When I become Supreme Ruler, these are the 1st things I will change: (1 Viewer)

[zed2283]

No special QB rules: These guys are football players, period. No more you can’t do this or you can’t do that. Either the rules apply to everyone or no one, and no skirts for the QB.

No neutral zone infraction: I can’t stand this rule. The linemen will be men again and have to stand there like statues instead of getting a default penalty by “reacting” to the defense.

No 12 men on the field imminent snap: Where did this come from? Is this some sort of player safety rule? Why would I want to automatically take a 5-yard penalty instead of getting a shot for something bigger? Might as well stop the play on every offsides.

No 10-second run off: I hate these goofy clock rules that only apply at certain times of the game and only if your team is losing. Any conditional rule is stupid. No 10-second runoffs. Ever.

No weird clock rules: See above. The rules should apply at all times during the game.

No stupid fumble rules: See above. Really hate this rule also. A fumble is a fumble and anyone can recover it and advance at any point in the game at any spot on the field.

No illegal substitution rules: I know coaches have forced this, but I get sick of 12 men in the huddle flags and the other substitution penalties that don’t make sense. Run them in and run them out.

Helmet-to-helmet contact will be reviewable.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

You also seem to be missing that some of these rules you don't like prevent shenanigans--the 10 second runoff, the end of game fumble rules, etc.

 

[Hankmoody]

Have fun watching Brock Osweiler vs. Chase Daniel on a regular basis.

Terrible list.

 

[Houston turmOiler]

Quit calling illegal contact every other play

 

[zed2283]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

Good call. Possession and two feet equals a catch.

You also seem to be missing that some of these rules you don't like prevent shenanigans--the 10 second runoff, the end of game fumble rules, etc.

Totally overblown. There aren't that many shenanigans, and so what if there are? The stupid rules far outweigh the occasional shenanigan. And replay can be used to tell if a fumble is legit or the ball was intentionally batted or thrown forward.

And the other post reminds me. I'm thinking of taking away the automatic first downs on defensive penalties.

 

[MaxThreshold]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

Good call. Possession and two feet equals a catch.

You also seem to be missing that some of these rules you don't like prevent shenanigans--the 10 second runoff, the end of game fumble rules, etc.

Totally overblown. There aren't that many shenanigans, and so what if there are? The stupid rules far outweigh the occasional shenanigan. And replay can be used to tell if a fumble is legit or the ball was intentionally batted or thrown forward.

And the other post reminds me. I'm thinking of taking away the automatic first downs on defensive penalties.

So I guess the rules in place are working. Not sure why we would get rid of them then.

 

[Maelstrom]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

Good call. Possession and two feet equals a catch.

You also seem to be missing that some of these rules you don't like prevent shenanigans--the 10 second runoff, the end of game fumble rules, etc.

Totally overblown. There aren't that many shenanigans, and so what if there are? The stupid rules far outweigh the occasional shenanigan. And replay can be used to tell if a fumble is legit or the ball was intentionally batted or thrown forward.

And the other post reminds me. I'm thinking of taking away the automatic first downs on defensive penalties.

Ding ding ding...because of the rules! Guarantee there would be more if the rules didn't prevent them, and do you REALLY want to put the power in the ref's hands as to what happens when a loose ball is on the ground?

DF Pass Interference. Let's loosen that up a little, and make it a spot (when less than 10 yards) or 10 yard penalty at max.

 

[Dizzy]

No instant replay... sucks the life out of the game.

 

[zed2283]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

Good call. Possession and two feet equals a catch.

You also seem to be missing that some of these rules you don't like prevent shenanigans--the 10 second runoff, the end of game fumble rules, etc.

Totally overblown. There aren't that many shenanigans, and so what if there are? The stupid rules far outweigh the occasional shenanigan. And replay can be used to tell if a fumble is legit or the ball was intentionally batted or thrown forward.

And the other post reminds me. I'm thinking of taking away the automatic first downs on defensive penalties.

Ding ding ding...because of the rules! Guarantee there would be more if the rules didn't prevent them, and do you REALLY want to put the power in the ref's hands as to what happens when a loose ball is on the ground?

DF Pass Interference. Let's loosen that up a little, and make it a spot (when less than 10 yards) or 10 yard penalty at max.

Wrong guys. I guess you just started watching football in the last 15 years.

Yes, what's the problem with the ref ruling on a loose ball. The fumble rules are ridiculous.

 

[fatness]

No clock. Let them play until one team submits, or doesn't have enough players who can walk.

