Proposed new rules

[MadScientist]

http://blogs.greenbaypressgazette.com/blogs/gpg/insider/2012/03/21/nfl-rule-change-proposals/

I like most of the changes, but I don't get the making too many men on the field a dead ball foul.

There might be some resistance from the players for the overtime change (could make games longer and increase injury risk) and possibly the 1 player 8 game IR rule (may have to cut someone after the guy comes back). I wouldn't expect strong objections, but there may be some.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Defenses could put 12-13 men on the field late in the game intentionally to give them an advantage in stopping the offense from having a last second drive. If the offense has to go say 40 yards in 20 seconds with no timeouts, taking 6 seconds off the clock and giving up only 5 yards is a big win for the defense.

[Lurker64]

Yeah, the "dead ball foul for too many men" makes a lot of sense. A play in which the offense lines up with too many men is not going to count anyway, so no need to risk injury on a play that doesn't count. On the otherhand, a play in which the defense lines up with too many men can be used to competitive advantage, as we saw in the super bowl. If time is a bigger limiting factor than yards, you happily trade 5 yards for however long it takes to run a play.

[pbmax]

Just don't want to see the new overtime rules. At all.

[Lurker64]

Just don't want to see the new overtime rules. At all.

Why not? I prefer the new overtime rules to the old overtime rules. Nobody has come up with an overtime system for football that I really like, but people don't seem to like ties.

[Guiness]

I like the roster exemption for a concussed player. Not sure why it's limited to 1? I'd guess they're afraid of teams stashing guys there to keep them away from other teams.

[sharpe1027]

Yeah, the "dead ball foul for too many men" makes a lot of sense. A play in which the offense lines up with too many men is not going to count anyway, so no need to risk injury on a play that doesn't count. On the otherhand, a play in which the defense lines up with too many men can be used to competitive advantage, as we saw in the super bowl. If time is a bigger limiting factor than yards, you happily trade 5 yards for however long it takes to run a play.

It's an improvement, but you can almost always game the system. For example, they can still lineup with 12 men to give their defense an effective timeout and substitution while also seeing what play the offense ran. Now they know for sure it will not be more than 5 yards (before the offense had the option of taking the play). Not a bad trade off in many situations.

What if they gave the offense the option of taking the play (with time off the clock) or the 5 yards as a deadball foul (with no time off the clock)?

[pbmax]

Why not? I prefer the new overtime rules to the old overtime rules. Nobody has come up with an overtime system for football that I really like, but people don't seem to like ties.

Sudden death is simply too fantastic to mess with. Now, its sudden death part of the time.

And I sense that coaches, fearing backlash, play for the tie and then are happy to blame the OT rules if the other team gets the ball and scores right away. If OT is that unfair, don't play for a tie.

Most relevant, if the new kickoff rule (kick on the 35) had been implemented in OT, then the percentages would have swung back to even.

[Cheesehead Craig]

It's an improvement, but you can almost always game the system. For example, they can still lineup with 12 men to give their defense an effective timeout and substitution while also seeing what play the offense ran. Now they know for sure it will not be more than 5 yards (before the offense had the option of taking the play). Not a bad trade off in many situations.

What if they gave the offense the option of taking the play (with time off the clock) or the 5 yards as a deadball foul (with no time off the clock)?

The offense can simply call a different play and you've given them 5 yards and also given them the opportunity to huddle up and get everyone on the same page. I don't see this helps the defense at all given how quickly the play will be ruled dead.

[Freak Out]

I have to say I preferred the old overtime rules. Maybe it's the fact that it was around for so long or that a coin toss meant so much but I preferred it over what I saw last year.

[Lurker64]

Sudden death is simply too fantastic to mess with. Now, its sudden death part of the time.


Sudden death is the best thing ever... in overtime hockey. In football, I don't like it.

[sharpe1027]

The offense can simply call a different play and you've given them 5 yards and also given them the opportunity to huddle up and get everyone on the same page. I don't see this helps the defense at all given how quickly the play will be ruled dead.

