Belichick's Proposed Rule Changes

[Mark12]

2 point conversion will not change. Still be marked at the 2 yard line.

Oh in that case I'm all for the change

 

[Gumby]

I don't like the XP rule because what happens when a team is down by 8 with a few seconds left? Attempting a 2 conversion from the 25 yard line will be virtually impossible to convert. I also feel like 2 point conversions are some of the most intriguing plays in football games when they happen.

I think the point was that you would have to declare before the play:
2-pt attempt: ball spotted on 2.
1-pt attempt: ball spotted on 20 or 25

I wonder how often anyone would go for a trick 2-pt play (from so far away [20 or 25])?

I voted no on the 25 yard, as I think 20 is better. 25 maybe makes more sense from the historical success-% numbers, but it just seems way too far away logically - and as I said above I think it all but eliminates the possibility of a trick 2-pt play.

 

[Mark12]

I think the point was that you would have to declare before the play:
2-pt attempt: ball spotted on 2.
1-pt attempt: ball spotted on 20 or 25

I wonder how often anyone would go for a trick 2-pt play (from so far away [20 or 25])?

I voted no on the 25 yard, as I think 20 is better. 25 maybe makes more sense from the historical success-% numbers, but it just seems way too far away logically - and as I said above I think it all but eliminates the possibility of a trick 2-pt play.

Trick 2-pt play? How often does that happen? Once every decade?

 

[Crazy Patriot Guy]

Why are people so in love with the extra point being automatic and meaningless? I don't get it.

To beat the Raiders in the 2001 playoffs, Vinatieri had to make one of the greatest clutch kicks in NFL history. He himself has said he makes that kick maybe 10 out of 100. Under this XP rule change, he would need to make that kick again, (after Brady's TD run) just 3 yards closer.

Why is extra points being automatic a worse thing than us possibly not winning Super Bowl 36?

 

[Mark12]

To beat the Raiders in the 2001 playoffs, Vinatieri had to make one of the greatest clutch kicks in NFL history. He himself has said he makes that kick maybe 10 out of 100. Under this XP rule change, he would need to make that kick again, (after Brady's TD run) just 3 yards closer.

Why is extra points being automatic a worse thing than us possibly not winning Super Bowl 36?

You live up to your username hehe

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

To beat the Raiders in the 2001 playoffs, Vinatieri had to make one of the greatest clutch kicks in NFL history. He himself has said he makes that kick maybe 10 out of 100. Under this XP rule change, he would need to make that kick again, (after Brady's TD run) just 3 yards closer.

Why is extra points being automatic a worse thing than us possibly not winning Super Bowl 36?

Relax, Mr Peabody's Wayback Machine is NOT REAL!!!

 

[SB39]

2 Extending goalposts upward an additional 5 feet.

I don't even consider this a rule change. To me, it is just a commonsense solution to a problem that pops up a handful of times per year.

 

[SB39]

Trick 2-pt play? How often does that happen? Once every decade?

I can't remember even seeing it in the pros, although I do remember that one time over a decade ago the Patriots scored a highly controversial TD to beat the Bills with 0:00 left on the clock (IIRC, it wasn't the TD which was controversial but rather the PI call on the Hail Mary the play before).

So the Bills all left the field, Pats lined up for the XP, snapped the ball, lateral to Adam V, and he trotted in for 2.

(Any errors in the above story come from faulty memory but I am sure someone will set me straight )

 

[Patsrock]

I can't remember even seeing it in the pros, although I do remember that one time over a decade ago the Patriots scored a highly controversial TD to beat the Bills with 0:00 left on the clock (IIRC, it wasn't the TD which was controversial but rather the PI call on the Hail Mary the play before).

So the Bills all left the field, Pats lined up for the XP, snapped the ball, lateral to Adam V, and he trotted in for 2.

(Any errors in the above story come from faulty memory but I am sure someone will set me straight )

100% correct

Buffalo Bills NFL Primetime 12 - YouTube

 

[Tunescribe]

Why are people so in love with the extra point being automatic and meaningless? I don't get it.

Maybe it's because there are so few sure things in this world. You know, considering the Malaysian flight mystery and Putin grabbing Crimea, etc.

 

[Gwedd]

Maybe it's because there are so few sure things in this world. You know, considering the Malaysian flight mystery and Putin grabbing Crimea, etc.

I'd say that Putin grabbing the Crimea was a sure thing, just as he's gonna try and grab Unkraine, Estonia & Latvia. Putin is conducting his "restore the old USSR" tour.

