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.

[TribalElder]

Do they still allow teams that deflate balls and cheat to win the league championship?

Or did they address that

[MIAdragon]

4. Cost, seriously?!

[The Franchise]

#3 is going to be interesting. That's not going to be abused at all......nah.

[notorious]

4. Cost, seriously?!

Exactly.


Everybody rolls their eyes at that one.

[suzzer99]

I was really hoping they'd look at the idiotic "Guy can have complete possession of the ball, stumble for 8 steps, roll on the ground, then bobble it a little getting up off the ground and it's not a catch. Or maybe it is. Sometimes. But not in the playoffs." rule.

[TribalElder]

Must be suffering a concussion if he bobbled it getting up

Per protocol, that player is removed from the game by rule

[PizzaDoughz]

I was really hoping they'd look at the idiotic "Guy can have complete possession of the ball, stumble for 8 steps, roll on the ground, then bobble it a little getting up off the ground and it's not a catch. Or maybe it is. Sometimes. But not in the playoffs." rule.

Yeah because NFL offenses need even more help ROFL

[Frosty]

#3 is going to be interesting. That's not going to be abused at all......nah.

If you are out of timeouts, just have one of your players stagger around a little, especially if you are New England or Denver. Instant clock stoppage!

[PizzaDoughz]

If you are out of timeouts, just have one of your players stagger around a little, especially if you are New England or Denver. Instant clock stoppage!

If the rules can be bent or manipulated in any way, you can be sure the Pats will find a way to do it

[Strongside]

Yeah, #3 is just shitty.

"Hey, uh...Chuck. Jamaal Charles is killing these guys. Let's get him outta there."

Now I realize that won't happen, but it's just more ammo for the conspiracy theorists.

[Bugeater]

Yeah, #3 is just shitty.

"Hey, uh...Chuck. Jamaal Charles is killing these guys. Let's get him outta there."

Now I realize that won't happen, but it's just more ammo for the conspiracy theorists.
It has already happened

[Jim Lahey]

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."

ROFL

Jesus Christ.

[TribalElder]

Like one of these camera companies wouldn't jump at the chance to donate cameras and be known as the official goal line review camera of the NFL

[Bob Dole]

The NFL citing "cost" as a reason to not do something is a fucking joke.

[Hootie]

especially after they made $400 per veteran on that silly veteran combine !

[Hootie]

"thank you, washed up veterans, this $400 is going directly towards the health care fund that will have to pay for your asses when you can't walk when you're 40 until the day you die when you're 55!"

[KC_Lee]

Do they still allow teams that deflate balls and cheat to win the league championship?

Or did they address that

That rule does not apply to beating teams that tanked an entire season to ensure picking the best QB coming out of the draft number one overall.

[eDave]

ROFL @ Billacheat.

[Rain Man]

I wonder if we can implement something similar to Rule 3 here. If a poster appears to be disoriented, we can stop the thread and have the person checked out.

[Coochie liquor]

Did they make the rule if Denver finishes at least 8-8 they get bye weeks until the SB to ensure Fivehead gets another shot?? I heard it was being discussed.

[Rain Man]

Did they make the rule if Denver finishes at least 8-8 they get bye weeks until the SB to ensure Fivehead gets another shot?? I heard it was being discussed.


They concluded that they don't need a rule for that. They can accomplish it via selective enforcement of rules that already exist.

[tk13]

Time for another lockout. Maybe then they can actually get a fair deal and make some money on this game and install some replay cameras.

[TimBone]

I wonder if we can implement something similar to Rule 3 here. If a poster appears to be disoriented, we can stop the thread and have the person checked out.
That's fine if you want every thread stopped before it reaches the end of the first page.

At least, I'm pretty sure Inmen posts in just about every thread. I could be incorrect though.

[Rain Man]

That's fine if you want every thread stopped before it reaches the end of the first page.

At least, I'm pretty sure Inmen posts in just about every thread. I could be incorrect though.


