Rules they should change in the NFL: 2009 Edition

[hyperpat]

This is how I would like to see the overtime rules changed:

If the receiving team goes down the field and scores a TD, the game is over, same as it is now. If, however, the receiving team hits a FG, the other team gets a possession. If the second team scores a TD, the game is over. If the second team kicks a FG, the next score wins.

I like this idea. I was going to suggest the same thing. Reward a touchdown. OT games ending on a long field goal are crap. Puts way too much emphasis on who wins the toss.

 

[BradyBranch39]

I like this idea. I was going to suggest the same thing. Reward a touchdown. OT games ending on a long field goal are crap. Puts way too much emphasis on who wins the toss.

Yeah, the only OT alternative I like is the first-to-6 possibility. I think I still prefer the current system to it, though.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

Overtime. Overtime. Overtime. I've hated the OT system forever regardless of what end the Pats have been on.

I'd also want the QB rules taken away but that won't happen they were just put in.

 

[patfanken]

My 2 cents

1. Your IR idea is logical, in that it gets the ref off the hook, but kind of unworkable. It would mean adding ANOTHER 70 odd officials to the payroll. Also going to a committee to get a decision is RARELY a good idea. I'm all for doing what's necessary to speed up the process. That's where IR improvement ideas should focus. BTW. One idea to get the ref off the hook, would be to for him to select the best view of the play (the one that made up his mind one way or the other) and let the fans see it. Most of the time they DO get it right.

2. I have a number of thoughts on rule changes in the passing game. type calls.

a. First is illegal contact. The rule SHOULD state that its only illegal to contact the WR passed 5 yds....IF the defender IMPEDES the receiver from running his route. Incidental contact or touch fouls WOULDN'T be called.

b. I also agree with the 2 PI levels, except that any PI should come with a 1st down. I say the refs have to make judgments all the time, this added one shouldn't be a burden. The punishment should fit the crime.

c. ENFORCE the "uncatchable ball" rule (if its still a rule) Too often the offense is rewarded even though its a bad throw.

d. absolutely agree on the face guarding, though I think the league took care of that, and its no longer a penalty.....I think

3. I'm OK with the current OT. However if they asked me, I'd eliminate the KO and winner of the coin toss has to start on their own 20. The other thought would be that to you have to win by 4 points in OT. That would encourage more teams to play for a TD and make it much more likely that both teams would get to pay offense.

While my 2nd idea is a fairer way to play the OT, it will never happen because its in the owners and players best interest to limit the number of plays in a game for the players protection and having to win by 4 would lengthen OTs

4. The NFL talks about trying to take arbitrary judgment out of the game for refs, then introduces the "taunting" call, which is ENTIRELY a judgment call. The punishment RARELY fits the crime.

5. Half the distance to the goal should only be enforced inside the 15. Otherwise take the full yardage....but mostly I don't care.

6. Now understand, I come from an era when you could legally hit a QB 2 full strides AFTER he got rid of the ball. A time when as an OLB, my favorite move covering a back out of the backfield was the clothesline. It was also a time when, if your CB didn't warn you, the "crack back" could literally CRACK your back. I'm not looking for any of those rules to be put back. However I would like to see incidental contact to the QB's head NOT be called roughing. QBs have hard hats too, and it would take quite an OBVIOUS blow to cause any damage to the QB. However most of the stuff the DO call, is BS, that the QB barely feels.

Than being said I am all for the "Brady rule" Going low on a QB SHOULD be called. That call on Brady was the RIGHT one. The guy was clearly going for his knees. He shouldn't get off just because he almost missed.

Here are a couple that haven't been mentioned

1. More spearing calls. If they called this penalty more not only would there be fewer injuries, to both offensive and defensive players, the quality of tackling would improve. If you aren't hitting with your facemask and the forehead of the helmet, it should be a foul. If I had my way guys who tackle with heads down would be flagged for gross stupidity.

