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.

Rule changes NFL owners are discussing (1 Viewer)

GregR

Footballguy
ESPN article. These aren't rules they are actually going to vote to include yet, but proposals teams have made that they will be discussing.

Owners to discuss 23 rules proposals

Significant changes to the use of video replay, including reviewing all fouls called by game officials and a rule change that would allow teams to try for a "bonus" point after a successful 2-point conversion, are among proposals that will be presented by the NFL's competition committee at next week's owners meetings in Phoenix.

The committee Wednesday outlined 23 proposed changes to rules and procedures, which will be discussed and voted on at next week's meetings. Nineteen of the proposed rules changes were submitted by teams with the other four proposed by the competition committee.

In addition to these proposals, the owners are expected to discuss expanded playoffs and the "catch-or-no-catch" rule, though specifics on those rules will not be publicly released until the owners receive them Monday. Owners will also consider four bylaws changes and one resolution at the meetings.

The committee is presenting a proposal by the Detroit Lions that would permit the instant replay system to correct an officiating error. That would include such controversial calls as pass interference.

"Yeah, I think there will be changes in the next few years on that," Lions general manager Martin Mayhew said."There were a number of proposals, 12 different proposals on how to sort of revamp it or make it more efficient and I think there will be some changes that happen eventually. We're going to be open to those things. Whatever gets proposed, we're going to be open to supporting something we can all agree on. Clearly something needs to be changed, you know, or there wouldn't be that many suggestions on how to change it. From my standpoint, we're open to other ideas."

St. Louis Rams coach Jeff Fisher, a member of the committee, made it clear that his peers wouldn't favor such a change.

"It would be our responsibility on the field whether these are fouls or not fouls,'' Fisher said of his fellow coaches. "This [replay review] was never designed to involve fouls.''

The Indianapolis Colts proposed a scenario that gives teams that successfully convert a 2-point conversion the chance to immediately add another point from midfield with a "bonus field goal.''

Under the Colts' proposal, if a team converts a 2-point conversion it would then line up from the 32-yard line to attempt a 50-yard field goal. If the kick is good, the team would receive a total of nine points on that possession -- six for the touchdown, two for the 2-point try and a point for the extra field goal.

The New England Patriots proposed that everything except scoring plays or turnovers be challengeable. Washington suggested increasing a coach's number of challenges from two to three, regardless of whether he is successful on an early challenge.

Also to be discussed in Phoenix will be a proposal by the Patriots to place fixed cameras on all boundary lines. That would guarantee coverage of the goal lines, end lines and sidelines regardless of where network cameras are positioned.

Other proposals include moving the extra point attempt to the 15-yard line and guaranteeing both teams a possession in overtime even if one scores a touchdown on its first drive.

The committee looked into the advantages and disadvantages last year and, according to Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay, "from a competitive standpoint we don't think there is a competitive negative to [expanding] the playoffs.''

No proposals on the handling of footballs before games were made while the league awaits the Wells report on the Patriots' use of deflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game.

New England's use of eligible players in ineligible positions during a playoff win over Baltimore prompted a proposal that such players must line up inside the tackle box, eliminating confusion for defenses.

Also, because teams are running out of permitted numbers for linebackers, the committee proposed allowing numbers 40-49 to be used for the position, along with 50-59 and 90-99.

The complete list of proposals to be discussed next week:

