7 new NFL rules approved for 2016 (1 Viewer)

[Ron_Mexico]

A Buffalo proposal to make ALL PLAYS REVIEWABLE has not been ratified yet.

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/nfl-decides-implement-longer-extra-points-permanently

Here are RULES changes that passed on Tuesday:

1. Confirmation that the league had decided to permanently move the line of scrimmage for extra-point attempts to the 15-yard line

2. By Competition Committee; Permits the offensive and defensive play callers on the coaching staffs to use the coach-to-player communication system regardless of whether they are on the field or in the coaches’ booth.

3. By Competition Committee; Makes all chop blocks illegal.

4.. By Competition Committee; Expands the horse collar rule to include when a defender grabs the jersey at the name plate or above and pulls a runner toward the ground.

5. By Competition Committee; Makes it a foul for delay of game when a team attempts to call a timeout when it is not permitted to do so.

6. By Competition Committee; Eliminates the five-yard penalty for an eligible receiver illegally touching a forward pass after being out of bounds and re-establishing himself inbounds, and makes it a loss of down.

7. By Competition Committee; Eliminates multiple spots of enforcement for a double foul after a change of possession.

,

.

 

[stbugs]

I know it was supported by my team, but I hope they expand the intentional grounding to include throws that were clearly made as the QB is getting sacked and are intentionally not thrown to make a completion. Up to the ref, but you see it a lot where it is thrown "in the direction" of someone but they can't call it because as the QB is falling he isn't going to make a "good" pass. IMHO, if you are throwing the ball with an intention of not completing it (throwing it away) while the defender is tackling you, it should be intentional grounding. I am even OK if they just call it in the grasp and rule it a sack without the penalty. They've already made a mockery of some sacks that have now become personal fouls because the QB gets hit hard, so it would be nice not to be ridiculous in the call for protecting QBs. It isn't like the hit doesn't happen, so it isn't helping the QB stay safer.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

5. By Competition Committee; Makes it a foul for delay of game when a team attempts to call a timeout when it is not permitted to do so.
 

No chance this decides an important game this season, right? [/webber]

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

5. By competition Committee; Makes it a foul for delay of game when a team attempts to call a timeout when it is not permitted to do so.
 

I thought this was already a rule? If it was't, then what did Joe Gibbs 2.0  get flagged for when he tried to call back to back.....oh...never mind. So back to back time outs is a penalty, but not calling one when you don't have one?

I think Id rather the refs be competent and simply ignore or dismissal request if none remain. Penalizes teams for being morons and more importantly, doesn't stop the game for 83,475,893,475,843 time. 

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Did they pass the Peyton rule where the QB can't give himself up, get up, and throw a pass?

 

[Ghost Rider]

i wish they would change it to where defensive holding is not an automatic 1st down. I see way too many drives extended by tacky tack judgment calls by officials, and often times when an offense is in 2nd or 3rd and long, and the iffy call bails them out. 

 

[Borden]

I thought this was already a rule? If it was't, then what did Joe Gibbs 2.0  get flagged for when he tried to call back to back.....oh...never mind. So back to back time outs is a penalty, but not calling one when you don't have one?

I think Id rather the refs be competent and simply ignore or dismissal request if none remain. Penalizes teams for being morons and more importantly, doesn't stop the game for 83,475,893,475,843 time. 

Maybe they changed the punishment for it? I thought it was already a rule too. Delay of game. 

 

[GregR]

I thought this was already a rule? If it was't, then what did Joe Gibbs 2.0  get flagged for when he tried to call back to back.....oh...never mind. So back to back time outs is a penalty, but not calling one when you don't have one?

I think Id rather the refs be competent and simply ignore or dismissal request if none remain. Penalizes teams for being morons and more importantly, doesn't stop the game for 83,475,893,475,843 time. 

I believe doing it to freeze a kicker was a penalty.   But taking 2 timeouts in the same dead ball period, or trying to call a timeout when you're out, was otherwise just "prohibited" without penalties, the ref supposed to ignore it. 

 

[ghostguy123]

I say just get rid of intentional grounding all together. 

I have seen too many times where it is called when it should not be, such as when a QB makes a throw as he is getting hit and the ball ends up no where close to a WR, or when a QB makes a throw thinking the receiver is going one way but he really goes the other way, and there just HAPPENS to be a rusher very close to the QB so they call grounding.

On the flip side, there are many times where it SHOULD be called and isn't.

