Rules committee has taken over

[signbabybrady]

I think the rules committee has to be put in check. Is it really neccessary to change rules to a game that everyone loves every single year.

They should meet every year and propose things but changes should only be put to a vote every 5 years or so and I think there should also be a player rep and a coaches rep with a vote at these things 34 votes instead of just the 32 owners (maybe even a refs rep vote and a fan rep vote too for 36 votes).

It is starting to become a yearly ritual at these meetings that we have to sit and wait for them to make some change to the game that makes it more ***** or that changes the way the sport has been played for years and we are forced to ***** and moan until the season starts and then the rules start effectign outcomes of games and really cause *****ing and moaning.

 

[RussFrancis]

By main beef with the rules committee is that the same guys sit on the thing for so long. There really should be a 5 year period of owning a chair on the thing. Im just getting sick of hearing about Bill Polian and rules committee, specifically. He's been on that thing FAR too long.

 

[Sicilian]

By main beef with the rules committee is that the same guys sit on the thing for so long. There really should be a 5 year period of owning a chair on the thing. Im just getting sick of hearing about Bill Polian and rules committee, specifically. He's been on that thing FAR too long.

I think it makes no sense to have any existing employee of a team on the rules committee. They may have insight into the game, but it's a blatant conflict of interest.

 

[PatsChamp88]

I think it makes no sense to have any existing employee of a team on the rules committee. They may have insight into the game, but it's a blatant conflict of interest.

Yeah you would think that..

 

[Kontradiction]

I think it makes no sense to have any existing employee of a team on the rules committee. They may have insight into the game, but it's a blatant conflict of interest.

This. The rules committee should be made up of former players, former owners, former general managers, etc. The keyword here being FORMER.

 

[DarrylS]

This. The rules committee should be made up of former players, former owners, former general managers, etc. The keyword here being FORMER.

Good point, the current composition may be viewed as a conflict of interest..

 

[jmt57]

By main beef with the rules committee is that the same guys sit on the thing for so long. There really should be a 5 year period of owning a chair on the thing. Im just getting sick of hearing about Bill Polian and rules committee, specifically. He's been on that thing FAR too long.

I completely agree. Every year there should be two new additions, replacing whomever has been on the committee the longest. With eight members that means you serve on the committee for four years. Polian seems to have a bit too much power, just like Don Shula did when he was on the competition committee for more than twenty years. You're better off bringing in new people with different viewpoints rather than keeping the same people in charge with what eventually becomes only one point of view.

 

[spacecrime]

Don't the owners have to vote on rule changes?

And they need a 3/4 majority to pass a rule change?

I don't see what's wrong with that.

I don't think fans. players, agents, refs, etc etc should have a say in the vote. They can suggest, testfy, etc etc, but the final vote of the rules has to be by the owners of the product.

 

[Brady2Welker]

I completely agree. Every year there should be two new additions, replacing whomever has been on the committee the longest. With eight members that means you serve on the committee for four years. Polian seems to have a bit too much power, just like Don Shula did when he was on the competition committee for more than twenty years. You're better off bringing in new people with different viewpoints rather than keeping the same people in charge with what eventually becomes only one point of view.

Polian has zero bias.

Zero.

 

[mgteich]

Do you all understand that there was a vote of owners and that only four voted against the rules change? The committee did NOT ram this down anyone's throat. The very good thing is that this was put to a vote of the owners.

 

[Sicilian]

Do you all understand that there was a vote of owners and that only four voted against the rules change? The committee did NOT ram this down anyone's throat. The very good thing is that this was put to a vote of the owners.

The results of the votes and rule changes are inconsequential to the principle of having current team employees putting forth the official suggestions. Have the team owners vote on suggestions put forth by neutral parties.

 

[signbabybrady]

Do you all understand that there was a vote of owners and that only four voted against the rules change? The committee did NOT ram this down anyone's throat. The very good thing is that this was put to a vote of the owners.

Actually I think that is just what happened. There was a knee jerk reaction to the NFC championship game and the what if that were the SB than instead taking time to figure out the best solution they just jammed something down the pipeline and asked a bunch of owners who were in agreement something needed to be changed to vote on it, There choice being what ever we came up with or the old way.

If like I suggested they only made changes every five years than they could have a good long debate about this and in five years they could come up with something more thought out.


Let me ask this simple question. Now that this rule has been passed do you think it will remain as is for a lenght of time or do you think there will need to be adjustments made? I almost guarentee than this thing gets tweeked a few times in the next 5 years. So again I suggest they should have taken more time to explore all their options and come up something that actually makes sense.



