PDA

View Full Version : If You Could Change One NFL Rule (or Enforcement) What Would It Be?



spikerman
01-11-2016, 07:27 PM
I think for me it would be illegal contact. That seems the most arbitrary of them all. If they don't want to remove it then make it 5 yards, but no automatic first down. Teams get first downs a lot of times based on some VERY minor contact.

Davii
01-11-2016, 07:33 PM
I think for me it would be illegal contact. That seems the most arbitrary of them all. If they don't want to remove it then make it 5 yards, but no automatic first down. Teams get first downs a lot of times based on some VERY minor contact.

I agree. #SpikeforheadofNFLofficiating

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 07:37 PM
You just invited a bunch of angry meatheads to yell about how headshots should be legal like they used to be! ;)

If it were up to me, I would revamp the PI rule and split it into 2 calls: Regular PI and flagrant PI. