Proposed Rule Changes

[Cynjin]

Here are some of the new rule change proposals that are being considered.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25520877/the-nfl-is-considering-some-major-rule-changes-14-things-to-know

 

 

Not sure what to think of #1, #7 & #8 are just dumb IMO.

 

 

[Derakynn]

Definitely like the rule about expanding Intentional grounding. I think it's stupid that you can just side-arm a pass into the ground while being sacked and then it just be called an incomplete pass. You see this like 6 times a game watching the Seahawks and it's really annoying. We wouldn't be too affected by it, because Andrew just throws a super contested pass/ an int in these circumstances generally. (Relax it's a joke)

[Bluefire4]

I love number ten. It may affect Luck a little bit but I hate when quarterbacks get out of the pocket and throw it to no one without grounding being called.

 

Eleven and thirteen are good as well. The Redskins are on it man.

[21isSuperman]

A big "yes, please" to 6B.  All plays should be reviewable.  I don't understand why some plays aren't.  I like #10 as well.

[ponyboy]

15.  Sack dances are now a flagged as a personal foul.   In addition, if the sack dance involves a hip thrust, the player is ejected the game.  If the dance involves a hip thrust and the player is over 320 lbs. the player are expelled from the league.

[our_dbs_rock]

10 minutes ago, ponyboy said:

15.  Sack dances are now a flagged as a personal foul.   In addition, if the sack dance involves a hip thrust, the player is ejected the game.  If the dance involves a hip thrust and the player is over 320 lbs. the player are expelled from the league.

Can we add to this......'any celebration when your team is losing is a personal foul'

[southwest1]

I'm still ticked off at the Patriots organization for their in-eligible trickery shenanigans back in the playoffs against the Ravens. I don't know what the solution is [Rule 8] but just beat the guy across from you fair & square. 

 

It wasn't illegal, but it was shady. Why tinker with who's a legitimate WR or TE on any given down NE? Can't you just win at the line of scrimmage like 31 other teams do? 

 

It just doesn't sit well with me. Messing with a time honored sports tradition of eligibility at the NFL level. It's cheap, dirty, & unwarranted to me. 

[Gavin]

1.Yes

2.Yes

3.Yes

4.Yes

5.Yes

6.Yes

6B.Yes

7.No

8.No

9.No

10.No

11.No

12.Yes...I personally think all should be active and eligible

13.No way

14.Yes

 

 

Those would be my votes

[southwest1]

"3. Automatic ejection for any player who receives two personal foul penalties in one game."

 

So, can we call this the Odell Beckham Jr. rule now? LOL! As much as I love me some Big Blue NY Giants football, I would have thrown OBJ out of that Panthers game if I was a ref...

 

You definitely don't wanna be known as more than just Head & Shoulders spokesman with a short fuze.  

[Nesjan3]

7 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

"3. Automatic ejection for any player who receives two personal foul penalties in one game."

 

So, can we call this the Odell Beckham Jr. rule now? LOL! As much as I love me some Big Blue NY Giants football, I would have thrown OBJ out of that Panthers game if I was a ref...

 

You definitely don't wanna be known as more than just Head & Shoulders spokesman with a short fuze.  

have to agree that was ridiculous and probably safe enough to say the game where this rule proposal originated from

[Nesjan3]

1 hour ago, Derakynn said:

Definitely like the rule about expanding Intentional grounding. I think it's stupid that you can just side-arm a pass into the ground while being sacked and then it just be called an incomplete pass. You see this like 6 times a game watching the Seahawks and it's really annoying. We wouldn't be too affected by it, because Andrew just throws a super contested pass/ an int in these circumstances generally. (Relax it's a joke)

yea he need to throw it out of bounce he has got the arm lol, and about Wilson and the Seahawks, yea very annoying he would the most sacked QB in the league otherwise, or the most penalized for IG lol

[southwest1]

Is it really necessary to propose Rule 7 AKA "The Manning Rule?" No, because Peyton wasn't touched & the ball was still a live one. It's the Chief's fault on defense for not touching his jersey. You don't make a new rule over incompetence IMO. 

 

Besides, sometimes cool stuff happens on the field when plays unravel in real time. What's the league gonna call it? The "I've fallen & can't get up" rule? [TV commercial joke.]

[southwest1]

"9. Eliminate overtime in preseason games."

 

Um...Mr. Snyder, nobody ever watches all 4 qtrs. of a Preseason game. I never do. Maybe 3 qtrs. That's about it. 

 

No head coach ever says, "Darn, if we'd only won all 4 Preseason games this year, I'm confident our club would have made a deep playoffs run in December." 

