News: The NFL is considering some major rule changes: 14 things to know

[erod]

They need to change how much FGs are worth.

0-39 = 3pts
39-49=4pts
49-59=5pts
60+ =6pts

So you want to reward teams for not being able to advance the ball closer to the goal line? And punish teams that do?

 

[fortdick]

Yeah, brain damage ain't real

They get paid very well for it. They would play without the money. I don't feel sorry for them.

 

[Floatyworm]

Yes, let's give Denver an advantage that no other team has. That's a GREAT idea.

But your sticking it to Seattle.....Goes both ways

 

[Junglist]

I don't think it's that bad. Most of them won't really be worth reviewing but if the call is clearly wrong and they hit say... Shoulder pads with theirs... That should be reviewable

Let's review everything. That guy in Section 110 put ketchup on his hot dog.

 

[Floatyworm]

I don't like the idea of encouraging field goals. If you're gonna change the rule, make FGs worth more as you get closer to the goal line, not less.

Think of it this way......

How many teams are gonna risk giving up field position for a long FG if it's missed? then allowing a team a short field to score points.....

The NFL wants to increase scoring....well there you have it...Plus it really changes the gamemanship within the game. I think the possibilities are increased tenfold.

Why not increase the pressure on teams having a good kicker that can make pressure kicks?

IMO one of the best plays this entire season was Blair Walsh butchering a short FG to lose a playoff game.....

 

[rpntex]

Let's review everything. That guy in Section 110 put ketchup on his hot dog.

If the proposed "two PFs = ejection" comes to pass, then reviewing PFs isn't just a good thing, it's a necessity. If a guys gonna get thrown out of the game, it needs to be for a legit call. Most of the time they're right, but you don't want a player ejected for a bogus call, no matter how rare.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I assumed at first it would just reduce returns, as it would make the touchback a more appealing option for the receiving team. But are you saying it might encourage kicking teams to kick it a little shorter on purpose?

Hard to say, one would have to do the math. For example we know that teams are fine with booming kickoffs into the end zone for a starting position at the 20. We also know that coaches get hopping mad when a kickoff goes out of bounds, which means that they would rather see a return than a starting position at the 40. So somewhere in between is the sweet spot, a point where a team would probably start practicing a kickoff that dies inside the 5 rather than handing out touchbacks.
But yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right about what the NFL is thinking: give the returner more to think about concerning bringing a return out, thus further reducing returns. And I'm guessing they think that the 25 is short of that sweet spot.

 

[Floatyworm]

So you want to reward teams for not being able to advance the ball closer to the goal line? And punish teams that do?

7 or 8pts for a TD is still more than 6 for a long FG....

Plus your not accounting for misses....Your giving up field position as well if you miss.

 

[JoeKing]

Yes, let's give Denver an advantage that no other team has. That's a GREAT idea.

Because the air is only thinner in Denver when the Broncos kick the ball? I'm thinking that's not how that works.

 

[casmith07]

Clicked to see if illegal contact was being removed, left disappointed. More of the same - Madden ball.

 

[erod]

7 or 8pts for a TD is still more than 6 for a long FG....

Plus your not accounting for misses....Your giving up field position as well if you miss.

The team that gets to the 10 yard line should be rewarded with an easier attempt at three points.

Never reward failure with more points than success.

Do you want to see teams intentionally running backward 30 yards and taking a knee to try a FG worth two more points?

 

[rynochop]

I don't like the idea of encouraging field goals. If you're gonna change the rule, make FGs worth more as you get closer to the goal line, not less.

Yeah, if your down by three and don't feel you can score your gonna have qbs running backwards and falling down

 

[percyhoward]

Bring back a Real Catch, idiots!!!

Rich McKay, Competition Committee Chairman: "Dean’s got some video he’s going to show, and I think he also wants to show to the media and talk all the way through it, because I think one thing we probably haven’t done as good a job as we should have is making sure everybody understands how the rule is applied."

