|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 1, 2021 8:53:06 GMT -6
EDIT: If the field dimensions were shrunk and the hashes were narrowed to be more like the pro field, do you think these changes would overall benefit the offensive or the defensive side of the ball more?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2021 8:55:24 GMT -6
Defense.
|
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Sept 1, 2021 8:58:52 GMT -6
Which of course means that it will never happen. peOPle LiKE scoRinG |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2021 9:01:56 GMT -6
Which of course means that it will never happen. peOPle LiKE scoRinG We humans are stupid, so who knows. To me its not offense or defense, its what you all say, it is what they see on death tube.(Your tv screen is blue, color you turn when you die is the theory) |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 1, 2021 9:08:35 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2021 9:14:08 GMT -6
Good defenses wont give the field back to you. Offense is in even more of a box. Level playing field. I am not talking about david v. Goliath. If its Goliath, and the qb is power 5, future nfl 1st rd pick vs sisters of the blind? of course it helps the offense. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Sept 1, 2021 9:20:11 GMT -6
Less space to cover gives the offense less to exploit. Depending on the shrink size, it's going to be a lot easier to get help to defenders in space. Kinda like how the increase in speed makes windows a heck of a lot tighter to fit the ball into in the NFL. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 1, 2021 9:24:54 GMT -6
Less space to cover gives the offense less to exploit. Depending on the shrink size, it's going to be a lot easier to get help to defenders in space. Kinda like how the increase in speed makes windows a heck of a lot tighter to fit the ball into in the NFL. It gives the defense more space to cover, since the hashes are further from the sideline. In the NFL there's virtually no difference between the field and boundary sides of the field. The NFL's intent when they changed the hashes was to open up the field to provide more offense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2021 9:30:18 GMT -6
Less space to cover gives the offense less to exploit. Depending on the shrink size, it's going to be a lot easier to get help to defenders in space. Kinda like how the increase in speed makes windows a heck of a lot tighter to fit the ball into in the NFL. It gives the defense more space to cover, since the hashes are further from the sideline. In the NFL there's virtually no difference between the field and boundary sides of the field. The NFL's intent when they changed the hashes was to open up the field to provide more offense. But the nfl is a different game. HS. Most qbs cant throw opposit hash. But the current hashes allow for room in mof. You now move the hashes in, Defense squats down. |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Sept 1, 2021 9:33:46 GMT -6
Less space to cover gives the offense less to exploit. Depending on the shrink size, it's going to be a lot easier to get help to defenders in space. Kinda like how the increase in speed makes windows a heck of a lot tighter to fit the ball into in the NFL. It gives the defense more space to cover, since the hashes are further from the sideline. In the NFL there's virtually no difference between the field and boundary sides of the field. The NFL's intent when they changed the hashes was to open up the field to provide more offense. He said shrink the size of the field and move hashes. Smaller field = less space. |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 1, 2021 9:36:18 GMT -6
It gives the defense more space to cover, since the hashes are further from the sideline. In the NFL there's virtually no difference between the field and boundary sides of the field. The NFL's intent when they changed the hashes was to open up the field to provide more offense. He said shrink the size of the field and move hashes. Smaller field = less space. I didn't take that to mean that he wanted to make the field dimension smaller. I think he means just moving the hashes. If I'm wrong that would change my answer. |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 1, 2021 10:00:41 GMT -6
Dang liking this discussion so far!
|
|
|
|
Post by kcbazooka on Sept 1, 2021 10:00:43 GMT -6
You asked two very different questions. If you shrink the field the defense gets an edge. If you keep the same dimension but narrow the hashmarks the offense gets an advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 1, 2021 10:03:26 GMT -6
He said shrink the size of the field and move hashes. Smaller field = less space. I didn't take that to mean that he wanted to make the field dimension smaller. I think he means just moving the hashes. If I'm wrong that would change my answer. Yes, I meant make field dimensions smaller. Will edit OP for clarity's sake. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 1, 2021 10:04:36 GMT -6
You asked two very different questions. If you shrink the field the defense gets an edge. If you keep the same dimension but narrow the hashmarks the offense gets an advantage. I was thinking of a scenario where both of those are done |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 1, 2021 10:12:12 GMT -6
I didn't take that to mean that he wanted to make the field dimension smaller. I think he means just moving the hashes. If I'm wrong that would change my answer. Yes, I meant make field dimensions smaller. Will edit OP for clarity's sake. Thanks! OK, then Why? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 1, 2021 10:14:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by echoofthewhistle on Sept 1, 2021 11:46:39 GMT -6
Depends on how much. Narrower hash helps offense and smaller field helps the defense. So IDK
|
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 1, 2021 17:36:10 GMT -6
Yes, I meant make field dimensions smaller. Will edit OP for clarity's sake. Thanks! OK, then Why? Why in reference to? Why do what I talked about in the OP? |
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 1, 2021 17:49:20 GMT -6
Why in reference to? Why do what I talked about in the OP? Yeah, shrink the field? |
|
|
|
Post by tripsclosed on Sept 1, 2021 18:52:18 GMT -6
Why in reference to? Why do what I talked about in the OP? Yeah, shrink the field? Just brainstorming, thinking maybe the high school field should be shrunk and the pro field should be expanded to account for the speed of players at each level |
|
|
|
Post by teachcoach on Sept 1, 2021 21:41:34 GMT -6
I would hate moving the hash marks. I love to attack the short side, drive dc nuts
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 2, 2021 7:58:50 GMT -6
It's been so long since any of the overall field dimensions have been changed for 11-a-side, it would almost surely have to be a new pro league that'd try it. It's been over a century since the length dimensions have changed, and then it was only a matter of sacrificing some between the goal lines to allow some stadiums to accommodate end zones, which previously had been just a variable space beyond the goal lines and subject to ground rules. And serious consideration to altering the width of the field was last given leading up to 1906; we got the forward pass instead. Shortly after the Federation started formulating their own rules, they hashed out a bunch of possible departures, but changing the width or length of the field was not prominently discussed among them.
