NFL Rule Changes

[Phoenix-Talon]

Taking into consideration post-regular season/pre-Superbowl, and pre-draft/off season ...thought we could spend some time pondering about needed changes in NFL policies, guidelines and procedures that frequently have an impact on the outcome of games.

For example, someone on one of the sites I've visited (could have been here; I've enjoyed so many intelligent discussions here ...then again, I've been badgered here also ) ...mentioned something about creating a "Zebra" school for NFL Officials. The school would be sponsored by the NFL, ran by veteran NFL officials/NFLPA employees/former players; and produce full-time qualified NFL Officials (not part-time employees that have other unrelated jobs in the off-season). This initiative would enhance the quality of on-the-field decisions and greatly reduce "bad-calls." A full-time NFL official could yield multiple benefits.

Over-time​

Another example is the "over-time" rule. Currently, when teams go into over-time (regardless of who has the momentum in the game just prior to the over-time kickoff).

Right from the over-time kickoff, the team that loses the toss is generally at a disadvantage. A busted play, multiple turn-overs, excessive penalties, or even a bad call by the zebras could be the kiss of death for either side. Ultimately, the team that kicks the dreaded field goal or scores the first touchdown, wins the game in overtime.

I'd like to see ... both teams have possession of the ball during over-time (they do something similar in college). If the team that has initial possession scores a TD (or FG) and the other team does not score equally -- game over! If the second team matches the score (TD/FG) of the initial team that had possession, they go into a 2nd OT round ; or sudden-death
situation where the first team that scores wins the game. This gives both teams an equal opportunity to score and an opportunity for extended play.

Challenges​

Currently, HCs are authorized to "challenge" controversial calls on the field (with One or two exceptions ...play called dead scenario, etc), with the consequence of losing a time-out if the ruling on the field stands; or is not overturned.

Instead of penalizing the team, that lost the ruling, by removing a timeout, I'd like to see the other team pickup an additional timeout (e.g., your team challenges and loses -- you keep the same number of timeouts you had prior to the challenge -- the other team picks-up an additional timeout (because the team that wins the decision isn't really rewarded by winning the decision -- it was the correct call anyway).

Aside from re-instituting the horsecollar tackle (just a little Eagles fan dig -- that should not have hurt; where's the thick skin ), ...and aside from stopping games when the score is out of reach in the 4th quarter , can anyone else come creative like that weith some more needed rule modifications?!

 

[mrecktid]

I always assumed there was a "Zebra" school........the rest of your suggestions sound good, I doubt many coaches will like the Challenge rule of yours, no one wants to give the other team another timeout.

 

[aznhalf]

I would like to see the officials letting the play go on whenever there is any type of debatable call (down by contact on a fumble, stepping out of bounds, etc.). They should then let the play go on untill they know the result of that play.

They then could make their ruling (like they do now). But if they decide to rule the play down by contact, the other team could still challenge (unchallengable as of now) because the officials know the result of the play had it not been blown dead.

Kind of having two results for the same play, so either team can challenge the outcome.

 

[Qwickdraw]

I HATE the current overtime method.

Both team's should get the chance to have the ball regardless of who scores first.

 

[Doomsday101]

In overtime it has been show the team who wins the toss wins the game 51 percent of the time since OT was implimented. I think defense is part of the game and if the team who kicks off can force the other team 3 and out then you have a chance to get the ball in great field position. I think OT should stay as is.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Leave the OT rules as they are. You either have to score or stop the other team from scoring.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

I HATE the current overtime method.

Both team's should get the chance to have the ball regardless of who scores first.

I totally agree with you.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

In overtime it has been show the team who wins the toss wins the game 51 percent of the time since OT was implimented. I think defense is part of the game and if the team who kicks off can force the other team 3 and out then you have a chance to get the ball in great field position. I think OT should stay as is.

Fifty-one percent of the time the winner of the coin-toss wins could be ...as you indicate reflective of a strong defense, or perhaps a weak opponent offense. The almost even percentage rate of the coin toss indicates even more reason to give the opponent a shot at scoring ...otherwise you might as well just flip a coin to determine the winner of the OT game .

