5 rule changes to consider

[oldunclemark]

 

     I'd like to see these 5 rule changes...

 

 

*The quarterback is a runner in all respects after he crosses the line of scrimmage and defenders can hit him as they would a running back.

This isn't so much a change but a return to the way it used to be. I agree with protecting the passer from high hits or low hits as he is throwing or setting up to throw but its just not fair for a QB to run six or seven yards,. slide at the last minute and draw a penalty. Defenders cant play full speed.

 

*The 'legal pick' needs to be ashcanned.

I don't know when this rule came in but receivers can block defensive backs on pass plays as long as they do it at the line of scrimmage.

That just leads to easy TDs. If I can line up in the slot and block the guy covering the WR, what can you do about it?  Its not right. I cant imagine who thought it was.

 

A 30-yard 'cap' on pass interference

I dont think that a pass interferernce call 50 yards down the field should gain the offense 50 yards.

I dont want defenders committing intentional pass interference to stop TDs but a penalty shouldn't be defined, in part, on how far your QB can throw the ball.

 

Once the kicking team is set at the line, the defense cannot call time out.

The scene of a coach waiting next to the referee until the ball is about to be snapped and calling time out just as the ball is snapped has to go.

Let the kick go after the line is set.

 

Running backs cannot stiff arm defenders in the face.

This one is obvious to me. If it is illegal for defenders to tackle by the head or head gear, it is just as wrong for the offensive player to jam or punch his hand into the defenders face to push him out of the way.

 

 

 

////Any comments?  Any additions. ?

[coltsva]

2 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

 

 

Once the kicking team is set at the line, the defense cannot call time out.

The scene of a coach waiting next to the referee until the ball is about to be snapped and calling time out just as the ball is snapped has to go.

Let the kick go after the line is set.

 

 

 

 

 

////Any comments?  Any additions. ?

Yes!. Have always thought it should be no timeout on a field goal after the play clock hits 10 seconds. Same thing, really.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

 

     I'd like to see these 5 rule changes...

 

 

*The quarterback is a runner in all respects after he crosses the line of scrimmage and defenders can hit him as they would a running back.

This isn't so much a change but a return to the way it used to be. I agree with protecting the passer from high hits or low hits as he is throwing or setting up to throw but its just not fair for a QB to run six or seven yards,. slide at the last minute and draw a penalty. Defenders cant play full speed.

 

*The 'legal pick' needs to be ashcanned.

I don't know when this rule came in but receivers can block defensive backs on pass plays as long as they do it at the line of scrimmage.

That just leads to easy TDs. If I can line up in the slot and block the guy covering the WR, what can you do about it?  Its not right. I cant imagine who thought it was.

 

A 30-yard 'cap' on pass interference

I dont think that a pass interferernce call 50 yards down the field should gain the offense 50 yards.

I dont want defenders committing intentional pass interference to stop TDs but a penalty shouldn't be defined, in part, on how far your QB can throw the ball.

 

Once the kicking team is set at the line, the defense cannot call time out.

The scene of a coach waiting next to the referee until the ball is about to be snapped and calling time out just as the ball is snapped has to go.

Let the kick go after the line is set.

 

Running backs cannot stiff arm defenders in the face.

This one is obvious to me. If it is illegal for defenders to tackle by the head or head gear, it is just as wrong for the offensive player to jam or punch his hand into the defenders face to push him out of the way.

 

 

 

////Any comments?  Any additions. ?

Yeah that's classic isn't it? Nothing like a Coach hounding a REF in his ear as the opposing FG Kicker is getting ready to kick just to call a Timeout . What is great is when they get the Timeout and the FG Kicker misses.

[JaguarsWoman]

I totally agree with the FG one. It serves no purpose and just gives the kicker more time to warm up his leg.

 

The NFL took out the penalty for stiff arming the facemask. It is not a safety issue when all players do is put one hand on it without grabbing anything.

 

What about moving pass interference in the end zone to the 5 yard line?

[crazycolt1]

1 minute ago, JaguarsWoman said:

I totally agree with the FG one. It serves no purpose and just gives the kicker more time to warm up his leg.

