick rule is terrible.
Just part of The Game Son… Obscure rules are the best… One point safety on a two point conversion…. Some day…
54-38-6 Bears
( 13-10 Chicago )
Quiriks and nuisances of the rules in sport make the game interesting, keep the freekick
Cameron Kicker
Jaguargator9 complaining about NFL rules is kinda my jam idk
Can we get this man Roger goodells cell number?
It almost never used it should be kept
@AcousticDuck9 it also adds some strategic nuances to the end of the game.
Fox example your up 3 but backed up inside the 5 in the shadow of your goalline. Risk a punt being fair catched within FG range where the recieving team doesn't have to worry about being blocked so you can maximize launch angles.
Or try to run out the clock risk a fumble
Or take a safety and allow an easier free kick.
Like I said before, it's about as rare as in chess underpromoting to a bishop and it actually makes sense to do so (I'm counting only real world/game conditions, not chess puzzles/problems!).
The foot in football, thank you, I'm cool with it. #freekick
Its only stupid because you don't know sht about football. You didn't know it even Existed. I was at the game in 1976 when the last time it was made...
??????
I'm thinking of other quirky rules that nobody has an issue with until it negatively affects them or their team. It's not sports but the Electoral College would be one of those rules.
Yes but the electoral college acts exactly like it should. If it didn't exist the most populated areas would control the presidential election and the rest of the country could go scratch. These high population states to get a lions share of the electoral votes. Imagine if it was 1 state, 1 vote(which is what would happen if the electoral count ended in a tie).
Plenty of people have issue with the electoral college existing even when it benefits their party, just saying as one of those people.
@@baronvonslambert so you're perfectly fine with the election being up to 3 or 4 states. So if you live in Wyoming or the Dakota's screw you, NY and California should decide who's president every 4 years.
Such as the U.S. Presidential Election of 1824 negativity affecting Andrew Jackson.
This is the equivalent of a free throw. This is dumb because the amount frequency this happens is extremely low compared to basketball.
However, it obviously changes the momentum of a game. This just smells of game manipulation.
Considering that the chargers were only penalized twice for 8 yards... yeah.
I'm just glad Tom Brady Patriots didn't take advantage of this rule.
More like the equivalent of a balk in baseball… rarely happens when it does everyone is perplexed that it even exists 😅
It could happen after every single fair catch if teams wanted to, the option is always there.
@matthewdaley746 That's the point... in a broader perspective... it only changes the outcome of a game by adding points. Nothing more.
Kickers now are not kickers that your grandpa used to watch. Modern kickers can consistently hit 50 yards. No pressure and a free FG does nothing but manipulate the game.
@matthewdaley746 By that logic, Adam Vinatieri should've played until he was 100... player's age, Tucker is no different.
However, it applies nothing to the topic at hand.
@@gv1071 There's an innovative solution to preventing a fair-catch kick attempt at the end of the half: Just simply punt the ball well out of bounds, thereby giving the receiving team no opportunity to fair-catch the punt in the first place.