FYI: Rule changes under consideration

[stuckincincy]

From the Cincinnati Enquirer 03/27/08:

 

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...PT02/803270329/

[plenzmd1]

I like all of these rule changes, but not sure if I understand the facemask one.

 

I love being able to defer recieving the ball to the 2nd half. Think many times at home that would be an option that is just not there now.

[Ramius]

We've had the playoff seeding argument, which i am in favor of the NFL's proposal. I'll address some of the other changes:

 

In the area of on-field rules, owners will vote on proposals to eliminate the force-out of a receiver, similar to the college game; it was called 15 times last season. And a force-out would be called only if a defender picked up an offensive player and carried him out of bounds.

 

I like this potential change. No more judgement call forceouts. If you dont get your feet down in bounds, it isnt a catch, plain and simple. Offense can adjust, and will have to correct patterns so the WR gets the ball with room to get both feet down. Most importantly, again, it eliminates any possible judgement call by the refs.

 

give teams the option of deferring to receive the ball in the second half on the coin toss and eliminate the 5-yard minor face mask penalty, covering all facemask violations - twisting, turning or pulling - with a 15-yard penalty

 

I like the deferrment rule. Why force a team to receive the ball at the beginning of the game? If you've got a stout defense, let them get on the field, get a stop, and then you can get the ball at the half.

 

I DONT like the elimination of the 5 yard facemask. Any pulling, tugging, etc, deserves 15 yards, but if your hand grazes a facemask, and you instantly let go, realizing it was a mistake, you dont deserve 15 yards, only 5.

 

And finally, i wish the NFL would do away with the "timeout called 3 milliseconds before the FG was kicked." I would be in favor of eliminating the coach called timeout all together. Make a rule so only a player on the field of play can call the timeout. If they want to try and call the last second timeout, go ahead, but it will hurt them on the field.

[PastaJoe]

I don't agree with making all facemask penalties 15 yards. An accidental grab and release is not the same as holding and twisting a player's head.

[KD in CA]

I DONT like the elimination of the 5 yard facemask. Any pulling, tugging, etc, deserves 15 yards, but if your hand grazes a facemask, and you instantly let go, realizing it was a mistake, you dont deserve 15 yards, only 5.

I agree completely. This would be a terrible rule change and IMO increase the risk to the players. Hey if I'm getting the 15 anyway, NFW am I letting this guy's mask go until he's on the ground.

 

And finally, i wish the NFL would do away with the "timeout called 3 milliseconds before the FG was kicked." I would be in favor of eliminating the coach called timeout all together. Make a rule so only a player on the field of play can call the timeout. If they want to try and call the last second timeout, go ahead, but it will hurt them on the field.

Are they really not moving to eliminate that?? This was an embarrassment to football last season. I also agree that coaches calling TO is crap.

[BuffaloBilliever]

Icing the kicker has been around for years, it's a great play.

 

Get in their heads just a little bit longer, and hey, it won us a game last year, what's to complain about? Although, Rian would've nailed it from 15 yards further back

 

I say keep that rule, but that's just me...

[Adam]

Icing the kicker has been around for years, it's a great play.

 

Get in their heads just a little bit longer, and hey, it won us a game last year, what's to complain about? Although, Rian would've nailed it from 15 yards further back

 

I say keep that rule, but that's just me...

Icing the kicker is calling a timeout before the kick, not having him kick it twice. It has no place in the game, and Shanahan should be suspended for starting that garbage

[Ned Flanders]

Glad the forceout rule is being discussed...only called 15 times last season? Too bad the rule wasn't changed prior to 2004...the Bills would have won the opener vs. Jax.

 

On the playoff seeding, I could go either way...doesn't seem like a big deal one way or another.

 

As previous posters have said, they need to look at the Shanahan-method of calling TOs right before FG attempts...something needs to be done there.

[BuffaloBilliever]

Icing the kicker is calling a timeout before the kick, not having him kick it twice. It has no place in the game, and Shanahan should be suspended for starting that garbage

 

Ah ha... misunderstood the arguement.

 

Keep the Ice, down with double kicks.

[Arkady Renko]

Silly me, I thought a team could elect to kick rather than receive if they won the toss. Or in other words, I thought they could just a side instead.

 

Madden at least is this way.

[LynchMob23]

Silly me, I thought a team could elect to kick rather than receive if they won the toss. Or in other words, I thought they could just a side instead.

 

Madden at least is this way.

It's only in Madden. In the real NFL a team (I think maybe the Jets) tried to defer but wound up kicking twice.

