# What NFL Rules should change in 2008?



## Earl Bonovich

Now that the regular season is over...

What rules should change for 2008?

I have one, that I would like to see added... and yes it is because I am a Chicago and Devin Hester fan.

-) Punts must hit the in-bound playing surface before going out of bounds.... else a 10 yrd penalty. (excluding going out of bounds in the endzone where it is a touchback).

Basically.... punters are kick the ball where is absolutely no chance of returning the ball... they already penalize that for free kicks.... why not for punts...

They could adjust the rule, so that say if it is a shank and only goes 20 yeards from the line of scrimage, it doesn't apply.... but if goes more then 20... it must hit the surface before going out of bounds... hence giving the return team a chance to return it.

-) Penalties that have dual interpretations.... should be reviewable... Such as face mask penalties

-) Teams should be allowed to use their own "DVR" equipment, so they are not reliant on Television replays... to determin if a replay challenge is warranted.

You could design the systems so the plays are only available till the next snap (to avoide reviewing the plays over and over and over).


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

I'll give you number three, but I'm not a big fan of the first two. Teams should have the opportunity to get as good a look as possible at the replay before making a challenge, and if that means some sort of DVR type setup that is completely under their control, I'm OK with that.

I'm totally opposed to reveiwing penalties. I understand the sentiment, but I'm not a huge fan of replay as it is. I know it's just another tool to get the call right, but it totally kills the momentum of a game, IMHO. To review penalties would just slow the game to a crawl, I think.

I understand the reasoning behind the punt rule, but there I don't like it. What happens if you're in a game like last weeks Green Bay/Chicago game with 40mph gusts of wind. I watched them warming up, and you could kick to the right sideline and the ball went out of bounds on the left sideline. Being played outdoors, at the mercy of the elements, I think a rule like that doesn't really work. What if you shank the punt and it goes 22 yards? Or you're on the 35 yard line, but don't feel like you can make a FG from that range - perhaps because of the weather. You've got a free kick out of bounds at the 15 with your scenario. And frankly, since you brought up Hester - I'd take the bears offense at the 15 any day of the week as opposed to kicking to Hester and letting him make a run back - even if it was a pooch punt like this.

And, on top of that, there's some skill involved being able to drop the ball out of bounds at the 5 yard line when you're 60 - 70 yards away. Why take that away from the punters? I realize the idea is to get the ball "into the hands of the skill players" like a Devin Hester, but punters work hard as well to hone their craft. Heck, Andy Lee might be the 49ers MVP this year!


----------



## Earl Bonovich

My intent on the Punt rule change.... was basically on the same lines on the place-kick rule change...

The return team should be given an opportunity to return the ball.

I don't want to take anything away from the punters... they have some pretty good skill there too...

But part of the benefit of the punt, is that your defense held the team... forcing them to put a foot on the ball, and you get the opportunity to return that.

Shanks and conditions all play into it...
Just like that 40mph wind, could adjust the ball just before Hester gets the ball... he touches it... and they recover....

I just think they should have to keep the ball in field of play....
Even if it is just to hit just on the ground and then go out.
(I think the same rule could apply to kick-offs... if it hits in bounds, no penalty for going out of bounds)


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

As far as "rules" I'd like to see changed. It's not really a rule, but the attitude of the referees. If there's a fumble, and you're not sure, let the play go! Don't rule down by contact unless you KNOW he was down.

I think by and large the referees do a good job, but for some reason, on a borderline situation, they tend to err on the side of the ball carrier. I know that's challengable now, but you have to have a "clear recovery". If they stop the play before one team or the other can recover, then the defense has no chance of getting the ball back, even if they forced & recovered a fumble.

If they made a conscious effort to err on the side of letting the play go, the offense still has the opportunity to challenge and retain possession.

And, I'd like to see the "icing the kicker" Time out changed. Gotta be called earlier, not as the long snapper is beginning his snap. That's just bush league, I think. If you run over to the ref to call timeout as the long snapper is starting his snap, that's one thing. But to stand by the referee and tell him "As soon as they start to make a play, I'm going to call time out. Wait for it. Wait for it. NOW!". That's just hokey, to me.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

Earl Bonovich said:


> My intent on the Punt rule change.... was basically on the same lines on the place-kick rule change...
> 
> The return team should be given an opportunity to return the ball.
> 
> I don't want to take anything away from the punters... they have some pretty good skill there too...
> 
> But part of the benefit of the punt, is that your defense held the team... forcing them to put a foot on the ball, and you get the opportunity to return that.
> 
> Shanks and conditions all play into it...
> Just like that 40mph wind, could adjust the ball just before Hester gets the ball... he touches it... and they recover....
> 
> I just think they should have to keep the ball in field of play....
> Even if it is just to hit just on the ground and then go out.
> (I think the same rule could apply to kick-offs... if it hits in bounds, no penalty for going out of bounds)


I understand the idea, but, to play devil's advocate a little bit... If I'm kicking to Devin Hester, I'd rather kick the ball OB at the 5 yard line and take the 10 yard penalty to put the ball on the 15 than kick the ball to Hester....

And if they make the penalty at the option of the receivers (take it on the kick, or take 10 yards and make the team re-kick), you're going to see kickers get really good at driving a line drive "squib" like punt as far away from the returner as possible - one bounce and out of bounds.

Or, you'll see guys try to pooch the punt to the last line of blockers before the returner. Let those guys field the kick at the 15 rather than letting a guy like Devin Hester field it at the 5 and have a chance to run it back.

I can see wanting to get the ball into the hands of the returners, and I enjoy watching Devin Hester tear up defenses as much as the next guy (as long as it's not the 49ers defense!). I'm just not sure on this rule.

I will say, it's one of those that I'm not vehemently opposed to. If they implemented it, I won't go off on how stupid it is. I can see a rule like this creating alot of excitement in the NFL by allowing guys like Hester to get more touches. I can also see the other side, where teams just find new, more creative ways to kick away from the returner.


----------



## mikewolf13

I like Earl's ideas except the review of penalties... although sometimes I wish they could review for blatant holds like occurred at the end of CHI/PHL game (yes I am bitter)


----------



## Carl Spock

No time outs from the sidelines. All time outs must be called on the field.


----------



## Greg Bimson

I'd love to "streamline" the penalties and rules, so not as much are left to the referees to decide:

Must have one foot in bounds, but no more of the "pushout" rule, such as the refs can give the receiver the reception if the ref feels they would have landed in bounds.

I think I'm sick of the "ineligible player downfield" rule.

And I'll trade Earl's sentiment for a change in the punt rule if they also allow punters to score field goals like a free kick.

I'd like to open up the game a bit more. Maybe move the hashmarks back to the college level.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I would like to see instant replay work more like what they are doing now in college. No challenges, and there is a team of officials reviewing every play for the entire game. There is a stoppage if they want to take a look at something (like it is during the last 2 minutes right now) but otherwise the game goes on.

I also would like to see the same urgency from officials placing the ball ready for play ALL game long, and not just during the final 2 minutes. Suddenly it is really important to spot the ball in those final 2 minutes to same seconds on the clock but minutes are lost during the rest of the game due to the slow placement and ready for play. I want to see officials doing due dilligence to minimize wasted time all game long.

I also would be ok with one-foot-in-bounds replacing the force-out rule for receptions. It's often too hard to tell on a force-out and if it isn't going to be reviewable either... just make it a one-foot requirement and be done with it. If you can't get one foot, then it doesn't matter if you did get pushed.


----------



## sigma1914

Illegal contact should not be an automatic 1st down. 
Unless you blatantly pull a WR down, 15 yards should be the max on pass interference.


----------



## snipes007

I cannot believe there has been no discussion of Overtime. Both teams should have a chance on offense. You can't tell me the Overtime classics in College Football haven't been fun (Miami/Ohio State or recently LSU/Arkansas).

As far as the punt rule, I don't think there should be a change. If a team spends the game punting to the sidelines or squibbing kickoffs they are giving up yards. The good punt returner still benefits the team, they kick away from him and therefore get better field position.


----------



## snipes007

Also, thinking about challenges. If a team gets two challenges reversed, they should get a third and even a fourth if the challenges keep getting reversed. Don't limit a team to two bad calls.


----------



## Dr_J

No more timeouts to freeze the kicker.


----------



## snipes007

Also, I think the current system of estimating when a punt goes out of bounds is ridiculous. The official, who stands on the out of bounds line facing the kick has poor perception of forward distance. He has to estimate when the ball crossed the out of bounds plane (even if it was 25ft up in the air) and run up and place the ball there.

An overhead camera could very easily film the exact point without interrupting the flow of the game. Most times after a punt, theres a TV-timeout anyways.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

snipes007 said:


> Also, thinking about challenges. If a team gets two challenges reversed, they should get a third and even a fourth if the challenges keep getting reversed. Don't limit a team to two bad calls.


I do think they get a third now, if both of the first two where successfull.

Not sure if they get a 4th....


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Dr_J said:


> No more timeouts to freeze the kicker.


How would you differentiate between a genuine timeout and a freeze-timeout ?


----------



## Earl Bonovich

snipes007 said:


> Also, I think the current system of estimating when a punt goes out of bounds is ridiculous. The official, who stands on the out of bounds line facing the kick has poor perception of forward distance. He has to estimate when the ball crossed the out of bounds plane (even if it was 25ft up in the air) and run up and place the ball there.
> 
> An overhead camera could very easily film the exact point without interrupting the flow of the game. Most times after a punt, theres a TV-timeout anyways.


Does anyone know if it would be possible to put an RFID chip underneath the laces of the ball? something small enough, they could use it to track things like that ?
Use it in the special "kick" balls.

It could be used for out-of-bounds and cross-bar (say they kick it so high it goes over the top of the bar.
And have a plus minus scale the width of the ball...


----------



## lucky13

snipes007 said:


> I cannot believe there has been no discussion of Overtime. Both teams should have a chance on offense.





snipes007 said:


> Also, thinking about challenges. If a team gets two challenges reversed, they should get a third and even a fourth if the challenges keep getting reversed. Don't limit a team to two bad calls.


I agree with both of these. An exception would have to be made for on-side kicks, else the kicking team would have a chance to recover its own kick and then get the ball back anyway if it didn't recover.

Here's one suggested by a friend of mine. It grows on you the more you think about it:

PAT has to be kicked by the player (runner, receiver or returner) who scored the TD.

No more gimme conversions. Teams can elect to run or pass for two points, as now, or take their chances with the kick.


----------



## MikeR7

You should definitely not be able to throw the challenge flag to get the refs to see if the other team had 12 men on the field. Name one other non-called penalty that you can throw the challenge flag and have one called on the other team?

Joe Gibbs knows his rule book!!!:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## snipes007

Earl, they do get a third challenge if the first two are reversed. But if one of the two is not, they don't get a third.

Either way, with the current rule they can get as many as 2 challenges wrong. I think they should be able to challenge as many times as long as A) They don't reach two calls that are not reversed and B) They have a timeout available to use that challenge.

Also, another rule change that may occur because of the Patriots (wouldn't be the first time - tuck rule - defensive illegal contact) is letting the defense have a radio too. This will prevent signal stealing.


----------



## Koz

I think cameras are a better way to go for punts out of bounds and field goals over the uprights. Kinda like they do with tennis, which I believe is cameras.

My idea is that they should time-sync all the cameras on the field so that you can watch more than one replay angle at a time during challenges. For example, on one replay, you can see the knee go down, but on another, you can see the ball come loose, but no way to see them both together. This shouldn't be that hard to figure out.


----------



## dshu82

Greg Bimson said:


> I'd love to "streamline" the penalties and rules, so not as much are left to the referees to decide:
> 
> Must have one foot in bounds, but no more of the "pushout" rule, such as the refs can give the receiver the reception if the ref feels they would have landed in bounds.
> 
> I am with Greg on this one! Dumbest rule in football. If the defensive player times it right so there is not interference, there is only one thing to call it: Good Defense!!!!!


----------



## Earl Bonovich

IN that same regards.

If the ground can't cause a fumble... why should it be able to cause an incomplete pass (aka... when some of these players have it, have two feet in, but when they hit the ground the ball comes ajar)


----------



## Carl Spock

Earl Bonovich said:


> Dr_J said:
> 
> 
> 
> No more timeouts to freeze the kicker.
> 
> 
> 
> How would you differentiate between a genuine timeout and a freeze-timeout ?
Click to expand...

Allow timeouts to only be called from the field. The classic freezing the kicker time out would still be available as a tactic but a time out that is called at the moment a play starts would be eliminated.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

sigma1914 said:


> Illegal contact should not be an automatic 1st down.
> Unless you blatantly pull a WR down, 15 yards should be the max on pass interference.


I would be ok with having two levels for this penalty. A simple "illegal contact" kind of penalty would just be 15 + the 1st down. But a blatant takedown to prevent a catch should remain a spot foul. If you eliminated the spot foul entirely then you'd get a lot more takedowns of receivers because 15 yards is a lot better than 50+ when the receiver beats you downfield.


----------



## Billsfan69

Sharkie_Fan said:


> As far as "rules" I'd like to see changed. It's not really a rule, but the attitude of the referees. If there's a fumble, and you're not sure, let the play go! Don't rule down by contact unless you KNOW he was down.
> 
> I think by and large the referees do a good job, but for some reason, on a borderline situation, they tend to err on the side of the ball carrier. I know that's challengable now, but you have to have a "clear recovery". If they stop the play before one team or the other can recover, then the defense has no chance of getting the ball back, even if they forced & recovered a fumble.
> 
> If they made a conscious effort to err on the side of letting the play go, the offense still has the opportunity to challenge and retain possession.
> 
> And, I'd like to see the "icing the kicker" Time out changed. Gotta be called earlier, not as the long snapper is beginning his snap. That's just bush league, I think. If you run over to the ref to call timeout as the long snapper is starting his snap, that's one thing. But to stand by the referee and tell him "As soon as they start to make a play, I'm going to call time out. Wait for it. Wait for it. NOW!". That's just hokey, to me.


icing the kicker serves no purpose in football. Have you seen the field goal percentages? Rian Lindell, the Bills kicker missed three field goals all year and he kicks in one of the toughest stadiums for kicking. As for the recovery rule, I think even if the whistle is blown the defensive team should be able to challenge the fumble if the whistle shouldn't have been blown.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Billsfan69 said:


> As for the recovery rule, I think even if the whistle is blown the defensive team should be able to challenge the fumble if the whistle shouldn't have been blown.