Troy Vincent, VP of Football Operations: "It’s a three step process: possession, two feet down, and that time element."

In a nutshell, the problem is that the "time element" has no objective standard. After possession and two feet, how long is long enough? Prior to last season, there was an objective standard: the football move. After the football move was at the center of a controversial call by the Head of Officiating in a playoff game, the football move was removed from the language. The result of removing that standard was that we saw much more inconsistency in how these types of plays were ruled last season.

But no, the league insists there's nothing wrong with the rule, and that we just don't understand it. Basically, that we're the idiots, and that another video presentation by Blandino will clear it up for everyone.

 

[CF74]

Rich McKay, Competition Committee Chairman: "Dean’s got some video he’s going to show, and I think he also wants to show to the media and talk all the way through it, because I think one thing we probably haven’t done as good a job as we should have is making sure everybody understands how the rule is applied."

Troy Vincent, VP of Football Operations: "It’s a three step process: possession, two feet down, and that time element."

In a nutshell, the problem is that the "time element" has no objective standard. After possession and two feet, how long is long enough? Prior to last season, there was an objective standard: the football move. After the football move was at the center of a controversial call by the Head of Officiating in a playoff game, the football move was removed from the language. The result of removing that standard was that we saw much more inconsistency in how these types of plays were ruled last season.

But no, the league insists there's nothing wrong with the rule, and that we just don't understand it. Basically, that we're the idiots, and that another video presentation by Blandino will clear it up for everyone.

Mind boggling ignorance....

 

[CCBoy]

Rich McKay, Competition Committee Chairman: "Dean’s got some video he’s going to show, and I think he also wants to show to the media and talk all the way through it, because I think one thing we probably haven’t done as good a job as we should have is making sure everybody understands how the rule is applied."

Troy Vincent, VP of Football Operations: "It’s a three step process: possession, two feet down, and that time element."

In a nutshell, the problem is that the "time element" has no objective standard. After possession and two feet, how long is long enough? Prior to last season, there was an objective standard: the football move. After the football move was at the center of a controversial call by the Head of Officiating in a playoff game, the football move was removed from the language. The result of removing that standard was that we saw much more inconsistency in how these types of plays were ruled last season.

But no, the league insists there's nothing wrong with the rule, and that we just don't understand it. Basically, that we're the idiots, and that another video presentation by Blandino will clear it up for everyone.

There still has to be creativity in the game, for the benefit of the players. What has been accomplished here, is not protection of the game...but protection of the managers, the officials. They are right no matter what they call.

 

[endersdragon]

If the proposed "two PFs = ejection" comes to pass, then reviewing PFs isn't just a good thing, it's a necessity. If a guys gonna get thrown out of the game, it needs to be for a legit call. Most of the time they're right, but you don't want a player ejected for a bogus call, no matter how rare.

I would say 1/5 or so of helmet to helmet calls are at least questionable if not outright wrong. It's very hard to tell at game speed where a guy hits

 

[JD_KaPow]

They need to change how much FGs are worth.

0-39 = 3pts
39-49=4pts
49-59=5pts
60+ =6pts

Wait, you want FG to be MORE of the game than they already are? Seriously?

Personally, I want more football plays and fewer kicking plays. My ideal rule change would be to move the goalposts closer together.

 

[JD_KaPow]

7 or 8pts for a TD is still more than 6 for a long FG....

Plus your not accounting for misses....Your giving up field position as well if you miss.

Your proposal changes the incentives, in favor of attempting field goals and against going for it on 4th down (or even long 3rd downs). That's bad. It would also lead to things like taking a knee on early downs to move from a 38-yard FG to a 40-yard FG (which is pretty much automatic in today's game). That's really bad. I'm trying to figure out what you think it adds to the game, because I can't think of a single thing.

 

[fredp22]

Can somebody explain to me why the #1 request is to change the spotting of the ball to the 25 on touchbacks? why is the offense getting a shorter field?

 

[Nightman]

For every rule they add they need to lose one, same with Congress but lose 2.