[Chandler#81]

Good article Stuck, thanks!

 

I disagree with the Face mask proposal -for reasons already explained.

 

I agree with the new playoff seeding scenario. Schitty divisions should not be gratised (sp?) with a home game.

 

The 'force out' proposal marks a rare deviation from most new rule changes in that it benefits defense -interesting..

 

The 2nd D guy w/ com device and Official team 'cheating scapegoat' sound like knee jerk reactions to Spygate. I understand there will be a problem with one particular defender always being on the field but I don't think this is the answer..

 

Good stuff.

[nucci]

I think TO's should be ref discretion, just like in Baseball. Just because a batter requests time to step out of the box while the pitcher is in his windup, the umpire does not always give it to him. If the coach calls TO right before ball is snapped, don't give it to him.

[JinVA]

Icing the kicker has been around for years, it's a great play.

 

Get in their heads just a little bit longer, and hey, it won us a game last year, what's to complain about? Although, Rian would've nailed it from 15 yards further back

 

I say keep that rule, but that's just me...

I agree, however there should be a rule that doesn't allow photographers to take pictures during the kick.

[stuckincincy]

I like the deferment rule. Why force a team to receive the ball at the beginning of the game? If you've got a stout defense, let them get on the field, get a stop, and then you can get the ball at the half.

 

"The committee is proposing to include field goals in instant replay review, give teams the option of deferring to receive the ball in the second half on the coin toss."

 

Currently, the winner of the toss has the option to receive, or defend a goal at the start of the game. This proposed change refers to the 2nd half - and the loser of the toss. I always thought it was the loser's choice to receive or kick off in the 2nd half; evidently not.

 

However...when the wind direction will be a factor, I shake my head when - almost all teams all the time that win the toss - opt to receive the ball in the 1st half, allowing the loser to pick the wind.

 

If I won the toss, I'd gladly give up an initial possession and the loser's 2nd half possession to get the wind at my back in the 4th quarter.

 

The best outcome when the wind howls in one predominant direction, is to lose the toss, and see the toss winner elect to receive the ball. The toss loser gets to have the wind at their back in the 4th, and also gets the KO in the 3rd.

[Ned Flanders]

"The committee is proposing to include field goals in instant replay review

Hmmmmm.........I thought FGs were subject to review now. Remember last season during the Browns-Ravens game, when a Browns tying FG was first ruled no good, then, after it was reviewed and the ball hit the back of the post, was ruled good?

[Lori]

Hmmmmm.........I thought FGs were subject to review now. Remember last season during the Browns-Ravens game, when a Browns tying FG was first ruled no good, then, after it was reviewed and the ball hit the back of the post, was ruled good?

There was discussion at the time that the play shouldn't have been reviewed because there was no provision for it in the rules. This fixes that problem.

 

Here's some of the original text from the conference call. Apologies in advance for the length -- they had a lot of ground to cover:

RICH MCKAY: I'll cover some of the playing rule proposals. One was brought to us by Kansas City. I'll let them speak as to the rule itself and their intent behind it. Some of you have talked about, or at least I've read, it deals with the issue of hair not being allowed to cover the player's name plate or numerals.

 

Proposals 2 through 9 are all submitted by the Competition Committee. I'll cover four of those. There are a couple others that are just procedure type rules and actually get a little technical with respect to anomalies that have occurred in the game. The four that I'll cover include proposal number 2, which would eliminate the force shot and rewrite that rule to say that the only time force shot would be called is if a player was actually held and carried out of bounds. Really begins to mimic then the college rule, and would eliminate ‑ last year we think it was called a total of 15 times ‑ it would eliminate those 15 calls.

 

Proposal 3, we expand instant replay to include field goal reviews. We had the anomaly last year with the uniqueness of the one kick that hit behind the pole, hit behind the post. We propose that we expand instant replay to cover that play.

 

Playing rule proposed, number 4, is the coin toss proposal. We proposed it before, propose it again, the winner had the opportunity to defer.

 

Proposal number 8 would eliminate the 5‑yard penalty for face mask. We believe that we can still promote and cover all the safety issues there are with respect to the face mask penalty with 15‑yard penalty. We then said you either must twist it, turn it or pull it for a 15‑yard penalty as opposed to the 5‑yard standard which only required a grasp. College is likewise changing their rule this year with respect to that penalty.