Actually they can. This was changed last year... You can challenge recovery of a fumble even after a whistle as long as the replay clearly shows a fumble happened AND clearly shows that you recovered the ball.

Last year you couldn't challenge at all... but this year you can gain possession.

What you can't do, is get the benefit of any runback your player made after a play was blown dead.. so you still get cheated out of any return after recovery of the fumble.. but at least you can get the ball for your team by challenge.

I just personally find the whole challenge process to be a shame. Referees make mistakes, and some plays are near impossible to see at real speed the first time... and I know referees really want to call a perfect game just like the players want to play one... so it is in everyone's best interest to use the available tools to get plays right.

Nothing worse than seeing an obviously blown/missed call that forces a coach to challenge even if he wins... knowing he is limited to even the number he can get right... and then in a game seeing a missed call that can't be challenged and corrected. Calls should be correctable when possible without having to risk a timeout.


----------



## Gonesouth

illegal formation. I do not see where it makes a difference if 6 or 7 line up on the line of scrimage. The penality gets called and the end is about 6 inches off the line or on the line.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Some points:

*Special case timeouts (Icing the kicker)*
Why do we make a special case of any play as to when a timeout is called? So what if the timeout is called to ice the kicker? The teams are given 3 each half (and 2 in OT), let the coaches use them as they feel helps themselves the best.

Also, how would you determine if the timeout was called because: 1) a true icing attempt, 2) a formation on the field indicates that a trick play might be in the works, 3) a personnel adjustment didn't happen correctly, 4) or the defending team otherwise isn't ready?

Generally speaking, I find "special case" rules to be very inelegant solutions.

*Punts out of bounds*
Punts are not live balls, so I see one difference vs. Kickoffs (and free kicks.)

Likewise, I'm a old school fan of the ancient skill of putting someone deep on the redzone with a good coffin corner kick.

While I see Earl's need to give the Bears a break, I'm not sure this change really improves the game. 

As for how to determine the out of bounds point, I'd like more information as to how well the refs get it right before I'd want the NFL spending money on something that might not make a difference.

*Reviewable Penalties*
I'm highly in favor of allowing more aspects of the game being reviewable. It seems like enough penalties are marginal to totally incorrect. I would not increase the number of times the review flag would be thrown by each coach, so I don't see the rule change greatly affecting the flow of the game but if it did make things more correct, that is a good thing.

*Team DVRs*
This has some interesting aspects. Very doable, of course; the broadcasters could send all the camera feeds to both teams--who'd now need a full studio truck and people to handle all those feeds and review them. 

The part that I like about this is that the broadcasters are completely removed from the equation of which plays they replay and how that might represent a form of favoritism to one team over another. Just based on this, I like the idea A LOT! (Ok, I'm pissed at some of the poor directors and announcers out there who think the game is secondary to other "stuff".)

*Ground causing incomplete pass*
I feel some more tweaking to the rules defining "what is a complete" pass is still necessary. Sometimes it feels like a pass has been truly completed and yet the definition fails the reality as Earl suggests. And there are other times when the rule has some reality in that if the ball squirts out as the receiver is falling and catching at the same instant he likely never truly had possession.

*RFID*
Normal RFID chips, that would fit under the laces would not work, they are too weak signalled and too inaccurate to truly locate the ball.

That said, since we already have the specialized K balls, a more powerful RFID inside the ball likely could eventually be made, coupled with a grid of recievers to position the ball accurately.

And someone likely could invent a camera system that is as or more accurate without actually changing the balls at all.

On the other hand I go back to how close do they get things as they are now and is the expense justified?

*Pass Interference*
It should never be called on the Packers.  (Or I'm just haven't thought about these rules enough yet.)

*More domed fields*
This is from my cousin who lives between Chicago and Indy. He's wondering why the Colts now are on their second dome and "Da Bears" still have to play outdoors, giving us such "lousy weather" like that recent Packers Bears game. I tried to tell him that is real football, playing against the elements as much as the other team. While, I was very frustrated that the Packers came so completely unprepared and the Bears were very much prepared, to me, that is a very big part of the real game of football.

And I completely agree with Peter King, snowy games are very hard to not watch. They are a very interesting difference.

I haven't given enough thought yet to what changes I might suggest. I still got playoffs to watch. 

Happy New Year!
Tom


----------



## Dr_J

Earl Bonovich said:


> How would you differentiate between a genuine timeout and a freeze-timeout ?


Once everyone is in formation for three seconds, that should be it for calling timeouts.


----------



## DCSholtis

Dr_J said:


> Once everyone is in formation for three seconds, that should be it for calling timeouts.


Better yet. Disallow timeouts in the last 10 seconds of a ballgame. Some tweaking of replay is necessary as far as which plays can and cannot be reviewed, I do agree. As far as OT or force outs, I'd leave them the way they are or else you'd be dumbing the game down to college levels. In fact I would not mind if colleges went to the Pro OT rule and/or the 2 feet in bounds for receptions.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

Tom Robertson said:


> Some points:
> 
> *Special case timeouts (Icing the kicker)*
> Why do we make a special case of any play as to when a timeout is called? So what if the timeout is called to ice the kicker? The teams are given 3 each half (and 2 in OT), let the coaches use them as they feel helps themselves the best.
> 
> Also, how would you determine if the timeout was called because: 1) a true icing attempt, 2) a formation on the field indicates that a trick play might be in the works, 3) a personnel adjustment didn't happen correctly, 4) or the defending team otherwise isn't ready?
> 
> Generally speaking, I find "special case" rules to be very inelegant solutions.


I agree with you here Tom.

The "icing the kicker" timeout which I object to is the Shanahan move, where he's standing next to the official the instant the ball is placed, and he has informed the official that, basically, the instant I think they're going to snap the ball, I'm going to call a timeout, so be prepared for it.

I don't mind if they want to call a timeout to ice the kicker, but I think that Shanahan sort of took it to the extreme with his antics, and those are the timouts I'd want to see changed.

If he comes running down the sideline screaming for a timeout and gets it granted at the instant the ball gets snapped, that's OK. But I don't like the planned last nanosecond timeout.

As to the reviewing of penalties, if you could work it out logistically so that it doesn't slow the game, then I'm OK with that. For instance, if the referee had a handheld device where the replay booth could send him a quick replay of the penalty in question and he could make the call in the same amount of time that the typical "officials pow wow" would take place, then I'm ok with that. The San Jose Sharks employ this sort of system on their bench when they're at home. One of their coaches has a tablet PC on the bench, and some sort of replay system (I've heard it said that it's TIVO, but I don't know if that's ACTUALLY tivo, or if it's a generic use of "tivo" to indicate a DVR). They can see replays on the bench before they're played on the scoreboard and have an idea as to whether a goal will be allowed or not, etc.

If that technology could be shrunk down into some sort of handheld device the referee could carry (and which would still be visible enough that he could discern what was going on), then I could be OK with replaying penalties. If they have to go to the booth each time there's a question about a penalty, then I think that would just drag the game to a crawl.

I'm all for getting as many calls correct as possible, but there's a fine balance there as well, in ensuring that the game continues on at a reasonable clip.


----------



## Chihuahua

I personally would like to see more than one man in motion prior to the snap. I would make everyone, including interior linemen, eligible receivers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Dr_J said:


> Once everyone is in formation for three seconds, that should be it for calling timeouts.


That would unfortunately also penalize the offense who would then be unable to call a timeout if the play clock was getting close to expiring.

I know people have taken advantage of things in calling these timeouts... but I don't think you can make special rules unless you just said no defensive timeouts on any field goal kick ever... but then what if it looked like a fake and they wanted to change their defense just in case?

No really good way to get rid of this byproduct in my opinion.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan

HDMe said:


> That would unfortunately also penalize the offense who would then be unable to call a timeout if the play clock was getting close to expiring.
> 
> I know people have taken advantage of things in calling these timeouts... but I don't think you can make special rules unless you just said no defensive timeouts on any field goal kick ever... but then what if it looked like a fake and they wanted to change their defense just in case?
> 
> No really good way to get rid of this byproduct in my opinion.


You could go back to timeouts being called from the playing field only. Sure, the players could do exactly what the coaches are doing, but, there is some risk to that. If you're standing there next to the official because you're going to call a timeout at the last possible second, and the defense knows it, if they can catch you off guard, say with a silent snap count, and get the play off before you have a chance to call the timeout, then you're out of position and they have one less defensive player to deal with.


----------



## DJTheC

Here's my changes based on watching HS football and College ball.
1. Pass Intererence - Defensive.
Change to 15 yards from Previous spot. Call must be blantant such as knocking, blinding.

2. Replay system - Use the college system, it works well. Every play is reviewed, even the coin toss (poke to the Steeler fans)

3. Motion calls - Motion calls (false start) should ONLY be called if the OL moves AND causes the DLine to move offsides.

4. Intentional Grounding - Should apply to all forward passes behind the line despite being in or out. I'm a little annoyed at passes sent to the Penut vendor with noone around.

5. Upstairs Ref - Add the upstairs booth as an additional ref (although this could be difficult throwing a flag.)

6. Personal Foul - Unsportsmanlike/taunting/Excessive celebration
two things on this one:
a. If a team scores a TD and is called for celebration or such, the penalty should either be: 5 yards, replay down -OR- enforce by giving the opposing team 15 yards after the kickoff.
b. If a player is called, they should have to sit out of the game for their drive, quarter, etc.

That's all I have to add.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

DJTheC said:


> 6. Personal Foul - Unsportsmanlike/taunting/Excessive celebration
> two things on this one:
> a. If a team scores a TD and is called for celebration or such, the penalty should either be: 5 yards, replay down -OR- enforce by giving the opposing team 15 yards after the kickoff.
> b. If a player is called, they should have to sit out of the game for their drive, quarter, etc.
> 
> That's all I have to add.


After yesterday's Rose Bowl.... the Excessive Celebration and Taunting.... has to change....

They have to get some sort of standards in there... as those refs where flag happy....

The FLIP... that one was warranted... but all the others... where just kids (and players in general), stoked and excited that they made a play... and wasn't crazy taunting and celbrating.

And I am thinking back to the Bears game a few weeks ago, when Orton was called for Intentional Grounding.... He throught he ball in the center of the field about 30 years, and it hit down... there was no player with in 15 yards of the ball.

On the replays... the reason the pass was so woooooofully short, was that his back leg was knocked out from underneath him while he was throwing the ball.....

But since the refs didn't see that... they called the penalty...
Hence I go back to my wish to see an option to review penalties..

(Also with yesterday's Rose Bowl... the pass interference I think would have been reversed, as both players have a right to the ball... and the USC Player initiated just as much contact as the defensive player)...

It would still count as your reviews that you are limited on...
So if you want to challenge a penalty... you can. I don't think you can review a non-called penalty (like that guy was holding, why wasn't it called?)


----------



## mikewolf13

dshu82 said:


> Greg Bimson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to "streamline" the penalties and rules, so not as much are left to the referees to decide:
> 
> Must have one foot in bounds, but no more of the "pushout" rule, such as the refs can give the receiver the reception if the ref feels they would have landed in bounds.
> 
> I am with Greg on this one! Dumbest rule in football. If the defensive player times it right so there is not interference, there is only one thing to call it: Good Defense!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> SO if you are a db on the sidelines don't worry about atackle just carry they guy out of bounds before he comes down?
> 
> "Pushouts" if anything are not called enough.
Click to expand...


----------



## mikewolf13

DJTheC said:


> Here's my changes based on watching HS football and College ball.
> 
> 3. Motion calls - Motion calls (false start) should ONLY be called if the OL moves AND causes the DLine to move offsides.
> 
> 4. Intentional Grounding - Should apply to all forward passes behind the line despite being in or out. I'm a little annoyed at passes sent to the Penut vendor with noone around.
> 
> That's all I have to add.


#3. So the OL should be allowed to get a head start? as long as they snap before the DL can react and come across?

#4. Agreed..if it's 30 yards out of bounds, how cana receiver "be in the area"?


----------



## mikewolf13

Chihuahua said:


> I personally would like to see more than one man in motion prior to the snap. I would make everyone, including interior linemen, eligible receivers.


and i'd make the DL count to 5 mississippi before they rush....

What?

Life must be tough since the XFL folded.....


----------



## mikewolf13

I would employ the Arena football rule that a team that is ahead has to gain yardage to keep the clock running at end of game. No more QB kneeldowns to run out the clock.

No more spike to stop clock either...that's intentional grounding...

And I'd make the penalty for IG harsher...10 yards from *spot *and loss of down

can you tell i don't like QB's wearing skirts....


----------



## Casey21

snipes007 said:


> I cannot believe there has been no discussion of Overtime. Both teams should have a chance on offense. You can't tell me the Overtime classics in College Football haven't been fun (Miami/Ohio State or recently LSU/Arkansas).
> 
> As far as the punt rule, I don't think there should be a change. If a team spends the game punting to the sidelines or squibbing kickoffs they are giving up yards. The good punt returner still benefits the team, they kick away from him and therefore get better field position.


YES, YES, YES!!! Make pro football overtime similar to college. The fact that a team who wins the coin flip could control the overtime to the point that the other team doesn't even get a chance on offence to tie or win is CRAZY! Not to mention very boring to watch.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

I do think the College Overtime needs a tiny tweek.

Each Overtime... 5 more yards.


----------



## mikewolf13

Earl Bonovich said:


> I do think the College Overtime needs a tiny tweek.
> 
> Each Overtime... 5 more yards.


I whole heartedly agreed...

as far as the NFL's version and the "belief" it is unfair....as of a couple years ago the stats showed basically 50-50 in terms of who won the game (the team getting the ball first or not)

In fact when I saw the stat (like I said a few years ago, but it could not have moved much) it was some thing like 180-181 in favor of team of the team getting the ball second.


----------



## Greg Bimson

mikewolf13 said:


> SO if you are a db on the sidelines don't worry about atackle just carry they guy out of bounds before he comes down?
> 
> "Pushouts" if anything are not called enough.


