NFL Owners Meeting: Rules Changes

[Amnorix]

So as I understand it, so far the NFL owners have decided the following:

1. rejected the "everything is reviewable" on replay suggestion.

2. adopted a rule change (suggested by Miami) eliminating peel back blocks. Such a block (then legal) resulted in the Texans' Cushing getting his ACL torn. Now it's a 15 yard penalty.

3. adopted a rule allowing an NFL official in a booth to stop action on the field and communicate with an official to remove a player who is exhibiting a medical concern such as concussion symptoms.

4. tabled for review/analysis a proposal to install cameras along sidelines and the goal line to improve angles for replay reviews. The NFL has cited cost as a major concern to adopting this proposal. As Belichick said last year "maybe we could have a car wash. Or a bake sale."

5. Made a slight tweak to the rules regarding completing a catch.

Ever since an apparent Calvin Johnson touchdown was ruled an incomplete pass in 2010, there has been confusion about what constitutes a catch. At the time, the NFL upheld its interpretation that a receiver must not only complete the catch, but he must also make a football move afterward while still in possession of the football. On Monday, the competition committee changed the language to say a pass-catcher needs establish himself as a runner after gaining possession of the ball. Dean Blandino, the NFL's supervisor of officials, believes this language change will clear up the confusion.

6. Players are now prohibited from pushing teammates in connection with trying to block a punt.

7. Defenseless receivers are now protected as such immediately following an interception. My assumption on this is that under the old rule, if the ball was intercepted, someone else could "block" receivers into oblivion. No more.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Meanwhile, it looks like there is a very significant chance that the PAT rules will be changed. After lively discussion, the owners tabled it for a month, but it seems there is a pretty high degree of interest in effectuating some change. Proposals on the table include:

1. move the PAT back to the 15. If a team goes for 2, then it's still at the 2.

2. Move going for 2 up to the 1 yard line. Some other bright team suggested moving it up to the 1-1/2 yard line. (seriously? )

3. someone has suggested eliminating the PAT altogether, so now teams would have to go for 2.

I havent' heard anything about it in several weeks, so I assume the Colts' ridiculous proposal -- where teams that successfully convert a 2 point play would then be able to kick a PAT from somewhere (the 30?) has been discarded as absurd.

In any event, it seems like there is a pretty good chance that SOMETHING will change in the upcoming season.

If any change is made, it should be moving the xp back. Taking out a fundamental part of the game purely for convenience is just stupid.

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

If any change is made, it should be moving the xp back. Taking out a fundamental part of the game purely for convenience is just stupid.

I thought narrowing the goal posts would be more challenging...it would also impact FG's outside of XP range.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by KCTitus

I thought narrowing the goal posts would be more challenging...it would also impact FG's outside of XP range.

I like that too.

[Amnorix]

Today's MMQB:


Post-touchdown could feature three new ways of scoring.

Last year, in a general session at an NFL meeting, the league’s 32 teams agreed—almost unanimously—that the point after touchdown was passé. Had to go. Too automatic. And so eight days ago, when the competition committee gathered in Phoenix to go over potential rule changes for the 2015 season, the committee was stuck on the PAT fix. There was nothing the group thought it could sell that would get the required 24 votes from the teams. (A rule change needs a three-quarter vote to pass.) Find a compromise, the committee was told; the league can’t go another year with 99.6 percent extra-point efficiency—the league average for the past three years.

So on Tuesday, each team had a chance to express opinions on what the new rule should be. Thirty of 32 teams said they wanted the PAT to change, as teams, one by one, had a chance to advance their own solutions. But the opinions on what the new rule should be “were all over the map,” one competition committee member told me in Phoenix. “That’s the problem now. No one can agree, and now we have to come up with a compromise that’ll get 24 votes in May.”
This is the most likely compromise to be advanced, and the most likely way the league will amend how teams can score after a touchdown:


* Teams will have a choice whether to go for one or two points after a touchdown, from different distances.

* If the offensive team chooses to kick for one point, the scrimmage line will move from the 2-yard-line to the 15-yard line, making it a 32- or 33-yard attempt.

* If the offensive team chooses to go for two points, the scrimmage line will be either the 1-and-a half- or 2-yard line. There was much debate about making it the 1, the 1-and-a-half or the 2. The feeling about putting it on the 1 was that it could turn into too much of a scrum/push-the-pile play, or a fluky puncture-the-goal-line-with-the-ball-and-bring-it-back play by the quarterback. Putting it at the 1-and-a-half or leaving it at the 2 would increase the chances of a real football play with some drama.

* The defensive team would be able to score two points by either blocking the PAT and returning it downfield to the end zone, or by intercepting the two-point attempt and running it back, or recovering a fumble on the two-point play and returning it all the way.


Again, that’s not certain. Anytime you ask 24 teams to agree on anything, there’s a chance it won’t happen. But if 30 of 32 teams agree that the PAT is broken, there’s a good chance they’d agree to change some form of the rule. And what I’ve laid out is the most likely scenario to be passed in May, during the next league meeting.

There always will be those who don’t want the scoring system to change, because of tradition, or the attitude that football’s not broken, so why fix it? But the PAT is broken. The current system of scoring was invented by the lords of college football in 1912—six points for a touchdown, one for an extra point, two for a safety, three for a field goal—with the two-point conversion added by the NFL in 1994. Now the PAT cries out to be fixed. It’s simply not a competitive play anymore. Fifteen teams have not missed a PAT this decade. Tennessee hasn’t missed one since 2005, Kansas City and San Francisco since 2006. The Patriots and Broncos, combined, are 436 for 436 since 2011. Doing nothing would be the mistake.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/30/extra-...nge-nfl-draft/

[tomahawk kid]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Today's MMQB:


Post-touchdown could feature three new ways of scoring.