Just get rid of it.  Qb is throwing the ball away, loss of down.  If anything (and the league should love this) it would help QBs stay healthy since they can just chuck the ball away rather than try to extend the play to avoid the grounding penalty.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

i wish they would change it to where defensive holding is not an automatic 1st down. I see way too many drives extended by tacky tack judgment calls by officials, and often times when an offense is in 2nd or 3rd and long, and the iffy call bails them out. 

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Casting Couch]

2 more rules today. (one year trial)

1. Automatic ejection for 2 personal foul penalties.

2. 25 yard line for kickoff touchbacks.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000646837/article/nfl-passes-automatic-ejection-rule-for-2016-season

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I know it was supported by my team, but I hope they expand the intentional grounding to include throws that were clearly made as the QB is getting sacked and are intentionally not thrown to make a completion. Up to the ref, but you see it a lot where it is thrown "in the direction" of someone but they can't call it because as the QB is falling he isn't going to make a "good" pass. IMHO, if you are throwing the ball with an intention of not completing it (throwing it away) while the defender is tackling you, it should be intentional grounding. I am even OK if they just call it in the grasp and rule it a sack without the penalty. They've already made a mockery of some sacks that have now become personal fouls because the QB gets hit hard, so it would be nice not to be ridiculous in the call for protecting QBs. It isn't like the hit doesn't happen, so it isn't helping the QB stay safer.

And can we get an official ruling on throwing the ball out of the back of the endzone?  QBs launch the ball into the 20th row from the pocket all the time, and then one out of every 20 they randomly throw an intentional grounding flag.  Either start calling it the same as if you threw it to an area of the field where there are no players or don't, this arbitrary "however the ref feels that day" stuff is nonsense.

 

[stbugs]

I say just get rid of intentional grounding all together. 

I have seen too many times where it is called when it should not be, such as when a QB makes a throw as he is getting hit and the ball ends up no where close to a WR, or when a QB makes a throw thinking the receiver is going one way but he really goes the other way, and there just HAPPENS to be a rusher very close to the QB so they call grounding.

On the flip side, there are many times where it SHOULD be called and isn't.

Just get rid of it.  Qb is throwing the ball away, loss of down.  If anything (and the league should love this) it would help QBs stay healthy since they can just chuck the ball away rather than try to extend the play to avoid the grounding penalty.

That's terrible and would take away so many sacks and with the new protect the QB likely get more personal fouls called on QB hits.

I'll be honest, I have seen the flip side often, but I'd love to see the too many times intentional grounding is called. According to this link (only one I could find), in 2013 there were 41 total intentional grounding penalties called all year. I'd be surprised if any more than a low percent were bad calls. That said, with the new protect the QB ruling I have seen multiple times just watching Carolina where QBs as they are getting hit make bad throws and the refs will not call it because they can't know for sure if they intended that or it was from the hit. I think your "too many times where it is called when it should not be" is anecdotal and not correct. How many times can a QB actually complete a pass when they are going to the ground when getting hit? They are 99% of the time trying to avoid a sack and not trying to complete a pass.

Note that there is a difference when they are throwing a pass and get hit and the ball veers off course. That isn't going to the ground. I have never seen a ref call grounding on that. I have seen multiple occurrences where a QB throws the ball into the ground no where near a receiver (but in a direction) as they were inches off the ground being tackled and no flag was thrown.

 

[dutch]

2 more rules today. (one year trial)

1. Automatic ejection for 2 personal foul penalties.

2. 25 yard line for kickoff touchbacks.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000646837/article/nfl-passes-automatic-ejection-rule-for-2016-season

1. Don't like this one unless there is a defined list of  penalties that don't include those ticky-tack hands to helmet of the qb and running into the returner type penalties.

2. I'll watch this one as I think it has potential.  Perhaps teams will try to kick high and short to allow for a return while also allowing coverage to get down the field to make the tackle short of the 25.  Would still have occasional return td's but makes the kickoff perhaps more strategic.  We'll see.

 

[Godsbrother]

2 more rules today. (one year trial)

1. Automatic ejection for 2 personal foul penalties.

2. 25 yard line for kickoff touchbacks.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000646837/article/nfl-passes-automatic-ejection-rule-for-2016-season

I don't necessarily have a problem with it but #1 could have a huge impact on the game.  It will be interesting how much, if any, defensive players change their game after receiving their first personal foul.

