PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of the new NFL rules this year


greg63
08-08-2005, 09:50 PM
I wanted to get the Planets take on the new rules this season. Here they are:
Horse-collar style tackles are no longer allowed.
Back-to-back timeouts in order to freeze a kicker are no longer allowed. The timeout will not be granted, play will continue and the offending team will be given a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.
Each team is permitted two challenges to initiate Referee Replay reviews per game. If the challenge is upheld, no timeout will be charged. If a team uses both challenges and each is successfully upheld, they will be awarded one additional challenge.

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2005/08/06/river_falls_wrap_day_10/

I have mixed feelings. What do you think?

milkman
08-08-2005, 10:11 PM
I can live with the timeouts and challenge rules, but damn it, stop taking the defense out of the game!

unlurking
08-08-2005, 10:29 PM
Don't forget chop blocks away from the play.

greg63
08-09-2005, 07:43 AM
I can live with the timeouts and challenge rules, but damn it, stop taking the defense out of the game!

I agree with your take on the Defensive rule, but what is the big deal about how a team spends it's time outs. I thought that was up to the discretion of the head coach. If a kicker in the NFL can't kick it through the goal posts when called upon regardless of how many times they have to run on and off the field then they shouldn't be playing in the NFL.

Scaga
08-09-2005, 07:50 AM
Maybe they should just outlaw horse-collar tackles on the kickers?
:p

I like all of the new rules EXCEPT the hose-collar tackles. That is just stupid.

MOhillbilly
08-09-2005, 07:54 AM
the new tackle rule aint no good.

ROYC75
08-09-2005, 07:56 AM
There have been many injury's due to the horse collar tackle............ I see the point of it.

Do any of you want Priest,Larry, for tha matter any of our Chiefs players brought down that way, risking injury ?

Saulbadguy
08-09-2005, 07:58 AM
Protect your investment.

However, I think every "illegal tackle" penalty should be reviewed by the booth.

MOhillbilly
08-09-2005, 07:59 AM
There have been many injury's due to the horse collar tackle............ I see the point of it.

Do any of you want Priest,Larry, for tha matter any of our Chiefs players brought down that way, risking injury ?

tuff shit injuries are part of the game.

MOhillbilly
08-09-2005, 08:00 AM
Protect your investment.

However, I think every "illegal tackle" penalty should be reviewed by the booth.

and make the game go even slower?

KCTitus
08-09-2005, 08:02 AM
Do any of you want Priest,Larry, for tha matter any of our Chiefs players brought down that way, risking injury ?

Priest was...in that Denver game when he injured his hip.

ROYC75
08-09-2005, 08:04 AM
Priest was...in that Denver game when he injured his hip.

Just my point....

I don't remember anybody here saying, Hey, nice tackle. Many here was upset he got injured by it.

Take away that type of tackle and you don't get them anymore.

KCTitus
08-09-2005, 08:07 AM
I didnt think that a team could take back to back timeouts was already a rule. Maybe that's just on offense.

Coach
08-09-2005, 08:10 AM
Just my point....

I don't remember anybody here saying, Hey, nice tackle. Many here was upset he got injured by it.

Take away that type of tackle and you don't get them anymore.

Yup, but what is going to bother me is that, last night, there was a Bear that made a tackle aganist a Dolphin that looked like it was a horse collar tackle. However, if I understand it correctly, the rule specified that the defender cannot have his hands inside the shoulder pads, on the back of the neck area. The Bear tackler didn't even had his hands in, but more of like grabbing the jersey and tackling him down. Madden and Michaels mentioned something that it shouldn't have been a penalty, however, it was. I can see quite a few games that will be decided by that type of a rule.

Also it's difficult to avoid doing that, because the normal reaction for a defender to do, if he is trying to grab him from behind/sideways, is to grab the upper body area.

nmt1
08-09-2005, 08:11 AM
There have been many injury's due to the horse collar tackle............ I see the point of it.

Do any of you want Priest,Larry, for tha matter any of our Chiefs players brought down that way, risking injury ?

It's also how Kris Wilson was injured last preseason, that's what I heard anyway.

chief52
08-09-2005, 08:12 AM
"Back-to-back timeouts in order to freeze a kicker are no longer allowed. The timeout will not be granted, play will continue and the offending team will be given a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct."

I say fine if they do not want to grant a team back-to-back timeouts. Hey, it does nothing buy slow things down. But why penalize the team for trying to call a second time out? Someone forgets and tries to call a second timeout so they get a 15 yard penalty? That is stupid IMO. Just ignore their attempt to call a timeout as you would if they were out of timeouts. There is not reason to penalize them.

Demonpenz
08-09-2005, 08:13 AM
the horse tackle is going to still happen alot 1. it is an instinct play 2. its better to get a penalty than give up a td

StcChief
08-09-2005, 08:13 AM
and make the game go even slower?

What if the reviews add 10-15 minutes to game. If your that pressed for time tape/TIVO it

I'm in favor of the right call and if technology can help so be it.

chief52
08-09-2005, 08:16 AM
What if the reviews add 10-15 minutes to game. If your that pressed for time tape/TIVO it

I'm in favor of the right call and if technology can help so be it.