 

The NFL took out the penalty for stiff arming the facemask. It is not a safety issue when all players do is put one hand on it without grabbing anything.

 

What about moving pass interference in the end zone to the 5 yard line?

If the defense is not allowed to touch the facemask of an offensive player neither should the offensive player be allowed to either.

Most all the rules are there to help the offense score more points. Very few help the defense.

Just not long ago the defense finally get one break with the forcing a receiver out of bounds before two feet were down on the field. That's the way it should have been all along.

[oldunclemark]

1 hour ago, JaguarsWoman said:

I totally agree with the FG one. It serves no purpose and just gives the kicker more time to warm up his leg.

 

The NFL took out the penalty for stiff arming the facemask. It is not a safety issue when all players do is put one hand on it without grabbing anything.

 

What about moving pass interference in the end zone to the 5 yard line?

Respectfully, stiff arming (or punching) a defender in the face mask with an open hand is most certainly a head and neck safety issue....in my eyes

 

..all other shots to the head on offense or defense are or can be penalties except a running back stiff-arm to the head.

Its a blind spot in the rules...

 

The problem with moving pass  interference in the end zone to the 5-yard line is: Defenders will commit intentional interference on 1st and goal plays if they have to ..because it wont cost the team anything

[Valpo2004]

On 12/9/2017 at 3:03 PM, oldunclemark said:

 

     I'd like to see these 5 rule changes...

 

 

*The quarterback is a runner in all respects after he crosses the line of scrimmage and defenders can hit him as they would a running back.

This isn't so much a change but a return to the way it used to be. I agree with protecting the passer from high hits or low hits as he is throwing or setting up to throw but its just not fair for a QB to run six or seven yards,. slide at the last minute and draw a penalty. Defenders cant play full speed.

 

*The 'legal pick' needs to be ashcanned.

I don't know when this rule came in but receivers can block defensive backs on pass plays as long as they do it at the line of scrimmage.

That just leads to easy TDs. If I can line up in the slot and block the guy covering the WR, what can you do about it?  Its not right. I cant imagine who thought it was.

 

A 30-yard 'cap' on pass interference

I dont think that a pass interferernce call 50 yards down the field should gain the offense 50 yards.

I dont want defenders committing intentional pass interference to stop TDs but a penalty shouldn't be defined, in part, on how far your QB can throw the ball.

 

Once the kicking team is set at the line, the defense cannot call time out.

The scene of a coach waiting next to the referee until the ball is about to be snapped and calling time out just as the ball is snapped has to go.

Let the kick go after the line is set.

 

Running backs cannot stiff arm defenders in the face.

This one is obvious to me. If it is illegal for defenders to tackle by the head or head gear, it is just as wrong for the offensive player to jam or punch his hand into the defenders face to push him out of the way.

 

 

 

////Any comments?  Any additions. ?

 

The quarterback runner thing I thought that was how the rule was already.  I've never seen a unnecessary roughness call with a QB beyond the line of scrimmage that wasn't a late hit or something that would have been flagged for any other player.

 

I agree with the legal pick.  If your team is passing you can't start blocking if you are a WR.  Not on the line of scrimmage and not anywhere.  The only reason I can see for opposing that is that CB's can do bump and run coverage and push you around for the first 5 yards.  But maybe the rule can be that you can get physical with the CB in front of you but you can't run over and make a block on a CB covering another player until the pass has been caught.  You can of course block anyone if it's a run play or a lateral of some sort.  But if it involves a forward pass and you are blocking a CB covering another player then it's offensive pass interference.  

 

I could go for the 30 yard cap.  I think a 15 yard cap is too small but the 30 yard cap is a pretty good gain.  

 

Kicking team being set means no timeout.  There are going to be some issues with this.  A coach could spot a kick formation and see a fake coming and call timeout or something.  

 

Proposed alteration to the rule.  No timeouts on kick formations once set in the last 2 minutes of the game.  Rest of the time it's ok.  I think the biggest problem here is that the "icing the kicker" thing happens like that so often that officials are forced a lot of times to make a judgement call as to if the timeout was called first or the snap happened first.  