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Leave the OT rules as they are. You either have to score or stop the other team from scoring.

Come jump Outside the box with me for just a minute Yeagermeister.

It's not always as simple as black and white -- consider the weight/gravity of the game ...perhaps the modified OT rule could be used only in playoff games, championship games, or even in the superbowl.

What about an option/clause in the ruling that would allow the other team to have possession of the ball during OT if ...the initial team having possession failed to score a touchdown ...in other words field goals would allow the opportunity for the other team to go Into a "sudden death" double OT game.

Work wit me heah (SIC)!

 

[ljs44]

Allow review for Pass-interference.

And change OT to a 10 minute extra period. If a team scores 4 tds, so be it.

 

[Doomsday101]

Fifty-one percent of the time the winner of the coin-toss wins could be ...as you indicate reflective of a strong defense, or perhaps a weak opponent offense. The almost even percentage rate of the coin toss indicates even more reason to give the opponent a shot at scoring ...otherwise you might as well just flip a coin to determine the winner of the OT game .

Last time I checked defense was part of the game of football not just the offense. In OT if the defense does their job then your offense will get a chance. If the winner of the toss was winning at a larger percentage I would agree with you but the fact is they don't. Roll your eyes all you want you have an opinion and I have mine.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Come jump Outside the box with me for just a minute Yeagermeister.

It's not always as simple as black and white -- consider the weight/gravity of the game ...perhaps the modified OT rule could be used only in playoff games, championship games, or even in the superbowl.

What about an option/clause in the ruling that would allow the other team to have possession of the ball during OT if ...the initial team having possession failed to score a touchdown ...in other words field goals would allow the opportunity for the other team to go Into a "sudden death" double OT game.

Work wit me heah (SIC)!

Nope leave it the way it is. The only thing I'd change is to take the dresses off of players and make them actually play again. The way the nfl is going they might as well be a flag football league.

 

[wileedog]

And change OT to a 10 minute extra period. If a team scores 4 tds, so be it.

I'd be pretty darned ticked with this rule change if I started getting key players injured in an OT period where I had already scored 10 points. Plus adding that much time increases the chance of injury as fatigue sets in. The NFL should do whatever possible to make the OT as short as possible.

As noted, if 51% of the teams that win the coin toss are winning the games, then there is nothing wrong with the current system.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Allow review for Pass-interference.

And change OT to a 10 minute extra period. If a team scores 4 tds, so be it.

Interesting twist. Are you saying place additional time on the clock to allow the clock and the team having most points, decide the winner? I could live with that!

 

[Yeagermeister]

Last time I checked defense was part of the game of football not just the offense. In OT if the defense does their job then your offense will get a chance. If the winner of the toss was winning at a larger percentage I would agree with you but the fact is they don't. Roll your eyes all you want you have an opinion and I have mine.

I agree and the last time I did the math, I went to a public school here so bear with me, but the opposite of 51% is 49% so basically it's a 50-50 chance. I'll take those odds.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Not as much to do with the actual game play but I have always thought there should be rule changes concerning the cap.

I think to a team should be given a little extra cap space on the following season if they gain so much money for charities, putting in community time and so on.

For example.

If the cap next year is $50.00 (just an example here )

If during the season a team raises X amount of dollars for charities (legit charities that are on a list approved by the league, not Jerry jones foundation for Jerrys wallet or something like that).

Then a percentage of money that exceeds a specific goal would turn into a bonus towards a teams cap the following season. Now the amount of money that would go towards the teams cap the following season would itself have a cap on it as well.

So if the league states the goal to reach the bonus cap was $10 but the total amount that could be used over was $15.....then the team went on to raise $20 in charity money.

Now they can only use $5 dollars over the ten because the total of the extra cap was set at $15.

So we use some formula to take that money and add it to the teams next year cap.

This promotes extra reasons for teams to raise money towards charities, this gets the teams even more involved with the community for good causes, it gives good press to a team and the league and it rewards a team for helping others.

