ARTICLE: NFL considering several rule changes

[WoodysGirl]

New rule would affect playoffs

NFL owners will consider seeding change at annual meeting

BY MARK CURNUTTE | MCURNUTTE@ENQUIRER.COM
E-mail | Print | digg us! | del.icio.us! | Click-2-Listen

Aside from discussion among NFL owners about potential problems with their labor contract and possible need for more revenue sharing, ownership will address a number of proposals and plans next week at their annual meeting.

The annual meeting officially opens Monday in Palm Beach, Fla.

Atlanta Falcons vice president Rick McKay, co-chairman of the NFL's competitive committee, talked Wednesday afternoon on a conference call about the state of the game and proposals for rules changes that will be presented to ownership.


One of the most time-sensitive by-law proposals is to change seeding for playoffs, McKay said. Each of the four division winners in each conference would earn postseason berths, but only the two division winners in each conference with the best records would get automatic home games. The division winners with the lower two records, plus the two wild-card teams, would compete for seeds three through six based on record.

The goal would be to "motivate coaches to have more games that matter," McKay said. The league wants to avoid the situation in the Tennessee-at-Indianapolis game on Sunday night, Dec. 30, in which the Colts rested their regulars because they were already locked into a seed. The Titans won and eliminated Cleveland from contention.

In the area of on-field rules, owners will vote on proposals to eliminate the force-out of a receiver, similar to the college game; it was called 15 times last season. And a force-out would be called only if a defender picked up an offensive player and carried him out of bounds.

The committee is proposing to include field goals in instant replay review, give teams the option of deferring to receive the ball in the second half on the coin toss and eliminate the 5-yard minor face mask penalty, covering all facemask violations - twisting, turning or pulling - with a 15-yard penalty.

The competition committee has eight members, who include Bengals head coach Marvin Lewis, as well as a coaches' subcommittee chaired by Colts coach Tony Dungy. Tennessee head coach Jeff Fisher is the co-chairman of the committee, which meets to study the game and propose rules changes to ownership.

The committee is proposing to create a second defensive player with a communication device in his helmet, but he could not be on the field at the same time as the other defender with the communication device in his helmet. The goal is to create a competitive balance with the offense, whose quarterback has a communication device in his helmet. At this time, no defender may wear a communication device.

The committee wants to create a five- to seven-day dead period before the start of veteran free agency during which certified agents can negotiate but not sign contracts for their clients.

There would be no player visit or contact allowed with prospective new teams. The Kansas City Chiefs, among others, have complained that other teams have had contact with prospective free agents prior to the signing period.

And, as a follow-up to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's memo from earlier this month, the league wants to establish an auditing process of each team - on which a senior official with the team would sign off - that the team is following league rules and guidelines. The memo and potential action result from the "Spygate" issue in which the New England Patriots illegally video-taped the New York Jets sideline during the 2007 opener.

The goal is to protect the integrity and fair competition of the game, said Ray Anderson, a league vice president.

The competition committee also studied results of the past season, McKay said.

 

[TheCount]

I like the change to the playoffs and it's obious the defense should have headsets as well.

While they're at it, they should propose a rule that Mike Shannahan must let everyone know which RB will get the bulk of the carries prior to each game. This man has single handedly terrorized the fantasy footall world long enough.

And what the hell is up with the Chiefs moaning this off-season? First the hair thing and now they don't like people talking to their free agents?

 

[kmd24]

Changing the force out rule is a good thing. One of the big problems that instant replay has created is that when an official rules a catch complete but the replay shows that the receiver was out of bounds, the official cannot rule that it was a force out. I seem to recall that happening once or twice in Cowboys games this year.

A rule change would remove some subjectivity. Frankly, I'm surprised it's being considered since it would be a pro-defense change.

 

[baj1dallas]

don't change the face mask penalty...fans don't want games decided by ticky tack calls!

 

[Everlastingxxx]

I like all those changes. I dont think the two defensive player thing will fly. They have to come up with something else.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Changing the force out rule is a good thing. One of the big problems that instant replay has created is that when an official rules a catch complete but the replay shows that the receiver was out of bounds, the official cannot rule that it was a force out. I seem to recall that happening once or twice in Cowboys games this year.

