PDA

View Full Version : NFL Rule Change Proposals


Chiefnj2
03-27-2008, 08:07 AM
The following plan to be discussed next week:

1. Playoff Seeding. Each of the four division winners in each conference would earn postseason berths, but only the two division winners in each conference with the best records would get automatic home games. The division winners with the lower two records, plus the two wild-card teams, would compete for seeds three through six based on record.

- I like that.

2. Owners will vote on proposals to eliminate the force-out of a receiver, similar to the college game; it was called 15 times last season. And a force-out would be called only if a defender picked up an offensive player and carried him out of bounds.

- I'd vote to keep it the same.

3. The committee is proposing to include field goals in instant replay review.

- Is this really necessary?

4. Give teams the option of deferring to receive the ball in the second half on the coin toss.

- I don't care.

5. Eliminate the 5-yard minor face mask penalty, covering all facemask violations - twisting, turning or pulling - with a 15-yard penalty.

- I don't like. There are some unintentional non-flagrant face mask grabbing where players let go quickly.

Also there is the "Chiefs Whine Like Babies Rule to be considered":

"The committee wants to create a five- to seven-day dead period before the start of veteran free agency during which certified agents can negotiate but not sign contracts for their clients.

There would be no player visit or contact allowed with prospective new teams. The Kansas City Chiefs, among others, have complained that other teams have had contact with prospective free agents prior to the signing period."

JBucc
03-27-2008, 08:15 AM
1-4 are ok. 5 I don't like.

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 08:18 AM
The following plan to be discussed next week:

1. Playoff Seeding. Each of the four division winners in each conference would earn postseason berths, but only the two division winners in each conference with the best records would get automatic home games. The division winners with the lower two records, plus the two wild-card teams, would compete for seeds three through six based on record.

- I like that.



That sucks IMO it devalues division games...what incentive is there to win your division then? If you can make the playoffs @ 9-7 division winner or not, why would you want to win the division? I think the playoff format we have now is good, do not change it

stlchiefs
03-27-2008, 08:18 AM
I agree with all your responses re: the proposed rules.

It's unfortunate to see that the Chief's primary activity in free agency this offseason centered around Carl drafting the proposed language for this rule change.

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 08:20 AM
3. The committee is proposing to include field goals in instant replay review.

- Is this really necessary?



Sometimes I wonder about FG's that are "above" the FG posts being good or not :shrug:

Chiefnj2
03-27-2008, 08:47 AM
That sucks IMO it devalues division games...what incentive is there to win your division then? If you can make the playoffs @ 9-7 division winner or not, why would you want to win the division? I think the playoff format we have now is good, do not change it

The incentive is to win as many games possible and not just wrap up the division.

Frankie
03-27-2008, 08:52 AM
I think FGs of over 50 yards shoud count as 4 points.

mikeyis4dcats.
03-27-2008, 08:53 AM
Sometimes I wonder about FG's that are "above" the FG posts being good or not :shrug:

wasn't there a game last season where a review would have changed the validity of a field goal?

Amnorix
03-27-2008, 08:53 AM
I like the 5 yard "instant release" face mask penalty -- would not change that.

I approve of review for FGs. Remember the weird bounce in that Browns game?? Would've been terrible if that had been screwed up.

I'd also keep force outs, but I'm pretty ambivalent about it. Just don't throw high along the sidelines.

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 09:05 AM
The incentive is to win as many games possible and not just wrap up the division.

that is not an incentive i.e. reward

say for example the Chiefs (9-6) go into the final game of the season with the Broncos (9-6), for the AFC west title, either way either team gets into the playoffs (assume this is true regardless of other AFC variables) what incentive is there for either team to win the division? Why not just save your starters for the playoffs and play all the backups...which is the whole point behind this idea...the NFL wants meaningful week 16 and 17 games...if you are not going to be getting a home game what is the point of winning the division?

DTLB58
03-27-2008, 09:07 AM
1. I was going to say that I wanted this rule to stay the same, ie. keep the emphasis on division games but, I really think the best overall plan for the game and the league is to force teams to win as many games as possible instead of tanking one at the end of the season because they can't do any better in playoff seeding. My vote-Change.