I am fine with #2 but I think it might have the opposite effect it is intended for.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I don't necessarily have a problem with it but #1 could have a huge impact on the game.  It will be interesting how much, if any, defensive players change their game after receiving their first personal foul.

I am fine with #2 but I think it might have the opposite effect it is intended for.

Yes, teams will now be more inclined to pooch kick I think.

 

[MattFancy]

i wish they would change it to where defensive holding is not an automatic 1st down. I see way too many drives extended by tacky tack judgment calls by officials, and often times when an offense is in 2nd or 3rd and long, and the iffy call bails them out. 

Same thing with pass interference. I think it should be a 15-yd penalty if anything. Having it become a spot foul changes way too much of the game.

 

[Cjw_55106]

Same thing with pass interference. I think it should be a 15-yd penalty if anything. Having it become a spot foul changes way too much of the game.

It should change the game if its the right call. In theory, the receiver makes the catch without the interference and gets huge play. 

 

[MattFancy]

It should change the game if its the right call. In theory, the receiver makes the catch without the interference and gets huge play. 

True. But often times, it's a call that could go either way.

 

[Casting Couch]

The new ejection rule for 2 personal foul penalties is akin to the soccer version of 2 Yellow Cards equals an ejection.

It's been working in soccer for over a century, I love this rule for the NFL.

 

[crowe1130]

I know it was supported by my team, but I hope they expand the intentional grounding to include throws that were clearly made as the QB is getting sacked and are intentionally not thrown to make a completion. Up to the ref, but you see it a lot where it is thrown "in the direction" of someone but they can't call it because as the QB is falling he isn't going to make a "good" pass. IMHO, if you are throwing the ball with an intention of not completing it (throwing it away) while the defender is tackling you, it should be intentional grounding. I am even OK if they just call it in the grasp and rule it a sack without the penalty. They've already made a mockery of some sacks that have now become personal fouls because the QB gets hit hard, so it would be nice not to be ridiculous in the call for protecting QBs. It isn't like the hit doesn't happen, so it isn't helping the QB stay safer.

Agree 100%.  I hate seeing QBs get away with almost spiking it into the ground if there happens to be an eligible receiver in the general direction.

I also really dislike that QBs can throw it away when out of the pocket with no consequence.  Let them avoid the hit and dump it, but the ball should be placed where they throw it from.

 

[menobrown]

3. By Competition Committee; Makes all chop blocks illegal.
 

I don't think fans realize yet how much they are going to come to despise this rule.  We just got another highly impactful judgment call added to the game. 

 

[stbugs]

Agree 100%.  I hate seeing QBs get away with almost spiking it into the ground if there happens to be an eligible receiver in the general direction.

I also really dislike that QBs can throw it away when out of the pocket with no consequence.  Let them avoid the hit and dump it, but the ball should be placed where they throw it from.

I think it was not approved, so no change, but that is exactly what I hate. Sometimes they are literally an inch above the ground and it's not called because it's a judgement call that maybe the tackle is causing the bad throw. To everyone watching it is clear that they are dumping it with no intention of trying to complete the pass and there is no sack. I don't recall if they did away with the in the grasp rule, but most of the ones I saw would seem to be covered in that where you would see sacks called. I don't recall seeing that anymore.

 

[Ron_Mexico]

The new ejection rule for 2 personal foul penalties is akin to the soccer version of 2 Yellow Cards equals an ejection.

It's been working in soccer for over a century, I love this rule for the NFL.

100 % agreement

 

[Arodin]

The new ejection rule for 2 personal foul penalties is akin to the soccer version of 2 Yellow Cards equals an ejection.

It's been working in soccer for over a century, I love this rule for the NFL.

Soccer has a sensible distinction between "free kick" and "yellow card plus free kick" which the NFL needed to implement with this rule.  Lots of things in the NFL are "personal fouls" which not only are not vicious, injurious or outside the normal action, some are actually unavoidable.  A tacklers arm bumping the helmet of a reciever who is ducking down into the tackle for instance...

 

[ghostguy123]

So when a d-lineman ever so slightly grazes a QBs helmet for the second time he will be ejected?  

 

[GregR]

I was worried about the 2 foul ejection thing as some versions of it that were being discussed had things like hits on a QB included.  If it's limited to what the link in the article said, sounds good.

Agree that the touchback rule might not go how they expect.  I think teams who were willing to kick away and get a touchback might consider kicking it higher and trying to drop it on on the 1 or 2 if possible.

