NFL rules that need to change. (1 Viewer)

[msudaisy26]

I think the taking off your helmet penalty has to go, I would even compromise and say that it shouldn't be flagged on game winning plays at the end of regulation or in overtime. 

 

[GROOT]

The 10 second run off rule in some circumstances seems cheap

 

[QuizGuy66]

I've never liked that coaches cannot challenge in the last 2 minutes of the half.  It is the most critical time and coaches have a right taken away?

-QG

 

[zed2283]

I posted a long list a while ago and it didn't go over well, for some reason.  I couldn't find the list, but here are some that come to mind:

1. PI rules are fine, they just need to call them better.

2. No automatic first down for defensive holding.  I'm so sick of seeing 3rd and 15 and 3rd and 20 plays result a first down on a defensive holding call.

3. Get rid of the neutral zone infraction penalty.  This drives me nuts.  Go back to "old school" (actually not all that long ago) football where offensive linemen had to act like men and not flinch.

4. Let the play run when the defense has 12 men on the field.  Whatever happened to the free play?  Stupid change that they made.

5. Go back to old school (i.e. common sense) catch rules.  Possession and two feet.  Period.  Let the official make a judgement call and leave it at that.  Everyone can see what a catch is.  This is one of the ridiculous things the NFL does year after year.  In their attempts to take controversy away from the officials they write complicated rules to make things "black and white" and all they end up with is more controversy.  And on top of it, they can never admit their mistake.

6. Eliminate the stupid 10 second runoffs and winding the clock after penalties.  This also drives me nuts.  So the clock stopped because the team committed a penalty.  So what?  They got penalized the yards just like any other point in the game.  Any rule that is applied differently to different teams, and at different points in the game, is a stupid rule.

 

[Billy Bats]

For those discussing the fumble through the end zone; while I agree it might not seem too fair if the D doesn’t recover, if you look at a punt or kickoff that goes through the end zone it’s the same thing. Play is dead and it’s change of possession. Hard to change the fumble and let the offense keep possession while the other two situations remain the same. 

 

[snogger]

Those of you wanting to change the catch rule... how would you define a catch?

i get that the current rule takes away from big plays in big moments. I get that it overturns what looks like clear catches to the naked eye. But, we have to define it somehow. So, how would you do it?

Catch and two feet down equals catch... 2 feet down, contact and then ground causes a fumble, leaves the "Must make a football move" as a vague Opinion.
Going back a few years, Dez's catch against the Packers, IMO, was a Catch.
He had 2 feet down and was arguably "moving" forward making a "Football Move" before going down.

 

[rschroeder1]

Add tenths of a second to a clock to prevent the travesty that took place in New England Saturday night.

No more automatic first downs for defensive holding/illegal contact.

Enforce offensive pass interference just like defensive pass interference is called.

Save official-started instant replays for the "we really don't know," not "let's check everything."  If it's obvious on video, don't check it.

Make indisputable video evidence mean something again (I sound like Trump!).

 

[Gally]

I've never liked that coaches cannot challenge in the last 2 minutes of the half.  It is the most critical time and coaches have a right taken away?

-QG

They do this so teams can't throw the flag and stop the time if a team is driving or stop the clock.  Having it come from the booth eliminates the coaches manipulating the review for time savings.

I also don't know why they limit the challenges at a number.  You get penalized by losing a timeout if you are wrong on a challenge so you should be able to challenge as long as you have timeouts.  You can challenge 30 plays a game if you have a timeout to lose when you challenge.  Why do you get a maximum of three even if you have timeout left?

 

[Gally]

Fumble "through" the end zone should not be a turnover. A fumble OOB anywhere else on the field remains with the offense. The defense should actually have to, you know, recover the damn ball, for their team to automatically receive the ball. Offense should keep the ball at the point of the fumble.

Why not?  The endzone is a more important part of the field than anywhere else.  If you don't want to lose possession don't fumble it into the endzone.  It is a harsh penalty to lose the ball but so what?.  It should be harsh. 

 

[QuizGuy66]

They do this so teams can't throw the flag and stop the time if a team is driving or stop the clock.  Having it come from the booth eliminates the coaches manipulating the review for time savings.

