What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rule changes to be voted upon (1 Viewer)

Bri

Footballguy
Casey Pearce, Chargers.com

NFL owners, head coaches and executives are set to gather in Palm Beach, Florida next week for the league’s annual meetings, and rule changes will be one of the prominent topics for discussion.

On Wednesday, Atlanta Falcons President Rich McKay, who along with Titans Head Coach Jeff Fisher co-chairs the NFL Competition Committee, shared possible changes that are on the table.

The proposed change that could have the biggest impact is a possible switch in playoff seeding. Currently, the four division winners in each conference are awarded the top four seeds in the playoffs, even if a Wild Card team had a better record than a division winner. Under the new format, division winners would be guaranteed a playoff berth but not necessarily a home game in the first round.

Last season, the Jacksonville Jaguars (11-5) had a better record than the Pittsburgh Steelers (10-6), but because Pittsburgh was the AFC North Champion, Jacksonville was forced to visit Heinz Field in the Wild Card round of the playoffs. The new rule could reverse that scenario.

The two Division Champions that have the best records automatically qualify for the top two seeds, but the other four would be based on strictly record. Division champions, however, would win tiebreakers in such scenarios.

Not only would the rule level the playing field for teams in stronger divisions, it could give more meaning to late-season games. In recent years, coaches have rested several key players in the final weeks of the regular season after the team had clinched its division, but the proposed change could force teams to take a different approach in hopes of keeping a home playoff game.

Instead of trying to mandate that a coach play all his key players late in the season, the NFL can instead try to make more games carry more playoff weight down the stretch.

“We do support the idea that a playoff seeding and the potential reworking of playoff seeding can motivate coaches late in the year based on seed and potential home game or not home game to have more games that count late in the year,” McKay said. “For us, we think that's a better solution than ever getting in the business of trying to legislate who a coach will play.”

The change that has created some buzz in recent days is one proposed by the Kansas City Chiefs. If passed, the rule would prohibit players from having their hair cover any portion of their nameplate or numbers on the back of their jerseys.

Last season, Chiefs running back Larry Johnson pulled Steelers safety Troy Polamalu to the ground by his hair after Polamalu intercepted a pass. Hair is currently considered part of the jersey, but Johnson was penalized for a personal foul because officials opined that Johnson gave a little extra tug at the end of the play. That sparked debates over whether or not “hair tackles” should be legal. If Kansas City’s proposal passes, it would no longer be an issue.

Players such as running backs Edgerrin James and Ricky Williams have cut their long dreadlocks after having their hair yanked. If the rule passes, it’s unlikely that players will be forced to cut their hair, but they’ll have to find some way to hide it during games.

“It doesn’t mean players have to cut their hair,” McKay said. “It means they have to keep their hair under their helmets. There's a big difference there.”

In addition to Kansas City’s proposal, the Competition Committee will recommend a handful of rule changes to be discussed. The first involves eliminating the “force-out rule.”

Currently, if the receiver fails to get both feet in bounds on a catch near the sidelines, it can still be called a completion based on the official’s judgment. If the official believes that the receiver was forced out by the defender before having an opportunity to get both feet down, the play can be ruled a catch. The Competition Committee would like to keep the officials from having to make such a loose judgment call.

“We feel there are so many levels of judgment that go into the force‑out call,” McKay said, “we just think it would create a much more consistent play when you say you get your feet down for a completed pass or you do not.”

In 2007, there were 15 force-out situations that were ruled completions.

The Committee will also recommend that officials have the opportunity to review field goal tries. Last season at Baltimore, a potential game-winning kick by Cleveland’s Phil Dawson was originally ruled no good. The Ravens headed to the locker room thinking they’d won the game, but although field goals were not reviewable by replay, officials looked at the tape. They then huddled and determined that the ball passed over the crossbar, hit the post that connects to the crossbar and bounced back in play. Such a kick is supposed to be ruled good, and the officials reversed their call.

The proposed rule change would permit officials to review such kicks.

Another possible change involves the elimination of the five-yard facemask penalty. Currently, there are two “levels” of penalty for a defender who grabs the face mask of an offensive player. An “incidental” facemask currently carries only a five-yard penalty, while a harsher violation is a 15-yard penalty. The new rule would make all violations 15-yard penalties.