2. I noticed this one for the first time over the last few weeks. On at least 2 occasions that I saw TDs were awarded to the offense even though the ball never made it across the plane of the GL. Though the ball never made it across the plane, the player had a foot in the endzone when they caught the ball.

Now I have a problem with this since they DO allow TDs when the ball crosses the plane, even though the player himself never makes it into the endzone. Thats always been a pet peeve of mine. I'd like to see a time when a touchdown means what it says. That at least some part of the player "touches down" in the endzone....not just the ball.

 

[Satchboogie3]

I've always wonder why they don't lust play a 5th quarter for OT? Why stay with the sudden death format and make it even more complicated? You play a full 15 minute 5th quarter. If it's still tied after a 5th quarter, you could either end the game, or possible make it a coach decision. If both coaches agree, they can play another quarter or settle for a tie. I just don't get why it has to be sudden death.

 

[kas]

A few of my own thoughts:

OT should be two 5 min periods. Each team gets 3 timeouts but it only stops the clock (not a TV timeout). I don't understand why the NFL won't use it's most exciting aspect (end of half drives) as often as possible.

For half the distance penalties, I was thinking a little different. What is you went half the yards towards your own goal, but the first down line was extended by the remainder. For instance, if you are 1st and 10 on your 10 and called for holding, you get moved back to your 5 but it is now 1st and 20 like it should be with the LOS at the 5 and the first down marker moved to the 25 instead of the 20.

 

[Spiral]

"Penalty yardage should not move up the spot of a kickoff, but should instead deduct from the return."

Slightly off-topic: After a penalty to the receiving team on a kickoff, why is it OK for the kicker to boom the ball out of the EZ, when a punter would be criticized for doing the same thing?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

"Penalty yardage should not move up the spot of a kickoff, but should instead deduct from the return."

Slightly off-topic: After a penalty to the receiving team on a kickoff, why is it OK for the kicker to boom the ball out of the EZ, when a punter would be criticized for doing the same thing?

Good question. I remember in the Ravens meltdown, I was hoping Gostkowski would kick an onside kick from the Ratbirds' 35 and then recover it himself (as he did at Memphis ).

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I've always wonder why they don't lust play a 5th quarter for OT? Why stay with the sudden death format and make it even more complicated? You play a full 15 minute 5th quarter. If it's still tied after a 5th quarter, you could either end the game, or possible make it a coach decision. If both coaches agree, they can play another quarter or settle for a tie. I just don't get why it has to be sudden death.

The main reason I've heard for this is a concern about the potential for injuries.

 

[ForThoseAboutToRock]

A few of my thoughts:

1) If they take the yardage of a penalty enforced on the kickoff off of the end result of the return, then what happens when a player returns one for a TD? It doesn't seem balanced. I think the way they have it now is just fine... a 15 yard penalty basically ensures that your team isn't going to get good field position when you get the ball back, since it's going to be on the 20.


2) I'd love it if they would put RFID tags into the footballs so that it could be determined precisely any time the ball crosses the goal line or goes out of bounds... this could be used to sharpen up the murky task of spotting the ball on an angled punt out of bounds.

3) I'm a big fan of the idea of a first to 6 type OT scenario. It's entirely unsatisfying to see a game decided essentially by a coin flip. Seeing a team go for it on 4th and goal from the 2 to clinch victory would be a hell of a lot more exciting than watching that team flop an easy field goal through for the win.

 

[Oswlek]

Actually, the stupidest kickoff rule is that if you have a foot out of bounds, and recover a ball that's in bounds, it still counts as the ball going out of bounds. That rule needs to go.

That rule saved NE's bacon when David Patten was lying unconscious on the sideline in Buffalo in 2001. Don't take that one away.

 

[TruthSeeker]

7. Face guarding/ Obstruction of the Ball. I'm not even sure if this is a rule anymore, but I remember it was called against the Pats in the 06-07 AFCCG. Receivers not only can't be touched after the magical five yard mark, but also they cannot have their eyesight impaired, so you'd better give them a five yard cushion Don't want to force the receiver to shift his eyes to look between two of your fingers. Seriously... let's let the defense do their job and try to prevent yardage.

