NFL rules that need to change. (1 Viewer)

[32 Counter Pass]

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.

Like Madden once said, "If it doesn't makes sense, follow the money." My question, does the revenue from Microsoft outweigh the tv revenue? 

 

[Anarchy99]

Like Madden once said, "If it doesn't makes sense, follow the money." My question, does the revenue from Microsoft outweigh the tv revenue? 

I have acquaintances that were involved in the Microsoft / NFL deal. The league gets more money from . . .

1) Dollars directly from Microsoft.
2) More commercials or split screen ads by having longer delays from the reviews (which also makes the games longer so they can show more commercials)
3) Currently does not impact the tv deal with the networks.
4) But in the future will allow them to have on screen adds like in soccer games (which will be more prevalent when the league signs deals fro streaming rights in the next tv contract).

The bottom line is, the league isn't losing money by having lengthy reviews. In fact, they are gaining money.

 

[Gally]

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.

Technically, pass interference is not supposed to be called on balls that are uncatchable.  So the rule doesn't need to change just the enforcement of how it is written.  However, I have seen many balls caught that I didn't think had any chance of being caught.  These are superior athletes that can do incredible things to get to a ball.  I don't mind making an error on the side of being able to catch it in many cases.

 

[CalBear]

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

What's terrible about down being down? Is it really better football watching to spend five minutes reviewing and re-reviewing (Chargers-Jags) whether Gipson, who was lying on the ground when he recovered the fumble, was or was not in incidental contact with an offensive player who wasn't even trying to touch him, at some point during the time he was on the ground? These are some of the most annoying reviews, and they don't add anything to the game.

Down=down is a simple rule, easy to enforce, easy to review. 

If you're talking about PI, the penalty is just too harsh given how easy it is to draw, and how often offenses specifically draw up plays designed to draw it. 15 yards and an automatic first down is more than enough penalty. And the idea that "the defender will just tackle the receiver" is silly. If the defender is in position to tackle the receiver, he's in position to make a play on the ball. That argument sounds like the argument made against removing the force-out rule on catches; "the defender will just carry the receiver out of bounds", as if that could happen.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

I have acquaintances that were involved in the Microsoft / NFL deal. The league gets more money from . . .

1) Dollars directly from Microsoft.
2) More commercials or split screen ads by having longer delays from the reviews (which also makes the games longer so they can show more commercials)
3) Currently does not impact the tv deal with the networks.
4) But in the future will allow them to have on screen adds like in soccer games (which will be more prevalent when the league signs deals fro streaming rights in the next tv contract).

The bottom line is, the league isn't losing money by having lengthy reviews. In fact, they are gaining money.

But if ratings continue to fall the league will loose money in the next contract, right?

 

[Anarchy99]

But if ratings continue to fall the league will loose money in the next contract, right?

Probably not. From what I have been seeing, there are live streaming companies lining up to bid on the rights after this deal is done. If football follows the path of European soccer, the bids would be 2-3x the amount of regular broadcast rights. We haven’t seen it yet but the Internet is going to start changing the viewing experience for live sporting events. 

Is there any evidence that people are tuning out because of replay reviews?

 

[32 Counter Pass]

I am exhibit A. I subscribe to NFL rewind to avoid that nonsense. I did tune into the watch live last week and it was a ####ty experience. 

 

[DropKick]

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.

I was speaking generically.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Still get 15 yards and a 1st down.. But I've been asking for the college rule for as long as I can remember.. tired of 30, 40 or more Penalty.

If that was the rule today, Diggs would have gotten mugged and not have been allowed to make that play he did on Sunday. Vikes still wouldn't have been in FG range either, would have had to go for a Hail Mary.

 

[Mr.Pack]

if the pylon sits out of bounds at the endzone how is touching it considered inbounds and  a TD?! 

Pylon is in bounds.

Come on man!

 

[dschuler]

Defensive PI 15 yard penalty

Shorter review times

Fumbling the ball in the end zone should result in a loss of down and the ball be placed from its previous spot on the last down.

 

[renesauz]

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.”

Absolutely not....that would be stupid beyond stupid as in the shortened confines of entering the end zone there are ALWAYS plenty of defenders around. BY the very nature of the man trying to carry the ball in to score, those defenders almost always outnumber the offensive players in the area. The only time it would make sense for an offensive player to fumble like that on purpose would be on fourth and goal....and even then it would come back if in the last five minutes.

