idle thoughts - If I were commissioner.....

[patfanken]

We've all wondered what we would do as an all powerful commissioner and every year I lobby in vain for certain rules changes that make common sense to me but never get acted on. So “if I were King of the Jungle” (think the lion in the wizard of Oz):

a. A team shouldn't be rewarded for being penalized. In the Superbowl, at the end of the game, the Giants were penalized for having too many men on the field. However the 5 yds they lost was much less valuable than the 9 seconds that came off the clock. Based on the rules as they currently stand, the Giants could have run out the clock without ever giving the Pats a chance to score, simply by having 12 men on the field. THIS I think the league will do something about.

b.Why can't the ground cause a fumble?. I never understood this. I think its offense's responsibility to hold on to the ball until the whistle blows. It shouldn't matter if the ball comes loose because the ground or a defensive player, its their job to hold on to the ball.....period. It would make the ref's job easier. Fewer controversies, and less time under the hood.

c. The game would go a LOT faster if there was a permanent replay official in the booth. I never understood why it was so important that the ref on the field had to make that call. Accuracy wouldn't be lost and the decisions would take a lot less time. Its a no brainer..

d. Its called a TD. Then why is it at all you have to is cross the plane with the ball and it never actually get it to “touch down” in the endzone for it to be a score. I'd like to make it harder to score, by making it mandatory that either the player's feet has to be in the endzone, or the ball has to actually TOUCH DOWN in the endzone. So hypothetically if a player launches himself over the GL and is caught and sent back without the player or ball touching inside the endzone, then it isn't a score. Yes It will be harder to score, but it would reward good defense and be safer for players who would be less likely to launch themselves airborne and into dangerous situations.

e. I hate when a team gets a 45 yd gift when a players legs get tangled up and PI is called. My personal pet peeve is when a DB is covering a deep pass and is in the trail position and suddenly the receiver stops short and the DB, who is tracking the ball, runs into him, and a PI is called. It especially pisses me off when it happens on a badly thrown pass. Thus the offense gets rewarded for a poorly executed play. That's why the ref should have the option of calling a 15 yd gain for plays like I've described and point of the foul called, when a likely completion was clearly stopped by an interfering DB. Yes it requires the refs to make a “judgment” , and the league would like to eliminate that from the refs. But the refs make a LOT of similar judgments when they call or don't call penalties. You shouldn't reward poor execution with a bail out penalty. Its like the NBA – when a player goes kamikaze into the lane, just looking to create contact and not really having any intention of actually scoring, and gets rewarded with a 2 shot foul.

f. All personal foul penalties should be reviewed by the league after the game, so that in those cases where a guy was responding to a dirty play, and was just unlucky to be caught, would not be fined, but the guy who got away with it, would be. Player will be less likely to throw a sucker punch hoping for a retaliation flag, knowing that his crime would come back to haunt him.

g. The same for those plays where a player flops, or fakes an injury. The penalties for this kind of unsportsmanlike behavior should be severe. You might not catch it during the game, but you can after the fact.

h. Keep the OT rules that we had in the playoffs and use them in the regular season.

I FG's of less than 35 yds will be worth only 2 points. This would encourage more teams to go for it on 4th down, and make the game more exciting for fans. I would also consider making FG's over 50 yds worth 4 points. Thus rewarding a difficult kick and make it more likely that a team would go for the long FG, while at the same time increasing the opportunities for the defensive team to get great field position since they miss more than make it.

j. Eliminate kicking the extra point. You get the ball on the one and you have to use a football play to get the point. It would add excitement to a play that has been largely a formality. The team would make it most of the time, but not the mind numbing 98% success rate that's currently the case. And if you want to make it even more exciting, you can give the scoring team the option of putting the ball on the 7 yd line and go for 2 In one way or another we all pay a high price to be fans, especially those buying tickets. Lets get our monies worth and put some excitement back into the extra point.


