NFL Competition Comittee Slips Rule Proposal in Under the Radar

IcyPatriot said:

This rule seems born out of possible legal implications for the league if they did not take appropriate action during a game. A rule we may not like but going forward however the NFL is changing in this area. I'm okay with it ... have to take the fan emotion out of it and what's best for the players health long term is what should matter.

Teams should be structured with rules like this in mind - if you cannot compensate for a lost player due to the rule then you have not done your team building job properly. This rule perhaps could hurt teams that have too many high priced players and horrible depth.

I think the league would be wise to expand the game day rosters ... if you really care about player safety then coaches should have more options for taking players out of a game to evaluate their health ... the game day inactive list should be eliminated. This is a foolish save some money rule ... game day rosters should be 53 if you really care about player safety. Billion dollar industry with some foolish save a few thousand dollar rules.

Click to expand...

Concur, inthat the only way such a proposed rule could work, is if the coach could keep all 53 active for every game. Otherwise, it's too limiting, and potentially too debilitating for any team.

Honestly, at some point the NFL needs to stop and just walk away from all these rule(s) changes. These are grown men playing in a game to which they full understand the risks. If they cannot grasp the potential for injury, then it is incumbent upon their agents and the league to insure that they do, and sign a waiver similar to what a doctor has you sign prior to surgery. It's informed consent. Period.

Professional football is an amazing, ye violent game. It's played by grown men in the prime of their lives, in the best physical shape of pretty much anyone else on the planet. Everyone understands that. It's time to accept that injuries happen and get on with it.

All of this brings to mind the "games" in the Roman Coliseum. It's not at all unlike gladiators suddenly being given timeouts for injuries, with a Medicus and his staff running out onto the field and stopping play to attend to the wounded. Or better yet, requiring full Legion-style armour and wooden swords, or swords and spears with blunted edges and tips. At some point, it stops being a game and crosses over into some bizzare twilight zone episode.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on it.

BlueThunder said:

1960 Pats.....You'd need the Green Monster or the Great Wall of China to hang all those rule changes on...all other walls would be too small.

Click to expand...

As so well alluded to above, if the Patriots are succesful in doing something, then somehow it must be wrong and therefore needs to be made illegal.

Can't stop Edelman? Change the rules!

Your slot receivers getting mugged by New England's D? Change the rules!

Your WR's getting covered too well by New England? Change the rules!

Your defense can't listen to what the ref says? Change the rules!

Your defense gets confused and can't call timeout? Change the rules!

Your D can't sub as quickly as New England? Change the rules!

Your team gets beaten like a rented mule by New England? Change the rules!

Can't change the rules enough to keep from looking like a damned fool against New England? Gin up some "gotcha" ambush scandal and feed the press!

Honestly, it's all so tireingly predictable. It's so very very true, that cliche' too: While the rest of the league is playing tiddlywinks, jacks and checkers, New England is playing 3-d chess. On multiple boards, against computers. And winning.

It must suck to be the rest of the league. And know it.

Sorry, Gwedd, I had too.

IcyPatriot said:

This rule seems born out of possible legal implications for the league if they did not take appropriate action during a game. A rule we may not like but going forward however the NFL is changing in this area. I'm okay with it ... have to take the fan emotion out of it and what's best for the players health long term is what should matter.

Teams should be structured with rules like this in mind - if you cannot compensate for a lost player due to the rule then you have not done your team building job properly. This rule perhaps could hurt teams that have too many high priced players and horrible depth.

I think the league would be wise to expand the game day rosters ... if you really care about player safety then coaches should have more options for taking players out of a game to evaluate their health ... the game day inactive list should be eliminated. This is a foolish save some money rule ... game day rosters should be 53 if you really care about player safety. Billion dollar industry with some foolish save a few thousand dollar rules.

Click to expand...

Since the first time I heard the complaint about Edelman still being in the game to catch the winning TD pass, was about three weeks after the Superbowl, I'm guessing it was born of jealousy as those friggin' cheating Patriots found another way to steal a game.

This time by letting a clearly injured player, possibly even on his deathbed, stay in the game. He should have been made to sit out so the Pats would lose.

