Rule Changes You Would Like to See

[Calhoun44]

I hope they close the loophole of intentionally taking a penalty to waste time to help running out the clock that BB exposed and Vrabel used this year. I really think it is boring for the fans and makes a mockery of the game. It was surprising to me that the clock didn't stop after a penalty. I'd like to see them put time back on the clock to the original time before the first penalty was called if the other team chooses that option. If nothing else just stop the clock after the first penalty and only run it after the ball is snapped.

The other rule that bothers me is when the offense has the ball near their own goal line and commits a penalty, the refs move the ball "half the distance to the goal". I think that is fine, but they should move the first down marker/yard to gain upfield the same amount. For example, if it is 1 and 10 on the 10 yard line and the offense commits a holding penalty, the refs should move the ball to the 5 yard line (i.e. half the distance to the goal) and then move the first down marker upfield from the 20 yard line to the 25 yard line, making it 1st and 20, like it usually is when someone commits that penalty.

Also, I'm still unsure about the reviews of PI. I think they should keep it again next year and get more data before deciding if it is worth having.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I hope they close the loophole of intentionally taking a penalty to waste time to help running out the clock that BB exposed and Vrabel used this year. I really think it is boring for the fans and makes a mockery of the game. It was surprising to me that the clock didn't stop after a penalty. I'd like to see them put time back on the clock to the original time before the first penalty was called if the other team chooses that option. If nothing else just stop the clock after the first penalty and only run it after the ball is snapped.

The other rule that bothers me is when the offense has the ball near their own goal line and commits a penalty, the refs move the ball "half the distance to the goal". I think that is fine, but they should move the first down marker/yard to gain upfield the same amount. For example, if it is 1 and 10 on the 10 yard line and the offense commits a holding penalty, the refs should move the ball to the 5 yard line (i.e. half the distance to the goal) and then move the first down marker upfield from the 20 yard line to the 25 yard line, making it 1st and 20, like it usually is when someone commits that penalty.

Also, I'm still unsure about the reviews of PI. I think they should keep it again next year and get more data before deciding if it is worth having.

It would be an absolute outrage and “pushing the limits of the competitive spirit” if not “insulting to the game” if the Patriots had done it. We all know this. Since someone did it against them, it will be addressed quietly after Vrabel smartly used a loophole.

 

[Guts]

I'd love it if DPI were automatically only 15 yards instead of a spot foul again.

 

[Sicilian]

I think we'll absolutely see something done about the loophole. Even before Vrabel used it, Belichick did too and flat out called it a loophole. I think the easiest fix is to give the team the option to stop the clock or keep it running. That way if the offensive team is trailing, they don't benefit from an automatic clock stoppage when they commit a penalty.

As for the half the distance change, I'm not sure it's a big deal. You have to be backed up already for that to happen. I don't mind your rule change, but I also don't think anyone cares enough to bother making it.

One change I would like to see is, if you're going to automatically review turnovers and scoring plays, automatically review plays that - if overturned - would become turnovers and scoring plays. Too often I feel like the refs err on the side of a fumble or touchdown, because they know replay will bail them out if they're wrong. The problem here is once it's called fumble on the field, you need clear evidence to overturn it. I'd rather them be making more earnest attempts at getting the call right in the first place.

I'd also like to get rid of the "win two challenges, get a third one" system, and just make it so you get three total, but lose the third one if you fail the first two. I don't think coaches should be punished for getting the challenges right.

 

[signbabybrady]

New rule if a team had the rights of a players service for more than 15 years they can retain the player with off the books contracts.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I'd love it if DPI were automatically only 15 yards instead of a spot foul again.

There could be two variations. One could be pass interference (15 yards) and the other obstruction (spot foul). Obstruction could be something interpreted as extremely obvious, whereas PI could be more incidental. Otherwise you’ll have defensive backs tackling receivers who have them beaten on deep passes.

 

[bresna]

It would be an absolute outrage and “pushing the limits of the competitive spirit” if not “insulting to the game” if the Patriots had done it. We all know this. Since someone did it against them, it will be addressed quietly after Vrabel smartly used a loophole.

Um... we DID do it. Did you miss that game?

 

[Sicilian]

New rule if a team had the rights of a players service for more than 15 years they can retain the player with off the books contracts.

It depends on how much the league actually wants players staying in one place, versus how much they like the off season chatter of free agency, etc. But I wouldn't mind a tier system, like if you have 5 accrued seasons with a team, you can be paid up to a million per season that doesn't count towards the cap. 10 seasons could go up to 3, and 15 could go up to 5. Numbers are just hypothetical, but something to give players an incentive to stay with one team while not completely breaking the spirit of having a cap to begin with.