2. This is such a judgement call the way it is now. Would the player have come down in bounds if the defender did not push him? If I remember right this is not currently a reviewable play, so do away with it. My vote-Change.

3. I for one think if we are going to have replay, then use it every way possible. My vote-Change. Side note to this, I would prefer Joe Montana's opinion in that there aren't any FG's allowed and we just punt or go for it.

4. I'm a bit confused on this one. If you win the coin toss and choose to kick to start the game dosen't that automatically mean you receive to start the second half? If I were a coach it would be my normal practice to receive to start the second half so I would want that option yes. My vote-Change.

5. There are accidental face mask where there is not twisting and turning involved. My vote-Stay the same.

DTLB58
03-27-2008, 09:12 AM
I think FGs of over 50 yards shoud count as 4 points.

No, You don't want to encourage teams to kick FG's. Hence, the rule change a while back where if you miss a FG outside what it is the 20 the team gets the ball from the spot not the line of scrimmage.

This isn't fantasy football :)

stlchiefs
03-27-2008, 09:14 AM
wasn't there a game last season where a review would have changed the validity of a field goal?

Phil Dawson's FG for the Brownies.

Not the best source, but I found it quick:
http://www.ravens24x7.com/column_view.php?cid=33&id=1981&view=archive

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 09:15 AM
1. I was going to say that I wanted this rule to stay the same, ie. keep the emphasis on division games but, I really think the best overall plan for the game and the league is to force teams to win as many games as possible instead of tanking one at the end of the season because they can't do any better in playoff seeding. My vote-Change.



See post #10

stlchiefs
03-27-2008, 09:15 AM
I think FGs of over 50 yards shoud count as 4 points.

Herm? Is that you?

Psyko Tek
03-27-2008, 09:17 AM
hell do away with all kickers
no punting, no field goals

make every series a four down situation

DTLB58
03-27-2008, 09:26 AM
that is not an incentive i.e. reward

say for example the Chiefs (9-6) go into the final game of the season with the Broncos (9-6), for the AFC west title, either way either team gets into the playoffs (assume this is true regardless of other AFC variables) what incentive is there for either team to win the division? Why not just save your starters for the playoffs and play all the backups...which is the whole point behind this idea...the NFL wants meaningful week 16 and 17 games...if you are not going to be getting a home game what is the point of winning the division?

In this scenario it's likely the winner of this game isn't going to get a home game but if the Chiefs won this game they would still have a lower seed than the Broncos. Thus, meaning you play a higher seed which is suppose to mean a better chance to win that first round game.

The emphasis would switch from not only winning your division but to win as many games as possible which in turn would turn out a better overall product during weeks 16 and 17 for the NFL.

DTLB58
03-27-2008, 09:28 AM
See post #10

Now my rebutle, in post #17 :D

Frazod
03-27-2008, 09:29 AM
The most needed thing right now is expanding instant replay to include review of penalties. How often does some horseshit phantom penalty change a close game?

Of course, I know these are the favorite tools of bought-off ref$, so I assume it will never happen.

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 09:30 AM
In this scenario it's likely the winner of this game isn't going to get a home game but if the Chiefs won this game they would still have a lower seed than the Broncos. Thus, meaning you play a higher seed which is suppose to mean a better chance to win that first round game.



WHAT?!? IF the Chiefs won the game they would have a higher seed but would still have to play on the road to a 11-5 WILD CARD team and the Broncos would play on the road...so once again what is the point of winning the division? even if you win 1 more game and win the division you still play on the road to the wild card team that did not win its division...there is no incentive to win your division

Bacon Cheeseburger
03-27-2008, 09:32 AM
I'd also keep force outs, but I'm pretty ambivalent about it. Just don't throw high along the sidelines.
You could use the same logic for an argument to get rid of the rule. I don't like the idea that a receiver can be credited with a catch without having any idea if he was going to get both feet in, most of the time I see that called it has been instances where there's no way in hell the player was coming down in bounds anyway. Worst rule ever IMO.

morphius
03-27-2008, 09:35 AM
1. I can see reasons for this, but I think I would still leave it the way it is now. Sometimes the division winner is a bad team in a bad division, other times it is a good team in a tough division with a lower record. Throwing in strength of schedule and the like would just make it complicated and annoying.

