Welcome to PatsFans.com

ESPN: 15 rule changes pass, 2 get voted down (defensive radio, WR movement)

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by pats1, Mar 29, 2006.

  1. pats1

    pats1 Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    13,261
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2389062

    Here's a list of the ones that did pass:

    - Limited celebration

    - Replay changes

    - A rushing defensive player won't be allowed to forcibly hit a quarterback below the knees.

    - Centers who snap on field goals, extra points and punts can not have a defender line up directly over him.

    - Expanded the definition of a horse collar tackle.

    - Other little changes for safety included trying to limit the number of re-kicks by giving the kicking team more chances to take penalties after kicks.

    - The owners also prohibited kicking teams from loading up one side of the field on free kicks.

    - In a vote of 29-3, owners allowed teams to keep 75 instead of 65 players on their roster in the first cutdown, which is annually the Tuesday after the third preseason weekend. The trade off was the NFL Europe exemptions that allowed teams to bring more players to camp expire at that time.


    • The Bucs' recommendation to include all penalties for replay review was almost unanimously defeated.

    • The Chiefs proposal to expand the playoffs from 12 to 14 was tabled to May, but it doesn't have the support of Tagliabue and the Committee and is expected to fail.

    The Committee also completed a six-page clarification of the writing of the holding penalties that it hopes will bring uniformity to the calls and the coaching of offensive linemen.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2006
  2. patsfan55

    patsfan55 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,670
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    what are the replay changes being made

    i know i heard something about cutting back to 90 seconds, but what else?
  3. pats1

    pats1 Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    13,261
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    • Replay changes: Perhaps the biggest victory of the competition committee was the inclusion of down-by-contact plays on replay challenges. Last year, the Committee fell four votes short of getting down by contact plays included. This year, it passed, 27-5.

    Pereira said there were 12 plays in 2005 that would have been overturned in a replay challenge on a lost fumble that was ruled down because the player had been downed after contact with a defensive player. If the defensive team wins the challenge, the ball would go to them at spot of the recovery. In 2004, about 13 change of possessions would have been made in favor of the defensive team that recovered.

    One slight modification included in the rule change would shorten the time the referee has to review a play. The review time would go from 90 seconds to 60 seconds from the time the referee begins looking at the replay monitor. In reality, that's not much of a big deal. The average time an official reviews the play is one minute and seven seconds. The league is hoping to shorten the three and a half minutes of lost time during replay challenges.
  4. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,735
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +53 / 0 / -1

    #50 Jersey

    My comments are in red.

    As for the holding clarification, damn, they needed 6 pages to clarify what holding is and what it isn't?
  5. PatsRI

    PatsRI PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,618
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Anyone see any pattern here when it comes to which side of the ball is once again helped and which side is hurt? Rodney is not going to be happy once again.
  6. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,735
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +53 / 0 / -1

    #50 Jersey

    Don't know if I agree with this totally. The clarification of the holding rules as well as the review of "Down by contact" fumbles actually is a benefit to the defense.
  7. flutie2phelan

    flutie2phelan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Nothing there harmful to us.

    I especially like 15 yards for touching the hem of the QB's skirt. Anything that protects #12 is welcome.

    I wonder if the owners buy the line that the playoff officiating was acceptable?

  8. AzPatsFan

    AzPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,751
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +15 / 1 / -0

    Severe and lesser PI calls...

    The most needed rule revision was not touched, That is the Pass Interference rule. There should be two types of pass interference penalties. just like the ftwo ace mask calls. The severe and obvious PI should be awarded at the spot of the foul, or on the one, if in the endzone and FD. The lesser and questionable PI call, should be five or ten yards, or half the distance to the goal, and a FD.

    Its the arbitrary PI calls that so infuriated the fans, not any of the others...

    The best safety changes they could make would be to outlaw the Alex Gibbs rollup crackback-block blocks...
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2006
  9. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    A free kick is any kick not from scrimmage. It can be a kickoff (onside or regular), safety kick (the punt that comes after a safety, which I think is the term you were looking for), or fair catch kick (which is a field goal attempt after a receiving team can elect to kick after a fair catch, in which the defense must stay 10 yards back).
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2006
  10. SoonerPatriot

    SoonerPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    3,318
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Nothing on cameras on the goal line, something BB wants?
  11. dhamz

    dhamz Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,150
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0


    Unless they changed from what they were talking about prior to the meetings, the holding clarifications were supposed to reduce the number of holding penalties called.

    That in no way is going to help the defense.
  12. OldEnglandPatriot

    OldEnglandPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Good point about pass interference not being so much as sniffed at - and it's a game-changer, as we know from the Mile High mugging.

    The clamping down on touchdown celebrations absolutely infuriates me. It's so petty. Isn't football (whisper this) a GAME?

