PDA

View Full Version : 'Down by contact' could join replay list..Chiefs proposal


DenverChief
03-16-2005, 03:13 PM
Thoughts?

NEW YORK -- The NFL is considering expanding instant replay to cover "down by contact" plays that previously were not included in reviews.

Atlanta general manager Rich McKay, chairman of the league's competition committee, said Wednesday the change will be considered next week in Maui at the annual league meetings.

In the past, replay has not applied to plays ruled dead because an official has blown a whistle calling the runner down.

"Those plays have been misunderstood," he said. "What we're considering would allow for a recovery if replay shows the ball came out before the play was down -- even if the whistle has blown."

This will be one of the few years that instant replay itself will not be discussed. It was extended last year for five years although a proposal to put it in permanently was not approved.

"This is why we wanted to have it in for a length of time," McKay said during a conference call to preview the agenda for the meetings. "It gives us time to tweak some things we have in there without having to discuss the entire process."

Next week's meeting will include a variety of business items, but few definitive moves.

The owners will discuss the slow pace of talks to discuss the current labor agreement, which runs out in 2008 as well as the stalled negotiations on the prime-time television package in the new TV contract, which runs out after next season.

CBS and Fox already have renewed their AFC and NFC contracts for a total of $8 billion over six years.

But the Sunday and Monday night packages remain under discussion with ABC, the current Monday night rights holder, and its subsidiary ESPN balking at the NFL's asking price. At some point, other networks could move into the prime-time discussion.

The league also could award the 2010 Super Bowl to New York contingent on a new stadium being built for the Jets on the West Side of Manhattan.

The main interest, however, is in on-field rules changes.

One emphasis will be on safety.

McKay noted that injuries were up last year and said he expects the committee to recommend additional guidelines that could lead to more unnecessary roughness calls. The guidelines could address chop blocks -- although those would still be allowed inside the "tackle box," the area around the line of scrimmage; blind-side hits on screen passes and hits on quarterbacks, punters and kickers otherwise out of the play.

McKay said a number of injuries came on non-contact plays last year and noted there is some concern that lighter shoes might be playing a role.

"We're not sure why injuries were up last year but they were," he said. "It might be a one-year thing, but in our meetings with players and their union, they have made it clear that they are concerned."

The committee also will ask officials to continue the emphasis on illegal contact that began last season.

Illegal contact calls increased from 79 in 2003 to 191, although defensive pass interference calls went down from 238 to 202.


"That's a lot of fouls. We'd like that number to come down," McKay said. "There was a similar spike in '94 when we had an emphasis and it came down. We hope it does again -- by conduct."

The committee is also considering a proposal by the Kansas City Chiefs to change to the college rule on pass interference.

That mandates a maximum of 15 yards on defensive interference or a spot call if the penalty is less than 15 yards. In the NFL, the ball is spotted where the interference takes place or at the 1-yard-line if it is in the end zone.

The Chiefs' proposal includes one slight difference from the college rule: on a flagrant foul, the ball would still be spotted where the penalty took place. That would presumably eliminate players from fouling when they know they are beaten and taking a 15-yard penalty rather than one of 30 or 40 yards or more.


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2014713

Mr. Kotter
03-16-2005, 03:14 PM
It should be reviewable.

KCChiefsFan88
03-16-2005, 03:15 PM
If Lamar and Carl would put the same focus on signing free agents and the draft that they do on trying to change rules every offseason maybe that 11 year, no playoff wins drought would end :shake:

HC_Chief
03-16-2005, 03:15 PM
I like both ideas.

dirk digler
03-16-2005, 03:18 PM
I like the idea of reviewing down by contact but the other idea stinks.

It would be like the flagrant foul in basketball that hardly ever gets called even though every knows that the team is trying to foul the other team.

My proposal would be to eliminate an automatic first down for illegal contact and d holding. Make them both 10 yd penalties. I saw alot of games this year where a team was 3rd and over 15 yards and the D gets a illegal contact call and the team gets an automatic first down. IMO that is stupid for a 5 yd penalty.

tk13
03-16-2005, 03:18 PM
I like the general idea, I think you're treading rough water making NFL officials try to make judgement calls on what is "flagrant" though....

DenverChief
03-16-2005, 03:19 PM
I dunno the downside that I could see if forward progress and when the whistle blows thats the end of the play but if they throw the whistle out and the guy is still standing and fumbles the ball....thats :BS:

dirk digler
03-16-2005, 03:21 PM
I like the general idea, I think you're treading rough water making NFL officials try to make judgement calls on what is "flagrant" though....

Yep. Just like in college basketball with the flagrant foul or intentional foul. You know in the last 2 minutes of the game that the team that is losing is going to foul the other team but the refs never call intentional foul. I quite don't understand that rule.