I also don't know why they limit the challenges at a number.  You get penalized by losing a timeout if you are wrong on a challenge so you should be able to challenge as long as you have timeouts.  You can challenge 30 plays a game if you have a timeout to lose when you challenge.  Why do you get a maximum of three even if you have timeout left?

But losing a challenge costs a time out so what would the difference be?

-QG

 

[Gally]

But losing a challenge costs a time out so what would the difference be?

-QG

If you get it right you keep your time out.  You can challenge 30 times and get them right every time if it was based strictly on the time outs you have left.  However, now you can only challenge twice (and get a third one if you get one right).  After that you cannot challenge again even if you have timeouts. 

 

[stratocatter]

I've always said, if a team is within their 10 or whatever and gets a half-the-distance penalty to back them up, then the same amount of yardage should be added forward to get the first down. So, for example, a five yard penalty when the offense is on the 1 yard line backs them up 18 inches, but, instead of needing 10.5 yards for a first down, it should now be 14.5. 

That might take care of the fairness thing.

I was watching a game where two penalties were committed one by each team (same series). False start and encroachment. False start cost the team 1 yard. Encroachment cost the team 5. Basically the same infraction, but not the same penalty. Unfair. 

Ball is on 5 heading away from the endzone. If false start is 2.5 yards, encroachment should be 2.5 yards. 

 

[QuizGuy66]

But losing a challenge costs a time out so what would the difference be?

-QG

But my main point is about time savings.  A timeout would do the same thing as "manipulating the clock to stop a drive".  There have been cases where teams took a time out to give more time for the 3rd official to look and then the booth review takes place.

Again I see zero reason that a coach should have his right to institute a challenge taken away.  

-QG

 

[RushHour]

Those of you wanting to change the catch rule... how would you define a catch?

i get that the current rule takes away from big plays in big moments. I get that it overturns what looks like clear catches to the naked eye. But, we have to define it somehow. So, how would you do it?

I'm not sure how I would "define" in a published rules sense (I'd have to give it some thought), but they need to re-introduce some common-sense into it - they way it works now does not align with people's basic understanding of what it is to "catch" a ball. All this super technical stuff about the ball not being able to move a fraction of a centimeter or a player having to have complete control of the ball throughout the entire motion of the catch or whatever is complete nonsense and actually does the game a disservice IMO. It doesn't need to be so technical. 

The important question for me is whether the player possesses the ball for a sufficient amount of time to say he "controlled" it. Nothing else really matters as long as the ball ends up in the player's grasp (unless the ground is "used" to gain control of the ball - i.e. where the player would drop or lose control of the ball if the ground wasn't there, that's not a catch). I don't know why control has to be maintained the whole way through the action or the ball can't move. A slight bobble or movement of the ball on a slow motion replay should be irrelevant - to me those things don't demonstrate that the player "lost control" or didn't catch the ball, again on a normal, non-technical understanding of what a catch is. 

Now I'm having a hard time articulating in writing something which I regard as very simple so maybe that speaks to the problem that we have. I just think that the NFL has brought too much technicality to this and not for any good reason as far as I can tell. 

 

[Casting Couch]

Add tenths of a second to a clock to prevent the travesty that took place in New England Saturday night.

Huh ?

Watch it again, he called timeout before the clock hit zero.

 

[rschroeder1]

Huh ?

Watch it again, he called timeout before the clock hit zero.

I've watched it; he definitely calls timeout before the clock hits zero because the clock stopped on one before the whistle sounded.  Just my humble hot take

 

[DropKick]

I've never liked that coaches cannot challenge in the last 2 minutes of the half.  It is the most critical time and coaches have a right taken away?

-QG

Two ways to look at that.  The review is automatic under two minutes so less need for a coach to "save" the challenge for late in the game.

 

[pinequick]

Not BS at all.  Once the ball crosses the goal line the play is over.  Otherwise you're going to open another can of worms with having control of the ball.  If you don't like the catch rules there's no way you could be in favor of this idea because it would have the same negative affects.

If you are a runner, yes.  If you are a receiver, not so much.

 

[pinequick]

I posted a long list a while ago and it didn't go over well, for some reason.  I couldn't find the list, but here are some that come to mind:

1. PI rules are fine, they just need to call them better.

2. No automatic first down for defensive holding.  I'm so sick of seeing 3rd and 15 and 3rd and 20 plays result a first down on a defensive holding call.