Blandinos quote is logical, but no more so than this: NOWHERE else on the field does the defense recover a fumble without actually recovering the football. They have the same opportunity to recover that fumble in the end zone as the offense did...why should they have preference?

 

[renesauz]

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. 

Amazes me how many people complain about a process they don't even know.

THe ref on the field doesn't do the review any more.

 

[Donnybrook]

Never liked the rule prohibiting the advancement of a muffed punt.  Why should it be any different than a kickoff that hits a receiving player?  Why is it different than a punt returner who catches the ball, takes a few steps, and fumbles?

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Amazes me how many people complain about a process they don't even know.

THe ref on the field doesn't do the review any more.

Then what is the point of having him run across the field and peer into tablet? Waste of time, like I said. Replays under a minute, or the call stands.

 

[CalBear]

If that was the rule today, Diggs would have gotten mugged and not have been allowed to make that play he did on Sunday. Vikes still wouldn't have been in FG range either, would have had to go for a Hail Mary.

Who would have mugged him? You might have noticed that the defender who tried to tackle him missed him by a good foot. And why didn't he mug him anyway? Surely that would have been better than letting him score a TD. 

Look at the play, there's no one within 5 yards of Diggs when the ball's in the air. The idea that a defender who was close enough to mug him would try to do that instead of making a play on the ball is just silly. Again, we have thousands of games every year which are played with PI as a 15-yard penalty, and we simply don't see the receivers getting mugged. Because 15 yards and an automatic first down is a pretty big penalty.

 

[msommer]

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

Why don't they get some rugby coaches over to fix that?

 

[renesauz]

Then what is the point of having him run across the field and peer into tablet?

As far as I can tell....to promote Microsoft tablets?

 

[Short Corner]

Never liked the rule prohibiting the advancement of a muffed punt.  Why should it be any different than a kickoff that hits a receiving player?  

It's not

 

[Mr.Pack]

Who would have mugged him? You might have noticed that the defender who tried to tackle him missed him by a good foot. And why didn't he mug him anyway? Surely that would have been better than letting him score a TD. 

Look at the play, there's no one within 5 yards of Diggs when the ball's in the air. The idea that a defender who was close enough to mug him would try to do that instead of making a play on the ball is just silly. Again, we have thousands of games every year which are played with PI as a 15-yard penalty, and we simply don't see the receivers getting mugged. Because 15 yards and an automatic first down is a pretty big penalty.

One, he didn't get mugged because it's a spot foul and the Vikings would have been put in FG via a PI call.

2- Williams ducked out at the end to avoid a PI call.

It was the end of the game, head there only been a 15yd penalty, he definitely would have gotten mugged. Williams would have crushed him instead of ducking out.

 

[CalBear]

One, he didn't get mugged because it's a spot foul and the Vikings would have been put in FG via a PI call.

2- Williams ducked out at the end to avoid a PI call.

It was the end of the game, head there only been a 15yd penalty, he definitely would have gotten mugged. Williams would have crushed him instead of ducking out.

So you're asserting that, rather than having to take a spot foul which would have resulted in a chance at a 53-yard FG attempt, Williams instead decided to duck out of the play entirely, allowing Diggs to run into the end zone? Nice move, that.

Looking at the video it's clear that Williams was in position to hit Diggs without getting a PI penalty if he wanted to (he gets there right when the ball does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzRRi2QcSEM)

Probably what happened was that Williams assumed Diggs would be trying to get out of bounds, so he went low and outside to try to prevent that, and he put his head down and didn't see that Diggs had gone up. It has nothing to do with PI being a spot foul.

And I can point to approximately thousands of plays where a badly-thrown pass that was not going to be caught wound up giving the offense the ball on the 1-yard line because of this silly, unnecessary rule.

 

[Gally]

So you're asserting that, rather than having to take a spot foul which would have resulted in a chance at a 53-yard FG attempt, Williams instead decided to duck out of the play entirely, allowing Diggs to run into the end zone? Nice move, that.

Looking at the video it's clear that Williams was in position to hit Diggs without getting a PI penalty if he wanted to (he gets there right when the ball does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzRRi2QcSEM)

Probably what happened was that Williams assumed Diggs would be trying to get out of bounds, so he went low and outside to try to prevent that, and he put his head down and didn't see that Diggs had gone up. It has nothing to do with PI being a spot foul.

