New Rule Proposals (Pats Secondary Potentially Screwed?)

And another one:

List of proposed NFL Rule Changes(13) & Bylaws(7) | TigerDroppings.com

12. The restriction on pass interference will apply when the action takes place anywhere beyond the line of scrimmage, instead of more than one yard beyond the line of scrimmage.

Reason: Current rule provides offense unfair advantage.

Click to expand...

So if anything this looks like just the opposite of what the OP here was worried about. It would appear the purpose of this rule is to allow OPI to be called more often.

Wouldn't it just be easier to extend the legal chuck zone?

rlcarr said:

I don't even understand the alleged proposed rule change.

I'm almost positive the rules already allow PI to be called one yard downfield from the LOS.

The current rules are that you can engage in and retain contact within five yards of the LOS (though the contact can't rise to the level of holding) until the ball is thrown. Once the ball is thrown contact must immediately cease. PI can be called anywhere once the ball is in the air.

So "allow PI to be called within one yard of the LOS" makes no sense.

Is it actually talking about shrinking the legal chuck zone from five yards to one yard?

Click to expand...

Sure sounds like it although I don't understand why it's not just renaming that rule anyway it's just ridiculous.

Some comments on the comments.

Surprisingly enough I liked most of the rules EXCEPT -

1. The KO from the 40. As it is 60% of the KO's end up being touchbacks.. This would virtually eliminate one of the most exciting plays in the game even more than it already has.

2. I think BB's idea to make every ref's decision on a non-scoring play reviewable is a great idea. HOWEVER only if it comes with a limit on how many times he can use it. Lets say twice, and 3 times if you were right the first 2. The way the suggestion is being reported is that coaches can ask for a review all the time. Now that WOULD be ridiculous. There are about 4 challenges every week now, this just expands what can be challenged.

I think one of the unseen benefits of this call is that it might keep refs from making that really "marginal" call, because it can now be easily reviewed. The end result would be the extra time for 4 reviews would be matched by the fewer penalties likely to be called. Fewer penalties, means an overall faster game.

3. BB's 43 yd extra point. I think its a great idea. It would create some drama for a play that right now has zero drama. True only about 12% of FG are missed at that level, it would still add some excitement. It would also increase the usage of the 2 point conversion, which is one of the most exciting plays in the game.

Think about it. If the average game includes 5 TD's that means that there would be 80 TD's scored, statistically across the league there would be 9 extra point misses a week. Not many, but now there would be 80 more plays where their is a reason to watch.

It's takes 24 teams (three-fourths majority) any rule to pass, correct?

So the question is do we think the one yard pass interference rule will get 24 teams to agree to it?

If this doesn't get unanimous approval, face palm

Permit more than one player to return to the active list from injured reserve so that any player on injured reserve could return after six weeks.

Click to expand...

Big-T said:

It makes the likes of Sherman, Revis & Talib redundant and the more zone orientated corners like Verner & Grimes much more premium.

Coincidence that rule is proposed after Peyton gets his receivers beat up in the Super Bowl? Just like when his receivers got beat up by the Pats and the 5 yard rule started being reinforced after!

Click to expand...

It will not affect Revis in the least bit. He got called for just one penalty this past season.

JMC00 said:

If this doesn't get unanimous approval, face palm

Click to expand...

Would it really be that big of a deal for it to be unlimited amount of players? Or maybe make it so you can only have 5 on temp IR at one time. They could add some kind of rule to prevent stashing guys for a while who haven't learned the playbook or other similar stuff. Have to put back on active roster in 6 weeks or they go to perma IR.

I am guessing a team running the Tampa 2 proposed this rule. They are the only ones who really benefit from this. The Broncos just spent a lot of money to get Talib. This rule hurts the way he plays as much as Revis and Browner.

Where will the NFL be in 20 years? No hits? Basically flag football becasue the hits hurt too much?

Players accept the risk. Leave it as is. So KR are dangerous? But other hits on D just as bad are fine? Or should we make it so everyone has to have a yard buffer..when you get close enough the play is dead

6. The Patriots proposed allowing a coach to challenge any decisions from officials, while the Redskins proposed being able to review personal fouls. New England's proposal is far-fetched because it would slow down the game. Perhaps Washington's idea could gain some traction.

Why would it slow down game? The amount of challenges doesn't change

nowayback said:

Why would it slow down game? The amount of challenges doesn't change

Click to expand...

Yeah, wouldn't they still only get 3 providing they don't get one wrong?

49ers would never use 3 though because Harbaugh thinks every flag is wrong!

rlcarr said:

I don't even understand the alleged proposed rule change.