“We believe that we can still promote and cover all the safety issues there are with respect to the face mask penalty with 15‑yard penalty,” McKay said. “We then said you either must twist it, turn it or pull it for a 15‑yard penalty as opposed to the 5‑yard standard which only required a grasp.”

Last spring, owners narrowly voted down a proposal to allow one defensive player to wear a communication device in his helmet like the quarterbacks do on offense. This proposal will again be discussed this season.

One of the issues that kept the proposal from passing in the past had to do with monitoring which player was wearing the device. Because the quarterback is always on the field on offense, it’s easy to do on that side of the ball. With regular defensive substitutions, it makes it a little harder to make sure only one player is wearing the special helmet on defense.

“We revised the proposal and now allow for a second player to have a speaker in his helmet,” McKay said. “Those two helmets cannot be on the field at the same time, so we would envision that the second player's helmet would be put on the sideline. And in the event the first player came out of the game with an injury or for some other reason, that player would switch helmets, be able to wear that helmet in the game and receive the communication. At no time can those two players be in the game at the same time with the communication devices in their helmets.”

Teams will have to indicate prior to kickoff which defenders will be wearing the special helmets. Like the current quarterback helmets, those players would wear a special decal indicating that they’re wearing a radio-equipped helmet.

Finally, the Competition Committee will recommend the creation of a “dead period” five to seven days before the beginning of free agency in which teams would be free to talk with the agents of potential free agents. Currently, teams are not supposed to make any contact with a player or agent until the signing period begins.

“Agents only, not the player themselves, they (could) negotiate a contract,” McKay said. “They cannot execute a contract and they cannot visit or meet with the player face‑to‑face.”

The “dead period” issue will be discussed but not voted on next week. If it gains support, it could be voted on when owners meet again in May.

 
...In addition to Kansas City’s proposal, the Competition Committee will recommend a handful of rule changes to be discussed. The first involves eliminating the “force-out rule.” Currently, if the receiver fails to get both feet in bounds on a catch near the sidelines, it can still be called a completion based on the official’s judgment. If the official believes that the receiver was forced out by the defender before having an opportunity to get both feet down, the play can be ruled a catch. The Competition Committee would like to keep the officials from having to make such a loose judgment call. “We feel there are so many levels of judgment that go into the force‑out call,” McKay said, “we just think it would create a much more consistent play when you say you get your feet down for a completed pass or you do not.” In 2007, there were 15 force-out situations that were ruled completions.
If this passes, I'm going to laugh my ### off the first time a receiver jumps up to catch a ball, and instead of tackling him, two defenders keep him hoisted up in the air, carry him 10 yards to the sideline and dump him out of bounds for an incomplete pass.
...Finally, the Competition Committee will recommend the creation of a “dead period” five to seven days before the beginning of free agency in which teams would be free to talk with the agents of potential free agents. Currently, teams are not supposed to make any contact with a player or agent until the signing period begins. “Agents only, not the player themselves, they (could) negotiate a contract,” McKay said. “They cannot execute a contract and they cannot visit or meet with the player face‑to‑face.” The “dead period” issue will be discussed but not voted on next week. If it gains support, it could be voted on when owners meet again in May.
This seems like it would be a decent change. If nothing else it would prompt teams to work harder to re-sign their players earlier in the season.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure why they want to change the face mask penalty. It works fine as it stands now IMO.
I agree, I like the "flagrant" and "accidental" calls. In fact, I would like to see PI sometimes just be a 10 or 15 yard penalty (and 1st down) rather than a 40 yard call that is questionable.I read this article (and thanks for posting) and had a roller coaster ride of happiness.As for the proposed playoff system I really HATE it. There has to be a benefit for winning the division. i don't care of one teams record was better form another division. maybe the other division had terrible teams in it after the top 2? Teams can consider themselves lucky to still be in the playoff hunt after not winning the division. You already could argue that after 16 games and 2 against the team who finished first, you have already proven that you are not the best team in your division so why give them any other reward. I think this would be a terrible rule and really penalizes teams that play in a top to bottom tough division as well as reduces the reward for winning the division. :thumbdown: The out of bounds play is a unique one. I like taking judgment calls away from the officials and outside of carrying a player out of bounds, I think it is reasonable to say that if the defender was close enough to knock you out before you stayed in bounds, it is similar to not getting into the end zone (getting knocked out before getting in). I would be OK with this but you can't carry a player out of bounds.
 