k. I want to get rid of the 45 man roster limit on game day. I NEVER understood this rule. If only 45 guys can dress for games, then you should have only 45 men on the roster, and expand the PS's. You paying 53 men to be on your team, then why can't you let them play in the game. I can't believe the cost of sending 8 more guys to an away game is going to break teams' budgets, especially when a lot of teams will have 3 or 4 guys hurt who aren't going to play anyway. This rule makes no sense.
1.
2. And since I'm Ken.I'll stop at K, and will look forward to your comments

I was prolific today, even for me, so I split my post into 3, and hope some of the points won't get lost amid the confusion.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Based on the rules as they currently stand, the Giants could have run out the clock without ever giving the Pats a chance to score, simply by having 12 men on the field. THIS I think the league will do something about.

Actually, they can't: remember the rules specifically state that the game cannot end on a play on which the O accepts a penalty.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

k. I want to get rid of the 45 man roster limit on game day. I NEVER understood this rule. If only 45 guys can dress for games, then you should have only 45 men on the roster, and expand the PS's. You paying 53 men to be on your team, then why can't you let them play in the game. I can't believe the cost of sending 8 more guys to an away game is going to break teams' budgets, especially when a lot of teams will have 3 or 4 guys hurt who aren't going to play anyway. This rule makes no sense.

46, now.

In any case, though, here's a hypothetical example that explains why the rule exists:

Team A has one player banged up and unable to play.
Team B has six players banged up and unable to play.

Should Team A be able to field 52 players to Team B's 47?

 

[patfanken]

Maybe that true but look at the situation. Say you have the ball on your own 35 and you have 59 seconds left. You line up run a play, the other team has 12 or 13 men on the field making it very likely that the play will succeed. But you get the penalty and now the ball is on the 35, but there are only 50 seconds left. Next play the put 15 guys on the field. doesn't matter. You take 8 seconds for a failed play (hard to complete a pass when the other team has 15 guys on the field. They get penalized 5 yds, Now you have the ball on 40 but only 42 seconds left. And so on and so on. Remember the refs currently can't stop a team from having more than 11 men before the snap, They can only flag them after the whistle blows.

There are some easy fixes. You can give the offensive team back the time. Better still was not only give the offensive team back their time, add 10 seconds as well, and believe me it would never happen except by accident.

 

[patfanken]

46, now.

In any case, though, here's a hypothetical example that explains why the rule exists:

Team A has one player banged up and unable to play.
Team B has six players banged up and unable to play.

Should Team A be able to field 52 players to Team B's 47?

Actually that makes some sense, but injuries are a part of the game, so I think a team should be able to suit up all their healthy players for a game.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Maybe that true but look at the situation. Say you have the ball on your own 35 and you have 59 seconds left. You line up run a play, the other team has 12 or 13 men on the field making it very likely that the play will succeed. But you get the penalty and now the ball is on the 35, but there are only 50 seconds left. Next play the put 15 guys on the field. doesn't matter. You take 8 seconds for a failed play (hard to complete a pass when the other team has 15 guys on the field. They get penalized 5 yds, Now you have the ball on 40 but only 42 seconds left. And so on and so on. Remember the refs currently can't stop a team from having more than 11 men before the snap, They can only flag them after the whistle blows.

There are some easy fixes. You can give the offensive team back the time. Better still was not only give the offensive team back their time, add 10 seconds as well, and believe me it would never happen except by accident.

I wasn't saying that the rules are fine and don't need to be fixed; I'm just pointing out that your specific claim—that a team can kill the clock that way—is wrong.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

46, now.

In any case, though, here's a hypothetical example that explains why the rule exists:

Team A has one player banged up and unable to play.
Team B has six players banged up and unable to play.

Should Team A be able to field 52 players to Team B's 47?

BB likes the 46 man rule because it works against too much specialization which he doesn't like. Forces a team to have some guys who can do a, b and c.