Maybe you're right, and it certainly is an improvement. Still, I have never seen a college 12 man call blown dead before the play is run, but it seldom happens.

If you want a chance to reset your defense, this seems like a valid replacement for a faked injury.

[woodbuck27]

Rule changes 'the real focus' of league meetings.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...r-mill/page/2/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/page/2/)

Rule changes are the real focus of league meetings (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/26/rule-changes-are-the-real-focus-of-league-meetings/)

Posted by Mike Florio on March 26, 2012, 10:16 AM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/26/kraft-says-brady-wanted-to-come-back-in-2008/

Kraft says Tom Brady wanted to come back in 2008

Posted by Mike Florio on March 26, 2012, 2:51 PM EDT

[Harlan Huckleby]

I like the automatic review of all turnovers.

While they are at it, they should also review all plays where scoring is an issue, not just when it is ruled a score on the field.

I think forcing the head coach to throw challenge flags, especially when they are on the road and have less opportunity to review, is the dumbest aspect of pro football. With modern technology and multiple cameras, the replay booth should be looking for errors all the time, stopping play if necessary when there is a question, just like in college football. It doesn't slow the game down appreciably.

[pbmax]

I like the automatic review of all turnovers.


I think forcing the head coach to throw challenge flags, especially when they are on the road and have less opportunity to review, is the dumbest aspect of pro football. With modern technology and multiple cameras, the replay booth should be looking for errors all the time, stopping play if necessary when there is a question, just like in college football. It doesn't slow the game down appreciably.

Replay definitely extends the game. The review all scoring plays addition did not have much impact because the TV networks could go to commercial after the score (as they normally would) if the Ref headed to the peep show booth when his pocket vibrated.

But overall it extends the game. The only way the League has kept it from being interminable is by finding other clock stoppages to eliminate. They also changed when the 45 second play clock starts one year.

Its a perfect example of a slippery slope. When replay was first introduced, they promised to only review important or obvious plays. The number of plays reviewed has steadily risen.

Coach challenges was one way to ensure that only important plays were reviewed. But thanks to brainiacs like Lovie Smith, Mike Smith and Mike Tomlin, coaches are often out of challenges when it really matters.

And its going to get worse as HD, super slow mo, 3-D and other technologies continue to reveal how appallingly inaccurate Man is. Two challenges per coach and that's it. Save them for scoring plays or the second half. Fritter them away, get canned. Easy as pie.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Replay definitely extends the game. The review all scoring plays addition did not have much impact because the TV networks could go to commercial after the score (as they normally would) if the Ref headed to the peep show booth when his pocket vibrated.

But overall it extends the game. The only way the League has kept it from being interminable is by finding other clock stoppages to eliminate. They also changed when the 45 second play clock starts one year.

Its a perfect example of a slippery slope. When replay was first introduced, they promised to only review important or obvious plays. The number of plays reviewed has steadily risen.

Coach challenges was one way to ensure that only important plays were reviewed. But thanks to brainiacs like Lovie Smith, Mike Smith and Mike Tomlin, coaches are often out of challenges when it really matters.

And its going to get worse as HD, super slow mo, 3-D and other technologies continue to reveal how appallingly inaccurate Man is. Two challenges per coach and that's it. Save them for scoring plays or the second half. Fritter them away, get canned. Easy as pie.

I like that they are proposing that the ref on the field doesn't do the reviews. That should help speed things up. Maybe not by much, but maybe 20-30 seconds which may make the process seem so tolerable.

[sharpe1027]

I like that they are proposing that the ref on the field doesn't do the reviews. That should help speed things up. Maybe not by much, but maybe 20-30 seconds which may make the process seem so tolerable.

It might lead to better results too. Subconsciously, it has got to be more difficult to overturn your own call as opposed to a call you had no part in making.

[woodbuck27]

It's an improvement, but you can almost always game the system. For example, they can still lineup with 12 men to give their defense an effective timeout and substitution while also seeing what play the offense ran. Now they know for sure it will not be more than 5 yards (before the offense had the option of taking the play). Not a bad trade off in many situations.