Gwedd said:

As so well alluded to above, if the Patriots are succesful in doing something, then somehow it must be wrong and therefore needs to be made illegal.

Can't stop Edelman? Change the rules!

Your slot receivers getting mugged by New England's D? Change the rules!

Your WR's getting covered too well by New England? Change the rules!

Your defense can't listen to what the ref says? Change the rules!

Your defense gets confused and can't call timeout? Change the rules!

Your D can't sub as quickly as New England? Change the rules!

Your team gets beaten like a rented mule by New England? Change the rules!

Can't change the rules enough to keep from looking like a damned fool against New England? Gin up some "gotcha" ambush scandal and feed the press!

Honestly, it's all so tireingly predictable. It's so very very true, that cliche' too: While the rest of the league is playing tiddlywinks, jacks and checkers, New England is playing 3-d chess. On multiple boards, against computers. And winning.

It must suck to be the rest of the league. And know it.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is that eventually they'll water the game down to such a thin gray gruel that there won't be room anymore for the Bill's of the world to exercise their genius. Instead it will become a random crapshoot + who signed the hottest free agents and a revolving door at the top. Exactly what the league wants, Uniform Mediocrity.

Apparently they passed this rule, find it interesting that they did not have enough money for endzone and sideline camera's, but have enough money for another medical professional on the field.

I'm just waiting for next year when many teams push to remove the Quarterback position because it gives some teams a huge unfair advantage.

So, as I see it, there are three options for Coaches, Execs and Owners at the NFL's annual meetings:

A) Be the center of attention, even when it's hostile and/or downright unfair, because everybody else is sick of your winning all the time.

B) Whine a lot because you're sick of a team that wins all the time.

C) Play some golf, have a few nice dinners and otherwise be ignored because you haven't won squat in, say, 47 years.

Personally, I'm taking A), where the Patriots abide.
Most teams fall into B).
The Jets have the distinction of falling into both B) and C).

Life is good.

DarrylS said:

Apparently they passed this rule, find it interesting that they did not have enough money for endzone and sideline camera's, but have enough money for another medical professional on the field.

Click to expand...

My understanding is those personnel were already on hand.

Volin, for all his misses as a reporter and "analyst," actually had a good point yesterday when he said on Twitter this would more accurately be called the 'RUssell WIlson rule," since he got dinged pretty hard in the AFCCG, was clearly dazed, and never came out.

It's going to be a cheap way to stop the clock at the end of a half or game--just have one of your guys wobble around a bit after the whistle. How could they keep that from happening?

Spiral said:

It's going to be a cheap way to stop the clock at the end of a half or game--just have one of your guys wobble around a bit after the whistle. How could they keep that from happening?

Click to expand...

No to mention a great way to get a QB out of the game at crunchtime. 'Hit him in the head, as hard you can!'

Gwedd said:

As so well alluded to above, if the Patriots are succesful in doing something, then somehow it must be wrong and therefore needs to be made illegal.

Can't stop Edelman? Change the rules!

Your slot receivers getting mugged by New England's D? Change the rules!

Your WR's getting covered too well by New England? Change the rules!

Your defense can't listen to what the ref says? Change the rules!

Your defense gets confused and can't call timeout? Change the rules!

Your D can't sub as quickly as New England? Change the rules!

Your team gets beaten like a rented mule by New England? Change the rules!

Can't change the rules enough to keep from looking like a damned fool against New England? Gin up some "gotcha" ambush scandal and feed the press!

Honestly, it's all so tireingly predictable. It's so very very true, that cliche' too: While the rest of the league is playing tiddlywinks, jacks and checkers, New England is playing 3-d chess. On multiple boards, against computers. And winning.

It must suck to be the rest of the league. And know it.

Click to expand...

Gwedd, I love you and agree with everything you said except for the chess and checkers part. Just a pet peeve of mine. This expression doesn't make any sense to me. I get what people are trying to express when they say this, that a chess player has greater intelligence than a checkers player so a checkers player isn't smart enough to play chess. But, imagine if a chess player plays across from the checkers player. No one wins that game because the objective and rules are different. So isn't this a case of a checkers player against a checkers master? Am I crazy?