We'd certainly have some kinks to work out, I agree.

[Rausch]

They concluded that they don't need a rule for that. They can accomplish it via selective enforcement of rules that already exist.

"Uh, sir...the Chiefs are about to win a playoff game. Against a popular and talented QB. They're way up. What...what are we supposed to do?"

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.

[suzzer99]

I guess they did address the "is it a catch" rules, but muddied up the waters even more. At least according to PTI.

[Aries Walker]

Jeez, number three. My Raiders-fan friend already complains about the refs once a week during season; if this passes, he'll go apoplectic when they pull whoever their quarterback is that week after he's been repeatedly planted like a tree on Arbor Day for about two and a half hours.

[Rausch]

Jeez, number three. My Raiders-fan friend already complains about the refs once a week during season; if this passes, he'll go apoplectic when they pull whoever their quarterback is that week after he's been repeatedly planted like a tree on Arbor Day for about two and a half hours.

I don't know. All in all Carr had a solid rookie year.

You add Hudson, perhaps another beefy body in rounds 1-3, and that line isn't a complete stinker...

[Why Not?]

Did they make the rule if Denver finishes at least 8-8 they get bye weeks until the SB to ensure Fivehead gets another shot?? I heard it was being discussed.

Peyton would still choke though, so they scrapped that rule change.

[Rausch]

So imagine an NFC title game.

There's a pass thrown...the WR makes an incredible catch...then he's POUNDED by a defender.

He's slow to get up.

Mostly because getting pounded by NFL defenders HURTS. A LOT.

Is that player now taken from the field and ruled out of play for...how long?

[Red Dawg]

Do they still allow teams that deflate balls and cheat to win the league championship?

Or did they address that

Of course not. Once again Pats bullshit has to be swept under the rug to save the league from doing serious punishment.

[Amnorix]

I was really hoping they'd look at the idiotic "Guy can have complete possession of the ball, stumble for 8 steps, roll on the ground, then bobble it a little getting up off the ground and it's not a catch. Or maybe it is. Sometimes. But not in the playoffs." rule.


They looked at it and made a very minor change, but it doesn't really affect anything. Instead of "a football move", nwo they say "established himself as a runner".

The problem with changing the rule is that if you make it too "easy" to complete a catch, then defenders will kill shot receivers half a second after their feet hit the ground, and then it's a FUMBLE.

Unless you want to see a dramatic spike in fumbles that weren't fumbles before, there is no way to "fix" the catch rule.

[Amnorix]

ROFL

Jesus Christ.


Belichick's comment on this last year, when the NFL bitched about the same thing:

"Maybe we could have a bake sale, raise some money for the cameras," he said, per Ben Volin of The Boston Globe. "We could do a car wash."

[Amnorix]

Of course not. Once again Pats bullshit has to be swept under the rug to save the league from doing serious punishment.


The Wells Report isn't out yet. Presumably sometime between now and the draft.

The entire situation is a complete joke. The only reason you think the Patriots did something wrong is because you hate them. There is no evidence of anything at all, and the multiple leaks that were then walked-back makes it impossible to rely on anything until the report comes out, which hopefully will clear up what really did happen.

The real bottom line here is that if the NFL wants to ensure that balls are at 12.5-13.5 PSI at all times, they need to do a much better job of managing how that is done. Testing them 2 hours before game-time and then ignoring atmospheric effects is ridiculous.

[Mr. Laz]

They looked at it and made a very minor change, but it doesn't really affect anything. Instead of "a football move", nwo they say "established himself as a runner".

The problem with changing the rule is that if you make it too "easy" to complete a catch, then defenders will kill shot receivers half a second after their feet hit the ground, and then it's a FUMBLE.

Unless you want to see a dramatic spike in fumbles that weren't fumbles before, there is no way to "fix" the catch rule.

it's really not that hard to understand

Having the refs determine when a player actually possess a ball was just too difficult to determine, even with replay. Did the ball stop? Did the ball stop long enough? Did the ball start moving again?

