I'm not sure how this is really all that complicated. The yardage markers do not have to change at all. Two guys are holding the sticks, one at the 6yd line (guy A) another at the 16 yd line (guy B).
"Holding offense, ten yard penalty to be enforced on first down distance".
Guy B doesn't move, Guy A carries his stick from the 6yd line to the 26, or more simply, each moves 10 yards (or 5yds). They are actually pretty good at it since they do it about 40-50 times per game anyway.
The problem is that the science of the chain gang requires Guy A to always mark the line of scrimmage of the first down of the set. It's not impossible to change his behavior in a certain circumstance but is it worth the procedural and statistical complexity? Also, how will fans and announcers cope with the new system? Part of the reason Guy A exists at all and its not just Guy B with a 3-yard chain is so people at the game can eyeball where the set of downs started, just for comparative purposes. In the NFL and college, there's even a yard marker, one with an X on it, that marks where the offensive drive started, just so play-by-play guys can say "this drive started way back at the 12 yard line" just by looking at the field.
I mean, I like the idea, but I don't think any league is going to change the way the chain gang has worked for a hundred years.
Say what?? I'm not sure what you watched, but that was a catch by Calvin Johnson. There were no bobbling.
This is a case where the rules clearly contradict one another. Johnson clearly gets both feet down, gets his left arm down and his butt down. He clearly has control of the ball until his momentum brings his right arm around and the ball touches the ground. It's only then that Johnson let's go of the ball. There was no bobbling unless you erroneously think that based on him switching the ball from his left hand to his right hand.
If this was a running back, it would be a TD. Especially since the RB would have been down by contact AND with the rule that the ground can't cause the fumble. Which in this case it clearly did.
I don't understand your second point. Calvin Johnson was clearly not a running back, why are dead ball rules pertaining to ball carriers in any way germaine?
At the snap of the ball, the offensive team holds de jure posession of the ball, and that posession can be given up on the following conditions:
1) Any kind of scrimmage kick, if the ball crosses the line of scrimmage, is considered the transferance of posession to the other team.
2) A fumble is considered a lapse of possession, and the ball will be returned to the last possessing team if it goes out of bounds or is otherwise blown dead (see: Hochuli's whistle).
3) A forward pass is considered a lapse of possession, which is the magical property which allows an incomplete (or simultaneously possessed) forward pass to be returned to the offensive team instead of turned over to the defense like a scrimmage kick. (N.B. ever noticed that the inelligible receiver rules apply both to punts and passes?) Like an unrecovered fumble, an incomplete forward pass is blown dead and the ball is returned to the last possessing team.
It is the responsibility of a receiver to reestablish possession. He does not simply inherit the offense's posession like a QB does with a backwards pass, or a runner does with a handoff or lateral. It also means the play cannot end just because the ball crossed the goal line and touched Calvin Johnson in some meaningful way. The running back rules are what they are because it would be absurd for a posession play to continue in the end zone if the runner either hasn't run out of bounds or hasn't taken a knee.