Casey Pearce, Chargers.com

NFL owners, head coaches and executives are set to gather in Palm Beach, Florida next week for the league’s annual meetings, and rule changes will be one of the prominent topics for discussion.

On Wednesday, Atlanta Falcons President Rich McKay, who along with Titans Head Coach Jeff Fisher co-chairs the NFL Competition Committee, shared possible changes that are on the table.

The proposed change that could have the biggest impact is a possible switch in playoff seeding. Currently, the four division winners in each conference are awarded the top four seeds in the playoffs, even if a Wild Card team had a better record than a division winner. Under the new format, division winners would be guaranteed a playoff berth but not necessarily a home game in the first round.

Last season, the Jacksonville Jaguars (11-5) had a better record than the Pittsburgh Steelers (10-6), but because Pittsburgh was the AFC North Champion, Jacksonville was forced to visit Heinz Field in the Wild Card round of the playoffs. The new rule could reverse that scenario.

The two Division Champions that have the best records automatically qualify for the top two seeds, but the other four would be based on strictly record. Division champions, however, would win tiebreakers in such scenarios.

Not only would the rule level the playing field for teams in stronger divisions, it could give more meaning to late-season games. In recent years, coaches have rested several key players in the final weeks of the regular season after the team had clinched its division, but the proposed change could force teams to take a different approach in hopes of keeping a home playoff game.

Instead of trying to mandate that a coach play all his key players late in the season, the NFL can instead try to make more games carry more playoff weight down the stretch.

“We do support the idea that a playoff seeding and the potential reworking of playoff seeding can motivate coaches late in the year based on seed and potential home game or not home game to have more games that count late in the year,” McKay said. “For us, we think that's a better solution than ever getting in the business of trying to legislate who a coach will play.”
I wrote a proposal on the PFR blog at the end of the season, suggesting such a change.I have seen arguments against such a proposal, and they generally fall into a couple of categories:

1. tradition--division winners should get home games because division winners have gotten home games.

2. it would make winning a division meaningless.

3. it would be unfair if the division winner played a tough schedule, and had a worse record because of that schedule.

I don't buy the tradition argument at all. The NFL has shown it is a league willing to change, and has frequently changed it's format and playoff structure since the merger, including expanding to a wildcard round, changing how home games were assigned, changing the rule that division opponent's could not meet until the conf championship, and adding a sixth playoff team, which required a division winner to play an extra game. And not every division winner has gotten a home game in the past (they just have never had to play on the road against a wildcard).

As to the second argument, it is not meaningless. The division winner automatically gets entry into the playoff pool, regardless of their record against the rest of the conference. That should be enough, particularly in the current format where it is easier to when a division because there are fewer teams to compete against to do so. The chances that we see an 8-8 or 7-9 division winner are greatly increased now that there are four teams in a division.

The third one has some merit. But on balance, if a wildcard team has the better record, the wildcard team is the better team. (Because remember, to be a wildcard team, there must have been an even better team within your own division-likely the conference #1 or #2 seed, that the wildcard had to play twice and the division winner with the worse record did not). In 2002, the NY Jets played a much tougher schedule than the Colts, but finished one game behind Indy, the wildcard who they smoked in the first round. It would basically take a season like that, where there were 8 teams in one half of the conference who were all 8-8 or better and gave each other losses, to make this scenario true. And the reverse of this is true. There have been more occasions when the wildcard was the better team and had the tougher schedule, and had to go on the road. Some of these teams overcame it (NY Giants 2007, Pittsburgh 2005, Baltimore 2000, Denver 1997) and lots of others did not.

I would estimate that the chances a division winner with a worse record actually being the "true" better team on balance is less than 20%. So, for me, the equation is:

risk that the home division winner is better team and loses a home game

VS.

the times that the wildcard played a tougher schedule and is the better team and earns a home game

+

the benefit that there is increased competition for home games, and we won't see the types of things like Tampa 2007 shutting it down for the last two games, NE 2005 resting starters as the #4 seed, etc.

