NFL Rule Change Proposals - Page 4

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."

DTLB58 · 03-27-2008, 10:34 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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTLB58

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.

#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

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.

**morphius** · 03-27-2008, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SithCeNtZ

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

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.

StcChief · 03-27-2008, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTLB58

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.

InChiefsHeaven · 03-27-2008, 11:52 AM

I think they should bring back the Drop Kick...

DTLB58 · 03-27-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefqueen

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

Discuss Thrower · 03-27-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amnorix

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by DTLB58

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!

03-27-2008, 08:07 AM
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $7883688	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: 22,391

03-27-2008, 11:52 AM	#53
InChiefsHeaven Rockin' yer FACE OFF! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Omaha, Nebraska Casino cash: $3894937	I think they should bring back the Drop Kick... __________________ We have a million reasons for failure, but not one excuse... Die Donks, DIE!! Holy Crap fellas!!! We did it!!! THREE TIMES!!!
Posts: 25,726

03-27-2008, 03:25 PM	#57
noa Band Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $1615453	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. __________________ Sometimes you eat the bear and sometimes, well, he eats you.
Posts: 8,302