What if they gave the offense the option of taking the play (with time off the clock) or the 5 yards as a deadball foul (with no time off the clock)?

You've got it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Replay definitely extends the game . It doesn't have to. The college game reviews EVERY play, and it doesn't seem to slow the game one bit. They can get this done.



And its going to get worse as HD, super slow mo, 3-D and other technologies continue to reveal how appallingly inaccurate Man is. No, it is not going to get worse as technology improves, the games will get better. The fans want the call to be made correctly, a short delay is a small price to pay. Instant replay has not showed Man to be "appallingly inaccurate", if anything it has highlighted how damn good the refs are at getting the right call in real time.



Two challenges per coach and that's it. Save them for scoring plays or the second half. Fritter them away, get canned. Easy as pie. I don't think most fans are interested in making football a challenge of challenging. You say "fritter them away", but in fact it is very difficult for a head coach to know when to challenge due to a lack of information. Limitting challenges ends up punishing the team when bad refereeing occurs.
I get your arguments, but they are weak compared to the value of just getting the damn calls correct.

[pbmax]

It doesn't have to. The college game reviews EVERY play, and it doesn't seem to slow the game one bit. They can get this done.


No, it is not going to get worse as technology improves, the games will get better. The fans want the call to be made correctly, a short delay is a small price to pay. Instant replay has not showed Man to be "appallingly inaccurate", if anything it has highlighted how damn good the refs are at getting the right call in real time.


I don't think most fans are interested in making football a challenge of challenging. You say "fritter them away", but in fact it is very difficult for a head coach to know when to challenge due to a lack of information. Limitting challenges ends up punishing the team when bad refereeing occurs.
I get your arguments, but they are weak compared to the value of just getting the damn calls correct.

College games ARE longer but the effect is lessened because there is no peep show booth, just some guy no one gets to see reviewing and talking to a ref on the field. So that saves 60 yards of ref jogging during the review. If the NFL adopted this, it would be faster, but it would still take time.

It has gotten worse as technology improves because more and more plays are shown to be close and then everyone and their cat wants a review. Which is the reason every year they add something else as eligible for a review (all turnovers, all scores, field goals, catches by Bert Emanuel in playoff games, down by contact). At this point the only class of calls not reviewable is pass defense. Which is where the most egregious errors occur outside of scoring. Same thing is happening in baseball where at first it was home run or not and now will be fair/foul and soon there will be pressure about every other call.

It is making the rules of the game subject to the whims of the viewing audience. Perhaps we should just vote on whether a play should stand.

Bad officiating affects both teams. Sometimes life is just unfair. While normally I would want egregious unfairness corrected in a sporting contest where the aim is to see who is better, what the NFL is doing now is finding ways to keep the clock running in order to keep games under 3:15. This has the perverse effect of lessening the amount of football played so we can spend more time watching replays of disputed calls.

Dumb.

[woodbuck27]

College games ARE longer but the effect is lessened because there is no peep show booth, just some guy no one gets to see reviewing and talking to a ref on the field. So that saves 60 yards of ref jogging during the review. If the NFL adopted this, it would be faster, but it would still take time.

It has gotten worse as technology improves because more and more plays are shown to be close and then everyone and their cat wants a review. Which is the reason every year they add something else as eligible for a review (all turnovers, all scores, field goals, catches by Bert Emanuel in playoff games, down by contact). At this point the only class of calls not reviewable is pass defense. Which is where the most egregious errors occur outside of scoring. Same thing is happening in baseball where at first it was home run or not and now will be fair/foul and soon there will be pressure about every other call.

It is making the rules of the game subject to the whims of the viewing audience. Perhaps we should just vote on whether a play should stand.

Bad officiating affects both teams. Sometimes life is just unfair. While normally I would want egregious unfairness corrected in a sporting contest where the aim is to see who is better, what the NFL is doing now is finding ways to keep the clock running in order to keep games under 3:15. This has the perverse effect of lessening the amount of football played so we can spend more time watching replays of disputed calls.