Last year, in a general session at an NFL meeting, the league’s 32 teams agreed—almost unanimously—that the point after touchdown was passé. Had to go. Too automatic. And so eight days ago, when the competition committee gathered in Phoenix to go over potential rule changes for the 2015 season, the committee was stuck on the PAT fix. There was nothing the group thought it could sell that would get the required 24 votes from the teams. (A rule change needs a three-quarter vote to pass.) Find a compromise, the committee was told; the league can’t go another year with 99.6 percent extra-point efficiency—the league average for the past three years.

So on Tuesday, each team had a chance to express opinions on what the new rule should be. Thirty of 32 teams said they wanted the PAT to change, as teams, one by one, had a chance to advance their own solutions. But the opinions on what the new rule should be “were all over the map,” one competition committee member told me in Phoenix. “That’s the problem now. No one can agree, and now we have to come up with a compromise that’ll get 24 votes in May.”
This is the most likely compromise to be advanced, and the most likely way the league will amend how teams can score after a touchdown:


* Teams will have a choice whether to go for one or two points after a touchdown, from different distances.

* If the offensive team chooses to kick for one point, the scrimmage line will move from the 2-yard-line to the 15-yard line, making it a 32- or 33-yard attempt.

* If the offensive team chooses to go for two points, the scrimmage line will be either the 1-and-a half- or 2-yard line. There was much debate about making it the 1, the 1-and-a-half or the 2. The feeling about putting it on the 1 was that it could turn into too much of a scrum/push-the-pile play, or a fluky puncture-the-goal-line-with-the-ball-and-bring-it-back play by the quarterback. Putting it at the 1-and-a-half or leaving it at the 2 would increase the chances of a real football play with some drama.

* The defensive team would be able to score two points by either blocking the PAT and returning it downfield to the end zone, or by intercepting the two-point attempt and running it back, or recovering a fumble on the two-point play and returning it all the way.


Again, that’s not certain. Anytime you ask 24 teams to agree on anything, there’s a chance it won’t happen. But if 30 of 32 teams agree that the PAT is broken, there’s a good chance they’d agree to change some form of the rule. And what I’ve laid out is the most likely scenario to be passed in May, during the next league meeting.

There always will be those who don’t want the scoring system to change, because of tradition, or the attitude that football’s not broken, so why fix it? But the PAT is broken. The current system of scoring was invented by the lords of college football in 1912—six points for a touchdown, one for an extra point, two for a safety, three for a field goal—with the two-point conversion added by the NFL in 1994. Now the PAT cries out to be fixed. It’s simply not a competitive play anymore. Fifteen teams have not missed a PAT this decade. Tennessee hasn’t missed one since 2005, Kansas City and San Francisco since 2006. The Patriots and Broncos, combined, are 436 for 436 since 2011. Doing nothing would be the mistake.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/30/extra-...nge-nfl-draft/

If they're hell bent and determined to change it - I'd rather approach it like this as opposed to eliminating the PAT altogether.

[morphius]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Today's MMQB:

* The defensive team would be able to score two points by either blocking the PAT and returning it downfield to the end zone, or by intercepting the two-point attempt and running it back, or recovering a fumble on the two-point play and returning it all the way.

Now that one I love!

[Pasta Little Brioni]

The game flow is fine the way it is. Stop tinkering with shit.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball

The game flow is fine the way it is. Stop tinkering with shit.

It makes no sense to me to just keep a rule invented in 1912 around in 2015 just because. The PAT is not a competitive play. 15 teams have not missed a single PAT in 10 years. What is the point of the play? This is a sport. It's the equivalent of having a penalty shot be on an empty net. Or allowing free throws from anywhere on the floor the shooter wants, and allowing dunking. So useless, so easy, so stupid, it shouldn't be allowed.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

So that One TD continues to beat two FGs. Maybe move the goal posts closer since kickers are getting so accurate.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Dicky McElephant

How is that any safer? You're not stopping the brain from slamming against the skull.

I think the skull usually has to hit something hard to make the brain run into it, though, other than maybe some whiplash scenarios. Plus, I think you won't have many knee injuries if everyone is wearing bubbles, because you can't really make contact with the knee. They would be reduced to non-contact injuries.

I want to see our guys wearing these in 2015.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball

So that One TD continues to beat two FGs. Maybe move the goal posts closer since kickers are getting so accurate.

They have discussed that but rejected it so far. Too radical.

[Mojo Jojo]

Allow the defense to score on a failed PAT is a rule change that has been needed for years. I've seen it change the outcome in college football games.

[alnorth]

I'm fine with this compromise. 15 yard line for PAT, and possibly make the 2-point conversion very slightly easier.

Teams will still usually make the extra point, but a 32-yarder would be just difficult enough to make it interesting. All those countless extra point kicks you see that get badly shanked but still good, and you chuckle while thinking "whew, good thing that was from the 2", well now those are gonna be missed.

[Psyko Tek]

On Monday, the competition committee changed the language to say a pass-catcher needs establish himself as a runner after gaining possession of the ball.

**** that