More NFL Rule Changes

[dirk digler]

I actually like the changes made and it will make the decisions on the field alot easier.

NFL teams approved several rules changes (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3325273) at the league meeting today, most of which were an effort to make the rules easier to understand and enforce.


The biggest change is that the force out rule no longer exists. In the past, if a receiver jumped to catch a ball and was pushed out of bounds while he was in the air, officials had to make a judgment call to determine whether he would have come down in bounds. That rule, which many observers felt was enforced inconsistently, has been eliminated, and now it’s simple: If the receiver didn’t touch two feet or one of any other body part in bounds, it’s an incomplete pass.


Five-yard facemask penalties have also been eliminated. Serious face masks involving grabbing or twisting the player’s helmet will remain 15-yard penalties, and minor face masks involving a player accidentally grabbing the mask and immediately letting go will not be flagged at all.
Another rules change involves the opening coin toss, where the NFL will now adopt the college rule that allows the coach to defer his choice of kicking or receiving until the second half.


The league also made field goals on which the ball bounces off the goal post reviewable by instant replay. Last year Browns kicker Phil Dawson made a field goal that passed over the crossbar, bounced off the support post and went back into the field of play. The officials initially ruled the kick no good before correctly ruling it good. Last year they were not permitted to use replay to determine whether the kick was good; in the future they will be able to use it on such field goals.


The league also has changed two rules regarding fumbles: A legal forward handoff that is dropped is now a fumble, as is a direct snap from center that hits the ground before it is touched by the quarterback. In the past, the forward handoff would have been an incomplete pass and the botched snap would have been a false start.

[JBucc]

Heh, I just bumped the other one. I like the facemask thing now that I understand it. And I like all these changes.

[noa]

Looks like some good changes all around. At first I thought they were suggesting turning minor facemask penalties into 15 yarders, but I'm glad to see they just wanted to eliminate those altogether.

[Mecca]

Did they tell the Chiefs to get bent on the hair thing?

[DaFace]

So, on the force out rule, if a defender essentially upends a receiver and carries him out of bounds, it's now an incomplete pass?

[dirk digler]

Heh, I just bumped the other one. I like the facemask thing now that I understand it. And I like all these changes.

Yep. I actually like all these rules they make alot of sense and now uneducated NFL fans will be able to understand what is going on.

I always thought the force-out rule was stupid. IMO they need to undo the automatic first down for D illegal contact and holding

[stlchiefs]

Yep, definitely like all these. The facemask change is great now that we know they completely eliminated the 5 yard penalty. I think the fumble rules are logical as well.

[JBucc]

So, on the force out rule, if a defender essentially upends a receiver and carries him out of bounds, it's now an incomplete pass?
No, you can't carry a receiver.

[Rooster]

Now if we can just get the scumbags to cut their hair the NFL will be perfect.:evil:

[Demonpenz]

I like the reciver one. It rewards people playing physical. Before it almost looked like it was a bad play to go ahead and hit the reciever. I would yell don't hit him or they will call it complete if he was going out of bounds

[StcChief]

Now if we can just get the scumbags to cut their hair the NFL will be perfect.:evil:ditto. or sign a wiaver releasing NFL/players from liability on injury involving hair pulling

[Mecca]

Wait did you really just agree with his joke post about players with long hair being scumbags?

[dirk digler]

Did they tell the Chiefs to get bent on the hair thing?

Appear so. Also it appears they tabled the decision on reseeding the playoffs.

The NFL’s Competition Committee had proposed a change in the way the six playoff teams from each conference are seeded. Instead of guaranteeing all four division winners of at least one playoff home game, the proposal would have allowed a wild card team to host a first-round game if it finished the regular season with a better record than a division winner.
The thinking in some corners was that such a rule change would have created a greater incentive for teams to play hard in Week 17, when many of the best teams rest their best players, and games begin to look like exhibitions. But the proposal would have needed a three-fourths majority to be adopted, and well over one-fourth of the owners were skeptical about any rule change that would have made a division title less important.

[dirk digler]

Wait did you really just agree with his joke post about players with long hair being scumbags?

I always thought guys with long hairs look like girls. :D

[Rain Man]

Wait did you really just agree with his joke post about players with long hair being scumbags?


Have you ever known a guy with long hair who wasn't a scumbag?








:)

[ArrowheadHawk]

Have you ever known a guy with long hair who wasn't a scumbag?








:)http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:YZPMEwvJeF_fFM:http://www.newvideo.com/images/boxart/AAE77524-03.jpg

[DaFace]

Holy oversized picture, Batman!

(Imageshack has a resize function that would help.)

[ArrowheadHawk]

Holy oversized picture, Batman!

(Imageshack has a resize function that would help.)
I didn't realize it was that big. But I fixed it.

