What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Possible Rule Changes ? (1 Viewer)

Workhorse

Footballguy
Is it just me or do most of these suggested rule changes address specific Steeler plays from this postseason?

The committee also is considering recommending to officials that they make sure there was holding on a play before throwing a flag.
The committee also wants to change the rule on hits by defenders below the knee on quarterbacks.
Another recommendation expands the rule put in place last year against "horse collar" tackles. That violation mandated flags only when a defensive player coming from behind got his hands inside the shoulder pads of a player with the ball. If it is expanded, it would extend that to tackles inside the shirt.
 

Liquid Tension

Footballguy
Is it just me or do most of these suggested rule changes address specific Steeler plays from this postseason?

The committee also is considering recommending to officials that they make sure there was holding on a play before throwing a flag.
The committee also wants to change the rule on hits by defenders below the knee on quarterbacks.
Another recommendation expands the rule put in place last year against "horse collar" tackles. That violation mandated flags only when a defensive player coming from behind got his hands inside the shoulder pads of a player with the ball. If it is expanded, it would extend that to tackles inside the shirt.
I would like to see them go back to when a play goes out of bounds the clock stops always! Instant replay made them change this rule and we get less football because of it. BTW, as a person who was a HUGE supporter of it, I think it has ruined football now. If anyone cares I will elaborate
 

B-Deep

Footballguy
The committee also is considering recommending to officials that they make sure there was holding on a play before throwing a flag."We want to make sure they actually see the foul," McKay said.
That is by far the dumbest thing I have ever read. Note to officials, please only throw flags on peanlties that you actually see. :wall: :wall: :wall:
 

dgreen

Footballguy
In the 256 games during the past regular season, there were 850 false-start calls. To cut that number, the committee is ready to recommend that minor flinches by wide receivers be ignored if they have no effect on the play.
I like the idea, but, really, how many of those 850 false starts were called on wide receivers?
 

Koya

Footballguy
In the 256 games during the past regular season, there were 850 false-start calls. To cut that number, the committee is ready to recommend that minor flinches by wide receivers be ignored if they have no effect on the play.
I like the idea, but, really, how many of those 850 false starts were called on wide receivers?
I don't like this idea at all. If a WR is too stupid to watch the f'n ball get snapped, he deserves a penalty. Maybe coaches to reinforce the fact that a WR can deal with a .1 second delay if the crowd is loud to ensure he doesnt go offside.
 

ShadowMaster

Footballguy
Reading through those this AM I was surprised to see the list...... None of these changes seem realistic to me.

1) False - Starts: If the WR flinches, it has to be a false start else the DB is going to move off the flinch and be offsides.

2) Holding: Only call penalties you see - DUH! Is this not a current rule?

3) QB hits: QBs are already super protected and I can understand the rule to protect taking the guys head off, but the legs? QBs will get hit and injured on occation, no matter what rules they put in place. Grab an ankle, make the tackle, get a penalty? I don't think so..... Just can't see this going in without making the QB a 'touch' position.

None of these will go in

 

dgreen

Footballguy
In the 256 games during the past regular season, there were 850 false-start calls. To cut that number, the committee is ready to recommend that minor flinches by wide receivers be ignored if they have no effect on the play.
I like the idea, but, really, how many of those 850 false starts were called on wide receivers?
I don't like this idea at all. If a WR is too stupid to watch the f'n ball get snapped, he deserves a penalty. Maybe coaches to reinforce the fact that a WR can deal with a .1 second delay if the crowd is loud to ensure he doesnt go offside.
Penalties shouldn't have anything to do with stupidity. They should have to do with gaining an unfair advantage. A receiver gains no advantage from flinching.
 

Z-Dog

Footballguy
Reading through those this AM I was surprised to see the list...... None of these changes seem realistic to me.

1) False - Starts: If the WR flinches, it has to be a false start else the DB is going to move off the flinch and be offsides.

2) Holding: Only call penalties you see - DUH! Is this not a current rule?

3) QB hits: QBs are already super protected and I can understand the rule to protect taking the guys head off, but the legs? QBs will get hit and injured on occation, no matter what rules they put in place. Grab an ankle, make the tackle, get a penalty? I don't think so..... Just can't see this going in without making the QB a 'touch' position.

None of these will go in
1) DBs don't move forward, they move back - I can't remember the last time a non-blitzing DB was called for offsides, since they're usually a few yards off the LOS. And blitzers watch the ball, not the WR.2) This is making a lot of people laugh, but it's a big issue. Right now, refs make holding calls not only based on seeing the actual hold, but seeing the results of a hold. For example, if a ref sees a player getting wrenched to one side, and see his jersey stretch, they will call holding even if their view of the lineman's hands grabbing the jersey of the opposing player is obscured.

3) QBs are the key to high-quality football. Protecting them may offend football purists, but healthy QBs mean more $$$ for the league.

 

ShadowMaster

Footballguy
Reading through those this AM I was surprised to see the list......  None of these changes seem realistic to me.

1) False - Starts:  If the WR flinches, it has to be a false start else the DB is going to move off the flinch and be offsides.

2) Holding:  Only call penalties you see - DUH!  Is this not a current rule?

3) QB hits:  QBs are already super protected and I can understand the rule to protect taking the guys head off, but the legs?  QBs will get hit and injured on occation, no matter what rules they put in place.  Grab an ankle, make the tackle, get a penalty?  I don't think so.....  Just can't see this going in without making the QB a 'touch' position.

None of these will go in
1) DBs don't move forward, they move back - I can't remember the last time a non-blitzing DB was called for offsides, since they're usually a few yards off the LOS. And blitzers watch the ball, not the WR.2) This is making a lot of people laugh, but it's a big issue. Right now, refs make holding calls not only based on seeing the actual hold, but seeing the results of a hold. For example, if a ref sees a player getting wrenched to one side, and see his jersey stretch, they will call holding even if their view of the lineman's hands grabbing the jersey of the opposing player is obscured.

3) QBs are the key to high-quality football. Protecting them may offend football purists, but healthy QBs mean more $$$ for the league.
1) Ever heard of bump and run coverage? Jamming at the line? No? Better study the game some more.......2) Refs make ALL calls based on what they think they see. They make mistakes. No rules will ever change this.

3) QBs are already super protected. Carson Palmer got hurt and Cincy lost a home playoff game. Get over it. Outlawing the ability to tackle ONE player by the legs is just silly when it is legal for every other player. Exactly where are you allowed to hit him then? Why not just give the QBs flags to wear?

Again, I see none of these changes going in.

 

Godsbrother

Footballguy
Nothing new here. The NFL always reviews controversial calls in high profile games. It doesn't mean they'll change anything. The infamous tuck rule is a case in point.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top