Patriots Four Rule Proposals
 

The Patriots submitted four rules proposals for discussion at next week's NFL owners' meetings.

1. Goal posts extended an additional 5 feet above the cross bar. "The reasoning of this proposal is that definitive rulings cannot be made on many field goal tries that cross over the top of the goal post."

2. Make the extra point more challenging by making the line of scrimmage the 25-yard line. "In order to make the point after a more competitive play."

3. Place fixed cameras on all boundary lines -- sideline, end line, end zone. "To supplement the TV cameras and to guarantee coverage of those lines for replay, no matter where the TV cameras are located."

4. Coaches can challenge any officials' decision other than scoring plays. "To make more extensive use of the replay system."

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-...rule-proposals


Discuss.

I'm cool with the first 3.

First two are excellent. 3rd is good. 4th?? Meh

As Pats reporter Mike Reiss points out, the first one (taller goal posts) may have been triggered by the controversial end of the 2012 AFCCG. Ravens go on to win the SB...


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HpRq8S3nTkA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



I'm ok with 2, which was discussed elsewhere on here.

I think 3 is freaking OBVIOUS. HELLO!!

4 is fine with me also.


Not that I'm a Pats homer or anything, but all of these just seem to make alot of sense.

i'm good with them all.

defensive PI and Offensive Holding infuriate me with their lack of consistency.

The real issue is that sometimes you can get some weird results regarding plays. Everything ultimately boils down to a judgment call. Why not let it be reviewable on replay? It's all still limited to the same number of call challenges the coaches get now.

1 and 3 are no-brainers to me. I could see the excitement of number 2 but don't think it'll happen anytime soon and number 4 I like but don't think it will happen. There are already auto reviews of turnovers, scoring plays and anything in the final 2 minutes of a half/ overtime. Throw in the coaches challenges and assuming that they won them all there is a ton of replays in play.

I don't think either will be effected by any of these proposed rules. Those are just difficult plays to officiate, especially in real time.

Certainly better than anything Carl Peterson ever dreamed up of asking for.

Wouldn't the refs raise all hell on proposal #4?

I agree with #1 wholeheartedly though.

Im ok with all of them except for extra points. I wish they would leave that one alone.

The first three should be no brainers. The fourth will face competition.

Nah, make the play challenging at least.

#4 would extend games by an hour, no thanks.

But why? It's not a play. There is literally nothing the defense can do to affect it in any way, no matter how good they are or what strategy they use. There isn't a more boring play in all of sports. It's not remotely competitive, and sports is a competition.

It's basically like having free throws from RIGHT in front of the basket. Want to dunk it? Sure, go ahead. Lay it up? Ok. What the heck is the point of that?

The extra camera thing is probably just a way for them to get rid of all those extra cameras they have been using all these years.

No, SAME NUMBER of challenges is the key. Right now there are all kinds of arbitrary rules on what is and isn't challenge-able.

They're NOT saying "challenge anything at will", they're saying use the challenges they ALREADY have on ANYTHING, rather than having a bunch of stuff off-limits.

proposed 24 team play off.

No, it's an angle thing. BB has talked about it. In some games, because there is no camera along the sidelines, it's very hard to determine if the guy was out of bounds, because the angle affects it. Same for goal line stuff. Some games you have that great goal line angle. Other times you don't, and it makes replay review almost worthless.

Number 2 would be a giant change in how the game is played. I don't see them doing that without years of debate. Everything else is procedural to see if the game is played within the rules.

I would like to point out that if the 1st rule was in effect when the pats lost to the ravens that that point wouldn't have been good because it would have bounced off the upright rather than being good going over it. Seems like putting cameras or even lasers on the top of that would cure that problem.

They shouldn't. If they get the call right in the first place it's something that doesn't have any impact on the game.

No it wont, coaches will get the same 2 challenges. Hell, if anything there will be less time spent discussing with the officials whats reviewable and whats not~

Got no problem with any of the four.

#5 Centralize Replay reviews - so that each is made by a person that didn't make the original call. Human nature to not want to admit mistakes. Make a central league review location with access to all cameras for each game. Head league official is there with others to approve all review calls. No more rule mistakes.

I just feel like it IS a play, guys DO miss from time to time, the defense CAN do something to stop them. Sure its very, extremely rare. But, its always been like this, and is the reason why you count on 7 when you score. I feel like its messing with a core game component that has determined scores/records/margins of victory for so long.

When you move it back, it means 2 field goals are even closer to a TD in value, and I don't like that.