So they switched the parameters of a catch to something that is more concrete to judge.

A receiver must maintain possession of the ball through ground contact unless he has clearly become a runner, then it's a fumble.

2 hands on the ball ... toe-tapping ... ball moving, none of that means a dam thing anymore.

If the player clearly a ball carrier? Yes, fumble. No, must maintain possession through ground contact.

[chiefzilla1501]

So imagine an NFC title game.

There's a pass thrown...the WR makes an incredible catch...then he's POUNDED by a defender.

He's slow to get up.

Mostly because getting pounded by NFL defenders HURTS. A LOT.

Is that player now taken from the field and ruled out of play for...how long?
I wrote this in another thread. The NFL needs to just bite the bullet and stop with all this petty minor bullshit about head injuries. Admit they made some mistakes and quit the denial game, pay out any damages (it will be a lot, but they have plenty of money), and then implement real shit to improve the safety issue. This shit is all window dressing and little by little, it is destroying the integrity of the game, especially if it gives teams added ability to stop play.

With a clean slate, FINALLY start to address real equipment changes and ask players to accept the risk of playing this sport. This is basically delaying the inevitable.

[Mr. Laz]

I wrote this in another thread. The NFL needs to just bite the bullet and stop with all this petty minor bullshit about head injuries. Admit they made some mistakes and quit the denial game, pay out any damages (it will be a lot, but they have plenty of money), and then implement real shit to improve the safety issue. This shit is all window dressing and little by little, it is destroying the integrity of the game, especially if it gives teams added ability to stop play.

With a clean slate, FINALLY start to address real equipment changes and ask players to accept the risk of playing this sport. This is basically delaying the inevitable.
they already did pay damages in billions

It took the players about a month to decide they wanted more. It also didn't stop another group of players from lining up to the money train and decide they wanted some too.

it will never stop ......... ever

Players will continue to say "we know it's dangerous, just let us play" "I'm only dinged up, put me back in coach" during their careers.

As soon as they careers are over they say "omg, i'm fucked up ... i'm going to sue"

This is the same idiotic country who had a woman win a lawsuit because the hot coffee she order was TOO hot.

the lawsuits will never stop ... the players will never stop trying to double dip.

The NFL can only try to lessen the injuries so that the lawsuits are less costly.

[chiefzilla1501]

they already did pay damages in billions

It took the players about a month to decide they wanted more. It also didn't stop another group of players from lining up to the money train and decide they wanted some too.

it will never stop ......... ever

Players will continue to say "we know it's dangerous, just let us play" "I'm only dinged up, put me back in coach" during their careers.

As soon as they careers are over they say "omg, i'm fucked up ... i'm going to sue"

This is the same idiotic country who had a woman win a lawsuit because the hot coffee she order was TOO hot.

the lawsuits will never stop ... the players will never stop trying to double dip.

The NFL can only try to lessen the injuries so that the lawsuits are less costly.
The NFL threw money at the problem then continued with several disingenuous initiatives to fix the problem, then continue their Web of denial and spin.

They won't mandate mouthpiece usage because that would be admitting they made a mistake not to mandate it years ago. I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe they will change equipment so players stop treating their helmets like missiles. The nfls approach the last couple of years is shiny object stuff. None of the stuff really solves the problem, but it makes it look like they're trying. I'd rather they drum up big solutions even if that admits to fault then continue to think we are naive enough to think these small things are showing the league is serious about fixing the problem.

The NFL likes to wait until the last minute to react. That has to change. Especially an issue like this that has long term recruiting implications.

[Hootie]

Belichick's comment on this last year, when the NFL bitched about the same thing:

that's pretty funny

...I think they should just use all of that veteran cash they made from the veteran's combine

[Hootie]

they already did pay damages in billions

It took the players about a month to decide they wanted more. It also didn't stop another group of players from lining up to the money train and decide they wanted some too.

it will never stop ......... ever

Players will continue to say "we know it's dangerous, just let us play" "I'm only dinged up, put me back in coach" during their careers.

