Chris Brown explains rule changes bieng propsed.

[K-Gun10]

Today Posted By: Chris Brown | Time: 10:33 AM ET | Link

 

 

RULE CHANGE PROPOSALS: For those that haven't seen them yet. I'd thought I'd put together a list of some of the more interesting rule change proposals that will be up for vote at the league's annual meeting next week.

 

First, changing the rule on playoff seedings. Division winners would still qualify automatically with the top two won-loss record division winners earning first round byes. But under the proposal a Wild Card team could play at home in the first round if their won-loss record is better than the division winner it has to play. The league hopes it will prevent teams from sitting regulars the last week of the regular season knowing their playoff seed is sewn up.

 

The forceout rule that awards completions and interceptions to players that were deemed forced out of bounds while in the air is up for elimination. If it's voted out, receivers making receptions and defensive players making interceptions must get both feet down in bounds no matter what.

 

I actually would like to see that rule stricken from the rule book because you're relying on an official to make a judgment call. Force out plays are not reviewable under replay so let the sideline or end line be the determining factor.

 

The hair rule that I mentioned here yesterday will also be up for a vote. The player's hair cannot hang below the name on the back of their jersey. Players can tuck their hair up under their helmet.

 

The five-yard facemask penalty is up for elimination. If it's taken out of the rule book all facemasks will be an automatic 15-yard penalty.

 

Instant replay on field goals. You can thank the Cleveland Browns' Phil Dawson for this one. His kick that bounced off the support pole of the uprights and bounced back onto the field was initially ruled no good, but it was eventually overturned and ruled as good (correctly I might add). That tied the game and then the Browns won in OT.

 

I'm not crazy about this one. How hard is it to determine whether a field goal is good or not? A monkey can do it. In that game the problem was each official under their respective upright was only looking up at their upright to make sure the ball was inside of it. But when the ball comes into your peripheral vision and it's evident that it's inside the upright the next thing you should look at is if it clears the crossbar. On long field goals especially you should probably watch the ball first to see if it's going to make it, then look at your upright, and then the crossbar if the ball is going to be close. Is that so hard?

 

My fear is every field goal where the ball is so high that it is higher than the top of the uprights and there's some question as to whether the ball went over the outside top of the upright or if it was in. Head coaches are going to be asking for reviews on that stuff and the game is going to get slowed down even more.

 

Finally, with the integrity of the game being called into question following Spygate, the commissioner called for stronger enforcement to police illegal activity. It apparently includes protection (immunity) for anyone reporting illegal tactics. I'm guessing it will pass. You don't want to be the owner that doesn't vote for stronger policing of the integrity of the game, I guess unless your Robert Kraft.

 

Spygate is also expected to get the remote radio device in quarterback's helmets in a single defensive player's helmet as well, thereby reducing the need for defensive signals and preventing the opportunity to cheat as the Patriots did last year. The vote for the remote device for a defensive player fell short of passage last year, but will probably go through next week.

 

---

[In-A-Gadda-Levitre]

The five-yard facemask penalty is up for elimination. If it's taken out of the rule book all facemasks will be an automatic 15-yard penalty.

This is the rule change I have the most problem with and he glosses over it.

 

Why should someone who accidently grabs a facemask and lets go (or at least doesn't use it as handle) get the same infraction as the guy who uses it to pull the ball carrier to the ground ? I'm guessing the intention is to send a message; if you so much as touch the facemask during a tackle, it's gonna cost you.

 

IMO, leave this as is and let the official decide if it's minor or major.

[Huuuge Bills]

This is the rule change I have the most problem with and he glosses over it.

 

Why should someone who accidently grabs a facemask and lets go (or at least doesn't use it as handle) get the same infraction as the guy who uses it to pull the ball carrier to the ground ? I'm guessing the intention is to send a message; if you so much as touch the facemask during a tackle, it's gonna cost you.

 

IMO, leave this as is and let the official decide if it's minor or major.

 

I agree. I'm ok with the rest of the changes, but I don't like this one.

[eSJayDee]

Don't really care 1 way or the other about the playoff seeding. I wonder why if they change it to this, they don't make it the 2 best rcds (maybe one is a wildcard) that are exempt from 1st round games.