Sure, the season will be short. But men will be men.

 

[ShamrockPride]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

Good call. Possession and two feet equals a catch.

Define "possession". That's where the debate starts and ends.

 

[zed2283]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

Good call. Possession and two feet equals a catch.

Define "possession". That's where the debate starts and ends.

Not really. Possession was pretty clear for 85 years.

 

[Eminence]

The special rules for QBs is what gets me most. I'd like to see a highlight reel of every roughing the passer penalty called this season. I've seen more than a few weak calls this season.

You're going after the QB. You're telling me a defender has to watch the QBs eyes and the ball before he can go for the sack? That kind of play is bang, bang not much room for error. Especially when you consider the QB can pump fake you when you're barreling down on him.

You're flying at him full speed and have to determine whether or not he's pump faking?

 

[Donnybrook]

Quit calling illegal contact every other play

This

 

[Short Corner]

your list blows. post less

 

[Bruce Hammond]

Whew. Before opening the thread I was worried you'd work on things like hunger and world peace!

Absolutely, don't protect the QBs that fans pay to see from guys who are out to intentionally injure them. We need to watch more games started by stiffs like Lindley and Whitehurst.

 

[zed2283]

Whew. Before opening the thread I was worried you'd work on things like hunger and world peace!

Absolutely, don't protect the QBs that fans pay to see from guys who are out to intentionally injure them. We need to watch more games started by stiffs like Lindley and Whitehurst.

And Brady and Warner.

Football is a big boy game and people get hurt. Next man up.

 

[zed2283]

your list blows. post less

My list rocks. The football purists are with me.

 

[lod01]

If you have to come down with 2 feet, and walk to the bench with a TD pass, you should also have to hold onto the ball when you cross the goalline if you run across it.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

Whew. Before opening the thread I was worried you'd work on things like hunger and world peace!

Absolutely, don't protect the QBs that fans pay to see from guys who are out to intentionally injure them. We need to watch more games started by stiffs like Lindley and Whitehurst.

And Brady and Warner.

Football is a big boy game and people get hurt. Next man up.

There's a reason he named guys who literally played today, while you had to reach back to two likely HOFers that got their jobs more than ten years ago to find a positive outcome to a QB injury.There's a lot more downside than upside to not protecting QB's. Multiple teams this season were starting their 3rd-4th string QB's by the end of the season.

 

[GregR]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

I get people not liking the catch rules.

But I don't get why people think the end zone has anything to do with it. The criteria are the same everywhere on the field. If after completing the catch the ball is in or gets in the end zone it is a TD. If the catch is never completed then it is never a touchdown. Changing the definition of what completes a catch won't change anything with regard to the end zone.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

I get people not liking the catch rules.

But I don't get why people think the end zone has anything to do with it. The criteria are the same everywhere on the field. If after completing the catch the ball is in or gets in the end zone it is a TD. If the catch is never completed then it is never a touchdown. Changing the definition of what completes a catch won't change anything with regard to the end zone.

I believe most of these complaints are in reference to the Calvin endzone snafu that keeps popping up.

 

[GregR]

No 12 men on the field imminent snap: Where did this come from? Is this some sort of player safety rule? Why would I want to automatically take a 5-yard penalty instead of getting a shot for something bigger? Might as well stop the play on every offsides.

I am leading by 5 with 20 seconds on the clock. You have the ball at your own 20 and need to go 80 yards in 20 seconds.I send 20 defenders on the field and likely stop you from gaining any yards through sheer numbers. You get 5 yards out of it but the time for the play runs off the clock. I do this twice, leaving you with 70 yards to go and time for only one play, and then I play with 11 defenders so the game won't be extended by the penalty.

ETA that is the extreme version. Worth it to me to use just 12 on each play since 5 yards is nothing compared to chance to prevent a big play... So long as the clock has to run for you to gain the penalty.

 

[GregR]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

I get people not liking the catch rules.

But I don't get why people think the end zone has anything to do with it. The criteria are the same everywhere on the field. If after completing the catch the ball is in or gets in the end zone it is a TD. If the catch is never completed then it is never a touchdown. Changing the definition of what completes a catch won't change anything with regard to the end zone.

I believe most of these complaints are in reference to the Calvin endzone snafu that keeps popping up.

Which had nothing to do with the end zone which is my point. Whether it was a catch or not was the same anywhere else on the field.

