Rules they should change in the NFL: 2009 Edition - Page 4 - New England Patriots Forums

Oswlek · 11-04-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

Actually, the stupidest kickoff rule is that if you have a foot out of bounds, and recover a ball that's in bounds, it still counts as the ball going out of bounds. That rule needs to go.

That rule saved NE's bacon when David Patten was lying unconscious on the sideline in Buffalo in 2001. Don't take that one away.

***TruthSeeker*** · 11-04-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ice_Ice_Brady

7. Face guarding/ Obstruction of the Ball. I'm not even sure if this is a rule anymore, but I remember it was called against the Pats in the 06-07 AFCCG. Receivers not only can't be touched after the magical five yard mark, but also they cannot have their eyesight impaired, so you'd better give them a five yard cushion Don't want to force the receiver to shift his eyes to look between two of your fingers. Seriously... let's let the defense do their job and try to prevent yardage.

I think it's funny you want to change a rule that hasn't existed for years and didn't exist during the 06-07 game that you reference. The Patriot defender was not called for faceguarding, he was called for pass interference despite the fact that I couldn't see any contact (and I watched the play many times on my DVR).

Boots Electric · 11-04-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

The faceguarding penalty is no longer on the books. The endzone celebrations should be given more leeway.

I'll say "no, thanks" to the other rules changes suggested here. The rule change that I'd like to happen is a return to the old style of "push out of bounds" still being a catch. Last night's game was a great example of why, too.

That's a rule I would like back as well. I never understand why they got rid of it.

olschool · 11-04-2009, 12:24 PM

Get rid of OT in the regular season. If it ends in a tie so be it. Playoff ramifications will be huge, so teams will have to play to win, instead of playing to get to OT, and hope to win the coin toss.

In the play-offs , play the OT with no time limit, with each team getting a shot on offense after the other team scores, until one team fails to score.
Eventually, one teams score will go un-answered, and there'll be a winner.

Unlike college, play it on a full field. It'll take longer, but we'll enjoy a longer game, and TV will get to feed us more commercials.

Synovia · 11-04-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker

The Patriot defender was not called for faceguarding, he was called for pass interference despite the fact that I couldn't see any contact (and I watched the play many times on my DVR).

No, he was not. He was called for faceguarding, and the ref clearly states that. Pereria, during the weekly umpiring roundup, said it was DPI. Pereria always stands by his guys though.

There was clearly no contact before the ball.

Synovia · 11-04-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boots Electric

That's a rule I would like back as well. I never understand why they got rid of it.

They got rid of it because its a ****ty judgment call that almost always gets *****ed and moaned about.

If they award the catch to the WR the defense's fans always complain that he wouldn't have come down. If they don't, the offense complains. Its a lose lose.

Now theres no question.

Wolfpack · 11-04-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

I think like Bill, rules are fine, just enforce them consistently so teams can be coached to play to them. You do that by making officials more rather than less accountable. Do business as business is done and quit kvetching when the outcome doesn't suit you. The game was always inherently rough, but with bigger, stronger, faster players in the PED age they have to protect these guys from ending up in even worse shape than their predecessors and they have to protect an owners incredibly valuable assets as well. Football is a team sport and I think while premier talent matters premier coaching and scheme and execution matter even more which is why the league legislates to maintain focus on the game and not the individual antics of the more flamboyant performers.

I think you've made several brilliant points in your bold text (which didn't get quoted). The NFL is trying to make rules less subjective and not more subjective. We see this in the elimination of the "incidental face mask" penalty and the receiver "force out" rule.

So to make rules like pass interference or roughing the passer more subjective by making them multi-layed would just be a disaster. It would exponentially increase, not decrease, the complaining about bad officiating we already see.

Wolfpack · 11-04-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Satchboogie3

I've always wonder why they don't lust play a 5th quarter for OT? Why stay with the sudden death format and make it even more complicated? You play a full 15 minute 5th quarter. If it's still tied after a 5th quarter, you could either end the game, or possible make it a coach decision. If both coaches agree, they can play another quarter or settle for a tie. I just don't get why it has to be sudden death.

1) The league doesn't want ties. By playing a full quarter instead of sudden death you increase the chances of a tie.

2) The league wants nice and tidy conclusions to games fitting within a certain time frame. Making all overtimes a full 15 minute period would add about an hour to every game that went into OT.

Wolfpack · 11-04-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctpatsfan77

Good question. I remember in the Ravens meltdown, I was hoping Gostkowski would kick an onside kick from the Ratbirds' 35 and then recover it himself (as he did at Memphis

).

I was hoping he would angle kick it out of bounds inside the 10. The penalty for a kickoff out of bounds is the receiving team gets the ball at the out of bounds spot or 30 yards from the kickoff, so they would have gotten it at the 10