[Demonpenz]

Jesus was a decent guy and he had long hair

[ArrowheadHawk]

Jesus was a decent guy and he had long hair
rep.

[Direckshun]

God I hate eliminating the force-out rule.

The league should make ALL field goals reviewable -- a ball passing over an upright is a necessary situation that still can't be reviewed.

[ArrowheadHawk]

God I hate eliminating the force-out rule.

The league should make ALL field goals reviewable -- a ball passing over an upright is a necessary situation that still can't be reviewed.
I disagree. A ref can look straight up and see if it is good.

[dirk digler]

Have you ever known a guy with long hair who wasn't a scumbag?








:)

Zing

LMAO

[stlchiefs]

The league should make ALL field goals reviewable -- a ball passing over an upright is a necessary situation that still can't be reviewed.

I wondered about that as well. I guess it'll take another questionable freak field goal a few years now for the NFL to come back and revise the rule to allow review on all FGs. I don't like replay interrupting the game anymore than the next guy but being proactive in rule making just seems to make sense here. Why only allow review on FGs in such a limited circumstance?

[Rain Man]

Jesus was a decent guy and he had long hair

That's an urban myth created by hippie artists in the middle ages. Historical records show that Jesus had a flattop.

[Smed1065]

Hair on hold until May, IIRC

[stlchiefs]

I disagree. A ref can look straight up and see if it is good.

We used to think the same thing about a ball going through 2 poles. If it lands on the other side it went through, if it doesn't it did not go through. Then you have a game changing kick like Dawson's and the whole world spins upside down. Crazy things happen

[stlchiefs]

That's an urban myth created by hippie artists in the middle ages. Historical records show that Jesus had a flattop.

A middle eastern man with a flattop? He really was ahead of his time.

[ArrowheadHawk]

That's an urban myth created by hippie artists in the middle ages. Historical records show that Jesus had a flattop.
<!-- Content Title Here --> What does the Bible say about hair length?

<hr> <!-- Start Content Here --> http://www.gotquestions.org/altimages/hair-length.gif (http://www.gotquestions.org/Printer/hair-length-PF.html)

Question: "What does the Bible say about hair length? Do men have to have short hair, and do women have to have long hair?"

Answer: A passage that mentions hair length in the New Testament is 1 Corinthians 11:3-15. The Corinthian church was in the middle of a controversy about the roles of men and women and the proper order of authority within the church.

In the Corinthian society, women showed submission to their husbands by wearing a veil. It seems that some of the women in the church were discarding their veils, something that only pagan temple prostitutes or other rebellious women would do. For a woman to come to church without her veil would be dishonoring to her husband, as well as culturally confusing. By the same token, for a man to wear a veil or a turban or to somehow have his head covered during worship was not culturally acceptable in Corinth.

Paul appeals to biology to illustrate the appropriateness of following the cultural standards: women naturally have longer hair than men, and men are much more prone to baldness. That is, God created women with a “natural veil” and men with an “uncovered head.” If a woman spurns the mark of her submission (the veil), she may as well shave her head (verse 6). His point is that if the culture says a woman should not be bald (going without her natural covering), then why would she reject that same culture’s standard of wearing a veil (going without her cultural covering)?

For the man’s part, it is unnatural for him to have “long hair” (verse 14). His hair is naturally shorter (and thinner) than the woman’s. This corresponds to the Corinthian tradition of men not wearing a head covering during worship. Paul urges the church to conform to the generally held ideas of male and female appearance.

While hair length is not the main point of this passage of scripture, we glean the following applications from it: 1) We should adhere to the culturally accepted indicators of gender. Men should look like men, and women should look like women. God is not interested in nor does He accept “unisex.” 2) Don’t rebel against the culture just for the sake of rebelling, in the name of some sort of Christian “liberty.” It does matter how we present ourselves. 3) Women are to voluntarily place themselves under the authority of men in the church. 4) We should not reverse the God-ordained roles of men and women.

Our culture today does not use veils or head coverings to indicate submission to authority. The roles of men and women have not changed, but the way we symbolize those roles changes with the culture. Rather than establish legalistic standards of hair length, we must remember that the real issue is our heart condition, our individual response to the authority of God, His ordained order, and our choice to walk in submission to that authority. Men and women have different, God-ordained roles, and part of that difference is shown by their hair. A man's hair should look masculine. A woman's hair should look feminine.

http://www.gotquestions.org/hair-length.html

[Rain Man]

A middle eastern man with a flattop? He really was ahead of his time.

The hair thing tends to be overshadowed by, you know, the messiah stuff.

[Cntrygal]

wow!

Changes that make sense!

[Tits McGee]

The league also has changed two rules regarding fumbles: A legal forward handoff that is dropped is now a fumble, as is a direct snap from center that hits the ground before it is touched by the quarterback. In the past, the forward handoff would have been an incomplete pass and the botched snap would have been a false start.