99.6% success rate. Don't think any other "play" in sports has such a success rate. Would be shocked if the 0.4% failures are anything other than bad snaps, bad holds, or kickers somehow shanking it that bad, and NOT anything the defense did or didn't do.

In all seriousness, I'd rather they just get rid of the PAT than keep it as is. Award 7 points and give the option to "go for 2", which means you end up with either 6 or 8 points. The X minutes per game it would save would be better than wasting time on it...

It's just NOT a competitive play. Sports are about competition, and what it is now is a waste of time.

Of course the Patriots want to pass a rule allowing more cameras.

I'm good with all four.

1. I don't have a problem with it, but with an official standing under each upright, I don't see why it's necessary. They should be able to make the call every time even when the ball is higher than the upright.

2. I'd rather see them narrow the uprights to impact both extra points and field goals, but otherwise I'm OK with it.

3. Sounds good.

4. I'm against replay on judgment calls unless the guy making the replay call is the same official who made the judgment call in the first place. I like limiting replay to objective rulings with clear evidence required to overturn. If there are any objective calls that aren't currently reviewable, I'd agree with making them reviewable.

No Team Left Behind

I bet that change comes sooner rather than later. And I would imagine they would rather have the longer point after tries rather than just doing away with the play. I like the laser idea.

KC will still find a way to not win every year.

1. Yes. I like tall things.

2. No. There are better solutions.

3. Yes, as long as it can be done without impaling players.

4. No. Challenging holding calls and stuff will get boring fast.

I love the first 3. 4th is meh.

They only have a limited number of challenges regardless of type.

Right, I hadnt considered that important distinction.

#5. These rules shall not apply if they should inconvenience Thomas Brady or William Bilicheck or any other various and sundry part of the Patriots in any manner.

#6. A two point conversion shall be worth three points if the scoring player either runs or catches the ball while riding a tricycle.

I would say something about illegal picks, but Seattle showed how to push that shit in

1-3, absolute yes

4? Not in a million years.

I like them all but to me the 20 makes sense for a kick. Same as a touchback. Why 25, seems odd?

What people should do is first understand what is and is not an illegal pick.

Folks on this site have shown little ability to discern a legal rub/crossing route and an illegal pick play.

I like it if they can challenge dpi calls. Most should be reversed to no call or offsetting penalties.

To me, and correct me if I'm wrong as I very well might be, an illegal pick is when a player runs a route that is aimed exclusively at hitting a defender with the goal of taking him out. Is she right?

I don't think that they should or will be able to challenge penalties. As shitty as that is.

We ran them for flag. you have to learn them and how to defend them. They are all pick plays. Just well disguised.

No, it's when he actively blocks, or picks, a defender.

If guys are just running routes it's "incidental'.

That's how it's called, and they still let guys get away with actively picking players (Reid does this all the time actually).

They are not all ILLEGAL pick plays though.

Proposal to increase height of goal posts by 5 feet has passed.

http://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-t...itch-priceless

Video here:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-networ...-extended-PATs



Love or hate BB, I thought just getting an inside look at how they conduct those meetings etc. was worth two minutes of time.

ALL great points. Nice job Pats.

How can people possibly say NO to #4?

How many times have the Chiefs been seriously burned by phantom PI calls?


Pass Interference rules ruin football.

Results of the four rule proposals:




ORLANDO, Fla. -- A recap of how things fared with the Patriots' four rule proposals at the NFL annual meeting:

1. Goal posts extended an additional 5 feet above the cross bar. "The reasoning of this proposal is that definitive rulings cannot be made on many field goal tries that cross over the top of the goal post." -- PASSED

2. Make the extra point more challenging by making the line of scrimmage the 25-yard line. "In order to make the point after a more competitive play." -- TABLED (will be experimented with in preseason)

3. Place fixed cameras on all boundary lines -- sideline, end line, end zone. "To supplement the TV cameras and to guarantee coverage of those lines for replay, no matter where the TV cameras are located." -- TABLED

4. Coaches can challenge any officials' decision other than scoring plays. "To make more extensive use of the replay system." -- REJECTED


http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-e...medium=twitter

Remember that the rule regarding replay review won't change the pass interference rules, and that if it's not clear and indisputable, the call won't be overturned.

But it would make the call reviewable, along with everything else. Unfortunately rejected for now, but I suspect a few years down the road they will revisit this and eventually it will pass.

Not passing #3 seems really, really stupid. Why wouldn't you want a good angle to determine if the ball went over the goal line? Ridiculous.

Defensive PI being a spot foul is the #1 problem with pro football.