DenverChief
03-16-2005, 03:22 PM
Yep. Just like in college basketball with the flagrant foul or intentional foul. You know in the last 2 minutes of the game that the team that is losing is going to foul the other team but the refs never call intentional foul. I quite don't understand that rule.

I think it is used more when the intent is to harm/injure another player

tk13
03-16-2005, 03:24 PM
I think it is used more when the intent is to harm/injure another player
Or really any attempt to foul hard that does not involve going after the ball...

ct
03-16-2005, 03:26 PM
No different than the 2 levels of facemask. You have a 5 yard facemask, and a 15 yard personal foul facemask. This would be a 15 yard or spot foul pass interferance, whichever is less, or a personal foul pass interferance at the spot of the foul (or 15 yard minumum if spot < 15 yards?).

I like the idea. I get so sick and tired of the Ed McCaffrey type flops in the end zone on 3rd and 20 at mid-field, giving a near automatic dive into the end zone for 6.

shaneo69
03-16-2005, 03:29 PM
If Lamar and Carl would put the same focus on signing free agents and the draft that they do on trying to change rules every offseason maybe that 11 year, no playoff wins drought would end :shake:

I was thinking the same thing. I think Lamar considers his greatest NFL accomplishment to be getting the two point conversion added to the NFL.

Now he will fight to his death to get 2 extra teams in each conference (for a total of 16) into the playoffs. And don't forget about the 53-man, all-active roster for gamedays. Now this new pass-interference rule proposal.


If there's one rule I'd like to see changed, it's the defensive holding penalty, which is currently 5 yards and automatic 1st down. I'd eliminate the automatic 1st down, because the refs always seem to call it on 3rd and 18.

dirk digler
03-16-2005, 03:32 PM
I think it is used more when the intent is to harm/injure another player

An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponentís obvious advantageous position, and contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball.

The NCAA rule says:

Reminder, the definition of an intentional personal foul (Rule 4-26.6) is:

A personal foul that, on the basis of an officialís observation of the act, is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or a player. Determination of whether a personal foul is intentional shall not be based on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:

1. Fouling a player who is away from the ball and not directly involved with the play.
2. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
3. Holding or pushing an opponent in order to stop the game clock.
4. Pushing a player from behind to prevent a score.
5. Causing excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

The intentional foul is clearly defined. Coaches have been utilizing a strategic foul for many years which is to commit a foul to stop the game clock and thereby prolong the game. The hope is the opponent will miss the free throw(s). If the player makes an honest attempt to play the ball or the player away from the ball, it is a personal foul. However, if the player does not make a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or the player away from the ball, then the official is responsible to call an intentional personal foul. It is incumbent upon the coach to constructively use the strategic foul within the spirit and intent of the intentional personal foul rule. The coach who does otherwise takes a shortcut that circumvents the purpose of the rule.

ChiefsCountry
03-16-2005, 03:33 PM
Hey Lamar is doing what is best for the game of football, I wish he would do more for the Chiefs but if it makes the NFL better then I am all for it.

DenverChief
03-16-2005, 03:34 PM
An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponentís obvious advantageous position, and contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball.


I know what it is I was sayin when they usually call it :thumb:

DenverChief
03-16-2005, 03:36 PM
An intentional foul is a personal or technical foul designed to stop or keep the clock from starting, to neutralize an opponentís obvious advantageous position, and contact away from the ball or when not playing the ball.

The NCAA rule says:

Reminder, the definition of an intentional personal foul (Rule 4-26.6) is:

A personal foul that, on the basis of an officialís observation of the act, is not a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or a player. Determination of whether a personal foul is intentional shall not be based on the severity of the act. Examples include, but are not limited to:

1. Fouling a player who is away from the ball and not directly involved with the play.
2. Contact with a player making a throw-in.
3. Holding or pushing an opponent in order to stop the game clock.
4. Pushing a player from behind to prevent a score.
5. Causing excessive contact with an opponent while playing the ball.

The intentional foul is clearly defined. Coaches have been utilizing a strategic foul for many years which is to commit a foul to stop the game clock and thereby prolong the game. The hope is the opponent will miss the free throw(s). If the player makes an honest attempt to play the ball or the player away from the ball, it is a personal foul. However, if the player does not make a legitimate attempt to directly play the ball or the player away from the ball, then the official is responsible to call an intentional personal foul. It is incumbent upon the coach to constructively use the strategic foul within the spirit and intent of the intentional personal foul rule. The coach who does otherwise takes a shortcut that circumvents the purpose of the rule.



