Rule changes: No forceout, no 5-yd facemask, coin toss, direct snap fumble

[spacecrime]

If I'm a defender who finds a little facemask during a tackle, I now have no incentive whatsoever to let go.

His incentive is if he doesn't let go, the ball carrier gets an additional 15 yards tacked on.

 

[RayClay]

Am I the only one that thinks none of these were real important?

Worst play is the 70 yard heave and flail play, where the QB and WR actively look to cause a penalty when they can't gain yards by actually making a play.

 

[Tunescribe]

I think a lot of teams will defer just ot have the ball in the second half of the game.

I don't get it. If they kick off to begin the game, they automatically receive in the second half. So why would the coin flip winner choose to "defer" instead of choosing to kick off or receive? What am I missing here? I suppose the only possible advantage would be then choosing what goal they want to defend, but it's hard to figure how that would outweigh kicking or receiving, unless there's a really bad wind.

 

[spacecrime]

The no forceout rule is just awful. What problem were they trying to correct here?

Judgement calls on the part of the ref.

The ref can always tell if both feet got down. Whether they would have come down after apush is a judgement call.

Like the tuck rule, the NFL prefers to have consistency in calls above all else.

I think you guys are over-reacting to this force out stuff.

For one thing, the defense has had every single friggin rule change go against them for the last five years. About time they got one go their way. Second thing is that it will not be as easy as everyone thinks to push a guy out. The DB can't push before the ball gets there, and then has to push before the receiver gets his feet down. Pretty small window.

The only plays that will be affected are the heave the ball to the outside and either the reciever comes down with it or hope for a PI call. In this case, the teams that will benefit most from the rule are those with shorter DBs.

This rule really favors the Pats.

 

[spacecrime]

I don't get it. If they kick off to begin the game, they automatically receive in the second half.

No, they don't. The winner of the coin toss gets to choose to start the game. The loser gets to choose at the start of the second half.

I always hope for the Pats to lose the coin toss for that reason.

 

[RayClay]

Judgement calls on the part of the ref.

The ref can always tell if both feet got down. Whether they would have come down after apush is a judgement call.

Like the tuck rule, the NFL prefers to have consistency in calls above all else.

I think you guys are over-reacting to this force out stuff.

For one thing, the defense has had every single friggin rule change go against them for the last five years. About time they got one go their way. Second thing is that it will not be as easy as everyone thinks to push a guy out. The DB can't push before the ball gets there, and then has to push before the receiver gets his feet down. Pretty small window.

The only plays that will be affected are the heave the ball to the outside and either the reciever comes down with it or hope for a PI call. In this case, the teams that will benefit most from the rule are those with shorter DBs.

This rule really favors the Pats.

I understand the principle. What i have a hard time with is remembering any egregiously bad calls in this area. Seems to me they don't call it unless the receiver is definitely in bounds. Close = no catch.

I see mayhem and injuries with a call that was made judiciously and sparingly IMO.

 

[jbb9s]

Damn - this thread is all over the place.....


(A) Unintentional face mask will not be called. In other words, the 5 yrd penalty is removed from the rulebook - its not replaced by the 15 personal foul. So in other words, if its an accident, and you let go, its no penalty. That is the incentive.

(B) The deferring thing works like this. Right now, you win the toss and get to choose either the goaline to defend or the ball to receive. Whichever you don't pick, the other team does and then the goaline switches every quarter and the team that kicked to start the game receives in the 2nd half. End of story before now. Now you could theoretically win the toss, pick the goal to defend, the other team chooses to receive THEN you can choose if you want to kick or receive in the 2nd half. Therefore, you could kickoff both halves if the wind was super important.

My remaining questions:

(A) The shove out is a good rule. A receive goes for a ball, makes the catch and begins to drag his feet - if he is pushed out it still counts. I liked that. Now, what prevents a defender to not even care about the ball and just start tackling upwards and outwards to push out of bounds.

(B) This center to QB thing - what the heck is this???

 

[Tunescribe]

No, they don't. The winner of the coin toss gets to choose to start the game. The loser gets to choose at the start of the second half.

I always hope for the Pats to lose the coin toss for that reason.

I must be getting a late-night brain cramp. I thought the kicking team always is the receiving team to start the third quarter -- didn't know it was a matter of choice, although that's the way it normally happens with most coin flip winners electing to receive.

 

[Sicilian]

(A) The shove out is a good rule. A receive goes for a ball, makes the catch and begins to drag his feet - if he is pushed out it still counts. I liked that. Now, what prevents a defender to not even care about the ball and just start tackling upwards and outwards to push out of bounds.

You're assuming it's that easy. The defender still has to:

1) Keep up with the receiver who is likely running a quick out route.

2) Time the hit so it's not pass interference.

3) As a previous poster already pointed out, hit the receiver AFTER the catch but BEFORE the feet come down. This is a split second window.

It would be much easier to care about the ball rather than hope you can pull that off, IMO.

 

[RayClay]

You're assuming it's that easy. The defender still has to:

1) Keep up with the receiver who is likely running a quick out route.

2) Time the hit so it's not pass interference.

3) As a previous poster already pointed out, hit the receiver AFTER the catch but BEFORE the feet come down. This is a split second window.

It would be much easier to care about the ball rather than hope you can pull that off, IMO.

You're assuming they're not willing to take a 15 yarder occasionally to put terror into the heart of receivers.

Watch the safety hits now. Ad the incentive of preventing a made catch? Pheew!

 

[Sicilian]

You're assuming they're not willing to take a 15 yarder occasionally to put terror into the heart of receivers.