 

I'd like to see the hair rule implemented. If they fine guys for their socks not rolled up properly... Personally, I find that mess of hair coming out of a helmet unsightly.

 

As for the facemask change, it seems dubious. There used to only be a 15 yarder; they "recently" added the inadvertent variety. Are they just going to eliminate the inadvertent type (i.e. it seems you're allowed to stiff arm someone in the facemask, but not touch during an attempt to tackle. That seems unfair.), which seems to me to have merit, or make any contact 15 yds?

 

The force-out is good as it simplifies things and rewards a good play.

[BuffaloWings]

Don't really care 1 way or the other about the playoff seeding. I wonder why if they change it to this, they don't make it the 2 best rcds (maybe one is a wildcard) that are exempt from 1st round games.

 

Well, they really do this now - it just hasn't happened (in the current format) where the #2 seed is a wild card. I don't mind the potential rule change too much, but I still think there should be some reward for winning your division...even if it's the NFC West.

 

The only one I wouldn't want to see gone is the 5-yard facemask. Granted, your hand shouldn't be up by an opponent's face trying to tackle him, but that's hard to avoid all the time. I don't think a team should be penalized 15 yards for an accidental incident.

[Lori]

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=63957

 

If you want to read the original text of the press conference regarding the proposed changes, scroll down to my first post in that thread. Burns too much bandwidth to post it twice...

[UConn James]

I'd like to see the hair rule implemented. If they fine guys for their socks not rolled up properly... Personally, I find that mess of hair coming out of a helmet unsightly.

...

The force-out is good as it simplifies things and rewards a good play.

 

The hair of that length can also obstruct view of a players' number, which some people find kind of important when wanting to know who is where.

 

I'm not sure re: the force-out. It will effectively push the game further in-field from the sidelines on a field that's already only 25 yards wide. This would just make it easier for a defender to maul a WR, etc. who is anywhere near the sideline while jumping to make a grab --- just push them out and it's not a catch. I'd say this would have its greatest impact late in games, when trying to get OOB quickly to stop the clock; no sidelines passes = more time ticks, and when its your team desperately trying to come from behind, that stinks they don't get a chance.

[Chilly]

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=63957

 

If you want to read the original text of the press conference regarding the proposed changes, scroll down to my first post in that thread. Burns too much bandwidth to post it twice...

 

Now you are making people load two threads. Even more bandwidth!

[Bills Freak]

I agree. I'm ok with the rest of the changes, but I don't like this one.

Agreed. Sometime you need to let the boys play ball not worry about every hit &/or tackle. Remember the almost tackle but never touched Vince Young touchdown?

[Arkady Renko]

The hair of that length can also obstruct view of a players' number, which some people find kind of important when wanting to know who is where.

 

I'm not sure re: the force-out. It will effectively push the game further in-field from the sidelines on a field that's already only 25 yards wide. This would just make it easier for a defender to maul a WR, etc. who is anywhere near the sideline while jumping to make a grab --- just push them out and it's not a catch. I'd say this would have its greatest impact late in games, when trying to get OOB quickly to stop the clock; no sidelines passes = more time ticks, and when its your team desperately trying to come from behind, that stinks they don't get a chance.

 

Just make it a one foot rule like college and the game remains out to the sidelines.

[Steely Dan]

Today Posted By: Chris Brown | Time: 10:33 AM ET | Link

 

 

RULE CHANGE PROPOSALS: For those that haven't seen them yet. I'd thought I'd put together a list of some of the more interesting rule change proposals that will be up for vote at the league's annual meeting next week.

 

First, changing the rule on playoff seedings. Division winners would still qualify automatically with the top two won-loss record division winners earning first round byes. But under the proposal a Wild Card team could play at home in the first round if their won-loss record is better than the division winner it has to play. The league hopes it will prevent teams from sitting regulars the last week of the regular season knowing their playoff seed is sewn up.

 

Personally I think they should get rid of the AFC and NFC all together. It was a cute idea when the NFL and AFL were competing against each other merged but it's unnecessary now. Keep the divisions and the division winners get into the playoffs but then the best records regardless of division get in next and home field is determined not by division winner but by record.