At least the draft is within sight. Sigh.

 

[SB39]

100% correct

Buffalo Bills NFL Primetime 12 - YouTube

Glad to see I got everything right - though I must confess I had forgotten how ugly those uniforms were.

 

[Ring 6]

Belicheck/Patriots propose the following rule changes...

1 Moving the line of scrimmage on extra points from the 2-yard line to the 25.

2 Extending goalposts upward an additional 5 feet.

3 Permitting a coach to challenge any official’s decision except scoring plays (which are already automatically reviewed).

4 Placing additional cameras on all boundary lines to supplement TV cameras and aid the officials with instant replay.

I have posted several times that technology exists that could make 2 & 4 happen. If the simple 5 foot extension of the posts suffices, it's simpler than a techno fix. We would not have lost that game in Baltimore were that so. Less excited about goal line cameras. Wonder if a fix like an RFID chip on the ball that is triggered above the goal line might not be best.

Allowing a coach to challenge ANY call to me improves the game. Let's say that PI is called but replay shows no contact or offensive holding is called but clear replay shows arms not extended, whatever. Having an appeal reduces game significant human mistakes by the refs. Note that the # of challenges by a coach is not increased, so no significant extension of game time, not that I would object even if so.

Making the XP into a moderately long FG puts an element of strategy into possible 2 pt conversion attempts in bad weather or a kicker having a bad day. I think the NFL is going to try this from the 20 in pre-season.

Challenging penalties is risky.
What if you review one penalty and see a different one?
What if you challenge a non call of fair catch interference and the replay shows the defender was not only blocked into the returnman, but was blocked from behind. Do you penalize the return team that challenged?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Challenging penalties is risky.
What if you review one penalty and see a different one?
What if you challenge a non call of fair catch interference and the replay shows the defender was not only blocked into the returnman, but was blocked from behind. Do you penalize the return team that challenged?

Yes 10 characters
Life is risk

 

[Patsrock]

Challenging penalties is risky.
What if you review one penalty and see a different one?

Simple ref can only overturn the call that was challenged. Anything else happening doesn't matter.

Challenging penalties is risky.
What if you challenge a non call of fair catch interference and the replay shows the defender was not only blocked into the returnman, but was blocked from behind. Do you penalize the return team that challenged?

Can't call block in the back penalty but can say defender was blocked into return man.

 

[Froob]

I don't even consider this a rule change. To me, it is just a commonsense solution to a problem that pops up a handful of times per year.

Everybody but the ravens will approve of it.

 

[Froob]

Why are people so in love with the extra point being automatic and meaningless? I don't get it.

They aren't. Here's 3 good examples.

1. Vikings missed an extra point in 2009 that ended up costing them a game against the bears, and ultimately, homefield advantage in the playoffs. Saints barely beat them. You could say an extra point cost Minnesota a super bowl(they likely could have beaten the colts)

2. 2006 Bengals miss a late extra point in Denver that cost them the game and a playoff spot.

3. While this wasn't an extra point it was the length of one. The infamous Charlie Brown play. Enough said.

As somebody else already mentioned, Adam has to hit the most clutch kick in NFL history twice in the snow to send us to the AFCCG. 43 yard is waaaay too far for one point. This is one of the few times I wholeheartedly disagree with BB. I could see them moving it back, if it were me and I had to move it back, I'd move it to the 8 for a 25 yard FG. At best the 13 yard line for a 30 yard FG. Anything beyond 30 is crazy imo. It's not like the game is lacking excitement. Pushing XP back to the 43 is going to greatly decrease the amount of OT and late game tied situations. Not something I personally want to see. Hopefully the NFL shoots this one down.

 

[captain stone]

Like #s 2, 3 & 4, do not like LOS for PATs at 25. What about moving the LOS first to the 10
and see how it goes from there? A 42-yd XP is ridiculous.

 

[pctronics0072]

From what I understand of the suggestions, you cannot challenge a non-call.

 

[SB39]

Simple ref can only overturn the call that was challenged. Anything else happening doesn't matter.

It is interesting to note that would be a departure from the current system and could set up a situation where one coach challenges a call and wins his challenge but everyone (including the ref) sees a missed call on the other side of the ball so the other team counter-challenges a different aspect of the play....

I am really of 2 minds on this issue.... I can see the benefits, but at the same time it could just be too much going overboard with challenging.