Proposed new rules

[MadScientist]

http://blogs.greenbaypressgazette.co...nge-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/

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.