Rule Changes You Would Like to See

This is an interesting thread. Good football content, civil, and yet every post has multiple 'disagree' x marks on them.

Froob said:

I don’t think you really need that, you need the refs to call it a touchdown if it’s close.

Click to expand...

I don’t like that because the ruling on the field is very important if replay is inconclusive.

I agree with the post saying any potential TD should be subject to automatic review.

tasmlab said:

Maybe automatically review touchdowns that weren't called touchdowns as well?

I don't how they would do this, but if a bad officiating call can be shown on the jumbotron to all 60,000 fans as its happening, go ahead and take a few seconds to consider changing it.

Click to expand...

Kind of dates back to Belichick's idea of a chip in the football and pylons, simple but highly effective.

captain stone said:

4 suggestions off the top of my head I have not heard mentioned:

Stop the clock after every first down made while the chain gang advances then re-spots the sticks...same as college.

Widen the hash marks on the field to their original distance apart, i.e. the same as college still is & the NFL used to be. The obvious advantage here is that there would be fewer opportunities for the incompetent zebras to mis-spot the ball placement.

Lengthen the legal chuck distance from a minimum of 5 yards to a maximum of 10, depending on the yards needed for a first down: if between 0-5 yards, the legal chuck distance remains at 5; if between 5-10 yards, the legal distance becomes the same as the YTG; and if > 10 yards the distance is capped at 10.

And regarding coaches' challenges, they should be determined by the number of timeouts a team has remaining: e.g., if you still have all 3 timeouts, then you should have At Least 3 challenges to use if you so choose; and while a team should Not lose a challenge opportunity (or a timeout) if their preceding challenge was successful, they would lose a timeout (and thus have one fewer challenge opportunity) if a subsequent challenge is unsuccessful.

Click to expand...

Kinda surprised you thought of this but it's a good idea Cap. I know a few guys I've talked with have mentioned this and others have brought it up as well. I think some prospects have trouble with spacing entering the league. At least at first it causes some trouble. I still like though.

Elijah said:

The players would have less control over their bodies under your proposal. Hell, players are being run into the ground by malicious front offices under the existing rules.

If there is no hard coded incentive for teams to let players rest and heal, then teams will absolutely employ pressure and deception to get guys back on the field. Do you think Trent Williams and Kelechi Osemele got into their situations by exercising their bodily agency?

Click to expand...

How do you know that?? My proposal would expand rosters so that there would be less pressure on the player to return until ready due to depth of the team..

Players would have more control and could stay on the sidelines until they are ready.. it seems ludicrous that a player has to play through injuries like a high ankle sprain and return quickly as that player cannot be put on some 30 or 60 day type of DL list and then return when able..

IMO the current situation and the lack of mobility between a temporary placement on some sort of DL and keeping a roster spot is more harmful to a player..

tasmlab said:

Maybe automatically review touchdowns that weren't called touchdowns as well?

I don't how they would do this, but if a bad officiating call can be shown on the jumbotron to all 60,000 fans as its happening, go ahead and take a few seconds to consider changing it.

Click to expand...

Froob said:

I don’t think you really need that, you need the refs to call it a touchdown if it’s close.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we all know that we can't rely on the incompetent zebras to do that.

Froob said:

I don’t think you really need that, you need the refs to call it a touchdown if it’s close.

Click to expand...

But that's wrong, too, because the call on the field is assumed to be correct and there has to be found evidence to overturn it.
So if it was a 50/50 play, calling it a TD so the booth can look at it makes it, say, an 80/20 play, which is bogus.

If you want them to call anything close a TD you have to get rid of the "assumed correct unless evidence is there to overturn" or else you're giving an advantage to the offense (and to the defense if you call anything close a turnover).

I think a better way to go would be "Any play that is a score or turnover or if called the other way would have been a score or a turnover shall be automatically reviewed, with the call on the field needing indisputable evidence to be reversed"

I would like to see 2 challenges per game per team on any issue (penalty, non-penalty; catch, non-catch; score, non-score). No loss of TO if you're wrong, but you only get 2 per game, period. Use them wisely.

i would like to see all the rules go back to what they were 15 years ago.