 

There are numerous bylaw proposals from teams with respect to roster sizes and there's a Playoff seeding proposal. I'll describe for you what that is. The Playoff seeding proposal would provide the Division Champions automatically qualify for the Playoffs. Under bylaw proposal 4A, the two Division Champions that have the best records automatically qualify for seeds number 1 and 2. After that, seeding would be according to the best record. Tiebreakers would go to Division Champions. So in other words, you would be competing, if you were a wild card, you'd be competing for seeds three through six depending upon your record. If you tied with the Division Champion, you would lose the tiebreaker and be seeded one spot lower. That's bylaw proposal 4A submitted by the Competition Committee.

 

Resolution‑wise we have proposed a resolution which includes coach to defense. This is something we proposed on two other occasions. This is our third shot at it. We revised the proposal and now allow for a second player to have a speaker in his helmet. Those two helmets cannot be on the field at the same time, so we would envision that the second player's helmet would be put on the sideline. And in the event the first player came out of the game with an injury or for some other reason, that player would switch helmets, be able to wear that helmet in the game and receive the communication. At no time can those two players be in the game at the same time with the communication devices in their helmets.

 

That's coach to defense. There's one miscellaneous position that I bring up, which is we've recommended that there be the creation of a moratorium, or a dead period, some five to seven days before the beginning of free agency, in which teams would be free to talk to free agents, potential free agents. Agents only, certified agents only, not the player themself, they can negotiate a contract, they cannot execute a contract, they cannot visit or meet with the player face‑to‑face. We recommended this. We forwarded it to the Management Council. Our hope would be that there would be some type of proposal we could vote upon in May with respect to this position. It's similar to ‑ although we've modified ours a little bit with respect to what now exists in baseball and to a certain extent basketball ‑ that's the position we've taken. There will be no voting on that at this meeting. Our hope would be there would be something to vote on in May.

 

Spygate:

Q. Question for Ray. In discussing the preparation, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, all that, how do you feel you have been treated as far as when the Commissioner destroyed the evidence, destroyed those tapes supposedly? Do you feel you were adequately kept abreast of that?

RAY ANDERSON: Certainly. They admitted, in discussions with Mr. Belichick, he admitted a lot of the things that had been alleged so that, yes, we were very comfortable that we dealt with that completely. I mean, it's public knowledge that I was, along with Jeff Pash, some of the folks that went up there and reviewed and were able to validate that it was what it was. So we feel very appropriate ‑‑

Q. And you feel that destroying the evidence was correct?

RAY ANDERSON: Absolutely.

 

Q. Why? Why destroy it? Why not just keep it around?

RAY ANDERSON: There was no further purpose in keeping it.

 

Q. Evidence is evidence. Evidence is something that's supposed to be retained. No criminal procedure involves destroying of evidence.

RAY ANDERSON: They had admitted, this wasn't anything disputed, they admitted it. We saw it was consistent with the admission. We felt it was prudent to leave it there, destroy it, and we don't regret that at all.

 

Radio for the defense:

Q. Rich, I'm just interested in what has been the reluctance to put the radio device in the players' helmets? On the surface of it, it seemingly eliminates some of the videotaping issue. When people have expressed concerns about this, what have they told you?

RICH McKAY: I think the first time we proposed it, we got pushed back on both sides from offense and defense. Offense, because, you know, the question of why does the defense need it; defense, the question of what do we do if the middle line backers, whoever you decide to put the device in, gets hurt.

 

We were very concerned about the issue of potential for two players being on the field at the same time, so we didn't have a backup procedure for the defense. I think that year we wanted to get the idea out there and see if we could get it passed but hopefully get it passed at least in the second year. I think we got 18 yes votes in that one. Obviously, we were short.

 

The second time we proposed it, I really thought it was going to pass. I think we ended up with 22 yes votes. We obviously came very close. And I couldn't tell you where those no votes came from. I would venture to guess that more of them than not were offensive coaches. But I think, again, we didn't revise it with respect to the backup player. I wish now we had. We have this year. So hopefully we'll get it passed.

 

Q. Just one other thing, will they also have the green decal?

RICH McKAY: Yes, they will. Hopefully, we're going to change that decal a little bit, spruce it up a little bit. Yes, they will.

On the back of helmets ‑‑ in other words, let's just assume that you've got a linebacker wearing the primary and a safety wearing the backup. The safety's helmet will be on the sideline. It will have a decal on it, but it will be on the sideline. He won't play the game with that helmet until it comes time for him to need to go in and call the signals and the primary's on the sideline, at which point he can then wear that helmet. But they will both have the decal, just like the backup quarterbacks do.

Q. A couple questions on that coach to defense system. Rich, because of the spy game issues, does the coach to defense have a better chance of passing this year? I'll wait for your answer.