**** the refs.

IMO, the NFL needs full-time refs who make a base salary plus incentives. The incentives escalate the better job they do according to a arbitrator who reviews their performance. If they routinely **** up, or make egregious, game-altering errors, they need to be fired post-haste. Way too many excuses for officials' incompetence.

Agreed. I could go with greater of spot or 20 yards, which is more than any other foul, but having it just be a spot foul just sucks.

College is what, 15 yards regardless?

I believe college is spot or 15 yards, whichever is greater.

The way the NFL rules have it, the defensive PI penalty is actually an offensive TOOL. They know they can get it called so they run low-percentage plays designed specifically to draw it. That should NEVER happen.

#4 would be fine if they use the same amount of challenges. For instance, what if an obvious pass interference call wasn't called? Currently that cannot be challenged but in this, it could.

Yeah, the proposal was to keep the number of challenges the way it is now but make all plays reviewable.

The problem is when the ball flies right over the post. That ball should have hit the upright, and there is no way to know if it would have deflected in or deflected out. This is also why some of those wacky ideas some people had (cameras on top pointing up, laser beams, etc) don't work, the ball should have hit the post.

FG was from a week 3 game. Pats lost the title game by 15.

Yeah, dumb. Been asking this for years.

Then a better rule change would be to define whether the ball has to be completely inside or partially inside the post as it sails over the top. Personally, if the ball flies right over the top of the vertical post, I don't think teams have much reason to complain about the call whichever way it goes.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-h...ks-extra-point

I'm glad they are going to experiment with the PAT in preseason. It was too much to expect them to make a huge change to the game in 2014 without years of discussion, but at least it looks like we'll begin having that discussion.

I can wait till 2015 or 2016 to settle on a PAT solution that almost everyone agrees they can live with.

No, that would not be better, that is a dumb suggestion. You only need to add 5 feet of hollow steel tube, done. No new rules, no additional costs, no controversy, and everyone would be happy with the result.

Also, the ball hitting the goalpost is far more exciting than having it vaguely go over and no one being sure about the call of an old dude with cateracts.

I like all of them except #2. I think they should just leave the extra point alone. It's supposed to be automatic. It's supposed to have a super high percentage of success. This is why it is so painful when teams go for 2 and then fail. They basically took that point off the board by not just kicking the field goal. That lost point often comes back to play big at the end of the game.

this.

Thanks for your input. I'm not too impressed with it though.

You don't think kickers can kick the ball 5 feet higher and produce the same result? BTW, extending the goal post *is* a new rule and an additional cost.

this too.

Totally safe.

and this...

Since they have not been kicking it more than 5 feet higher, your first argument is moot, they have been barely going over. If we someday develop superkickers who can routinely launch it over the new height, we can deal with it then.

Your 2nd point is dumb. If you want to argue about nit-picky technicalities that no one cares about, have at it. It is, effectively, not a new rule, and not an added cost.

Going back to your suggestion, the reason why your suggestion is dumb is because it departs from the spirit of the rules. A rule saying it must be all the way in is dumb because we allow field goals that deflect in, and won't accept removing that. A rule saying if its partially in its good is dumb because then to be consistent we should allow any "field goal" that bounces off the post.

I don't have much problem with the spot foul, but would like it to be reviewable. I'd also like the rule enhanced that if the offensive player pushes off to gain separation after 5 yards, that any defensive PI after that to that player is negated. That way when they review it, and the CB grabs the WR that is pushing off they have to review the entire play. I saw way too many WR's push off well before the ball was thrown to gain separation last year for huge gains. Especially in Denver, though I remember Bowe getting away with a pretty big one as well.

How about we return football to a game played by men?

There is no XP.

You get the ball at the 2 and you HAVE to run it.

You get 2 pts or no pts...

I like them all. Also, it's 2014 and we're still using chains by guys running from the sidelines. Let's put a chip at both points of the football and use a laser to determine 1St down.

Your argument is laughable. There's nothing sacrosanct about the "spirit of the rules" here. There is literally no valid reason why they can't have the deflection rule when the goal post is hit and the "all in" or "partially in" rule when the ball sails above. There's also no reason they can't go with the 5 extra feet alternative either, but it is a new rule and it does create new expense and it is subject to the same problem the current rule has when the kick goes over the new, extended post. I prefer the former, but I'm not going to mimic you and take a huge, idiotic stand against the latter.

That's not a bad idea...

What do you mean?

It's funny how it's called FOOTball and they're trying to take all kicks out. PUNTball? Herm would approve.

Banking whether or not you win on a PAT being automatic is chickenshit, play not to lose football...