As soon as they careers are over they say "omg, i'm ****ed up ... i'm going to sue"

This is the same idiotic country who had a woman win a lawsuit because the hot coffee she order was TOO hot.

the lawsuits will never stop ... the players will never stop trying to double dip.

The NFL can only try to lessen the injuries so that the lawsuits are less costly.

uhm, incorrect

the judge looked at the plea and denied it ... citing it was ridiculous and that it was no way enough money.

[Hootie]

it's pretty easy what the NFL needs to do ...

they need to bargain the next CBA, give the players more money and more of what they "want" (like health insurance for the rest of their lives), and in return the players HAVE TO SIGN A WAIVER TO PLAY IN THE NFL THAT STATES THE NFL WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SHORT/LONG TERM HEALTH PROBLEMS CAUSED BY CONCUSSIONS OR OTHER HEAD TRAUMA.

Don't like it? I agree. Don't play in the NFL.

It's really that simple.

Give the players more $$$ and lifetime health insurance, in return, they have to sign THE waiver.

[alnorth]

The Washington Post is reporting that the owners are going to debate changes to the extra point in their meeting scheduled in May. Don't know if any particular PAT proposal has the supermajority needed yet. There apparently is agreement that some kind of change is needed, but they haven't figured out what they want to do.

[Hootie]

would anyone really be that upset if they just scrapped the extra point and forced every team to go for two? The ONLY thing that would effect would be overtime. There would be less overtimes. But, it would also be a nice little boost for fantasy since every two point try would equate to more fantasy points (which I know the NFL loves).

I think it would be awesome.

Hell, I wish they'd also make field goals tougher like they did in the Pro Bowl, too. Hell, FG% is way over 80% the last few years. I hate field goals. I want to see FG% around 65-70%. I'd love to see teams stop kicking field goals. The kicker in football is the WORST.

[Baby Lee]

Belichick's comment on this last year, when the NFL bitched about the same thing:

Wouldn't be surprised if the article was quoting him FROM last year.

[Hootie]

I think no extra points (and no just electing to get a free point instead) and tougher field goals would be AMAZING for the game. It would make everything so much more exciting.

Imagine if it was 4th and 3 from the opposing 30 and instead of a 48 yard field goal being an 85% decision it was a 60% chance. A ton of teams are going to start going for it on 4th down and that is awesome. That's an NFL I could get behind. You know, as long as they stop calling illegal contact and illegal hands to the face every fucking play.

[morphius]

They looked at it and made a very minor change, but it doesn't really affect anything. Instead of "a football move", nwo they say "established himself as a runner".

The problem with changing the rule is that if you make it too "easy" to complete a catch, then defenders will kill shot receivers half a second after their feet hit the ground, and then it's a FUMBLE.

Unless you want to see a dramatic spike in fumbles that weren't fumbles before, there is no way to "fix" the catch rule.
I'd love them to be fumbles!

Their fix still isn't much of one. Is tapping your feet on the sideline enough to establish yourself as a runner, I would say no. The whole thing about catches being defined differently by where they are on the field bothers me.

[Bugeater]

How about we just get rid of kicking altogether? No kickoffs, no XPs, no FGs, no punts.

[Rain Man]

I'd love them to be fumbles!

Their fix still isn't much of one. Is tapping your feet on the sideline enough to establish yourself as a runner, I would say no. The whole thing about catches being defined differently by where they are on the field bothers me.


Yeah, I love fumbles. We need more fumbles.

[Mr. Laz]

I'd love them to be fumbles!

Their fix still isn't much of one. Is tapping your feet on the sideline enough to establish yourself as a runner, I would say no. The whole thing about catches being defined differently by where they are on the field bothers me.

