NFL Rule Change Proposals - Page 2

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."

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

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.

DTLB58 · 03-27-2008, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

See post #10

Now my rebutle, in post #17

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

**Bugeater** · 03-27-2008, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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.

**Bugeater** · 03-27-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoBo

It's still going to be a judgment call even if it is reviewable.

Yes.

03-27-2008, 08:07 AM
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $7813688	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: 22,396

03-27-2008, 09:17 AM	#16
Psyko Tek special teams Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mesa AZ Casino cash: $10015665	hell do away with all kickers no punting, no field goals make every series a four down situation __________________ Psyko Tek The keyboard has been drinking,
Posts: 12,018

03-27-2008, 09:29 AM	#19
Frazod WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $2585085	The most needed thing right now is expanding instant replay to include review of penalties. How often does some horseshit phantom penalty change a close game? Of course, I know these are the favorite tools of bought-off ref$, so I assume it will never happen.
Posts: 119,583

03-27-2008, 09:35 AM	#22
morphius World's finest morphius Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $6755027	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.
Posts: 25,987

03-27-2008, 09:39 AM	#24
DenverChief MVP Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Rocky Ford Casino cash: $5419867	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)
Posts: 16,236