Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Proposed Rule Changes


Outshined
 Share

Recommended Posts

Banning long hair...

http://www.wpxi.com/news/15706006/detail.html

 

Others are;

 

Defining the push out rule on out of bounds receptions.

 

Allowing instant replay to review field goals. Coaches could challenge whether a ball went under or over the crossbar, or to the left or right of the upright, but not in cases when the ball travels above the upright.

 

Changing seeding procedures for the playoffs. The teams with the top two records in each conference would remain 1-2, but the other four playoff teams would be seeded by record and not whether they won their division. This change will give teams more control over their playoff position and could discourage teams from resting their starters once they clinch a berth.

 

Changing coin toss procedures to give teams the opportunity to defer to the second half.

Eliminating the 5-yard facemask penalty.

 

Edited to fix broken link

Edited by Big John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing seeding procedures for the playoffs. The teams with the top two records in each conference would remain 1-2, but the other four playoff teams would be seeded by record and not whether they won their division. This change will give teams more control over their playoff position and could discourage teams from resting their starters once they clinch a berth.

Aha! I knew Goodell was in a few fantasy leagues!

 

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banning long hair...

 

Stupid, but they can do it. Someone wants to risk being tackled by the hair that's their perrogative.

 

 

Defining the push out rule on out of bounds receptions.

 

Way overdue

 

Allowing instant replay to review field goals. Coaches could challenge whether a ball went under or over the crossbar, or to the left or right of the upright, but not in cases when the ball travels above the upright.

 

Obvious

 

Changing seeding procedures for the playoffs. The teams with the top two records in each conference would remain 1-2, but the other four playoff teams would be seeded by record and not whether they won their division. This change will give teams more control over their playoff position and could discourage teams from resting their starters once they clinch a berth.

 

Stupid & an overreaction

 

Changing coin toss procedures to give teams the opportunity to defer to the second half.

 

Okay.

 

Eliminating the 5-yard facemask penalty.

 

Really, really stupid. So every facemask is either 15 yds or nothing? Some facemask penalties are appropriate for a 5 yd penalty and no automatic first down.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing seeding procedures for the playoffs. The teams with the top two records in each conference would remain 1-2, but the other four playoff teams would be seeded by record and not whether they won their division. This change will give teams more control over their playoff position and could discourage teams from resting their starters once they clinch a berth.

 

Agree with Bronco Billy here... Why even have divisions then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well the division winners would still be auto matically int he playoffs...just seeded lower if the wild card team had a better record...i normally would be for this except that it would of made the giants one and done i believe this year in the playoffs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tell you what I'd like to see.

 

Offensive holding is a 10 yard penalty. Pretty much a drive killer.

 

Defensive holding is 5 yards and automatic first down. I'd like to see:

 

Both holdings are five yards. Period. No automatic first downs.

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tell you what I'd like to see.

 

Offensive holding is a 10 yard penalty. Pretty much a drive killer.

 

Defensive holding is 5 yards and automatic first down. I'd like to see:

 

Both holdings are five yards. Period. No automatic first downs.

 

:wacko::D

 

10 yard penalty for holding is absolutely garbage and a close second is the automatic 1st down for defensive holding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tell you what I'd like to see.

 

Offensive holding is a 10 yard penalty. Pretty much a drive killer.

 

Defensive holding is 5 yards and automatic first down. I'd like to see:

 

Both holdings are five yards. Period. No automatic first downs.

 

Not sure about the D holding philosophy. Tackling someone before a pass gets to a receiver can result in a potentially much larger loss than 10 yds to the offense. The 5 yds & an automatic first down on a running play does drive me nuts. Since when is it a penalty for a D lineman to hold on a running play? I don't remember that ever being enforced before about 3-4 years ago & seems patently stupid to me. If the D lineman is holding, then the O lineman is keeping himn engaged and preventing him from tackling the ball carrier. It behooves a D lineman to NOT engage with an O lineman.

 

I agree about the 5 yds for O holding on a running play - what was the RB going to do if the O player didn't hold? But I do like the 10 yd penalty on the O on a passing play. A sack can devestate a drive because of the loss of yardage and the loss of a down. The 10 yd penalty seems to match the action there.

 

How about this one:

 

Ref determines if the play is a pasing play or a running play. This has to been done each play regarding rule enforcement anyhow. If the play is determined to be a running play, the penalty for holding is a 5 yd penalty, no automatic first down for either O or D and the down is repeated. If the play is determined to be a pass play, the penalty is a 10 yd penalty with no automatic first down and the down is repeated. And get rid of this ridiculous emphasis on holding calls on D linemen on running plays.

 

Whatcha' think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard they decided not to change this. Not sure i understand why.