3. Get rid of the neutral zone infraction penalty.  This drives me nuts.  Go back to "old school" (actually not all that long ago) football where offensive linemen had to act like men and not flinch.

4. Let the play run when the defense has 12 men on the field.  Whatever happened to the free play?  Stupid change that they made.

5. Go back to old school (i.e. common sense) catch rules.  Possession and two feet.  Period.  Let the official make a judgement call and leave it at that.  Everyone can see what a catch is.  This is one of the ridiculous things the NFL does year after year.  In their attempts to take controversy away from the officials they write complicated rules to make things "black and white" and all they end up with is more controversy.  And on top of it, they can never admit their mistake.

6. Eliminate the stupid 10 second runoffs and winding the clock after penalties.  This also drives me nuts.  So the clock stopped because the team committed a penalty.  So what?  They got penalized the yards just like any other point in the game.  Any rule that is applied differently to different teams, and at different points in the game, is a stupid rule.

Ummmm... no.  Say a team gets the ball at their own 30 with a minute on the clock and no timeouts.  You don't think offensive teams would lineup incorrectly every time they made a first down just to stop the clock?  What do they care about 5 yards in that instance?

 

[CalBear]

Get rid of down "by contact". If you're down, you're down. No more reviews of whether the outside of the defender's pinky finger brushed the edge of the receiver's jersey. (As in college).

And on pass interference: There's an entire league with over 100 teams which doesn't treat PI as a spot foul, and the mythical problem of defenders mauling receivers simply isn't a problem. Spot foul is unnecessary and worse than the alternative.

 

[Hawkeye21]

If you are a runner, yes.  If you are a receiver, not so much.

I agree.  The WR must have possession first.  I don't see it as a big deal other than working on making it easier to determine a catch.

I dislike how a player must survive the ground.  If the player has clear possession of the ball in the air but the ball pops out when he hits the ground how is that different from a RB hitting the ground and losing the ball.  The ground can't cause a fumble for a running but it can for a player trying to catch the ball.  It's such a pain trying to determine it.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Get rid of down "by contact". If you're down, you're down. No more reviews of whether the outside of the defender's pinky finger brushed the edge of the receiver's jersey. (As in college).

And on pass interference: There's an entire league with over 100 teams which doesn't treat PI as a spot foul, and the mythical problem of defenders mauling receivers simply isn't a problem. Spot foul is unnecessary and worse than the alternative.

Do many people have an issue with a player down by contact?  I never thought of it as a big deal.  I don't want a player to be down if he slips but isn't touched.

 

[Bri]

That safety-ish turnover, ball on the twenty, if the runner goes out by the pylon. I think it happened twice this year. 

Somehow BB talked them into reviewing a penalty and a 4th down end zone punting situation became 'oh no, the Titans DL flinched, offsides, Pats ball.' The DL is pointing at the C/long snapper that turned his head as movement. Was Mularkey to challenge the penalty called after review so they could look at the C? A letter from the NFL saying the play shouldn't have been reviewed since penalties aren't reviewed doesn't help with momentum or field position or a thing. The guy in NY has to be able to "take in" this concept. No one wants that letter and it is no consolation. He needs to tell the in-game refs to do whatever he feels necessary to not get that darn letter.

After several calls this season, I'm not opposed to hearing a recess bell and the refs announcing a do-over. It's sad but ya gotta admit that sometimes this is the most fair solution for both teams.

I am not clear on what a catch is if the WR gets smacked out of bounds. When you consider the amount of discussion the announcers have given about catches, I should be a darn expert by now.  I'm absolutely lost as to why there are about 200 sideline catches and the corner is standing next to the WR watching. Lake, Woodson, Harrison, Reed and Lynch have smashed many WRs...what'd we do here with the rules? There are weeks I think the CBs don't touch the WR because they're afraid of PI and other weeks where I think NFL CBs should watch hockey checks and start nailing everyone near the sideline

 

[Short Corner]

I agree.  The WR must have possession first.  I don't see it as a big deal other than working on making it easier to determine a catch.

I dislike how a player must survive the ground.  If the player has clear possession of the ball in the air but the ball pops out when he hits the ground how is that different from a RB hitting the ground and losing the ball.  The ground can't cause a fumble for a running but it can for a player trying to catch the ball.  It's such a pain trying to determine it.

