NFL Rules Changes for 2021

Flamma · Apr 21, 2021

underdark said:
Wouldn’t a double reverse meet this definition?

I see. I didn't consider that. I was assuming passes. It could just mean passing the ball off. But when does that ever not result in a loss of down?

conner01 · Apr 21, 2021

Flamma said:
I'm assuming the first one was treated like an ordinary penalty with no loss of down. But what the hell kind of play are they referring to?

I have no idea what the other rule is even talking about.

I can’t see why it should be a penalty to run a WR screen or a swing pass to a RB
The second looks to apply to extra points
Maybe forcing you to take penalty
But poor explanation by who ever wrote the article

conner01 · Apr 21, 2021

MarcusRock said:
I think they're trying to prevent fights. How many taunts have you seen result in a stiff left or right out of the tauntee? If a player stands over a QB you'd expect the OL to step in and put a stop to that nonsense. Well, not the Cowboys OL. They allow flagrant personal fouls to be committed on their QBs. That's why Andy Dalton really left.

I don’t have an issue with taunting penalties
I don’t get why a penalty for 2 passes behind LOS

conner01 · Apr 21, 2021

underdark said:
Wouldn’t a double reverse meet this definition?

They aren’t generally tossed forward
But a swing pass to an RB would only be allowed once
Or a bubble screen since receiver is behind LOS
I don’t get that rule at all

Silly · Apr 21, 2021

Mannix said:
-------As a result, the Philadelphia Eagles proposed that teams be given an option to gain 15 yards on one offensive play from their own 25-yard line to retain possession after a score.

So was it approved? If so, that has to be the DUMBEST rule I've ever seen....what is the reward for being "comfortably ahead" when the other team can simply complete a pass and regain possession??? I am sooooo close to be done with EVERYTHING NFL!!!!!

I think it would be easy then just to pick up the first down on a PI foul.

JD_KaPow · Apr 21, 2021

Plankton said:
Changed a rule that will now force a loss of down if two passes are completed behind the line of scrimmage.

It's in response to a play last year where Tom Brady got away with completing two forward passes on one play against the Rams. His pass was batted back, he caught it, and threw it again to Mike Evans.

Before now, that was ruled an illegal forward pass, same as if you threw one from beyond the line of scrimmage. But that's just a 5-yard penalty with no loss of down. Brady's pass came on 3rd-and-10, so the Rams had to decide between 3rd-and-15 and 4th-and-2, when it really should have been 4th and 10 or worse. Now it will come with loss of down, so it will be more like intentional grounding.

JD_KaPow · Apr 21, 2021

Mannix said:
-------As a result, the Philadelphia Eagles proposed that teams be given an option to gain 15 yards on one offensive play from their own 25-yard line to retain possession after a score.

So was it approved? If so, that has to be the DUMBEST rule I've ever seen....what is the reward for being "comfortably ahead" when the other team can simply complete a pass and regain possession??? I am sooooo close to be done with EVERYTHING NFL!!!!!

It's just an alternative to an onside kick. I like it, but I think it needs to be more like 20 yards to get the conversion rate right.

links18 · Apr 21, 2021

JD_KaPow said:
It's in response to a play last year where Tom Brady got away with completing two forward passes on one play against the Rams. His pass was batted back, he caught it, and threw it again to Mike Evans.

Before now, that was ruled an illegal forward pass, same as if you threw one from beyond the line of scrimmage. But that's just a 5-yard penalty with no loss of down. Brady's pass came on 3rd-and-10, so the Rams had to decide between 3rd-and-15 and 4th-and-2, when it really should have been 4th and 10 or worse. Now it will come with loss of down, so it will be more like intentional grounding.

How often does that happen?

JD_KaPow · Apr 21, 2021

links18 said:
How often does that happen?