A rule change would remove some subjectivity. Frankly, I'm surprised it's being considered since it would be a pro-defense change.

Absolutely dead on.

I hate the force-out rule... Always have. Getting rid of it would be a great move. But I'm surprised the NFL might consider a pro-defense rule.

Leave the playoff seeding and the facemask rule alone. They're fine the way they are.

 

[alancdc]

I would be for the playoff change. That has never made sense to me. Had that been the case in, what, 2003, our QC led Boys would have hosted the PANTHERS instead of getting toe drug down here. Panther's went on that year to lose a great SB game to the Pats. Second, love to change that 5 yard facemask. It is crazy, like the Giants playoff game, that a guy get's a facemask penalty for his hand simply brushing over a facemask. These are the only 2 I would battle for. The force out would be fine too, but I wouldn't burn my bridges to get it passed. Pick your battles.

 

[Rampage]

In the area of on-field rules, owners will vote on proposals to eliminate the force-out of a receiver, similar to the college game; it was called 15 times last season. And a force-out would be called only if a defender picked up an offensive player and carried him out of bounds.


that rule has been in place for us for the past few years anyways

 

[Muhast]

they called the force out 15 times and blatantly missed 3 should have been force outs against T.O this year.

 

[Oh_Canada]

I don't like the force out change....at all. They just need to call it more consistently.

The face mask rule should stay the way it is...15 yards is a severe penalty for someone getting a pinky caught in a guy's helmet. Besides, the refs generally seem to have a good handle on this one.

The one rule they never seem to want to address, yet it probably alters more outcomes than any other call is the P.I (spot of the foul) rule. I wish they would give the refs the ability to call a fifteen yarder if they think the infraction was minor or if the ball probably was not going to be caught regardless of the foul.....they can do away with the "uncatchable ball" baloney for all I care...it'a rarely called anyhow.

 

[jackrussell]

Never saw much controversy on the face mask rule...seemed pretty cut and dry.

Flat out stupid on the playoff seeding thing. Using Cleveland as an example (must have been the ones complaining) the Browns had all season to get themselves into playoff position, too bad. On the other hand, it's the head coaches' job to get his team in the best position for a playoff run. If they got to the last week and could afford to rest their players, good for them...why penalize them for being good?

A wild card team hosting a playoff game over a division winner...how ridiculous...

 

[joseephuss]

I hate the force out rule. Always have. It goes against the nature of football. As a defender you come up and hit the receiver. If that contact prevents the receiver from getting both feet down, then the defender has done a good job. That is not the case with the force out rule in effect. It is too similar to a defender knocking the ball out of the receiver's hands, but granting the receiver a catch because he would have caught it if there was no contact.

Plus it just puts too much pressure on a ref to make a judgment(subjective) call instead of making an objective call. That is why it is hard to have consistency in the calls. One ref may think it is a force out while another may not. It is easier for the refs to determine if the receiver held onto the ball and got both feet down than it is to determine whether the momentum of a defender's hit carried a receiver out of bounds.

Of course there is always going to be somethings that have to be subjective. That is why I don't want them to get rid of the 5 yard face mask penalty. Those calls are easier to make than a force out.

 

[joseephuss]

Never saw much controversy on the face mask rule...seemed pretty cut and dry.

Flat out stupid on the playoff seeding thing. Using Cleveland as an example (must have been the ones complaining) the Browns had all season to get themselves into playoff position, too bad. On the other hand, it's the head coaches' job to get his team in the best position for a playoff run. If they got to the last week and could afford to rest their players, good for them...why penalize them for being good?

A wild card team hosting a playoff game over a division winner...how ridiculous...

I agree. Some years you are good when another team in your division is better. It happens. Tough. Get better and win more games.

 

[skinsscalper]

Never saw much controversy on the face mask rule...seemed pretty cut and dry.

Flat out stupid on the playoff seeding thing. Using Cleveland as an example (must have been the ones complaining) the Browns had all season to get themselves into playoff position, too bad. On the other hand, it's the head coaches' job to get his team in the best position for a playoff run. If they got to the last week and could afford to rest their players, good for them...why penalize them for being good?

