Are you Satisfied with the Current NFL Rules?

[ARMAGEDDON EAGLE]

There is a lot of controversy over the "Instant Replay."

Question: Pro/Cons?

Overtime "sudden-death" existing policy (the first team that scores wins)

Question: Should the other team have a "last-chance" to score?

QB Protection

Question: Should QBs be given additional protection from over-aggressive LB/the defensive blitz?

Should "touchdown celebrations" be disallowed

Question: Support your position?

Current NFL equipment

Question: Does the helmet have sufficient padding to protect against concussions?

Are sixteen games (regular season) sufficient? Can too many games increase the chances of injuries?

Should we maintain the existing ruling that disallows a coach from challenging when the ball is ruled "down on the field" by the official?

Can an Opposing team hurry up and spike the ball to prevent the other team from challenging?

What other NFL rules/changes would you make?
__________________

 

[LonghornCowboy]

Honestly, I am more against the stupid way the NFL has implemented its replay rules than replay itself.

Pro’s for Instant Replay
1. We definitely live in a time where technological advances have rendered it feasible
2. With increasing parity and player speed, it is needed more now then ever
3. It increases the odds that a particular play will be called correctly

Cons for Instant Replay
1. It kills the momentum of the game (has it ever taken less then the alleged time limit?)
2. As we have seen many times, it is still does not ensure 100% accuracy of calls
3. It is still limited by the number and position of cameras in the stadium, and not all NFL games have the same number of TV cameras

My proposed instant replay solutions:
1. Put more referees on the field, and hire younger referees (with better mobility and vision) which may prevent the number of reviews required
2. Bring back the instant replay official in the booth, so that an impartial judge is out of sight of the fans, and it doesn’t take the ref 5 minutes to go to the hood where he reviews the plays
3. Automatically review all scoring and turnover plays (which aren’t charged to a team)
4. Do reviews during a TV timeout – don’t come back from a commercial and then do the review
5. Teams don’t lose a challenge if the call is overturned in their favor

That's my two cents.

 

[ARMAGEDDON EAGLE]

Honestly, I am more against the stupid way the NFL has implemented its replay rules than replay itself.

Pro’s for Instant Replay
1. We definitely live in a time where technological advances have rendered it feasible
2. With increasing parity and player speed, it is needed more now then ever
3. It increases the odds that a particular play will be called correctly

Cons for Instant Replay
1. It kills the momentum of the game (has it ever taken less then the alleged time limit?)
2. As we have seen many times, it is still does not ensure 100% accuracy of calls
3. It is still limited by the number and position of cameras in the stadium, and not all NFL games have the same number of TV cameras

My proposed instant replay solutions:
1. Put more referees on the field, and hire younger referees (with better mobility and vision) which may prevent the number of reviews required
2. Bring back the instant replay official in the booth, so that an impartial judge is out of sight of the fans, and it doesn’t take the ref 5 minutes to go to the hood where he reviews the plays
3. Automatically review all scoring and turnover plays (which aren’t charged to a team)
4. Do reviews during a TV timeout – don’t come back from a commercial and then do the review
5. Teams don’t lose a challenge if the call is overturned in their favor

That's my two cents.

Excellent perspective LH!

 

[LonghornCowboy]

A friend of mine suggested a rather interesting format for overtime, in which he called it his "Braveheart Overtime" idea.

What you do:
1. Place the football on a tee on the 50 yard line
2. Place 11 men for each team on their own 40 yard lines
3. Blow a whistle to start continuous play
4. The first team to successfully get the ball over the other team's goal line wins

I'm sure it needs some additional thought, but it could be interesting...

 

[Irving Cowboy]

My proposed instant replay solutions:
1. Put more referees on the field, and hire younger referees (with better mobility and vision) which may prevent the number of reviews required

And make them FULL-TIME officials... not some bank president who just had the batteries in his pacemaker changed right after last year's Pro Bowl... (I'm being sarcastic of course, but still)

 

[ARMAGEDDON EAGLE]

A friend of mine suggested a rather interesting format for overtime, in which he called it his "Braveheart Overtime" idea.

What you do:
1. Place the football on a tee on the 50 yard line
2. Place 11 men for each team on their own 40 yard lines
3. Blow a whistle to start continuous play
4. The first team to successfully get the ball over the other team's goal line wins

I'm sure it needs some additional thought, but it could be interesting...

That needs some work ...but consider this:

THe first tewam that scores concept is sound. However, a touchdown not a field goal, is the determining factor for the win! I'd be willing to wager that you'd get some great goal-line stands, more action, and coaches willing to take more chances knowing that if they turn the ball over, their defense may be able to hold off the TD.

I didn't know about the inconsistent number of instant play camera varied from one game to the next.