 

[Smack Tripper]

No neutral zone infraction: I can’t stand this rule. The linemen will be men again and have to stand there like statues instead of getting a default penalty by “reacting” to the defense.

No 12 men on the field imminent snap: Where did this come from? Is this some sort of player safety rule? Why would I want to automatically take a 5-yard penalty instead of getting a shot for something bigger? Might as well stop the play on every offsides.

Helmet-to-helmet contact will be reviewable.

I could be ok with these... the rest is terrible

 

[ShamrockPride]

You've manage to compile a list of things I literally never find myself complaining about, congratulations.

Seriously though, you're missing the biggest issue--the stupid catch rules, especially in the endzone.

I get people not liking the catch rules.But I don't get why people think the end zone has anything to do with it. The criteria are the same everywhere on the field. If after completing the catch the ball is in or gets in the end zone it is a TD. If the catch is never completed then it is never a touchdown. Changing the definition of what completes a catch won't change anything with regard to the end zone.

I believe most of these complaints are in reference to the Calvin endzone snafu that keeps popping up.

That was an awful awful incident. It's that one moment that will live on in everyone's mind as the onset of an era of a particular rule. Kinda like the tuck rule game. Without that Calvin moment, catches don't have a "process".

 

[Steeler]

I would change the "allowed intentional grounding" rule where the QB is allowed to spike the ball within 5 yards of the receiver while in the pocket. For example, when a screen play is sniffed out by the defense, the QB immediately spikes the ball and then points at the RB even though the RB has zero chance at catching the ball. In fact, the QB never even gives him the opportunity. That should be intentional grounding.

 

[Jack White]

I would change the "allowed intentional grounding" rule where the QB is allowed to spike the ball within 5 yards of the receiver while in the pocket. For example, when a screen play is sniffed out by the defense, the QB immediately spikes the ball and then points at the RB even though the RB has zero chance at catching the ball. In fact, the QB never even gives him the opportunity. That should be intentional grounding.

You can't call intentional grounding when a pass attempt is near an eligible receiver.

As for the OP's list, I have no problem with the rules he despises.

Especially hits on QB. It's a QB league and as fans we should never want them to get hurt.

Ask the fans in Arizona.

 

[Steeler]

I would change the "allowed intentional grounding" rule where the QB is allowed to spike the ball within 5 yards of the receiver while in the pocket. For example, when a screen play is sniffed out by the defense, the QB immediately spikes the ball and then points at the RB even though the RB has zero chance at catching the ball. In fact, the QB never even gives him the opportunity. That should be intentional grounding.

You can't call intentional grounding when a pass attempt is near an eligible receiver.

Define "near" when it's a screen pass and behind the LOS. Many times the QB is clearly spiking the ball where there is no chance for the RB to catch it. That will be intentional grounding when I am supreme ruler.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I would change the "allowed intentional grounding" rule where the QB is allowed to spike the ball within 5 yards of the receiver while in the pocket. For example, when a screen play is sniffed out by the defense, the QB immediately spikes the ball and then points at the RB even though the RB has zero chance at catching the ball. In fact, the QB never even gives him the opportunity. That should be intentional grounding.

You can't call intentional grounding when a pass attempt is near an eligible receiver.

As for the OP's list, I have no problem with the rules he despises.

Especially hits on QB. It's a QB league and as fans we should never want them to get hurt.

Ask the fans in Arizona.

its not hurting a QB to call Intentional grounding...

PI is determined on whether balls are "catchable", a ball thrown at the feet of a guy with his back to you who's five feet away is not catchable.

I would like to see the rule change too.

 

[Jack White]

I would change the "allowed intentional grounding" rule where the QB is allowed to spike the ball within 5 yards of the receiver while in the pocket. For example, when a screen play is sniffed out by the defense, the QB immediately spikes the ball and then points at the RB even though the RB has zero chance at catching the ball. In fact, the QB never even gives him the opportunity. That should be intentional grounding.

You can't call intentional grounding when a pass attempt is near an eligible receiver.

Define "near" when it's a screen pass and behind the LOS. Many times the QB is clearly spiking the ball where there is no chance for the RB to catch it. That will be intentional grounding when I am supreme ruler.

He's not spiking the ball. He's throwing it near the RB's feet.

It's no different from when the QB intentionally throws it high out of bounds over a covered receiver's head.

Try again!

 

[Steeler]

I would change the "allowed intentional grounding" rule where the QB is allowed to spike the ball within 5 yards of the receiver while in the pocket. For example, when a screen play is sniffed out by the defense, the QB immediately spikes the ball and then points at the RB even though the RB has zero chance at catching the ball. In fact, the QB never even gives him the opportunity. That should be intentional grounding.