 

As it is now a team with a better record in one conference won't get in just because they are in the stronger conference. I believe this would make playoff games much more competitive and make the way playoff teams are decided much fairer.

 

 

The forceout rule that awards completions and interceptions to players that were deemed forced out of bounds while in the air is up for elimination. If it's voted out, receivers making receptions and defensive players making interceptions must get both feet down in bounds no matter what.

 

I actually would like to see that rule stricken from the rule book because you're relying on an official to make a judgment call. Force out plays are not reviewable under replay so let the sideline or end line be the determining factor.

 

I have mixed feelings on this one. It seems better but would lead to lower scoring games.

 

The hair rule that I mentioned here yesterday will also be up for a vote. The player's hair cannot hang below the name on the back of their jersey. Players can tuck their hair up under their helmet.

 

Doesn't bother me at all. I'd love to see some idiot get brought down by a guy grabbing his hair!

 

The five-yard facemask penalty is up for elimination. If it's taken out of the rule book all facemasks will be an automatic 15-yard penalty.

 

Why should an accidental grab be a 15 yard penalty. Players will have to be cautious beyond reason.

 

Instant replay on field goals. You can thank the Cleveland Browns' Phil Dawson for this one. His kick that bounced off the support pole of the uprights and bounced back onto the field was initially ruled no good, but it was eventually overturned and ruled as good (correctly I might add). That tied the game and then the Browns won in OT.

 

I'm not crazy about this one. How hard is it to determine whether a field goal is good or not? A monkey can do it. In that game the problem was each official under their respective upright was only looking up at their upright to make sure the ball was inside of it. But when the ball comes into your peripheral vision and it's evident that it's inside the upright the next thing you should look at is if it clears the crossbar. On long field goals especially you should probably watch the ball first to see if it's going to make it, then look at your upright, and then the crossbar if the ball is going to be close. Is that so hard?

 

My fear is every field goal where the ball is so high that it is higher than the top of the uprights and there's some question as to whether the ball went over the outside top of the upright or if it was in. Head coaches are going to be asking for reviews on that stuff and the game is going to get slowed down even more.

 

Coaches only get two challenges per half. I don't think it will be that bad.

 

BTW, as long as we're on the subject I believe a coach should get at least two challenges but as long as they keep getting reversed they should be able to contest them. After their two challenges the first one that fails ends their right to challenge.

 

Finally, with the integrity of the game being called into question following Spygate, the commissioner called for stronger enforcement to police illegal activity. It apparently includes protection (immunity) for anyone reporting illegal tactics. I'm guessing it will pass. You don't want to be the owner that doesn't vote for stronger policing of the integrity of the game, I guess unless your Robert Kraft.

 

Spygate is also expected to get the remote radio device in quarterback's helmets in a single defensive player's helmet as well, thereby reducing the need for defensive signals and preventing the opportunity to cheat as the Patriots did last year. The vote for the remote device for a defensive player fell short of passage last year, but will probably go through next week.

 

---

 

 

This is the rule change I have the most problem with and he glosses over it.

 

Why should someone who accidently grabs a facemask and lets go (or at least doesn't use it as handle) get the same infraction as the guy who uses it to pull the ball carrier to the ground ? I'm guessing the intention is to send a message; if you so much as touch the facemask during a tackle, it's gonna cost you.

 

IMO, leave this as is and let the official decide if it's minor or major.

 

Agreed.

[UConn James]

I'm not sure re: the force-out. It will effectively push the game further in-field from the sidelines on a field that's already only 25 yards wide. This would just make it easier for a defender to maul a WR, etc. who is anywhere near the sideline while jumping to make a grab --- just push them out and it's not a catch. I'd say this would have its greatest impact late in games, when trying to get OOB quickly to stop the clock; no sidelines passes = more time ticks, and when its your team desperately trying to come from behind, that stinks they don't get a chance.

 

And thinking about it a little more, this proposed rule change puts a little more premium on the generic "Tall WR" that is coveted so much, and you'd probably want him to be a physical and a little meatier. A guy who can outreach and outjump smaller CBs/Ss, either at the sideline or as the action gets pushed a little further infield.

