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-patriots/post/_/id/4760482/patriots-make-4-rule-proposals


Discuss.

[KC native]

I'm cool with the first 3.

[Why Not?]

First two are excellent. 3rd is good. 4th?? Meh

[Amnorix]

As Pats reporter Mike Reiss points out, the first one (taller goal posts) may have been triggered by the controversial end of the 2012 AFCCG. Ravens go on to win the SB...


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HpRq8S3nTkA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



I'm ok with 2, which was discussed elsewhere on here.

I think 3 is freaking OBVIOUS. HELLO!!

4 is fine with me also.


Not that I'm a Pats homer or anything, but all of these just seem to make alot of sense.

[Dayze]

i'm good with them all.

defensive PI and Offensive Holding infuriate me with their lack of consistency.

[Amnorix]

First two are excellent. 3rd is good. 4th?? Meh


The real issue is that sometimes you can get some weird results regarding plays. Everything ultimately boils down to a judgment call. Why not let it be reviewable on replay? It's all still limited to the same number of call challenges the coaches get now.

[J Diddy]

1 and 3 are no-brainers to me. I could see the excitement of number 2 but don't think it'll happen anytime soon and number 4 I like but don't think it will happen. There are already auto reviews of turnovers, scoring plays and anything in the final 2 minutes of a half/ overtime. Throw in the coaches challenges and assuming that they won them all there is a ton of replays in play.

[Amnorix]

i'm good with them all.

defensive PI and Offensive Holding infuriate me with their lack of consistency.


I don't think either will be effected by any of these proposed rules. Those are just difficult plays to officiate, especially in real time.

[Bowser]

Certainly better than anything Carl Peterson ever dreamed up of asking for.

[Discuss Thrower]

Wouldn't the refs raise all hell on proposal #4?

I agree with #1 wholeheartedly though.

[hometeam]

Im ok with all of them except for extra points. I wish they would leave that one alone.

[Bowser]

The first three should be no brainers. The fourth will face competition.

[Bowser]

Im ok with all of them except for extra points. I wish they would leave that one alone.

Nah, make the play challenging at least.

[Easy 6]

#4 would extend games by an hour, no thanks.

[Amnorix]

Im ok with all of them except for extra points. I wish they would leave that one alone.


But why? It's not a play. There is literally nothing the defense can do to affect it in any way, no matter how good they are or what strategy they use. There isn't a more boring play in all of sports. It's not remotely competitive, and sports is a competition.

It's basically like having free throws from RIGHT in front of the basket. Want to dunk it? Sure, go ahead. Lay it up? Ok. What the heck is the point of that?

[CaliforniaChief]

The extra camera thing is probably just a way for them to get rid of all those extra cameras they have been using all these years.

[Amnorix]

#4 would extend games by an hour, no thanks.


No, SAME NUMBER of challenges is the key. Right now there are all kinds of arbitrary rules on what is and isn't challenge-able.

They're NOT saying "challenge anything at will", they're saying use the challenges they ALREADY have on ANYTHING, rather than having a bunch of stuff off-limits.

[Dayze]

Certainly better than anything Carl Peterson ever dreamed up of asking for.

proposed 24 team play off.

[Amnorix]

The extra camera thing is probably just a way for them to get rid of all those extra cameras they have been using all these years.


No, it's an angle thing. BB has talked about it. In some games, because there is no camera along the sidelines, it's very hard to determine if the guy was out of bounds, because the angle affects it. Same for goal line stuff. Some games you have that great goal line angle. Other times you don't, and it makes replay review almost worthless.

[J Diddy]

The first three should be no brainers. The fourth will face competition.

Number 2 would be a giant change in how the game is played. I don't see them doing that without years of debate. Everything else is procedural to see if the game is played within the rules.

I would like to point out that if the 1st rule was in effect when the pats lost to the ravens that that point wouldn't have been good because it would have bounced off the upright rather than being good going over it. Seems like putting cameras or even lasers on the top of that would cure that problem.

[J Diddy]

Wouldn't the refs raise all hell on proposal #4?