The ground can cause a fumble if the player is not down by contact.

 

[belljr]

I agree.  The WR must have possession first.  I don't see it as a big deal other than working on making it easier to determine a catch.

I dislike how a player must survive the ground.  If the player has clear possession of the ball in the air but the ball pops out when he hits the ground how is that different from a RB hitting the ground and losing the ball.  The ground can't cause a fumble for a running but it can for a player trying to catch the ball.  It's such a pain trying to determine it.

yes it can.

You especially see it a lot when QBs dive instead of slide.   When they dive they will hit the ground ball pops out its a fumble.  As long as they are not touched

 

[Bri]

Huh ?

Watch it again, he called timeout before the clock hit zero.

But that's the problem. It isn't basketball. You don't call timeout during a live play in football. I watched it a few times and the second the guy's hip hits the field, the clock is stopped. There is no way there should be a "friendly" time-keeper for the home team. The NFL can surely find 32 guys to do that and be impartial. You've watched football for many years and probably never seen a clock stopped that accurately. Was the guy standing up, I'm ready I'm ready here we go, press. I got it! Whew, just in time. Now, yes I did say it's accurate but that would also mean I think just about every whistle during the season was not. Guys land, almost bounce sometimes, human reaction to see and press a button- I'm not critical of the thousands of other times. Just make it the same for everyone

 

[Short Corner]

But that's the problem. It isn't basketball. You don't call timeout during a live play in football. I watched it a few times and the second the guy's hip hits the field, the clock is stopped. There is no way there should be a "friendly" time-keeper for the home team. The NFL can surely find 32 guys to do that and be impartial. You've watched football for many years and probably never seen a clock stopped that accurately. Was the guy standing up, I'm ready I'm ready here we go, press. I got it! Whew, just in time. Now, yes I did say it's accurate but that would also mean I think just about every whistle during the season was not. Guys land, almost bounce sometimes, human reaction to see and press a button- I'm not critical of the thousands of other times. Just make it the same for everyone

You can call time out during a live play.

 

[Bri]

You can call time out during a live play.

I could have worded that better. It's not some guy dribbling up the court and play is stopped. It's not some QB calling timeout so the WR stops running with the ball

 

[Hawkeye21]

The ground can cause a fumble if the player is not down by contact.

I forgot about that.  I still dislike the surviving the ground rule.

 

[Steeler]

If a defender jumps off sides due to the QB cadence the play should be stopped immediately and the 5 yard penalty should be enforced.  A. Rodgers comes to mind the most - he gets people to jump off sides and gets a free play to lob it up to Jordy - lame.  Good job on enticing the dline to jump, but the reward should not be a risk-free shot at a big play.

 

[steelers1080]

• Make Pass Interference a challenge-able play - If it's blatantly not PI, or if the offensive/defensive player is equally at fault, it can be overturned. Don't like the 15 yards rule because NFL secondary players are smart enough to do that on every potential long TD.
  
• Change the catch rule. If the player has possession of the ball, it's a catch. They don't need to perform a "football move" or some BS. If it hits their hands, and they've caught it (aka it's not bobbling around) it's a catch. If they catch the ball, go to turn, get hit, and the ball flies out, that's a fumble, not an incomplete pass. The ground still can't cause a fumble unless the player is untouched. If the player is being tackled and the ball comes out after hitting the ground, the player was down. If the player is running, trips, and the ball comes out after they hit the ground, or they dive and it comes out, that's a fumble. Same as if they're running and accidentally drop the ball. A player shouldn't have to run 3 steps for a catch to count, if they have control if it, if it looks like a catch, it's a catch!
  
• Fumble through endzone. If the offense fumbles the ball out of the back of the endzone they get the ball 1st and 10 on the 20 yard line. Still a sucks for them, but isn't catastrophic. 
  
• Holding/block in the back during a touchback or fair catch. The foul didn't improve the yardage, therefore it shouldn't count. 
  
• Extra point. If you score a TD (or rather reach the endzone) from the 15 yard line then you get 3 points. So the max score after a TD would become 9 points. This would be a bit crazy, but would also be awesome. Nobody does fake extra points anymore because you're at a huge disadvantage since it's no longer on the 2 yard line. But a team could be crazy enough to try if it's worth 3. Also, a team down by 9 would still be down by 1 score if they could get a TD, then score on 1 play from the 15 yard line. This idea is a bit out there, but it would make things pretty exciting.
  