I'll go back to the reasoning of two-feet...

These guys are PROs.

Well, let's make the PROs actually thread the needle correctly on a pass, without a judgement call. And if a DB can actually carry a guy straight out of bounds, then stop running the one-foot within the sidelines route.

There are too many rules. It is getting to the point I'd rather watch a Dungeons and Dragons game because there are less rules.


----------



## khigerd

snipes007 said:


> Also, I think the current system of estimating when a punt goes out of bounds is ridiculous. The official, who stands on the out of bounds line facing the kick has poor perception of forward distance. He has to estimate when the ball crossed the out of bounds plane (even if it was 25ft up in the air) and run up and place the ball there.
> 
> An overhead camera could very easily film the exact point without interrupting the flow of the game. Most times after a punt, theres a TV-timeout anyways.


Here's what you don't see on TV......

After the ball is punted, an offical moves to the spot of the punt and maintains a line of sight on where the ball lands. The side line offical then moves up the side line until he crosses the line of sight of the first offical, at which time he signals the side line offical to stop. That is where the ball crossed the line is put back on the field.

Overhead cameras wouldn't work because it would need to be perpendicular to the field exactly where the ball crosses the line to be accurate. A camera at the 50 yard line may see a ball that crossed at the 20 yard line look like it crossed at the 15 yard line due to the angled line of sight.

I don't like Earl's punt rule and here's why. If you have to punt the ball away, it's because the defence stopped you from scoring and you want to pin them as far back as you can. A kickoff on the other hand is after you have already scored thus you are giving the opponent the chance for a run back, with the exception of the opening kickoffs of the halves. The difference between the two is whether or not you have scored.


----------



## khigerd

The rule I would like to see changed is the possession rule. Used to be two hands firmly on the ball (no ball movement) and two feet in bounds was possession. Now you have to "make a football move". Someone please define totally for me "a football move".

Example......a receiver catches the ball firmly between his hands while standing in bounds inches from the sidel line. The receiver is then instantly drilled by a defender knocking the receiver out of bounds and knocks the ball loose.

That used to be called a reception and the ball was spotted at the point where it went out of bounds. 

Now, since the receiver didn't "make a football move", the call is imcomplete pass. 

I'm sorry, but thats just wrong.:nono2:


----------



## Tom Robertson

khigerd said:


> The rule I would like to see changed is the possession rule. Used to be two hands firmly on the ball (no ball movement) and two feet in bounds was possession. Now you have to "make a football move". Someone please define totally for me "a football move".
> 
> Example......a receiver catches the ball firmly between his hands while standing in bounds inches from the sidel line. The receiver is then instantly drilled by a defender knocking the receiver out of bounds and knocks the ball loose.
> 
> That used to be called a reception and the ball was spotted at the point where it went out of bounds.
> 
> Now, since the receiver didn't "make a football move", the call is imcomplete pass.
> 
> I'm sorry, but thats just wrong.:nono2:


"Make a football move" was reviewed and overturned last year.  They realized they had over-tightened the rule.

One part that still stands is the clauses about what happens if the ball is jarred loose after hitting the ground. If the receiver goes down on his own in the process of catching the ball, he must retain possession until after he stops rolling, bouncing, or sliding.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader

DJTheC said:


> Here's my changes based on watching HS football and College ball.
> 1. Pass Intererence - Defensive.
> Change to 15 yards from Previous spot. Call must be blantant such as knocking, blinding.


Absolutely, positively NO WAY!!! Pass interference at ALL levels should be as the NFL has it: automatic first down at the spot of the foul, at the one if in the end zone. Not having it this way gives the defense an advantage if a pass is greater than 15 yards.


----------



## khigerd

DJTheC said:


> 3. Motion calls - Motion calls (false start) should ONLY be called if the OL moves AND causes the DLine to move offsides.


There is a problem there with your "AND". After the offense is set, the defense can go on any movement of the offensive line. False start doesn't require the defense to move offsides, but as a defense player, if the guy across from me even twitches, I get to clean his clock.:hurah: There's nothing better then standing in the backfield over a lineman saying "Dude! you moved"


----------



## Lord Vader

Earl Bonovich said:


> After yesterday's Rose Bowl.... the Excessive Celebration and Taunting.... has to change....
> 
> They have to get some sort of standards in there... as those refs where flag happy....


Here's how it should change, Earl: eject every player who commits such infraction. These offsetting penalties are worthless; they carry no impact.

I disagree that the officials were flag happy; rather, USC players were unbelievably arrogant and acting like big pricks. Illinois did something stupid more than once when they reacted to such unsportsmanlike conduct by doing the same thing right back, generating penalties on both sides. Consequently, there is no effective damage or disadvantage applied to either team, so what's the incentive to stop doing such actions?

As an NCAA baseball umpire, I think I have a rather unique viewpoint of this. If a player in college baseball does something like the USC players did, we umpires can and have ejected such individuals (independent of said players getting beaned when they next come up to bat). Ejections ARE in the rules in NCAA football. There are serious "penalties" in baseball, carrying a rather sense of finality, so why not do it in football? You want to act like an ******* and taunt someone? Well, in football you can't get beaned by a fastball, so hit the showers, bud. Such a serious result would change things rather quickly.


----------



## jodavis

I'd like to see some of the protections on the QB removed. It should still be possible to sack a QB in tackle football. If the quarterbacks are that worried about getting hurt they should wear flags and be down if you pull their flag. Other than that I would like to see alot more players be elligible receivers. Then it is up to the offense to decide how many guy they need to protect the QB and how many they can have run down field.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

As far as the rules for protecting the QB go... I suspect you'd find, if you surveyed active and inactive QBs, that they don't think they need to be protected as much as they are. These guys are football players and it is a contact sport.

BUT... the NFL and every team knows how important the QB is to the success of their team... so the league has been behind most of the QB protection rules. I've heard lots of QBs, current and former, speak out that they think some of the rules are overprotective.


----------



## Tom Robertson

HDMe to that point (and in no way attempting to disagree) there are some rules that are overprotectively applied because there is no (easy) way to adjudicate them. Brushing your hand on the QBs head is the same penalty as really clocking him on the helmet. How would a ref judge "intent" and actual "damage" or potential for damage. Maybe a hi-tech helmet with blow sensors. 

I too have heard QBs (Troy Aikman and Jaws) both say similar things. Alas, I don't know enough to formulate an answer to the issue.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Koz

Tom Robertson said:


> Maybe a hi-tech helmet with blow sensors.


Ask and you shall receive.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/are-you-...met-sends-impact-data-to-sidelines-290250.php


----------



## DCSholtis

Get rid of those damn celebration penalties in both pro and colleges.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Tom Robertson said:


> HDMe to that point (and in no way attempting to disagree) there are some rules that are overprotectively applied because there is no (easy) way to adjudicate them. Brushing your hand on the QBs head is the same penalty as really clocking him on the helmet. How would a ref judge "intent" and actual "damage" or potential for damage. Maybe a hi-tech helmet with blow sensors.


Oh yeah, I agree with that as well. There is a combination of what I said in my post about the league overprotecting their "stars"... but also what you said as well, some judgment calls that are hard to make on the spot... rather than create onfield controversy moreso than already, they just make a "don't touch his helmet" rule to cover everything and hope that takes care of the problem.

On a semi-related point... I remember once watching a documentary-type program talking about helmets and pads and the like, and one of the points they made was that for as much as the "armor" protects the players, it also makes them feel more "invincible" and thus they tend to hit harder and lead with their head.

It wasn't an advocation to abolish helmets... but pointing out that while helmets protect the head, for instance, they also make players tend to lead more hits with their head... so if the helmet wasn't there we might see less head-to-head collisions on purpose. Helmets originally were intended to protect against those accidental collisions and falling on your head... but now also lead to head injuries from people intentionally colliding with helmets too.

It's a strange thing sometimes, and the rules committee likely has the same conundrum... where they put in a rule designed to stop/limit one bad thing and it inadvertantly leads to something unexpected OR has an otherwise adverse effect on the game.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

DCSholtis said:


> Get rid of those damn celebration penalties in both pro and colleges.


I hate those penalties too... however, the penalties were put in place, at least in part, to stop some of the fighting that would occur when one team celebrated excessively and then the other team couldn't stop themselves from fighting over it. I wish teams could just not start fights over stuff... then maybe the rules could go away and also we could get rid of those after-tackle dances that some players do after seemingly every play.


----------



## purtman

mikewolf13 said:


> and i'd make the DL count to 5 mississippi before they rush....
> .


Man, I laughed my butt off when I read that one. The only problem is that if they did that, no DL from Miami would ever be drafted again.


----------



## machavez00

allow a team that has no time outs to still challenge a call.. That happened in one of the Cardinals games. Ref blew a call, the replay showed it, but they had no time outs and thus could not challenge. Penalize the team 10 yards or something like like that if the challenge is lost.


----------



## trumperZ06

After watching the Steeler/Jaguar game last night... I think the NFL will have to go to "Instant Replay Review"... like in College football.

That game was almost decided by a "missed" call...
when the receiver grabbed the defender's facemask and the official called pass interference on the defender. 

The Steelers got the ball 1st down on the one yard line & scored.

Thankfully, the Jaguars came back and won the game. Otherwise the BruHaaHaa would be deafening.

Too many missed calls & non-calls are determining the games outcome... both in College & Pro football. When the viewer @ home clearly sees these errors on instant replay... I don't understand why the officials aren't corrected.


----------



## Xaa

jodavis said:


> I'd like to see some of the protections on the QB removed. It should still be possible to sack a QB in tackle football. If the quarterbacks are that worried about getting hurt they should wear flags and be down if you pull their flag. Other than that I would like to see alot more players be elligible receivers. Then it is up to the offense to decide how many guy they need to protect the QB and how many they can have run down field.


The one that gets me is after an interception if you block the QB too hard you get a personal foul. The way that rule is written is that if he's not attempting to make a play and you block him it's the PF, but they seem to be having some trouble with that subjective distinction. To me, if he makes a step toward the action it's an attempt at a play and he should be fair game.

So I understand the attempt to protect QB's and that isn't something that they'll take away so the rule should be this:

The QB must kneel down to signify he has no intent to make a play, OR the QB is simply not allowed to make the defensive play. That would allow the protection without screwing the intercepting team.


----------



## Xaa

mikewolf13 said:


> No more spike to stop clock either...that's intentional grounding...


It's not Intentional Grounding because the IG rule states that the ball is thrown away to avoid a sack. It's the purpose distinction that is being made there to allow the spike.


----------



## Xaa

Earl Bonovich said:


> IN that same regards.
> 
> If the ground can't cause a fumble... why should it be able to cause an incomplete pass (aka... when some of these players have it, have two feet in, but when they hit the ground the ball comes ajar)


This is actually a misunderstood rule. A misnomer as it were. The ground can certainly cause a fumble. If I'm running and there is nobody around me and I fall all on my own, the ball hits the ground and I lose possession that is absolutely a fumble.

That terminology was adopted by analysts because most often a player is pushed to the ground by a defender etc and thus as soon as there is contact with the ground, the player is down by contact so there can be no fumble on a play that is over.

Having said all of that, I think landing with a caught ball is part of the "making a football move" stuff.


----------



## Xaa

OK, my idea on overtime to even it out on the coin toss thing is this. Leave everything how it is with the exception that in your first OT possession you have to score a TD to end the game sudden death. Once each team has possessed it once, a FG is then ok.

That would likely bring the stats back to 50-50 on winning and losing the toss.


----------



## 2Guysfootball

1. Make OT in the NFl a Timed 7.5 minute quarter. The team who scores the most points during the quarter wins.
With two time Outs per team and one Challenge But if you Challenge a play you lose a Time Out no matter what.
2. All Penalties inside the 20 yard line should be reviewable by the booth Officials only.
3.A 10 yard penalty should be called for throwing a challenge flag on a unreviewable play.
4.Pass Interference should be tiered in the Pi happens within 10 yards of the line= 10 yard and first down 10-30= 15yds and a first down 30+= 25yds and a First down.
5. FG of 45 yards or more should be worth 4 points 

I don't like the excessive celebration rules in either the Pro or College but I also don't want to see it go back to the Broadway days of the 80's


----------



## ccr1958

do away with reviews all together....
what is called on the field stands....
only exception maybe when the playoffs start...


----------



## Greg Bimson

After hearing about the 'Skins-'Hawks game yesterday, the muff rule needs to go. I don't care that the kicking team can advance the ball only when the receiving team touches it. From what I understand, that was a hell of a play for the 'Skins downfield coverage to actually get the ball.


----------



## eakes

Eliminate overtime except for playoff games when a winner MUST be determined. I really hate OT in preseason and am not a fan of OT for regular season, afterall ties make the end of season playoff picture much more interesting.


----------



## Xaa

Greg Bimson said:
 

> After hearing about the 'Skins-'Hawks game yesterday, the muff rule needs to go. I don't care that the kicking team can advance the ball only when the receiving team touches it. From what I understand, that was a hell of a play for the 'Skins downfield coverage to actually get the ball.


You didn't even watch the game and you're misinterpreting the muff rule anyway. Homer much? 

A muff is when a kick touches a player (could be a kick or a punt) but is not possessed by the player. Muffs are able to be recovered but are not advanceable. Even if a Seahawk had touched the ball it would not have been advanceable unless he possessed it.

It was a neat play, but more of a bad play by the Seahawks than a great play by the Redskins.

Either way, if you don't even watch the playoffs when your home team is in them, you likely don't have a lot of great ideas about changing the rules because you have a harder time understanding the current ones.


----------



## Lord Vader

Thank God this isn't the baseball season, because I'd be having a field day with every one of you!


----------



## Greg Bimson

Xaa said:


> Either way, if you don't even watch the playoffs when your home team is in them, you likely don't have a lot of great ideas about changing the rules because you have a harder time understanding the current ones.


Bit judgemental, are we? 

There is this thing called work, and I never got to see the play, nor any of the replays. All I understood was that one of the 'Skins ended up with the ball without the receiver even fielding the ball, and simply darted in for a touchdown, on a free kick.

Either way, what is the exact use of the rule? It is one of those rules that don't make any sense whatsoever.

And no spilled milk here. I would not have cared if the 'Skins made it to the Super Bowl or were bounced in the first game. They aren't my team.