I agree with #1 wholeheartedly though.
They shouldn't. If they get the call right in the first place it's something that doesn't have any impact on the game.

[hometeam]

#4 would extend games by an hour, no thanks.

No it wont, coaches will get the same 2 challenges. Hell, if anything there will be less time spent discussing with the officials whats reviewable and whats not~

[BlackHelicopters]

Got no problem with any of the four.

[Mr. Laz]

#5 Centralize Replay reviews - so that each is made by a person that didn't make the original call. Human nature to not want to admit mistakes. Make a central league review location with access to all cameras for each game. Head league official is there with others to approve all review calls. No more rule mistakes.

[hometeam]

But why? It's not a play. There is literally nothing the defense can do to affect it in any way, no matter how good they are or what strategy they use. There isn't a more boring play in all of sports. It's not remotely competitive, and sports is a competition.

It's basically like having free throws from RIGHT in front of the basket. Want to dunk it? Sure, go ahead. Lay it up? Ok. What the heck is the point of that?

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.

[Amnorix]

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.


99.6% success rate. Don't think any other "play" in sports has such a success rate. Would be shocked if the 0.4% failures are anything other than bad snaps, bad holds, or kickers somehow shanking it that bad, and NOT anything the defense did or didn't do.

In all seriousness, I'd rather they just get rid of the PAT than keep it as is. Award 7 points and give the option to "go for 2", which means you end up with either 6 or 8 points. The X minutes per game it would save would be better than wasting time on it...

It's just NOT a competitive play. Sports are about competition, and what it is now is a waste of time.

[Strongside]

Of course the Patriots want to pass a rule allowing more cameras.

[Mojo Jojo]

I'm good with all four.

[patteeu]

1. Goal posts extended an additional 5 feet above the cross bar.

2. Make the extra point more challenging by making the line of scrimmage the 25-yard line.

3. Place fixed cameras on all boundary lines

4. Coaches can challenge any officials' decision other than scoring plays.

1. I don't have a problem with it, but with an official standing under each upright, I don't see why it's necessary. They should be able to make the call every time even when the ball is higher than the upright.

2. I'd rather see them narrow the uprights to impact both extra points and field goals, but otherwise I'm OK with it.

3. Sounds good.

4. I'm against replay on judgment calls unless the guy making the replay call is the same official who made the judgment call in the first place. I like limiting replay to objective rulings with clear evidence required to overturn. If there are any objective calls that aren't currently reviewable, I'd agree with making them reviewable.

[Bowser]

proposed 24 team play off.No Team Left Behind

Number 2 would be a giant change in how the game is played. I don't see them doing that without years of debate. Everything else is procedural to see if the game is played within the rules.

I would like to point out that if the 1st rule was in effect when the pats lost to the ravens that that point wouldn't have been good because it would have bounced off the upright rather than being good going over it. Seems like putting cameras or even lasers on the top of that would cure that problem.I bet that change comes sooner rather than later. And I would imagine they would rather have the longer point after tries rather than just doing away with the play. I like the laser idea.

[HoneyBadger]

proposed 24 team play off.

KC will still find a way to not win every year.

[Rain Man]

1. Yes. I like tall things.

2. No. There are better solutions.

3. Yes, as long as it can be done without impaling players.

4. No. Challenging holding calls and stuff will get boring fast.

[Simplicity]

I love the first 3. 4th is meh.

[Mr. Laz]

1. Yes. I like tall things.

2. No. There are better solutions.

3. Yes, as long as it can be done without impaling players.

4. No. Challenging holding calls and stuff will get boring fast.

They only have a limited number of challenges regardless of type.

[Easy 6]

No, SAME NUMBER of challenges is the key. Right now there are all kinds of arbitrary rules on what is and isn't challenge-able.

They're NOT saying "challenge anything at will", they're saying use the challenges they ALREADY have on ANYTHING, rather than having a bunch of stuff off-limits.

Right, I hadnt considered that important distinction.

[Jiu Jitsu Jon]

#5. These rules shall not apply if they should inconvenience Thomas Brady or William Bilicheck or any other various and sundry part of the Patriots in any manner.