2. It vote to make it reviewable instead of getting rid of it. Unless you also want to change it to one foot like college as well.

3. This is such a rare happening that I can't see why not.

4. Is that really needed? I don't really care, but eh.

5. How about instead of getting rid of that rule, we fix the rule where brushing up against the QB's helmet is a 15 yard penalty and make it a 5 depending on how hard.

6. I don't know that it needs to be a week, but it doesn't really hurt the process either.

Bacon Cheeseburger
03-27-2008, 09:39 AM
2. It vote to make it reviewable instead of getting rid of it. Unless you also want to change it to one foot like college as well.
It's still going to be a judgment call even if it is reviewable.

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 09:39 AM
an example of this rule from last seasons standings:

#1 Pats -16-0 (East Div. Winner, Bye & Home Field Advantage)
#2 Colts - 13-3 (South Div. Winner Bye & at least 1 home game)
#3 Chargers - 11-5 (West Div. Winner & At least 1 home game)
#4 Jags - 11-5 (Wildcard & at least 1 home game)
#5 Titans - 10-6 (Wildcard & all road games)
#6 Steelers - 10-6 (North Div. Winners & all road games)

Chiefnj2
03-27-2008, 09:41 AM
WHAT?!? IF the Chiefs won the game they would have a higher seed but would still have to play on the road to a 11-5 WILD CARD team and the Broncos would play on the road...so once again what is the point of winning the division? even if you win 1 more game and win the division you still play on the road to the wild card team that did not win its division...there is no incentive to win your division

But the chances are that the Broncos wouldn't have even made the playoffs in you scenario.

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 09:43 AM
But the chances are that the Broncos wouldn't have even made the playoffs in you scenario.

see my post above

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 09:46 AM
an example of this rule from last seasons standings:

#1 Pats -16-0 (East Div. Winner, Bye & Home Field Advantage)
#2 Colts - 13-3 (South Div. Winner Bye & at least 1 home game)
#3 Chargers - 11-5 (West Div. Winner & At least 1 home game)
#4 Jags - 11-5 (Wildcard & at least 1 home game)
#5 Titans - 10-6 (Wildcard & all road games)
#6 Steelers - 10-6 (North Div. Winners & all road games)

This is incorrect too because JAX beat SD head 2 head for a tie breakers so it should look like

#1 Pats -16-0 (East Div. Winner, Bye & Home Field Advantage)
#2 Colts - 13-3 (South Div. Winner Bye & at least 1 home game)
#3 Jags - 11-5 (Wildcard & at least 1 home game)
#4 Chargers - 11-5 (West Div. Winner & At least 1 home game)
#5 Titans - 10-6 (Wildcard & all road games)
#6 Steelers - 10-6 (North Div. Winners & all road games

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 09:51 AM
This is incorrect too because JAX beat SD head 2 head for a tie breakers so it should look like

#1 Pats -16-0 (East Div. Winner, Bye & Home Field Advantage)
#2 Colts - 13-3 (South Div. Winner Bye & at least 1 home game)
#3 Jags - 11-5 (Wildcard & at least 1 home game)
#4 Chargers - 11-5 (West Div. Winner & At least 1 home game)
#5 Titans - 10-6 (Wildcard & all road games)
#6 Steelers - 10-6 (North Div. Winners & all road games

Now imagine the #6 seed scenario is your beloved Chiefs and how would you feel?

sedated
03-27-2008, 09:52 AM
I don't see why a 9-7 division winner (of a crappy division) "deserves" a home game over a 11-5 wild card (that got a better record in, most cases, a better division).

morphius
03-27-2008, 09:55 AM
It's still going to be a judgment call even if it is reviewable.
Yes.