    It's also so arbitrary... why would using the ball as a prop (ILLEGAL) necessarily be any more inflamatory or taunting than doing a particularly provocative dance (LEGAL) close to a beaten defender?

    And to hear Mike Pereira trying to justify it by talking about a highschool player making a throat-slitting gesture after sacking a QB is just maddening. As Rich Eisen put it, that's comparing apples and oranges.
  13. Box_O_Rocks

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    20,550
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    1010101010
  14. QuiGon

    QuiGon Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    6,123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  15. jeffro

    jeffro Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Anyone think that allowing challenge of down by contact seems messy? I'm picturing things getting out of control when the ball gets pulled out after a play is over and all the players ignore the whistle.
  16. Brownfan80

    Brownfan80 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,305
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    Yeah, I'm confused by this as well.. I don't understand what is now challengeable.

    When a player is down by contact, the play is over after the whistle blows. How can anything after it be reviewable? The play was over, whatever happened afterwards didn't actually exist. If the whistle blows and one guy stops, but the other doesnt how is that fair? The whistle no longer signals the end of a play?
  17. JJDChE

    JJDChE Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,846
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I don't see any of the rules changes listed as 'progress'. For the most part, it's a step backwards.

    The horse collar rule is complete BS, so ONE superstar WR got hurt on a "horse collar tackle" in the last however many years and now it has to be a rule? This is getting ridiclous.
  18. OldEnglandPatriot

    OldEnglandPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Per the comment earlier about Bruschi crawling to a QB and pulling him down, that's still allowed. It's a 'forceful' hit below the knee that's outlawed, not grabbing.
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    OEP, I noticed that difference, but it does still seem like little much, to make it illegal to basically fly into the legs of a QB, if that's the shot you have as a would-be tackler. In a vacuum I think I'd oppose this. But I think it helps the Pats more than hurts.

    Of course, the rule is a reaction to Carson Palmer receiving Kimo-therapy early in the Steelers-Bengals game, and you always hate to see something like that. But how many flying-at-the-legs sacks will we miss seeing that don't mangle a star QB?

    But from the homer point of view: New England gets pressure with the "credible threat" of sacks, not huge sack totals. On the other hand, until we're shown otherwise, Brady's as important to us as any QB is to their team anywhere. So I'd say over the years this one has to look like a net gain for the Pats (after all, we just threw out the post-season sackingest linebacker ever to play.)

    .02,

    PFnV
  20. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,735
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +53 / 0 / -1

    #50 Jersey


    Then you aren't understanding the down by contact issues. The issues are what happens PRIOR to the player being ruled "down." Not after. There were several plays last year where a player fumbled the ball yet was ruled "down by contact" even though the ball actually came loose PRIOR to the player being down. This would have resulted in a turnover and change of possession.

    It has NOTHING to do with what happens after the whistle blows.
  21. flutie2phelan

    flutie2phelan Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,148
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Probably many others recall ... early in the 31-0 waxing of the Bills to avenge their 0-31 job on us ...
    that Lawyer Milloy, "good friend of Tom Brady"!, smashed into Tom's knees on a blitz.
    He gamely got to his feet, shook it off, and continued leading the victory parade.

    But until he did, cold fear seized my chest ... and maybe yours.
    I could do without seeing that again.
  22. jeffro

    jeffro Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You are the one who does not understand my point. The new rule will be welcome in that fumbles incorrectly ruled "down by contact" can be overturned. But in such a case, the whistle WILL blow, so the players will have to play after the whistle to recover the ball. This might cause some problems.
  23. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,531
    Likes Received:
    41
    Ratings:
    +43 / 0 / -2

    Flutie2, true. But then again, Drew got his Aorta sheared (or something) by a completely non-leg-related hit by Mo Lewis. I was sure that was the end of the world until Brady's emergence. (Then, naif that I was, I was sure that they couldn't really let go of Drew that offseason - the first of many "now they've gone too far!"s, for me. Now I just shrug and say stuff like, thanks for the memories, Adam.)
  24. OldEnglandPatriot

    OldEnglandPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The committee actually mentioned that the tackle on Carson Palmer would not have been a foul under the new rule. They say it's not a reaction to that or any other QB hit that caused an injury this season, but from viewing lots of tape.

    I have mixed feelings about the rule myself, but their point is that a QB planting his foot to throw is particularly vulnerable to a nasty injury from a knee to ankle hit and I can see that.

    It was quite fascinating to see some of the debate and voting on NFL Network. Jeff Lurie brought up the commercial side of protecting QBs, citing a big difference in viewing figures with McNabb playing versus McNabb out injured.

    Cowher and Coughlin were two to speak out against the horse-collar I believe, which the Patriots also voted against.

Share This Page