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

http://www.boston.com/sports/footbal.../reiss_pieces/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I'm with BB on this one:

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

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.

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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