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.
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.
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.