They aren't really defined differently by location anymore. They are define by 'occupation' now. If you are a receiver you have to maintain possession or it's an incompletion.

It only changes when the receiver turns himself into a running back. Then it becomes a fumble. Only a fumble out of bounds returns possession to the last team that fully possessed it.

Receiver = incompletion
Running back = fumble

Unless receiver is in full YAC/RB mode it's incompletion.

Dez Bryant falling/stretching/getting 2 feet down doesn't mean anything at all.

[Mr. Laz]

it's pretty easy what the NFL needs to do ...

they need to bargain the next CBA, give the players more money and more of what they "want" (like health insurance for the rest of their lives), and in return the players HAVE TO SIGN A WAIVER TO PLAY IN THE NFL THAT STATES THE NFL WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SHORT/LONG TERM HEALTH PROBLEMS CAUSED BY CONCUSSIONS OR OTHER HEAD TRAUMA.

Don't like it? I agree. Don't play in the NFL.

It's really that simple.

Give the players more $$$ and lifetime health insurance, in return, they have to sign THE waiver.
I don't think a court would ever support such a waiver.

they would find an exception or rule that it was illegal or something

[chiefzilla1501]

uhm, incorrect

the judge looked at the plea and denied it ... citing it was ridiculous and that it was no way enough money.
There's a shit storm coming. I wish they would just deal with it, instead of ruining the game by continually forcing these kinds of meaningless rules changes that hurt the quality of the game.

And it's not just because of that. The NFL can run this league straight into the ground if they keep punting. Knowing the NFL, they'll continue to punt until this becomes catastrophic.

[chiefzilla1501]

would anyone really be that upset if they just scrapped the extra point and forced every team to go for two? The ONLY thing that would effect would be overtime. There would be less overtimes. But, it would also be a nice little boost for fantasy since every two point try would equate to more fantasy points (which I know the NFL loves).

I think it would be awesome.

Hell, I wish they'd also make field goals tougher like they did in the Pro Bowl, too. Hell, FG% is way over 80% the last few years. I hate field goals. I want to see FG% around 65-70%. I'd love to see teams stop kicking field goals. The kicker in football is the WORST.
I don't like the concept. I still like the 2 point conversion to be a strategic decision. It would become boring if it became a way of life. The only reason the NFL is pushing this is to squeeze more commercials in.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

There's a shit storm coming. I wish they would just deal with it, instead of ruining the game by continually forcing these kinds of meaningless rules changes that hurt the quality of the game.

And it's not just because of that. The NFL can run this league straight into the ground if they keep punting. Knowing the NFL, they'll continue to punt until this becomes catastrophic.

If there is a way for football to continue safely and ethically, then I'm all for it. If people want to subject their bodies if they are truly aware of the risks, then that is their choice. But when the NFL admits the destructive consequences of brain trauma and then changes tack and embraces unethical scientific findings and bullies other investigators for two decades in order to protect their financial interests, then maybe there are other things more important than the quality of a form of entertainment.

[Mr. Laz]

uhm, incorrect

the judge looked at the plea and denied it ... citing it was ridiculous and that it was no way enough money.
amending deal but still going on
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/judge-orders-further-revisions-in-nfl-concussion-lawsuit-settlement/2015/02/02/3b44b18e-ab22-11e4-8876-460b1144cbc1_story.html

[chiefzilla1501]

If there is a way for football to continue safely and ethically, then I'm all for it. If people want to subject their bodies if they are truly aware of the risks, then that is their choice. But when the NFL admits the destructive consequences of brain trauma and then changes tack and embraces unethical scientific findings and bullies other investigators for two decades in order to protect their financial interests, then maybe there are other things more important than the quality of a form of entertainment.
Agreed. The dam is going to burst. It's just a matter of when. I wish they would just let it burst instead of throwing bandaids on this. This is a tough problem to solve, but it would be a hell of a lot better if they just dealt with it. Much as I hate Goodell, this is probably more of a tagliabue issue than it is Goodell. Goodell, true to form, was only involved with fumbling it a little further

[Hootie]

at this point, I think everyone that puts on a helmet (from pee-wee to NFL) realizes football isn't safe. It just isn't. Hell, I would let my kids play football IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED but I'd prefer if they concentrated on baseball, basketball or even soccer.