#6. A two point conversion shall be worth three points if the scoring player either runs or catches the ball while riding a tricycle.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

I would say something about illegal picks, but Seattle showed how to push that shit in

[Three7s]

1-3, absolute yes

4? Not in a million years.

[Dave Lane]

I like them all but to me the 20 makes sense for a kick. Same as a touchback. Why 25, seems odd?

[WhiteWhale]

I would say something about illegal picks, but Seattle showed how to push that shit in

What people should do is first understand what is and is not an illegal pick.

Folks on this site have shown little ability to discern a legal rub/crossing route and an illegal pick play.

[Valiant]

1 and 3 are no-brainers to me. I could see the excitement of number 2 but don't think it'll happen anytime soon and number 4 I like but don't think it will happen. There are already auto reviews of turnovers, scoring plays and anything in the final 2 minutes of a half/ overtime. Throw in the coaches challenges and assuming that they won them all there is a ton of replays in play.

I like it if they can challenge dpi calls. Most should be reversed to no call or offsetting penalties.

[J Diddy]

What people should do is first understand what is and is not an illegal pick.

Folks on this site have shown little ability to discern a legal rub/crossing route and an illegal pick play.
To me, and correct me if I'm wrong as I very well might be, an illegal pick is when a player runs a route that is aimed exclusively at hitting a defender with the goal of taking him out. Is she right?

[J Diddy]

I like it if they can challenge dpi calls. Most should be reversed to no call or offsetting penalties.

I don't think that they should or will be able to challenge penalties. As shitty as that is.

[Valiant]

What people should do is first understand what is and is not an illegal pick.

Folks on this site have shown little ability to discern a legal rub/crossing route and an illegal pick play.

We ran them for flag. you have to learn them and how to defend them. They are all pick plays. Just well disguised.

[WhiteWhale]

To me, and correct me if I'm wrong as I very well might be, an illegal pick is when a player runs a route that is aimed exclusively at hitting a defender with the goal of taking him out. Is she right?

No, it's when he actively blocks, or picks, a defender.

If guys are just running routes it's "incidental'.

That's how it's called, and they still let guys get away with actively picking players (Reid does this all the time actually).

[WhiteWhale]

We ran them for flag. you have to learn them and how to defend them. They are all pick plays. Just well disguised.

They are not all ILLEGAL pick plays though.

[Amnorix]

Proposal to increase height of goal posts by 5 feet has passed.

[Amnorix]

ORLANDO -- Bill Belichick doesn’t do much to veil his loathing for bureaucratic BS.

Breakfast interviews and smiling pictures with all the fellas who are trying to beat your football team are the very definition of happy horsehockey he likes to avoid.

But at his core, he’s a guy who owes a lot to professional football and -- if he wants the game to be as good as it should be -- he has to play by the rules of the game. And this week, that meant going in front of the NFL’s Competition Committee to pitch his rules change proposals.

NFL.com shared his appeal for a tweak to the extra point.

His “Hey, haven’t you guys noticed that it’s a useless play?” tone oozes, and he works in a drive-by on legislation enacted to make trying to block kicks more difficult.

“I personally feel that we’ve also made it virtually illegal to block a kick,” Belichick intoned. “We can’t hit the center, we can’t overload, we can’t push, we can’t jump, we can’t land on anybody so it’s very, very difficult to competitively play the play.”

In the background, you can see Redskins president Bruce Allen reveling in Belichick’s toneless browbeating.

Enjoy.

http://www.csnne.com/blog/patriots-talk/video-belichick%E2%80%99s-pat-pitch-priceless

Video here:

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/0ap2000000337015/Belichick-pitches-extended-PATs



Love or hate BB, I thought just getting an inside look at how they conduct those meetings etc. was worth two minutes of time.

[Molitoth]

ALL great points. Nice job Pats.

[Molitoth]

How can people possibly say NO to #4?

How many times have the Chiefs been seriously burned by phantom PI calls?


Pass Interference rules ruin football.