 

[LonghornCowboy]

That needs some work ...but consider this:

THe first tewam that scores concept is sound. However, a touchdown not a field goal, is the determining factor for the win! I'd be willing to wager that you'd get some great goal-line stands, more action, and coaches willing to take more chances knowing that if they turn the ball over, their defense may be able to hold off the TD.

I didn't know about the inconsistent number of instant play camera varied from one game to the next.

I would even be OK with a team winning with 2 field goals....that would ensure that the other team had a chance.

I read it in the Sporting News several months ago: The TV networks consider some games "high-profile" and other ones as not, and the higher profile games get additional cameras. Apparently, the Bengals apparently lost a low-profile game this past season (I don't remember who they were playing) on a blown call that could not be overturned since they didn't have a camera that showed a definitive shot. (Another annoyance of instant replay - the "inconclusive evidence" ruling.)

Luckily, as Cowboys fans, that generally shouldn't be a problem, since all of our games are considered high-profile...

 

[LonghornCowboy]

And make them FULL-TIME officials... not some bank president who just had the batteries in his pacemaker changed right after last year's Pro Bowl... (I'm being sarcastic of course, but still)

I go both ways on this one....

Admittedly, having full-time officials would probably improve the quality of officiating, since people generally consider a full-time job much more important than a weekend activity, and all of the other major sports have them.

But you tend to wonder if the NFL would want to have people employed for an entire year when they only offically "work" one day a week for 17-20 weeks, including the pre-season. (Compare that to 162 MLB or 82 NHL games.) I guess you could require full-time referees to officiate at NFL Europe games and assign them to officiate at a team's training camp, but I'm still not sure if you need to have a bunch of guys that would have little to do between February and July besides reviewing film.

 

[maloy]

Money Back In

 

[joseephuss]

I think they should evaluate the force out rule. It does not make sense to me and seems contradictory to football. A receiver catches the ball in the air and is pushed out of bounds by the defender before he gets his feet down. Sounds like good defense to me, but the ref can rule the receiver would have come down with a catch if not pushed.

I think facemasking penalties should be subject to replay. Facemasking can be a big penalty and sometimes is called incorrectly. A team would sometimes be wise to challenge a fasemask penalty if it was a critical part of the game.

 

[LonghornCowboy]

I think they should evaluate the force out rule. It does not make sense to me and seems contradictory to football. A receiver catches the ball in the air and is pushed out of bounds by the defender before he gets his feet down. Sounds like good defense to me, but the ref can rule the receiver would have come down with a catch if not pushed.

I think facemasking penalties should be subject to replay. Facemasking can be a big penalty and sometimes is called incorrectly. A team would sometimes be wise to challenge a fasemask penalty if it was a critical part of the game.

That's actually one of the differences between NCAA and NFL rules. In the NCAA, you only need one foot in bounds to catch a ball, but they do not have the forceout rule. I think that the rule should be modified, but not outlawed. If a defender pushes a receiver out of bounds during the course of playing regular defense, then the catch is should not be valid. If, however, a corner or safety is somehow able to catch a receiver in the air and physically carry them out of bounds before they hit the ground, that of course should still be a catch.

The problem is when you do replay on penalty calls, that can significantly lengthen the game and disrupt its tempo. If I was to be in favor of using replaying particular penalty, it would be for Pass Interference. Considering that (a) Pass Interference is a spot penalty no matter where it is (could be a 50+ yard penalty), and (b) it is probably the penalty that referees screw up the most, I think that it replay would help there. Maybe do replay on all 30+ yard calls? I don't know....

 

[joseephuss]

That's actually one of the differences between NCAA and NFL rules. In the NCAA, you only need one foot in bounds to catch a ball, but they do not have the forceout rule. I think that the rule should be modified, but not outlawed. If a defender pushes a receiver out of bounds during the course of playing regular defense, then the catch is should not be valid. If, however, a corner or safety is somehow able to catch a receiver in the air and physically carry them out of bounds before they hit the ground, that of course should still be a catch.

The problem is when you do replay on penalty calls, that can significantly lengthen the game and disrupt its tempo. If I was to be in favor of using replaying particular penalty, it would be for Pass Interference. Considering that (a) Pass Interference is a spot penalty no matter where it is (could be a 50+ yard penalty), and (b) it is probably the penalty that referees screw up the most, I think that it replay would help there. Maybe do replay on all 30+ yard calls? I don't know....

I like your ideas on the force out rule and agree.

I don't see the problem of lengthening the game by using replay on penalties. There are still limits to the number of challenges a team can use. I think it would be difficult to see a pass interference on a replay. P.I. is still a subjective call, but I am not opposed to incorporating it into the replay system. Now facemasking is a little more straight forward. Either the face mask was grabbed or it wasn't. Replay could correct a bad face mask call.

 

[ARMAGEDDON EAGLE]

You know I've seen too many calls where games were won or loss because no one could tell if the ball did or didn't break the plain.