 

Preseason Games are like Spring training in baseball. Your early warmups never lead to a World Series Championship. 

[oldunclemark]

Cant have all plays reviewable.....it would take too long.

The Peyton Manning rule is stupid..he wasn't touched. Just touch him..

 

I think all 53 active players should be eligible. I dont see why they're not.

The 2 personal fouls + ejection rule is bad. I would make it 3.

 

The grounding rule is a good one...

I think pass interference should be 'capped' at 25 yards....No 50-yard penalties

[southwest1]

Not on the list of proposed NFL rule changes, but I wish the league would re-examine the "roughing the passer" rule designed to protect the QB. I don't wanna see any field general body slammed or split in 2 of course but LBs can't even sneeze near a QB without getting a 15 yard penalty sometimes. 

 

That's why I admire Luck so much...Saying "nice hit" to Suggs after a sack for instance. I want to see a defense not have both hands tied behind their backs all the time. 

[southwest1]

What's the point of having Microsoft tablets if all you see is a frozen formation picture in color vs black-N-white live? 

 

That's like teaching driver's ed without a car...Regression as opposed to innovation...

 

Do you think Bill Belichick is laughing? He gets busted for SpyGate & now in the 21st Century, live image recording with sparkling resolution is encouraged & common practice now...Hmmm....

[crazycolt1]

9 minutes ago, southwest1 said:

What's the point of having Microsoft tablets if all you see is a frozen formation picture in color vs black-N-white live? 

 

That's like teaching driver's ed without a car...Regression as opposed to innovation...

 

Do you think Bill Belichick is laughing? He gets busted for SpyGate & now in the 21st Century, live image recording with sparkling resolution is encouraged & common practice now...Hmmm....

Bill said he could lend a hand at setting the cameras up and supply the cameramen.

[coltsva]

I'll propose a rule change:

When the team on offense fumbles out the back or side of the opponents end zone, the offense keeps the ball at the spot of the fumble. Makes no sense to me to rule that a touchback and give the ball to the defending team. 

[ColtsLegacy]

5 minutes ago, coltsva said:

I'll propose a rule change:

When the team on offense fumbles out the back or side of the opponents end zone, the offense keeps the ball at the spot of the fumble. Makes no sense to me to rule that a touchback and give the ball to the defending team. 

 

Denied. The rule is fine. You should be penalized for fumbling the ball out of the end zone, either end zone.

[coltsva]

11 minutes ago, ColtsLegacy said:

 

Denied. The rule is fine. You should be penalized for fumbling the ball out of the end zone, either end zone.

If I tally the votes correctly, it's 1 in favor and 1 against. 

[ColtsLegacy]

Just now, coltsva said:

If I tally the votes correctly, it's 1 in favor and 1 against. 

 

In reality, it would be a landslide against your proposal.

[coltsva]

1 minute ago, ColtsLegacy said:

 

In reality, it would be a landslide against your proposal.

You are probably correct, but I still don't like the rule. 

[ReMeDy]

1 hour ago, southwest1 said:

"3. Automatic ejection for any player who receives two personal foul penalties in one game."

 

So, can we call this the Odell Beckham Jr. rule now? LOL!

 

I call this the Soccer rule, because it's very reminiscent of referees displaying a yellow card to a player for their first infraction, and then a red card for any second infraction, resulting in an ejection. Of course, if the infraction is serious enough, it can be an instant red card ejection, which I imagine still holds true for football with this current ruling. Soccer is very popular in London, so this rule may have been preached by soccer aficionados, now that football is becoming more mainstream across the pond.

In soccer though, an ejection is a much bigger blow than football, because the team has to play with one less player on the field. In football, it's just next man up. It would be interesting if football followed suit, becoming an 11 on 10 men on the field.

[ReMeDy]

I still don't understand the Patriots illegal substitution trick, and I can see why it confused the Ravens, especially with Brady's no-huddle.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24953400/harbaugh-says-ne-ran-illegal-plays-tom-brady-says-study-the-rulebook

 

So the site says the guy who's circled (Vereen) is an ineligible receiver. So I take it that means he's a right-tackle in this formation? But how is that possible, because he's lined up in the flats. This looks like a 4-WR set. I study my butt off with football, play Madden, and I still don't understand this. I feel bad for people in London if they have to see this. Those London fans didn't even understand what QB kneels were, as they boo'ed the play.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, coltsva said:

I'll propose a rule change:

When the team on offense fumbles out the back or side of the opponents end zone, the offense keeps the ball at the spot of the fumble. Makes no sense to me to rule that a touchback and give the ball to the defending team. 