And I can point to approximately thousands of plays where a badly-thrown pass that was not going to be caught wound up giving the offense the ball on the 1-yard line because of this silly, unnecessary rule.

If the ball could not be caught the PI should not have been called.  The rule allows for no pass interference to be called when the ball is uncatchable.  Your complaint is based on the interpretation of whether the ball could be caught or not....not the rule itself because by definition of the rule if the ball could not be caught then no penalty should be called.

Your argument for spot foul or 15 yd penalty is irrelevant when dealing with your complaint.  If the ball can't be caught then the call should not be made regardless of it being a spot foul or not.

 

[Mr.Pack]

So you're asserting that, rather than having to take a spot foul which would have resulted in a chance at a 53-yard FG attempt, Williams instead decided to duck out of the play entirely, allowing Diggs to run into the end zone? Nice move, that.

Looking at the video it's clear that Williams was in position to hit Diggs without getting a PI penalty if he wanted to (he gets there right when the ball does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzRRi2QcSEM)

Probably what happened was that Williams assumed Diggs would be trying to get out of bounds, so he went low and outside to try to prevent that, and he put his head down and didn't see that Diggs had gone up. It has nothing to do with PI being a spot foul.

And I can point to approximately thousands of plays where a badly-thrown pass that was not going to be caught wound up giving the offense the ball on the 1-yard line because of this silly, unnecessary rule.

He ducked out to avoid a PI call, it's clear as day. Don't know what else I can say.  And I can't say anything else.

Good day sir.

 

[CalBear]

If the ball could not be caught the PI should not have been called.  The rule allows for no pass interference to be called when the ball is uncatchable.  Your complaint is based on the interpretation of whether the ball could be caught or not....not the rule itself because by definition of the rule if the ball could not be caught then no penalty should be called.

Your argument for spot foul or 15 yd penalty is irrelevant when dealing with your complaint.  If the ball can't be caught then the call should not be made regardless of it being a spot foul or not.

Whether a ball is ruled catchable is not the same as whether it is possible for the receiver to catch it.

How many plays have we seen where the defender was in position, the receiver had no play on the ball, and he stopped and let the defender run into him to get the call? Again, there are thousands of these. Refs rule the pass uncatchable only if it's thrown to a place where it couldn't be touched by anyone.

 

[Gally]

Whether a ball is ruled catchable is not the same as whether it is possible for the receiver to catch it.

How many plays have we seen where the defender was in position, the receiver had no play on the ball, and he stopped and let the defender run into him to get the call? Again, there are thousands of these. Refs rule the pass uncatchable only if it's thrown to a place where it couldn't be touched by anyone.

That is how it should be called.  If the receiver had no play on the ball and let the defender run into him then the play should be ruled uncatchable and no foul.  If the WR had a play on the ball if the DB did not run into him then that is PI and should be called.  I am not sure I understand your logic.

 

[CalBear]

That is how it should be called.  If the receiver had no play on the ball and let the defender run into him then the play should be ruled uncatchable and no foul.  If the WR had a play on the ball if the DB did not run into him then that is PI and should be called.  I am not sure I understand your logic.

The rule is that the pass must be "clearly uncatchable by the involved players." So if the defender could catch it (but not the offensive player), the ball is not uncatchable. And it also needs to be "clearly" uncatchable; on long passes where the contact occurs early, it's often impossible to tell whether the receiver could have gotten to the spot or not, so it's not ruled uncatchable. 

 

[Gally]

The rule is that the pass must be "clearly uncatchable by the involved players." So if the defender could catch it (but not the offensive player), the ball is not uncatchable. And it also needs to be "clearly" uncatchable; on long passes where the contact occurs early, it's often impossible to tell whether the receiver could have gotten to the spot or not, so it's not ruled uncatchable. 

If the defender could catch it (but not the offensive player) then there couldn't be pass interference because the players wouldn't be near each other.  If the defensive player could catch it AND interfere with the offenses chance to catch it then the offensive player has a chance to catch the pass. 

I understand the rule, I just don't understand your logic around the rule.  Are you trying to make a judgement call that because of the position of the defensive player (on an underthrown ball) that the offensive player has no chance at catching the ball so PI shouldn't be called? 