 

[GregR]

So when a d-lineman ever so slightly grazes a QBs helmet for the second time he will be ejected?  

No.

Section 4 Automatic Disqualification. Article 1. Multiple Fouls.

In addition to any penalty referenced elsewhere in the Official Playing Rules, a player will be automatically disqualified in the event that player is penalized twice in the same game for committing one of the unsportsmanlike conduct fouls listed below, or a combination of the fouls listed below:

1. Throwing a punch, or a forearm, or kicking at an opponent, even though no contact is made.

2. Using abusive, threatening, or insulting language or gestures to opponents, teammates, officials, or representatives of the League.

3. Using baiting or taunting acts or words that engender ill will between teams.

The player will be automatically disqualified regardless of whether the penalty is accepted or declined by the opponent. The fouls do not have to be judged by the official to be flagrant for the automatic disqualification to occur, and any foul that occurs during the pregame warm-up period will carry over into the game. Nothing in this section supersedes the Game Official's discretion to judge a foul to be flagrant and disqualify the player based on one occurrence. The addition of a new Section 4 will cause the current Section 4 to become Section 5.

 

[ghostguy123]

ok then nice on the ejection thing. 

 

[Anarchy99]

Not sure if it was posted yet, but I believe they changed the IR Designated to Return rules. If I read it properly, teams will put all players on IR and then will be able to take one off of IR. They no longer have to pick the player before hand as the designee. 

 

[Fariq]

ok then nice on the ejection thing. 

I am sure it will happen occasionally like maybe three times a season. Rarely does a player get flagged twice in a game for unsportsmanlike conduct. Now the chances of it happening have decreased. Players will now be more careful after getting the first penalty.

 

[Borden]

I am sure it will happen occasionally like maybe three times a season. Rarely does a player get flagged twice in a game for unsportsmanlike conduct. Now the chances of it happening have decreased. Players will now be more careful after getting the first penalty.

Basically just no more OBJ/Norman situations. 

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

 Yes, now will get all kinds of antagonizing on a guy who gets his first personal foul . 

 It's a ridiculous rule. Refs have the authority to kick players out at any time and should use it when warranted. 

 

[Hankmoody]

 Yes, now will get all kinds of antagonizing on a guy who gets his first personal foul . 

 It's a ridiculous rule. Refs have the authority to kick players out at any time and should use it when warranted. 

Which will have no effect, since it's only for two Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls, which are entirely different.  And anagonizing them could land them their own Unsportsmanlike Conduct foul.  This is a way overblown non-issue.

 

[Bri]

i wish they would change it to where defensive holding is not an automatic 1st down. I see way too many drives extended by tacky tack judgment calls by officials, and often times when an offense is in 2nd or 3rd and long, and the iffy call bails them out. 

Wasn't this once five yards or 15 yards? 

 

[Bri]

No.

Didn't quote right...

I thought the wording was interesting. There were a number of writers whom thought the NFL should just copy the NBA and call some fouls flagrant. It seems like there was a similar sentiment in the owners, coaches, and competition committee. That last paragraph using the words foul and flagrant even.

But that last paragraph- Did they botch that? 

The fouls do not have to be judged by the official to be flagrant for the automatic disqualification to occur, and any foul that occurs during the pregame warm-up period will carry over into the game. Nothing in this section supersedes the Game Official's discretion to judge a foul to be flagrant and disqualify the player based on one occurrence.

Are those sentences hypocritical or counter-productive?

 

[Bri]

i wish they would change it to where defensive holding is not an automatic 1st down. I see way too many drives extended by tacky tack judgment calls by officials, and often times when an offense is in 2nd or 3rd and long, and the iffy call bails them out. 

Sorry to quote a second time. I agree. I hate an interior DL at the LOS, being pass blocked, called for this. If anything he hurts himself and his team by not being anywhere near the QB or having his hands free to raise them and swat at the ball. Another that irks me is a CB trying to press, holds, his hands get swatted down as the WR bursts past him gaining huge separation. If a QB can't hit a wide open WR, just leave it alone. The CB should have "paid" for the holding by watching the WR get six. That QB doesn't deserve a first down or rewarded second chance. 

If a DE grabs a T and chucks them aside, OK then it's reasonable.

 

[GregR]

Didn't quote right...

I thought the wording was interesting. There were a number of writers whom thought the NFL should just copy the NBA and call some fouls flagrant. It seems like there was a similar sentiment in the owners, coaches, and competition committee. That last paragraph using the words foul and flagrant even.