I think it's funny you want to change a rule that hasn't existed for years and didn't exist during the 06-07 game that you reference. The Patriot defender was not called for faceguarding, he was called for pass interference despite the fact that I couldn't see any contact (and I watched the play many times on my DVR).

 

[Boots Electric]

The faceguarding penalty is no longer on the books. The endzone celebrations should be given more leeway.

I'll say "no, thanks" to the other rules changes suggested here. The rule change that I'd like to happen is a return to the old style of "push out of bounds" still being a catch. Last night's game was a great example of why, too.

That's a rule I would like back as well. I never understand why they got rid of it.

 

[olschool]

Get rid of OT in the regular season. If it ends in a tie so be it. Playoff ramifications will be huge, so teams will have to play to win, instead of playing to get to OT, and hope to win the coin toss.

In the play-offs , play the OT with no time limit, with each team getting a shot on offense after the other team scores, until one team fails to score.
Eventually, one teams score will go un-answered, and there'll be a winner.

Unlike college, play it on a full field. It'll take longer, but we'll enjoy a longer game, and TV will get to feed us more commercials.

 

[Synovia]

The Patriot defender was not called for faceguarding, he was called for pass interference despite the fact that I couldn't see any contact (and I watched the play many times on my DVR).

No, he was not. He was called for faceguarding, and the ref clearly states that. Pereria, during the weekly umpiring roundup, said it was DPI. Pereria always stands by his guys though.

There was clearly no contact before the ball.

 

[Synovia]

That's a rule I would like back as well. I never understand why they got rid of it.

They got rid of it because its a ****ty judgment call that almost always gets *****ed and moaned about.

If they award the catch to the WR the defense's fans always complain that he wouldn't have come down. If they don't, the offense complains. Its a lose lose.


Now theres no question.

 

[Wolfpack]

I think like Bill, rules are fine, just enforce them consistently so teams can be coached to play to them. You do that by making officials more rather than less accountable. Do business as business is done and quit kvetching when the outcome doesn't suit you. The game was always inherently rough, but with bigger, stronger, faster players in the PED age they have to protect these guys from ending up in even worse shape than their predecessors and they have to protect an owners incredibly valuable assets as well. Football is a team sport and I think while premier talent matters premier coaching and scheme and execution matter even more which is why the league legislates to maintain focus on the game and not the individual antics of the more flamboyant performers.

I think you've made several brilliant points in your bold text (which didn't get quoted). The NFL is trying to make rules less subjective and not more subjective. We see this in the elimination of the "incidental face mask" penalty and the receiver "force out" rule.

So to make rules like pass interference or roughing the passer more subjective by making them multi-layed would just be a disaster. It would exponentially increase, not decrease, the complaining about bad officiating we already see.

 

[Wolfpack]

I've always wonder why they don't lust play a 5th quarter for OT? Why stay with the sudden death format and make it even more complicated? You play a full 15 minute 5th quarter. If it's still tied after a 5th quarter, you could either end the game, or possible make it a coach decision. If both coaches agree, they can play another quarter or settle for a tie. I just don't get why it has to be sudden death.

1) The league doesn't want ties. By playing a full quarter instead of sudden death you increase the chances of a tie.

2) The league wants nice and tidy conclusions to games fitting within a certain time frame. Making all overtimes a full 15 minute period would add about an hour to every game that went into OT.

 

[Wolfpack]

Good question. I remember in the Ravens meltdown, I was hoping Gostkowski would kick an onside kick from the Ratbirds' 35 and then recover it himself (as he did at Memphis ).

I was hoping he would angle kick it out of bounds inside the 10. The penalty for a kickoff out of bounds is the receiving team gets the ball at the out of bounds spot or 30 yards from the kickoff, so they would have gotten it at the 10