Eagles Motivated Evidently By Pre-2019 Losses To Cowboys, Propose Rules Changes

[JustChip]

So somehow a team that as 7 scoring drives, each resulting in FG like the Cowboys once did, is somehow inferior to a team that has only 3 scoring drives each ending in a TD. Leave it up to the numbnuts Eagles coach to come up with something like this.

 

[jazzcat22]

EDIT: Bad headline--meant to write "pre-2019 losses"... sorry... mods feel free to correct.

From Bleeding Green Nation (https://www.bleedinggreennation.com...ternative-overtime-format-philadelphia-review):

The Eagles have notably lost to the Dallas Cowboys in overtime twice since the 2016 season. They lost the coin toss on both occasions and never possessed the ball. If this new proposal was applied back in 2018, there would have been no toss and the Eagles would’ve had the option to receive the ball first since they scored more regulation touchdowns than Dallas did (three to two).

https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story...ules-changes-including-extra-officials-031020

- "Booth official" (aka, sky judge) plus a former referee designated as the "technical adviser" to the BO

- OT restored to a full 15 minutes instead of 10

- If one team has more TDs than the other in regulation, that team automatically "wins" the OT coin flip, eliminating the need to have one

- Instead of kicking off or trying an onside kick following a score, teams would have the option to run a 4th/15 from their own 25 yd line

- Making permanent the use of replay to include scoring plays and turnovers negated by a foul, and any extra point attempts

- When the defense declines a penalty it can elect to have the game clock start when the referee signals the ball is ready for play

- Modify the blindside block foul in some way that I'm really not yet certain whether it would become a stricter or more lenient rule, and I've read four different sources.

So, which ones do you feel might be really good or really bad?

All are horrible.

 

[817Gill]

Basing who gets the ball first in overtime on who scored the most touchdowns is dumb. Points are all equal at that point, that's why they've arrived at an overtime scenario, so why should it matter how they arrived at that tie score? In a 6-6 tie where one team put together two FG drives and the other team scored a TD but blew their extra point, is the TD scoring team really deserving of any claim to superiority there? That's stupid.

They should honestly just make it so that kickoffs keeps alternating, so whoever didn't get the 2nd half opening kickoff gets the overtime kickoff. So if a team defers for the strategic advantage of getting the 2nd half kickoff, now the advantage potentially swings back and bites them because the other team gets to open overtime with the ball. I prefer the strategy coming into play that way, so teams can make an impactful decision that they'll later on have to live with.

I also think, if they're gonna replace onside kicks with a 4th down "one shot to convert it" scenario, they should make it fewer yards than 15. I read that from 1992 through 2017, about 22% of onside kicks were recovered. Is the goal of changing the rule to get so that the conversions are back to being around that percentage? I honestly don't think 4th & 15 conversions will be nearly as successful as that 22% statistic, assuming the source I got it from is right. I'd bump it down to 4th & 10. Do that for a few seasons to track the results, and then decide if it needs to be shortened or lengthened. (I see virtually no scenario where it would be decided it needs to be lengthened if teams are having too many exciting comebacks. That would only be a positive, honestly.)

Great post

 

[Future]

I'm good with any rule that discourages field goals.

 

[jazzcat22]

I will recant my all are bad post.

I like the sky judge, and I like going back to a 15 minute OT, as the 10 minute was just stupid. However, just play the full 15 minutes. No scoring this or that rules.
If they play 5 minutes of OT or the full 15 minutes. I would bet my house the % of injuries and concussions from that 10 minutes extra is less than 1% of happening.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The one that says, you lost so get back down in your hole you Dirty Filthy Egirls........

 

[plymkr]

Basing who gets the ball first in overtime on who scored the most touchdowns is dumb. Points are all equal at that point, that's why they've arrived at an overtime scenario, so why should it matter how they arrived at that tie score? In a 6-6 tie where one team put together two FG drives and the other team scored a TD but blew their extra point, is the TD scoring team really deserving of any claim to superiority there? That's stupid.