I'm not a big fan of this change....

[KCChiefsMan]

so how will the force out rule work (or elimination of)? I mean, obviously the defender will not be able to just carry the WR out of bounds, but say a WR jumps up for a sideline catch...makes the catch while still up in the air and would have easily came down in bounds, will the defender be able to nail him while he was still in the air, causing the receiver to not get both feet in bounds? I kinda like that, physical defense is good! The offense has enough rules to help them out, bout time they favored the defense a little!

[007]

No, you can't carry a receiver.

I can't wait for the first player to test the rule though.

[Rudy tossed tigger's salad]

so the back of the endzone should be really easy to defend.

[keg in kc]

I heard the pushout rule on the radio after work, and I was surprised. That's a big change IMO.

[morphius]

I wish they would have fixed the 15 yard penalty for touching the QB's helmet, there should be a difference in touching versus hitting.

[SithCeNtZ]

I can't wait for the first player to test the rule though.

I don't think it is even possible to do. How far do you think a CB or LB could carry a WR/TE without them getting 2 feet in? 2 yards in a best case scenerio?

[007]

I don't think it is even possible to do. How far do you think a CB or LB could carry a WR/TE without them getting 2 feet in? 2 yards in a best case scenerio?

I don't disagree. Just sayin somebody will test it at some point.

[KcKing]

I like the changes... I always thought the pushed receiver is still inbounds rule was dumb anyway.

[C-Mac]

That's an urban myth created by hippie artists in the middle ages. Historical records show that Jesus had a flattop.

FWIW Your actually more accurate than you think. Only Nazirites were not to cut their hair or drink wine, and Jesus was not a Nazirite. So he no doubt had his hair neatly clipped like any other Jewish male. In fact the bible states that "if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him; but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her" (1 Corinthians 11:14-15) so it would seem a bit hypocritical for Jesus to have worn long hair.
:D

[Reerun_KC]

Did they tell the Chiefs to get bent on the hair thing?
I hope so, it sure makes Herm and Co, look like a bunch of faggot pussies....

The NFL should tell the Chiefs to man up and stop crying about everything...

[C-Mac]

I wish they would have fixed the 15 yard penalty for touching the QB's helmet, there should be a difference in touching versus hitting.
Agreed, also would have like to see something done on kickoffs and punts when players turn quickly, way too many
"block in the back" penalties.

[StcChief]

I disagree. A ref can look straight up and see if it is good.so how is he looking thru the crossbar up at the inside of an upright?

If the upright cylinder extends straight up?

a flood light inside top of each upright shooting straight up is perfect method.
turn on only on FG attempts

[C-Mac]

so how is he looking thru the crossbar up at the inside of an upright?

If the upright cylinder extends straight up?

a flood light inside top of each upright shooting straight up is perfect method.
turn on only on FG attempts

Yes and technically a simple little laser light on the inside of the diameter pointing up could work too, both are tricky on a sunny day.

[Mr. Laz]

Tennessee Titans (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/clubhouse?team=ten) coach Jeff Fisher said eliminating the force-out rule was approved unanimously and that it will help officiating. A receiver now must get two feet inbounds unless he actually is carried out of bounds by a defender after catching the ball.
how is this any different?

so now the ref has to determine if the WR was carried out of bounds instead of if he would of landed inbounds


the ref is still going to have to make a judgment call about how much effect the defender had on the receivers trajectory.

[Ugly Duck]

how is this any different?

so now the ref has to determine if the WR was carried out of bounds instead of if he would of landed inbounds


the ref is still going to have to make a judgment call about how much effect the defender had on the receivers trajectory.

Fisher might be wrong in his interpretation. I heard that the receiver must now get two feet inbounds.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9u7UngjpWio"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9u7UngjpWio" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Chief Roundup]

Did they tell the Chiefs to get bent on the hair thing?


they did what we all expected they tabled the issue for now until they get the input of the players association.

[alnorth]

how is this any different?

so now the ref has to determine if the WR was carried out of bounds instead of if he would of landed inbounds


the ref is still going to have to make a judgment call about how much effect the defender had on the receivers trajectory.

Being carried out would be blatantly obvious and rare. Kind of like a runner in baseball picking the ball up on a slow roller and throwing it out into the outfield. Everyone knows the runner would be out and possibly ejected, but you'd only see that in maybe pee-wee league.

If a receiver catches the ball in the air, and the defender lands a wicked hit that sends them landing out, its not a catch.

[milkman]

they did what we all expected they tabled the issue for now until they get the input of the players association.

I hope the union tells the league to go **** themselves and the league drops this stupid hair length discussion altogether.

Sometimes it's embarrassing to be a fan of this team when the organization is just so ****ing useless.