As a fan, I want ALL players available

 

[Ring 6]

b.Why can't the ground cause a fumble?. I never understood this. I think its offense's responsibility to hold on to the ball until the whistle blows. It shouldn't matter if the ball comes loose because the ground or a defensive player, its their job to hold on to the ball.....period. It would make the ref's job easier. Fewer controversies, and less time under the hood.

The ground can't cause a fumble only when the player becomes down by contact when hitting the ground. You can't fiumble after you are down, because the play is over.
And, the ground can't cause a fumble is actually wrong. The ground can cause a fumble if it causes it before a body part touches that results in down by contact.

 

[Ring 6]

Actually that makes some sense, but injuries are a part of the game, so I think a team should be able to suit up all their healthy players for a game.

It is most likely a union negotiated rule to protect players from being cut when they aren't healthy. If all 53 were active, teams would be less likely to keep injured players on the roster, with 45 it leaves room, and time, to get healthy.

 

[jmt57]

I know a lot of people are in favor of making all 53 players available on game day rather than just 46, but my understanding for the 46/53 rule is that this is done in place of an in-season temporary injured reserve list, like other sports have.

In other words, if you want everyone to be available on game day then it would just be a 46-man roster, period (plus that non season-ending IR list); bottom line is that you'd still have only 46 players available.

As pointed out above, expanding to a full 53 man roster means more specialists and less versatility; is that what we as football fans really want to see?

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a legitimate question worthy of discussion. But me personally, I prefer the current setup.

 

[carolinatony]

If I were commissioner I would
put the SB on a Saturday.

Do you realize how many people miss work on the Monday after it.
Makes no sense to me.

 

[Ron Sellers]

If I were commissioner I would
put the SB on a Saturday.

Do you realize how many people miss work on the Monday after it.
Makes no sense to me.

As a football fan I'm with you 100% Tony.

Unfortunately there are so many business-related reasons for having it on Sunday that I am sure it will never happen.

- The host cities make a huge financial investment in this game, such as a ton of additional police/fire/emt payroll expenses, paying for comped NFL rooms execs rooms & meals, etc. If the game is played on Saturday people leave Saturday night or Sunday morning, spending far less money locally. That means the offers of how much they are willing to give to host the event will be far less enticing to the NFL.

- People like you and I that are so into football that we post on message boards are going to watch the game regardless. For television networks, what makes the Super Bowl so attractive is the massive audience the game attracts: mostly casual fans who probably haven't watched a single game all year. That demographic is likely to go out and do something else on a Saturday night, whether it be dinner and a movie, dancing at a club, or whatever. Ratings would be far lower on Saturday; fewer viewers means the networks pay less to televise the game, which trickles down to less money for everyone else involved.

Are the owners and players going to want to accept less money to play the game on Sunday so the public has fewer hangovers on Monday? About as likely as (fill in the blank of whom you think the sexiest woman in the world is) wanting to bed me in the next 24 hours.

 

[Ron Sellers]

i. FG's of less than 35 yds will be worth only 2 points. This would encourage more teams to go for it on 4th down, and make the game more exciting for fans. I would also consider making FG's over 50 yds worth 4 points. Thus rewarding a difficult kick and make it more likely that a team would go for the long FG, while at the same time increasing the opportunities for the defensive team to get great field position since they miss more than make it.

I don't know about this; it seems to penalize teams that did what they were supposed to do (get close to the end zone) and reward teams that did not. Also, what's to stop a team from long snapping or lateralling backwards to the holder in order get an extra point?

j. Eliminate kicking the extra point. You get the ball on the one and you have to use a football play to get the point. It would add excitement to a play that has been largely a formality. The team would make it most of the time, but not the mind numbing 98% success rate that's currently the case. And if you want to make it even more exciting, you can give the scoring team the option of putting the ball on the 7 yd line and go for 2 In one way or another we all pay a high price to be fans, especially those buying tickets. Lets get our monies worth and put some excitement back into the extra point.