[Amnorix]

Results of the four rule proposals:




ORLANDO, Fla. -- A recap of how things fared with the Patriots' four rule proposals at the NFL annual meeting:

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." -- PASSED

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." -- TABLED (will be experimented with in preseason)

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." -- TABLED

4. Coaches can challenge any officials' decision other than scoring plays. "To make more extensive use of the replay system." -- REJECTED


http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4760771/recapping-results-of-pats-proposals?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Amnorix]

How can people possibly say NO to #4?

How many times have the Chiefs been seriously burned by phantom PI calls?


Pass Interference rules ruin football.


Remember that the rule regarding replay review won't change the pass interference rules, and that if it's not clear and indisputable, the call won't be overturned.

But it would make the call reviewable, along with everything else. Unfortunately rejected for now, but I suspect a few years down the road they will revisit this and eventually it will pass.

[Amnorix]

Not passing #3 seems really, really stupid. Why wouldn't you want a good angle to determine if the ball went over the goal line? Ridiculous.

[htismaqe]

How can people possibly say NO to #4?

How many times have the Chiefs been seriously burned by phantom PI calls?


Pass Interference rules ruin football.

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

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Wouldn't the refs raise all hell on proposal #4?

I agree with #1 wholeheartedly though.

Fuck the refs.

IMO, the NFL needs full-time refs who make a base salary plus incentives. The incentives escalate the better job they do according to a arbitrator who reviews their performance. If they routinely fuck up, or make egregious, game-altering errors, they need to be fired post-haste. Way too many excuses for officials' incompetence.

[Amnorix]

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


Agreed. I could go with greater of spot or 20 yards, which is more than any other foul, but having it just be a spot foul just sucks.

College is what, 15 yards regardless?

[htismaqe]

Agreed. I could go with greater of spot or 20 yards, which is more than any other foul, but having it just be a spot foul just sucks.

College is what, 15 yards regardless?

I believe college is spot or 15 yards, whichever is greater.

The way the NFL rules have it, the defensive PI penalty is actually an offensive TOOL. They know they can get it called so they run low-percentage plays designed specifically to draw it. That should NEVER happen.

[Marco Polo]

#4 would be fine if they use the same amount of challenges. For instance, what if an obvious pass interference call wasn't called? Currently that cannot be challenged but in this, it could.

[htismaqe]

#4 would be fine if they use the same amount of challenges. For instance, what if an obvious pass interference call wasn't called? Currently that cannot be challenged but in this, it could.

Yeah, the proposal was to keep the number of challenges the way it is now but make all plays reviewable.

[alnorth]

1. I don't have a problem with it, but with an official standing under each upright, I don't see why it's necessary. They should be able to make the call every time even when the ball is higher than the upright.

The problem is when the ball flies right over the post. That ball should have hit the upright, and there is no way to know if it would have deflected in or deflected out. This is also why some of those wacky ideas some people had (cameras on top pointing up, laser beams, etc) don't work, the ball should have hit the post.

[highBOLTage]

As Pats reporter Mike Reiss points out, the first one (taller goal posts) may have been triggered by the controversial end of the 2012 AFCCG. Ravens go on to win the SB...


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/HpRq8S3nTkA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



I'm ok with 2, which was discussed elsewhere on here.

I think 3 is freaking OBVIOUS. HELLO!!

4 is fine with me also.


Not that I'm a Pats homer or anything, but all of these just seem to make alot of sense.
FG was from a week 3 game. Pats lost the title game by 15.

Not passing #3 seems really, really stupid. Why wouldn't you want a good angle to determine if the ball went over the goal line? Ridiculous.
Yeah, dumb. Been asking this for years.

[patteeu]

The problem is when the ball flies right over the post. That ball should have hit the upright, and there is no way to know if it would have deflected in or deflected out. This is also why some of those wacky ideas some people had (cameras on top pointing up, laser beams, etc) don't work, the ball should have hit the post.

Then a better rule change would be to define whether the ball has to be completely inside or partially inside the post as it sails over the top. Personally, if the ball flies right over the top of the vertical post, I don't think teams have much reason to complain about the call whichever way it goes.