Jeezus christo kiddo I KNOW what the foul says I was saying when the Refs call it it seems to be when one player is intending to injure another

dirk digler
03-16-2005, 03:39 PM
Jeezus christo kiddo I KNOW what the foul says I was saying when the Refs call it it seems to be when one player is intending to injure another

I hear ya and they usually call it when a guy is going for a dunk or layup and he gets hammered but that is not the intention of the rule. I am just trying to point out that I think the Chiefs proposal for PI is in alot of ways like the basketball rule which as long as the player looks like he is attempting to go for the ball it will never be called.

Players and coaches are crafty and they will manipulate this rule big time. Just like the college BB coaches have.

morphius
03-16-2005, 03:47 PM
I do not like the idea of being able to review what happened in a play after a whistle has been blown. The reason I always called BS on the down by contact rule is that the guy would blow the whistle after the ball had changed hands and say down by contact. Does this also mean that when a guy is getting held up by 6 guys stripping at the ball that if the whistle blows and then he loses it that they can reverse that as well? What would be cool is if somehow they were able to put some electronics with the whistle that is integrated into the game tape so they could actually tell when the whistle was blown.

dirk digler
03-16-2005, 03:52 PM
I do not like the idea of being able to review what happened in a play after a whistle has been blown. The reason I always called BS on the down by contact rule is that the guy would blow the whistle after the ball had changed hands and say down by contact. Does this also mean that when a guy is getting held up by 6 guys stripping at the ball that if the whistle blows and then he loses it that they can reverse that as well? What would be cool is if somehow they were able to put some electronics with the whistle that is integrated into the game tape so they could actually tell when the whistle was blown.

Interesting idea. When they blow the whistle it transmits a signal that the whistle has blown or something like that. I think that could be done.

keg in kc
03-16-2005, 03:52 PM
I like both rules, but I can't imagine our pass interference proposal has a chance, the way they're focused on castrating defenses. Plus, even if it's sensible, we did propose it, and everybody knows our proposals get shot down.

dirk digler
03-16-2005, 03:57 PM
I like both rules, but I can't imagine our pass interference proposal has a chance, the way they're focused on castrating defenses. Plus, even if it's sensible, we did propose it, and everybody knows our proposals get shot down.

You know and maybe it is just me but whenever the Chiefs make a proposal it seems that they are making it to help the Chiefs not the NFL, excluding the 2-pt conversion rule.

Last time it was to add more playoff teams and now a defensive rule that would help our D-backs from giving up PI calls in the end zone. They must really want Julian Battle to start.

Ari Chi3fs
03-16-2005, 04:04 PM
seems like instead of buying a quality FA CB... we would rather change the rules a bit. heh.

mcan
03-16-2005, 06:38 PM
You have to keep the "down by contact" rule... It's only fair for all.


Imagine that somebody does fumble, and the ball is definately out before the player is down. But the referee didn't have a good angle and calls the player down. Meanwhile a defensive back picks up the ball and runs 35 yards down the field, stops at the ten yard line when he first hears the whistles and throws his arms up to complain/protest the call. Of course, the dumbass coach (not familiar with the rules) throws the red flag on the field and we see the typical argument.


So, clearly there WAS a fumble, but the only fair thing to do would be to give the ball back to the offense...

Reasons:
1. Because play was dead, no offensive players can make an effort to recover the fumble, and if they DO make any kind of effort that involves contact, they are subject to a 15 yard penalty... PLAY HAS BEEN BLOWN DEAD!

2. The player who recovered the ball (after the play was blown dead) was never downed. There can be no spot given to the ball. If the recovering player WAS ever tackled or downed, again the tackler would be subject to a 15 yard penalty for late hit...

morphius
03-16-2005, 08:43 PM
You know and maybe it is just me but whenever the Chiefs make a proposal it seems that they are making it to help the Chiefs not the NFL, excluding the 2-pt conversion rule.

Last time it was to add more playoff teams and now a defensive rule that would help our D-backs from giving up PI calls in the end zone. They must really want Julian Battle to start.
I don't think I agree with that. We also fought to get more players allowed to play on Sunday, which it may have helped us, but is good for all those players that are stuck watching the game on Sunday and never given a chance to become better. It actually surprises me that as conservitive as the Chiefs orginization seems, they are always trying to put forth something they feel well help the game.

TheNextStep
03-16-2005, 08:47 PM
And they just now thought that this college PI rule will "help the game"... after Randy Moss got traded to a division rival?

Sorry, but I think this is all about helping the Chiefs, not the NFL. They're in a division that features some damned good/damned promising receivers and they just flat cannot seal the deal with a cornerback in free agency.

morphius
03-16-2005, 08:52 PM
And they just now thought that this college PI rule will "help the game"... after Randy Moss got traded to a division rival?

Sorry, but I think this is all about helping the Chiefs, not the NFL. They're in a division that features some damned good/damned promising receivers and they just flat cannot seal the deal with a cornerback in free agency.
I doubt this is an idea that just came to them after the Randy Moss trade, normally these rule suggestions take a while to make it to an NFL vote.