 

RB's stiff arming defenders in the face.  Technically I think they arn't suppose to be able to do that but they almost always get away with it.  Officials should crack down on it. 

 

I'm not real opinionated on the 30 yard cap or the kicking team being set rules.  The legal pick play and the RB's stiff arms to the face mask need to go.  The quarterback thing I agree with you but I'm under the impression that is what the rules are already.  

[JaguarsWoman]

On 12/9/2017 at 10:02 PM, crazycolt1 said:

If the defense is not allowed to touch the facemask of an offensive player neither should the offensive player be allowed to either.

Most all the rules are there to help the offense score more points. Very few help the defense.

Just not long ago the defense finally get one break with the forcing a receiver out of bounds before two feet were down on the field. That's the way it should have been all along.

 

I never figured out the "force out" rule. An offensive player is either in or out no matter what the defensive player does on the sideline.

 

The NFL decided dto make games shorter by telling all four televvision networks to show commercials in a double box format for 30 seconds and centralizing play reviews. They can go a step further by shortening the amount of time that a defensive coach has to call timeout before a FGA. Get rid of the last-second timeout crap.

[jameszeigler834]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 5:35 PM, coltsva said:

Yes!. Have always thought it should be no timeout on a field goal after the play clock hits 10 seconds. Same thing, really.  

Get rid of that nonsense catch rule.

[chad72]

 

On 12/9/2017 at 3:03 PM, oldunclemark said:

 

     I'd like to see these 5 rule changes...

 

*The quarterback is a runner in all respects after he crosses the line of scrimmage and defenders can hit him as they would a running back.

This isn't so much a change but a return to the way it used to be. I agree with protecting the passer from high hits or low hits as he is throwing or setting up to throw but its just not fair for a QB to run six or seven yards,. slide at the last minute and draw a penalty. Defenders cant play full speed.

 

*The 'legal pick' needs to be ashcanned.

I don't know when this rule came in but receivers can block defensive backs on pass plays as long as they do it at the line of scrimmage.

That just leads to easy TDs. If I can line up in the slot and block the guy covering the WR, what can you do about it?  Its not right. I cant imagine who thought it was.

 

A 30-yard 'cap' on pass interference

I dont think that a pass interferernce call 50 yards down the field should gain the offense 50 yards.

I dont want defenders committing intentional pass interference to stop TDs but a penalty shouldn't be defined, in part, on how far your QB can throw the ball.

 

Once the kicking team is set at the line, the defense cannot call time out.

The scene of a coach waiting next to the referee until the ball is about to be snapped and calling time out just as the ball is snapped has to go.

Let the kick go after the line is set.

 

Running backs cannot stiff arm defenders in the face.

This one is obvious to me. If it is illegal for defenders to tackle by the head or head gear, it is just as wrong for the offensive player to jam or punch his hand into the defenders face to push him out of the way.

 

 

 

////Any comments?  Any additions. ?

 

QB run - does a RB going down sliding first get the same privileges? I think yes, just that an RB goes head first to get more yardage while a QB goes into self preservation mode and slides. But if the RB or WR decides to slide, the refs will give them the same safety net, as it is written in the rules. Same thing with a defender who makes a pick and takes it back and slides to give himself up to seal the game, he is protected too. No change needed.

 

Pick plays - I agree with the 1 yard line stuff but then CBs can jam the heck out of you and press within those 5 yards, so it was done to negate that. I'd say keep it. That is how the Patriots won the SB, by jamming Baldwin and Kearse that Wilson had to go elsewhere and got intercepted. On the contrary, one of their 2 pt. conversions vs the Falcons in another SB was due to 2 WR blocks within a yard of line of scrimmage. No matter the rules, good teams will find ways to adapt.

 

30 yard cap - I will agree to this definitely. This will also keep a QB from throwing a hail mary to get PI close to the goal line. If it is less than 30 yards to go, it can be a spot foul.

 

Last second timeout - This has to go, enough said. Has to be done before the line is set.

 

RBs stiff arm - if this goes, all helmet to helmet hits on RBs, even in the pile have to go.