[mikey23545]

But why? It's not a play. There is literally nothing the defense can do to affect it in any way, no matter how good they are or what strategy they use. There isn't a more boring play in all of sports. It's not remotely competitive, and sports is a competition.

It's basically like having free throws from RIGHT in front of the basket. Want to dunk it? Sure, go ahead. Lay it up? Ok. What the heck is the point of that?


http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81321a23/Barber-blocks-extra-point

[alnorth]

I'm glad they are going to experiment with the PAT in preseason. It was too much to expect them to make a huge change to the game in 2014 without years of discussion, but at least it looks like we'll begin having that discussion.

I can wait till 2015 or 2016 to settle on a PAT solution that almost everyone agrees they can live with.

[alnorth]

Then a better rule change would be to define whether the ball has to be completely inside or partially inside the post as it sails over the top. Personally, if the ball flies right over the top of the vertical post, I don't think teams have much reason to complain about the call whichever way it goes.

No, that would not be better, that is a dumb suggestion. You only need to add 5 feet of hollow steel tube, done. No new rules, no additional costs, no controversy, and everyone would be happy with the result.

Also, the ball hitting the goalpost is far more exciting than having it vaguely go over and no one being sure about the call of an old dude with cateracts.

[temper11]

I like all of them except #2. I think they should just leave the extra point alone. It's supposed to be automatic. It's supposed to have a super high percentage of success. This is why it is so painful when teams go for 2 and then fail. They basically took that point off the board by not just kicking the field goal. That lost point often comes back to play big at the end of the game.

[temper11]

No, SAME NUMBER of challenges is the key. Right now there are all kinds of arbitrary rules on what is and isn't challenge-able.

They're NOT saying "challenge anything at will", they're saying use the challenges they ALREADY have on ANYTHING, rather than having a bunch of stuff off-limits.

this.

[patteeu]

No, that would not be better, that is a dumb suggestion. You only need to add 5 feet of hollow steel tube, done. No new rules, no additional costs, no controversy, and everyone would be happy with the result.

Also, the ball hitting the goalpost is far more exciting than having it vaguely go over and no one being sure about the call of an old dude with cateracts.

Thanks for your input. I'm not too impressed with it though.

You don't think kickers can kick the ball 5 feet higher and produce the same result? BTW, extending the goal post *is* a new rule and an additional cost.

[temper11]

No it wont, coaches will get the same 2 challenges. Hell, if anything there will be less time spent discussing with the officials whats reviewable and whats not~

this too.

[htismaqe]

I like all of them except #2. I think they should just leave the extra point alone. It's supposed to be automatic. It's supposed to have a super high percentage of success. This is why it is so painful when teams go for 2 and then fail. They basically took that point off the board by not just kicking the field goal. That lost point often comes back to play big at the end of the game.

Totally safe.

[temper11]

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.

and this...

[alnorth]

Thanks for your input. I'm not too impressed with it though.

You don't think kickers can kick the ball 5 feet higher and produce the same result? BTW, extending the goal post *is* a new rule and an additional cost.

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.

[morphius]

Defensive PI being a spot foul is the #1 problem with pro football.
I don't have much problem with the spot foul, but would like it to be reviewable. I'd also like the rule enhanced that if the offensive player pushes off to gain separation after 5 yards, that any defensive PI after that to that player is negated. That way when they review it, and the CB grabs the WR that is pushing off they have to review the entire play. I saw way too many WR's push off well before the ball was thrown to gain separation last year for huge gains. Especially in Denver, though I remember Bowe getting away with a pretty big one as well.

[Rausch]

How about we return football to a game played by men?

There is no XP.

You get the ball at the 2 and you HAVE to run it.

You get 2 pts or no pts...

[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.

[patteeu]

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]

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]

Totally safe.

What do you mean?

[MahiMike]

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]

What do you mean?

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

[temper11]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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".

ROFL

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

[temper11]

ROFL

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.

[patteeu]

We are discussing a rule change in football. Because we disagree doesn't mean we need to be mortal enemies.