• Full-time Refs. So many Refs are terrible. Maybe if they were full-time that would help increase their quality. Also, they should be tested yearly. It feels like sh*tty refs have been around for years, and they could have replaced them with better, younger Refs by then. The testing would also allow the NFL to determine how a ref views a certain play because refs definitely do not call Pass Interference or Holding the same from game to game.
  
• Roughing the Passer. It should apply to more than just Brady. Big QBs almost never get the call (Cam, Flacco, Roethlisberger, Bortles).
  
• Booth Reviews. The Ref/person in NYC has 30 seconds to review the play. If they can't tell within 30 seconds if it was a catch or not, or whatever, then it stands as called on the field. Only obvious mistakes should be overturned and if it takes longer than that, it wasn't obvious. 5 minute reviews are f*cking ridiculous.
  

They really need to change the bolded ones.

 

[zed2283]

Get rid of down "by contact". If you're down, you're down. No more reviews of whether the outside of the defender's pinky finger brushed the edge of the receiver's jersey. (As in college).

And on pass interference: There's an entire league with over 100 teams which doesn't treat PI as a spot foul, and the mythical problem of defenders mauling receivers simply isn't a problem. Spot foul is unnecessary and worse than the alternative.

That's a terrible idea.  This isn't college or high school. 

 

[zed2283]

Ummmm... no.  Say a team gets the ball at their own 30 with a minute on the clock and no timeouts.  You don't think offensive teams would lineup incorrectly every time they made a first down just to stop the clock?  What do they care about 5 yards in that instance?

Lining up incorrectly doesn't stop the clock.

 

[Gally]

I agree.  The WR must have possession first.  I don't see it as a big deal other than working on making it easier to determine a catch.

I dislike how a player must survive the ground.  If the player has clear possession of the ball in the air but the ball pops out when he hits the ground how is that different from a RB hitting the ground and losing the ball.  The ground can't cause a fumble for a running but it can for a player trying to catch the ball.  It's such a pain trying to determine it.

The WR doesn't "catch" the ball until they get both feet inbounds...that is why they have to survive the ground for a catch.  For example, do you think it is a catch if a player is diving for the ball it goes into their hands while they are in the air and then it pops completely loose when they hit the ground?  To me you have to keep control of the ball after hitting the ground in that instance or it's not a catch. 

I do think some of the little movements only perceptible in super slow motion should not be used to say the catch didn't occur.  To me that is different than the ball popping out when the WR hits the ground on a diving effort.

 

[Hawkeye21]

The WR doesn't "catch" the ball until they get both feet inbounds...that is why they have to survive the ground for a catch.  For example, do you think it is a catch if a player is diving for the ball it goes into their hands while they are in the air and then it pops completely loose when they hit the ground?  To me you have to keep control of the ball after hitting the ground in that instance or it's not a catch. 

I do think some of the little movements only perceptible in super slow motion should not be used to say the catch didn't occur.  To me that is different than the ball popping out when the WR hits the ground on a diving effort.

But with the rules the way they are a player can catch the ball, gain control, touch both feet to the ground in bounds, fall to the ground and if the ball pops out once they hit the ground it is incomplete.

If a WR jumped up to catch the ball, had control and then lost the ball when landing on their back I would be OK calling that incomplete.  Same with if they dove like you said.

 

[Gally]

If a defender jumps off sides due to the QB cadence the play should be stopped immediately and the 5 yard penalty should be enforced.  A. Rodgers comes to mind the most - he gets people to jump off sides and gets a free play to lob it up to Jordy - lame.  Good job on enticing the dline to jump, but the reward should not be a risk-free shot at a big play.

Why not?  If the off-side doesn't give the guy an advantage (unabated to the QB) the play should continue just like other penalties.  Do you think the play should be blown dead when the LB holds the TE on a crossing pattern?  What's the difference?

 

[Gally]

But with the rules the way they are a player can catch the ball, gain control, touch both feet to the ground in bounds, fall to the ground and if the ball pops out once they hit the ground it is incomplete.

That is where the problems come in.  Defining that process.  I agree that is an issue.  There are varying degrees of going to the ground and that is where the difficult comes in. 