Since the high schools have been using these dimensions for so long without any basic change in their circumstances, it doesn't seem likely that'd be the level where such a change would occur.
Hash marks have been moved several times, always inward, and the higher the level of play, the more they've been moved.
|
|
|
|
Post by tog on Sept 2, 2021 11:01:51 GMT -6
defannnnce
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2021 14:24:19 GMT -6
It gives the defense more space to cover, since the hashes are further from the sideline. In the NFL there's virtually no difference between the field and boundary sides of the field. The NFL's intent when they changed the hashes was to open up the field to provide more offense. But the nfl is a different game. HS. Most qbs cant throw opposit hash. But the current hashes allow for room in mof. You now move the hashes in, Defense squats down. But if you’re pushing the hashes in closer together and shrinking the field, that “opposite hash” throw becomes a lot closer and the field basically goes from behind divided into nice, even thirds into what’s basically a pair of halves with the ball spotted in the MOF. The current HS field dimensions really compress the field on the boundary hash, which benefits the defense and allows them to play more field/boundary games as a fundamental strategy, If you put twins there, #2 is usually only around 3 yards from the T and #1 has very little space to work outside of him. Trips into the boundary is essentially a bunch set. Moving the hashes in changes that and makes everything in the MOF. Now, instead of playing field and boundary like many good HS defenses, you have to call strength to the formation. That can be a little more complex and it means defenders on both sides of the field now have a lot of ground to cover (unless you’re shrinking the whole field horizontally), rather than just the field side being the only one you really need to worry about. It also makes the field/boundary tendency on offense a lot less of an issue. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Sept 3, 2021 8:47:55 GMT -6
One consequence of moving the hashes is the relative areas between them vs. the side zones. The greater the proportion of the time the ball becomes dead in a side zone (because the side zones get bigger due to hashes moving inward), the more often, and farther, officials have to move the ball to spot it. The more they have to do that, the more time it takes away from begin able to play the ball, and the greater the chance of error. I know it's a little thing, but nobody's mentioned it yet.
Of course if you narrowed the field, that would also increase the dead balls out of bounds, which are also cases of the ball's having to be moved to be spotted.
I notice nobody here seems to be discussing altering the length of the field.
High schoolers haven't gotten any smaller over the years, so I don't see a case there for shrinking the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by fantom on Sept 3, 2021 9:00:54 GMT -6
One consequence of moving the hashes is the relative areas between them vs. the side zones. The greater the proportion of the t I notice nobody here seems to be discussing altering the length of the field. High schoolers haven't gotten any smaller over the years, so I don't see a case there for shrinking the field. There's been talk about lengthening the NFL end zones like they are in Canada to open up the game in the red zone. It's just talk because it would cost too much money to renovate the stadiums. |
|
|
|
Post by coachwoodall on Sept 3, 2021 9:45:14 GMT -6
But the nfl is a different game. HS. Most qbs cant throw opposit hash. But the current hashes allow for room in mof. You now move the hashes in, Defense squats down. But if you’re pushing the hashes in closer together and shrinking the field, that “opposite hash” throw becomes a lot closer and the field basically goes from behind divided into nice, even thirds into what’s basically a pair of halves with the ball spotted in the MOF. The current HS field dimensions really compress the field on the boundary hash, which benefits the defense and allows them to play more field/boundary games as a fundamental strategy, If you put twins there, #2 is usually only around 3 yards from the T and #1 has very little space to work outside of him. Trips into the boundary is essentially a bunch set. Moving the hashes in changes that and makes everything in the MOF. Now, instead of playing field and boundary like many good HS defenses, you have to call strength to the formation. That can be a little more complex and it means defenders on both sides of the field now have a lot of ground to cover (unless you’re shrinking the whole field horizontally), rather than just the field side being the only one you really need to worry about. It also makes the field/boundary tendency on offense a lot less of an issue. Defensively I actually focus more on how I defend the boundary than the field. But that might be just b/c of the tendency of many of the coaches around here that tend to specifically attack the boundary. |
|
