New rule change proposals. For your gasping entertainment.

RolandDeschain

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
33,131
Reaction score
956
Location
Kissimmee, FL
I can't honestly say I'd stop watching the NFL if they instituted that one yard rule, but I'd start trying to cost the NFL lost revenue at every opportunity...Hmmm, a few ideas are already popping into mind.

NFL competition committee, do not even think about instituting that one.
 

MizzouHawkGal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 16, 2012
Messages
13,477
Reaction score
846
Location
Kansas City, MO
RolandDeschain":11o61139 said:
I can't honestly say I'd stop watching the NFL if they instituted that one yard rule, but I'd start trying to cost the NFL lost revenue at every opportunity...Hmmm, a few ideas are already popping into mind.

NFL competition committee, do not even think about instituting that one.
I'd flat stop. And it'd be easy at that.
 

lsheldon

New member
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
1,166
Reaction score
0
Location
Everett WA
Marvin49":390qwtv4 said:
Other than the "Navorro Bowman Rule", not sure why you guys assume these are Harbaugh requests. Its not like these issues haven't come up in other games.


Harubauh zps64ae5f25
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,947
Reaction score
465
Largent80":3obilwdc said:
2,6,7 I can agree with. And for the love of Gawd , get RID of the early/inadvertent whistle. Seriously, some doofus blows a whistle and all else that happens becomes moot? It is the most ridiculous rule ever.

Agreed agreed agreed agreed.
Let the play develop and then discuss whether the penalty should be assessed.
The only difficult one to assess is forward progress/fumbles. You'll never be able to keep playing and then say "nah, actually that was forward progress", but generally I agree with the decisions most of the time in that situation.

The one that rankles me is the what-should-have-been a 60 yard TD to Luke Willson ending up with him carted off the field with a high ankle sprain a play later, just because somebody blew a whistle while the ball was in the air.
Offside should NEVER have a whistle blown until after the play
 

theascension

New member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
290
Reaction score
0
Cartire":3c9gqkrn said:
HAWKAMANIA":3c9gqkrn said:
#7 is okay, as long as they don't add a third challenge flag for it.

I still think it's ridiculous to limit the amount of challenges that were won. My proposal. Give the coaches two red flags. If they lose a challenge, they lose a flag. If they win, they get the flag back.
Then they'd challenge everything and the game would be 8 hours long if a coach got on a winning flag streak.
 

Pandion Haliaetus

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2013
Messages
3,879
Reaction score
846
I wish the Seahawks would have proposed two rules:

1. A Divisional Rival cannot sign a player from another team's practice squad.
2. Any team can place up to two special exempts on practice squad players as long as they were drafted the same year, that pays them their rookie salary and restricts other teams from negotiating with them unless they give up that draft pick in the next draft.

Also, The Navarro Bowman rule should really be the Michael Crabtree rule.
 

themunn

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2012
Messages
3,947
Reaction score
465
theascension":ozrep78t said:
Cartire":ozrep78t said:
HAWKAMANIA":ozrep78t said:
#7 is okay, as long as they don't add a third challenge flag for it.

I still think it's ridiculous to limit the amount of challenges that were won. My proposal. Give the coaches two red flags. If they lose a challenge, they lose a flag. If they win, they get the flag back.
Then they'd challenge everything and the game would be 8 hours long if a coach got on a winning flag streak.

wouldn't it be worth it though?
for a coach to go on a winning flag streak, the officials would need to be making mistake after mistake after mistake
would you rather see a team get screwed over as a result of those mistakes, or watch a long game where the refs kept screwing up, but the team didn't pay for it?
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,205
Reaction score
30
Location
Anchorage, AK
themunn":2g7meolx said:
theascension":2g7meolx said:
Cartire":2g7meolx said:
HAWKAMANIA":2g7meolx said:
#7 is okay, as long as they don't add a third challenge flag for it.

I still think it's ridiculous to limit the amount of challenges that were won. My proposal. Give the coaches two red flags. If they lose a challenge, they lose a flag. If they win, they get the flag back.
Then they'd challenge everything and the game would be 8 hours long if a coach got on a winning flag streak.

wouldn't it be worth it though?
for a coach to go on a winning flag streak, the officials would need to be making mistake after mistake after mistake
would you rather see a team get screwed over as a result of those mistakes, or watch a long game where the refs kept screwing up, but the team didn't pay for it?

Agreed 100%

The 8hr example would only apply if the refs were completely incompetent (which they are not as much as we like to think so) or if they were bribed and the reviews were done by a crew centrally located

so while the 8hr example is fine on paper as a counter argument it really doesn't hold up. Could a game get extended 30 minutes - yeah sure and it would be because the refs SUCKED and they were called on it. I fail to see the problem
 

bigskydoc

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
4,116
Reaction score
1,453
Location
Kalispell, MT
oregonhawkfan":2sl6brnl said:
Cartire":2sl6brnl said:
It's getting insane. Kick off from the 40? They might as well not even kick it, just start from the 20. What a waste of one of the most exciting plays in football.