Will we still see a team that has clinched a first round bye resting starters in week 17, sure. But what we won't see (which we have seen since 2002 but not before then) is teams who are slated for the #4 seed, and happened to play in an easier division, resting starters over the last two weeks.

 
Re: The Hair thing, um, no. (and I'm proud that my hometown franchise is the one proposing such a pressing need).

Re: The sideline forceout rule. The problem with the rule is not the spirit, but the enforcement. There may have been only 15 called, but there were several others that could have been. Not only that, I saw multiple occasions where an official signaled a catch along the sidelines, because the player was pushed out of bounds in the act of making a catch, but the official thought the player got both feet in bounds anyway. After the review, the play was reversed, but it was clearly a play that the official would have called a force out, but for believing it was already a catch. However, because he called it a catch, it was reversed. Rather than changing the rule altogether, I would rather see the review process changed. If, in the referee's opinion, on review, the catch was not made because of a force out, (even if the official signaled catch rather than force out at the time of the play) then the play should still stand.

Re: field goal replay review. I don't see why back of the end zone touchdowns should be reviewed, and field goals not. If there is clear video evidence that it should be overturned, then so be it. This one needs to be implemented.

Re: facemask penalties. I'm not seeing the need for this change. In fact, there are various levels of this offense. Sure, there may be a gray area in the middle. But, if you brush a face mask now, you let go, and you probably only get the 5 yarder and not an auto first down. What is the incentive to let go once you have committed the initial infraction under this change? Why not just yank the guy down and make sure you get the tackle, if you are already on the mask accidentally.

Re: defensive headsets. Should be something that could happen.

Re: free agency dead period. Seems like some solution is needed here, need to think about if this is it or not.

 
Casey Pearce, Chargers.com

NFL owners, head coaches and executives are set to gather in Palm Beach, Florida next week for the league’s annual meetings, and rule changes will be one of the prominent topics for discussion.

On Wednesday, Atlanta Falcons President Rich McKay, who along with Titans Head Coach Jeff Fisher co-chairs the NFL Competition Committee, shared possible changes that are on the table.

The proposed change that could have the biggest impact is a possible switch in playoff seeding. Currently, the four division winners in each conference are awarded the top four seeds in the playoffs, even if a Wild Card team had a better record than a division winner. Under the new format, division winners would be guaranteed a playoff berth but not necessarily a home game in the first round.

Last season, the Jacksonville Jaguars (11-5) had a better record than the Pittsburgh Steelers (10-6), but because Pittsburgh was the AFC North Champion, Jacksonville was forced to visit Heinz Field in the Wild Card round of the playoffs. The new rule could reverse that scenario.

The two Division Champions that have the best records automatically qualify for the top two seeds, but the other four would be based on strictly record. Division champions, however, would win tiebreakers in such scenarios.

Not only would the rule level the playing field for teams in stronger divisions, it could give more meaning to late-season games. In recent years, coaches have rested several key players in the final weeks of the regular season after the team had clinched its division, but the proposed change could force teams to take a different approach in hopes of keeping a home playoff game.

Instead of trying to mandate that a coach play all his key players late in the season, the NFL can instead try to make more games carry more playoff weight down the stretch.

“We do support the idea that a playoff seeding and the potential reworking of playoff seeding can motivate coaches late in the year based on seed and potential home game or not home game to have more games that count late in the year,” McKay said. “For us, we think that's a better solution than ever getting in the business of trying to legislate who a coach will play.”
I wrote a proposal on the PFR blog at the end of the season, suggesting such a change.I have seen arguments against such a proposal, and they generally fall into a couple of categories:

1. tradition--division winners should get home games because division winners have gotten home games.

2. it would make winning a division meaningless.

3. it would be unfair if the division winner played a tough schedule, and had a worse record because of that schedule.

I don't buy the tradition argument at all. The NFL has shown it is a league willing to change, and has frequently changed it's format and playoff structure since the merger, including expanding to a wildcard round, changing how home games were assigned, changing the rule that division opponent's could not meet until the conf championship, and adding a sixth playoff team, which required a division winner to play an extra game. And not every division winner has gotten a home game in the past (they just have never had to play on the road against a wildcard).