 

Because a team may actually have a legit need to call a timeout 1 second before the snap on a kick (too many men on the field, perhaps?). And besides, icing the kicker is a time honored tradition in the NFL, and the kicker ought to be capable of doing their job regardless of whether a timeout is called one second before the snap or not. You don't see timeouts called to ice the QB before he has to throw a Hail Mary pass at the end of a half, or to ice a RB when the game is on the line and the ball is on the one foot line going in. If a K is doing their job adequately, the timeout shouldn't make a lick of difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure about the D holding philosophy. Tackling someone before a pass gets to a receiver can result in a potentially much larger loss than 10 yds to the offense. The 5 yds & an automatic first down on a running play does drive me nuts. Since when is it a penalty for a D lineman to hold on a running play? I don't remember that ever being enforced before about 3-4 years ago & seems patently stupid to me. If the D lineman is holding, then the O lineman is keeping himn engaged and preventing him from tackling the ball carrier. It behooves a D lineman to NOT engage with an O lineman.

 

I agree about the 5 yds for O holding on a running play - what was the RB going to do if the O player didn't hold? But I do like the 10 yd penalty on the O on a passing play. A sack can devestate a drive because of the loss of yardage and the loss of a down. The 10 yd penalty seems to match the action there.

 

How about this one:

 

Ref determines if the play is a pasing play or a running play. This has to been done each play regarding rule enforcement anyhow. If the play is determined to be a running play, the penalty for holding is a 5 yd penalty, no automatic first down for either O or D and the down is repeated. If the play is determined to be a pass play, the penalty is a 10 yd penalty with no automatic first down and the down is repeated. And get rid of this ridiculous emphasis on holding calls on D linemen on running plays.

 

Whatcha' think?

not completely true...in many schemes it is the DLs job to engage lineman to allow the LB(s) to flow to the ball carrier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because a team may actually have a legit need to call a timeout 1 second before the snap on a kick (too many men on the field, perhaps?). And besides, icing the kicker is a time honored tradition in the NFL, and the kicker ought to be capable of doing their job regardless of whether a timeout is called one second before the snap or not. You don't see timeouts called to ice the QB before he has to throw a Hail Mary pass at the end of a half, or to ice a RB when the game is on the line and the ball is on the one foot line going in. If a K is doing their job adequately, the timeout shouldn't make a lick of difference.

AMEN!!!

 

I don't see any argument for making the timeout be against the rules? I never really understood what the big deal is? If you want to use a timeout to ice a kicker then go ahead - he might miss on the 1st attempt and get a 2nd chance? I don't any need for a rule change??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because a team may actually have a legit need to call a timeout 1 second before the snap on a kick (too many men on the field, perhaps?). And besides, icing the kicker is a time honored tradition in the NFL, and the kicker ought to be capable of doing their job regardless of whether a timeout is called one second before the snap or not. You don't see timeouts called to ice the QB before he has to throw a Hail Mary pass at the end of a half, or to ice a RB when the game is on the line and the ball is on the one foot line going in. If a K is doing their job adequately, the timeout shouldn't make a lick of difference.

 

 

Technically your argument is sound. As a fan I prefer they ice him like they used to every other year I have watched football in my 36 years on the planet. Before the kick is attempted. Nothing sucks more then having to wonder if a kick is going to count after watching its outcome. I never remember it being that way and its bush league IMO. You will give all legit arguments that I cant refute yet I will still say as a fan watching the game . It sucks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm being a total dolt, but I don't understand how this is a change. :wacko:

Trying to make it more like college football.

 

Current NFL rules state that the winner of the coin flip has to make the decision on receiving or goalline to defend for the first half and the other team makes the decision for the second half. This proposal would make it more like the college game where the winner of the coin flip could also opt to defer the decision to the second half and the other team would need to decide for the first half (And most college teams use the deferal option)..

Edited by Big John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to make it more like college football.

 

Current NFL rules state that the winner of the coin flip has to make the decision on receiving or goalline to defend for the first half and the other team makes the decision for the second half. This proposal would make it more like the college game where the winner of the coin flip could also opt to defer the decision to the second half and the other team would need to decide for the first half (And most college teams use the deferal option)..

 

Does the coin toss give the opportunity for a team to select both kick and goalline? I thought you got to pick one or the other. Maybe I need to pay more attention to these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the coin toss give the opportunity for a team to select both kick and goalline? I thought you got to pick one or the other. Maybe I need to pay more attention to these things.

The team with the choice for that half selects one (not both) of those choices, then the other team takes the other choice. Deferral would give the team winning the toss the option of making the first choice to the second half.

Edited by Big John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only rule that I care about them changing is the push out rule. Get rid of it completely. The receiver must come down with two feet in bounds, with control of the ball, or it's not a catch. Period. If the defensive player hits him and he can't accomplish this, tough dookie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The team with the choice for that half selects one (not both) of those choices, then the other team takes the other choice. Deferral would give the team winning the toss the option of making the first choice to the second half.

 

So, I win the toss and elect to defer to the second half. My opponent opts to receive the kickoff, and I take the North endzone.

 

What is my choice to start the second half?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I win the toss and elect to defer to the second half. My opponent opts to receive the kickoff, and I take the North endzone.

 

What is my choice to start the second half?

At the start of the 3rd quarter, you would then choose whether to receive the kickoff or decide which endzone to defend (most of the time it would be receiving the ball), then your opponent decides the option you did not take (most of the time being the endzone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information