Want to play in the NFL? Want to make millions of dollars? Ok. Sign this waiver. No one is forcing these guys to play in the NFL and risk their futures. No one.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Agreed. The dam is going to burst. It's just a matter of when. I wish they would just let it burst instead of throwing bandaids on this. This is a tough problem to solve, but it would be a hell of a lot better if they just dealt with it. Much as I hate Goodell, this is probably more of a tagliabue issue than it is Goodell. Goodell, true to form, was only involved with fumbling it a little further

That will never happen because the NFL is far too myopic about ensuring revenue streams for the next week, like most corporate structures (spare me the NP status, others).

I can't imagine them requiring a waiver at the level of the NFL if they don't require it for shit like coal mining (I'm assuming they don't here). The biggest issue isn't the inherent danger of the NFL but their obfuscation of the danger because they were afraid of the aforementioned revenue streams being jeopardized.

Penny-wise, pound foolish.

[chiefzilla1501]

at this point, I think everyone that puts on a helmet (from pee-wee to NFL) realizes football isn't safe. It just isn't. Hell, I would let my kids play football IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANTED but I'd prefer if they concentrated on baseball, basketball or even soccer.

Want to play in the NFL? Want to make millions of dollars? Ok. Sign this waiver. No one is forcing these guys to play in the NFL and risk their futures. No one.
There's a lot of interesting debate about equipment too. Basically, the more protection you give a player, the more license you give them to throw their bodies around. There's probably a delicate balance. Mouthpieces can reduce risk of concussion, and yet, Kellen Winslow says players don't use them.

It's hurting the game. I hate watching star players leave playoff games because of concussions. I worry that a lot of great next gen athletes will pick baseball or basketball. More and more players retiring early. The nfls dumbass approach has always been to fine players and chase shiny objects, and do just enough to raise PR without actually doing anything to fix the problem. I just hope they don't burn the NFL to the ground before they realize they made a mistake.

[Chief Roundup]

This is the same idiotic country who had a woman win a lawsuit because the hot coffee she order was TOO hot.


Don't get me wrong I had the same opinion of this lawsuit at first too. The coffee she was served was hotter than the allowable legal limits of a hot beverage being served to a customer. Not just a little hotter but more than 10 degrees hotter the restaurant standard is 160-170 degrees.
McDonalds then demanded that their franchises keep the coffee between 180 and 190 degrees. Those temperatures cause 3rd degree burns from any liquid spilled. McDonalds admitted to knowing for more than 10 years prior that they were at risk for scalding someone. She was not moving when this happened. She was setting in the drive up waiting for her food. The lid was not properly put on the cup, so when she put it between her legs it lid came off and the coffee spilled.
This woman had to have skin graphs and plastic surgery on her...."private parts" and the surrounding area because of McDonalds knowingly being negligent.
How would you feel if this woman that had to go through all of this was your wife or mother?

[Chief Roundup]

I don't think a court would ever support such a waiver.

they would find an exception or rule that it was illegal or something

The law does not allow a person to "sign away their rights".

[Hootie]

well ... the NFL is 70% African American (I'm just guessing) ... so you don't have to worry about those guys leaving for baseball ... and they aren't good enough to play in the NBA

so...as long as the NFL caters towards poor African American men, there is always going to be an NFL. And as long as the NFL protects the QB position...there are always going to be rich, pretty boy white kids trying to become the next "golden boy."

the NFL isn't going anywhere ... they do need to have that waiver, though

[Hootie]

"hey Ray McDonald, Jr., sign this waiver and you'll make millions but you might die at 50!"