A wild card team hosting a playoff game over a division winner...how ridiculous...

I agree on the facemask rule. It's fine the way it is. One shouldn't equal the other and, as another poster suggested, it leaves too much room for a game to be turned on a "ticky tack" call.

The seeding thing I'm on the fence about. The NFL is trying to eliminate "meaningless" games, also. It's easy for us to be coy about it and say "get better or get over it". We don't have millions invested. Nor do we lose a nickel if it doesn't turn out. I also don't think it's right that a team can go 11-5 come in second place in their division and play the 9-7 Cardinals on the road in the playoffs because the Cards won a weak division that no one else could seem to take control of. That sounds about as stupid as could possibly be, IMHO. You could make the same argument that the Cards had all season long to get into better playoff position to secure a home game, rather than just being the least *****y team in their division. Look at the 9ers of the early NFC West days. They could have sucked on a tremendous level and still hosted a playoff game every year because they played a against a joke division of the Rams, Saints, and Falcons. I don't think that there's any competitive equity in that. I'm just not sure that merely winning your division entitles you to host a play off game while a better team from the NFC East has to play on the road all the way through. When it's all said and done, isn't it really about who the best teams are? Isn't that the spirit of the playoffs to begin with?

 

[dallasfaniac]

Correct me if I am wrong, because by some of the reactions it appears this needs further explanation, but I believe the facemasking rule is staying the same, they are just getting rid of the 5 yard version.

So if a defender is tackling someone and happens to get their hands on the facemask but don't twist the head or anything, there is no foul.

Edit: Another article:

“We believe that we can still promote and cover all the safety issues there are with respect to the face mask penalty with 15‑yard penalty,” McKay said. “We then said you either must twist it, turn it or pull it for a 15‑yard penalty as opposed to the 5‑yard standard which only required a grasp.”

 

[skinsscalper]

Correct me if I am wrong, because by some of the reactions it appears this needs further explanation, but I believe the facemasking rule is staying the same, they are just getting rid of the 5 yard version.

So if a defender is tackling someone and happens to get their hands on the facemask but don't twist the head or anything, there is no foul.

Edit: Another article:

“We believe that we can still promote and cover all the safety issues there are with respect to the face mask penalty with 15‑yard penalty,” McKay said. “We then said you either must twist it, turn it or pull it for a 15‑yard penalty as opposed to the 5‑yard standard which only required a grasp.”

If that's the case I would be in favor of getting rid of the 5 yard variety.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

One of the most time-sensitive by-law proposals is to change seeding for playoffs, McKay said. Each of the four division winners in each conference would earn postseason berths, but only the two division winners in each conference with the best records would get automatic home games. The division winners with the lower two records, plus the two wild-card teams, would compete for seeds three through six based on record.

The goal would be to "motivate coaches to have more games that matter," McKay said. The league wants to avoid the situation in the Tennessee-at-Indianapolis game on Sunday night, Dec. 30, in which the Colts rested their regulars because they were already locked into a seed. The Titans won and eliminated Cleveland from contention.

I don't think I really care for this rule change. While good in theory, I think it would have to change the playoffs to the top 6 teams in the conference make the playoffs based on record, regardless if they are a divisional champ or not, in order to make the rule fair. Otherwise going to this rule really doesn't work for me because teams in different divisions play different strengths of schedule. So a team may have a better record and came in 2nd in their division over another divisional champ, but that's because they played an entirely easier schedule. I don't really see why that 2nd place team should get HFA.

Of course, Rich McKay is championing this rule change which pretty much explains everything.

In the area of on-field rules, owners will vote on proposals to eliminate the force-out of a receiver, similar to the college game; it was called 15 times last season. And a force-out would be called only if a defender picked up an offensive player and carried him out of bounds.

Should also be noted that when Owens was forced out, the refs couldn't get it right. Again, I don't like this rule change because I don't believe that forcing a receiver out is actually good defense. I'm sure Vikings fans wanted this rule change about 5 years ago.