I would prefer this: score a touchdown, you get seven points - period. To me there is too much emphasis on one short play in determining the outcome of a game.

An alternative: touchdowns are seven points. However, the team that just scored still has the option of 'going for it', but in this case if they make it they get one extra point (8 points, 7 + 1), but if they don't they lose a point (6 points, 7 - 1). If a team doesn't want to 'go for it', just proceed directly to the kickoff.

The one reason that it may not work is that networks might lose out on possible commercial breaks, but as it is now there is a set number (8, I believe?) per half. However with the way scoring has increased and when you factor in injury timeouts, there probably should not be a problem with their being able to show their allotted number of advertisements per game even if the extra point is all but eliminated.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

The one reason that it may not work is that networks might lose out on possible commercial breaks, but as it is now there is a set number (8, I believe?) per half.

How would that make a difference? They don't normally take a break between the TD and the XP.

 

[Joker]

If I were commissioner...I'd be Roger Goodell..in which case, the FIRST thing I'd do is fire myself...the second thing being...

....ritual sepukku...for the good of the game.

 

[UK_Pat37]

We've all wondered what we would do as an all powerful commissioner and every year I lobby in vain for certain rules changes that make common sense to me but never get acted on. So “if I were King of the Jungle” (think the lion in the wizard of Oz):

a. A team shouldn't be rewarded for being penalized. In the Superbowl, at the end of the game, the Giants were penalized for having too many men on the field. However the 5 yds they lost was much less valuable than the 9 seconds that came off the clock. Based on the rules as they currently stand, the Giants could have run out the clock without ever giving the Pats a chance to score, simply by having 12 men on the field. THIS I think the league will do something about.

b.Why can't the ground cause a fumble?. I never understood this. I think its offense's responsibility to hold on to the ball until the whistle blows. It shouldn't matter if the ball comes loose because the ground or a defensive player, its their job to hold on to the ball.....period. It would make the ref's job easier. Fewer controversies, and less time under the hood.

c. The game would go a LOT faster if there was a permanent replay official in the booth. I never understood why it was so important that the ref on the field had to make that call. Accuracy wouldn't be lost and the decisions would take a lot less time. Its a no brainer..

d. Its called a TD. Then why is it at all you have to is cross the plane with the ball and it never actually get it to “touch down” in the endzone for it to be a score. I'd like to make it harder to score, by making it mandatory that either the player's feet has to be in the endzone, or the ball has to actually TOUCH DOWN in the endzone. So hypothetically if a player launches himself over the GL and is caught and sent back without the player or ball touching inside the endzone, then it isn't a score. Yes It will be harder to score, but it would reward good defense and be safer for players who would be less likely to launch themselves airborne and into dangerous situations.

e. I hate when a team gets a 45 yd gift when a players legs get tangled up and PI is called. My personal pet peeve is when a DB is covering a deep pass and is in the trail position and suddenly the receiver stops short and the DB, who is tracking the ball, runs into him, and a PI is called. It especially pisses me off when it happens on a badly thrown pass. Thus the offense gets rewarded for a poorly executed play. That's why the ref should have the option of calling a 15 yd gain for plays like I've described and point of the foul called, when a likely completion was clearly stopped by an interfering DB. Yes it requires the refs to make a “judgment” , and the league would like to eliminate that from the refs. But the refs make a LOT of similar judgments when they call or don't call penalties. You shouldn't reward poor execution with a bail out penalty. Its like the NBA – when a player goes kamikaze into the lane, just looking to create contact and not really having any intention of actually scoring, and gets rewarded with a 2 shot foul.

f. All personal foul penalties should be reviewed by the league after the game, so that in those cases where a guy was responding to a dirty play, and was just unlucky to be caught, would not be fined, but the guy who got away with it, would be. Player will be less likely to throw a sucker punch hoping for a retaliation flag, knowing that his crime would come back to haunt him.

g. The same for those plays where a player flops, or fakes an injury. The penalties for this kind of unsportsmanlike behavior should be severe. You might not catch it during the game, but you can after the fact.

h. Keep the OT rules that we had in the playoffs and use them in the regular season.