But that last paragraph- Did they botch that? 

The fouls do not have to be judged by the official to be flagrant for the automatic disqualification to occur, and any foul that occurs during the pregame warm-up period will carry over into the game. Nothing in this section supersedes the Game Official's discretion to judge a foul to be flagrant and disqualify the player based on one occurrence.

Are those sentences hypocritical or counter-productive?

I interpreted it as saying, if you get 2 of that short list of fouls you're ejected, flagrant or not.  But this doesn't change that a single heinous or flagrant enough act can still get you ejected same as before.

So throw a bit of a weak punch that isn't flagrant, and taunt someone, and you're gone despite them not being flagrant. Or swing your helmet at someone flagrantly and you're gone even if it's the first occurrence same as you would have been in the past.

 

[Porkchop Express]

Hate this passive aggressive BS on the kickoff rules. If they want to get rid of it then just get rid of it, stop with just trying to make it as hard as possible while still allowing it.

 

[SWC]

yet again the nfl disapoints the old swcer by not explicitly allowing plays that involve handing the ball to a little guy like maybe four feet tall and then having a guy pick him up and throw him forward for a touchdown over the pile and also no rule that allows using decoy players and footballs no fun league is right take that to the bank brochachos 

 

[Borden]

Hate this passive aggressive BS on the kickoff rules. If they want to get rid of it then just get rid of it, stop with just trying to make it as hard as possible while still allowing it.

I thought this at first too but then there wouldn't be a chance for onside kicks.

 

[Johnnymac]

I wish the NFL would quit making rules.  Every time they do the game gets worse.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Which will have no effect, since it's only for two Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls, which are entirely different.  And anagonizing them could land them their own Unsportsmanlike Conduct foul.  This is a way overblown non-issue.

You knew I meant unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. Since we are playing stupid, please correct your spelling so I can understand what the hell it is you're talking about.

 

[Hankmoody]

You knew I meant unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. Since we are playing stupid, please correct your spelling so I can understand what the hell it is you're talking about.

So I'm supposed to know what you're talking about when you get the entire basis of the rule change wrong, but you can't figure out a basic (and very obvious) typo.  Makes sense.

And no, I didn't know what you were talking about.  Many people don't know the correct change yet, including one prominent big-mouth NFL player.  If you mean Unsportsmanlike Conduct, you should say Unsportsmanlike Conduct.  They are entirely different fouls, and UC is much less frequently called.  There were 105 Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls in the 2015 season, as opposed to 514 Personal Fouls, so getting that wrong makes a very big difference.

They are also very different fouls by nature.  Many Personal Fouls are "speed of the game" type fouls.  Helmet-to-helmet, Roughing the Passer, etc.  Making those ejection-eligible fouls would significantly change how players (mostly defenders) have to play the game.  Unsportsmanlike Conduct, by contrast, is largely behavioral by nature.  A player actively chooses to taunt, or throw a punch, or loses control and charges Josh Norman and headbutts him like a tiny rhino.  Those have nothing to do with playing the game and most are easily avoidable.

 

[GregR]

To be fair, the original proposal included personal fouls as counting toward an ejection. But they wisely decided that would have been a bad idea and amended it to what got passed.

My first reaction on hearing it passed was similar until I found out they had made that change.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

So I'm supposed to know what you're talking about when you get the entire basis of the rule change wrong, but you can't figure out a basic (and very obvious) typo.  Makes sense.

And no, I didn't know what you were talking about.  Many people don't know the correct change yet, including one prominent big-mouth NFL player.  If you mean Unsportsmanlike Conduct, you should say Unsportsmanlike Conduct.  They are entirely different fouls, and UC is much less frequently called.  There were 105 Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls in the 2015 season, as opposed to 514 Personal Fouls, so getting that wrong makes a very big difference.

They are also very different fouls by nature.  Many Personal Fouls are "speed of the game" type fouls.  Helmet-to-helmet, Roughing the Passer, etc.  Making those ejection-eligible fouls would significantly change how players (mostly defenders) have to play the game.  Unsportsmanlike Conduct, by contrast, is largely behavioral by nature.  A player actively chooses to taunt, or throw a punch, or loses control and charges Josh Norman and headbutts him like a tiny rhino.  Those have nothing to do with playing the game and most are easily avoidable.

What a boob.