To me a guy diving for a ball with his toes in bounds should be able to maintain control after hitting the ground for it to be a catch.  If the ball pops out when he hits the ground then no catch.  If he maintains possession even with a slight bobble it should be a catch. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

That is where the problems come in.  Defining that process.  I agree that is an issue.  There are varying degrees of going to the ground and that is where the difficult comes in. 

To me a guy diving for a ball with his toes in bounds should be able to maintain control after hitting the ground for it to be a catch.  If the ball pops out when he hits the ground then no catch.  If he maintains possession even with a slight bobble it should be a catch. 

It sucks that it even has to be debated this much.  Shouldn't have to be so difficult to determine.

 

[Steeler]

Why not?  If the off-side doesn't give the guy an advantage (unabated to the QB) the play should continue just like other penalties.  Do you think the play should be blown dead when the LB holds the TE on a crossing pattern?  What's the difference?

No, only on this particular penalty.  We can agree to disagree, but I think it provides too much of an unfair advantage to the offense just as the play is starting (unlike other penalties that occur during the play).  From the snap the offense has no downside whatsoever and I just think that's too big of a penalty given that a lineman jumped off sides.

 

[CalBear]

It sucks that it even has to be debated this much.  Shouldn't have to be so difficult to determine.

It is difficult to determine and there's no way around that.

It's not that the rule has changed, it's that we can watch it in super slo-mo from five different angles. You can't write a rule that will fit with our intuitive understanding in all circumstances once you apply that level of scrutiny. (See also: block/charge calls in basketball).

 

[belljr]

I know people hate the fumbling out of the endzone rule but it was put in for a reason.  Just like the advancing your own fumble with 5 minutes left.

If there was no "penalty" for fumbling out of the endzone would players "fumble" for their teammate to try to pick it up for a td?

I don't know if you take that away if its any more/less a deterrent.  

“You’re responsible for putting the ball into your opponent’s end zone, you’re responsible for recovering it,” Blandino said. “If you don’t and it goes out of bounds or the defense recovers, they’ve defended their goal line, and they get a touchback.”

 

[Hawkeye21]

I know people hate the fumbling out of the endzone rule but it was put in for a reason.  Just like the advancing your own fumble with 5 minutes left.

If there was no "penalty" for fumbling out of the endzone would players "fumble" for their teammate to try to pick it up for a td?

I don't know if you take that away if its any more/less a deterrent.  

“You’re responsible for putting the ball into your opponent’s end zone, you’re responsible for recovering it,” Blandino said. “If you don’t and it goes out of bounds or the defense recovers, they’ve defended their goal line, and they get a touchback.”

I still don't agree with the fumble out of the endzone rule.  If someone wants to risk fumbling into the endzone on purpose then go right ahead.  What player would risk fumbling on purpose at that part of the field?  At least if that happened the opposing team would have a chance at actually taking possession of the ball and get it at the 20.

If that's the reasoning then why isn't there a punishment for fumbling it out of bounds anywhere else on the field?

 

[Bri]

I know people hate the fumbling out of the endzone rule but it was put in for a reason.  Just like the advancing your own fumble with 5 minutes left.

If there was no "penalty" for fumbling out of the endzone would players "fumble" for their teammate to try to pick it up for a td?

I don't know if you take that away if its any more/less a deterrent.  

“You’re responsible for putting the ball into your opponent’s end zone, you’re responsible for recovering it,” Blandino said. “If you don’t and it goes out of bounds or the defense recovers, they’ve defended their goal line, and they get a touchback.”

but the latter could be the defender/defense did nothing and just the ball slipped out of the guy's hands. Ball back at LOS or even losing five yards to pacify traditionalists...the D shouldn't be awarded the ball and about six points for doing nothing

 

[Gally]

I still don't agree with the fumble out of the endzone rule.  If someone wants to risk fumbling into the endzone on purpose then go right ahead.  What player would risk fumbling on purpose at that part of the field?  At least if that happened the opposing team would have a chance at actually taking possession of the ball and get it at the 20.

If that's the reasoning then why isn't there a punishment for fumbling it out of bounds anywhere else on the field?

Because the endzone is different then the rest of the field.  It is more important.  If you don't want the other team to get the ball by fumbling into the endzone then don't fumble it into the endzone.  The "penalty" should be big.  We disagree on the punishment fitting the crime.  Neither opinion is better or worse.  I think fumbling into and out of the endzone should be punished harshly and giving it to the other team is acceptable to me. 

