Rules changes (anyone agree?)

[Rastak]

Hey, very interesting item at PFT.com.

If true, I think I like both ideas and even Florio's third one he threw in.





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.

[CaliforniaCheez]

As lawyers they may like it.

The limited number of challenges and time limits make the best of it currently. Pass interference penalties already are bad for the game. Now to have lawyerly long debates over them-Ugh!! It will only continue screw up football in favor of receivers more than it is now!!

Let's have a trial over every play! All plays are reviewed and each teams lawyer gets to present evidence on each of the 22 players on the field.

One referee is requested by each team from the league pool and one is appointed by the league and the three judge panel. Two of the three judges(ref) panel rule. Only 2 expert witnesses per game per team.

Does a ball touching a blade of grass constitute contact with the ground??

Bad calls while minimized will always exist. Referees require common sense not lawyers arguing the interpretations of words.
It is the lack of common sense and game delays that got instant replay thrown out for a number of years.

Imagine a three hour debate by lawyers cut off due to time contraints on ESPN over the interpretation of "incidental contact", what constitutes it, and where to draw the line.

[gbpackfan]

MORE RULES! MORE RULES!

Let's slow the game wwaaayyyyyy down. I want them to last for 6 hours!

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

[swede]

Kampmann got rung up for spearing on a routine sack last season.

On review it would have been pretty easy to see that error.

I think the entire review process should happen in a booth above the field within a set time limit. If an official can't overturn it after three peeks at different angles within 60 seconds the play stands. The guys on the field can stay in position ready to re-start the game without delay once a decision is made.

[Rastak]

MORE RULES! MORE RULES!

Let's slow the game wwaaayyyyyy down. I want them to last for 6 hours!

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


If there are no increased number of challenges, how does splitting pass interference and sacks into major and minor penalties extend the game?

[MJZiggy]

I think if it makes things more accurate and fair, I'm for it.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I've been telling a co-worker for years that I think the NFL should have two penalties for pass interference. I should be on the rules committee. I think that's a great idea, and I hope it gets passed. I don't think a new rule needs to be out there for roughing the passer. Players have to know now that QBs will be protected. I also don't like the idea of having every officials call for review. Do we then start reviewing plays where a ref didn't call a penalty, but a team thinks there should have been won. There will be bad calls. I don't think we can go overboard on it.

[BallHawk]

I've been telling a co-worker for years that I think the NFL should have two penalties for pass interference. I should be on the rules committee. I think that's a great idea, and I hope it gets passed. I don't think a new rule needs to be out there for roughing the passer. Players have to know now that QBs will be protected. I also don't like the idea of having every officials call for review. Do we then start reviewing plays where a ref didn't call a penalty, but a team thinks there should have been won. There will be bad calls. I don't think we can go overboard on it.

Well said.

[Rastak]

I've been telling a co-worker for years that I think the NFL should have two penalties for pass interference. I should be on the rules committee. I think that's a great idea, and I hope it gets passed. I don't think a new rule needs to be out there for roughing the passer. Players have to know now that QBs will be protected. I also don't like the idea of having every officials call for review. Do we then start reviewing plays where a ref didn't call a penalty, but a team thinks there should have been won. There will be bad calls. I don't think we can go overboard on it.

I think the rule as explained was any penalty can be reviewed. I don't think reviewing a non call was proposed. I do understand your point on roughing the passer. I would really like to see pass interference be both split to major and minor as well be reviewable. Don't increase the number of red flags that can be thrown but DO allow teams to get bad calls possibly overturned.


These are absolute game turning calls.

[GBRulz]

I agree with the rule. I would also like to see the "down by contact" rule to be reviewable.

[Rastak]

I agree with the rule. I would also like to see the "down by contact" rule to be reviewable.


That ones a bit harder since when the whistle blows, players are tought to stop.....actually, isn't it already reviewable in some situations?

[Lurker64]

I like the reviewing of penalties, I can't see it being used very often, but there are situations where the ref calls a penalty (right or wrong) which ends up potentially changing the outcome of the game. So long as we don't give people more opportunities to challenge, it can't be a bad idea.

The two varieties of pass interference concept is interesting. Though does the way the rule is written encourage people to, if you're going to interfere less than 15 yards downfield, make darn sure you interfere really hard. I don't know why minor pass interference should be a 15 yard penalty and not say a 10 or a 5 yard one. Possibly where they're actually discussing this there will be video of examples and it will all be clear. My personal opinion is that pass interference is already called too often, and we should probably not give Ref's more encouragement to call it.