RICH McKAY: I do. I do believe that it does have a better chance. I think maybe because of the focus that has been on the situation in New England earlier this year, but also because I think that people think the time has come for it. I thought last year they thought that; we just fell two votes short.

 

I also think our revision to allowing the backup takes away any of the argument I think the defensive coaches had. I do believe its time has come ‑ I hope. I never am overconfident about a vote, but I do feel that its time has come.

 

Q. My second question is also, the backup player, does that specific player have to be designated before the game?

RICH McKAY: Yes, yes. Just as the quarterbacks are designated on the pregame sheet, on the inactive sheet, we list all three quarterbacks, and obviously they have the radio receivers in their helmets, we will now ask the defense to list the two people that have that capability in their helmet, a primary and a secondary.

Q. And if they're both hurt?

RICH McKAY: Then at that point, just like if the offense were to lose its two quarterbacks or three quarterbacks as it may be, at that point you go back to signaling.

 

The force-out rule:

Q. Rich, could you explain a little more, when you talk about eliminating a force‑out. That refers to instant replay review?

RICH McKAY: No. On field. On field.

So the rule ‑ let me get to the actual rule itself ‑ the rule as it is written now says that you can't be carried or pushed out of bounds by an opponent. In our proposal, we would delete "or pushed" and we would insert the language, before "carried," "held up and carried." In essence we would eliminate the force‑out. We feel there are so many levels of judgment that go into the force‑out call, we just think it would create a much more consistent play when you say you get your feet down for a completed pass or you do not. That does not have to do with replay.

 

Q. That's what it refers to, getting the feet down?

RICH McKAY: That's correct.

 

Q. If you're pushed out, one foot in, one foot out, it eliminates that discussion?

RICH McKAY: Incomplete.

 

Field goal timeouts:

Q. Was there any discussion on the field goal timeout situation that came up several times?

RICH McKAY: Yes, there was. In fact, we address it in the report. I'd like to find the exact position, but this report, as it usually is, is a little long.

 

I'll just tell you what my recollection is. We took the position we felt we should leave it alone. We felt like that although there were some unusual circumstances early in the year that didn't look right, if you will, to fans and those watching on television, as the year went on, it began to regulate itself because there is risk with calling the timeout and the way it was called. If the kicker misses the first one, makes the second one, that's not a good thing. You're giving the kicker a practice kick. Some coaches would say that's not a good thing. We saw once it didn't work the way it had early in the year, really that kind of freezing the kicker late timeout regulated itself in our mind.

 

Coin toss/reviewing field goals:

Q. Rich, two quickies. The history of the coin toss deferral, has this come up before? Would it be the same as college? Second question, in reviewing field goals, what are the limits of reviewing a field goal?

RICH McKAY: Okay. The coin toss would be the same as college with respect to the deferral, I believe we have brought it up before. I believe we have not been successful before. But as is our history, I think Competition Committee wise, doesn't mean it will stop us from bringing it up again. We still think the two‑point play is the right thing to do. We brought it up five, six times before. What's your second question?

 

Q. Instant replay and field goals.

RICH McKAY: Good thing you bring it up. It is somewhat complicated. I don't want to make it more than it is. In essence, you would be allowed to review any kick that involves going under or over the cross bar. And inside or outside of the upright. The only kicks that would not be deemed reviewable is if the officials determine the ball had gone over the top of the upright, then like college, where they have specifically excluded that from review, so would we. If that situation occurs, then the official ‑‑ if the coach challenges, the official would go over and tell the coach that's not a challengeable play.

 

Again, you would review whether it was left or right of the upright or whether it went over or under the cross bar or if it hit something, like the camera that we place behind the cross bar, you can't review it if it goes over the top of both uprights because we think we do not have the camera angles to support a good picture there. So we would view that as a nonreviewable play.

 

Free agency dead period:

Q. Rich, on the free agency dead period that you described; one, how much of a problem, if any, have you found of there being visits before free agency opens? Because you hear of that sometimes, and you think that has been a problem. Secondly, if you have a five‑ to seven‑day window, it pushes things back. But then you have the period before that, sort of like you have now. Will there be any exerted effort to police the period before the window opens?

RICH McKAY: Both good questions. With respect to visits, I am not familiar with visits. I would be surprised if those have occurred because that does not, would not sit well with anyone with respect to that.