They should honestly just make it so that kickoffs keeps alternating, so whoever didn't get the 2nd half opening kickoff gets the overtime kickoff. So if a team defers for the strategic advantage of getting the 2nd half kickoff, now the advantage potentially swings back and bites them because the other team gets to open overtime with the ball. I prefer the strategy coming into play that way, so teams can make an impactful decision that they'll later on have to live with.

I also think, if they're gonna replace onside kicks with a 4th down "one shot to convert it" scenario, they should make it fewer yards than 15. I read that from 1992 through 2017, about 22% of onside kicks were recovered. Is the goal of changing the rule to get so that the conversions are back to being around that percentage? I honestly don't think 4th & 15 conversions will be nearly as successful as that 22% statistic, assuming the source I got it from is right. I'd bump it down to 4th & 10. Do that for a few seasons to track the results, and then decide if it needs to be shortened or lengthened. (I see virtually no scenario where it would be decided it needs to be lengthened if teams are having too many exciting comebacks. That would only be a positive, honestly.)

I agree, whoever scores more touchdowns during regulation is irrelevant if the score is tied at the end of regulation. If they pass this then there would clubs wanting to add on rules like who had more turnovers in regulation. Nope. Score is tied at the end of the game. How we got there doesn't matter. OT is a new game.

I would like to put in a rule of no ties anymore. If at the end of the OT period, if it's still tied then each team gets a play or a series starting 1st and goal at the ten yard line. Whoever scores first wins. Or another thought I had is each team gets to kick a field goal. When a field goal is made then you back up five yards. And kick again. Whoever makes the longest FG wins.

I would like one of those 2 scenarios to just flat out replace the traditional overtime. Which would probably be better for time anyway. I just think the tieing of a game is annoying and the more exhausted the players are the better chances of injury.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[SSoup]

Or another thought I had is each team gets to kick a field goal. When a field goal is made then you back up five yards. And kick again. Whoever makes the longest FG wins.

I know people loathe kickers and the kicking game in general, and the trend is to want to make kickers less and less a part of the game.

But, boy, a FG Shootout would be tense and compelling to watch (in the rare occasions when it comes down to that if the score is still tied after the OT period).

 

[InTheZone]

Can we just leave it alone? People are always looking to change little things for all the dumb reasons.

 

[plymkr]

I know people loathe kickers and the kicking game in general, and the trend is to want to make kickers less and less a part of the game.

But, boy, a FG Shootout would be tense and compelling to watch (in the rare occasions when it comes down to that if the score is still tied after the OT period).

Thanks, yeah I agree. Maybe it would place more importance on kickers in the role of the team.

 

[SSoup]

Can we just leave it alone? People are always looking to change little things for all the dumb reasons.

Somebody should really make a documentary where they just go around to annoyed fans of the four major sports, and they let the person grumble about how much they hate rule changes and how they fundamentally think we need to just leave sports alone and not change them. And then they proceed to make the person sit there while they have someone pitch a rule change to them that is actually just an archaic old rule from the sport in its earlier days before rule changes improved the game.

And when the person shoots down all those old rules, reveal to them that that's how the sport used to be played and it's only not played that way anymore because of rule changes. And after a long awkward pause, ask them again if they're really that fundamentally opposed to sports evolving and changing rules.

Like, find a baseball fan who grumbles about recent rule changes. And pitch them the idea that batters get to come to the plate and request the pitch location, and that establishes where the strike zone is so that the pitch has to cross the plate and be located at the height the batter asked for in order to be ruled a strike.

 

[InTheZone]

Somebody should really make a documentary where they just go around to annoyed fans of the four major sports, and they let the person grumble about how much they hate rule changes and how they fundamentally think we need to just leave sports alone and not change them. And then they proceed to make the person sit there while they have someone pitch a rule change to them that is actually just an archaic old rule from the sport in its earlier days before rule changes improved the game.

And when the person shoots down all those old rules, reveal to them that that's how the sport used to be played and it's only not played that way anymore because of rule changes. And after a long awkward pause, ask them again if they're really that fundamentally opposed to sports evolving and changing rules.