The two varieties of roughing the passer is potentially interesting. What I don't want to see is a "running into the QB" penalty, since there's a lot of situations where the defender ends up running into the QB after the ball is thrown and there shouldn't be a penalty. So again, I'd really like to see examples of what would be severe roughing the passer and what would be minor roughing the passer. So long as the penalty doesn't end up being called more as a result of the rules change, I wouldn't mind the splitting it into tiers at all.

But part of me is afraid that if we create a category for a minor version of a current penalty, refs will call things that previously they allowed as "minor penalties" since the effect on the game is, in principle, less. I really don't want to see that. I really don't want to see a "minor offensive holding" penalty that ends up being called on nearly every offensive play.

[Guiness]

Well put Lurker; I can see how that could happen. Ref sees some contact between a CB and WR, isn't sure if it's incidental or not, so just throws a 'minor pass interference' penalty at it.

Then it's challenged, so now it has to be decided if it's too minor to be a minor penalty.

Nope. Liked the idea at first but you've convinced me otherwise.

[Merlin]

I think they need to enforce the rules they have already before they go making anymore. EVERY play and EVERY call should be able to be reviewed. Face it, there is blatant holding on every down but the officials only call it when it matters to the team that is down. Pass interference? Give me a break. They only enforce that ONE WAY. The WRs get away with murder out there and it's never called and even on the rare occasion it is it's what? a 10 yard penalty? So let's create a rule that gives the offense at least a 15 yard gain then only give the defense 10 yards the other way. Oh well they aren't going to call it right anyway so WHY NOT?

[Merlin]

I think they need to enforce the rules they have already before they go making anymore. EVERY play and EVERY call should be able to be reviewed. Face it, there is blatant holding on every down but the officials only call it when it matters to the team that is down. Pass interference? Give me a break. They only enforce that ONE WAY. The WRs get away with murder out there and it's never called and even on the rare occasion it is it's what? a 10 yard penalty? So let's create a rule that gives the offense at least a 15 yard gain then only give the defense 10 yards the other way. Oh well they aren't going to call it right anyway so WHY NOT?

[swede]

Upon further review, Merlin's first post was identical to the ensuing post, therefore, double post penalty against Merlin stands.

[StPaulPackFan]

The penalty that I have the biggest problem with is the illegal contact penalty beyond 5 yards. I don't have a problem with the 5 yard penalty itself, but what I do have a problem with is the resultant automatic first down. This penalty should be broken into two different categories. When the contact is not a blatent hold, a 5 yard "non-automatic first down" penalty should be assessed. When the contact is blatent the result should be a spot penalty with an automatic first down.

It drives me bonkers when a team has a 3rd and loooong and is given a free first down because there was a minor bump to the receiver. However, I have no problem with giving the offense a first down if the receiver is mugged.

That being said, all penalties against the bears defense should result in first downs for the opposing offense... :lol:

[the_idle_threat]

That being said, all penalties against the bears defense should result in first downs for the opposing offense...

The official should walk out on the field before each opening kickoff and assess a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty just because they are the Bears.

[wist43]

Hate both ideas...

If an official deems interference severe enough to throw the flag in the first place, it has to be a spot foul... that officials throw the hanky for the most minor of contact should be addressed in training and review of officials.

There are bad officials - always have been, always will be... you can't bog the game down in bureaucracy in an effort to make "things perfect".

In this case, the cure would surely be worse than the disease.

[Rastak]

Hate both ideas...

If an official deems interference severe enough to throw the flag in the first place, it has to be a spot foul... that officials throw the hanky for the most minor of contact should be addressed in training and review of officials.

There are bad officials - always have been, always will be... you can't bog the game down in bureaucracy in an effort to make "things perfect".

In this case, the cure would surely be worse than the disease.


I take it you were against the roughing the kicker plit when that passed also?

I thought it was an excellent idea.

[Merlin]

Upon further review, Merlin's first post was identical to the ensuing post, therefore, double post penalty against Merlin stands.

I don't know what happened. The friggin thing gaked then it came up as two posts. What is it like -75 yards and a safety with the opposing team getting the ball on my 1 yard line?