 

[CalBear]

If the defender could catch it (but not the offensive player) then there couldn't be pass interference because the players wouldn't be near each other.  If the defensive player could catch it AND interfere with the offenses chance to catch it then the offensive player has a chance to catch the pass. 

I understand the rule, I just don't understand your logic around the rule.  Are you trying to make a judgement call that because of the position of the defensive player (on an underthrown ball) that the offensive player has no chance at catching the ball so PI shouldn't be called? 

OK, here's the first example that comes up when you search on "pass interference" on NFL.com:

http://www.nfl.com/m/share?p=%2Fvideos%2Fnfl-game-highlights%2F0ap3000000905816%2FEagles-open-the-game-with-deep-ball-draw-huge-pass-interference-penalty

There's no way the offensive player was catching it. It's a 45 yard penalty. It's too much for a minor violation.

Here's the next:

http://www.nfl.com/m/share?p=%2Fvideos%2Fnfl-game-highlights%2F0ap3000000906534%2FCrawley-s-second-consecutive-P-I-sets-up-Vikes-with-first-and-goal

38 yard penalty for an offensive flop on a ball Diggs knew he wouldn't get to.

There's no reason these shouldn't be 10 or 15 yard penalties just like defensive holding. Again, we have an enormous amount of film to study how football players behave when PI is a 15-yard penalty, and the concern that they'll just tackle the receivers is simply misfounded.

 

[Billy Bats]

He ducked out to avoid a PI call, it's clear as day. Don't know what else I can say.  And I can't say anything else.

Good day sir.

He knows he’s the last line of defense do you really think a safety is ducki out of the way of a tackle? IMO it looks to me like he tried to time the hit with Diggs momentum going towards the sideline, but Diggs slowed down to jump and at the same time Williams started his tackle. No chance he was ducking out of the way on purpose. At least it’s not clear as day since, we’re all guessing on his true intentions. 

 

[Gally]

OK, here's the first example that comes up when you search on "pass interference" on NFL.com:

http://www.nfl.com/m/share?p=%2Fvideos%2Fnfl-game-highlights%2F0ap3000000905816%2FEagles-open-the-game-with-deep-ball-draw-huge-pass-interference-penalty

There's no way the offensive player was catching it. It's a 45 yard penalty. It's too much for a minor violation.

Here's the next:

http://www.nfl.com/m/share?p=%2Fvideos%2Fnfl-game-highlights%2F0ap3000000906534%2FCrawley-s-second-consecutive-P-I-sets-up-Vikes-with-first-and-goal

38 yard penalty for an offensive flop on a ball Diggs knew he wouldn't get to.

There's no reason these shouldn't be 10 or 15 yard penalties just like defensive holding. Again, we have an enormous amount of film to study how football players behave when PI is a 15-yard penalty, and the concern that they'll just tackle the receivers is simply misfounded.

I understand all that.  I guess my point is if the officials were better at making these calls and not rewarding flopping it wouldn't be an issue either.

 

[CalBear]

I understand all that.  I guess my point is if the officials were better at making these calls and not rewarding flopping it wouldn't be an issue either.

I think that in both of the videos I referenced, the officials made the correct call by the current rules. Furthermore, I don't think you can change the rules to make those calls different, not without fundamentally changing pass interference and adding a whole lot of subjectivity and contention around the idea of a catchable ball.

There's no reason why holding someone a half second before the pass is in the air should be a 10 yard penalty and holding him a half second later should be 40 yards. It's the only penalty costing more than 15. It's completely inconsistent with everything else about the game. And we keep it based on a silly, and entirely unfounded fear that receivers will get tackled.

 

[pinequick]

Lining up incorrectly doesn't stop the clock.

???  Of course it does.  The clock doesn't run while the refs blow the whistle and throw the flag, run onto the field, explain the penalty, etc.

 

[zed2283]

???  Of course it does.  The clock doesn't run while the refs blow the whistle and throw the flag, run onto the field, explain the penalty, etc.

There's still a play that happens.  The clock doesn't stop until afterwards.  You don't get the result of the play and you lose 5 yards.  Just like any other point in the game.  For it to be any different in the last two minutes, and only if your team is losing, doesn't make any sense.

 

[pinequick]

There's still a play that happens.  The clock doesn't stop until afterwards.  You don't get the result of the play and you lose 5 yards.  Just like any other point in the game.  For it to be any different in the last two minutes, and only if your team is losing, doesn't make any sense.

