Patriots Four Rule Proposals

[Amnorix]

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.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by alnorth

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.

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.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by MahiMike

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.

That's not a bad idea...

[temper11]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Totally safe.

What do you mean?

[MahiMike]

Originally Posted by hometeam

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.

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

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by temper11

What do you mean?

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

[temper11]

Originally Posted by MahiMike

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.

Better yet, just put a laser on the line to gain yard marker that would stretch across the field. If the laser touches the football, 1st down. If it passes to the other side... not a first down. Lasers on the ball will get damaged, take time to get it cleaned off, change the football itself in some way... Just put in on the line to gain marker. Easy. That way there is no chance that the true line to gain is somehow changed by the moving of the chains from the sideline to the ball.

Although there is a bit of suspense as they stretch that damn chain out that I enjoy.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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

The rule is not a problem. It's the right rule. It's the way it's officiated that's the problem. The 15 yard rule sucks.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by patteeu

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.

The fact that nearly everyone in the football world wants the goalposts extended and you are pretty much alone on this suggests otherwise, and kicks aren't going over the new goalpost, every time this controversy has flared up the past few years, 5 feet would have done it.

Your suggestion is dumb, and no one agrees with it.

edit: by the way, we do have a rule on this, we currently have the "partially in = good" standard for going over. Its not unclear, it just sucks. If that was acceptable, there would not have been a controversy.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

The rule is not a problem. It's the right rule. It's the way it's officiated that's the problem. The 15 yard rule sucks.

No, it's the wrong rule. When defensive PI is a play in the offensive playbook, the rule is flawed.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

No, it's the wrong rule. When defensive PI is a play in the offensive playbook, the rule is flawed.

That's a toughy because, either way, it becomes a tool.

If it's a spot foul, the offense puts it in the playbook as a low percentage play hoping to get lucky. If it's a 15 yarder, defensive players intentionally trip up the receiver on an obvious big play.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by ThaVirus

That's a toughy because, either way, it becomes a tool.

If it's a spot foul, the offense puts it in the playbook as a low percentage play hoping to get lucky. If it's a 15 yarder, defensive players intentionally trip up the receiver on an obvious big play.

Except that doesn't happen in college football. It's not at all like it is in the NFL. Teams don't design plays to draw PI penalties.

[temper11]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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

well.. my dad is bigger than your dad so there. What the f are you talking about? No one is banking anything on anything. No one can foresee how a game is going to shift in the last few minutes. That decision is not chickenshit it's just strategy. It's strategy that coaches have been making since it's inception and in my opinion, rectifying the momentary boredom of fans is not a good enough reason to fundamentally alter the strategy of the game.

It's like not allowing a pitcher in baseball to throw over to first because damn near every time the runner makes it back safely. Will it speed up the game? Sure, but it will also result in far more stolen bases, making it nearly impossible for the catcher to throw anyone out. Asterisks will start appearing in record books because all stolen base records prior to the rule change will get blown out of the water. All because people want the game to move along faster.

There needs to be a better reason to change the rules of a game than "I'm bored for 10 seconds".

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The fact that nearly everyone in the football world wants the goalposts extended and you are pretty much alone on this suggests otherwise, and kicks aren't going over the new goalpost, every time this controversy has flared up the past few years, 5 feet would have done it.

Your suggestion is dumb, and no one agrees with it.

You have no idea whether "nearly everyone in the football world" wants the goalposts extended. All you know is that a sufficient number of owners voted for it and that numerous commentators said they were for it after it was proposed. Even I said I don't have anything against it, so that doesn't really tell you much. You should stop making things up and you should stop using weak arguments like your appeal to popularity.

Originally Posted by alnorth

edit: by the way, we do have a rule on this, we currently have the "partially in = good" standard for going over. Its not unclear, it just sucks. If that was acceptable, there would not have been a controversy.

Which brings me back to my earlier comment, then. I don't see why there's any controversy at all. The official should be able to get it right every time. And given your opposition to changing rules and adding expense, leaving it alone would have been superior in that regard. Unless you were just making things up to throw garbage weight onto your argument again.

See you later alnorth. Now that we've come full circle and every one of your arguments from "spirit of the rule" to "new rule" and "added cost" turns out to be flawed, I think we're done here.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by temper11

well.. my dad is bigger than your dad so there. What the f are you talking about? No one is banking anything on anything. No one can foresee how a game is going to shift in the last few minutes. That decision is not chickenshit it's just strategy. It's strategy that coaches have been making since it's inception and in my opinion, rectifying the momentary boredom of fans is not a good enough reason to fundamentally alter the strategy of the game.

It's like not allowing a pitcher in baseball to throw over to first because damn near every time the runner makes it back safely. Will it speed up the game? Sure, but it will also result in far more stolen bases, making it nearly impossible for the catcher to throw anyone out. Asterisks will start appearing in record books because all stolen base records prior to the rule change will get blown out of the water. All because people want the game to move along faster.

There needs to be a better reason to change the rules of a game than "I'm bored for 10 seconds".

You completely missed the point. But by all means, don't get scared. Change is bad!

[temper11]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You completely missed the point. But by all means, don't get scared. Change is bad!

I'm still missing your point... surprisingly, you're cute little laughy icon didn't clear it up for me at all.

Why does everything with you need to boil down to insults. We are discussing a rule change in football. Because we disagree doesn't mean we need to be mortal enemies.