----------



## Xaa

Greg Bimson said:


> Bit judgemental, are we?
> 
> There is this thing called work, and I never got to see the play, nor any of the replays. All I understood was that one of the 'Skins ended up with the ball without the receiver even fielding the ball, and simply darted in for a touchdown, on a free kick.
> 
> Either way, what is the exact use of the rule? It is one of those rules that don't make any sense whatsoever.
> 
> And no spilled milk here. I would not have cared if the 'Skins made it to the Super Bowl or were bounced in the first game. They aren't my team.


I understand work, that explains missing the play, it doesn't really explain you commenting that a rule should change when you clearly don't understand the current rule. You stated something should change when you don't even know where it stands today.

Anyway, enough fighting.  I'm not sure why the muff rule is what it is. It changed in the 70's IIRC. I think they did it simply to avoid a bunch of what they considered to be cheap touchdowns, but that's just a guess.


----------



## jimmyt

Earl Bonovich said:


> My intent on the Punt rule change.... was basically on the same lines on the place-kick rule change...


earl.. come on.. we know its because you are a Bears fan..  - why not just say the rule is you must kick to Hester!


----------



## Greg Bimson

Xaa said:


> I understand work, that explains missing the play, it doesn't really explain you commenting that a rule should change when you clearly don't understand the current rule. You stated something should change when you don't even know where it stands today.
> 
> Anyway, enough fighting.


Almost. 

The point is I don't care for the rule. Why should there be an extra caveat that disallows the kicking team from advancing the ball? That is all I need to understand about the rule.


----------



## ARKDTVfan

a few things I'd like to see changed

defensive pass interference should be either 5 or 15 yards, obvious foul 15 yards , 5 yards for a minor foul no more the spot foul crap\
last minute of the halves have the same clock rules as college, first down and the clock stops to move the chains, why punish teams for completing a long play that stay inbounds?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

ARKDTVfan said:


> a few things I'd like to see changed
> 
> defensive pass interference should be either 5 or 15 yards, obvious foul 15 yards , 5 yards for a minor foul no more the spot foul crap


This has been discussed a couple of times... the problem with eliminating the spot foul is that it would essentially encourage pass interference anywhere beyond 15 yards. You would see the end of long TD pass plays because if the penalty was only 5 or 15 yards, why would any defense ever give up a 20+ pass play? Just tackle the receiver once he gets past 20 yards rather than risk a catch.


----------



## jazzyd971fm

Xaa said:


> OK, my idea on overtime to even it out on the coin toss thing is this. Leave everything how it is with the exception that in your first OT possession you have to score a TD to end the game sudden death. Once each team has possessed it once, a FG is then ok.
> 
> That would likely bring the stats back to 50-50 on winning and losing the toss.


Sounds fair to me, better than one team going down the field & kicking a field goal to win the game


----------



## Msguy

I would like to see if a Kickoff or a Punt goes out of bounds to avoid the receiving team from making a return, The Receiving team should be awarded the ball at midfield The 50 yard Line. Not the 35 or the 40 but the 50. Teams should not be allowed to kick the ball out of bounds just to avoid a return man like Devin Hester on Chicago.


----------



## Xaa

jazzyd971fm said:


> Sounds fair to me, better than one team going down the field & kicking a field goal to win the game


Yep, I think it doesn't change too much but takes away the return to the 40, gain 25 yards and kick a 52 yarder to win while you have the benefit of not having to hurry up because the clock is reset etc.

I really think you would end up with close to 50-50 on coin toss winners either winning or losing.


----------



## purtman

I'd like to see some consistencies in the rules. If you look at guys like Terrell Owens (aka, "Dr. Ops"), they push and push and push and don't get called for anything. There are certain teams such as the Cowboys and Pats that seem to get more than their share of calls. When the Giants blew the lead against the 49ers a few years ago in the playoffs, they attempted a field goal at the end of the game. The Giants had a bad snap, a receiver went down field and was tackled. The official said it was pass interference, but since he didn't think the guy (a lineman who checked in as an eligible receiver) was eligible, he didn't bother calling it. This was just as the officials went into the locker room. Rather than call the players back out to redo the play, they just let it go. Years ago, the same thing happened with the Dolphins and Pats in a regular-season game and the officials called both teams out of the lockerrooms *after *the fans had already left the stadium. The field goal ended up changing the outcome of the game.


----------



## Lord Vader

ARKDTVfan said:


> a few things I'd like to see changed
> 
> defensive pass interference should be either 5 or 15 yards,


Absolutely, positively *NO FRICKIN' WAY!!!* Defensive pass interference at all levels should be as it is in the NFL: automatic first down at the spot of the foul, at the 1 if in the end zone; otherwise the defense gains an advantage by interfering.


----------



## Frank Anchor

On the areas discussed in the forum:

*Instant replay:*
You should have the right to review provided you have a timeout and haven't lost two challenges already in the game. Booth review only in last two minutes of a half. All plays are reviewable. Only obvious and objective penalties (12 men on field, illegal forward pass, delay of game) should be reviewable.

*Pass interference:*
Spot foul or 15 yards (whatever is shorter) and automatic first down, ball on the 2 if penalty was in the end zone and within 15 yards (NCAA rule).

*TD celebration:*
Penalty for excessive celebration after a TD is 15 yards on the kickoff AND the team may not attempt the extra point. Imagine how pissed off a coach would be his team lost by a point or in OT this way.

*Timeouts for icing kickers:*
The coach may call a timeout from the sidelines except during the final two minutes of a half. In that time, only players on the field can call a timeout.

*Overtime:*
Same as it is but a team must score 4 points to win (either a TD or two of anything else). It would eliminate the return kickoff, drive 30 yards, kick a field goal aspect of overtime and add some strategy (do i kick a FG knowing i am giving the ball back to the other team and giving them a chance to score, but knowing i'll only need another FG to win, or do i go for the TD?). If you're defense gives up a TD with the game on the line, I believe you deserve to lose.

*Other things:*
Penalize receivers/defenders for unsportsmanlike conduct if they complain to the refs about not getting a pass interference call
No penalty if a punt goes out of bounds, thats just stupid
I like the DVR idea
Move the hash marks to where they are in college. Why should all plays start within 4 yds of the center of the field. It would also force kickers to kick at an angle (something they should be fully capable of doing).


----------



## Lord Vader

Frank Anchor said:


> On the areas discussed in the forum:
> 
> *Pass interference:*
> Spot foul or 15 yards (whatever is shorter) and automatic first down, ball on the 2 if penalty was in the end zone and within 15 yards (NCAA rule).


So if the QB throws a 50-yard pass, it's better to penalize the defense 15 yards than 50? No way! The NCAA and NFHS pass interference rules give the defense an enormous advantage. The NFL's is the fairest and best.


----------



## Frank Anchor

Lord Vader said:


> So if the QB throws a 50-yard pass, it's better to penalize the defense 15 yards than 50? No way! The NCAA and NFHS pass interference rules give the defense an enormous advantage. The NFL's is the fairest and best.


while i understand your point of view, theres no guarantee that the receiver would have caught the ball anyway. also, the current system heavily favors the offense, since defensive pass interference is a spot foul and offensive pass interference is only 10 yards. the spot foul would only be fair if the nfl penalized offensive pass interference with loss of possession at the spot of the foul (or a touchback if in the endzone) which i could never imagine them doing


----------



## Lord Vader

The rules should favor the offense in such situations, because they're the ones who have priority. The fact that there's no guarantee the receiver would have caught it is irrelevant. There's no guarantee he _*wouldn't*_ have caught it. Therefore, the benefit must be in his favor. When things otherwise might seem equal, the edge must be given to the offense. Simple answer to this: don't interfere. The NFL rule is perfect. It's too bad the NCAA and NFHS do not adopt it.


----------



## Xaa

Yep, it would really make for a bad product if the defensive strategy becomes committing penalties.


----------



## Lord Vader

I can tell you that it's done in NFHS games. A buddy of mine who's an asst. football coach tells me they tell the kids to interfere on long passes in certain situations. The penalty's better than having the ball caught for a major gain.


----------



## Ken S

Here's my suggestsions:

1. No more fair catches.
2. Limited substitutions. If a player comes out of the game they can't come back until the next possession change.
3. Get rid of the radios, coaching signals, etc. QB, or some other player on the field, calls the plays.
4. No commercial logo on a uniform can be bigger than the smallest team logo on the same uniform.
5. Players using Performance Enhancing Drugs are banned for one full season first offense and for life second.
6. Players convicted of a felony are suspended for a minimum of one season for the first offense and for life on the second felony conviction.
7. Players may celebrate for up to 30 seconds after any score. No other celebrations should be allowed.


----------



## OneOfOne

Greg Bimson said:


> I'd love to "streamline" the penalties and rules, so not as much are left to the referees to decide:
> 
> Must have one foot in bounds, but no more of the "pushout" rule, such as the refs can give the receiver the reception if the ref feels they would have landed in bounds.
> 
> I think I'm sick of the "ineligible player downfield" rule.
> 
> And I'll trade Earl's sentiment for a change in the punt rule if they also allow punters to score field goals like a free kick.
> 
> I'd like to open up the game a bit more. Maybe move the hashmarks back to the college level.


its the NFL not college. you need skill to play NFL football. TWO feet in bounds. the hashmarks were moved in college AND in the pros to take away the advantage of defending a wide side and short side of the field. now the offense has no handicap regarding field position.


----------



## OneOfOne

snipes007 said:


> I cannot believe there has been no discussion of Overtime. Both teams should have a chance on offense. You can't tell me the Overtime classics in College Football haven't been fun (Miami/Ohio State or recently LSU/Arkansas).
> 
> As far as the punt rule, I don't think there should be a change. If a team spends the game punting to the sidelines or squibbing kickoffs they are giving up yards. The good punt returner still benefits the team, they kick away from him and therefore get better field position.


this is utterly ridiculous. every year a bunch of people who have no concept of the team aspect of football cry about the NFL version of overtime. simply put, you have a RESPONSIBILITY to STOP the offense. they take over usually 65 yards away from the end zone if not more. if the defense cant stop them then they deserve to lose because they have been BEATEN. there is no sane argument against it. in fact the competition commitee has rejected the 'college ot' argument more than once. college football in general at least in the absurd 'bowl subdivision' is a total fraud to begin with. its the only division in the entire ncaa that does not have a playoff system. the NFL has the overtime scenario right. there is a reason why nfl playoff overtime games are all classics. its called sudden death overtime for a reason.


----------



## OneOfOne

dshu82 said:


> Greg Bimson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to "streamline" the penalties and rules, so not as much are left to the referees to decide:
> 
> Must have one foot in bounds, but no more of the "pushout" rule, such as the refs can give the receiver the reception if the ref feels they would have landed in bounds.
> 
> I am with Greg on this one! Dumbest rule in football. If the defensive player times it right so there is not interference, there is only one thing to call it: Good Defense!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> the rule is 2 feet in bounds. if the receiver is deemed to have been able to come down in bounds with 2 feet IF the defender hadn't pushed him out... . why is this so difficult to understand. its NOT interference. its a force out. its interference if the defender INTERFERED with the opportunity to catch the ball. its not a dumb rule. its a good rule that is not understood by too many non football fans.
Click to expand...


----------



## OneOfOne

Earl Bonovich said:


> IN that same regards.
> 
> If the ground can't cause a fumble... why should it be able to cause an incomplete pass (aka... when some of these players have it, have two feet in, but when they hit the ground the ball comes ajar)


this is the stupidest single part of football. if you start the play with the ball you should end it with the football as long as its not a throw. if you hit the ground and the ball comes loose on a pass its an incompletion because you dont have control of the ball. if you run the ball you should have the responsibility of ending the play with the ball in your posession at the end of play once youve hit the ground. I dont get it either earl. its illogical.


----------



## OneOfOne

HDMe said:


> I would be ok with having two levels for this penalty. A simple "illegal contact" kind of penalty would just be 15 + the 1st down. But a blatant takedown to prevent a catch should remain a spot foul. If you eliminated the spot foul entirely then you'd get a lot more takedowns of receivers because 15 yards is a lot better than 50+ when the receiver beats you downfield.


and it would be college football. blame bill polian for the strict enforcement of this rule after the patriots beat the hell out of the colt receivers in 2003 by admittedly bumping the receivers after the 5 yard zone. I believe that rule was changed in 1978 which is why suddenly the passing game went thru the roof. before that you could hit the receiver all the way down the field until the ball was in the air.


----------



## OneOfOne

DCSholtis said:


> Better yet. Disallow timeouts in the last 10 seconds of a ballgame. Some tweaking of replay is necessary as far as which plays can and cannot be reviewed, I do agree. As far as OT or force outs, I'd leave them the way they are or else you'd be dumbing the game down to college levels. In fact I would not mind if colleges went to the Pro OT rule and/or the 2 feet in bounds for receptions.


does this make any sense? no it doesn't. lets say the unlikely occurrence of the raiders driving for a playoff spot. they hit a pass on the 4 yd line and need to line up for a field goal but the pass was a long one and they will not make it to the line of scrimmage to down the ball without the clock running out. now using your rule they are out of the playoffs again. leave the time out situation alone.


----------



## OneOfOne

Earl Bonovich said:


> After yesterday's Rose Bowl.... the Excessive Celebration and Taunting.... has to change....
> 
> They have to get some sort of standards in there... as those refs where flag happy....
> 
> The FLIP... that one was warranted... but all the others... where just kids (and players in general), stoked and excited that they made a play... and wasn't crazy taunting and celbrating.


why is the flip flag warranted? none of the broadcasters thought so. no one was being 'shown up' it did not stop action. so why is it warranted? its entertainment. I think they should have a 'tight-ass' version of football so everyone can be robotic and unemotional and then the nfl will finally justify its sarcastic nickname - no fun league.


