- Messages
- 79,354
- Reaction score
- 45,938
POSTED 10:09 p.m. EDT, March 14, 2007
OWNERS TO EXPAND REPLAY, CHANGE INTERFERENCE RULES?
When the NFL owners convene in Arizona later this month, they'll consider two proposals for rules changes.
One proposal, offered up by the Bucs, would expand the scope of instant replay to cover all penalties except holding.
The other, proposed by the 49ers, would create two levels of defensive pass interference. For "severe" interference, the penalty would still be a spot foul. For minor interference, the penalty would be only 15 yards.
We like both ideas. If the purpose of replay is to use technology to rectify human error, why not make as many human errors subject to review as possible?
And, as to the interference rule, we think a modification of the spot foul provision is long overdue.
Of course, if both provisions pass, then an official's decision to characterize an interference call as severe or minor would be subject to review. So maybe both shouldn't pass as written.
Meanwhile, if the owners are looking for some commonsensical rules changes, why not create two levels of roughing the passer -- five yards and a fifteen-yard personal foul. The approach would be identical to the roughing the kicker foul, and it would address one of the most fertile areas of controversy from games during the 2006 season.
OWNERS TO EXPAND REPLAY, CHANGE INTERFERENCE RULES?
When the NFL owners convene in Arizona later this month, they'll consider two proposals for rules changes.
One proposal, offered up by the Bucs, would expand the scope of instant replay to cover all penalties except holding.
The other, proposed by the 49ers, would create two levels of defensive pass interference. For "severe" interference, the penalty would still be a spot foul. For minor interference, the penalty would be only 15 yards.
We like both ideas. If the purpose of replay is to use technology to rectify human error, why not make as many human errors subject to review as possible?
And, as to the interference rule, we think a modification of the spot foul provision is long overdue.
Of course, if both provisions pass, then an official's decision to characterize an interference call as severe or minor would be subject to review. So maybe both shouldn't pass as written.
Meanwhile, if the owners are looking for some commonsensical rules changes, why not create two levels of roughing the passer -- five yards and a fifteen-yard personal foul. The approach would be identical to the roughing the kicker foul, and it would address one of the most fertile areas of controversy from games during the 2006 season.
