BB's proposed rule changes: all plays reviewable; goal line cameras; PAT moved back

@jeffphowe
The Patriots have proposed three rules changes: 1. All plays are reviewable. 2. Fixed cameras on goal lines. 3. PAT kicks spotted at the 15.


First 2 should pass easily but they won't.

Patriots suggest some rule changes



I love #1. Hell, I think if you've got the challenges that you should be able to challenge a penalty too.

#2 Is a 'that isn't that already the case?!' type of rule.

#3 Makes sense.

#3 makes sense when you have the best place kicker in the league.

Don't like 3 at all. Just leave the PAT alone. I don't want bad weather games decided on PATs. Not sure what 2 actually does and one is great

They need to destroy "jump ball Joe's" DPI special...

#3 is a terrible idea. It takes away the element of surprise of fake extra points.

As for goal line cams, can they put them in the pylons?

Fixed cameras on goal lines make sense. In order to ensure the correct call on balls that traveled over goal posts, BB also suggested a laser that shot straight upward from inside the goal post. I like it but needs to be thought through some more.

Froob said:

Don't like 3 at all. Just leave the PAT alone. I don't want bad weather games decided on PATs. Not sure what 2 actually does and one is great

Click to expand...

Then take the PAT completely out of the game. What is the point of it ? It is essentially automatic but a huge injury risk.

Either make it something that requires skill and can make a difference in the game, or take it out completely.

Wheelman said:

#3 is a terrible idea. It takes away the element of surprise of fake extra points.

Click to expand...

When was the last time that happened?

I think #3 is a great idea. With conversion rates north of 99%, it's a useless play that both wastes time and gives players one more chance to be injured. Bumping it back infuses some drama. If you don't want to bump it back, then just give teams the choice of a free 7 or 6 with the ball on the two.

luuked said:

Then take the PAT completely out of the game. What is the point of it ? It is essentially automatic but a huge injury risk.

Either make it something that requires skill and can make a difference in the game, or take it out completely.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I haven't thought this through, but maybe they should give the scoring team the choice of taking an authomatic seven points without a PAT attempt or nine points for a kick with the ball spotted at the 20 (37 yd FG). I'm sure there are problems with that but I don't have the time to think them through.

luuked said:

Then take the PAT completely out of the game. What is the point of it ? It is essentially automatic but a huge injury risk.

Either make it something that requires skill and can make a difference in the game, or take it out completely.

Click to expand...

It isn't automatic. Vikings lost a crucial game to the Bears on a PAT that cost them homefield advantage vs the Saints in the playoffs (a game they barely lost). Bengals missed a PAT in 2006 in Denver that cost them a playoff spot. How is it a huge injury risk? Players rarely ever get hurt on PATs. Just because Gronk got hurt once doesn't mean it's a huge injury risk that's just absurd. We're trying to find solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

The Colts also suggested a rule change after everyone got done huffing glue in Irsay's car or something.

Will Brinson ‏@WillBrinson 31m31 minutes ago
The Colts proposed adding a BONUS, 1-point, 50-yard field goal attempt for teams who successfully make a 2-pt conversion.

Click to expand...

I'm in favor of all three of these. Though I think there could be some growing pains with #1... they'll need to figure out some pretty exact parameters on reviews, such as whether a ref has the authority to change something that wasn't challenged. For example, if a coach says, "I don't think that was pass interference on my DB," can the ref look at the replay, and while overturning the call then say, "The receiver should have been called for OPI, so we're doing that now."? Or can they only change/confirm the original call? Lot of details would need to be worked out, and if it's like anything else in the league they probably won't find all the little issues until they've had some time to try it out in real games.

fnordcircle said:

The Colts also suggested a rule change after everyone got done huffing glue in Irsay's car or something.

Click to expand...

While we're at it, why don't we give teams 4 points for 50+ yard field goals and a baker's dozen if they catch a TD one handed. You also get to have a twelfth man on defense if two of your other players agree to play without shoes.

robertweathers said:

Fixed cameras on goal lines make sense. In order to ensure the correct call on balls that traveled over goal posts, BB also suggested a laser that shot straight upward from inside the goal post. I like it but needs to be thought through some more.

Click to expand...

No
BB suggested lengthening the goal post upward & they did, successfully.
I was the high tech nerd moron who suggested lasers.

I have also posted here numerous times advocating a camera array at each goal line. HDTV cameras are cheap.

PatsWickedPissah said:

No
BB suggested lengthening the goal post upward & they did, successfully.
I was the high tech nerd moron who suggested lasers.

I have also posted here numerous times advocating a camera array at each goal line. HDTV cameras are cheap.

Click to expand...

Man I'm getting old....I'm confusing posters for BB.

I like it though. How you determine if the ball will bounce inside/outside the posts is the issue.

I don't think that inside/outside post bounces are an issue with HDTV cameras.
What WAS an issue was the Ravens FG that clearly was missed outside the posts before they raised them.
Lots of iPhone movies showed the refs call was wrong. This is now fixed.

PatsFanSince74 said:

Interesting. I haven't thought this through, but maybe they should give the scoring team the choice of taking an authomatic seven points without a PAT attempt or nine points for a kick with the ball spotted at the 20 (37 yd FG). I'm sure there are problems with that but I don't have the time to think them through.

Click to expand...

Every team in the league right now would go for the 9 unless they only needed 7 to win.

luuked said:

Then take the PAT completely out of the game. What is the point of it ? It is essentially automatic but a huge injury risk.

Either make it something that requires skill and can make a difference in the game, or take it out completely.

Click to expand...

7 point TD, option to gamble on it (normal 2pt conversion rules), if successful counts as 8, if failed counts as 6.

strngplyr said:

7 point TD, option to gamble on it (normal 2pt conversion rules), if successful counts as 8, if failed counts as 6.

Click to expand...

I ****ken love dis.