----------



## OneOfOne

trumperZ06 said:


> After watching the Steeler/Jaguar game last night... I think the NFL will have to go to "Instant Replay Review"... like in College football.
> 
> That game was almost decided by a "missed" call...
> when the receiver grabbed the defender's facemask and the official called pass interference on the defender.
> 
> The Steelers got the ball 1st down on the one yard line & scored.
> 
> Thankfully, the Jaguars came back and won the game. Otherwise the BruHaaHaa would be deafening.
> 
> Too many missed calls & non-calls are determining the games outcome... both in College & Pro football. When the viewer @ home clearly sees these errors on instant replay... I don't understand why the officials aren't corrected.


what part of the pass interference by the defender did you miss? do you think they would have been that close if the defensive back hadnt been holding the receiver?


----------



## OneOfOne

Xaa said:


> OK, my idea on overtime to even it out on the coin toss thing is this. Leave everything how it is with the exception that in your first OT possession you have to score a TD to end the game sudden death. Once each team has possessed it once, a FG is then ok.
> 
> That would likely bring the stats back to 50-50 on winning and losing the toss.


someone posted that it was like 181-180 insofar as difference but regardless of that what is it exactly that needs evening out? both teams have a chance to win. the defense has an advantage for its team in that if they stop the offense 3 and out, their offense gets better field position in all likelihood. this evening out and fairness talk is just nonsense. if you cant stop the other team you lose. period. if you can well then the onus is on the other team to stop you. lather rinse repeat. its pretty simple.


----------



## Xaa

OneOfOne said:


> if you run the ball you should have the responsibility of ending the play with the ball in your posession at the end of play once youve hit the ground. I dont get it either earl. its illogical.


You seem to be progressing through the thread so you might not be there yet, but you do have the responsibility to end with the ball. They "say" the ground can't cause a fumble only because 99% of the time, the runner has been thrust to the ground and at the instant of contact of the ball and the ground, it is down by contact. If you just fall in open field because you're a klutz the ground most certainly can by rule be the impetus of a fumble. The rule is fine, the way it is publicly disseminated by analysts is just incorrect.


----------



## OneOfOne

Greg Bimson said:


> After hearing about the 'Skins-'Hawks game yesterday, the muff rule needs to go. I don't care that the kicking team can advance the ball only when the receiving team touches it. From what I understand, that was a hell of a play for the 'Skins downfield coverage to actually get the ball.


this is exactly what I was thinking when I saw it. nate burleson ran right past the ball and the washington guy had the ball bounce right into his hands. we arent talking about a punt where the receiver has to have the right to catch it, the kickoff is a free ball. you should be able to get AND RUN with any kickoff. there is no negative to it. furthermore you should be able to recover and advance a 'muffed' [not sure I want to know the origin of that term] punt as well. there is no down side to modifying either rule that I can see.


----------



## OneOfOne

eakes said:


> Eliminate overtime except for playoff games when a winner MUST be determined. I really hate OT in preseason and am not a fan of OT for regular season, afterall ties make the end of season playoff picture much more interesting.


uh, overtime in the regular season CAN end in a tie. there is only one ot period in the regular season unlike the post season.


----------



## Xaa

OneOfOne said:


> someone posted that it was like 181-180 insofar as difference but regardless of that what is it exactly that needs evening out? both teams have a chance to win. the defense has an advantage for its team in that if they stop the offense 3 and out, their offense gets better field position in all likelihood. this evening out and fairness talk is just nonsense. if you cant stop the other team you lose. period. if you can well then the onus is on the other team to stop you. lather rinse repeat. its pretty simple.


I hear ya. I'm not by any means militant that the OT *needs* changing, but if it changed, that's what I would change it to. Just to give the initial defending team a bit more of a chance against a filed goal. I wouldn't rush to change OT.

It's not quite nonsense, but I can see you feel pretty strongly about it all. 

Check the stats since the time OT was put into the game vs the last say 5-10 years and I would bet the trend is moving quickly toward the first offensive possession winning. For a time getting the ball first was less than a 50-50 chance of winning. That gap has closed.


----------



## OneOfOne

ARKDTVfan said:


> a few things I'd like to see changed
> 
> defensive pass interference should be either 5 or 15 yards, obvious foul 15 yards , 5 yards for a minor foul no more the spot foul crap\
> last minute of the halves have the same clock rules as college, first down and the clock stops to move the chains, why punish teams for completing a long play that stay inbounds?


in the last 20 years I have seen college football rules changed to reflect the superior NFL rules. I don't know if any NFL rules have changed to reflect the college rules. well maybe the stripper cheerleaders and asinine alternate uniforms and personal seat licenses.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

OneOfOne said:


> and it would be college football. blame bill polian for the strict enforcement of this rule after the patriots beat the hell out of the colt receivers in 2003 by admittedly bumping the receivers after the 5 yard zone. I believe that rule was changed in 1978 which is why suddenly the passing game went thru the roof. before that you could hit the receiver all the way down the field until the ball was in the air.


True... personally, I have no problem with pass interference always being a spot foul the way it is now in the NFL. I was just offering up a compromise as I would absolutely not want to see it become just a 15-yard penalty. If we want passing to be a part of the game, there has to be a sizable penalty against the defense.

Now... that said... I do sometimes think the calls are inconsistent. Some games they seem to allow alot more contact than in other games. I like contact and don't want them to really nitpick the thing to death... but when one game you can bump and not get called but another you can brush the shoulderpads and get called, that is more of a problem than the actual penalty yards.


----------



## OneOfOne

Msguy said:


> I would like to see if a Kickoff or a Punt goes out of bounds to avoid the receiving team from making a return, The Receiving team should be awarded the ball at midfield The 50 yard Line. Not the 35 or the 40 but the 50. Teams should not be allowed to kick the ball out of bounds just to avoid a return man like Devin Hester on Chicago.


why not? its not very manly but there isnt anything wrong with it. how about a rule that you cant have a player who does nothing other than return kicks? hmmm I dont think anyone would like that rule.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

OneOfOne said:


> in the last 20 years I have seen college football rules changed to reflect the superior NFL rules. I don't know if any NFL rules have changed to reflect the college rules. well maybe the stripper cheerleaders and asinine alternate uniforms and personal seat licenses.


Probably depends on how you look at it.. It "appears" that the 2-point conversion was adopted by the NFL to be more like the college game... but upon further reflection it has to be noted that the AFL had it prior to merging with the NFL back in the day... so I guess the question is did the NFL adopt that play because of the history it had in the old league or because of its use in college?

You're right, though, for the most part... college usually tries to incorporate more of the pro rules than the other way around.


----------



## Lord Vader

And the 2-point conversion option provides for more strategic play.


----------



## OneOfOne

Frank Anchor said:


> while i understand your point of view, theres no guarantee that the receiver would have caught the ball anyway. also, the current system heavily favors the offense, since defensive pass interference is a spot foul and offensive pass interference is only 10 yards. the spot foul would only be fair if the nfl penalized offensive pass interference with loss of possession at the spot of the foul (or a touchback if in the endzone) which i could never imagine them doing


theres no guarantee the receiver would have caught the ball? hmmm well how about the guarantee that he wont because he was interfered with? the spot foul is fair and I personally have never heard of an nfl coach or player complaining about it. its part of the drama of the game which afterall is only entertainment anyway.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

OneOfOne said:


> this is exactly what I was thinking when I saw it. nate burleson ran right past the ball and the washington guy had the ball bounce right into his hands. we arent talking about a punt where the receiver has to have the right to catch it, the kickoff is a free ball. you should be able to get AND RUN with and kickoff. there is no negative to it.


I agree with you here too... I've never understood why the kicking team couldn't advance a recovered kickoff since they can recover it once it hits the ground. And as you've alluded to in other posts, this should be a game of skills... and since it *should* be harder by design for the kickoff team to get downfield and beat the returner to the ball on a kickoff... any team that has a skill player who can do that should get full reward for the ability to scoop it up and run with it.

As an aside... one version of Madden Football used to actually let you do just that in one of the cheat modes. I remember doing that to a friend of mine and he didn't know what happened. I had to admit I was in a cheat mode though.


----------



## OneOfOne

HDMe said:


> True... personally, I have no problem with pass interference always being a spot foul the way it is now in the NFL. I was just offering up a compromise as I would absolutely not want to see it become just a 15-yard penalty. If we want passing to be a part of the game, there has to be a sizable penalty against the defense.
> 
> Now... that said... I do sometimes think the calls are inconsistent. Some games they seem to allow alot more contact than in other games. I like contact and don't want them to really nitpick the thing to death... but when one game you can bump and not get called but another you can brush the shoulderpads and get called, that is more of a problem than the actual penalty yards.


I agree. I have seen a lot of football in my life and I am a major fan. I also try to learn as much as I can during every season. you never really know whats going to happen on a given play even though you may have seen it 100 times. thats the real problem, the officials consistency.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Lord Vader said:


> And the 2-point conversion option provides for more strategic play.


I agree... though I have to admit, sometimes teams overthink this and go for it too early. I do NOT fault Coach Tomlin for going for it in the Steelers game because I believe he did what any other coach/team would have done in his situation... but my gut was telling me last night watching the game that the Steelers had suddenly gotten hot... and going for 2 that first time (and missing) was like saying they didn't have confidence they could get another TD... and then that miss forced them to try again... whereas two extra points would have been a tie game.

That said... Jacksonville kind of "settled" a bit once Garrard got them well into field goal range... so it's entirely possible that even if Pittsburgh had tied that the Jaguars would have punched in a TD to win anyway.


----------



## Lord Vader

Never mind the fact that Big Ben collapsed in another big game. The guy's half worthless.

And I'm a Steelers fan saying this!


----------



## OneOfOne

HDMe said:


> Probably depends on how you look at it.. It "appears" that the 2-point conversion was adopted by the NFL to be more like the college game... but upon further reflection it has to be noted that the AFL had it prior to merging with the NFL back in the day... so I guess the question is did the NFL adopt that play because of the history it had in the old league or because of its use in college?
> 
> You're right, though, for the most part... college usually tries to incorporate more of the pro rules than the other way around.


I think they did it to give the coaches more options. at least that was part of the outcry when they did. the coaches having more options suddenly became 'extra pressure on the coaches'. one could argue that the current NFL has become the old AFL which is not a bad thing.


----------



## OneOfOne

Lord Vader said:


> And the 2-point conversion option provides for more strategic play.


you're right. somebody tell the steelers coach when to use it please. he is the reason they are sitting at home tonite.


----------



## OneOfOne

Lord Vader said:


> Never mind the fact that Big Ben collapsed in another big game. The guy's half worthless.
> 
> And I'm a Steelers fan saying this!


I am a patriots fan and I cannot stand the steelers or their fans but lets be real: the guy is playing with an arena league offensive line, no willie parker, and on the worst field in the league. I wish I had a dollar for everytime I saw ben stiff arm, out muscle, or stand tall in the pocket against defenders this year. the guy isnt the most talented but he is pretty good. steeler management needs to spend some money to get some depth and more quality around him or he is going to have a tough career.


----------



## Sackchamp56

OneOfOne said:


> this is utterly ridiculous. every year a bunch of people who have no concept of the team aspect of football cry about the NFL version of overtime. simply put, you have a RESPONSIBILITY to STOP the offense. they take over usually 65 yards away from the end zone if not more. if the defense cant stop them then they deserve to lose because they have been BEATEN. there is no sane argument against it. in fact the competition commitee has rejected the 'college ot' argument more than once. college football in general at least in the absurd 'bowl subdivision' is a total fraud to begin with. its the only division in the entire ncaa that does not have a playoff system. the NFL has the overtime scenario right. there is a reason why nfl playoff overtime games are all classics. its called sudden death overtime for a reason.


Thank God! Someone understands the game. There is more to a footbal team than offense. There is special teams and defense too! If you lose the toss, your defense and special teams have to give your team a chance to win. If they cant do that, you deserve to lose.

Thanks for posting this!

......and go ahead and do away with the tuck rule please


----------



## Frank Anchor

OneOfOne said:


> its the NFL not college. you need skill to play NFL football. TWO feet in bounds. the hashmarks were moved in college AND in the pros to take away the advantage of defending a wide side and short side of the field. now the offense has no handicap regarding field position.


Yes and a professional offense should be able to make plays despite this so-called advantage that a wide side and a short side of the field would provide a defense. the hash marks should be moved out to college level


----------



## Frank Anchor

snipes007 said:


> I cannot believe there has been no discussion of Overtime. Both teams should have a chance on offense. You can't tell me the Overtime classics in College Football haven't been fun (Miami/Ohio State or recently LSU/Arkansas).
> .


College overtime is good for college but it would be horrible for the NFL. 56-54 triple-overtime shootouts would pop up at least 2-3 times per year and that would affect a team's scoring offense/defense (which is a playoff tiebreaker) Also, the NFL overtime incorporates all aspects of the game, rather than just red zone play, where a FG is already gift-wrapped for both teams.

I don't like the kickoff, go 25-30 yards, kick a field goal overtime that we have now, but something simple like first to 4 would be a much better system than sudden death or college ot


----------



## Stewart Vernon

OneOfOne said:


> I am a patriots fan and I cannot stand the steelers or their fans but lets be real: the guy is playing with an arena league offensive line, no willie parker, and on the worst field in the league. I wish I had a dollar for everytime I saw ben stiff arm, out muscle, or stand tall in the pocket against defenders this year. the guy isnt the most talented but he is pretty good. steeler management needs to spend some money to get some depth and more quality around him or he is going to have a tough career.


To your point here... I think not enough credit is given to offensive and defensive lines. Sometimes they get noticed, but all too often notsomuch. Yes, Tom Brady is a good decision-maker and accurate passer... but at least some of that comes from having time to make those decisions. If Tom Brady were put behind say, the Oakland Raiders o-line in recent years, he would be on his butt so much he might have been run out of the league!

Joe Montana, who Tom Brady often reminds me of... similarly benefitted from a good offensive line as well as the famous names you hear about like Roger Craig or Jerry Rice. The Dallas Cowboys with Aikman/Irvin/Smith were successful as much for their incredible offensive line as they were for the talents of the "triplets".

I've seen more than one QB get a resurrection of sorts when he gets to a team with a good line... but the line doesn't always get noticed. Fortunately people who really know and watch football actually see these guys and appreciate what they do for the team.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Thinking about overtime... I'm not sure the college rule would be good for the NFL... but I really don't like sudden death. When 2 teams play a great game for 60 minutes, I hate to see it end on one possession in overtime.

I think what I'd like to see...