[Chrisaaron1023]

On 12/9/2017 at 3:03 PM, oldunclemark said:

A 30-yard 'cap' on pass interference

I dont think that a pass interferernce call 50 yards down the field should gain the offense 50 yards.

I dont want defenders committing intentional pass interference to stop TDs but a penalty shouldn't be defined, in part, on how far your QB can throw the ball.

 

Alot of people seem to like this one. My beef is, if I beat you 50 yards down the field, and you jump on me at the goal line so i can't get catch, you better believe I'm getting this where I should've caught it...

 

If anything, Offensive PI should be more strict. 15 yards. You shoved the defender away for your benefit and get a slap on the wrist 10 yards.

[Chrisaaron1023]

They need to change "automatic 1st downs"

 

No way should a defensive hold be granted a 1st down... especially on 3rd and 27..

 

But the offense can hold and the get to replay the down. Offense holds, lose of down. Save your QB by holding and get a "slap on the wrist". If you lost a down it'd be better IMO

[crazycolt1]

35 minutes ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Alot of people seem to like this one. My beef is, if I beat you 50 yards down the field, and you jump on me at the goal line so i can't get catch, you better believe I'm getting this where I should've caught it...

 

If anything, Offensive PI should be more strict. 15 yards. You shoved the defender away for your benefit and get a slap on the wrist 10 yards.

You can't assume a receiver is going to catch a ball thrown to him. They drop passes all the time. Even wide open.

 

[crazycolt1]

39 minutes ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

They need to change "automatic 1st downs"

 

No way should a defensive hold be granted a 1st down... especially on 3rd and 27..

 

But the offense can hold and the get to replay the down. Offense holds, lose of down. Save your QB by holding and get a "slap on the wrist". If you lost a down it'd be better IMO

I do agree with this one.

If there is defensive holding it should be a first down only if the 10 yards gives the offense a first down.

[Chrisaaron1023]

14 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

You can't assume a receiver is going to catch a ball thrown to him. They drop passes all the time. Even wide open.

 

True... I guess you can't win with this one. Because really, I feel like PI should be one of the more penalized infractions. You can't just be all over a guy to the point he can't play football lol

[crazycolt1]

1 hour ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

True... I guess you can't win with this one. Because really, I feel like PI should be one of the more penalized infractions. You can't just be all over a guy to the point he can't play football lol

True.. I guess leaving it up to the ref to make a judgment call is best in the long run.

Maybe changing PI to a 15 yard penalty like college may be better?

  The defenses are already doing PIs in the end zone.

[chad72]

3 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I do agree with this one.

If there is defensive holding it should be a first down only if the 10 yards gives the offense a first down.

 

Yep, I agree with this one too. Defensive holding is 10 yards and if the 10 yards results in a first down, it is a first down. Otherwise, you get the 10 yards and replay the down, just like you get 5 yards for defensive offside and get to replay the down if you don't have the first down.

[JaguarsWoman]

16 hours ago, jameszeigler834 said:

Get rid of that nonsense catch rule.

 

What nonsense catch rule has anything to do with kicker icing timeouts?

[JaguarsWoman]

5 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

They need to change "automatic 1st downs"

 

No way should a defensive hold be granted a 1st down... especially on 3rd and 27..

 

But the offense can hold and the get to replay the down. Offense holds, lose of down. Save your QB by holding and get a "slap on the wrist". If you lost a down it'd be better IMO

 

Since when has defensive holding caused an automatic first down with more than 10 yards to go? DPI before ball is in the air is called holding. If it is third and 27, holding by a DL will make it third and 17. Am I wrong about this?

[Chrisaaron1023]

9 minutes ago, JaguarsWoman said:

 

Since when has defensive holding caused an automatic first down with more than 10 yards to go? DPI before ball is in the air is called holding. If it is third and 27, holding by a DL will make it third and 17. Am I wrong about this?

Yeah automatic 1st down for defensive holding.. it can be 3rd and 75. defense holds. "five yard penalty, automatic..first down"

[RollerColt]

In honor of the flat out horrible phantom penalty called late on the Colt's two point conversion, I propose this:

 

Head coaches are given ONE challenge flag a game to be used to challenge penalties. If it's not overturned, the team loses a timeout. If the team has no timeouts left, they cannot challenge the penalty.   