 

[Gally]

but the latter could be the defender/defense did nothing and just the ball slipped out of the guy's hands. Ball back at LOS or even losing five yards to pacify traditionalists...the D shouldn't be awarded the ball and about six points for doing nothing

Why not?  It is on the offense to not fumble the ball into the endzone.  The penalty for doing so is harsh but in my opinion it should be.  If you don't want the penalty don't fumble the ball into the endzone. 

I am not sure what "about six points for doing nothing" is trying to say. 

 

[Anarchy99]

Two ways to look at that.  The review is automatic under two minutes so less need for a coach to "save" the challenge for late in the game.

Out of town league officials run the clock, just like league personnel handle all the headsets and communications. It has nothing to do with the home team. People like a good conspiracy, but there are plenty of things that have nothing to do with the Patriots.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Not a rule change, a change none the less. Replay should be no longer than a minute. We watch most replays instantly and can come to a determination. Why the hell does it take the NFL 2 minutes and many times much longer to reach the same conclusion? Makes for miserable viewing experience. There is no mystery as to why ratings are dropping.

The biggest joke is the on field official having to run over to this small display to review the play. They have to deal with glare or other elements like snow to even see the screen. Why not just review it upstairs and have them relay to the judgement to the on field official via the headset? The current method is ridiculous. 

 

[Anarchy99]

• Make Pass Interference a challenge-able play - If it's blatantly not PI, or if the offensive/defensive player is equally at fault, it can be overturned. Don't like the 15 yards rule because NFL secondary players are smart enough to do that on every potential long TD.
  
• Change the catch rule. If the player has possession of the ball, it's a catch. They don't need to perform a "football move" or some BS. If it hits their hands, and they've caught it (aka it's not bobbling around) it's a catch. If they catch the ball, go to turn, get hit, and the ball flies out, that's a fumble, not an incomplete pass. The ground still can't cause a fumble unless the player is untouched. If the player is being tackled and the ball comes out after hitting the ground, the player was down. If the player is running, trips, and the ball comes out after they hit the ground, or they dive and it comes out, that's a fumble. Same as if they're running and accidentally drop the ball. A player shouldn't have to run 3 steps for a catch to count, if they have control if it, if it looks like a catch, it's a catch!
  
• Fumble through endzone. If the offense fumbles the ball out of the back of the endzone they get the ball 1st and 10 on the 20 yard line. Still a sucks for them, but isn't catastrophic. 
  
• Holding/block in the back during a touchback or fair catch. The foul didn't improve the yardage, therefore it shouldn't count. 
  
• Extra point. If you score a TD (or rather reach the endzone) from the 15 yard line then you get 3 points. So the max score after a TD would become 9 points. This would be a bit crazy, but would also be awesome. Nobody does fake extra points anymore because you're at a huge disadvantage since it's no longer on the 2 yard line. But a team could be crazy enough to try if it's worth 3. Also, a team down by 9 would still be down by 1 score if they could get a TD, then score on 1 play from the 15 yard line. This idea is a bit out there, but it would make things pretty exciting.
  
• Full-time Refs. So many Refs are terrible. Maybe if they were full-time that would help increase their quality. Also, they should be tested yearly. It feels like sh*tty refs have been around for years, and they could have replaced them with better, younger Refs by then. The testing would also allow the NFL to determine how a ref views a certain play because refs definitely do not call Pass Interference or Holding the same from game to game.
  
• Roughing the Passer. It should apply to more than just Brady. Big QBs almost never get the call (Cam, Flacco, Roethlisberger, Bortles).
  
• Booth Reviews. The Ref/person in NYC has 30 seconds to review the play. If they can't tell within 30 seconds if it was a catch or not, or whatever, then it stands as called on the field. Only obvious mistakes should be overturned and if it takes longer than that, it wasn't obvious. 5 minute reviews are f*cking ridiculous.
  

They really need to change the bolded ones.

Not picking on you, but since you laid things out I felt inclined to comment on things I was going to post on.