 

I read in another thread that Malcolm Kelly is up to 230 and it hasn't affected his speed much (4.4).... Hmm.

[eSJayDee]

And thinking about it a little more, this proposed rule change puts a little more premium on the generic "Tall WR" that is coveted so much, and you'd probably want him to be a physical and a little meatier.

 

Actually, I wonder if it might not have the opposite effect. As the rule stands, these guys have a substantial advantage over smaller CBs, but if these guys are indeed having to jump for the ball, rather than attempt to outfight him for the ball, all the CB needs do w/ the rule change is once he touches it & is still in midair, shove his "butt" OB. Of course if the WR chooses &/or is able to keep one or both feet on the ground while making a play on the ball, the DB has the option of jumping to knock it down (he likely won't be able to INT as the WR can then shove him OB.)

 

I'd be surprised if this rule passes as it would be counter productive primarily to offenses, therefore less scoring. Most of the rule changes over the last 30 yrs have been to promote offense and point scoring.

[BillsWatch]

Today Posted By: Chris Brown | Time: 10:33 AM ET | Link

The hair rule that I mentioned here yesterday will also be up for a vote. The player's hair cannot hang below the name on the back of their jersey. Players can tuck their hair up under their helmet.

 

Or they can just tie it in a bun or tuck it under their jersey. Players who complain about this are so self-centered they are forgetting this is a multi billion dollar sport and people in other jobs have limitations too.

[VABills]

I don't see how they are going to do the defensive radio. On offense only the QB can have a radio, and they put a like green YUK poison sticker on him. if the defense is the same way, then it will cut down on how you can change personel. If you throw it on a MLB, then it prevents you switching to a 44 set on short yardage since 2 guys will have the yuk stickers. I just see this being very difficult for a DC to handle personel packages, and if they allow multiople defenders with the headsets, if gives the d a real discinct advange, and the games will be even lower scoring.

[UConn James]

Actually, I wonder if it might not have the opposite effect. As the rule stands, these guys have a substantial advantage over smaller CBs, but if these guys are indeed having to jump for the ball, rather than attempt to outfight him for the ball, all the CB needs do w/ the rule change is once he touches it & is still in midair, shove his "butt" OB. Of course if the WR chooses &/or is able to keep one or both feet on the ground while making a play on the ball, the DB has the option of jumping to knock it down (he likely won't be able to INT as the WR can then shove him OB.)

 

Well, that's what I was referencing upthread. I just think that in a tussle for the ball, a small advantage goes to the "Tall WR" who is heftier and more physical against DBs who tend to be smaller.

 

I'd be surprised if this rule passes as it would be counter productive primarily to offenses, therefore less scoring. Most of the rule changes over the last 30 yrs have been to promote offense and point scoring.

 

Agreed. I think just for the impact it'd have on not being able to get OOB to stop the clock as easily puts the kibosh on it. But along with the facemask one, the desire to cut out judgment calls on the part of the officials looms pretty large in these proposals. I think it's backlash against so much of wishy-washy referee influence that's happened in recent years; teams might just be tired of certain teams/players getting breaks. The league has trended heavily toward offense, esp. wrt PI... but sometimes the pendulum needs to swing back.

[BillsWatch]

I don't see how they are going to do the defensive radio. On offense only the QB can have a radio, and they put a like green YUK poison sticker on him. if the defense is the same way, then it will cut down on how you can change personel. If you throw it on a MLB, then it prevents you switching to a 44 set on short yardage since 2 guys will have the yuk stickers. I just see this being very difficult for a DC to handle personel packages, and if they allow multiople defenders with the headsets, if gives the d a real discinct advange, and the games will be even lower scoring.

 

Every player who is possible to have a headset will probably have two helmets - one with radio and one without. It will only hurt teams during hurry up offenses when players will be not be able to substituted easily. They could do it all electronically but then someone neutral would need to turn on / turn off helmet access to coach.

[obie_wan]

I don't see how they are going to do the defensive radio. On offense only the QB can have a radio, and they put a like green YUK poison sticker on him. if the defense is the same way, then it will cut down on how you can change personel. If you throw it on a MLB, then it prevents you switching to a 44 set on short yardage since 2 guys will have the yuk stickers. I just see this being very difficult for a DC to handle personel packages, and if they allow multiople defenders with the headsets, if gives the d a real discinct advange, and the games will be even lower scoring.