I see nothing wrong with the rule that stands now. If a player fumbles out of bounds it's out of play. But if a player fumbles in the end zone the ball is still in play till it goes out of bounds. The end zone is a teams end zone and is treated as such.

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, oldunclemark said:

Cant have all plays reviewable.....it would take too long.

The Peyton Manning rule is stupid..he wasn't touched. Just touch him..

 

I think all 53 active players should be eligible. I dont see why they're not.

The 2 personal fouls + ejection rule is bad. I would make it 3.

 

The grounding rule is a good one...

I think pass interference should be 'capped' at 25 yards....No 50-yard penalties

I agree with the pass interference calls. It sucks to have any penalty called that is a judgment call. With that said would we see more defenders purposely interfering on passes knowing it would be a shorter penalty rather than even chancing a completion?

[shakedownstreet]

10 hours ago, southwest1 said:

Is it really necessary to propose Rule 7 AKA "The Manning Rule?" No, because Peyton wasn't touched & the ball was still a live one. It's the Chief's fault on defense for not touching his jersey. You don't make a new rule over incompetence IMO. 

 

Besides, sometimes cool stuff happens on the field when plays unravel in real time. What's the league gonna call it? The "I've fallen & can't get up" rule? [TV commercial joke.]

 

completely agree. all they had to do was touch him. the same rule applies to any ball carrier on the field

[coltsva]

7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I see nothing wrong with the rule that stands now. If a player fumbles out of bounds it's out of play. But if a player fumbles in the end zone the ball is still in play till it goes out of bounds. The end zone is a teams end zone and is treated as such.

I  simply don't like the opposing team getting rewarded with the ball when they never possessed it. I wouldn't mind a penalty and loss of down, but not loss of possession. 

[Restored]

7 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

I agree with the pass interference calls. It sucks to have any penalty called that is a judgment call. With that said would we see more defenders purposely interfering on passes knowing it would be a shorter penalty rather than even chancing a completion?

 

Yeah that's starting to become an issue in college. I think it would be better to leave it the way it is.

[crazycolt1]

9 minutes ago, coltsva said:

I  simply don't like the opposing team getting rewarded with the ball when they never possessed it. I wouldn't mind a penalty and loss of down, but not loss of possession. 

The end zone does belong to the team defending it. You lose a ball in their property so to say, they own it. It's their property, they don't have to possess it. The end zone is not out of bounds. I understand you have a problem with losing the possession of the ball but once it enters the property of the opposing team unless you possess it, it's theirs. The same goes for your end zone. If you fumble the ball into the other teams end zone and it goes out of bounds you lose possession. If your team kept the ball would it be fair to spot the ball on the 6 inch line or where ever you lost the ball? Your team is the one who fumbled onto the property of the defenders before it went out of bounds.

[coltsva]

2 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

The end zone does belong to the team defending it. You lose a ball in their property so to say, they own it. It's their property, they don't have to possess it. The end zone is not out of bounds. I understand you have a problem with losing the possession of the ball but once it enters the property of the opposing team unless you possess it, it's theirs. The same goes for your end zone. If you fumble the ball into the other teams end zone and it goes out of bounds you lose possession. If your team kept the ball would it be fair to spot the ball on the 6 inch line or where ever you lost the ball? Your team is the one who fumbled onto the property of the defenders before it went out of bounds.

Yes, I can certainly see the logic with that line of thinking. Bottom line, hold onto the dang football and the rule will not come into play. 

[Surge89]

12 hours ago, Gavin said:

1.Yes

2.Yes

3.Yes

4.Yes

5.Yes

6.Yes

6B.Yes

7.No

8.No

9.No

10.No

11.No

12.Yes...I personally think all should be active and eligible

13.No way

14.Yes

 

 

Those would be my votes

 

What is your reasoning on not expanding the intentional ground rule?

[Gavin]

31 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

31 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

What is your reasoning on not expanding the intentional ground rule?

What is your reasoning on not expanding the intentional ground rule?

Officials already have a hard enough time getting the call correct...Both actually being out of the pocket as well as determining if the ball was catchable or not. I think it should be:

 

1.The QB is allowed to get rid of the ball regardless if he is outside of the pocket or not IF he is under pressure provided that the ball upon being gotten rid of makes it back to the LOS...If the ball does not make it back to the LOS then a penalty should be enforced according to where the QB got rid of the ball.