PS: one more point you cant sit there and say that they didn't rush this thing when they couldn't even do it for regular season because they didn't have enough time to convince the players that this wouldnt effect playing time and they couldn't convince the networks that this wouldn't screw up their time alotment for games.

 

[dhamz]

The NFL is never going to go with neutral parties or former league execs, players, coaches, etc. for its competition committee - nor should it. If you are out of the game for any time at all, you quite often find yourself out of touch with the game. And that is true no matter how brilliant a football mind you had. See Gibbs, Joseph Jackson.

Put a couple permanent members - a couple from the league office, the director of officials and another officiating presence of some kind , get some NFLPA representation so players have a voice, and then rotate some spots among the teams. I'd change the teams represented every 2 years (say change the NFC teams in odd years, AFC in even) so you never have the exact committee year to year and no one team gets over/under represented.

 

[Brady2Welker]

I completely agree. Every year there should be two new additions, replacing whomever has been on the committee the longest. With eight members that means you serve on the committee for four years. Polian seems to have a bit too much power, just like Don Shula did when he was on the competition committee for more than twenty years. You're better off bringing in new people with different viewpoints rather than keeping the same people in charge with what eventually becomes only one point of view.

Polian has zero bias.

Zero.

 

[bucky]

This. The rules committee should be made up of former players, former owners, former general managers, etc. The keyword here being FORMER.

Heck. Why stop there? The rules committee should be made out of posters on PatsFans. I nominate SignBabyBrady as the committee chairman.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Owners have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in their franchises. It seems to me that gives them the right to be represented on a committee that changes how the game is played on the field. It would be useful to figure out how input could be received from players and coaches, but somehow I think the individual owners do that already.

 

[unoriginal]

Actually I think that is just what happened. There was a knee jerk reaction to the NFC championship game and the what if that were the SB than instead taking time to figure out the best solution they just jammed something down the pipeline and asked a bunch of owners who were in agreement something needed to be changed to vote on it, There choice being what ever we came up with or the old way.

If like I suggested they only made changes every five years than they could have a good long debate about this and in five years they could come up with something more thought out.


Let me ask this simple question. Now that this rule has been passed do you think it will remain as is for a lenght of time or do you think there will need to be adjustments made? I almost guarentee than this thing gets tweeked a few times in the next 5 years. So again I suggest they should have taken more time to explore all their options and come up something that actually makes sense.



PS: one more point you cant sit there and say that they didn't rush this thing when they couldn't even do it for regular season because they didn't have enough time to convince the players that this wouldnt effect playing time and they couldn't convince the networks that this wouldn't screw up their time alotment for games.

This has been debated for years. There's no reason the ratification and implementation has to be as drawn out as the discussion.

 

[mgteich]

Yes, this has been discussed for years. As has been stated many times, the better solution of at least two possessions was likely not acceptable to the television folks since it would prolong games. If the owners want that change, they will need to include it as part of negotiation of the next television contract. Until then, coaches will need to deal with the fact that strategies for overtime will need to different for regular games and the playoffs. As was said, there are many teams that would choose (under the playoff rules) to kick off and trust their defense to give up at most a field goal, and perhaps give them great field position.

This has been debated for years. There's no reason the ratification and implementation has to be as drawn out as the discussion.

 

[fgssand]

Heck. Why stop there? The rules committee should be made out of posters on PatsFans. I nominate SignBabyBrady as the committee chairman.

Or former posters of Patsfans as in NEM!! Where is he now when we donl;t need him??

As for my take............I hate the new rule - sudden death (or victory) s as exciting as it can get, I do not care if it is on a pick, runback, 50 yard fieldgoal or 15 yard chipshot.

Sudden death is as good as it gets and now that is lost.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think the rules committee has to be put in check. Is it really neccessary to change rules to a game that everyone loves every single year.

They should meet every year and propose things but changes should only be put to a vote every 5 years or so and I think there should also be a player rep and a coaches rep with a vote at these things 34 votes instead of just the 32 owners (maybe even a refs rep vote and a fan rep vote too for 36 votes).

It is starting to become a yearly ritual at these meetings that we have to sit and wait for them to make some change to the game that makes it more ***** or that changes the way the sport has been played for years and we are forced to ***** and moan until the season starts and then the rules start effectign outcomes of games and really cause *****ing and moaning.

I was thinking about this. Any rule change has to be voted on by the owners so I am not sure why you think they aren't in check.