SithCeNtZ
03-27-2008, 09:57 AM
Now imagine the #6 seed scenario is your beloved Chiefs and how would you feel?

On the other hand, what if your beloved chiefs were the Jags and had to go on the road in round 1 while a team that did worse than you got to host a playoff game?

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 10:02 AM
On the other hand, what if your beloved chiefs were the Jags and had to go on the road in round 1 while a team that did worse than you got to host a playoff game?
That is the whole point of the wildcard system....there has to be incentive to win your division ...why would a team that is going to go to the playoffs anyway and play on the road attempt to win the division? which is the whole "reasoning" behind this rule change...more wins

morphius
03-27-2008, 10:02 AM
I don't see why a 9-7 division winner (of a crappy division) "deserves" a home game over a 11-5 wild card (that got a better record in, most cases, a better division).
The difference in an 11-5 wild card and a 9-6 team division winner could be the difference of having 2 horrible teams instead of 3 solid teams in your division.

Bacon Cheeseburger
03-27-2008, 10:08 AM
Yes.

So how the hell is reviewing it going to help?

SithCeNtZ
03-27-2008, 10:10 AM
That is the whole point of the wildcard system....there has to be incentive to win your division ...why would a team that is going to go to the playoffs anyway and play on the road attempt to win the division? which is the whole "reasoning" behind this rule change...more wins

Because if you don't win the division you won't make the playoffs? If your team is in such bad shape that by winning the division you have no chance of having a home game then chances are by not winning the division you won't get a a wild card spot.

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 10:14 AM
Because if you don't win the division you won't make the playoffs? If your team is in such bad shape that by winning the division you have no chance of having a home game then chances are by not winning the division you won't get a a wild card spot.


What? so the Jags and the Tits didn't make the playoffs? I see:rolleyes:

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 10:14 AM
The difference in an 11-5 wild card and a 9-6 team division winner could be the difference of having 2 horrible teams instead of 3 solid teams in your division.

Bingo!

morphius
03-27-2008, 10:19 AM
So how the hell is reviewing it going to help?
Just because it was a judgement call, doesn't mean that the judgement should be above scrutiny.

SithCeNtZ
03-27-2008, 10:22 AM
What? so the Jags and the Tits didn't make the playoffs? I see:rolleyes:

If you are a wild card team like the Jags you would then want to win as many games as possible even if you couldn't win the division. In this case, the Jags would have been rewarded with a home game for their efforts. You keep saying in this new scenerio teams wouldn't have incentive to win their division, but why wouldn't they? You still get a higher seed by winning more games. I can't think of a scenerio with this rule change where you would be afforded the opportunity to take off 2 games like the Bucs did at the end of the season and not have it hurt you, which is the point of the rule, to prevent tanking games at the end.

acesn8s
03-27-2008, 10:24 AM
hell do away with all kickers
no punting, no field goals

make every series a four down situation
And get rid of our best player(Colquitt)?

Bacon Cheeseburger
03-27-2008, 10:25 AM
Just because it was a judgement call, doesn't mean that the judgement should be above scrutiny.

The problem is that you need "indisputable evidence" to overturn a call, you'll never be able to meet that criteria. There's no way it could be overturned.

StcChief
03-27-2008, 10:27 AM
Conference games should still have weight factor in tie breaker. I like the best records get higher seeds. Not just a division W for home game.

Review FG. Why not put lazer light in goal post to ensure Football doesn't go thru it. Turned light on during attempt.

SithCeNtZ
03-27-2008, 10:28 AM
The difference in an 11-5 wild card and a 9-6 team division winner could be the difference of having 2 horrible teams instead of 3 solid teams in your division.

On the other hand, your division could just be terrible like the NFC south was last year where no one deserved to host a home game. This rule doesn't cause more injustices in playoff seeding, it just changes how those might occur.

Lzen
03-27-2008, 10:29 AM
I don't see why a 9-7 division winner (of a crappy division) "deserves" a home game over a 11-5 wild card (that got a better record in, most cases, a better division).