[jameszeigler834]

2 hours ago, JaguarsWoman said:

 

What nonsense catch rule has anything to do with kicker icing timeouts?

That is a rule I would change thought that was the idea of this thread.

[JaguarsWoman]

On 12/13/2017 at 4:31 PM, jameszeigler834 said:

That is a rule I would change thought that was the idea of this thread.

 

You quoted a post about timeouts before FG attempts. I recommend quoting a post that is relevant to your idea

[oldunclemark]

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:55 PM, chad72 said:

 

 

QB run - does a RB going down sliding first get the same privileges? I think yes, just that an RB goes head first to get more yardage while a QB goes into self preservation mode and slides. But if the RB or WR decides to slide, the refs will give them the same safety net, as it is written in the rules. Same thing with a defender who makes a pick and takes it back and slides to give himself up to seal the game, he is protected too. No change needed.

 

 

Chad, I dont think that's true....at least Ive never seen it.

a WR or RB who slides can be hit because he's not 'down' 

 

I believe that protection only goes for QBs...and I'd like to see it eliminated....on the slide AND for a QB who is obviously (in the refs opinion) running out of bounds

[Chrisaaron1023]

2 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

Chad, I dont think that's true....at least Ive never seen it.

a WR or RB who slides can be hit because he's not 'down' 

I don't think i've ever seen a WR or RB slide.. I've seen plenty dive forward to "give themselves up" and they've only been tapped. I wonder if someone just flat of dove on TY went he does his "give up dive", if that person would be penalized. 

[oldunclemark]

1 minute ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

I don't think i've ever seen a WR or RB slide.. I've seen plenty dive forward to "give themselves up" and they've only been tapped. I wonder if someone just flat of dove on TY went he does his "give up dive", if that person would be penalized. 

I've seen RBs stop to avoid going out of bounds and they still get hit..

,...but I dont recall a WR sliding

[Chrisaaron1023]

14 minutes ago, oldunclemark said:

I've seen RBs stop to avoid going out of bounds and they still get hit..

,...but I dont recall a WR sliding

Maybe QB's just stop sliding.. if they just dove ahead like some of the other players to "give themselves" you think they'd still be concussed? 

[jameszeigler834]

11 hours ago, JaguarsWoman said:

 

You quoted a post about timeouts before FG attempts. I recommend quoting a post that is relevant to your idea

Whatever.

[Superman]

QBs lose some of the protections of a passer once they leave the pocket, and all protection once they pass the line of scrimmage. If they slide feet first, they are giving themselves up and not to be hit. I don't see any reason to change that. You'll probably never see a receiver or back sliding feet first, but if they did, they would be afforded the same protection because the play would be dead at the spot they began their slide, and if a defender hit them late, it would be the same unnecessary roughness penalty.

 

The legal pick within one yard of the LOS was really designed for OL who might be slightly past the line of scrimmage when pass blocking, which is a normal occurrence. Because it's not more specific than that, it applies to any offensive player within a yard of the LOS. With the increasing prevalence of run-pass option plays, it would be hard to stipulate that only OL can block at the LOS. And since defenders can engage with receivers at the line, it wouldn't make sense to restrict the receiver from returning that physicality, even if the ball is in the air. I think this is a non-starter. I don't have a problem with the legal pick anyways.

 

I don't like the idea of capping DPI to 30 yards. If the defender purposely pulls the receiver down to keep him from catching the ball, why shouldn't the receiver get the ball at the spot of the foul? 

 

Icing the kicker can go, but it doesn't bother me either.

 

I agree with the stiff arm to the head and neck, but so many defenders drop their head when going in for the tackle that you'd wind up with inadvertent hands to the face more often than not. The rule doesn't allow a ball carrier to grab a defender's face mask. I don't know how much further you can go than that.

 

The catch rule is fine. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but just because people keep screaming into an echo chamber about the catch rule doesn't mean that they know what they're talking about. It's not hard to discern what is and isn't a catch. 