Dumb.


Yup.

It's all very amusing. without much considerationn to this:

At what time will they consider having professionally dedicated referees and officials; solely as a profession dedicated to officiating the games in the NFL. Given that he NFL is selling itself as the number one League of all professional sports. (-:

Auto mechanic to his boss: Sorry Harry I cannot work OT this weekend. I have to referee the NFL game between the Packers and da Bears.

[channtheman]

Why not? I prefer the new overtime rules to the old overtime rules. Nobody has come up with an overtime system for football that I really like, but people don't seem to like ties.

I always thought this would be a simple way to do OT. Each team is guaranteed one possession, after that it is sudden death. The new OT rules are even worse than the old ones if you ask me.

[pbmax]

I thought they should simply move the kickoff back to the 35 for OT (which was when the problem with OT ending with FGs got out of hand).

And then if everyone was still having a bird about having to play defense on a coin flip, you give the team that received the kickoff for the kickoff receive again in OT. That was, everyone knows who will get it first and at least one team will not be eager for a tie.

[sharpe1027]

I always thought this would be a simple way to do OT. Each team is guaranteed one possession, after that it is sudden death. The new OT rules are even worse than the old ones if you ask me.

I like this idea a lot. It is easy to understand. Also, I'm not sure whether you benefit more from getting the ball first or second. If you get the ball second, you know whether/how many the other team scored so you have that advantage. However, if both teams score the same amount, the team getting the ball first will get the first chance at a sudden death score.

[woodbuck27]

I like this idea a lot. It is easy to understand. Also, I'm not sure whether you benefit more from getting the ball first or second. If you get the ball second, you know whether/how many the other team scored so you have that advantage. However, if both teams score the same amount, the team getting the ball first will get the first chance at a sudden death score.

Yes ... that should satisfy the opposing teams and fans. That should satisfy the TV networks in terms of their scheduling. All the bases are covered if this was the accepted proposal.

[mraynrand]

And then if everyone was still having a bird about having to play defense on a coin flip, you give the team that received the kickoff for the kickoff receive again in OT. That was, everyone

If you win the flip at the start of the game, then shouldn't the OTHER team get the ball in OT? And should the defer rules work the same. Ah, hell, it's already getting too convouted

[woodbuck27]

If you win the flip at the start of the game, then shouldn't the OTHER team get the ball in OT? And should the defer rules work the same. Ah, hell, it's already getting too convouted


If you win the flip at the start of the game, then shouldn't the OTHER team get the ball in OT?

Yes. The analogy as it is now would be like an' OT Shootout in the NHL' and only one of the teams somehow gets to use it's skaters to score on the opposing teams goalie.

They score and that team wins !

Silly.

[pbmax]

If you win the flip at the start of the game, then shouldn't the OTHER team get the ball in OT? And should the defer rules work the same. Ah, hell, it's already getting too convouted

Under my plan, I think the team that kicks off at the start of the game would be gunning for Double OT. Actually, all even numbered OTs.

But regardless of how you choose who gets the ball first in OT, it should be known in advance so one team at least is trying to win. Not tie, loss a coin flip and cry.

[sharpe1027]

The should just flip a coin for the win.

[channtheman]

This might seem random, but I feel it is relevant. College football games are longer than NFL games. This is clear to anyone who watches both. The reason has nothing to do with replay though. The reason college games are longer is they stop the clock after every first down and they run a 20 minute hafltime show.

[mraynrand]

I meant to say 'convoluted' - and I still mean it. How about everyone has to go for 2 in the fourth quarter, except if leading by at least 8 1/2 points with less than 6 minutes left?

[woodbuck27]

The should just flip a coin for the win.

LOL X 10...good one !!
.

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/27/competition-committee-doesnt-recommend-closing-mcdaniels-loophole/

Competition Committee doesn’t recommend closing McDaniels loophole

Posted by Mike Florio on March 27, 2012, 10:40 AM EDT

[Cheesehead Craig]

Just switch the game to Australian Rules Football for OT.