So you would be okay with a trailing team intentionally getting a false start to stop the clock every time they got a first down and had a running clock?  Sounds kind of hokey to me.

 

[zed2283]

So you would be okay with a trailing team intentionally getting a false start to stop the clock every time they got a first down and had a running clock?  Sounds kind of hokey to me.

Hokey is a rule that is enforced differently at different points of the game and differently for different teams.

So what if they intentionally get a false start?  There is a penalty assessed.  Why isn't there a 10-second runoff when they intentionally spike the ball to stop the clock?

 

[renesauz]

So you're asserting that, rather than having to take a spot foul which would have resulted in a chance at a 53-yard FG attempt, Williams instead decided to duck out of the play entirely, allowing Diggs to run into the end zone? Nice move, that.

Looking at the video it's clear that Williams was in position to hit Diggs without getting a PI penalty if he wanted to (he gets there right when the ball does: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzRRi2QcSEM)

Probably what happened was that Williams assumed Diggs would be trying to get out of bounds, so he went low and outside to try to prevent that, and he put his head down and didn't see that Diggs had gone up. It has nothing to do with PI being a spot foul.

And I can point to approximately thousands of plays where a badly-thrown pass that was not going to be caught wound up giving the offense the ball on the 1-yard line because of this silly, unnecessary rule.

If the ball could not be caught the PI should not have been called.  The rule allows for no pass interference to be called when the ball is uncatchable.  Your complaint is based on the interpretation of whether the ball could be caught or not....not the rule itself because by definition of the rule if the ball could not be caught then no penalty should be called.

Your argument for spot foul or 15 yd penalty is irrelevant when dealing with your complaint.  If the ball can't be caught then the call should not be made regardless of it being a spot foul or not.

Edited 11 hours ago by Gally

Count me among those who don't want the 15 yard variety...but I'd love to see them start considering it incidental in the case Calbear cites. It's kind of ridiculous that a defender playing what was perfect coverage ends up colliding with the receiver when they make an unusual and normally un-natural move, like trying to reverse a dead sprint when they had a step on the defender. In my mind, the contact is initiated by the offensive player in that case, and absolutely does NOT deserve a spot foul. HOnestly surprised receivers low on the route tree wouldn't try to obtain "illegal contact" calls on purpose more often

 

[renesauz]

Hokey is a rule that is enforced differently at different points of the game and differently for different teams.

So what if they intentionally get a false start?  There is a penalty assessed.  Why isn't there a 10-second runoff when they intentionally spike the ball to stop the clock?

The runoff is to prevent the mini-timeout that could result...it becomes NOT worth doing on purpose ( they can call a play at the line in less than ten seconds).

Spiking the ball isn't a penalty because an item of tangible value is given up (a down), and it STILL takes time to line up and set the offensive players.

These rules may not be perfectly consistent in the NFL, but they are completely necessary and make perfect sense

 

[Gally]

Count me among those who don't want the 15 yard variety...but I'd love to see them start considering it incidental in the case Calbear cites. It's kind of ridiculous that a defender playing what was perfect coverage ends up colliding with the receiver when they make an unusual and normally un-natural move, like trying to reverse a dead sprint when they had a step on the defender. In my mind, the contact is initiated by the offensive player in that case, and absolutely does NOT deserve a spot foul. HOnestly surprised receivers low on the route tree wouldn't try to obtain "illegal contact" calls on purpose more often

If the defender is turned and making a play for the ball they do not call this as interference.  The interference comes in when the defender has no idea where the ball is and makes no attempt on the ball.  The WR knows where the ball is and is trying to make a play for the ball but is being prohibited from doing so by a defender that is not playing the ball.  That is the definition of PI.

 

[zed2283]

The runoff is to prevent the mini-timeout that could result...it becomes NOT worth doing on purpose ( they can call a play at the line in less than ten seconds).

Spiking the ball isn't a penalty because an item of tangible value is given up (a down), and it STILL takes time to line up and set the offensive players.

These rules may not be perfectly consistent in the NFL, but they are completely necessary and make perfect sense

How is it a mini-timeout?

How is a down an item of tangible value but 5 yards is not?

It is obviously not completely necessary since it's only been around for 8 seasons.

There really is no valid argument for applying a rule differently to different teams and at different points in the game.