I'm sure there's a logistical problem with my idea. I'm sure someone here will kindly and graciously point out what it is without calling me an idiot.

 

[FCB02062]

Expand game day rosters, add wild card, automatic clock stoppage after every play inside 2 min (xfl), 2 timeouts/half, move kickoff back to 30, revert to old onside kick rules, make EVERY play reviewable regardless of whistle...that's just to name a few

 

[XLIX]

There could be two variations. One could be pass interference (15 yards) and the other obstruction (spot foul). Obstruction could be something interpreted as extremely obvious, whereas PI could be more incidental. Otherwise you’ll have defensive backs tackling receivers who have them beaten on deep passes.

Sounds great in theory but would be an absolute sh*tstorm if implemented.

 

[bresna]

I'd like to see them allow challenges of forward progress in instances where the whistle was not blown. I hate when a ref announces that the play cannot be challenged because they ruled that the runner's forward progress was stopped.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Um... we DID do it. Did you miss that game?

Yes, one time, up 33-0. It was also suggested Belichick did it to alert the league about the loophole (see Florio's take at the time, which is that this was a signal to make this change before it costs a team a big game.) I'm sure the Patriots would have milked it for everything it's worth in the postseason too, but let's not deny the obvious double standard here.

 

[bresna]

Here's another one I'd like to see: If a player is forced out of bounds by a defender, that player should not get penalized for illegal touching. Sure, if that player runs out of bounds without any contact, throw the flag, but when a player is pushed out and then makes a play, it's not their fault that they went out.

If they're worried about players faking it, make these plays part of the "automatic review" package.

 

[XLIX]

Yes, one time, up 33-0. It was also suggested Belichick did it to alert the league about the loophole

This raises the question in me which I haven't seen anyone else ask: Did Vrabel know about the rule or did he learn about it from that NE-NYJ game? I can't help but think Belichick outsmarted himself by alerting the world about a loophole which would later be used against him.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Here's the change I'd like to see:

Currently if you fumble it out of bounds at the opposing team's 1 yard line, you get the ball back. But if you fumble it out of their end zone, they get the ball as a touchback.

I don't understand the logic behind that. It seems incredibly punitive to me and can when it happens it generally changes the whole course of the game, up to a 14 point swing. It also makes players less likely to dive for the pilon which is an exciting play. Why not just say if you fumble it out the end zone you either get it at the 1 or if you want to impose a light penalty then you get it at the 10 or something.

Incidentally I stated this opinion before on here and people disagreed for some reason, so have at it

 

[sb1]

Put overtime back to sudden death like it was and leave it that way.

The question of fairness is answered by the coin toss where it’s a 50-50 chance you’ll get the ball. Seems fair to me.

 

[Tottie]

This raises the question in me which I haven't seen anyone else ask: Did Vrabel know about the rule or did he learn about it from that NE-NYJ game? I can't help but think Belichick outsmarted himself by alerting the world about a loophole which would later be used against him.

I thought Vrabel actually hurt his team and not NE when he did that. In that situation, most years anyway, you could of then put the 4 min offense out there and drain the clock and kick the fieldgoal to win. Obviously it didn't work out that way, but I just didn't see how it helped TEN unless they assume they will stop NE. It wasn't that big a deal imo.

 

[Sicilian]

Here's the change I'd like to see:

Currently if you fumble it out of bounds at the opposing team's 1 yard line, you get the ball back. But if you fumble it out of their end zone, they get the ball as a touchback.

I don't understand the logic behind that. It seems incredibly punitive to me and can when it happens it generally changes the whole course of the game, up to a 14 point swing. It also makes players less likely to dive for the pilon which is an exciting play. Why not just say if you fumble it out the end zone you either get it at the 1 or if you want to impose a light penalty then you get it at the 10 or something.

Incidentally I stated this opinion before on here and people disagreed for some reason, so have at it

I personally would go the opposite direction: If you fumble out of bounds, it's a turnover. Hang on to the damn ball.

 

[Sicilian]

I thought Vrabel actually hurt his team and not NE when he did that. In that situation, most years anyway, you could of then put the 4 min offense out there and drain the clock and kick the fieldgoal to win. Obviously it didn't work out that way, but I just didn't see how it helped TEN unless they assume they will stop NE. It wasn't that big a deal imo.

I was actually thinking that while it was happening. "Vrabel might regret this if we kick a field goal with like 20 seconds left, and he could have had two more minutes to get one of his own." Like you said, didn't work out that way, but it absolutely could have backfired on him.

 

[TB_Helmet]

I personally would go the opposite direction: If you fumble out of bounds, it's a turnover. Hang on to the damn ball.

Yeah I'd be fine with that too, it's just the inconsistency with fumbling at the 1 vs out the end zone that bothers me.