Like, find a baseball fan who grumbles about recent rule changes. And pitch them the idea that batters get to come to the plate and request the pitch location, and that establishes where the strike zone is so that the pitch has to cross the plate and be located at the height the batter asked for in order to be ruled a strike.

you're assuming one rule change I don't like means I don't like all of them...always that guy looking to argue about people that don't agree with rule changes

 

[Captain-Crash]

they should pick up some more third-string players and guys playing pick on the streets. That's what beat super dak, oh crap, I mean the team, the losses are on the team and wins are all daks.

 

[shabazz]

I'm good with any rule that discourages field goals.

If that's the case we would have gotten shut out in the Division Title deciding game against the Eagles.........we need those damm Field goals

 

[CPanther95]

More TDs is dumb as a qualifier.

But these OT rules were stupid the minute the changed them. People up in arms about a team winning a coin toss, scoring, and the other team never touched the ball. Then they change the OT rules to correct it but not if they score a TD. Stupid. Either go back to old rules, or make sure both teams have an opportunity on offense. The way they are changing the rules to favor offense, a TD on your first OT drive is going to be as likely as a FG was a few years ago.

 

[fivetwos]

Philly proposal....

Whichever teams trashy fans start the most fights by relentlessly taunting fans of the other team automatically wins the OT toss.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Basing who gets the ball first in overtime on who scored the most touchdowns is dumb. Points are all equal at that point, that's why they've arrived at an overtime scenario, so why should it matter how they arrived at that tie score? In a 6-6 tie where one team put together two FG drives and the other team scored a TD but blew their extra point, is the TD scoring team really deserving of any claim to superiority there? That's stupid.

They should honestly just make it so that kickoffs keeps alternating, so whoever didn't get the 2nd half opening kickoff gets the overtime kickoff. So if a team defers for the strategic advantage of getting the 2nd half kickoff, now the advantage potentially swings back and bites them because the other team gets to open overtime with the ball. I prefer the strategy coming into play that way, so teams can make an impactful decision that they'll later on have to live with.

I also think, if they're gonna replace onside kicks with a 4th down "one shot to convert it" scenario, they should make it fewer yards than 15. I read that from 1992 through 2017, about 22% of onside kicks were recovered. Is the goal of changing the rule to get so that the conversions are back to being around that percentage? I honestly don't think 4th & 15 conversions will be nearly as successful as that 22% statistic, assuming the source I got it from is right. I'd bump it down to 4th & 10. Do that for a few seasons to track the results, and then decide if it needs to be shortened or lengthened. (I see virtually no scenario where it would be decided it needs to be lengthened if teams are having too many exciting comebacks. That would only be a positive, honestly.)

I think your alternating kickoffs is just as stupid as the number of TD's scored during regulation. Why should the team that kicks off to start the game automatically have to kickoff to start OT. To start the game the opening kickoff is decided by a coin toss and OT is basically starting the game over again so there should be another coin toss.
.

 

[Runwildboys]

Is blindside block foul the one on the DB?

It's on anyone who blocks a defender from anywhere other than the front side.

 

[Bohuntr97]

I know people loathe kickers and the kicking game in general, and the trend is to want to make kickers less and less a part of the game.

But, boy, a FG Shootout would be tense and compelling to watch (in the rare occasions when it comes down to that if the score is still tied after the OT period).

I thought about that too. Player injury would not be an issue. Coin toss, the team that wins can elect to go first or defer. No rush, just a kicker. Start at the 35 and both teams get a chance. If both make it then move it back to the 40 but alternate it and so forth. This is why the NHL moved to a shootout. Teams went into overtime playing not to loose and not to win. It got boring.

Anyone remember McNabb admitting he didn't know a game could end up in a tie?

 

[gjkoeppen]

It's on anyone who blocks a defender from anywhere other than the front side.

If a defender is concentrating on a ball carrier and another offensive player hits him right in the chest he can get a flag. Under the now flag football rules they have now that offensive player would get a flag for blocking a defenseless player because the defensive player didn't see it coming and couldn't prepare himself for the hit.
.