Rule, Bylaw, Resolution Changes To Be Discussed At Owners MeetingsRULE PROPOSALS
1. Allow a coach to challenge any officials' decision except scoring plays and turnovers.
2. Subject all fouls to review
3. Subject personal foul penalties to Instant Replay review pursuant to a coach's challenge
4. Subject personal foul penalties to instant replay review.
5. Subject to instant replay review any penalty that results in an automatic first down.
6. A foul against a defenseless receiver may be enforced when a reversal results in an incomplete pass.
7. Reviewable plays will include fouls against defenseless players, and an unsuccessful challenge will not cost a team a timeout.
8. Eliminate the requirement that a team be successful on each of its first two Instant Reply challenges in order to be awarded a third challenge.
9. Expand plays for which reviews will be initiated by the Replay Official to include those that would result in a score or change of possession if the on-field ruling is reversed.
10. Add review of game clock on the final play of a half or overtime to Instant Replay system.
11. Add review of play clock to the Instant Replay system.
12. Put fixed cameras on all boundary lines.
13. Stadium-produced video may be used for an Instant Replay review.
14. Move the line of scrimmage for Try Kicks to the defensive team's 15-yard line.
15. Add a bonus field goal for one additional point after a successful two-point attempt.
16. Prohibit Team B players from pushing teammates on the line of scrimmage into the offensive formation when Team A presents a punt formation.
17. Both teams will have a possession in overtime.
18. Extend the prohibition for an illegal "peel back" block to all offensive players.
19. Give the intended receiver of a pass defenseless player protection in the immediate continuing action following an interception.
20. Allow for the enforcement of an Unsportsmanlike Conduct foul at the end of a half to be applied to the ensuing kickoff.
21. Make it illegal for a back to chop a defensive player engaged above the waist by another offensive player outside the area originally occupied by the tight end.
22. Permit clubs to assign additional jersey numbers to linebackers. Adds 40-49 as eligible numbers for linebackers, in addition to 50-59 and 90-99.
23. Makes it illegal for an offensive player with an eligible number to report as ineligible and line up outside the core of the formation.
BYLAW PROPOSALS
1. Eliminate the cutdown to 75 players on the Active List.
2. Prohibit timing and on-field testing at a club's facility of any players who attended the League-wide Combine.
3. Permit clubs to designate after 4 p.m. ET, on the day after the final roster reduction, the one player eligible to return to their Active List from Reserve/Injured.
4. Change the date for the beginning of the window during which players on Reserve/Physically Unable to Perform may begin practice.
RESOLUTION
1. Allow teams with retractable roofs to open them during halftime shows.
Love the fixed camera on all boundaries proposal. Can't think of a negative outside of cost.

Would probably be ok with penalties being reviewable plays. Also would be fine with ineligible receivers having to be in the tackle box.... would eliminate some of the fancy extra point formations but I'm ok with that for the other benefits.

Colts proposal about adding another extra point after a 2 point conversion makes me wonder if Jim Irsay left rehab too soon.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's the direct/indirect fantasy relevant ones:

15. Add a bonus field goal for one additional point after a successful two-point attempt.
23. Makes it illegal for an offensive player with an eligible number to report as ineligible and line up outside the core of the formation.

The stadium halftime one is interesting to me. It seems like that would be a NGTH based on insurance reasons, right?

 
Hate the extra extra point. Why, so they can cram yet more ads in?
That, and all the new instant replay situations. Seems like an advertisement money grab and a formula for 4 hour games in the future imo.

Instant replay is already insufferable, I can just imagine the hemming and hawing over, "Is that REALLY a personal foul?". Or pass interference. Good grief.

Just let them take the free one point instead of the theater of kicking it like BB wanted, or go for two. Let's not extend games just so the owners can get an even more astronomical TV deal during the next negotiations.

 
Moving back the extra points is the only one a really would like implemented.

Also, not proposed but I think they should narrow the uprights width.

 
Wasn't instant replay supposed to be 30 seconds max for the ref under the hood? Did this actually change because this really shouldn't slow the game down that much but it seems like when watching a game, we see at least 30 seconds of replay, then a commercial break and then when they come back they still haven't ruled on anything.

 
Wasn't instant replay supposed to be 30 seconds max for the ref under the hood? Did this actually change because this really shouldn't slow the game down that much but it seems like when watching a game, we see at least 30 seconds of replay, then a commercial break and then when they come back they still haven't ruled on anything.
It's 60 seconds, and that is the time the ref is allowed to view video to make his decision.

That doesn't include the time it takes for them to set it up and for the ref to walk over to the screen. It also doesn't include additional viewing required to enforce the decision, like figuring out what the game clock should be, where the ball was previously spotted to get it back to the right spot, etc.

Normally they finish and stand around waiting another minute or so before it comes back from commercial.

 
Also would be fine with ineligible receivers having to be in the tackle box.... would eliminate some of the fancy extra point formations but I'm ok with that for the other benefits.
Those benefits being?

I honestly can't see a single thing wrong with the ineligible/eligible shuffle. From what I've read, no team proposed this, which to me suggests the competition committee itself pushed it, which lines up with Tony Dungy's previous comments (immediately following the Baltimore game) that he was going to ban it from the game this offseason.