I'm almost positive the rules already allow PI to be called one yard downfield from the LOS.

The current rules are that you can engage in and retain contact within five yards of the LOS (though the contact can't rise to the level of holding) until the ball is thrown. Once the ball is thrown contact must immediately cease. PI can be called anywhere once the ball is in the air.

So "allow PI to be called within one yard of the LOS" makes no sense.

Is it actually talking about shrinking the legal chuck zone from five yards to one yard?

Click to expand...

Who knows?

Consider this. They make a BFD about "letting them play" in late playoff games like the NFC/AFC CGs and the SB. Remember the Ravens stopping SF's TD pass by mugging the receiver? So why not codify the rule and allow contact PAST 5 yds?

They need engineers or other people who can think logically on those empty suit committees.



EDIT: edited after reading rlcarr's later posts clarifying the 1 yd rule

Hey they want to expand the playoffs!...Can't wait to watch the mediocre Dolphins play the 8-8 Titans!

JMC00 said:

If this doesn't get unanimous approval, face palm

Click to expand...

The reason the rule is in place is to prevent IR 'roster stashing'. I can see the need to expand that number from 1, but this is not a slam dunk change unless there's still some limitation on that number or else teams will abuse it big time.

I kind of like extra point kick 'degree of difficulty' increased. But probably from the 20 instead of the 25. A 43 yard kick is a bit much for a 1 point play.

Big-T said:

Competition Committee announces new rule, bylaw proposals | ProFootballTalk

12. Modify pass interference so that it can be called within one yard of the line of scrimmage.

:bricks:

The other "highlight" being moving kick offs to the 40.

Every referee decision being reviewable however is a good one.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm reading it differently, but my take on this is that it's not a big deal

It's only pass interference if the ball is targeted 1 yard to a receiver - and frankly it should be - you shouldn't be able to interfere with a receiver trying to catch a ball whether its thrown 1 yard or 100

It seems to me the guys this hurts more are the mediocre CBs who NEED to use that 5 yard zone legal "bump" to slow down a receiver (and that contact would presumably still be legal - just as long as the ball isn't thrown to that receiver within that short zone)

Man to Man guys with speed and talent as with our CBs can cover well without that initial bump/hit (which if the ball is thrown 1 yard, I assume would result in PI)

Defense as we know it may be over. As scoring rates on drives starting even from the 20 yard line sky rocket thanks to new rules banning covering a receiver, and as kickoffs are now moved up to the opponents 40 yard line, most teams elect to try for onside kicks every kickoff. Some of the more forward-thinking teams have begun to eliminate defensive players altogether, instead filling their roster with 52 offense and special teams players.

Meanwhile, PED usage runs rampant among just one position: the kicker. With PATs being moved back to the opponents goal line, it has become impossible for all but the most cutting edge mechanically enhanced humans to complete the PAT attempt.

Proposals for next year include outlawing humans (citing safety concerns) and mandating that teams reduce the price of beer at their stadiums to a comparatively reasonable $3.00 per bottle.

VJCPatriot said:

The reason the rule is in place is to prevent IR 'roster stashing'. I can see the need to expand that number from 1, but this is not a slam dunk change unless there's still some limitation on that number or else teams will abuse it big time.

I kind of like extra point kick 'degree of difficulty' increased. But probably from the 20 instead of the 25. A 43 yard kick is a bit much for a 1 point play.

Click to expand...

They can set up a 'disabled' list to go along with the IR, and they could do it on the basis of an independent medical examination. Outside of that, increasing the number of IR-lite allowances would seem to be a pretty fair thing to do.

Zeus said:

Moving kickoffs to the 40 effectively eliminates returns but still allows for onside kicks. [[[yawn]]]

Click to expand...

Personally, I think this would increase player dangers, not decrease them. The NFL thinks if they move it to the 40, there will be nothing but touchbacks. I think moving it to the 40 not only encourages more onside kicks, but also more "squib" kicks where the kicker boots the ball 30 yards on the ground, hoping for it to pop up in the air, and create a 22-man free for all. From a kicking team standpoint, the worst case scenario is the receiving team covers the ball around the 20-25 yard line, so you're really not risking much.

VrabelJr said:

If that pass interference rule gets pushed through, defense as we know it in the NFL will cease to exist.

Click to expand...

It won't be anywhere near that significant of a change. Keep in mind that pass interference can only take place when the ball is in the air, so there is nothing in this new rule that precludes defenders from giving a "bump at the line of scrimmage."