This really is a hack though. It only works in high school rules by exploiting a formation designed for kicks, but using that formation for passing plays. Since it doesn't work at higher levels, it's actually a disservice to any players who will want to play college ball afterward.
It's clever, for sure, but I'm fairly certain it will be eliminated quickly.
I don't know much about football (and my friends corroborate), and you may be surprised to learn that the forward pass itself was actually an innovation that was introduced into American football over 100 years ago. Before the forward pass, teams simply brute-forced the ball forward.
“John Heisman, a noted historian, wrote 30 years later that, indeed, the Tar Heels had given birth to the forward pass against the Bulldogs (UGA). It was conceived to break a scoreless deadlock and give UNC a 6-0 win. The Carolinians were in a punting situation and a Georgia rush seemed destined to block the ball. The punter, with an impromptu dash to his right, tossed the ball and it was caught by George Stephens, who ran 70 yards for a touchdown.
Heisman wrote he was at the game standing near the action on the sidelines. He is emphatic that Pop Warner, who was coaching Georgia, protested to the referee to no avail. And he adds that he personally wrote Walter Camp, the final authority on football, of the possibilities of the ‘forward pass’ making football a new and more exciting game.”
Yeah. I got bored of seeing so many things on News.YC described as a "hack". Then I had a few minutes this morning during breakfast, and decided to check out News.YC for the first time in about a week.
This was the second story I clicked on, hoping to read something that was actually, y'know, revolutionary. Even if it was football.
This "hack" nonsense has got to go. Using it indiscriminately -- no matter how much you justify it afterward -- doesn't make you look cool or sexy or clever.
Novel, clever, and breaks an accepted rule or convention, there-by doing something previously thought impossible or impractical. The idea that a hack breaks an accepted rule is what gives hacking its social significance, imo.
Contrary to what this article might state, this offense is in no way novel, clever, or rule-breaking. This might be novel in SF, but it's nothing short of gimmicky in other areas, sorry.
Sounds like it doesn't qualify as a hack then, though the article certainly presents it as if it is. (I've never watched a game of American football, so don't ask me.)
As always, the greatness of a hack is in the eye of the beholder. A joke is never as funny the second time you hear it.
This is old news. They've been doing this kind of stuff in six-man for ages. My high-school six-man team had a number of formations that worked just like this.
Sounds like some fun disruptive innovation at work, but as a european who doesn't give a flying fuck about "american football" and doesn't know any of the jargon, this was mostly unintelligible.
in non-american-football terms, it's an asymmetric interaction (attack) formation. rather than establishing a 1 to 1 pairing between opposing players, this approach means that a play isn't reliant on the physical/defensive strength of the front line, rather, the speed & accuracy of any node can be leveraged. it's a step away from rugby and towards a game of tag.
in many ways, it parallels the battlefield innovations that allow smaller, faster but weaker forces to defeat a stronger, rigidly structured but predictable opposition.
it's decentralizing the game by removing the emphasis on a single quarterback as a control point, meaning the defense has to target the entire team, rather than 1 bottleneck. just as we've seen in other fields that have watched this occur, the criticism of this approach is that the 'spirit' of the game relies on the head to head match ups that this approach does away with. it makes the game a lot more strategic & less about brute force - brute force that is the heart of the game for many fans. that said, as someone who's mostly played the marginalized outlier positions as an outmatched line gets pummeled into the turf, this is a really attractive strategy because it requires collaboration between everyone on the team, which doesn't happen as much as it should in high school football.
Basically, there are normally rules preventing most of the offensive players from receiving a pass; by switching the starting formation they make everyone eligible and explode the number of possible passes they can make.
It's an extremely clever hack; I don't care about football either but I'm impressed by the thinking.
The professional Patriots team used to be well known for running creative plays before their offensive coordinator (coach) was enticed away by a college team (at American colleges with a football program, head coaches are typically the highest paid employees.) The team has also been known for having the smartest group in the entire league, a quality sought in players above superstar skills and high maintenance demands, like a huge salary. Instead, the Patriots pick up superstars who have already made their money and proved themselves on another team, and now want a Super Bowl ring by playing for the Patriots at a "regular" salary. These players tend to be older and more mature than the reputation they used to have with their old team. This beats paying a huge salary to a great 22 year old college player who turns out to be a bust at the professional level, as well as immature, which is what a lot of other teams do. These approaches have begun to be emulated across the league, however.
I'm not trolling, I'm just stating the facts here:
You are wrong factually incorrect on a lot of things. Nothing in what you just typed was even close to being right, and it has nothing to do with this this submission.
Rodney Harrison, Corey Dillon, Randy Moss, and some others have been team superstars that were proven on other teams, but chose to join the Patriots to win a Super Bowl ring at a fair price. Rodney, who was known as, and was recently voted again, the most dirtiest player in the league, first had a serious conversation with Bill Belichick, the coach of the Patriots, at the 1999 Pro Bowl, where Belichick was head coach of the AFC team. Harrison was released from the Chargers even though he had won a couple of Pro Bowl honors in the previous years.
Corey Dillon wanted out of the Bengals. Like Harrison, he had a terrible reputation, probably of any running back. He had won three Pro Bowl honors in the previous years.
Randy Moss wanted out of the Vikings. He also had the worst reputation, probably of any wide receiver. He had won five Pro Bowl honors (!) in the previous years.
So all of these players, considered to be the whiniest or dirtiest superstars in the league in their position by their own teammates and other teams, each agreed to join the Patriots for a fair price--and have not caused problems once they were on a team that valued winning.
The Patriots did draft a lot of their players, but that just proves my point that they did not waste money on the top college players in the draft, but traded their top picks to other teams for multiple picks. When they wanted proven talent, they got it via players who wanted out of their current situation in other teams, like those three.
I guess the startup lesson here is to focus the entire team on winning over customers and fixing problems, and super stars who make a lot of money but are discontent with their peers at their current endeavors will want to join you, for less money, to help create something amazing together. Oh, and make sure you also have Tom Brady, apparently.
My goal was to provide some football-related (article-related) motivation. You guys are right about what I said regarding the Patriots being the smartest team--I haven't been able to find any article to confirm what I had thought I read at one point. Thanks for replying!
Well, almost. Not everyone on the field is eligible to receive. Two of the guys on the line aren't eligible. However, it isn't revealed who the eligible receivers are until just before the play starts.
Without going into too many details, a coach has found a way to bring American football closer to rest-of-the-world football. They've made it harder for the defence to focus it's brute force, so that they can win by agility instead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/magazine/04coach.html?page...
Edit: Never thought I'd see a sports piece atop Hacker News.