I FG's of less than 35 yds will be worth only 2 points. This would encourage more teams to go for it on 4th down, and make the game more exciting for fans. I would also consider making FG's over 50 yds worth 4 points. Thus rewarding a difficult kick and make it more likely that a team would go for the long FG, while at the same time increasing the opportunities for the defensive team to get great field position since they miss more than make it.

j. Eliminate kicking the extra point. You get the ball on the one and you have to use a football play to get the point. It would add excitement to a play that has been largely a formality. The team would make it most of the time, but not the mind numbing 98% success rate that's currently the case. And if you want to make it even more exciting, you can give the scoring team the option of putting the ball on the 7 yd line and go for 2 In one way or another we all pay a high price to be fans, especially those buying tickets. Lets get our monies worth and put some excitement back into the extra point.


k. I want to get rid of the 45 man roster limit on game day. I NEVER understood this rule. If only 45 guys can dress for games, then you should have only 45 men on the roster, and expand the PS's. You paying 53 men to be on your team, then why can't you let them play in the game. I can't believe the cost of sending 8 more guys to an away game is going to break teams' budgets, especially when a lot of teams will have 3 or 4 guys hurt who aren't going to play anyway. This rule makes no sense.
1.
2. And since I'm Ken.I'll stop at K, and will look forward to your comments

I was prolific today, even for me, so I split my post into 3, and hope some of the points won't get lost amid the confusion.

a. Game cannot be ended on a defensive penalty accepted by the opposition. Although I understand a little that you can argue that if the play runs for a few seconds, and no positive play comes from it, it could be a valuable few seconds lost. They could potentially alter the rule to reset the clock at it's original standing say, under two minutes? I wouldn't argue with that.

b. If the play is touched down, then the ground can't cause a fumble because he is ruled down. If you tripped over your own feet however then of course the ground can cause a fumble. Only in college can it not, as you are down as soon as your knee, wrist, arm, shin or whatever hits the floor.

c. Don't see it as a huge issue although there are sports who do have a 'video referee' who calls the decision down to the referee ho wears a headset or has a walkie talkie...cricket and rugby over here employ those tactics.

d. This isn't rugby. It's actually more difficult to score than people think despite the goal line which expands across the whole pitch. This way is unique. I like it.

e. Agree PI calls need to be more like college...10 yards from previous spot within 10 yards and 10 yards (or maybe extend the cushion to 15 yards) penalty if more than that.

f. The system is fine as it is in my eyes. If you get a personal foul you automatically receive a fed ex however....you are able to lodge an appeal immediately and the fine isn't taken out of your pay packet that week. They wait until the following week to give you time to appeal and for the decision to be made. If you appeal and you are successful, your wallet remains untouched anyway so no refund is required. If you appeal and are unsuccessful, the money just comes out of your pay packet as planned.

g. How are you going to prove it? If you go down on the field you ahve to leave the game for at least 1 play...there's no real other way on clamping down on it. How are you going to prove he hasn't cramped up? It may be obvious to you, but you can't ban or fine someone for something that cannot be proven.

h. Agreed. I fail to see why it needed a test. I like the OT playoff rule and think it should be employed in the league this season...and I think it will.

i. ???? Silly point in my opinion. I don't agree. Why complicate things? A field goal is a field goal.

j. I think you could argue extended where it's kicked from but I don't see the point in risking injury of starting players for one measly point. I like the one and two-point plays as they are...even if the try is almost a foregone conclusion.

k. It's a nit pick. I actually like wondering who will be active and what it will mean for the approach on game day. Don;'t see how it harms anyone.