NFL Rule Changes

[Phoenix-Talon]

The problem with this rule would be that the games would be extended to even greater lengths on a regular basis [disagree ..I'll explain below].
It could in fact become an advantage for the second team to get the ball since they would essentially be playing with more downs (there is a mathematical study of the statistics shows that a team is better off going for it on 4th down every time). [disagree ..I'll explain below].

First Team Possible OT Scenarios:

Score TD (OPPONENT HAS ONE CHANCE TO MATCH oR LOSE GAME)
Score FG (OPPONENT HAS ONE CHANCE TO MATCH oR LOSE GAME)
3 (or 4) downs out turn over the ball to opposing team (OPPONENT HAS ONE CHANCE TO SCORE TD/FG...AND WIN GAME; because 1st team missed their opportunity)

Second Team Possible OT Scenarios:

if 1st team scored TD ...match or lose the game
if 1st team scored FG ...match or score TD to win
3 (or 4) downs out (double Overtime -- SUDDEN death!)

SUDDEN DEATH ...first team that scores ...

Again the problem with this is that it would extend the games unduly. Now if you made them 30 second timeouts only (or less than 30 seconds even) and no more than one additional timeout per team per half then maybe the Networks would go for it (the Networks DO have a say with the bucks they pay to broadcast the games

Perhaps this would be an issue to negotiate with sponsors about.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

If forced out they should be able to touch the ball but if the step out on their own they can't be the first to touch it.....otherwise the receiving would just push every player they can out of bounds.

Yeah ...that's what I meant to say

 

[Hostile]

:choke:

Yeah, I thought so. If you had still talked big I was going to tell you that I had boiled eggs for breakfast.

 

[JackMagist]

First Team Possible OT Scenarios:

Score TD (OPPONENT HAS ONE CHANCE TO MATCH oR LOSE GAME)
Score FG (OPPONENT HAS ONE CHANCE TO MATCH oR LOSE GAME)
3 (or 4) downs out turn over the ball to opposing team (OPPONENT HAS ONE CHANCE TO SCORE TD/FG...AND WIN GAME; because 1st team missed their opportunity)

Second Team Possible OT Scenarios:

if 1st team scored TD ...match or lose the game
if 1st team scored FG ...match or score TD to win
3 (or 4) downs out (double Overtime -- SUDDEN death!)

SUDDEN DEATH ...first team that scores ...

Yes i understood all of the Scenarios that your rule change would implement and each of the following would result in games extended beyond what we currently have:

if 1st team scored TD ... 2nd team must match
if 1st team scored FG ... 2nd team must match (or score higher)

And it is in each of these scenarios that the second team would be playing with the aforementioned different mindset for the game that would give them an advantage.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Yeah, I thought so. If you had still talked big I was going to tell you that I had boiled eggs for breakfast.

:scream: :explode: :scram:

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Yes i understood ...
if 1st team scored TD ... 2nd team must match
if 1st team scored FG ... 2nd team must match (or score higher)

Couple of caveats to your

if 1st team scored TD ... 2nd team must match ...or lose the game!
if 1st team scored FG ... 2nd team must match ... or lose the game!

And it is in each of these scenarios that the second team would be playing with the aforementioned different mindset for the game that would give them an advantage

The second team's mindset is the exact same as the first team...WIN!

While there's potential for missed opportunities for either team, each team has an equal chance to win ...or lose the game! Look I'm not trying to defend an undefendable position here ...perhaps someone else could straighten one of us out on this -- I'm willing to listen to reason.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Couple of caveats to your

if 1st team scored TD ... 2nd team must match ...or lose the game!
if 1st team scored FG ... 2nd team must match ... or lose the game!



The second team's mindset is the exact same as the first team...WIN!

While there's potential for missed opportunities for either team, each team has an equal chance to win ...or lose the game! Look I'm not trying to defend an undefendable position here ...perhaps someone else could straighten one of us out on this -- I'm willing to listen to reason.

Sounds too much like college OT....uke:

 

[Hostile]

I hate instant replay with a passion.

Not crazy about overtime, but can live with it.

I think they need to put some huevos back in pass interference calls. They are so ticky tack right now that it is pathetic.

I think the QB is protected too much. The defense has to be able to hit him some or it isn't football.

 

[AdamJT13]

One rule that should be instituted is allowing referees to call a "force-out" retroactively if a sideline/endline catch is overturned.

Let's say a receiver jumps to catch the ball, then gets shoved and comes down barely out of bounds. The referee sees the shove and calls a force-out, making it a completed pass that is unreviewable.

Now let's say the receiver jumps to catch the ball, then gets shoved and comes down with his toes seemingly inbounds. The referee calls it a catch and spots the ball (or signals a touchdown). But the defense challenges the catch, and the instant replay shows that his toes on one foot came down on the line -- no catch. If the referee had thought the receiver was out of bounds originally, he would have called the force-out. But because he thought the receiver was inbounds, he had no need to call a force-out. As far as I know, under the current rules, the referee can't go back after the catch is overturned to say that it actually was a force-out. So in essence, the receiver is punished for coming closer to being inbounds after getting shoved while in the air.

One example of this might be Keyshawn's touchdown catch in 2004 at Seattle. Terreal Bierria made contact with Keyshawn when he was in the air, knocking him off balance and causing him to get only one foot down -- 2 yards inbounds. The referee didn't have any need to call a force-out, since Keyshawn seemed to be easily inbounds. If the replay booth had challenged and the catch had been overturned, the referees couldn't have retroactively done anything about Bierria's contact causing Keyshawn to fall out of bounds, as far as I know.