Hmmm, a mature approach. Seems like it would be worth a try.

[Just Passin' By]

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

It's in the offensive playbook because of how it's called, not because of the penalty itself. Calling a 40 yard penalty only 15 yards is one of the reasons I don't watch college football. Rewarding bad defense like that is the kind of stupidity doesn't warrant viewership.

[htismaqe]

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.

Because you spent a paragraph defending the use of the PAT, something that almost NEVER fails, as a means to win a game.

If that doesn't fit in with 20 years and 0 playoff wins, I don't know what does.

[htismaqe]

It's in the offensive playbook because of how it's called, not because of the penalty itself. Calling a 40 yard penalty only 15 yards is one of the reasons I don't watch college football. Rewarding bad defense like that is the kind of stupidity doesn't warrant viewership.

You'd have a point if that were a common occurrence in college football.

It's not.

[patteeu]

You'd have a point if that were a common occurrence in college football.

It's not.

Don't you think that if they make the rule a 15 or 20 yarder, defenders will just tackle receivers who have gotten behind them on a bomb? It seems like there's a problem with gaming the rule whichever way you go.

[htismaqe]

Don't you think that if they make the rule a 15 or 20 yarder, defenders will just tackle receivers who have gotten behind them on a bomb? It seems like there's a problem with gaming the rule whichever way you go.

Sure they will, it happens. But it doesn't happen with NEAR the frequency that chuck and pray passes happen in the NFL.

[temper11]

Because you spent a paragraph defending the use of the PAT, something that almost NEVER fails, as a means to win a game.

If that doesn't fit in with 20 years and 0 playoff wins, I don't know what does.

Man you are so freakin' bent about the Chiefs lack of success in the playoffs that it clouds your thought process in every discussion. When your wife gets pissed at you for leaving the toilet seat up, do you point to the Chiefs 0 and 20 as your excuse?

I don't like the rule change because it is an unnecessary change to a game that I already love. If it aint' broke, don't fix it. So it's often a meaningless point. So what? The times that it isn't a meaningless point make it worth leaving alone unless there is some important reason to change it - in my opinion.

[Rudy tossed tigger's salad]

Im down for 15 yard defensive PI. Receivers are getting amazing at initiating the contact to draw a flag. I fucking hate it.

[htismaqe]

Man you are so freakin' bent about the Chiefs lack of success in the playoffs that it clouds your thought process in every discussion.

Clouds? It's called clarity, my rose-colored glasses-wearing friend.

When your wife gets pissed at you for leaving the toilet seat up, do you point to the Chiefs 0 and 20 as your excuse?

Hmm, in the 12 or so years I've been here, I don't ever remember discussing the toilet seat on Chiefsplanet. I mean, this is a CHIEFS message board, right?

[temper11]

Clouds? It's called clarity, my rose-colored glasses-wearing friend.

the discussion regarding PAT's has absolutely nothing to do with the Chiefs specifically. NOTHING. If you think it does then even through my rose-colored glasses can I see that you have blinders on.

Hmm, in the 12 or so years I've been here, I don't ever remember discussing the toilet seat on Chiefsplanet. I mean, this is a CHIEFS message board, right?

This is where I would put up the cute little laughy guy and say you missed the point.

[kccrow]

I don't have much of a problem with any of the rule proposals.

As for offensive PI "pick plays," here are the definitive rules that pertain:

Rule 8 Section 5 Article 2 (e): Cutting off the path of an opponent by making contact with him without playing the ball.

Rule 8 Secton 5 Article 4: Blocking downfield by an offensive player prior to a pass being thrown is offensive pass interference.
Note: It is also pass interference by the offense to block a defender beyond the line while the pass is in the air, if the block occurs in the vicinity of the player to whom the pass was thrown.

[Dayze]

I watched a clip of Belichek on NFL, and he basically, in so many words, said the extra point is a meaningless fucking play lol. it was awesome.
"Fans don't watch it. it's nearly impossible to block a kick. we can't hit the center. we can't push; we can't leap; we can't overload. "

lol