[aaron11]

4 minutes ago, Superman said:

QBs lose some of the protections of a passer once they leave the pocket, and all protection once they pass the line of scrimmage. If they slide feet first, they are giving themselves up and not to be hit. I don't see any reason to change that. You'll probably never see a receiver or back sliding feet first, but if they did, they would be afforded the same protection because the play would be dead at the spot they began their slide, and if a defender hit them late, it would be the same unnecessary roughness penalty.

 

thats how i always thought it was

 

QBs dont get special protection when running, its just backs and receivers dont slide 

[Chrisaaron1023]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

QBs lose some of the protections of a passer once they leave the pocket, and all protection once they pass the line of scrimmage. If they slide feet first, they are giving themselves up and not to be hit. I don't see any reason to change that. You'll probably never see a receiver or back sliding feet first, but if they did, they would be afforded the same protection because the play would be dead at the spot they began their slide, and if a defender hit them late, it would be the same unnecessary roughness penalty.

Exactly, backs down slide. But the do "give themselves up" without being destroyed and without being called down at the beginning of the slide. QB's slide for no reason IMO lol. Just "give yourself up" like TY and Marvin used to do..

[JaguarsWoman]

3 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

Chad, I dont think that's true....at least Ive never seen it.

a WR or RB who slides can be hit because he's not 'down' 

 

I believe that protection only goes for QBs...and I'd like to see it eliminated....on the slide AND for a QB who is obviously (in the refs opinion) running out of bounds

 

The rulebook does not need to include players at other positions sliding as long as only QBs slide.

 

The reason hitting a sliding QB is illegal is he does it to protect himself. The run ends where the slide begins. He is no longer a runner and becomes a defenseless player.

[JaguarsWoman]

3 hours ago, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Maybe QB's just stop sliding.. if they just dove ahead like some of the other players to "give themselves" you think they'd still be concussed? 

 

Very few QBs hurt themselves by sliding. I have only seen it one time. Diving forward OTOH increases the risk of knee and ankle injuries if the runner is hit from behind.

[Nesjan3]

PI is no longer a spot foul but a 15 yard penalty

[JaguarsWoman]

26 minutes ago, Nesjan3 said:

PI is no longer a spot foul but a 15 yard penalty

 

Where did you get that information? It was not on the NFL's rule changes agenda during the offeseason.

[oldunclemark]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 8:42 AM, Chrisaaron1023 said:

Maybe QB's just stop sliding.. if they just dove ahead like some of the other players to "give themselves" you think they'd still be concussed? 

That's my point...QBs must be running backs if they choose to run. They have to take the same risks.

Rules need to be equitable. They can slide but defenders should be able to hit them. Presntly they can it hit QBs and Can hit RBs

 

You know that a halfback throwing the ball has NONE of the protections of a QB doing the same thing, right?.

 

[oldunclemark]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:53 AM, JaguarsWoman said:

 

The rulebook does not need to include players at other positions sliding as long as only QBs slide.

 

The reason hitting a sliding QB is illegal is he does it to protect himself. The run ends where the slide begins. He is no longer a runner and becomes a defenseless player.

But hitting a running back sliding is Okay..That's my point. I've never seen anyone penalized for hitting running back, have you?

QBs should be protected behind the line of scrimmage but not beyond.

 

They can run but they should not get special treatment when they do.

[JaguarsWoman]

1 hour ago, oldunclemark said:

But hitting a running back sliding is Okay..That's my point. I've never seen anyone penalized for hitting running back, have you?

QBs should be protected behind the line of scrimmage but not beyond.

 

They can run but they should not get special treatment when they do.

 

My point is running backs never slide.

[oldunclemark]

I don't want anybody to slide. I want that taken out.

There's far too much late siding to try to draw a penalty..

Why should 6-foot-9, 380 pound Cam Newton be 'protected' when he chooses to run the ball?

....Other than shots to the head, there is no need to protect ANYONE carrying the ball beyond the line of scrimmage..Its football.

You gain your yards and you take your chances

Edited December 16, 2017 by oldunclemark
spell

[JaguarsWoman]

If sliding was banned, quarterbacks would be penalized for protecting themselves. You don't want that.