As to the second argument, it is not meaningless. The division winner automatically gets entry into the playoff pool, regardless of their record against the rest of the conference. That should be enough, particularly in the current format where it is easier to when a division because there are fewer teams to compete against to do so. The chances that we see an 8-8 or 7-9 division winner are greatly increased now that there are four teams in a division.

The third one has some merit. But on balance, if a wildcard team has the better record, the wildcard team is the better team. (Because remember, to be a wildcard team, there must have been an even better team within your own division-likely the conference #1 or #2 seed, that the wildcard had to play twice and the division winner with the worse record did not). In 2002, the NY Jets played a much tougher schedule than the Colts, but finished one game behind Indy, the wildcard who they smoked in the first round. It would basically take a season like that, where there were 8 teams in one half of the conference who were all 8-8 or better and gave each other losses, to make this scenario true. And the reverse of this is true. There have been more occasions when the wildcard was the better team and had the tougher schedule, and had to go on the road. Some of these teams overcame it (NY Giants 2007, Pittsburgh 2005, Baltimore 2000, Denver 1997) and lots of others did not.

I would estimate that the chances a division winner with a worse record actually being the "true" better team on balance is less than 20%. So, for me, the equation is:

risk that the home division winner is better team and loses a home game

VS.

the times that the wildcard played a tougher schedule and is the better team and earns a home game

+

the benefit that there is increased competition for home games, and we won't see the types of things like Tampa 2007 shutting it down for the last two games, NE 2005 resting starters as the #4 seed, etc.

Will we still see a team that has clinched a first round bye resting starters in week 17, sure. But what we won't see (which we have seen since 2002 but not before then) is teams who are slated for the #4 seed, and happened to play in an easier division, resting starters over the last two weeks.
I appreciate your analysis but I disagree with the conclusion. I think winning the division is the 1st goal at the start of the year and the division winner should not have to go on the road to play a team that didn't win their division (that is the penalty of not winning the division). In fact, you could argue the WC team is lucky to even be in the playoffs, as they have proven to not be better than at least one team. I don't necessarily care about tradition, but WC's should have to go on the road to face any division winner IMO.

 
Re: The Hair thing, um, no. (and I'm proud that my hometown franchise is the one proposing such a pressing need).Re: The sideline forceout rule. The problem with the rule is not the spirit, but the enforcement. There may have been only 15 called, but there were several others that could have been. Not only that, I saw multiple occasions where an official signaled a catch along the sidelines, because the player was pushed out of bounds in the act of making a catch, but the official thought the player got both feet in bounds anyway. After the review, the play was reversed, but it was clearly a play that the official would have called a force out, but for believing it was already a catch. However, because he called it a catch, it was reversed. Rather than changing the rule altogether, I would rather see the review process changed. If, in the referee's opinion, on review, the catch was not made because of a force out, (even if the official signaled catch rather than force out at the time of the play) then the play should still stand.
You make a good point about the out of bounds review part. this bothered me as well because the call on the field didn't allow them to see that the player was pushed out. I don;t want to get into IR as I have major issues with it, but if you have it, they should be allowed to review if the player was pushed out...In fact, they should be allowed to review the play to see if what they thought happened actually happened (why not let the ref who made the call review it?)
 
...In addition to Kansas City’s proposal, the Competition Committee will recommend a handful of rule changes to be discussed. The first involves eliminating the “force-out rule.” Currently, if the receiver fails to get both feet in bounds on a catch near the sidelines, it can still be called a completion based on the official’s judgment. If the official believes that the receiver was forced out by the defender before having an opportunity to get both feet down, the play can be ruled a catch. The Competition Committee would like to keep the officials from having to make such a loose judgment call. “We feel there are so many levels of judgment that go into the force‑out call,” McKay said, “we just think it would create a much more consistent play when you say you get your feet down for a completed pass or you do not.” In 2007, there were 15 force-out situations that were ruled completions.
If this passes, I'm going to laugh my ### off the first time a receiver jumps up to catch a ball, and instead of tackling him, two defenders keep him hoisted up in the air, carry him 10 yards to the sideline and dump him out of bounds for an incomplete pass.
It used to be that way though. I wouldn't mind a better fight for the ball, that's entertaining. However I guess it would be on the WR to be inside the defender. It's so easy to just shove him out, why bother jumping and trying to battle the WR for the ball. It almost seems "cheap" like someone would say on a playground.
...Finally, the Competition Committee will recommend the creation of a “dead period” five to seven days before the beginning of free agency in which teams would be free to talk with the agents of potential free agents. Currently, teams are not supposed to make any contact with a player or agent until the signing period begins. “Agents only, not the player themselves, they (could) negotiate a contract,” McKay said. “They cannot execute a contract and they cannot visit or meet with the player face‑to‑face.” The “dead period” issue will be discussed but not voted on next week. If it gains support, it could be voted on when owners meet again in May.
This seems like it would be a decent change. If nothing else it would prompt teams to work harder to re-sign their players earlier in the season.
I figure this will get rid of some tamperring violations and imagine the NFL probably gets tons of accusations or whines from team to team.
 