I agree with this line of thinking.

Actually, I would prefer this:

Only 2 divisions per conference. 2 division winners get first round byes. 4 wild cards from each conference based on records.

sedated
03-27-2008, 10:32 AM
The difference in an 11-5 wild card and a 9-6 team division winner could be the difference of having 2 horrible teams instead of 3 solid teams in your division.

But if a 9-7 wins a division, then all the other teams in that division are 8-8 or worse. They played 6 games against below .500 teams.

An 11-5 wild card may have 2 horrible teams at the bottom, but has at least a 12-4 team. And this doesn't guarantee the other teams were "horrible", just worse than 11-5. That may be 4 bad games, but also 2 great games.




(* I know there could be ties, but this is the simplistic way of saying it)

DTLB58
03-27-2008, 10:34 AM
WHAT?!? IF the Chiefs won the game they would have a higher seed but would still have to play on the road to a 11-5 WILD CARD team and the Broncos would play on the road...so once again what is the point of winning the division? even if you win 1 more game and win the division you still play on the road to the wild card team that did not win its division...there is no incentive to win your division

No, your wrong, The Chiefs would have the lower seed between them and the Broncos. The lower # goes to the better team. The Chiefs would still play the team with the worse record between us and the Broncos.

I realize neither of the teams gets a home game, it's all about seeding. If you want a home game win some more freaking games. Plus, how many times in the past 5 years has the #1 seed from both conferences ended up against eachother in the SB? It's more about who gets hot at the end of the season and can win at home and on the road. Look at the Giants and the Steelers the last 2 out of 3 seasons. It's not all about home feild advantage anymore in the NFL.

DenverChief
03-27-2008, 10:39 AM
No, your wrong, The Chiefs would have the lower seed between them and the Broncos. The lower # goes to the better team. The Chiefs would still play the team with the worse record between us and the Broncos.

I realize neither of the teams gets a home game, it's all about seeding. If you want a home game win some more freaking games. Plus, how many times in the past 5 years has the #1 seed from both conferences ended up against eachother in the SB? It's more about who gets hot at the end of the season and can win at home and on the road. Look at the Giants and the Steelers the last 2 out of 3 seasons. It's not all about home feild advantage anymore in the NFL.

:spock: #1 is the highest seed then the Chiefs would get a higher seed for winning the game..you one of those potatoe people?

Change for the sake of change is silly

Brock
03-27-2008, 10:43 AM
...if you are not going to be getting a home game what is the point of winning the division?

This is the correct way to be looking at it.

morphius
03-27-2008, 10:45 AM
This rule doesn't cause more injustices in playoff seeding, it just changes how those might occur.

That was my point. And really, why should the 1 and 2 seed both be immune? It could very easily be that one of the wild cards could have a better record than the number 2 team.

patteeu
03-27-2008, 11:21 AM
That sucks IMO it devalues division games...what incentive is there to win your division then? If you can make the playoffs @ 9-7 division winner or not, why would you want to win the division? I think the playoff format we have now is good, do not change it

The thing this change does is it makes the games in week 17 more meaningful. There is no incentive here to not care about winning the division because there *is* an incentive to win as many games as you can and that's how you win divisions.

The flaw of this idea is that occasionally, you'll have a division with 2 good teams and 2 really weak teams and the 2nd place team from that division will benefit from playing 4 cupcake games whereas another division may have 4 strong teams that beat up on each other and the winner of that division ends up on the road for the playoffs as a result.

I tend to think the pro outweighs the con so I support this change with some reservation.

StcChief
03-27-2008, 11:29 AM
That was my point. And really, why should the 1 and 2 seed both be immune? It could very easily be that one of the wild cards could have a better record than the number 2 team.Agreed,

if the divisions are that far outta balance that a 2nd place team can be the #2 seed, their division winner is very likely #1 seed. baring some strange tiebreaker.

If all games count why not make every team in Tourney not NFC vs AFC at the end. Just the two best teams period.