Slow it down more and take more breaks it may be some type of a good athletic event, but it would not be football. Football is played with emotion and momentum and was meant to be played in a continuous flow. I can see the obvious ones, but there are too many reviews at present.

MOhillbilly
08-09-2005, 08:24 AM
What if the reviews add 10-15 minutes to game. If your that pressed for time tape/TIVO it

I'm in favor of the right call and if technology can help so be it.

maybe you fail to see the strategy in gametime situations?

Lzen
08-09-2005, 08:29 AM
Each team is permitted two challenges to initiate Referee Replay reviews per game. If the challenge is upheld, no timeout will be charged. If a team uses both challenges and each is successfully upheld, they will be awarded one additional challenge.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, instead of having 2 challenges per half, they now only have 2 challenges per game?

Amnorix
08-09-2005, 08:51 AM
"Back-to-back timeouts in order to freeze a kicker are no longer allowed. The timeout will not be granted, play will continue and the offending team will be given a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct."

I say fine if they do not want to grant a team back-to-back timeouts. Hey, it does nothing buy slow things down. But why penalize the team for trying to call a second time out? Someone forgets and tries to call a second timeout so they get a 15 yard penalty? That is stupid IMO. Just ignore their attempt to call a timeout as you would if they were out of timeouts. There is not reason to penalize them.

You can blame the Patriots for this. The "old rule" was that the refs would just ignore the player if they tried to call a second timeout.

What the Patriots (Mike Vrabel in particular) would do is call TO to ice the kicker. Then, just as the guy is getting ready to kick, Vrabel would jump around, calling "T" with his hands, and yelling timeout at the top of his lungs.

This was deemed a distraction to the kicker, apparently, because some kickers didn't know the rule as well as the Patriots did.

So the third week of last season, the NFL (without using the rules committee or anything else) sent around a memo saying that trying to call a second timeout in a row would be an unsportsmanlike penalty for 15 yards.

The Pats were noticeably unhappy about midstream rules changes, but there wasn't much they could do about it.

So there ya go.

Nightfyre
08-09-2005, 09:02 AM
I think Icing the kicker is an important part of the game. I also think, sometimes, a horsecollar tackle is the only way to bring a player down. I agree with the other rules.

greg63
08-09-2005, 02:04 PM
the horse tackle is going to still happen alot 1. it is an instinct play 2. its better to get a penalty than give up a td

I agree it's going to happen. Every player straps on their pads and takes their chances when they walk out on the field. It's a physical sport, it's not basket weaving.

whoman69
08-09-2005, 02:08 PM
If they're going to continue the insanity and make it illegal for defenders to cover a receiver, then they haven't gone far enough. I guess when Peyton throws for 60 TDs this year, they might think about it. Then again, they won't care that the record book has become meaningless. Bring back the days when teams actually cheered louder for their defense.

greg63
08-09-2005, 02:13 PM
Maybe they should just outlaw horse-collar tackles on the kickers?
:p

I like all of the new rules EXCEPT the hose-collar tackles. That is just stupid.

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

greg63
08-09-2005, 02:36 PM
So if I'm understanding this correctly, instead of having 2 challenges per half, they now only have 2 challenges per game?

I can live with this rule; I think too many delays detracts from the game. While I'm, also, in favor of technology aiding the officials, within certain parameters, I also believe that the human element is a part of the game.

Calcountry
08-09-2005, 04:40 PM
I didnt think that a team could take back to back timeouts was already a rule. Maybe that's just on offense.Hey, if a team wants to save their timeouts for nothing better than calling them to ice a kicker, then I am fine with that.

That is almost like a victim, pus**fied rule that says, "wah waa thats not fair, don't be mean to my poor sensitive kicker hans from sudetenland. "

Calcountry
08-09-2005, 04:43 PM
You can blame the Patriots for this. The "old rule" was that the refs would just ignore the player if they tried to call a second timeout.

What the Patriots (Mike Vrabel in particular) would do is call TO to ice the kicker. Then, just as the guy is getting ready to kick, Vrabel would jump around, calling "T" with his hands, and yelling timeout at the top of his lungs.

This was deemed a distraction to the kicker, apparently, because some kickers didn't know the rule as well as the Patriots did.

So the third week of last season, the NFL (without using the rules committee or anything else) sent around a memo saying that trying to call a second timeout in a row would be an unsportsmanlike penalty for 15 yards.

The Pats were noticeably unhappy about midstream rules changes, but there wasn't much they could do about it.

So there ya go.Your Patriots players, coaches, and fans are ever so smart.

tk13
08-09-2005, 04:53 PM
I'm not exactly sure how defenders are going to stop someone on a breakaway from behind, but okay... I agree with demonpenz, you should just take the penalty instead of letting them run free.

Valiant
08-09-2005, 05:06 PM
There have been many injury's due to the horse collar tackle............ I see the point of it.

Do any of you want Priest,Larry, for tha matter any of our Chiefs players brought down that way, risking injury ?


But yet the allow the chop block, which over the years has hurt more players then the collar-tackle... At least they should be consistant worthless ****ers...