Agree that if they pass the no force out rule wideouts are going to get absolutely killed when they go up.

 
IMO, they should leave the force out rule alone but make a mandatory booth review (so teams don't waste a challenge). If the player was going to be in the field, I don't think it's fair to effectively make the usable field smaller for the offense. I think that could make the usable field almost 10 feet smaller around all the sidelines and back lines.

I also think they should change pass interference to flagrant and incidental. Have the plays where a guy is just plain beat and hauls the receiver down be marked at the spot of the foul or 15 yards (whichever is greater) and be an automatic first down. If it is more incidental, minor, or not really intentional make it a 10 yard penalty but not a mandatory first down.

I am getting tired of poorly, underthrown passes turning into huge plays because the receiver had a split second better reaction time on a really bad pass and the defender bumped him when the receiver stopped on a dime.

 
WC's should have to go on the road to face any division winner IMO.
I agreeWildcard=just squeeked in to the playoffsdivision winner "feels" more like earned entry into the playoffs, commands a spot in the playoffs.
Disagree a 12-4 WC team should not have to go on the road vs a 9-7 division winner. The better team should have home field IMO.This of course could be debated endlessly. I'd love to see a poll.
 
...In addition to Kansas City’s proposal, the Competition Committee will recommend a handful of rule changes to be discussed. The first involves eliminating the “force-out rule.” Currently, if the receiver fails to get both feet in bounds on a catch near the sidelines, it can still be called a completion based on the official’s judgment. If the official believes that the receiver was forced out by the defender before having an opportunity to get both feet down, the play can be ruled a catch. The Competition Committee would like to keep the officials from having to make such a loose judgment call. “We feel there are so many levels of judgment that go into the force‑out call,” McKay said, “we just think it would create a much more consistent play when you say you get your feet down for a completed pass or you do not.” In 2007, there were 15 force-out situations that were ruled completions.
If this passes, I'm going to laugh my ### off the first time a receiver jumps up to catch a ball, and instead of tackling him, two defenders keep him hoisted up in the air, carry him 10 yards to the sideline and dump him out of bounds for an incomplete pass.
...Finally, the Competition Committee will recommend the creation of a “dead period” five to seven days before the beginning of free agency in which teams would be free to talk with the agents of potential free agents. Currently, teams are not supposed to make any contact with a player or agent until the signing period begins. “Agents only, not the player themselves, they (could) negotiate a contract,” McKay said. “They cannot execute a contract and they cannot visit or meet with the player face‑to‑face.” The “dead period” issue will be discussed but not voted on next week. If it gains support, it could be voted on when owners meet again in May.
This seems like it would be a decent change. If nothing else it would prompt teams to work harder to re-sign their players earlier in the season.
If defenders were carrying players like that, I would think that the ref could blow the whistle for "stopped foward progress" and declare the player down. This happens all the time to RB's at the goal line, as OFTEN they never really make it to the ground because of all the bodies, but can no longer move around either because of more bodies ON THEM. Hopefully, the NFL guys envision this possibility though, and add language to specificly cover it.
 
The current force out rule is old school and needs to be changed.

There will always be judgement calls in football but it makes little sense to kep this one on the books...partially because it rarely seems to make sense why they call it one way on a certain play and a different way on another play. Why give the refs one more judgement call that doesn't need to be there? Make the rule more black and white.