Its a joke.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also would be fine with ineligible receivers having to be in the tackle box.... would eliminate some of the fancy extra point formations but I'm ok with that for the other benefits.
Those benefits being?

I honestly can't see a single thing wrong with the ineligible/eligible shuffle. From what I've read, no team proposed this, which to me suggests the competition committee itself pushed it, which lines up with Tony Dungy's previous comments (immediately following the Baltimore game) that he was going to ban it from the game this offseason.

Its a joke.
Defenses are already at a big enough disadvantage. There are rules about numbers for eligible players, reporting, not overloading the huddle with players who hurry off before the play, faking substitutions, etc. The NFL doesn't want the game to be about deception to such a level that it takes away from plays being decided by the physical play itself. I agree with that.

If the defense isn't going to be given time to process the ref's announcement about eligible receivers, then the purposes for having such a rule aren't being met. Handling the issue via formation rules might be a means of dealing with it less intrusively than an "offense can't snap the ball yet" rule.

 
Also would be fine with ineligible receivers having to be in the tackle box.... would eliminate some of the fancy extra point formations but I'm ok with that for the other benefits.
Those benefits being?

I honestly can't see a single thing wrong with the ineligible/eligible shuffle. From what I've read, no team proposed this, which to me suggests the competition committee itself pushed it, which lines up with Tony Dungy's previous comments (immediately following the Baltimore game) that he was going to ban it from the game this offseason.

Its a joke.
Defenses are already at a big enough disadvantage. There are rules about numbers for eligible players, reporting, not overloading the huddle with players who hurry off before the play, faking substitutions, etc. The NFL doesn't want the game to be about deception to such a level that it takes away from plays being decided by the physical play itself. I agree with that.

If the defense isn't going to be given time to process the ref's announcement about eligible receivers, then the purposes for having such a rule aren't being met. Handling the issue via formation rules might be a means of dealing with it less intrusively than an "offense can't snap the ball yet" rule.
The rule exists and functions just fine, the fact that it hasn't been pushed to the limit until the post-season last year makes the refs poor performance excusable and to my knowledge they only made two mistakes, granted one of them led to a TD. Give them an offseason to work on it and it should be fine.

Also, what is an acceptable amount of time for the defense?

I can't find anything specific on substitutions but I think if a substitution is made the defense is allowed like 20-30 seconds. I think that is a lot. Either way during the NE-BAL game that Pats were clearly trying to speed it up but the defense still had plenty of time and in the second half the officials gave them even MORE time, on top of telling them specifically not to cover certain players (as opposed to simply announcing ineligible numbers.)

DEFENSIVE MATCHUPS FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTIONS

Article 10

If a substitution is made by the offense, the offense shall not be permitted to snap the ball until the defense has been permitted to respond with its substitutions. While in the process of a substitution (or simulated substitution), the offense is prohibited from rushing quickly to the line of scrimmage and snapping the ball in an obvious attempt to cause a defensive foul (i.e., too many men on the field). If, in the judgment of the officials, this occurs, the following procedure will apply:

(a) The Umpire will stand over the ball until the Referee deems that the defense has had a reasonable time to complete its substitutions.

Note: The quick-snap rule does not apply after the two-minute warning of either half, or if there is not a substitution by the offense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I said the proposal doesn't try to deal with it by the timing of the snap which is why it might be a good option.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Both teams with a possession in OT makes sense.

If the first team to get the ball scores a TD give them 7 points (no XP try, just give it to em).

If the next team scores, they must go for 2

 
Both teams with a possession in OT makes sense.

If the first team to get the ball scores a TD give them 7 points (no XP try, just give it to em).

If the next team scores, they must go for 2
:no: If the first team to possess the ball scores a td then the second team has to score a td on the ensuing kickoff or the game is over.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Both teams with a possession in OT makes sense.

If the first team to get the ball scores a TD give them 7 points (no XP try, just give it to em).

If the next team scores, they must go for 2
No.

 
ghostguy123 said:
Both teams with a possession in OT makes sense.

If the first team to get the ball scores a TD give them 7 points (no XP try, just give it to em).

If the next team scores, they must go for 2
No.
After further thought, agreed. No.

Really I didnt even want them to change it from the old way at the time.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top