Regular season games -> One 15 minute quarter of overtime, played just like a regular game quarter. Give each team a timeout more than they ended regulation with and let all instant replays happen from the booth (no challenge necessary). If at the end of that period both teams are still tied, then the game ends in a tie.

Playoffs -> Same as above except obviously you can't end in a tie so you have to keep playing until someone wins.

That's one thing I like about basketball, I watched a great overtime game tonight between UNC and Clemson... and they didn't have a sudden death or a shootout... they just played some extra minutes with the regular rules.

I was tempted to say play a 10 minute quarter... but the way football goes, I've seen one team chew up 8-10 minutes on a drive.


----------



## OneOfOne

HDMe said:


> Thinking about overtime... I'm not sure the college rule would be good for the NFL... but I really don't like sudden death. When 2 teams play a great game for 60 minutes, I hate to see it end on one possession in overtime.
> 
> I think what I'd like to see...
> 
> Regular season games -> One 15 minute quarter of overtime, played just like a regular game quarter. Give each team a timeout more than they ended regulation with and let all instant replays happen from the booth (no challenge necessary). If at the end of that period both teams are still tied, then the game ends in a tie.
> 
> Playoffs -> Same as above except obviously you can't end in a tie so you have to keep playing until someone wins.
> 
> That's one thing I like about basketball, I watched a great overtime game tonight between UNC and Clemson... and they didn't have a sudden death or a shootout... they just played some extra minutes with the regular rules.
> 
> I was tempted to say play a 10 minute quarter... but the way football goes, I've seen one team chew up 8-10 minutes on a drive.


if the defense does its job, each team WILL have the ball. the defense can also TAKE the ball from the offense and score. the basis of football is that any one play or series of plays can win the game. as constituted, overtime EXACTLY represents this reality. for those who simply cant understand the sillyness of changing the current format maybe you should think of all the ways that the game can end IN ONE PLAY during overtime. or better yet, maybe teams should win in regulation. overtime is just a second chance to do what you should have done in the first place.


----------



## Greg Bimson

Greg Bimson said:


> I'd love to "streamline" the penalties and rules, so not as much are left to the referees to decide:
> 
> Must have one foot in bounds, but no more of the "pushout" rule, such as the refs can give the receiver the reception if the ref feels they would have landed in bounds.





dshu82 said:


> I am with Greg on this one! Dumbest rule in football. If the defensive player times it right so there is not interference, there is only one thing to call it: Good Defense!!!!!





OneOfOne said:


> the rule is 2 feet in bounds. if the receiver is deemed to have been able to come down in bounds with 2 feet IF the defender hadn't pushed him out... . why is this so difficult to understand. its NOT interference. its a force out. its interference if the defender INTERFERED with the opportunity to catch the ball. its not a dumb rule. its a good rule that is not understood by too many non football fans.


I think you are misinterpreting what is being said here...

I want some of the "judgement calls" removed, so that there is some consistency. That is why I want sideline catches to be "one foot in bounds ALWAYS", so that it removes all doubt. And it isn't like the ref's jobs are difficult enough, but when NFL President of Officiating says regarding the force-out, 
"It's the toughest play that we have to officiate," I must question its use. And there are rumors that the NFL Competition Committee is looking at any changes to the rules.

Besides, the NFL is the only league where one can catch a ball with both feet out of bounds and still be given credit for the reception. And this is pro football?


----------



## Lord Vader

Greg Bimson said:


> Besides, the NFL is the only league where one can catch a ball with both feet out of bounds and still be given credit for the reception. And this is pro football?


Uh, not true. It's possible in baseball, too. Now I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out just how. Oh, and BTW, it has nothing to do with a fielder being pushed out.


----------



## Greg Bimson

You can be credited with an out if while leaving the field of play and catch the fly ball. Seen it happen on many foul-outs. But I am specifically talking about football.


----------



## Lord Vader

It can also happen on a fair ball and not just a foul batted ball.


----------



## Msguy

This is one I would LOVE to see. Although it isn't really a "Rule" Since a few people were posting about the weather earlier. I WOULD LOVE to start seeing some Super Bowls played in Northern Cities instead of having the 2 Involved teams going to Sunny Miami or a Dome Stadium in New Orleans or Glendale, Arizona. Put those 2 teams out on the Field in a Place Like Lambeau Field In Green Bay or Soldier Field in Chicago in early February when the weather is ice cold. Have the Super Bowl in a Cold place where snow and elements will truely be a factor. After All This Is Football Baby. I've been wanting to see that for YEARS now.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

OneOfOne said:


> if the defense does its job, each team WILL have the ball. the defense can also TAKE the ball from the offense and score. the basis of football is that any one play or series of plays can win the game. as constituted, overtime EXACTLY represents this reality. for those who simply cant understand the sillyness of changing the current format maybe you should think of all the ways that the game can end IN ONE PLAY during overtime. or better yet, maybe teams should win in regulation. overtime is just a second chance to do what you should have done in the first place.


I don't disagree that both sides of the ball should be playing for the win... but the "maybe teams should win in regulation" applies equally to both teams. I've seen games (there was a playoff game with I think Indy and Denver a few years back) where there were no punts during the game... so if that kind of game ends in a tie it seems unfair to decide the game on a potential single overtime possession that comes from a coin toss.

Think of the natural order of the game.. You score, kick to other team, they score, kick back to you... If you tie the game at the end of regulation with a score you would normally kick to the other team... but in overtime you could win the coin toss and get 2 consecutive possessions while your offense is hot and their defense is tired. In a sudden death situation, this shifts from the normal balance of the game where each team has a chance to respond to the other team's drive.

That's one reason to not like sudden death. Using the "maybe they should win in regulation" argument to my advantage...  Why should a team who couldn't win in regulation be rewarded with another consecutive chance to score?


----------



## FireMedic8039

One subject that hasnt been addressed. Holding. Most of the offensive holding calls are when the defensive guys are taken down on the field. The linemen always have a handful of jersey. But to call holding when the play isnt even near the QB, or right after the ball is thrown isnt warranted. 

10 yard penalty can kill a big gain. Holding could be tweaked.


----------



## OneOfOne

Greg Bimson said:


> I think you are misinterpreting what is being said here...
> 
> I want some of the "judgement calls" removed, so that there is some consistency. That is why I want sideline catches to be "one foot in bounds ALWAYS", so that it removes all doubt. And it isn't like the ref's jobs are difficult enough, but when NFL President of Officiating says regarding the force-out,
> "It's the toughest play that we have to officiate," I must question its use. And there are rumors that the NFL Competition Committee is looking at any changes to the rules.
> 
> Besides, the NFL is the only league where one can catch a ball with both feet out of bounds and still be given credit for the reception. And this is pro football?


once again, its the NFL not any type of lesser league. there are numerous judgement calls in football. ever heard of an obscure one like PASS INTERFERENCE? there is always going to be an aspect of a job that is the toughest? so what? thats life.


----------



## OneOfOne

HDMe said:


> I don't disagree that both sides of the ball should be playing for the win... but the "maybe teams should win in regulation" applies equally to both teams. I've seen games (there was a playoff game with I think Indy and Denver a few years back) where there were no punts during the game... so if that kind of game ends in a tie it seems unfair to decide the game on a potential single overtime possession that comes from a coin toss.
> 
> Think of the natural order of the game.. You score, kick to other team, they score, kick back to you... If you tie the game at the end of regulation with a score you would normally kick to the other team... but in overtime you could win the coin toss and get 2 consecutive possessions while your offense is hot and their defense is tired. In a sudden death situation, this shifts from the normal balance of the game where each team has a chance to respond to the other team's drive.
> 
> That's one reason to not like sudden death. Using the "maybe they should win in regulation" argument to my advantage...  Why should a team who couldn't win in regulation be rewarded with another consecutive chance to score?


ever heard of a little thing called defense? if you cant play it you generally lose. which is the point exactly.


----------



## OneOfOne

FireMedic8039 said:


> One subject that hasnt been addressed. Holding. Most of the offensive holding calls are when the defensive guys are taken down on the field. The linemen always have a handful of jersey. But to call holding when the play isnt even near the QB, or right after the ball is thrown isnt warranted.
> 
> 10 yard penalty can kill a big gain. Holding could be tweaked.


holding already was tweaked. I happen to have a copy of the first monday nite football game [as a series. I know they played random monday nites in the 60s]. I had heard how 15 a holding penalty could kill a drive. to actually see this happen is amazing. 10 yards is doable. 15, not so much hence the rule change. also to see the 'wide side' defenses played with the ridiculous wide hash marks was a laugh. it was an eye opener to see how primitive football was even 37 years ago. for those who actually watch line play, you will see holding on almost every down, called or not. watch how the tackle hold the pass rushers on the edge every time. sometimes called, sometimes not, yet another judgement call. once the allowed the linemen to extend their hands from their bodies it made holding inevitable on every play. you can see on slow motion closeups how they GRASP handfuls of jersey yet they may actually get away with it depending on the phase of the moon.


----------



## Frank Anchor

Don't call a late hit out of bounds unless the late hit was blatant and unsportsmanlike. A player should not get a 15 yard penalty for tackling someone just barely out of bounds, especially when his momentum carried him to do that


----------



## Greg Bimson

OneOnOne said:


> once again, its the NFL not any type of lesser league.


And once again, the NFL will be happy to give someone a reception even if the receiver lands out of bounds. What's the lesser league?


----------



## OneOfOne

Greg Bimson said:


> And once again, the NFL will be happy to give someone a reception even if the receiver lands out of bounds. What's the lesser league?


you can make silly comments to your hearts content. the facts remain the same whether you like it or not. if a player is pushed out of bounds when he would have clearly come down inbounds without a push by the defender its a force out. nobody is giving anyone anything.


----------



## Greg Bimson

OneOfOne said:


> you can make silly comments to your hearts content. the facts remain the same whether you like it or not. if a player is pushed out of bounds when he would have clearly come down inbounds without a push by the defender its a force out. nobody is giving anyone anything.


The name of this thread is "What NFL Rules should change in 2008?" That opens up the opinion line. And in MY opinion, the NFL's rules should match that of college, specifically because I would like to do away with the "force out" rule. NFL President of Officiating, Greg Pereira, has called the force out rule the hardest on the officiating crew. There are rumors the Competition Committee, co-chaired by Jeff Fisher, is looking over the force out rule. And as you stated before about consistency, it is about the removal of judgement calls to me that expands upon consistency. Even if my opinion is silly.

Of course, all I am arguing is that some of the rules should be a bit similar to college, only because I believe that the NFL has become too Dungeons and Dragons with their rulebook. Simplify it a bit.

I am simply complaining that this one segment of football follows a much different rule than everyone else and believe there should be consistency.


OneOfOne said:


> college football in general at least in the absurd 'bowl subdivision' is a total fraud to begin with. its the only division in the entire ncaa that does not have a playoff system.


And the NFL is the only football code that will give a reception under certain circumstances when the receiver does not land in bounds.

And I agree with you regarding the FBS/BCS mess, and have for quite some time.


----------



## katie carrabba

Frank Anchor said:


> while i understand your point of view, theres no guarantee that the receiver would have caught the ball anyway. also, the current system heavily favors the offense, since defensive pass interference is a spot foul and offensive pass interference is only 10 yards. the spot foul would only be fair if the nfl penalized offensive pass interference with loss of possession at the spot of the foul (or a touchback if in the endzone) which i could never imagine them doing


That wouldnt be too bad of an idea for offensive pass interferance


----------



## katie carrabba

OneOfOne said:


> if the defense does its job, each team WILL have the ball. the defense can also TAKE the ball from the offense and score. the basis of football is that any one play or series of plays can win the game. as constituted, overtime EXACTLY represents this reality. for those who simply cant understand the sillyness of changing the current format maybe you should think of all the ways that the game can end IN ONE PLAY during overtime. or better yet, maybe teams should win in regulation. overtime is just a second chance to do what you should have done in the first place.


i commpletely agree. If you play some defense, then you should have a chance to win


----------



## katie carrabba

Greg Bimson said:


> I'd love to "streamline" the penalties and rules, so not as much are left to the referees to decide:
> 
> Must have one foot in bounds, but no more of the "pushout" rule, such as the refs can give the receiver the reception if the ref feels they would have landed in bounds.
> 
> I think I'm sick of the "ineligible player downfield" rule.
> 
> And I'll trade Earl's sentiment for a change in the punt rule if they also allow punters to score field goals like a free kick.
> 
> I'd like to open up the game a bit more. Maybe move the hashmarks back to the college level.


These guys are pros they can get two feet in bounds. keep the pushout rule and call it more. If theres a decent chance the receiver would have gotten both feet in bounds, then call a pushout

Punts counting as field goals? thats stupid keep punts how they are now and *no penalty* should a punt go out of bounds

Definately move the hashmarks out to college level. The game is too close to the center of the field as it is now.


----------



## katie carrabba

2Guysfootball said:


> 1. Make OT in the NFl a Timed 7.5 minute quarter. The team who scores the most points during the quarter wins.
> With two time Outs per team and one Challenge But if you Challenge a play you lose a Time Out no matter what.
> 2. All Penalties inside the 20 yard line should be reviewable by the booth Officials only.
> 3.A 10 yard penalty should be called for throwing a challenge flag on a unreviewable play.
> 4.Pass Interference should be tiered in the Pi happens within 10 yards of the line= 10 yard and first down 10-30= 15yds and a first down 30+= 25yds and a First down.
> 5. FG of 45 yards or more should be worth 4 points
> 
> I don't like the excessive celebration rules in either the Pro or College but I also don't want to see it go back to the Broadway days of the 80's


1. No, play sudden death and learn to play defense
2. Either all penalties or no penalties
3. Maybe 5 for delay of game. Also a 5-yd delay of game penalty, rather than unsportsmanlike conduct, should be penalized if you throw a challange flag in the last two minutes.
4.Spot foul, dont encourage teams to commit penalties
5. No. Why should a field goal count for more points if the team did not make it as close to the end zone. If anything, long field goals should count as less.


----------



## katie carrabba

Frank Anchor said:


> On the areas discussed in the forum:
> 
> *TD celebration:*
> Penalty for excessive celebration after a TD is 15 yards on the kickoff AND the team may not attempt the extra point. Imagine how pissed off a coach would be his team lost by a point or in OT this way.