We discussed this rule change during the year and the same tired arguments against changing it are here again I see. The defenders currently try to hit the snot out of the wideouts and force the ball out...that isn't going to change. The NFL isn't going to have a sudden surge of defenders 'catching' wideouts and carrying them out of bounds. The league will even cover that contingency for those concerned ---> link

For those against changing this rule: you would rather keep this continuously botched judgement call in the heads of the officials on the field instead of making it a black and white rule? The main reasons being that now wide receivers will get hit more and that defenders will catch them and carry them out of bounds? Get real.

 
Re: The Hair thing, um, no. (and I'm proud that my hometown franchise is the one proposing such a pressing need).

Re: The sideline forceout rule. The problem with the rule is not the spirit, but the enforcement. There may have been only 15 called, but there were several others that could have been. Not only that, I saw multiple occasions where an official signaled a catch along the sidelines, because the player was pushed out of bounds in the act of making a catch, but the official thought the player got both feet in bounds anyway. After the review, the play was reversed, but it was clearly a play that the official would have called a force out, but for believing it was already a catch. However, because he called it a catch, it was reversed. Rather than changing the rule altogether, I would rather see the review process changed. If, in the referee's opinion, on review, the catch was not made because of a force out, (even if the official signaled catch rather than force out at the time of the play) then the play should still stand.

Re: field goal replay review. I don't see why back of the end zone touchdowns should be reviewed, and field goals not. If there is clear video evidence that it should be overturned, then so be it. This one needs to be implemented.

Re: facemask penalties. I'm not seeing the need for this change. In fact, there are various levels of this offense. Sure, there may be a gray area in the middle. But, if you brush a face mask now, you let go, and you probably only get the 5 yarder and not an auto first down. What is the incentive to let go once you have committed the initial infraction under this change? Why not just yank the guy down and make sure you get the tackle, if you are already on the mask accidentally.

Re: defensive headsets. Should be something that could happen.

Re: free agency dead period. Seems like some solution is needed here, need to think about if this is it or not.
I think that the intent is to not penalize the inadvertant brushing or grabbing and releasing of the facemask, not to make all contact with the facemask 15 yarders. If there's no serious grabbing or twisting of the mask, no flag is thrown. I think that it's a good idea, as the threat of a 15-yarder will provide plenty of disincentive for grabbing the facemask that the ticky-tacky 5 yard penalty isn't needed.
 
nysfl2 said:
JKL said:
Re: The Hair thing, um, no. (and I'm proud that my hometown franchise is the one proposing such a pressing need).

Re: The sideline forceout rule. The problem with the rule is not the spirit, but the enforcement. There may have been only 15 called, but there were several others that could have been. Not only that, I saw multiple occasions where an official signaled a catch along the sidelines, because the player was pushed out of bounds in the act of making a catch, but the official thought the player got both feet in bounds anyway. After the review, the play was reversed, but it was clearly a play that the official would have called a force out, but for believing it was already a catch. However, because he called it a catch, it was reversed. Rather than changing the rule altogether, I would rather see the review process changed. If, in the referee's opinion, on review, the catch was not made because of a force out, (even if the official signaled catch rather than force out at the time of the play) then the play should still stand.

Re: field goal replay review. I don't see why back of the end zone touchdowns should be reviewed, and field goals not. If there is clear video evidence that it should be overturned, then so be it. This one needs to be implemented.

Re: facemask penalties. I'm not seeing the need for this change. In fact, there are various levels of this offense. Sure, there may be a gray area in the middle. But, if you brush a face mask now, you let go, and you probably only get the 5 yarder and not an auto first down. What is the incentive to let go once you have committed the initial infraction under this change? Why not just yank the guy down and make sure you get the tackle, if you are already on the mask accidentally.

Re: defensive headsets. Should be something that could happen.

Re: free agency dead period. Seems like some solution is needed here, need to think about if this is it or not.
I think that the intent is to not penalize the inadvertant brushing or grabbing and releasing of the facemask, not to make all contact with the facemask 15 yarders. If there's no serious grabbing or twisting of the mask, no flag is thrown. I think that it's a good idea, as the threat of a 15-yarder will provide plenty of disincentive for grabbing the facemask that the ticky-tacky 5 yard penalty isn't needed.
If that's the intent, then they would need to change the definition of "face mask" to begin with. If this is what they are aiming for though, I like it. If they still plan on enforcing a penalty on those minor incidental "facemasks" :P
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top