Some of the controvery included ...either the ball handler's knee was down before/after the ball "btp" of the goal, or whether the ball handler lost control of the ball before/after the ball "btp."

Here's an interesting correlation ...if a ball handler Is runniNg down the side-lines, the ball is considered still In play, even if the ball "btp;" as long as the ball handler's feet are still "in-bounds."

Perhaps, the NFL should consder it a TD only if the majority of the player 's body crosses the goal line.

Question: How deep in the end zone (e.g., 20 yards)?

 

[LonghornCowboy]

Perhaps, the NFL should consder it a TD only if the majority of the player 's body crosses the goal line.

Question: How deep in the end zone (e.g., 20 yards)?

I think that making the rule involve the player's body instead of the ball would be very difficult to enforce. What happens if they go in at an angle or sideways?

Here's my solution: As a part of my solution to fix replays in an earlier post, I suggested to put more refs on the field. I would use two of them to put one ref on each goal line for ALL plays. (You could put a ref on both sides when the play is close to a goal line.) Sure, they be bored on many plays, but it prevents trying to watch some 50-year old ref trying to catch up with Marshall Faulk run down the field.

 

[joseephuss]

I think that making the rule involve the player's body instead of the ball would be very difficult to enforce. What happens if they go in at an angle or sideways?

Here's my solution: As a part of my solution to fix replays in an earlier post, I suggested to put more refs on the field. I would use two of them to put one ref on each goal line for ALL plays. (You could put a ref on both sides when the play is close to a goal line.) Sure, they be bored on many plays, but it prevents trying to watch some 50-year old ref trying to catch up with Marshall Faulk run down the field.

How about involving some more technology as well. Kind of like the glowing hockey puck that Fox used. The technology should be small enough to not effect the flight or feel of the ball. You can rig the ball to light up on the replay screen only once it breaks the plane of the goal line. Then the refs can pause the frame and check if a players knee is down or is out of bounds or whatever.

It could also be used for field goals even though it is rare when you can't tell if the ball was between the uprights. Figuring out where a punt went out of bounds could also be used with this type of system.

 

[ARMAGEDDON EAGLE]

How about involving some more technology as well. Kind of like the glowing hockey puck that Fox used. The technology should be small enough to not effect the flight or feel of the ball. You can rig the ball to light up on the replay screen only once it breaks the plane of the goal line. Then the refs can pause the frame and check if a players knee is down or is out of bounds or whatever.

It could also be used for field goals even though it is rare when you can't tell if the ball was between the uprights. Figuring out where a punt went out of bounds could also be used with this type of system.

I think the glowing hockey puck concept is a good idea actually.

 

[LonghornCowboy]

How about involving some more technology as well. Kind of like the glowing hockey puck that Fox used. The technology should be small enough to not effect the flight or feel of the ball. You can rig the ball to light up on the replay screen only once it breaks the plane of the goal line. Then the refs can pause the frame and check if a players knee is down or is out of bounds or whatever.

It could also be used for field goals even though it is rare when you can't tell if the ball was between the uprights. Figuring out where a punt went out of bounds could also be used with this type of system.

I like your idea about punts and field goals. Taking it further, you could put sensors on the sideline to determine whether or not a player steps out of bounds and perhaps even on the knees of the players to see if they are down before a fumble.

Of course, thinking about implementation, the tough thing there would be to make it so that:
(a) it doesn't affect the size, weight, or feel of the football
(b) it's durable enough to withstand a Roy Williams hit or a Buffalo winter day
(c) cheap enough that the NFL would actually approve it

I always wondered when they were going to come up with something to replace the stupid 10-yard chain that they drag out to measure whether or not a team got a first down, which must have been implemented during the Red Grange era.

 

[Anthrax]

Overtime is fine.

More QB protection, no.

Any celebration should be alowed. Alone, witha few team members, anything as long as you stay on the feild.

Helmets are not protective enough.

16 games i perfect, PERFECT.

You should be alowed to challenge any play no matter what it is.

Yes you should be able to spike it.

 

[ARMAGEDDON EAGLE]

How about involving some more technology as well.

How about narrowing the end zone posts; compensating by lowering the bar

Strategy: This would require greater accuracy, and allow field goal attempts from greater distances.

 

[LonghornCowboy]

How about narrowing the end zone posts; compensating by lowering the bar

Strategy: This would require greater accuracy, and allow field goal attempts from greater distances.

Given the NFL rule - implemented a couple of years ago - that gives the other team the ball on a missed FG where the field goal was attempted instead of the line of scrimmage, I would think that narrowing the goal posts would discourage long-distance kicks, regardless of crossbar height.

What about adding this rule: if a team kicks off and the ball sails through the goalposts, the kicking team gets 1 point and re-kicks off 5 yards further back. This would penalize teams from committing personal fouls on scoring plays and add more excitement on kickoffs.