Yea that might reduce celebrations. It would still allow them in blowouts when the extrra point wont matter. maybe make the team earn the right to celebrate


----------



## Greg Bimson

katie carrabba said:


> These guys are pros they can get two feet in bounds. keep the pushout rule and call it more. If theres a decent chance the receiver would have gotten both feet in bounds, then call a pushout.


So if I am head coach, and get a call by a ref that says my receiver's catch is no go, and believe the play should be reviewed, then what happens?

It is a judgement call, and cannot be reviewed.

I want the game out of the hands of the ref. Want two feet inbounds? Fine, I'll agree to that. No more pushouts. It is never called consistently, and it is unreviewable.

It's like how they changed the rule this year that for a touchdown, the football must go inside the pylon if the runner is near the out-of-bounds line. Another judgement call. At least that is reviewable.

The more "exceptions" to the rules that are added are simply a foolish way to make certain situations better, instead of addressing the rule itself.

The one answer I am getting tired of hearing is "these guys are pros". Yes, I did start it. So if these guys are pros, make them take the catch inbounds without giving them the "well it was close enough, so we'll give you the catch on a force-out" speech.


katie carrabba said:


> Punts counting as field goals? thats stupid keep punts how they are now and no penalty should a punt go out of bounds


I only said I'd trade to Earl's rule if punts could count as field goals. Otherwise, let the punting rules stand.


----------



## durl

One thing I'd like to see revisited is the ball merely breaking the plane of the goal line for a touchdown. I haven't really thought the ramifications through that well but it just seems wrong to allow some of the scores that are now legal.

- If a QB is running for the pylon, he sicks the ball across the line right before he steps out of bounds on the 1 yard line. I'd like to see some sort of "possession" rule apply, much like a sideline catch by a WR.

- In the same vein, when the ball is on the goal line and a player stretches the ball across but then loses possession. I'd rather that NOT be a TD. I believe there should be complete control until the player is ruled down, not when the ball breaks the plane.

I still believe they should mark the ball where it was when the player was ruled down or out-of-bounds so a stretch for the goal line should count so these changes might be hard to make.


----------



## Xaa

Nope. The play is over, dead as soon as the ball breaks the plane. Nothing that happens after that is part of the play so I disagree durl. I hate those stretch it over type too, but they're only able to do it because they got within stretching distance.


----------



## OneOfOne

durl said:


> One thing I'd like to see revisited is the ball merely breaking the plane of the goal line for a touchdown. I haven't really thought the ramifications through that well but it just seems wrong to allow some of the scores that are now legal.
> 
> - If a QB is running for the pylon, he sicks the ball across the line right before he steps out of bounds on the 1 yard line. I'd like to see some sort of "possession" rule apply, much like a sideline catch by a WR.
> 
> - In the same vein, when the ball is on the goal line and a player stretches the ball across but then loses possession. I'd rather that NOT be a TD. I believe there should be complete control until the player is ruled down, not when the ball breaks the plane.
> 
> I still believe they should mark the ball where it was when the player was ruled down or out-of-bounds so a stretch for the goal line should count so these changes might be hard to make.


all you have to do is read what you typed about the first item to see how your 'correction' is irrelevant. the plane of the goal stretches to infinity. if you have posession and are not out of bounds what difference does it make once you break the plane? its not like the runners are unopposed when they are trying to score. and sometimes scoring is extremely difficult which is why the rule is as it is.


----------



## OneOfOne

katie carrabba;1376632
Definately move the hashmarks out to college level. The game is too close to the center of the field as it is now.[/QUOTE said:


> the reason the play is where it is, is to give the offense a better chance to function. its also why the college game changed where its hashes are although not as much. now that I think of it there are a lot of things about the college rules that suck. why is a player considered down even if no defensive player touches him? there is one great rule though, if you deny a 2 point conversion by taking the ball you can return it for the same 2 points. I would LOVE to see the NFL adopt this rule.


----------



## Frank Anchor

OneOfOne said:


> there is one great rule though, if you deny a 2 point conversion by taking the ball you can return it for the same 2 points. I would LOVE to see the NFL adopt this rule.


I never thought of that (probably because i don't see it too much in NCAA), but I agree the NFL should do that to


----------



## Frank Anchor

Also, if anything, push outs should be called more, the receiver/interceptor should be entitled to attempt to land in bounds.


----------



## Greg Bimson

katie carrabba said:


> Definately move the hashmarks out to college level. The game is too close to the center of the field as it is now.





OneOfOne said:


> the reason the play is where it is, is to give the offense a better chance to function. its also why the college game changed where its hashes are although not as much.


Actually, not quite true.

The hashmarks in the NFL are currently 18 and a half feet apart. That is exactly the width of the goalposts. The rule change to shorten the hashmarks in the NFL took place during the Dolphins dream season in 1972. Prior to 1972, the hashmarks were 40 feet wide.

Think about it. In 1971, if you were stopped on the one yard line, and it is now 4th and goal, you would kick an EIGHT yard field goal, as the goalposts were located on the goal line in 1971, not on the end line as they are now.

So if you were on the left hashmark in 1971, you would have lined up your kick EIGHT yards from the field goal, and would have had to kick the ball just over ten feet to your right in order to make a field goal.

The NFL moved the hashmarks for the 1972 season, then in 1974 moved the goalposts to the endline, which completely ended an eight yard field goal attempt.

That was the main impetus for moving the hashmarks.

The NCAA only changed their hashmarks in 1993 because they changed the width of the goalposts in 1991. Goalposts in the NCAA prior to 1991 were 23 and one-third feet wide. In 1991, they were moved to the pro level at 18 and a half feet. The hashmarks in 1991 were still 53 and one-third feet, which means there was *seventeen and a half feet* from either hashmark to actually get to an upright. The shortening of the hashmark width to 40 feet in 1993 brought that distance to an upright from the hashmark to under twelve feet.

Just like the NFL, it was because of the kicking game that the NCAA shortened the hashmarks to 40 feet wide in 1993.


----------



## Frank Anchor

Greg Bimson said:


> Actually, not quite true.
> 
> The hashmarks in the NFL are currently 18 and a half feet apart. That is exactly the width of the goalposts. The rule change to shorten the hashmarks in the NFL took place during the Dolphins dream season in 1972. Prior to 1972, the hashmarks were 40 feet wide.
> 
> Think about it. In 1971, if you were stopped on the one yard line, and it is now 4th and goal, you would kick an EIGHT yard field goal, as the goalposts were located on the goal line in 1971, not on the end line as they are now.
> 
> So if you were on the left hashmark in 1971, you would have lined up your kick EIGHT yards from the field goal, and would have had to kick the ball just over ten feet to your right in order to make a field goal.
> 
> The NFL moved the hashmarks for the 1972 season, then in 1974 moved the goalposts to the endline, which completely ended an eight yard field goal attempt.
> 
> That was the main impetus for moving the hashmarks.
> 
> The NCAA only changed their hashmarks in 1993 because they changed the width of the goalposts in 1991. Goalposts in the NCAA prior to 1991 were 23 and one-third feet wide. In 1991, they were moved to the pro level at 18 and a half feet. The hashmarks in 1991 were still 53 and one-third feet, which means there was *seventeen and a half feet* from either hashmark to actually get to an upright. The shortening of the hashmark width to 40 feet in 1993 brought that distance to an upright from the hashmark to under twelve feet.
> 
> Just like the NFL, it was because of the kicking game that the NCAA shortened the hashmarks to 40 feet wide in 1993.


Yes and as I said before, kickers at this level should be able to hit field goals at an angle. If its too sharp of an angle, the team can take a 5-yard false start penalty (that isn't declineable), something i've seen in college a couple times. Move the hashmarks to college level, open the game up a little. Besides i would love to see the offense handle a short and wide side


----------



## Stewart Vernon

You know, something I've always wondered...

Lots of times a team takes a delay of game intentionally to get 5 more yards for better punt placement on 4th down. Sometimes the other team declines the penalty, which rendered the whole thing moot.

BUT... why can't the kicking team just refuse to kick and take another delay of game?

Not that it would be good sportsmanship... but couldn't a team just not snap the ball and kick it and keep taking delay penalties until the other side finally accepted like they want?

Is there any kind of limit to how long you can intentionally delay the game like that?


----------



## Frank Anchor

HDMe said:


> You know, something I've always wondered...
> 
> Lots of times a team takes a delay of game intentionally to get 5 more yards for better punt placement on 4th down. Sometimes the other team declines the penalty, which rendered the whole thing moot.
> 
> BUT... why can't the kicking team just refuse to kick and take another delay of game?
> 
> Not that it would be good sportsmanship... but couldn't a team just not snap the ball and kick it and keep taking delay penalties until the other side finally accepted like they want?
> 
> Is there any kind of limit to how long you can intentionally delay the game like that?


Ive seen that in college a few times but I dont know if you can decline a delay of game in the NFL. But i know that you CAN NOT decline a false start, which would have the same effect.

continually declining delay penalties would drive the TV networks crazy because it would make longer games on a continually tight game schedule!


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Frank Anchor said:


> Ive seen that in college a few times but I dont know if you can decline a delay of game in the NFL. But i know that you CAN NOT decline a false start, which would have the same effect.
> 
> continually declining delay penalties would drive the TV networks crazy because it would make longer games on a continually tight game schedule!


It was your suggestion of the intentional false start that reminded me about my question. To truly get the 5 yards, an intentional false start is the way to go... especially if you are 4th and 6 or better so you can't get a 1st down through defensive offsides if they try and jump.

You can definately (or at least last time I paid attention) decline the delay of game penalty in the NFL. I've just never seen the offense try to get it again. Surely there is something in the rulebook along the lines of "repeated delay of game penalties results in a loss of down even if the defense would otherwise decline the yardage"... otherwise why not just keep doing it and delay the inevitable punt.


----------



## Frank Anchor

HDMe said:


> It was your suggestion of the intentional false start that reminded me about my question. To truly get the 5 yards, an intentional false start is the way to go... especially if you are 4th and 6 or better so you can't get a 1st down through defensive offsides if they try and jump.
> 
> You can definately (or at least last time I paid attention) decline the delay of game penalty in the NFL. I've just never seen the offense try to get it again. Surely there is something in the rulebook along the lines of "repeated delay of game penalties results in a loss of down even if the defense would otherwise decline the yardage"... otherwise why not just keep doing it and delay the inevitable punt.


thanks for clarifying


----------



## RobertE

Myself, I don't care for spikeing the ball to stop the clock.


----------



## lmunster

Carl Spock said:


> No time outs from the sidelines. All time outs must be called on the field.


This should definitely be changed.


----------



## djlong

In response to the "you have to play DEFENSE *and* offense" argument against giving both sides a shot in overtime....

If that were done in baseball, the Red Sox would have won the World Series in '86. They scored twice in the top of the 10th but the Mets scored 3 in the bottom of the 10th, ending with the infamous grounder between Buckner's legs.

Yes, you have to play defense and offense, but what if your offense beats their defense better than their defense beats your offense and the ONLY reason you didn't get to prove it was a stupid COIN TOSS?


----------



## Lord Vader

You cannot compare this to baseball because that's a fundamentally different game. For one thing, it's the only sport in which the ball is possessed and controlled by the defense.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The point still remains though... Coin toss at the beginning of the game just determines who gets the ball first. The other team gets the ball at the start of the second half, and they usually swap possession a few times per half as well.

If you do all that for 4 quarters without either team earning (by playing offense AND defense) a clear victory... why determine it by a coin toss that might result in only one team seeing the ball?

They might as well determine the victor by having a field-goal shootout between the kickers. At least that would give each team a shot at the win, but it would be no more representative of the way the game was played.

Think how nasty overtime rules of the NFL would be if applied to basketball. Play a whole game for a tie... then the first shot in overtime wins it. Done in 10 seconds.

It's hard to argue one team deserves a win more than the other when after the normal regulation play, neither team separated enough for the win. That tends to imply both teams played equally good, equally bad, OR one team was better than the other but made more mistakes that evened things out. In any overtime scenario, to arbitrarily reward one team more than another with a coin-toss doesn't result in a satisfying win to me.

I hold this opinion even if MY team wins in overtime. Making a last-second drive to win in regulation is rewarding on several levels... but winning the coin toss and driving half the field for a field goal to win in overtime just isn't as satisfying to me.


----------



## DawgLink

I would like to see the rule changed about calling a timeout a second before the hike


----------



## Stewart Vernon

DawgLink said:


> I would like to see the rule changed about calling a timeout a second before the hike


The only fair change they could make would be to take away the sideline timeout. Until recently timeouts had to come from players on the field... so this year's "problem" came about because of coaches being able to call timeout and timing it from the sideline.

But I doubt we'd ever see a rule change that said no timeouts once everyone is on the line or no timeouts in the last XX seconds of the play clock, because that would mean the offense couldn't call timeout either to prevent delay of game... and if the offense can call a timeout, the defense has to be able to call one as well (say if they realize they have 12 men on the field still or have the wrong personnel).

I would be ok with taking the coaches out of the equation for timeout calling... but that's really about all they can do, and a player on the field could do the same thing and call a last-second timeout easier than the coach could if the player just stands next to an official in the field of play.


----------



## purtman

djlong said:


> In response to the "you have to play DEFENSE *and* offense" argument against giving both sides a shot in overtime....
> 
> If that were done in baseball, the Red Sox would have won the World Series in '86. They scored twice in the top of the 10th but the Mets scored 3 in the bottom of the 10th, ending with the infamous grounder between Buckner's legs.


No. They both played offense and defense, although one played defense poorly.


----------



## OneOfOne

djlong said:


> In response to the "you have to play DEFENSE *and* offense" argument against giving both sides a shot in overtime....
> 
> If that were done in baseball, the Red Sox would have won the World Series in '86. They scored twice in the top of the 10th but the Mets scored 3 in the bottom of the 10th, ending with the infamous grounder between Buckner's legs.
> 
> Yes, you have to play defense and offense, but what if your offense beats their defense better than their defense beats your offense and the ONLY reason you didn't get to prove it was a stupid COIN TOSS?


this post is totally ridiculous. baseball has NOTHING to do with football. the games are different. and if the red sox pitching and defense had been effective they STILL would have won the game.


