2 rule changes pass, 1 voted down (so far)

[pats1]

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

March 27, 2007
Rule proposals

Rick McKay, a co-chairman of the competition committee, announced two new rule changes today:

1) Instant replay is permanent, with all stadiums to be updated with high definition equipment.

2) Assistant coaches of playoff teams interviewing for head coaching jobs now have an additional window in the "bye" week before a Super Bowl for a second interview.

McKay noted that the rule allowing a defensive player to wear a headset was rejected.

Also, the 49ers withdrew their proposal to make defensive pass interference a 15-yard penalty unless it was flagrant.

McKay said a handful of other rules will be voted on Wednesday.

Instant replay passed 30-2, with the Bengals and Cardinals voting against it.
Posted By: mreiss | Time: 03:21:51 PM

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/?p=1072

March 27th, 2007
Rules changes
Posted by John Tomase at 1:58 pm

The league is in the process of announcing some rules changes. They voted on three today, two of which passed and one that didn’t.

* Instant replay was made a permanent part of the rulebook. It technically had two years remaining. All equipment will be updated so referees will be able to watch high definition TVs.

* Coaches will not be allowed to wire a defensive player like a quarterback to communicate with the sidelines. The resolution was voted down 22-10. Rules committee chair Rich McKay said it was too difficult to implement logistically, since most defensive players don’t play every snap.

* The league granted another interview window for assistant coaches whose teams are in the Super Bowl. They’ll be able to conduct a second interview during the Super Bowl bye week.

 

[zippo59]

The 15 yard unless flagrant PI would have been a good rule.

 

[mgcolby]

Why would anyone in their right mind vote against instant replay?

Oh, nevermind it was the Bengals and Cardinals...that explains a lot.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

The 15 yard unless flagrant PI would have been a good rule.

Personally, I'm with BB on this one:

[Per Reiss article]
"Personally, I could live with it, but the problems I see is what is blatant, what isn't? I can see that getting into a difficult call to make.

"I don't think the rule needs to be changed, but I think the officials collectively could do a better job officiating it with consistency. It's the same type of thing we see in basketball with blocking and charging; every play is a little different.

"Consistency is what I think we need to have in that rule. You'll never have it perfect, but I think it could definitely be better. No matter what you do with that rule, it is still open to a lot of interpretation.

 

[zippo59]

Personally, I'm with BB on this one:

I am just so sick of seeing 60 penalties being called because a DB brushes up against a WR. That's what makes it so controversial. Really, the refs don't screw up on PI anymore than they do on roughing the passer, holding, etc., its just that while those penalties are 10 or 15 yards, PIs go for 40 or 50 yards. The refs need to be held to a higher standard when that much is at stake.

I think my biggest problem is that I think refs allow WRs a lot more contact than they do DBs. They forget that they each have the same right to the ball and it should not be viewed as a DB and WR but instead two WR's.

 

[Pats726]

I think THAT the votes make sense...having another windown for ast coaches helps and really is NOT a big deal...needed..in fact. The D helmet radio is logistically a nightmare..and not really helpful...not all the trouble it is worth. Replay?? At least that passed..makes sense.. I also agree that the 16 yarder and a distinction will be hard...what would be flagrant and what not...ratther have PI reviewable...

 

[zippo59]

I think THAT the votes make sense...having another windown for ast coaches helps and really is NOT a big deal...needed..in fact. The D helmet radio is logistically a nightmare..and not really helpful...not all the trouble it is worth. Replay?? At least that passed..makes sense.. I also agree that the 16 yarder and a distinction will be hard...what would be flagrant and what not...ratther have PI reviewable...

Actually I think having PI be reviewable would be my first choice, but really I just want to see something, anything done about it.

 

[zippo59]

Why would anyone in their right mind vote against instant replay?

Oh, nevermind it was the Bengals and Cardinals...that explains a lot.

No wonder those two franchises have been so bad over the years with those two backwards thinkers running them.

 

[Pat_Nasty]

I am just so sick of seeing 60 penalties being called because a DB brushes up against a WR. That's what makes it so controversial. Really, the refs don't screw up on PI anymore than they do on roughing the passer, holding, etc., its just that while those penalties are 10 or 15 yards, PIs go for 40 or 50 yards. The refs need to be held to a higher standard when that much is at stake.

I think my biggest problem is that I think refs allow WRs a lot more contact than they do DBs. They forget that they each have the same right to the ball and it should not be viewed as a DB and WR but instead two WR's.