You can't call intentional grounding when a pass attempt is near an eligible receiver.

Define "near" when it's a screen pass and behind the LOS. Many times the QB is clearly spiking the ball where there is no chance for the RB to catch it. That will be intentional grounding when I am supreme ruler.

He's not spiking the ball. He's throwing it near the RB's feet.

It's no different from when the QB intentionally throws it high out of bounds over a covered receiver's head.

Try again!

I don't have to try again. This is the thread where we list the rules we would change if we could... this is one for me.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I would change the "allowed intentional grounding" rule where the QB is allowed to spike the ball within 5 yards of the receiver while in the pocket. For example, when a screen play is sniffed out by the defense, the QB immediately spikes the ball and then points at the RB even though the RB has zero chance at catching the ball. In fact, the QB never even gives him the opportunity. That should be intentional grounding.

You can't call intentional grounding when a pass attempt is near an eligible receiver.

Define "near" when it's a screen pass and behind the LOS. Many times the QB is clearly spiking the ball where there is no chance for the RB to catch it. That will be intentional grounding when I am supreme ruler.

He's not spiking the ball. He's throwing it near the RB's feet.

It's no different from when the QB intentionally throws it high out of bounds over a covered receiver's head.

Try again!

then why is there intentional grounding as a rule in the first place or would you do away with this?

 

[Jack White]

I would change the "allowed intentional grounding" rule where the QB is allowed to spike the ball within 5 yards of the receiver while in the pocket. For example, when a screen play is sniffed out by the defense, the QB immediately spikes the ball and then points at the RB even though the RB has zero chance at catching the ball. In fact, the QB never even gives him the opportunity. That should be intentional grounding.

You can't call intentional grounding when a pass attempt is near an eligible receiver.

Define "near" when it's a screen pass and behind the LOS. Many times the QB is clearly spiking the ball where there is no chance for the RB to catch it. That will be intentional grounding when I am supreme ruler.

He's not spiking the ball. He's throwing it near the RB's feet.

It's no different from when the QB intentionally throws it high out of bounds over a covered receiver's head.

Try again!

then why is there intentional grounding as a rule in the first place or would you do away with this?

No, I don't think I'd be in favor of eliminating it completely. But I do think it should be reserved for the most egregious examples where there is no receiver even close to the pass. In the RB screen example, that's just smart football to throw it away, just as other passes are sometimes thrown away on purpose, with no intention to make a completion, but to avoid a sack.

As for other rules, I've never been a proponent of replay. Especially when you have guys like Walt Anderson, Walt Coleman and Jeff Triplet who think they see things that don't exist, or don't see things that are obvious to the rest of us.

 

[Jack White]

I would change the "allowed intentional grounding" rule where the QB is allowed to spike the ball within 5 yards of the receiver while in the pocket. For example, when a screen play is sniffed out by the defense, the QB immediately spikes the ball and then points at the RB even though the RB has zero chance at catching the ball. In fact, the QB never even gives him the opportunity. That should be intentional grounding.

You can't call intentional grounding when a pass attempt is near an eligible receiver.

Define "near" when it's a screen pass and behind the LOS. Many times the QB is clearly spiking the ball where there is no chance for the RB to catch it. That will be intentional grounding when I am supreme ruler.

He's not spiking the ball. He's throwing it near the RB's feet.

It's no different from when the QB intentionally throws it high out of bounds over a covered receiver's head.

Try again!

I don't have to try again. This is the thread where we list the rules we would change if we could... this is one for me.

That's fair.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I would change the "allowed intentional grounding" rule where the QB is allowed to spike the ball within 5 yards of the receiver while in the pocket. For example, when a screen play is sniffed out by the defense, the QB immediately spikes the ball and then points at the RB even though the RB has zero chance at catching the ball. In fact, the QB never even gives him the opportunity. That should be intentional grounding.

You can't call intentional grounding when a pass attempt is near an eligible receiver.

Define "near" when it's a screen pass and behind the LOS. Many times the QB is clearly spiking the ball where there is no chance for the RB to catch it. That will be intentional grounding when I am supreme ruler.

He's not spiking the ball. He's throwing it near the RB's feet.

It's no different from when the QB intentionally throws it high out of bounds over a covered receiver's head.

Try again!

then why is there intentional grounding as a rule in the first place or would you do away with this?