Pretty much never, but may as well get the rule right. The Rams were annoyed so they fixed it.

revospeed · Apr 21, 2021

The single digit jersey numbers will be gross.

ghst187 · Apr 21, 2021

You forgot these:
GB Packers OL will continue blanket immunity from holding calls
Roughing the passer immunity against Dallas QBs
A starting Cowboy player will automatically be suspended if it appears they will be in playoff contention
Everyone will henceforth will refer to Roger Goodell as one of the following:
Your highness, god ( lower case g), or all powerful, and no one can question his leadership without dire consequences

BotchedLobotomy · Apr 22, 2021

DandyDon52 said:
no it was just stating that was proposed.

According to the OP, it is approved on a 1 year experiment. Of course I am too lazy to confirm whether this is actually true or not.

So yeah, this could be one of the lamest rule changes I have seen in awhile.

conner01 · Apr 22, 2021

JD_KaPow said:
It's in response to a play last year where Tom Brady got away with completing two forward passes on one play against the Rams. His pass was batted back, he caught it, and threw it again to Mike Evans.

Before now, that was ruled an illegal forward pass, same as if you threw one from beyond the line of scrimmage. But that's just a 5-yard penalty with no loss of down. Brady's pass came on 3rd-and-10, so the Rams had to decide between 3rd-and-15 and 4th-and-2, when it really should have been 4th and 10 or worse. Now it will come with loss of down, so it will be more like intentional grounding.

That makes more sense
Who ever wrote the article on the new rules should have clarified it was on a single play lol

conner01 · Apr 22, 2021

BotchedLobotomy said:
According to the OP, it is approved on a 1 year experiment. Of course I am too lazy to confirm whether this is actually true or not.

So yeah, this could be one of the lamest rule changes I have seen in awhile.

What was approved was the number of players not the eagles proposal
The original article was poorly written
Most of the rules seem logical once you lookup what they actually are
The two forward passes for example is on a single play

_sturt_ · Apr 22, 2021

conner01 said:
What was approved was the number of players not the eagles proposal

Exactly.

And I am intrigued to see what happens. I think this is probably the right approach to resolve the problem.

Zooming out to the larger discussion, I'm not against something as drastic as the 4th down idea. I think there's a place for rules innovation in the major sports, but only to the degree that the perceived problem cannot be remedied within the framework of the most fundamental tenets of the game. In baseball, for instance, a very fundamental tenet is that the offense must earn baserunners... so, to me, if we accept the idea of trying to reduce extra inning games (and that's it's own discussion), then it's important to look first at other options for enhancing scoring that do not offend that fundamental tenet. Similarly, I think the concern about onside kicks is best addressed by some remedy that doesn't offend the kickoff element, and only if it turns out that nothing is satisfactory do we look at something that has the effect of marginalizing the kickoff element.

TheGoat73 · Apr 22, 2021

Flamma said:
I see. I didn't consider that. I was assuming passes. It could just mean passing the ball off. But when does that ever not result in a loss of down?

I don’t understand. I need a visual.

Diehardblues · Apr 22, 2021

DandyDon52 said:
i dont get this, can anyone explain ?

The league would like to see more onside kick recoveries. So, they are limiting the defenders on LOS for kickoffs.

Creeper · Apr 22, 2021

Who wrote this article? And who proof read it?

Creeper · Apr 22, 2021

ghst187 said:
You forgot these:
GB Packers OL will continue blanket immunity from holding calls
Roughing the passer immunity against Dallas QBs
A starting Cowboy player will automatically be suspended if it appears they will be in playoff contention
Everyone will henceforth will refer to Roger Goodell as one of the following:
Your highness, god ( lower case g), or all powerful, and no one can question his leadership without dire consequences

You forgot, Packers WRs blocking downfield while the ball is in the air or in the hand of the QB will not be considered a penalty.

erod · Apr 22, 2021

So now a wide receiver can wear number 27? A linebacker can wear 26? A tight end can wear 5?

I'm fine with some of the number changes, but this is way too broad. I always like the uniformity of the NFL in that regard. It needed to be tweaked, not scrapped.

NFL Rules Changes for 2021

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

jimnabby

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

jimnabby

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wide Right

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member