The committee is proposing to include field goals in instant replay review,

Should've been in a long time ago. Tags falling asleep at the wheel on this one.

give teams the option of deferring to receive the ball in the second half on the coin toss

Worded a bit weird. If it is what I think it is, then I think it's a meaningless rule change.

and eliminate the 5-yard minor face mask penalty, covering all facemask violations - twisting, turning or pulling - with a 15-yard penalty

This isn't worded correctly according to other sources. It's supposed to say that grabbing or hitting the face mask wouldn't be a penalty anymore and only the twisting and turning/pulling would be penalties and they would still be 15 yard penalties.

I wouldn't be in favor of the rule change. Face masks can cause serious injuries so I think it's important to be a little strict on this rule to prevent players from ever attempting it. It's sort of like hits the helmet on QB's. Although I think they should give the option of a 5 yard or 15 yard penalty on hits to the QB's helmet.

The committee is proposing to create a second defensive player with a communication device in his helmet, but he could not be on the field at the same time as the other defender with the communication device in his helmet. The goal is to create a competitive balance with the offense, whose quarterback has a communication device in his helmet. At this time, no defender may wear a communication device.

Thanks Bill Belichick.

The committee wants to create a five- to seven-day dead period before the start of veteran free agency during which certified agents can negotiate but not sign contracts for their clients.

There would be no player visit or contact allowed with prospective new teams. The Kansas City Chiefs, among others, have complained that other teams have had contact with prospective free agents prior to the signing period.

I'm not sure this would help all that much. I think it may give a little less incentive for teams to meet with players since they can legally meet with their agents. But if a team really wants to get a player and is willing to secretly meet with him, I don't see them being stopped.

And, as a follow-up to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's memo from earlier this month, the league wants to establish an auditing process of each team - on which a senior official with the team would sign off - that the team is following league rules and guidelines..

Thanks Bill Belichick!

The memo and potential action result from the "Spygate" issue in which the New England Patriots illegally video-taped the New York Jets sideline during the 2007 opener

Oh, and that nasty lil' taping of the Rams practice before the Super Bowl. I'm guessing Roger the Rube still believes that the Patriots video taping staff forgot their battery packs and just planted the camcorders there with no intention of filming the Rams' practice.

The goal is to protect the integrity and fair competition of the game, said Ray Anderson, a league vice president.

I've got an easier solution. Force Roger the Rube to resign and get a Commish worth his salt.




YAKUZA

 

[CrazyCowboy]

sounds like some very good changes

 

[Beast_from_East]

Never saw much controversy on the face mask rule...seemed pretty cut and dry.

Flat out stupid on the playoff seeding thing. Using Cleveland as an example (must have been the ones complaining) the Browns had all season to get themselves into playoff position, too bad. On the other hand, it's the head coaches' job to get his team in the best position for a playoff run. If they got to the last week and could afford to rest their players, good for them...why penalize them for being good?

A wild card team hosting a playoff game over a division winner...how ridiculous...

Does seem weird that a wild card team would host a divsion winner. I think the Giants would have hosted the Bucs in round 1 under this new format.

I see what they are trying to do, eliminate teams sitting starters because playoff seedings are already set. I guess enough teams on the fringe that needed some help got pissed with the big boys sitting players and in effect, "throwing a game".

Kinda like Clevland getting pissed that Indy pulled starters and let the clock run out when they still had all their time outs left, basically forefeiting the game to the Titans.

I think the G-men going balls to the wall against the Pats in the last reg season game convinced the league that these late season games need to matter on some level.

 

[BrassCowboy]

I do not mind the playoff rule although a division winner in my opinion should be rewarded for winning its own.

Definitelyleave the facemask penalty as it is.

The force out change would create alot of situations where WRs are knocked in mid air before having a chance to come down with the ball. Definitely a pro defense move here. Maybe with that change they can balance it out a little and do like college with the catch inbounds call too where only one foot down in bounds is needed to be counted as a catch.

leave free agency the way it is.... also, kickoffs in either half should be as it is right now where if you win the toss at beginning of game, you can kickoff first and receive in 2nd half, or vice versa. Why touch that?

communication device for two players on defense? why? so that coaches would be more responsible for reading offensive formations rather than defensive team captains on the field?? QB has to read defense and at that point his helmet device is turned off.