 

With respect to the period of time prior to it and why we proposed the dead period, it is because we feel like there's too much contact that's coming from all different directions, a lot of it coming from the agent's direction. If you create this dead period, you're creating a much more level playing field for those that wait the entire period. We don't think there will be a lot leading up to it because every team will have that right and no contract should be executed during the dead period. There's nobody that's gaining any advantage by any early contact, and, yes, we would ask that any early contact, if this rule were to pass, would be vigorously enforced and prohibited. But I don't see it as much of an advantage gain because no team could sign the contract in that period of time. So you would have the opportunity to meet with the agent, negotiate a contract, and have a better feel when free agency opens if you are going to have a chance to sign this player.

 

Q. One more thing on that, Rich. Do you think that would be a situation where ‑ I don't know if this is covered in that ‑ but where the agent would be free to tell the media, "There's an agreement that's been reached during this period"?

RICH McKAY: Well, you can't sign a contract. But to say that an agent isn't going to try to tell the media member that he's got a contract and a big number and the hopes that his number would be bigger, that would be naive of me to say otherwise.

...

Q. Ray, quickly. Ray, as a former agent, how prevalent, in your experience, were discussions between agents and teams before the official free agent deadline in general terms?

RAY ANDERSON: I appreciate the question, Ira. My experience was this moratorium makes sense because there was quite a bit of activity in the agent community which necessarily means, or frankly, had to get some cooperation on the other end to accomplish those communications. So this is a very timely and necessary measure given my history as an agent.

...

Q: Another thing I was curious about on this moratorium, how will that affect potential free agents resigning with their existing teams? You know, there's always a lot of activity that week with teams, salary cap, they keep guys off the market, etc., etc. Can these potential free agents actually sign with their existing team?

RICH McKAY: Absolutely, they can sign with their home team all the way at any time and during and including the dead period and/or moratorium, however you want to call it. We think that this is ‑‑ this potential rule, obviously let's realize it's still just in the proposal phase and will have to be voted upon by the owners, but I think it helps the home team myself. I think it clarifies what the market is five days or seven days before free agency actually begins. So I think the home team has a real clear picture of what the player's market is going to be and they can make a decision accordingly as opposed to now, really you can operate in the dark as to what that market will be until free agency opens. That's just one man's opinion, but that's how I see it.

 

Playoff reseeding:

Q. Rich, on the potential re‑seeding of the Playoff teams, how much of the impetus stems from the final actions that came down during the final weeks of the '07 season?

RICH McKAY: I don't think much of it at all. This is something that we talked about, for now, I'd say going on five to six years. I think it goes back to when we went to eight divisions of four, we were extremely nervous about the fact that you could have a situation where there's a division or two that's extremely weak one year or another, and create imbalance as to who should qualify for the Playoffs. Whoa we were nervous about that going in.

 

I think if you look back at the approval of realignment and when we went to eight divisions of four, I think you'll find that the Commissioner at that time, Commissioner Tagliabue, said that for two years we would study the issue to make sure we're getting the right Playoff mix and that this shrinking of the divisions doesn't have a real adverse effect. I think following that, we talked about the issue of should we re‑seed, and I think that conversation has maintained. I don't think this year was any different than other years. There were some teams, obviously, that did it differently. But I do not think this year was the impetus.

 

Q. Does it taint at all, Rich, the sanctity of winning a Division Title in your eyes?

RICH McKAY: No, because I think that the major thing you want to accomplish when you go into the year is win your division. The reason you want to win your division, you know that gets you to the Playoffs.

 

So in my mind, in no way have we touched that. We haven't gone into it saying this Division Champion doesn't qualify for the Playoffs. We've gone one step further and said if you win the division and if you have one of the two best records in football or one of the best Division Champion records, you are going to get a bye. To me, I don't believe it does. I know there will be others that take the position on the opposite side, and I respect them for it. But I would say to you, I think that to make as many games as competitive as we can late in the year without, in my mind, adversely affecting the third and fourth best division records, I think this would be a good step for the League.

[Lori]

Silly me, I thought a team could elect to kick rather than receive if they won the toss. Or in other words, I thought they could just a side instead.

 

Madden at least is this way.

They can. This is talking about something different, deferring their right to choose until the second half, which is fairly common in college games.

[Lv-Bills]

I kinda wish there was a rule that if a franchise doesn't make the playoffs in over 7 years they not only automatically get in, but they also get a first round home game. This would cure some of our blues.

 

[Arkady Renko]

They can. This is talking about something different, deferring their right to choose until the second half, which is fairly common in college games.

 

I am sorry, I am being stupid. I still don't understand. If for example, the Bills win the toss and choose a side to defend, do they not now currently get the ball first in the second half?