CHALLENGES ON PASS INTERFERENCE
I agree with Belichick. All plays should be reviewable. If we open it up to just P.I., I would guess the refs might rebel and 99% of the time just stick with the call on the field because it is a judgment call. Personally, I am not a fan on pass interference on balls that will pretty much be impossible to catch on balls that are under thrown. But they 9 times out of 10 call it P.I. when the defender hits the receiver even if the ball is 20 feet short of the mark. The notable exception I remember was the final play between CAR and NE 4 years ago when Gronk was mugged in the end zone and the refs determined the ball would not have reached him.

CATCH RULE
Making a football move is no longer part of the rule. I am in the minority, but I don't hate the definition they use now. Misuse of instant replay messed up the rule. Super slo-mo and 4K television completely changed how catches are determined. Give the guys in the booth 60 seconds to review whatever they want at game speed. If they can't see something in that time or they run over on time, the call on the field should stand.

FUMBLE THROUGH ENDZONE
IMO, they should use the same rules as they do at the end of each half. A fumble can't be advanced, and a fumble out of bounds would remain with the offense at the spot of the fumble. If a guy dives for the pylon at the one and the ball squirts out the end zone, bring it back to where he lost the ball.

EXTRA POINT
Teams in desperation mode should try a fake from the kick location as the defense would never expect it. Not a fan of changing the scoring rules and having a 3 point extra point. The one think I might be swayed to consider is awarding 4 points on any kick from you side of the field (so minimum of 60+ yards).

REFS
I agree the old vanguard of guys that have regular jobs that are 60 years old and 260 pounds is hurting the officiating. The consistency of what is or is not a penalty uses falls on how a given crew calls games. The same crew is probably pretty consistent in how they call things. The problem is next week's crew calls things differently. In general, I am in favor of letting them play and eliminating ticky tack touch fouls. Some games there's a flag seemingly every other play. We are going to get to the point where receivers will intentionally try to get held so they can get a free first down on 3rd and 28.

ROUGHING THE PASSER
I know people scream that Brady gets bailed out with roughing the passer calls, but this year he was abused and likely deserved numerous flags that never came. Given that this is a judgment call, each official has there own standard of what will draw a flag. As I mentioned above, let them play. I am getting tired of teams drives extended for things that barely impacted a play. My pet peeve is when a blitz is called, the QB scrambles to the right and gets mauled in a second and a half, and they call a CB for getting his hand on a WR on the opposite side of the filed when there is no chance the QB could have even thrown the ball in that direction.

BOOTH REVIEWS
I covered that under the CATCH RULE above.

 

[Anarchy99]

Not a rule change, a change none the less. Replay should be no longer than a minute. We watch most replays instantly and can come to a determination. Why the hell does it take the NFL 2 minutes and many times much longer to reach the same conclusion? Makes for miserable viewing experience. There is no mystery as to why ratings are dropping.

The biggest joke is the on field official having to run over to this small display to review the play. They have to deal with glare or other elements like snow to even see the screen. Why not just review it upstairs and have them relay to the judgement to the on field official via the headset? The current method is ridiculous. 

Because they have a gynormous contract with Microsoft to push their tablets.  The amount the league makes off of that is staggering. I believe they have a multi-year, billion dollar deal. So they will always show the refs using the tablet, as that is what Microsoft is paying them for. I agree it makes no sense to look at a tiny screen when they have huge monitors in the booth.

I would almost be in favor for bang bang plays that they don't really know what to call, have the refs discuss it among themselves on the field and stall while the booth looks at it and tells them the right call (as best they can in 15-10 seconds). That way they don't call it wrong on the field, teams won't have to waste a challenge, and they won't slow the game down and thwart momentum with a tedious full scale review.

 

[belljr]

Because they have a gynormous contract with Microsoft to push their tablets.  The amount the league makes off of that is staggering. I believe they have a multi-year, billion dollar deal. So they will always show the refs using the tablet, as that is what Microsoft is paying them for. I agree it makes no sense to look at a tiny screen when they have huge monitors in the booth.

I would almost be in favor for bang bang plays that they don't really know what to call, have the refs discuss it among themselves on the field and stall while the booth looks at it and tells them the right call (as best they can in 15-10 seconds). That way they don't call it wrong on the field, teams won't have to waste a challenge, and they won't slow the game down and thwart momentum with a tedious full scale review.

Heres the part I don't get at all (i.e tablets).  

New York makes the final call on the reviews anyway.   So why does the ref need to bother looking