I would add to these the horrible idea of moving the LOS for extra points to the 25 yard line........would completely eliminate the 2 pt conversion which makes games interesting IMOP.

The LOS would only be moved for the PAT kick. If a team decided to go for two, the LOS would still be the 2. This could result in MORE teams going for two, as well as more missed PATs.

Moving the kickoff may have the opposite effect of what most people predict (more touchbacks), especially if combined with moving the LOS up after a touchback. It would totally change the risk/reward ratio of the onside kick and we would see more onside attempts.

Also, If I was a special teams coach and I had a good kicker and a lighting fast coverage team (Lockette), it would open up the possibilities for pinning the opposing team inside the 20 by getting my coverage team that much closer to the point of attack and allowing the kicker to kick a little higher for more hang time and less distance.

It is entirely possible that the real-world results of these proposed rule changes will be the opposite of the intention of the changes.


- bsd
 
OP
OP
Cartire

Cartire

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
0
bigskydoc":3iffl4gw said:
oregonhawkfan":3iffl4gw said:
Cartire":3iffl4gw said:
It's getting insane. Kick off from the 40? They might as well not even kick it, just start from the 20. What a waste of one of the most exciting plays in football.

I would add to these the horrible idea of moving the LOS for extra points to the 25 yard line........would completely eliminate the 2 pt conversion which makes games interesting IMOP.

The LOS would only be moved for the PAT kick. If a team decided to go for two, the LOS would still be the 2. This could result in MORE teams going for two, as well as more missed PATs.

Moving the kickoff may have the opposite effect of what most people predict (more touchbacks), especially if combined with moving the LOS up after a touchback. It would totally change the risk/reward ratio of the onside kick and we would see more onside attempts.

Also, If I was a special teams coach and I had a good kicker and a lighting fast coverage team (Lockette), it would open up the possibilities for pinning the opposing team inside the 20 by getting my coverage team that much closer to the point of attack and allowing the kicker to kick a little higher for more hang time and less distance.

It is entirely possible that the real-world results of these proposed rule changes will be the opposite of the intention of the changes.


- bsd

2pt from the 2. EP from the 25. So, no possibility of a fake. Completely removed that option.
 

volsunghawk

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,860
Reaction score
0
Location
Right outside Richard Sherman's house
And the results...

Rule change proposals:

1. Move the kickoff to the 40-yard line. FAILED

2. Expand instant replay to include personal foul penalties. FAILED

3. Eliminate overtime in the preseason. TABLED

4. Extend the uprights to make them five feet taller. PASSED

5. Move the line of scrimmage for one-point extra point kicks to the defensive team’s 25-yard line. Two-point conversion attempts would still be snapped from the 2-yard line. TABLED. (League will experiment with longer extra points in the preseason.)

6. Put six cameras on all boundary lines — sideline, goal line, end line, to guarantee coverage for replay reviews. TABLED

7. Permit a coach to challenge any official’s decision, except scoring plays which are automatically reviewed. FAILED

8. Protect players from getting the sides of their legs rolled up on — the rule already says a blocker can’t hit an opponent in the back of the legs, this proposal will add “or side” to the rule. PASSED

9. Allow the referee to consult with members of the NFL officiating department during replay reviews. The referee would be able to speak with the command center in New York to help in reviewing a play. PASSED

10. Re-organize the rules about what can be reviewed and what cannot be reviewed, including making the recovery of a loose ball in the field of play reviewable. (This is referred to as the NaVorro Bowman rule, after a controversial call in the NFC Championship Game.) PASSED

11. Don’t stop the clock on a sack. PASSED


12. Modify pass interference so that it can be called within one yard of the line of scrimmage. TABLED

13. Enforce defensive fouls behind the line of scrimmage from the previous spot, rather than from the end of the run or from the spot of the foul. PASSED

Bylaw proposals:

1. Raise the number of active players on game day from 46 to 49 for regular-season games played on a day other than Sunday or Monday, excluding Week One. TABLED

2. Raise the practice squad limit from eight players to 10 players. TABLED

3. Permit clubs to trade players prior to the start of the league year. TABLED

4. Eliminate the cut-down to 75 players during training camp and instead just have one cut-down from 90 players to 53 players. FAILED

5. Permit more than one player to return to the active list from injured reserve so that any player on injured reserve could return after six weeks. FAILED

6. Permit each club to time and test up to 10 draft-eligible players at its facility, and allow any club that wishes to attend timing and testing at another team’s facility. TABLED

7. Adjust the time of the roster reduction from 53 after the fourth preseason game from 6 p.m. Eastern to 4 p.m. Eastern. All teams would have to have their list of final cuts in by 4 p.m. PASSED

Resolution proposal:

1. Permit a home team with a retractable roof to open or close its roof at halftime, instead of having to determine at the start of the game whether it is open or closed. TABLED

Really disappointed that the "anti-press coverage" rule didn't fail, but was tabled for now.
 
OP
OP
Cartire

Cartire

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
4,580
Reaction score
0
WHEW!! Thank god the time for reduction got moved by two hours. This was by far the most detrimental problem in the NFL.
 
Top