[Little Whiskey]

if you score you win......if the defense stops you, then you lose. one single possesion. do you trust your defense or your offense to win the game for you.

[pbmax]

Drop kicks starting at 20 yards. Miss, you lose.

[Harlan Huckleby]

what the NFL is doing now is finding ways to keep the clock running in order to keep games under 3:15. This has the perverse effect of lessening the amount of football played so we can spend more time watching replays of disputed calls.

The replays can be done somewhat more efficiently. When it takes additional time, just cut to commercial during review. No problem, little overall delay.

[woodbuck27]

It doesn't have to. The college game reviews EVERY play, and it doesn't seem to slow the game one bit. They can get this done.


No, it is not going to get worse as technology improves, the games will get better. The fans want the call to be made correctly, a short delay is a small price to pay. Instant replay has not showed Man to be "appallingly inaccurate", if anything it has highlighted how damn good the refs are at getting the right call in real time.


I don't think most fans are interested in making football a challenge of challenging. You say "fritter them away", but in fact it is very difficult for a head coach to know when to challenge due to a lack of information. Limitting challenges ends up punishing the team when bad refereeing occurs.
I get your arguments, but they are weak compared to the value of just getting the damn calls correct.

There there...... there's my long lost twin brother ! (-:

"Making New Friends...One Post At A Time." Harlan Huckleby

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/27/bills-urge-change-to-replay-rule-for-faster-reviews/

Bills urge change to replay rule for faster reviews

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 27, 2012, 7:47 PM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/nfl-rule-changes-for-2012/

NFL rule changes for 2012

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 28, 2012, 1:08 PM EDT

"Rules changes that passed included making overtime the same in the regular season as it is in the postseason, and expanding the defenseless player rule to protect defensive players on crackback blocks. The proposed rules changes that failed were giving the authority to determine replay reviews to the replay official in the booth, and modifying the horse-collar tackle rule to remove the exception for quarterbacks in the pocket."

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/nfl-still-considering-changes-to-trade-deadline-roster-rules/

NFL still considering changes to trade deadline, roster rules

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 28, 2012, 12:49 PM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/horse-collar-exception-for-quarterbacks-in-pocket-remains/

Horse collar exception for quarterbacks in pocket remains

Posted by Josh Alper on March 28, 2012, 12:26 PM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/nfl-expands-defenseless-player-rule-to-crackback-blocks/

NFL expands defenseless player rule to crackback blocks

Posted by Josh Alper on March 28, 2012, 12:10 PM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/refs-retain-right-to-review-replays/

Refs retain right to review replays

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 28, 2012, 11:46 AM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/nfl-changes-regular-season-overtime-to-match-postseason-overtime/

NFL changes regular-season overtime to match postseason overtime

Posted by Michael David Smith on March 28, 2012, 11:34 AM EDT

[woodbuck27]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/overtime-change-could-cause-problems/

Overtime change could cause problems

Posted by Mike Florio on March 28, 2012, 3:22 PM EDT

[Pugger]

I like the automatic review of all turnovers.

While they are at it, they should also review all plays where scoring is an issue, not just when it is ruled a score on the field.

I think forcing the head coach to throw challenge flags, especially when they are on the road and have less opportunity to review, is the dumbest aspect of pro football. With modern technology and multiple cameras, the replay booth should be looking for errors all the time, stopping play if necessary when there is a question, just like in college football. It doesn't slow the game down appreciably.

I'm with you. I don't think the coaches should have to help officiate games. This is what we are doing with this challenge nonsense.

[woodbuck27]

I'm with you. I don't think the coaches should have to help officiate games. This is what we are doing with this challenge nonsense.

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/top-five/article-1/Point-counterpoint-Is-automatic-replay-review-for-turnovers-a-good-rule-change/44625126-e3a9-4743-ac43-c2da42f1dbdd

Point, counterpoint: Is automatic replay review for turnovers a good rule change?

Posted Mar 29, 2012

BY: Staff Writer Mike Spofford.

"Turnovers. They’re too important not to make sure the calls are right." Mike Spofford