 

So in other words if the QB backtracks 15 yards behind the LOS (for example) he can get rid of the ball in or outside the pocket but if that ball don't make it back to the LOS then 15 yard penalty

....No throwing the ball out of bounds either

 

Entirely eliminating if the ball was catchable or not

 

[Surge89]

43 minutes ago, Gavin said:

Officials already have a hard enough time getting the call correct...Both actually being out of the pocket as well as determining if the ball was catchable or not. I think it should be:

 

1.The QB is allowed to get rid of the ball regardless if he is outside of the pocket or not IF he is under pressure provided that the ball upon being gotten rid of makes it back to the LOS...If the ball does not make it back to the LOS then a penalty should be enforced according to where the QB got rid of the ball.

 

So in other words if the QB backtracks 15 yards behind the LOS (for example) he can get rid of the ball in or outside the pocket but if that ball don't make it back to the LOS then 15 yard penalty

....No throwing the ball out of bounds either

 

Entirely eliminating if the ball was catchable or not

 

 

Interesting.  So if a QB throws the ball out of bounds what would ensue? Penalty with loss of down? Does the catchable rule apply then?

 

Would the penalty be an automatic 10 yard penalty if the distance behind the LOS is less than 10 yards? 

 

I think if you can clear up those 2 questions that would be a fantastic rule change.

[chad72]

A conscious effort will be made by refs to call intentional grounding on Tom Brady. The rules committee is really looking into this. 

[Gavin]

39 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

Interesting.  So if a QB throws the ball out of bounds what would ensue? Penalty with loss of down? Does the catchable rule apply then?

 

Would the penalty be an automatic 10 yard penalty if the distance behind the LOS is less than 10 yards? 

 

I think if you can clear up those 2 questions that would be a fantastic rule change.

If the QB throws the ball out of bounds then the ball is placed at the spot where the QB threw the ball unless the ball sailing out of bounds was actually caught IN BOUNDS...So if he threw the ball out of bounds(and actually landed out of bounds) and he was 10 yards behind the LOS (for example) then 10 yard penalty...Now if the ball is sailing out of bounds but was still caught IN BOUNDS then of course its obviously a catch

 

So in other words you can still technically throw it out of bounds but unless its caught in bounds then its a penalty at the spot of the throw.....It has to be a catch in bounds for it to be legal

[Surge89]

20 minutes ago, Gavin said:

If the QB throws the ball out of bounds then the ball is placed at the spot where the QB threw the ball unless the ball sailing out of bounds was actually caught IN BOUNDS...So if he threw the ball out of bounds(and actually landed out of bounds) and he was 10 yards behind the LOS (for example) then 10 yard penalty...Now if the ball is sailing out of bounds but was still caught IN BOUNDS then of course its obviously a catch

 

So in other words you can still technically throw it out of bounds but unless its caught in bounds then its a penalty at the spot of the throw.....It has to be a catch in bounds for it to be legal

 

So there is no minimum penalty?  A QB can do a 3 step drop for example and whiff completely but its a 2 yrd penalty?

 

Also with this scenario the ability to throw an out route is severely diminished and I assume would then be phased from the league.  Because if the receiver doesn't catch the ball you get a penalty.  

 

*edit* Nevermind forgot your initial stance that if its over the LOS its fair... lol sorry.

[Gavin]

3 minutes ago, Surge89 said:

 

So there is no minimum penalty?  A QB can do a 3 step drop for example and whiff completely but its a 2 yrd penalty?

 

Also with this scenario the ability to throw an out route is severely diminished and I assume would then be phased from the league.  Because if the receiver doesn't catch the ball you get a penalty.  

No minimum penalty

 

Also with this scenario the ability to throw an out route is severely diminished and I assume would then be phased from the league.  Because if the receiver doesn't catch the ball you get a penalty."

 

Hmm you might have a point

 

[southwest1]

18 hours ago, ReMeDy said:

 

I call this the Soccer rule, because it's very reminiscent of referees displaying a yellow card to a player for their first infraction, and then a red card for any second infraction, resulting in an ejection. Of course, if the infraction is serious enough, it can be an instant red card ejection, which I imagine still holds true for football with this current ruling. Soccer is very popular in London, so this rule may have been preached by soccer aficionados, now that football is becoming more mainstream across the pond.

In soccer though, an ejection is a much bigger blow than football, because the team has to play with one less player on the field. In football, it's just next man up. It would be interesting if football followed suit, becoming an 11 on 10 men on the field.

Thanks for Soccer/Futbol education background info RMDY. I appreciate it. 

[southwest1]

19 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

Bill said he could lend a hand at setting the cameras up and supply the cameramen.

Bonus points for making SW1 smile. Well played CC1. Take a bow.