ESPN Clayton: A glaring oversight overhead

[dadymat]

and penalties make punters rekick, exposing players to injury, so do away with them also

and make it a penalty to hit the scoreboard during warmups--no reason to do it except to show off

thats what im getting sick of.....weak *** punters spending warm ups trying hit our 40 million dollar video board.....they should be fined for it......Jerry ought to tell em all "you break it, you buy it"

 

[Chief]

Comment Email Print Share
By John Clayton
ESPN.com

In my opinion, the reason the league requirement is 85 feet is that few people considered the potential problems created by punters.

 

[cowboys#1]

Cowboys Stadium's overhanging video scoreboard could provide safety, strategy issues

Comment Email Print Share
By John Clayton
ESPN.com

Dan in Duluth, Minn., sides with Jerry Jones on the Dallas Cowboys' scoreboard controversy.

He notes that Cowboys Stadium's high-definition screen is mounted 90 feet above the field -- five feet above the league specifications for an overhanging structure. Dan supports the idea that the Cowboys mounted the scoreboard with the full understanding that it complied with the approved limits, so it would be unfair of the NFL to ask Cowboys owner Jones to pay considerable money to fix it.

As it turns out, you are right, Dan, but give me a chance to expound on the issue. League commissioner Roger Goodell isn't going to force any change in the scoreboard in 2009. Last week the NFL ruled that the down will be replayed and clock will be reset if a football hits the overhanging video display board. The league can review the issue after the season.

While Jones did more than comply with the league standards, the 85-foot standard really doesn't make any sense. Every visiting punter who has been through there so far has hit the scoreboard, at least in warm-ups.

The overhanging scoreboard produces a safety problem because a replayed down further exposes players to potential injury: Another special-teams play means more high-speed collisions. It's a competitive advantage for the Cowboys because opposing punters who rely on high hang time might not be able to angle their kicks without hitting the scoreboard on certain spots on the field.

In my opinion, the reason the league requirement is 85 feet is that few people considered the potential problems created by punters. Though the Louisiana Superdome has an overhanging scoreboard, it is reportedly mounted much higher than the 90 feet in Jerry's stadium. The current group of punters might be the strongest in league history. Ninety feet is only 30 yards in altitude. It's only natural to think they can get 30 yards into the air on a punt to get the high hang time. It's pretty apparent Jones didn't include a punting consultant when he did environmental impact studies on the scoreboard.

In reality, the height should be somewhere between 100 and 110 feet, but determined after extensive testing by professional kickers.

As the story is told, Texas Stadium -- the Cowboys' old home -- was built with an opening in the middle of the roof so God could look down on his favorite team. The 90-foot gap between the new Cowboys Stadium field and the scoreboard is like a cloud that's blocking logic. If a punter can hit the scoreboard, Jones should move it.

What I'd like to see is a visiting quarterback hit the scoreboard with 30 seconds remaining and no timeouts and see if he can get a dead-ball ruling that is mandated for punts that hit the scoreboard. The quarterback can do this by rolling out of the pocket and firing the ball at the scoreboard. As long as he is outside the pocket and the ball is past the line of scrimmage, there can't be any intentional grounding calls.

In fact, would it not be out of line for a team with no timeouts to just throw to hit the scoreboard after each first down to reset the clock. If the scoreboard costs the Cowboys a chance to win a home game, you'll see how embarrassing the result will be.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=4433919

http://i632.***BLOCKED***/albums/uu42/papilon86/Not-again-picard_2.jpg

 

[casmith07]

Cowboys Stadium's overhanging video scoreboard could provide safety, strategy issues

Comment Email Print Share
By John Clayton
ESPN.com

Dan in Duluth, Minn., sides with Jerry Jones on the Dallas Cowboys' scoreboard controversy.

He notes that Cowboys Stadium's high-definition screen is mounted 90 feet above the field -- five feet above the league specifications for an overhanging structure. Dan supports the idea that the Cowboys mounted the scoreboard with the full understanding that it complied with the approved limits, so it would be unfair of the NFL to ask Cowboys owner Jones to pay considerable money to fix it.

As it turns out, you are right, Dan,

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/trainingcamp09/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=4433919

Thanks John, we're done here.

 

[Temo]

Talk about overrated. Ray Guy isn't even in the top 50 of all-time in yards per punt.

Yards per punt is hardly the only metric to use here. I could use a variety of arguments for why Ray Guy was the most VALUABLE punter of all time (mean, most value in wins above replacement, meaning the most valuable compared to his contemporaries).

Don't have the time right now, but I think a few of the points are outlined in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/sports/football/25score.html?_r=1&ref=football

 

[Temo]

Well, his flawed theory is that they would get to replay the down with the time put back on the clock.

No, I know that. But if he misses, then you lose out on a good 10-15 seconds (time to scramble, to throw, for the ball to ascend, then descend, then human reaction time).

 

[jchap]

Not even Buehler could throw a ball high enough to hit the screen...

 

[AdamJT13]

Yards per punt is hardly the only metric to use here. I could use a variety of arguments for why Ray Guy was the most VALUABLE punter of all time (mean, most value in wins above replacement, meaning the most valuable compared to his contemporaries).

Don't have the time right now, but I think a few of the points are outlined in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/sports/football/25score.html?_r=1&ref=football

That article reinforces my point.

"Guy ranks fourth on the list of punters who played at least five seasons from 1976 to 1986."

"Once again, take a look at how Guy fared against his competitors from 1976 to 1986. His No. 3 ranking here ..."

"The 1973-76 totals partly illustrate this, but Guy ranks third in the 1976-86 comparisons."

Even when compared against just a small sample of his peers, Guy STILL doesn't rank as the best punter. Yet that fluff article proclaims that ranking third or fourth over the course of a decade qualifies as being "a master" and shows your "dominance."

Considering that his peers who ranked ahead of him aren't in the Hall of Fame, let alone any of those before and after who were better, I don't see any reason that Ray Guy should be in the Hall of Fame.

Most hyped punter of all time? Yes. The best? Not even close.

 

[RamziD]

Not even Buehler could throw a ball high enough to hit the screen...

Take that back! You take that back right now, you hear me?!

 

[daschoo]

why would they not just send the punter on to hit the scoreboard rather than try and have the quarterback throw it. since its so easy to hit and all. or as stated just spike the ball. oh because then we wouldn't have got this rediculous article. i see.