 

do it like the Pats do and mike all of your defensive players that can actually use the info - especially the LBs

[The Dean]

Today Posted By: Chris Brown | Time: 10:33 AM ET | Link

 

 

RULE CHANGE PROPOSALS: For those that haven't seen them yet. I'd thought I'd put together a list of some of the more interesting rule change proposals that will be up for vote at the league's annual meeting next week.

 

First, changing the rule on playoff seedings. Division winners would still qualify automatically with the top two won-loss record division winners earning first round byes. But under the proposal a Wild Card team could play at home in the first round if their won-loss record is better than the division winner it has to play. The league hopes it will prevent teams from sitting regulars the last week of the regular season knowing their playoff seed is sewn up.

 

The forceout rule that awards completions and interceptions to players that were deemed forced out of bounds while in the air is up for elimination. If it's voted out, receivers making receptions and defensive players making interceptions must get both feet down in bounds no matter what.

 

I actually would like to see that rule stricken from the rule book because you're relying on an official to make a judgment call. Force out plays are not reviewable under replay so let the sideline or end line be the determining factor.

 

The hair rule that I mentioned here yesterday will also be up for a vote. The player's hair cannot hang below the name on the back of their jersey. Players can tuck their hair up under their helmet.

 

The five-yard facemask penalty is up for elimination. If it's taken out of the rule book all facemasks will be an automatic 15-yard penalty.

 

Instant replay on field goals. You can thank the Cleveland Browns' Phil Dawson for this one. His kick that bounced off the support pole of the uprights and bounced back onto the field was initially ruled no good, but it was eventually overturned and ruled as good (correctly I might add). That tied the game and then the Browns won in OT.

 

I'm not crazy about this one. How hard is it to determine whether a field goal is good or not? A monkey can do it. In that game the problem was each official under their respective upright was only looking up at their upright to make sure the ball was inside of it. But when the ball comes into your peripheral vision and it's evident that it's inside the upright the next thing you should look at is if it clears the crossbar. On long field goals especially you should probably watch the ball first to see if it's going to make it, then look at your upright, and then the crossbar if the ball is going to be close. Is that so hard?

 

My fear is every field goal where the ball is so high that it is higher than the top of the uprights and there's some question as to whether the ball went over the outside top of the upright or if it was in. Head coaches are going to be asking for reviews on that stuff and the game is going to get slowed down even more.

 

Finally, with the integrity of the game being called into question following Spygate, the commissioner called for stronger enforcement to police illegal activity. It apparently includes protection (immunity) for anyone reporting illegal tactics. I'm guessing it will pass. You don't want to be the owner that doesn't vote for stronger policing of the integrity of the game, I guess unless your Robert Kraft.

 

Spygate is also expected to get the remote radio device in quarterback's helmets in a single defensive player's helmet as well, thereby reducing the need for defensive signals and preventing the opportunity to cheat as the Patriots did last year. The vote for the remote device for a defensive player fell short of passage last year, but will probably go through next week.

 

---

 

1. Changing the rule on playoff seedings. Fine

 

2. The force out rule change: Not crazy about the change. But I don't hate it.

 

3. The hair rule: I don't like it. But, if they are allowed to tuck the hair, i guess it is OK. Still, pretty much a bulls#it rule, IMO. The league needs FEWER picky uniform rules, not more.

 

4. Elimination of the five-yard facemask penalty: HATE it! Horrible idea. There is always going to be some incidental action at the mask. Penalizing the incidental the same as the blatant tug/jerk of the mask is just asking the guy who gets the accidental piece of the mask to tug away. If I'm getting 15 yards, I will make sure I get my money's worth.

 

5. Instant replay on field goals Not needed, IMO. But, I don't hate it

 

6. Defensive Radio Helmet: Don't like it. It is FAR easier to steal radio signals than it is to steal and interpret signs. Cheaters will find a way to cheat, and this just makes it easier. If you want to stop stealing of signs, let the QB call the offensive plays and a defensive player call the D...or shuffle players in and out.