Now it must be noted that each player, coach or front office people could only give a limited amount of money from their own pocket...the rest would have to be the team/coaches, front office people out there spending time in the community to help raise the money.....this is to ensure that the team gets involved with the community instead of someone just taking a big chunk of money and throwing it in a bucket to get the extra cap for the following season.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[ShiningStar]

they go into a 2nd OT round ; or sudden-death
situation where the first team that scores wins the game. This gives both teams an equal opportunity to score and an opportunity for extended play.


Isnt this still a first score for win scenario? Even if both teams are tied your still saying the next one to score first...its the same thing. Stop the freaking offense..you have to do it in regulation..do it in overtime. this is nothing new...its what they get paid to do.....

 

[ShiningStar]

Not as much to do with the actual game play but I have always thought there should be rule changes concerning the cap.

I think to a team should be given a little extra cap space on the following season if they gain so much money for charities, putting in community time and so on.

For example.

If the cap next year is $50.00 (just an example here )

If during the season a team raises X amount of dollars for charities (legit charities that are on a list approved by the league, not Jerry jones foundation for Jerrys wallet or something like that).

Then a percentage of money that exceeds a specific goal would turn into a bonus towards a teams cap the following season. Now the amount of money that would go towards the teams cap the following season would itself have a cap on it as well.

So if the league states the goal to reach the bonus cap was $10 but the total amount that could be used over was $15.....then the team went on to raise $20 in charity money.

Now they can only use $5 dollars over the ten because the total of the extra cap was set at $15.

So we use some formula to take that money and add it to the teams next year cap.

This promotes extra reasons for teams to raise money towards charities, this gets the teams even more involved with the community for good causes, it gives good press to a team and the league and it rewards a team for helping others.

Now it must be noted that each player, coach or front office people could only give a limited amount of money from their own pocket...the rest would have to be the team/coaches, front office people out there spending time in the community to help raise the money.....this is to ensure that the team gets involved with the community instead of someone just taking a big chunk of money and throwing it in a bucket to get the extra cap for the following season.

Hope that makes sense.

SO the team that can afford the most charity gets to have the more cap space? how does this help the little markets?

 

[Yeagermeister]

Not as much to do with the actual game play but I have always thought there should be rule changes concerning the cap.

I think to a team should be given a little extra cap space on the following season if they gain so much money for charities, putting in community time and so on.

For example.

If the cap next year is $50.00 (just an example here )

If during the season a team raises X amount of dollars for charities (legit charities that are on a list approved by the league, not Jerry jones foundation for Jerrys wallet or something like that).

Then a percentage of money that exceeds a specific goal would turn into a bonus towards a teams cap the following season. Now the amount of money that would go towards the teams cap the following season would itself have a cap on it as well.

So if the league states the goal to reach the bonus cap was $10 but the total amount that could be used over was $15.....then the team went on to raise $20 in charity money.

Now they can only use $5 dollars over the ten because the total of the extra cap was set at $15.

So we use some formula to take that money and add it to the teams next year cap.

This promotes extra reasons for teams to raise money towards charities, this gets the teams even more involved with the community for good causes, it gives good press to a team and the league and it rewards a team for helping others.

Now it must be noted that each player, coach or front office people could only give a limited amount of money from their own pocket...the rest would have to be the team/coaches, front office people out there spending time in the community to help raise the money.....this is to ensure that the team gets involved with the community instead of someone just taking a big chunk of money and throwing it in a bucket to get the extra cap for the following season.

Hope that makes sense.

Interesting idea but the only change I'd make to the cap, other than getting rid of it, would be a rookie cap. It would protect them teams from the rookie busts such as Jacob Rogers.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Nope leave it the way it is. The only thing I'd change is to take the dresses off of players and make them actually play again. The way the nfl is going they might as well be a flag football league.

I respect your "stand" on the matter Yeagermeister. Ok, "take the dresses off of players and make them actually play again" ...let's look at it from your perspective.

What penalties, rulings, limitations that already exist in the NFL, would you implement "lift dress" rule (metaphorically speaking of course) to liberate players from these so-called restrictions?