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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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

Chiefnj2 · 03-27-2008, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

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.

DenverChief · 03-27-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTLB58

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

Brock · 03-27-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

...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.

patteeu · 03-27-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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

**mikeyis4dcats.** · 03-27-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

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

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

stlchiefs · 03-27-2008, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

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_vie...1&view=archive

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.

03-27-2008, 08:07 AM	Topic Starter
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $7704388	NFL Rule Change Proposals 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."
Posts: 22,410

03-27-2008, 08:15 AM	#2
JBucc MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Casino cash: $10004952	1-4 are ok. 5 I don't like.
Posts: 12,016

03-27-2008, 09:29 AM	#7
Frazod WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $1653385	The most needed thing right now is expanding instant replay to include review of penalties. How often does some horseshit phantom penalty change a close game? Of course, I know these are the favorite tools of bought-off ref$, so I assume it will never happen.
Posts: 119,838

03-27-2008, 08:18 AM	#11
stlchiefs Veteran Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: St. Loser, MO Casino cash: $10005674	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.
Posts: 4,160

03-27-2008, 09:07 AM	#15
DTLB58 DT CARD COLLECTOR Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: ManCave Casino cash: $10005837	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. __________________ 667 Different DT cards and counting
Posts: 7,574