Brock
08-09-2005, 05:09 PM
Just my point....

I don't remember anybody here saying, Hey, nice tackle. Many here was upset he got injured by it.

Take away that type of tackle and you don't get them anymore.

Okay, so if the player gets past you, you just let him score.

Chiefs_Fan_n_64081
08-09-2005, 06:46 PM
*****Looking into the future*****

NFL rule changes for 2525

It has been decided that interference with the ball carrier in the
ND (no defense) lanes by way of reaching over the 4' cones that outline
this part of the field will no longer be tolerated.
Penalty for this infraction will be a 10 minute runoff and a loss of possession
for the offending team.
Many defensive players have objected to this citing that it is unfair, especially considering that these ND lanes already cover 40% of the playing field.
The leauge is aware of the backlash this is bound to create with the sport's most loyal followers, but feels it is necessary to provide more protection for the leauges most exciting players.

New to the leauge this year will be the addition of "time ins".The counterpart of
time outs, time ins can be used to start the game clock when signaled. Each team will have two time ins at their disposal.

Also of interest will be the expansion of the multi-quaterback-generator rule.
This year it will be allowed when a team has gained a signifigant lead for the backup QB's to come out onto the field with the starting QB and help throw passes to recievers herby increasing the chance for completions and thusly creating more scores.

greg63
08-09-2005, 07:05 PM
*****Looking into the future*****

NFL rule changes for 2525

It has been decided that interference with the ball carrier in the
ND (no defense) lanes by way of reaching over the 4' cones that outline
this part of the field will no longer be tolerated.
Penalty for this infraction will be a 10 minute runoff and a loss of possession
for the offending team.
Many defensive players have objected to this citing that it is unfair, especially considering that these ND lanes already cover 40% of the playing field.
The leauge is aware of the backlash this is bound to create with the sport's most loyal followers, but feels it is necessary to provide more protection for the leauges most exciting players.

New to the leauge this year will be the addition of "time ins".The counterpart of
time outs, time ins can be used to start the game clock when signaled. Each team will have two time ins at their disposal.

Also of interest will be the expansion of the multi-quaterback-generator rule.
This year it will be allowed when a team has gained a signifigant lead for the backup QB's to come out onto the field with the starting QB and help throw passes to recievers herby increasing the chance for completions and thusly creating more scores.

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

I don't doubt it!

Frazod
08-09-2005, 07:08 PM
I could do without the no horsecollar rule, but the rest are fine.

I particularly like the no back-to-back timeout during kicks. That's chickenshit.

greg63
08-09-2005, 07:24 PM
I could do without the no horsecollar rule, but the rest are fine.

I particularly like the no back-to-back timeout during kicks. That's chickenshit.

I agree with your opinion of the horsecoller rule. But I think it's wrong to regulate how a team utilizes it's time outs. Any kicker in the NFL that is wroth their pay should be able to perform in this situation. They have one job - kick the ball.

milkman
08-09-2005, 08:10 PM
Just my point....

I don't remember anybody here saying, Hey, nice tackle. Many here was upset he got injured by it.

Take away that type of tackle and you don't get them anymore.f

As far as I'm concerned, it was a nice tackle.

Why don't we just make the game flag football, and then make it illegal for defenders to pull the flag.

The NFL wants more scoring, just imagine the shootouts in the game with that rule.


Damn it you mother****ers, give me back my D!!!!! :cuss:

chief52
08-09-2005, 10:28 PM
You can blame the Patriots for this. The "old rule" was that the refs would just ignore the player if they tried to call a second timeout.

What the Patriots (Mike Vrabel in particular) would do is call TO to ice the kicker. Then, just as the guy is getting ready to kick, Vrabel would jump around, calling "T" with his hands, and yelling timeout at the top of his lungs.

This was deemed a distraction to the kicker, apparently, because some kickers didn't know the rule as well as the Patriots did.

So the third week of last season, the NFL (without using the rules committee or anything else) sent around a memo saying that trying to call a second timeout in a row would be an unsportsmanlike penalty for 15 yards.

The Pats were noticeably unhappy about midstream rules changes, but there wasn't much they could do about it.

So there ya go.

Thanks for the clarification. I do remember the Pats doing that, but had not idea it was part of the rule change. I agree with it now. Penalize them...

greg63
08-12-2005, 12:52 AM
Don't forget chop blocks away from the play.

I hadn't heard about this rule. :hmmm:
Does anyone else have an opinion about the new rules?

J Diddy
08-12-2005, 02:19 AM
I hadn't heard about this rule. :hmmm:
Does anyone else have an opinion about the new rules?

That they are indeed rules and they shall, indeed, rule.

greg63
08-12-2005, 07:14 AM
That they are indeed rules and they shall, indeed, rule.

For certain, you are correct sir.

greg63
08-12-2005, 04:36 PM
Why don't we just make the game flag football, and then make it illegal for defenders to pull the flag.

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

...or rush the QB, or make interceptions, or to come out on the field for that matter. I'm with you on this, I understand wanting to protect high dollar investments but there is always going to be a risk, and where exactly do we draw the line and say "enough already".