No, I don't think I'd be in favor of eliminating it completely. But I do think it should be reserved for the most egregious examples where there is no receiver even close to the pass. In the RB screen example, that's just smart football to throw it away, just as other passes are sometimes thrown away on purpose, with no intention to make a completion, but to avoid a sack.

As for other rules, I've never been a proponent of replay. Especially when you have guys like Walt Anderson, Walt Coleman and Jeff Triplet who think they see things that don't exist, or don't see things that are obvious to the rest of us.

i'm now of the belichek school... replay for EVERYTHING... even judgement calls... but with the clear understanding that there needs to be overwhelming video evidence to the contrary. The only replay limitation I favor is the stoppage of play on forward progress... the play ends when the whistle ends. But if you WANT to challenge other stuff.

The reason I would draw a distnction because kneel downs, spikes and throwing it away, is because they are relatively neutral. When you throw at the feet of a WR engaged in blocking, that is against the spirit of the rule and not rewarding the defense for their success breach of the Oline.

 

[msudaisy26]

No commercials... sucks the life out of the game.

Fix it for you

 

[zed2283]

I really can't believe you guys are for the stupid fumble rules. Remember the safety that Green Bay took this season?

Also, I think it's funny that everyone keeps bringing up Arizona as a reason to protect the QB, when their starter went down on a non-contact injury. I don't have a problem protecting the QB to an extent, but it's beyond ridiculous now. And if you keep it the way it is, then you HAVE to allow replay in order to reverse so many bad calls.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Is everyone happy with PI being a total spot foul? I prefer the NCAA rule where it is a spot foul with maximum of 15 and automatic first down. Keep the end zone infraction the same.

 

[Borden]

BRING BACK THE TOUCHDOWN CELEBRATIONS!!!!

**me yelling from the mountain tops

 

[Borden]

Also, I would have every play being reviewed by the booth. Two or three refs on the field the rest in the booth. A bad missed call or terrible call would already be getting reviewed. So would catches and fumbles. It would speed the game up a bit too.

I would also give coaches the option of taking special teams yardage on the ensuing offensive possession. Not the kickoff.

Stop drug testing for marijuana.

Less PI. More tolerance for hand fighting. No one is getting hurt so let them play.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Get FULL TIME officials

 

[Borden]

Get FULL TIME officials

If it was some how possible I would prefer to not have any officials. Just some computer that could read the field and make the call.

 

[dickey moe]

Zed, frontal pic of the chick in your avatar, pleaze k thankx

 

[ICON211]

I think if I could change one thing I would take the automatic first down away on illegal contact penalties.

 

[mr roboto]

Is everyone happy with PI being a total spot foul? I prefer the NCAA rule where it is a spot foul with maximum of 15 and automatic first down. Keep the end zone infraction the same.

Defenders would be incentivized to maul receivers past 15 yards then.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Is everyone happy with PI being a total spot foul? I prefer the NCAA rule where it is a spot foul with maximum of 15 and automatic first down. Keep the end zone infraction the same.

Defenders would be incentivized to maul receivers past 15 yards then.

Okay. Give up 15 yds every play

 

[Borden]

Is everyone happy with PI being a total spot foul? I prefer the NCAA rule where it is a spot foul with maximum of 15 and automatic first down. Keep the end zone infraction the same.

Defenders would be incentivized to maul receivers past 15 yards then.

Okay. Give up 15 yds every play

It is tough because if a DB just throws a WR down at any point beyond 15 yards then the penalty isn't just. The rule would need to be fine tuned.

The other side of the coin is how often is a DB beat so bad that it's clearly going to be a catch but not bad enough that he has time to recover and maul the WR enough to prevent an attempt at the catch.

 

[ShamrockPride]

Is everyone happy with PI being a total spot foul? I prefer the NCAA rule where it is a spot foul with maximum of 15 and automatic first down. Keep the end zone infraction the same.

Defenders would be incentivized to maul receivers past 15 yards then.

Okay. Give up 15 yds every play

It is tough because if a DB just throws a WR down at any point beyond 15 yards then the penalty isn't just. The rule would need to be fine tuned. The other side of the coin is how often is a DB beat so bad that it's clearly going to be a catch but not bad enough that he has time to recover and maul the WR enough to prevent an attempt at the catch.

You maul him enough give him an unsportsmanlike and kick him out. Either way it results in a 15-yard penalty AND a first down. Too many people acting like 15 yards isn't a big deal when this debate comes up.