Mix the Conferences for the tourney.

chiefqueen
03-27-2008, 11:39 AM
4. I'm a bit confused on this one. If you win the coin toss and choose to kick to start the game dosen't that automatically mean you receive to start the second half? If I were a coach it would be my normal practice to receive to start the second half so I would want that option yes. My vote-Change.



No, in the NFL if you win the coin toss, basically you've won the option for the first half and your opponent has the option to start the second half. So if win the coin toss and you elect to kick to start the game, you basically screwed and Jack Harry and Jason Whitlock start demanding Carl's head for letting anybody that dumb to be on the team. Oh wait, they want Carl's head already.

InChiefsHell
03-27-2008, 11:52 AM
I think they should bring back the Drop Kick...

DTLB58
03-27-2008, 11:58 AM
That was my point. And really, why should the 1 and 2 seed both be immune? It could very easily be that one of the wild cards could have a better record than the number 2 team.

I agree with this, why restrict it? Open it up to make everyone play all 17 weeks full bore.

DTLB58
03-27-2008, 12:01 PM
No, in the NFL if you win the coin toss, basically you've won the option for the first half and your opponent has the option to start the second half. So if win the coin toss and you elect to kick to start the game, you basically screwed and Jack Harry and Jason Whitlock start demanding Carl's head for letting anybody that dumb to be on the team. Oh wait, they want Carl's head already.

Ok, gotcha, thanks for the clarification :D

Discuss Thrower
03-27-2008, 03:08 PM
I think they should bring back the Drop Kick...

It's still on the books, the problem is the ball is too angular and field surfaces have changed. Though hell, if they force teams to use a slicker K-Ball for FGs and kick-offs, why not bring back a 19th Century rugby ball for Drop Kicks.

noa
03-27-2008, 03:25 PM
I would like to see them get rid of the force out unless you are picked up and carried out. I think the defender should be able to do everything within his power, short of picking you up or interfering, to keep you from catching the ball.
As for the FG review, they should definitely do that because it came up last year.
I really hope one day they change the rules to create a review official so you don't have the guy on the field going to the booth to make the decision. That just wastes time.

BigMeatballDave
03-27-2008, 04:51 PM
2. Owners will vote on proposals to eliminate the force-out of a receiver, similar to the college game; it was called 15 times last season. And a force-out would be called only if a defender picked up an offensive player and carried him out of bounds.

- I'd vote to keep it the same.

3. The committee is proposing to include field goals in instant replay review.

- Is this really necessary?

2. I HATE the force-out rule. Change it. Its too damn subjective.
3. Ask the Browns how important a FG review is...

HemiEd
03-27-2008, 05:06 PM
I like the 5 yard "instant release" face mask penalty -- would not change that.

I approve of review for FGs. Remember the weird bounce in that Browns game?? Would've been terrible if that had been screwed up.

I'd also keep force outs, but I'm pretty ambivalent about it. Just don't throw high along the sidelines.

You saved me the trouble of typing all of this, 100% agree.

HemiEd
03-27-2008, 05:13 PM
No, You don't want to encourage teams to kick FG's. Hence, the rule change a while back where if you miss a FG outside what it is the 20 the team gets the ball from the spot not the line of scrimmage.

This isn't fantasy football :)

WTF!? I thought you were a Chiefs fan? We should hope they make FGs count as 8 points!

HemiEd
03-27-2008, 05:34 PM
hell do away with all kickers
no punting, no field goals

make every series a four down situation

Brilliant when the Chiefs MVP is a Punter! What are you guys thinking?

a1na2
03-27-2008, 05:55 PM
The rule changes I'd be interested in seeing would have to do with instant replays.

If the officials on the field missed it the first time they may be inclined to be more critical of what it might take to overturn the play. In saying that I feel that the officials in the booth, who I think are senior officials and those that are well versed in the rules, should do the review and tell the officials on the field what the decision is.

I also think that limiting the replays for the bench is wrong. If a play is botched by the officials the teams should not suffer. I know the time issue is what they are concerned with but it doesn't bother me if a game lasts 3 hours or 5 hours, I like watching football.

morphius
03-27-2008, 06:16 PM
I really hope one day they change the rules to create a review official so you don't have the guy on the field going to the booth to make the decision. That just wastes time.