 

[aznhalf]

One example of this might be Keyshawn's touchdown catch in 2004 at Seattle. Terreal Bierria made contact with Keyshawn when he was in the air, knocking him off balance and causing him to get only one foot down -- 2 yards inbounds. The referee didn't have any need to call a force-out, since Keyshawn seemed to be easily inbounds. If Seattle had challenged and the catch had been overturned, the referees couldn't have retroactively done anything about Bierria's contact causing Keyshawn to fall out of bounds, as far as I know.

I remember that call, think it was within 2 minutes and we got lucky because it wasn't reviewed. I agree with you 100%, if a call like that was challenged it would be incomplete even though it clearly should have been a completion.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

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?!

The NFL has the money to pay officials full time, theyd have to do it though, if you want officials to be completely professional.

Most of them have a pretty good grasp of the rules..what do you want them to do? Study the rules every off day? That's kind of mundane and redundant.



I agree with OT, but since this is a revenue based industry, it conflicts with TV slots. College OT's can go on for a LONG time. But I agree, for the sake of fair competition, give each team the ball at the 40 and make it college OT format

 

[VACowboy]

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.

Yeager for commish!

 

[Yeagermeister]

Yeager for commish!

My first act is too take away all the rules that are named for Cowboys. Then take away the 49ers 5th ring and award it to Dallas because of the PI that wasn't called on Deion.......any others?

 

[Hostile]

My first act is too take away all the rules that are named for Cowboys. Then take away the 49ers 5th ring and award it to Dallas because of the PI that wasn't called on Deion.......any others?

Lynn Swann interfered with Benny Barnes.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Lynn Swann interfered with Benny Barnes.

Done

7 for Dallas
4 for SF
3 for Pitt

This fun

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I was for the illegal contact only being a 5 yards and not a first down, but that puts the defense at the advantage when a team gets in the red zone and closer to the goal. Defenses would then bump WR's like crazy on 3rd and long, knowing that the worst they would give up is 5 yards.

I think they should have 2 different rules for hitting the QB in the helmet, sort of like running into the punter. If it was done maliciously or just done very hard, it should be a personal foul....15 yards and a 1st down. If it was not done intentional or with malice, just 5 yards.

Definitely need to make a uniform rule on the catches in the end zone. If a WR catches a ball in the end zone, gets both feet down, then gets the ball knocked out, it's considered a TD. However, if a receiver catches the ball like the TB WR did against Washington....takes a step and a half....THEN falls down...THEN rolls....THEN the ball comes loose, it's not a catch. That call against the TB WR was correct, I just think they need to keep ther rules uniform.

And for the sake of my sanity. No TV timeouts after a kickoff. Nothing is more annoying than seeing a team score a TD, kick the PAT and they go to commercial. Only to come back from commercial, kickoff, and then go BACK to commercial.

The NFL is rich beyond anybody's dreams. These companies are rich beyond anybody's dreams. Getting rid of the TV timeouts after kickoff wouldn't hurt anybody's income and would only make viewing the game more enjoyable.

Rich..............

 

[blindzebra]

They need to define defensive position versus PI, too many times the defender has the best position and the WR runs up their back and gets the call.

Illegal contact that occurs away from the play should not be an automatic first down.

Illegal blocks behind or more than the hash marks away from the returner should not be a spot foul, but marked off from the end of the return, if called at all.

Chop blocks need to be illegal.

The roughing the passer penalty should not include incidental contact to the QB's head when that contact occurs helmet to helmet with other contact or hand/arm contact that occurs while attempting to deflect the pass. It is not that hard to tell when a player leads with the helmet or tries to hit the QB in the head.

A football move needs to be better defined when it comes to possession.

The coach should get 2 challenges free of timeouts, and up to 6 more challenges that can be bought with a timeout, whether you win or not.

These challenges should include any rule, and not just the current reviewable plays.

 

[Tricky-22]

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.

Agree

Over-time​

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.

Agree again.

Challenges​

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).

Disagree - Leave it the way it is.


I would like to see the leaque do away with some of the stupid protect the QB rules. Like if the defensive player even touches the QB on the helmet, then he is flagged for "Personal Foul". I think that if the foul is flaggrant, then it is pretty obvious to everyone.

I would also like to see 'Pass Interference" penalties return to a 15 yard fowl or a spot foul if the infraction occurs less than 15 yards from the LOS. Either way, it still should remain an automatic 1st down.

 

[arglebargle]

College OT 'scrimmages' are just too weenie.

It's already been established that statistically it doesn't seem to matter whether you get the ball first or not in OT. I don't see a compelling reason to change.

But professional Refs would be nice. I don't think the NFL big dogs want to deal with them ala a union, etc. Too bad....

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

I didn't say anything initially, but many of you have compared the college football rules to the suggestion to modify the existing NFL overtime rules. Folks, it's a different suggestion.

I'm actually suggesting a modified 5th Quarter (in the even of a tied score of course). You already know the parameters ...and BTW, I really don't believe the extra time will create major problems for commercial sponsors, etc. Depending on the outcome; the time could be equivalent to the existing OT score clock -- give or take 15 or 20 minutes here or there.