Watch the safety hits now. Ad the incentive of preventing a made catch? Pheew!

It's only a 15 yarder if the penalty occurs at 15 yards. PI is a spot of the foul penalty last time I checked. You think it'll be worth it in the end zone if it means 1st and goal from the one if the catch would be tough to make anyway... and again, the defenders are NOT all good enough to be in position to do this. The sidelines are hard enough to defend.

Oh, and don't forget that the hits are still subject to standard rules. Suspensions can still happen if you spear, etc. But a clean hit on a receiver should be rewarded I think, yes.

 

[PatsFanInEaglesLand]

I must be getting a late-night brain cramp. I thought the kicking team always is the receiving team to start the third quarter -- didn't know it was a matter of choice, although that's the way it normally happens with most coin flip winners electing to receive.

No if you won the toss you had the choice to start the game and the loser had the choice to start the 3rd quarter. So if for some dumb reason you chose to take the wind and kick off, the opposing team would than most likely also take the ball to start the 3rd quarter.

Now you can choose when to take the ball, I am betting most teams will now defer to get the extra possession in the 2nd half. Nothing like taking a lead into halftime, knowing your getting the ball to start the 2nd half.

 

[Sicilian]

Now you can choose when to take the ball, I am betting most teams will now defer to get the extra possession in the 2nd half. Nothing like taking a lead into halftime, knowing your getting the ball to start the 2nd half.

I agree. I think this was one of the factors that really swung the 2007 AFC Championship in the Colts favor. Not that they chose to start with the ball in the 2nd half, but after grabbing a late 1st half field goal and then the long TD drive to open the 2nd half, they had ALL the momentum.

 

[patsfanofNC12]

It's only a 15 yarder if the penalty occurs at 15 yards. PI is a spot of the foul penalty last time I checked. You think it'll be worth it in the end zone if it means 1st and goal from the one if the catch would be tough to make anyway... and again, the defenders are NOT all good enough to be in position to do this. The sidelines are hard enough to defend.

Oh, and don't forget that the hits are still subject to standard rules. Suspensions can still happen if you spear, etc. But a clean hit on a receiver should be rewarded I think, yes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if PA occurs in the endzone it is half the distance to the goal and a first down. Not a automatic touchdon.

 

[Sicilian]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if PA occurs in the endzone it is half the distance to the goal and a first down. Not a automatic touchdon.

Neither. PI in the endzone is 1st and goal at the 1 yd line. Almost an automatic TD.

 

[sebman2112]

I actually like the No force out rule. It leaves a little less in question (sometimes it can be hard to tell if the player actually would have came down with both feet in), and it's an advantage I'm sure the more intelligent defensive coaches will heavily instruct their players to use. I'm kind of surprised the league even wanted this rule, since they've been trying to stack everything in the offenses favor for a while now.

Eliminating 5 yard facemask penalties could be a good thing, but does that mean what would have been a 5 yard penalty will now go uncalled, or that they're going to call more of the 15 yard variety? From what I read, it sounds like there should be less facemask penalties, which would be a very good thing. But, I could see this one going either way, depending on how the refs actually implement the rule.

What I don't understand is why put such a limit on the amount of defensive players with speakers in their helmets? Defenders can rotate throughout the game, and the same LB's generally aren't going to play every down.

 

[Rob0729]

I like the rule changes. Obviously with the push out rule, the message is they don't like judgement calls affecting the game. So it is time for them to address Pass Interference. It is still the most costly penalty on the book and is consistently the rule that creates the most controversial calls and non-calls week after week. That should have been the rule they addressed this week.

 

[AdrianKlemm]

I actually like the No force out rule. It leaves a little less in question (sometimes it can be hard to tell if the player actually would have came down with both feet in), and it's an advantage I'm sure the more intelligent defensive coaches will heavily instruct their players to use. I'm kind of surprised the league even wanted this rule, since they've been trying to stack everything in the offenses favor for a while now.

I'm with you man. Its about time the defense gets a little bit of an advantage from a rule change. Also, I think it helps us that RM is able to come down with the ball even if defenders are trying to push him out.

 

[Deus Irae]

My two cents:

The "no force out" rule is a bad idea that's going to get players hurt. It will also effectively make the field thinner.

The coin toss rule was an overdue correction of a bad rule.

The facemask rule will likely result in more serious facemasks happening since players won't be as wary of getting a ballcarrier around the head. We could see more injuries as a result.

The defensive helmet radio rule is a work in progress that will likely need tweaking if it's to remain truly viable in this era of substitution.

 

[unoriginal]

You're assuming they're not willing to take a 15 yarder occasionally to put terror into the heart of receivers.

Watch the safety hits now. Ad the incentive of preventing a made catch? Pheew!

Why would a hit along the sideline be any different than safety hits anywhere else on the field?

Before, the force-out rule gave receivers a nice little safety zone along the sidelines, where they could even jump up in the air for the ball with the knowledge defensive backs would be less likely to try and dislocate the ball because, if the receiver held on, it would probably invoke the force-out rule. Receivers hate doing this in the middle of the field because they get creamed at no real advantage to themselves. But they could do it on the sidelines because (a) it was far from safety coverage, (b) because of force-out, they'd be less likely to get hit immediately after catching and (c) if they caught it and got hit, they didn't need to worry about having jumped because of force-out.

Not only does this rule change take away a judgment call, it will make receivers keep their feet along the sidelines, which makes that area of field more balanced, as it is the area - especially in the deep zones - that's usually hardest to cover.