TheNextStep
03-16-2005, 08:53 PM
It's possible.... pig.

morphius
03-16-2005, 08:56 PM
It's possible.... pig.
DROP YOUR SWORD!

Of course if we would have signed Moss then Al Davis would just sue the NFL saying how the rules were unfair.

TheNextStep
03-16-2005, 08:59 PM
Hey, at least Al takes it court to fight it rather than just sweeping it under the rug and hoping nobody notices... It isn't like we're the Broncos here.

jspchief
03-16-2005, 09:27 PM
Heh. If you can't beat 'em, change the rules...

The rule the Chiefs should be fighting is that ridiculous "in the grasp" rule. I realize you need to protect the QB, but how many times last year did Green squirm out of a tackle and make a great throw, only to have it called back because the play was blown dead for him being "in the grasp"? Meanwhile, they let guys like McNabb and Culpepper shrug off twice as many tackles, and never blow it dead. Call it consistently, or don't call it at all. Mobile QBs get a definate free pass on that BS rule.

C-Mac
03-16-2005, 10:46 PM
I do not like the idea of being able to review what happened in a play after a whistle has been blown. The reason I always called BS on the down by contact rule is that the guy would blow the whistle after the ball had changed hands and say down by contact. Does this also mean that when a guy is getting held up by 6 guys stripping at the ball that if the whistle blows and then he loses it that they can reverse that as well? What would be cool is if somehow they were able to put some electronics with the whistle that is integrated into the game tape so they could actually tell when the whistle was blown.

A whistle with a transmitter............Brilliant

I always thought that the ball and or the yard markers having a similar type of device that will notify by light or whistle that the ball actually passed the plane(plain).

A ball with a plane reflecting transmitter...... Brilliant

C-Mac
03-16-2005, 10:52 PM
McKay said a number of injuries came on non-contact plays last year and noted there is some concern that lighter shoes might be playing a role

What? Non-contact plays?
Every single football play I played in and watched, always had contact.

So what..like walking to the huddle, running a play in...what heck is up with that?

milkman
03-16-2005, 10:56 PM
I don't really care about all the changes in the rules, since half the officials are incompetent, or inconsistent.

Let's make the officials full time employees, and hold them accountable for blowing calls.

And while we're at it, let's test 'em for steroid use.
Maybe Ed Hochuli would finally get fired.

Nzoner
03-16-2005, 11:32 PM
half the officials are incompetent

And me too,I missed it.

Ultra Peanut
03-17-2005, 05:34 AM
"Those plays have been misunderstood," he said. "What we're considering would allow for a recovery if replay shows the ball came out before the play was down -- even if the whistle has blown."Dumb. If the whistle has blown, the play should end at that point. What should be done whenever there's a loose ball is let the play continue to completion with no whistle until one team clearly has possession, then have the refs assemble and discuss who gets it if the down by contact rule came into play. Have them make their decision, and then let the team that got the bad end of the call challenge if they'd like.

The college interference rule is also dumb. I'd like it if the NFL switched to college OT and college switched to NFL pass interference.

Ultra Peanut
03-17-2005, 05:35 AM
Heh. If you can't beat 'em, change the rules...

The rule the Chiefs should be fighting is that ridiculous "in the grasp" rule. I realize you need to protect the QB, but how many times last year did Green squirm out of a tackle and make a great throw, only to have it called back because the play was blown dead for him being "in the grasp"? Meanwhile, they let guys like McNabb and Culpepper shrug off twice as many tackles, and never blow it dead. Call it consistently, or don't call it at all. Mobile QBs get a definate free pass on that BS rule.Shit yeah.

jspchief
03-17-2005, 07:41 AM
Dumb. If the whistle has blown, the play should end at that point. What should be done whenever there's a loose ball is let the play continue to completion with no whistle until one team clearly has possession, then have the refs assemble and discuss who gets it if the down by contact rule came into play. Have them make their decision, and then let the team that got the bad end of the call challenge if they'd like.



The refs blow the whistle much too soon in a lot of these cases. If they weren't so busy trying to protect the players from an injured labia, they might actually let the guys play football.

WebGem
03-17-2005, 08:37 AM
The committee is also considering a proposal by the Kansas City Chiefs to change to the college rule on pass interference.

That mandates a maximum of 15 yards on defensive interference or a spot call if the penalty is less than 15 yards. In the NFL, the ball is spotted where the interference takes place or at the 1-yard-line if it is in the end zone.

The Chiefs' proposal includes one slight difference from the college rule: on a flagrant foul, the ball would still be spotted where the penalty took place. That would presumably eliminate players from fouling when they know they are beaten and taking a 15-yard penalty rather than one of 30 or 40 yards or more.
This must be our idea of signing a CB.