Yup, this has always been a pet peeve of mine. What a waste of time the current review system is. I know they want the head guy on the field to be responsible for everything, but damn, talk about bringing a game to a complete halt. It is odd that Hockey has no issue with leaving it to a couple people up in the box, but in the NFL they have to wait for the guys up in the booth to pick the best angles for the head ref to see so that he is only under the hood for X seconds. When in that amount of time they could have already decided.

DTLB58
04-01-2008, 02:28 PM
Clayton was just on NFL Live and said he thought the re-seeding of the playoff teams will NOT happen. Mentioned all four AFC North teams are against it plus the Donkies.

He thinks the 5 yard face mask penalty will go away and they will all be 15 yarders.

stlchiefs
04-01-2008, 02:30 PM
He thinks the 5 yard face mask penalty will go away and they will all be 15 yarders.

WEAK. There are some that are just not worth a penalty, let alone a 15 yarder.

ClevelandBronco
04-01-2008, 02:51 PM
WEAK. There are some (face masks) that are just not worth a penalty, let alone a 15 yarder.

Agreed. And if they're all 15 yarders, there's no incentive to let go and hope for the incidental call.

If you accidentally get some mask, grab on and rip the guy's head off.

StcChief
04-01-2008, 02:59 PM
hell do away with all kickers
no punting, no field goals

make every series a four down situation
let's take the 'FOOT' outta Football.

Rain Man
04-01-2008, 04:30 PM
Which of these passed?

And by the way, I like the Chiefs' proposal. You know that tampering is going on. Why not cool it down a little bit so the player tells the agent, "Y'know, while we're waiting, why don't we schedule a trip to [insert city here] just to see what they have to say."

And on the force-out, let's think outside the box and not have any kind of force outs. Wherever the ball carrier hits ground, that's the outcome. If a defender wants to catch him in mid-air and try to carry him from the hash marks, go for it, and it's up to the offensive linemen to hustle down and knock them down. That would add some fun.

As a bit of trivia, in the days of primordial football, a "touchdown" was called that because the ball had to be touched down in the end zone. That's why you see those old films of players running into the end zone and then bending over and touching the ball to the turf. The rule was that if a tackler was on the guy as he went in, the play wasn't over until the ballcarrier touched the ball to the turf. At that point, the tackler could still prevent a touchdown, and the rule was that only the guys who were touching him when he entered the end zone could keep fighting to prevent the touchdown. (I'm not sure how the defensive player won. I think it was if the ball carrier finally conceded.)

Apparently, this rule came into question at one point when a ball carrier went in and landed on his back with the ball on his chest. A larger defender (or maybe two) was on top of him, and they battled for some inordinate amount of time (30+ minutes if I remember right) in which the ball carrier was pinned and couldn't touch the ball down, and yet wouldn't concede.

DTLB58
04-01-2008, 04:36 PM
WEAK. There are some that are just not worth a penalty, let alone a 15 yarder.

I agree

Adept Havelock
04-01-2008, 04:42 PM
I think they should bring back the Drop Kick...

1) Playoff format, I like it..as long as division games plays a role in tie-breakers.

2) Keep the force-out rule.

3) I'm OK with allowing replay on FG. I really like stlchiefs notion of a laser on the goalpost.

4) Indifferent

5) Keep the face-mask rules the way they are.

6) I'm OK with the "Chiefs Whine" rule.

I think they should bring back the Drop Kick...
Only if they bring back the original Flying Wedge (http://www.the-game.org/history-flyingwedge.htm) as well. :fire:

KurtCobain
04-01-2008, 05:01 PM
As a bit of trivia, in the days of primordial football, a "touchdown" was called that because the ball had to be touched down in the end zone. That's why you see those old films of players running into the end zone and then bending over and touching the ball to the turf. The rule was that if a tackler was on the guy as he went in, the play wasn't over until the ballcarrier touched the ball to the turf. At that point, the tackler could still prevent a touchdown, and the rule was that only the guys who were touching him when he entered the end zone could keep fighting to prevent the touchdown. (I'm not sure how the defensive player won. I think it was if the ball carrier finally conceded.)