----------



## OneOfOne

Frank Anchor said:


> Ive seen that in college a few times but I dont know if you can decline a delay of game in the NFL. But i know that you CAN NOT decline a false start, which would have the same effect.
> 
> continually declining delay penalties would drive the TV networks crazy because it would make longer games on a continually tight game schedule!


a false start nullifies anything that happens afterwards. delay of game isnt a play its a failure to start a play. also false start is a motion initiating play which can be dangerous, just think the albert haynesworth play in the playoffs against san diego. if a false start had initiated that then the player who committed it puts the qb in danger. anyway trying to continually delay the game would most likely result in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and a fine on the coach. yes he would get his desired extra yards to punt, but at a monetary cost that the league would likely makes prohibitive.


----------



## OneOfOne

HDMe said:


> The point still remains though... Coin toss at the beginning of the game just determines who gets the ball first. The other team gets the ball at the start of the second half, and they usually swap possession a few times per half as well.
> 
> If you do all that for 4 quarters without either team earning (by playing offense AND defense) a clear victory... why determine it by a coin toss that might result in only one team seeing the ball?
> 
> They might as well determine the victor by having a field-goal shootout between the kickers. At least that would give each team a shot at the win, but it would be no more representative of the way the game was played.
> 
> Think how nasty overtime rules of the NFL would be if applied to basketball. Play a whole game for a tie... then the first shot in overtime wins it. Done in 10 seconds.
> 
> It's hard to argue one team deserves a win more than the other when after the normal regulation play, neither team separated enough for the win. That tends to imply both teams played equally good, equally bad, OR one team was better than the other but made more mistakes that evened things out. In any overtime scenario, to arbitrarily reward one team more than another with a coin-toss doesn't result in a satisfying win to me.
> 
> I hold this opinion even if MY team wins in overtime. Making a last-second drive to win in regulation is rewarding on several levels... but winning the coin toss and driving half the field for a field goal to win in overtime just isn't as satisfying to me.


there is no point here or in ANY argument that sounds like this. the coin toss determines only who kicks off. there is no rule that says you cant onside kick. there is also no rule that says you have to receive. the only relevant rule is that you have to score to win. and you have to defend to prevent the score. so nothing is given to either team and anything that happens after the cointoss is determined by the play of the team that deserves the win since it will be EARNED not given.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

OneOfOne said:


> there is no point here or in ANY argument that sounds like this. the coin toss determines only who kicks off. there is no rule that says you cant onside kick. there is also no rule that says you have to receive. the only relevant rule is that you have to score to win. and you have to defend to prevent the score. so nothing is given to either team and anything that happens after the cointoss is determined by the play of the team that deserves the win since it will be EARNED not given.


This would only be completely true back in the "iron man" days where people played offense and defense. IF all your players were on the field, then I could buy that argument... but half your team (both teams) is sitting on the sidelines.

I don't want the college overtime rules... but I would like to see a quarter of football played with normal football rules. No sudden death is all I'm asking for here. What is the harm of playing the quarter under normal rules and seeing what happens? If one team is truly better and deserving of the win, shouldn't they be able to win in that scenario?


----------



## Frank Anchor

HDMe said:


> This would only be completely true back in the "iron man" days where people played offense and defense. IF all your players were on the field, then I could buy that argument... but half your team (both teams) is sitting on the sidelines.
> 
> I don't want the college overtime rules... but I would like to see a quarter of football played with normal football rules. No sudden death is all I'm asking for here. What is the harm of playing the quarter under normal rules and seeing what happens? If one team is truly better and deserving of the win, shouldn't they be able to win in that scenario?


An extra quarter wouldn't be bad except that there would probably be 2 or 3 ties every year and it would make games too long for TV networks already on a tight schedule. A 1:00 game wouldn't end til 5:15ish, an hour into the second game of a scheduled doubleheader. A prime time game wouldnt end til almost 1:00, where most people have work/school the next morning.

I've already suggested a couple times on here a first-to-4 overtime where a team must score 4 points (a td or two of anything else) to eliminate teams kicking a field goal whenever they are in range and make teams go for the td. A team that gives up a touchdown doesnt deserve to win, whereas a team giving up a field goal should have a chance to match or beat it. Game still ends after 15 minutes of play


----------



## djlong

OneOfOne said:


> this post is totally ridiculous. baseball has NOTHING to do with football. the games are different. and if the red sox pitching and defense had been effective they STILL would have won the game.


Not totally ridiculous at all.

The comparable situation in football would be that one team wins the coin toss for overtime and marches down the field for a field goal. Currently, game over. To play a little reducto-ad-absurdum, the entire defensive half of the team could have simultaneous heart attacks and be shipped to the hospital and the team would still win.

The team that won the coin toss should have at least had to play defense to keep them from scoring a touchdown. ...and if they score a field goal, you keep playing until someone scores more in turn.


----------



## Lord Vader

Actually, it is, indeed, ridiculous, because baseball is fundamentally different from any other sport, including football. For one thing, as I mentioned above, baseball is the only sport in which the _*defense*_ possesses and controls the ball. The same cannot be said for football.


----------



## Tom Robertson

We don't really need to discuss if baseball is or is not football, do we?  (Gentle moderator nudge to "move along")


----------



## Lord Vader

No, because I'm not trying to make this an issue of which sport is better; rather, I'm pointing out something unique about baseball vis-a-vis football's handling of tie scores. Because of the very nature of baseball, its "tie-breaking" method requires both sides to have a shot, and one of the reasons is because unlike football or basketball or others, in baseball, one side possesses the ball for a specific duration and cannot "turn it over," which can happen in the other sports.


----------



## Tom Robertson

As to overtime, I'm satisfied with the current rules. A team that can't make it happen in that all important first possession, either as offense or defense likely should lose.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Frank Anchor

OneOfOne said:


> a false start nullifies anything that happens afterwards. delay of game isnt a play its a failure to start a play. also false start is a motion initiating play which can be dangerous, just think the albert haynesworth play in the playoffs against san diego. if a false start had initiated that then the player who committed it puts the qb in danger. anyway trying to continually delay the game would most likely result in an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty and a fine on the coach. yes he would get his desired extra yards to punt, but at a monetary cost that the league would likely makes prohibitive.


yes that is a dangerous play if the qb is under center. I was talking about a kick/punt where there is kicker is 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage on a fg tryor 15 on a punt. Most defenders' momentum wouldn't carry them 7+yards


----------



## Frank Anchor

RobertE said:


> Myself, I don't care for spikeing the ball to stop the clock.


Its part of the game and it penalizesa team for not having any timeouts by costing them a down and about 11 seconds to run up and get in formation and spike the ball


----------



## Frank Anchor

I thought I would bring this back now that the rule changes for 2008 were made:

Here's the new rules with my commentary:
1. Elimination of the "force-out" rule on catches made near the sidelines. A receiver now must come down with the ball and both feet in bounds for a pass to be ruled complete; previously, passes would be ruled complete if the receiver was pushed by a defender while in the air and the official judged that he would have come down in bounds had he not been pushed.
*Dumb. The force out rule is necessary, it essentially makes the field a yard or two narrower on each side. It'll kill two-minute drills*

2. Incidental grabbing of the face mask will no longer be a penalty, though intentional grabbing of the face mask will remain a 15-yard penalty. Previously, incidental face mask calls resulted in a 5-yard penalty.
*Good idea, as long as the refs don't start calling 15 yard face mask penalties for what used to be five*

3. Teams that win the opening coin toss now have the option to defer the decision until the start of the second half, the same as in college football.
*It's about time!*

4. Field goal attempts that bounce off the goal post are now reviewable.
*Most likely going to be dubbed the "Phil Dawson Rule," and it is necessary although it will only be used about once every year at the most*

5. Legal forward hand offs that touch the ground and attempted snaps when the ball hits the ground before the quarterback touches it are now considered fumbles; previously, forward hand offs were treated as incomplete passes, while a snap that hit the ground before the quarterback touched it was a five-yard illegal procedure penalty.
*doesn't really matter to me*

6. One defensive player to wear a radio akin to one worn by the quarterback to communicate with the coaching staff.
*If offense can, defense should be able to as well*

Notable rule proposals rejected are the proposal to allow wild card teams to have a home game over a division winner in the playoffs (good, division championships should mean something) and a proposal to restrict hair length (also good, the hippies with the long hair know that they can be pulled down by it, and that if it touches the ground, then they are down, but are stupid enough to have it anyway)


----------



## Greg Bimson

And my commentary:
1. Elimination of the "force-out" rule


> Dumb. The force out rule is necessary, it essentially makes the field a yard or two narrower on each side. It'll kill two-minute drills


Funny. Doesn't do that in college or high-school, where the rule has always been two feet. It forces the offense to play offense and the defense to play defense.

2. Incidental grabbing of the face mask will no longer be a penalty
Fine. Reduces the number of penalties.

3. Teams that win the opening coin toss now have the option to defer the decision until the start of the second half, the same as in college football.
Fine.

4. Field goal attempts that bounce off the goal post are now reviewable.
Should be reviewable. Not that it will happen.

5. Legal forward hand offs that touch the ground and attempted snaps when the ball hits the ground before the quarterback touches it are now considered fumbles
Wow. This one came from nowhere. Not sure I like this one. A forward pitch is considered a fumble? I am wondering what the actual rule is. No more snap passes to a running back behind the line of scrimmage? What about in front of the line?

6. One defensive player to wear a radio akin to one worn by the quarterback to communicate with the coaching staff.
It's about time.


----------



## Frank Anchor

Greg Bimson said:


> And my commentary:
> 1. Elimination of the "force-out" rule
> Funny.  Doesn't do that in college or high-school, where the rule has always been two feet. It forces the offense to play offense and the defense to play defense.


actually its one foot in high school and college


----------



## Guest

Greg Bimson said:


> 4. Field goal attempts that bounce off the goal post are now reviewable.
> Should be reviewable. Not that it will happen.


It _has _happened. This change is the result of the Cleveland-Baltimore game last year, in which the game was decided by a FG that bounced off the extension behind the crossbar and went back into the end zone. It was originally ruled no good, but the officials conferred and then reversed the call. It was clear from the replay that the FG was good, but the officials weren't allowed to look at it. Fortunately they got it right.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Frank Anchor said:


> *Dumb. The force out rule is necessary, it essentially makes the field a yard or two narrower on each side. It'll kill two-minute drills*


Mixed feelings for me here.. On the one hand, the "force-out" was sometimes arbitrary and hard to call consistently from one game to the next, much less from one ref to the next... so I understand the need to do something here.

My fear, however, is that players near the sidelines or in the back of the endzone will now never come down in bounds because all a player has to do is under cut him while he is in the air and guarantee that he never touches both feet in bounds.

I could live with this a little better IF the went with the college 1-foot=posession/catch... but getting 2-feet in bounds on the sidelines will be next to impossible without a force-out rule.



Frank Anchor said:


> *Good idea, as long as the refs don't start calling 15 yard face mask penalties for what used to be five*


This is exactly what I expect will happen... and to be fair, I believe it should happen. Grabbing the facemask is potentially VERY dangerous, which is why the penalty exists. The 15-yard variety was added in recent history because the 5-yard penalty wasn't enough of a punishment apparently to keep players from avoiding grabbing.

My personal feeling is that incidental/takedowns ought to be treated with the same 15-yards and players should be taught better tackling technique to prevent them even being near grasping the facemask at all. There has been a lot of poor tackling in recent memory, and some guys who have trouble tackling go for the facemask as a last resort. I do not believe anyone intends to do harm by grabbing it, but the NFL should do everything it can to discourage that from happening.

All it would take is one major paralysis type of injury, or death, to really put a damper on things. It would be nice to not see that happen.


----------



## markman07

Greg Bimson said:


> And my commentary:
> 1. Elimination of the "force-out" rule
> Funny. Doesn't do that in college or high-school, where the rule has always been two feet. It forces the offense to play offense and the defense to play defense.
> 
> 5. Legal forward hand offs that touch the ground and attempted snaps when the ball hits the ground before the quarterback touches it are now considered fumbles
> Wow. This one came from nowhere. Not sure I like this one. A forward pitch is considered a fumble? I am wondering what the actual rule is. No more snap passes to a running back behind the line of scrimmage? What about in front of the line?
> .


1 - Actually it is one foot in college or HS.
2. No - forward handoffs, not pitches or tosses!


----------



## Greg Bimson

Yes, I made a mistake. Simply put, the receiver must get both feet down in-bounds, unlike the one foot everywhere else.

I am trying to figure what a forward hand-off is.


----------



## Steve615

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/rumors/post/League-rejects-Devin-Hester-Rule-on-punts?urn=nfl,74820


----------



## Frank Anchor

Greg Bimson said:


> Yes, I made a mistake. Simply put, the receiver must get both feet down in-bounds, unlike the one foot everywhere else.
> 
> I am trying to figure what a forward hand-off is.


a shovel pass?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Greg Bimson said:


> I am trying to figure what a forward hand-off is.


My guess is that a forward handoff is one in which the running back is in front of the quarterback.

If the running back is behind the quarterback, then technically that would be a lateral or backwards exchange, which would allow the running back to throw a legal forward pass OR hand it off to someone else.

But a forward handoff is when the running back is in front of the quarterback, and typically has been treated as a fumble if dropped even though it is a forward exchange. The pitch forward that actually travels in the air for some time (even if that is miniscule) always counts as a forward pass, so if missed does not become a fumble but rather an incompletion.

But my interpretation may be wrong if they are saying the rule has been changed to now say this is a fumble, since I thought it always would have been... so my interpretation may not be quite as correct as I used to think.


----------



## Guest

HDMe said:


> Mixed feelings for me here.. On the one hand, the "force-out" was sometimes arbitrary and hard to call consistently from one game to the next, much less from one ref to the next... so I understand the need to do something here.
> 
> My fear, however, is that players near the sidelines or in the back of the endzone will now never come down in bounds because all a player has to do is under cut him while he is in the air and guarantee that he never touches both feet in bounds.


Agreed, it will make it more difficult to complete sideline or endzone passes. Any time a receiver is trying to make a catch and come down with both feet in bounds, the defender will simply knock him out of bounds before he lands.


----------