Still the best overtime rule I have heard:

If the game is tied at the end of regulation, you play on into overtime. There is no coin toss or kickoff. The team with the ball retains possession with same down and distance. First score wins. Now the overtime is part of the game’s strategy itself and does not lend itself to any luck. In addition, there would be shorter overtimes and less ties. When you really contemplate this idea and think about the objective of the game, it is a simple but perfect solution.

Otherwise you will have complaints forever about the luck of the toss or a really stupid college football style solution.

QuantumMechanic said:

I think a better way to go would be "Any play that is a score or turnover or if called the other way would have been a score or a turnover shall be automatically reviewed, with the call on the field needing indisputable evidence to be reversed"

Click to expand...

But don't most refs blow the play dead when they think they see a player step out of bounds? If that's the case, this rule couldn't overturn a bad call like the one on the Harry TD because the refs would still rule that it was ineligible for review because of that whistle.

DarrylS said:

My proposal would expand rosters so that there would be less pressure on the player to return until ready due to depth of the team..

Click to expand...

Surely you've heard the saying that "You can't make the team from tub", right? The rule you propose would work fine with players whose spot on the team is well secure, but what about players on the bubble? Players with playing time bonuses? Players with another player trying to steal their spot on the team? A player in a contract year? On & on.

There is so much pressure on these guys to play through injury that the IR almost saves them from trying to do something stupid to prolong their season.

bresna said:

But don't most refs blow the play dead when they think they see a player step out of bounds? If that's the case, this rule couldn't overturn a bad call like the one on the Harry TD because the refs would still rule that it was ineligible for review because of that whistle.

Click to expand...

Good point. Hmmm.

First, I think that the whistle must trump any replay. Once players hear the whistle they stop playing, as they should. So anything that happens after a whistle has to be voided (except for PFs and unsportsmanlikes) and I don't think there's any way around that, nor should there be.

So I think what needs to happen is that on close the plays the refs should be instructed to note in their heads what they think the call should be but not blow the whistle. Then when the play completes they announce what they believe happened and you go from there.

Example: Runner tightropes the sideline, may or may not have barely stepped OOB at the 20, continues into endzone.

Under current rules:
Ref believes the runner stepped OOB. Blows the whistle at the moment he thinks it happened. That is currently unreviewable and needs to stay that way. When the defense hears the whistle they will begin to stop, so it would be ludicrously unfair to say "well, he actually didn't step OOB so it's a TD".

My proposal:
Ref believes the runner stepped OOB but because it's close he holds the whistle. When the play ends, they confer and announce it's not a TD because the ref believes the player stepped OOB. The ruling on the field is "stepped OOB" and so would need indisputable evidence to overturn. However, if replay does indisputably show the runner did not step OOB then a TD can be fairly awarded because the defense was not told by the refs to stop playing (which is what the whistle tells them).

Sicilian said:

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.

Click to expand...

Right, in a one point game it was really iffy on who was benefitting from this move.

Now in a situation where a team is up multiple scores and is trying to milk clock it's a no-brainer to be the right move. But a one point game? Could have gone either way.

TB_Helmet said:

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

Click to expand...

I can work with that (or variations of it). I'm fine putting it at the one, the 10, or even the 20.

Oddly enough I was watching a re-run of an NFL network special where they have STARs of today watch film with STARS of the past. One segment included Champ Bailey reviewing the famous "Ben Watson" play. Even HE admitted he was sure the ball went out through the endzone.

brdmaverick said:

Right, in a one point game it was really iffy on who was benefitting from this move.

Now in a situation where a team is up multiple scores and is trying to milk clock it's a no-brainer to be the right move. But a one point game? Could have gone either way.

Click to expand...

My biggest problem with the loophole is that it has nothing to do with football. It is boring and not fun to watch as a fan. Both times it happened I thought it sucked, I rather watch a football game not a bunch of penalties committed on purpose to run out the clock. It's boring as hell!