Proposed rule changes

mikeak · Mar 18, 2015

Crap I find myself agreeing with NE

3. Cameras: New England once again submitted a proposal for fixed cameras on the side lines, end lines and goal lines.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... ock-n-jock

And of course we knew it was coming but I thought it would be Denver and not Bears

"7. Overtime: The Bears proposed a rule that will guarantee both teams get a possession in overtime. Ironic Chicago proposed because, you know, Jermaine Kearse."

Seanhawk · Mar 18, 2015

5. BONUS FIELD GOALS: No, seriously. The Colts proposed adding an additional field goal if you successfully convert a two-point conversion. Under their proposal, a successful two-point conversion would give a team an attempt from the 32-yard line (a 50-yard attempt) for one extra point.

This one is positively r-worded.

mikeak · Mar 18, 2015

Seanhawk":t7w54om2 said:
5. BONUS FIELD GOALS: No, seriously. The Colts proposed adding an additional field goal if you successfully convert a two-point conversion. Under their proposal, a successful two-point conversion would give a team an attempt from the 32-yard line (a 50-yard attempt) for one extra point.

Click to expand...

This one is positively r-worded.

I actually skimmed right over that one. Maybe I didn't take it seriously and thought it was a check to see if we are paying attention.

Willing to wager on the fact that this does NOT pass

lsheldon · Mar 18, 2015

The Boz will regret this one not happening 30 years earlier.

11. Numbers: The Competition Committee expanded legal linebacker numbers to include 40-49.

onanygivensunday · Mar 18, 2015

mikeak":25i82ag8 said:
"7. Overtime: The Bears proposed a rule that will guarantee both teams get a possession in overtime. Ironic Chicago proposed because, you know, Jermaine Kearse."

Do you mean Sidney Rice?

He caught the winning TD in O/T.

lsheldon · Mar 18, 2015

onanygivensunday":d0dncbkh said:
mikeak":d0dncbkh said:

"7. Overtime: The Bears proposed a rule that will guarantee both teams get a possession in overtime. Ironic Chicago proposed because, you know, Jermaine Kearse."

Click to expand...

Do you mean Sidney Rice?

He caught the winning TD in O/T.

He's quoting a media source, not re-writing it himself. They may have meant Sidney Rice, I frankly don't remember who caught that TD.

Sac · Mar 18, 2015

lsheldon":bzhsyc3h said:
onanygivensunday":bzhsyc3h said:

mikeak":bzhsyc3h said:

"7. Overtime: The Bears proposed a rule that will guarantee both teams get a possession in overtime. Ironic Chicago proposed because, you know, Jermaine Kearse."

Click to expand...

Do you mean Sidney Rice?

He caught the winning TD in O/T.

Click to expand...

He's quoting a media source, not re-writing it himself. They may have meant Sidney Rice, I frankly don't remember who caught that TD.

It was Sid.

original poster · Mar 18, 2015

I wonder how quickly the extra field goal will get blown out!

Pandion Haliaetus · Mar 18, 2015

They are talking about Kearse but they are taking the stab at the Packers rivalry.

keatonisballin · Mar 18, 2015

lsheldon":bwciw7go said:
onanygivensunday":bwciw7go said:

mikeak":bwciw7go said:

"7. Overtime: The Bears proposed a rule that will guarantee both teams get a possession in overtime. Ironic Chicago proposed because, you know, Jermaine Kearse."

Click to expand...

Do you mean Sidney Rice?

He caught the winning TD in O/T.

Click to expand...

He's quoting a media source, not re-writing it himself. They may have meant Sidney Rice, I frankly don't remember who caught that TD.

I doubt Sidney even remembers who caught that TD.

mikeak · Mar 18, 2015

keatonisballin":3804qaj2 said:
lsheldon":3804qaj2 said:

onanygivensunday":3804qaj2 said:

mikeak":3804qaj2 said:

"7. Overtime: The Bears proposed a rule that will guarantee both teams get a possession in overtime. Ironic Chicago proposed because, you know, Jermaine Kearse."

Click to expand...

Do you mean Sidney Rice?

He caught the winning TD in O/T.

Click to expand...

He's quoting a media source, not re-writing it himself. They may have meant Sidney Rice, I frankly don't remember who caught that TD.

Click to expand...

I doubt Sidney even remembers who caught that TD.

Lol

Probably took twice the hit on that vs the one that made Borland retire.

Yeah it was a copy and paste. Didn't consider which play they were referring to

UK_Seahawk · Mar 19, 2015

mikeak":blc3g5p6 said:
3. Cameras: New England once again submitted a proposal for fixed cameras on the side lines, end lines and goal lines.

I find it incredible this wasn't done years ago.. It's so frustrating relying on God awful camera angles trying to make a call on whether the plane was broken.

I'm thinking Moeaki versus the Whiners for one.

Brithawk · Mar 19, 2015

mikeak":1g168skd said:
Seanhawk":1g168skd said:

5. BONUS FIELD GOALS: No, seriously. The Colts proposed adding an additional field goal if you successfully convert a two-point conversion. Under their proposal, a successful two-point conversion would give a team an attempt from the 32-yard line (a 50-yard attempt) for one extra point.

Click to expand...

This one is positively r-worded.

Click to expand...

I actually skimmed right over that one. Maybe I didn't take it seriously and thought it was a check to see if we are paying attention.

Willing to wager on the fact that this does NOT pass

I'd let it pass on the proviso that if the kick is missed you lose the 2 points as well.

OrFan · Mar 19, 2015

New England and cameras just seem to continue to be linked together.

Seahawkfan80 · Mar 28, 2015

Brithawk":2r1tx778 said:
mikeak":2r1tx778 said:

Seanhawk":2r1tx778 said:

5. BONUS FIELD GOALS: No, seriously. The Colts proposed adding an additional field goal if you successfully convert a two-point conversion. Under their proposal, a successful two-point conversion would give a team an attempt from the 32-yard line (a 50-yard attempt) for one extra point.

Click to expand...

This one is positively r-worded.

Click to expand...

I actually skimmed right over that one. Maybe I didn't take it seriously and thought it was a check to see if we are paying attention.

Willing to wager on the fact that this does NOT pass

Click to expand...

I'd let it pass on the proviso that if the kick is missed you lose the 2 points as well.

I like that idea..... :twisted: :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers: :thirishdrinkers:

Brahn · Mar 29, 2015

I want them to kick the kick off distance the same but only allow a team to field 6 players on the kick off and return.

Proposed rule changes

mikeak

Well-known member

Seanhawk

New member

mikeak

Well-known member

lsheldon

New member

onanygivensunday

Well-known member

lsheldon

New member

Sac

Active member

original poster

New member

Pandion Haliaetus

Well-known member

keatonisballin

New member

mikeak

Well-known member

UK_Seahawk

Well-known member

Brithawk

New member

OrFan

New member

Seahawkfan80

Well-known member

Brahn

New member

Similar threads

Latest posts