...or don't, and you'll probably die in prison when you're 50!

and we're off to DC!

[Rain Man]

I'm telling everyone right now. The future of the NFL is bubbles. It's the obvious solution.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/POhvh_hrq6E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Baby Lee]

I'm telling everyone right now. The future of the NFL is bubbles. It's the obvious solution.


With my luck, I'd be the one guy who broke a leg with a kick across my shins.

[chiefzilla1501]

Don't get me wrong I had the same opinion of this lawsuit at first too. The coffee she was served was hotter than the allowable legal limits of a hot beverage being served to a customer. Not just a little hotter but more than 10 degrees hotter the restaurant standard is 160-170 degrees.
McDonalds then demanded that their franchises keep the coffee between 180 and 190 degrees. Those temperatures cause 3rd degree burns from any liquid spilled. McDonalds admitted to knowing for more than 10 years prior that they were at risk for scalding someone. She was not moving when this happened. She was setting in the drive up waiting for her food. The lid was not properly put on the cup, so when she put it between her legs it lid came off and the coffee spilled.
This woman had to have skin graphs and plastic surgery on her...."private parts" and the surrounding area because of McDonalds knowingly being negligent.
How would you feel if this woman that had to go through all of this was your wife or mother?
Agreed. One of the more misunderstood lawsuits. There are tons of egregious lawsuits. This wasn't one of them. McDonald's was warned, did nothing, and the woman received burns that were ungodly horrific.

It also doesn't apply here. There was a point where you can claim not knowing about CTE but it sure sounds like the NFL was sweeping this under the rug for years. As hamas said, bullying anyone with a different opinion. There's an excellent documentary on this on Netflix. I think it was a frontline documentary.

[Lzen]

I'm telling everyone right now. The future of the NFL is bubbles. It's the obvious solution.

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/POhvh_hrq6E" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

I so want to try that.

[Hootie]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12556985/new-england-patriots-formation-pats-formation-now-ruled-illegal-substitution

Surprise, surprise. New England's latest rule book exploitations now illegal.

[Amnorix]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12556985/new-england-patriots-formation-pats-formation-now-ruled-illegal-substitution

Surprise, surprise. New England's latest rule book exploitations now illegal.


Damn the Patriots for knowing the rules and using them to their advantage!

[alnorth]

I don't like the concept. I still like the 2 point conversion to be a strategic decision. It would become boring if it became a way of life. The only reason the NFL is pushing this is to squeeze more commercials in.

From reading a few stories, its beginning to look like the most likely change that the owners are looking at is a very simple one: do nothing about PAT's, and just move the 2-point conversion to the 1 yard line.

There would still be too many PAT's for my liking, but if they did that, then the math behind going for 2 changes quite a bit to the point where its probably correct to always go for 2 unless you absolutely must get 1 point (like if you are tied with 2 minutes left, no point in going for 2)

[Hootie]

Damn the Patriots for knowing the rules and using them to their advantage!

I wasn't even bashing them ... honestly.

[Amnorix]

I wasn't even bashing them ... honestly.


Ok. I'm so used to Patriots-bashing around here, I just assume it. :LOL:

[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? :spock: )

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.

[alnorth]

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

That proposal was probably from someone who wanted to only get the 2-point conversion up to around 50/50. Right now, its less than 50/50 which means the extra point is always correct unless you need the second point. If you move it up to the 1 yard line though, the math moves to a decent amount above 50/50 which means the 2-point conversion attempt would be always correct unless the 1st point was critical.

If it was at the 1-1/2 yard line, it would be close to 50/50 which means there's really no advantage to going for 2 or kicking the extra point.

[The Franchise]

I'm telling everyone right now. The future of the NFL is bubbles. It's the obvious solution.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/POhvh_hrq6E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

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

[chiefzilla1501]

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? :spock: )

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]

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]

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-points-pat-rule-change-nfl-draft/

[tomahawk kid]

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-points-pat-rule-change-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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

fuck that