It's amazing. It seems like everybody I've talked to brings up the exact same two rules -- roughing, offensive holding -- when trying to argue that PI isn't called particularly poorly.

These are, by far, the three worst-called rules in the NFL. In all three situations, the problem comes from a disconnection between the way the rule is written and the way it is, or has been, called. The answer isn't to make things vaguer, but, rather, more specific.

Refs know that if they call offensive holding by the book, there will be flags on every other play -- so they leave them in their pockets for the most part. The result? Incredible inconsistency in what is and isn't called offensive holding. Either the NFL needs to start having the refs call every hold until o-lines stop holding (like they did with defensive holding in '04) or they need to narrow the definition of offensive holding so that the refs are applying a real, explicit rule, not trying to satisfy a vague feeling of what has the "spirit" of a hold.

When it comes to the PI rules, you've hit the nail on the head by saying the problem is that refs allow the receiver to get away with too much. This creates a real incentive for the receiver to initiate contact downfield when the DB is in tight coverage. If the NFL instated a rules emphasis wherein the refs started calling offensive PI more, and called "incidental contact" whenever the receiver is impeded through contact he initiated himself, I think you'd see a dramatic improvement, rather quickly.

In other words, the NFL needs to give the refs more explicit instructions, not more discretion.

 

[SaCaCh]

Bidwell voted against it because he didn't want to pay for new equipment...

 

[BradyManny]

The 15 yard unless flagrant PI would have been a good rule.

Co-sign. Bogus PI calls...and the resulting gimme TD...have helped end our season twice in a row...

 

[Pats726]

It's amazing. It seems like everybody I've talked to brings up the exact same two rules -- roughing, offensive holding -- when trying to argue that PI isn't called particularly poorly.

These are, by far, the three worst-called rules in the NFL. In all three situations, the problem comes from a disconnection between the way the rule is written and the way it is, or has been, called. The answer isn't to make things vaguer, but, rather, more specific.

Refs know that if they call offensive holding by the book, there will be flags on every other play -- so they leave them in their pockets for the most part. The result? Incredible inconsistency in what is and isn't called offensive holding. Either the NFL needs to start having the refs call every hold until o-lines stop holding (like they did with defensive holding in '04) or they need to narrow the definition of offensive holding so that the refs are applying a real, explicit rule, not trying to satisfy a vague feeling of what has the "spirit" of a hold.

When it comes to the PI rules, you've hit the nail on the head by saying the problem is that refs allow the receiver to get away with too much. This creates a real incentive for the receiver to initiate contact downfield when the DB is in tight coverage. If the NFL instated a rules emphasis wherein the refs started calling offensive PI more, and called "incidental contact" whenever the receiver is impeded through contact he initiated himself, I think you'd see a dramatic improvement, rather quickly.

In other words, the NFL needs to give the refs more explicit instructions, not more discretion.

Ahhhhh!!! Hit the nail on the head...MORE specific rules...Gee if officials were full time they could DEFINE what is OK what is NOT..and KNOW...and let the players KNOW what is legal what isn't...WHat the officials CAN do in the offseason...I agree...TOTALLY!!! But I really think the best for PI..besides specifics...is that it be reviewable.. BUT I totally agree some things ARE some things ARE NOT...simple..

 

[Pat_Nasty]

Co-sign. Bogus PI calls...and the resulting gimme TD...have helped end our season twice in a row...

Making PI calls 15 yards isn't going to solve the problem.

In the case of the b.s. PI penalty assessed against Hobbs in the AFCG vs. the Colts, a 15-yard PI penalty would have put the ball "half the distance to the goal" to the 9 yard line. That's a net difference of 8 yards. Do you really think, given the shape our D was in, that we were going to keep the Colts out of the endzone?

The problem isn't the PI calls are too damaging, it's that they're so often called when they shouldn't be. In fact, if you make PI a 15 yard penalty, it could even exacerbate the problem -- refs could become more likely to call b.s. PI penalties like the ones that hurt us in our last two playoff losses the way they happily dole out b.s. roughing calls.

As BB himself said, the inconsistent calling is the real issue that should be addressed.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Why would anyone in their right mind vote against instant replay?

Oh, nevermind it was the Bengals and Cardinals...that explains a lot.

The Bengals are afraid anytime they're on camera, it might end up in court
as evidence against them.......