Apparently, this rule came into question at one point when a ball carrier went in and landed on his back with the ball on his chest. A larger defender (or maybe two) was on top of him, and they battled for some inordinate amount of time (30+ minutes if I remember right) in which the ball carrier was pinned and couldn't touch the ball down, and yet wouldn't concede.

n

JBucc
04-01-2008, 05:48 PM
According to kffl (http://www.kffl.com/gnews.php?id=460941), stiff arms to the face mask would also be a 15 yard penalty on the offense.

chief52
04-01-2008, 08:41 PM
I am definitely in favor of changing the "force out " rule to match that of college. If the receiver goes up in the air and the DB drives him out of bounds the DB has made a great play. Reward him for it...incomplete. This takes all the judgment out of it. It is cut and dry. Land in bound...complete. Land out of bounds...incomplete.

Trying to determine where a receiver would have come down if he had not been contacted is just way to difficult and can not be reviewed because it is a judgment call. Change the rule and you could use the instant replay to determine whether is was a catch or not. Did the receiver come down in bounds or out of bounds would be the only question.

tk13
04-01-2008, 09:02 PM
I still don't like the seeding rule. I know there are still injustices either way, but given the choice of which fault you're forced to take, I'd rather give the home game to a team who beat their division rivals over a wild card team who beat up a weak schedule. I'd rather the division rivalry games be more important than week 16 and 17. Unless it's something insane like the Chiefs two years ago, more people are gonna remember "Hey, remember that FG we hit against the Broncos to win the division" ten years ago over "Hey man! Remember when we won in week 16 against that NFC West team to clinch the 4 seed in the playoffs!"

Rausch
04-01-2008, 09:04 PM
I understand that injuries are already a concern but the XFL kickoff was brilliant. While the presentation was garbage the NFL should have learned from the few bits of success it did have...

chief52
04-01-2008, 09:07 PM
How did the XFL handle kick-offs?

Rausch
04-01-2008, 09:10 PM
How did the XFL handle kick-offs?

I'd say a scrum.

"Instead of a pre-game coin toss, XFL officials put the ball on the ground and let a player from each team scramble for it to determine who received the kickoff option, which led to the first XFL injury. This type of "coin-toss" has since been referred to as the "injury zone.""

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:RMXPwHhEQLsJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFL+XFL+KICKOFF&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari

chief52
04-01-2008, 09:12 PM
I'd say a scrum.

"Instead of a pre-game coin toss, XFL officials put the ball on the ground and let a player from each team scramble for it to determine who received the kickoff option, which led to the first XFL injury. This type of "coin-toss" has since been referred to as the "injury zone.""

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:RMXPwHhEQLsJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XFL+XFL+KICKOFF&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari

Damn, I do remember that :) ROFL Can not say I liked it...but remember it now.

Rausch
04-01-2008, 09:15 PM
Damn, I do remember that :) ROFL Can not say I liked it...but remember it now.

I liked it.

"Luck is erased from the word go. Pick the guy on the team that wants it more and play like you want it more."

:)

JBucc
04-02-2008, 02:34 PM
Just to clarify on the facemask rule change, because I think many like myself thought that any touching of the facemask would be 15 yards. What they actually did was just eliminate the 5 yarders, so just touching a facemask or grabbing and quickly letting go won't be a penalty at all.

Frankie
04-03-2008, 09:02 AM
Just to clarify on the facemask rule change, because I think many like myself thought that any touching of the facemask would be 15 yards. What they actually did was just eliminate the 5 yarders, so just touching a facemask or grabbing and quickly letting go won't be a penalty at all.

I don't like the rule change here. It encourages players (especially in Denver uniform) to push the envelope. kinda like Denver's O-line does with their "almost" chop blocks. I bet facemask-related injuries will go up.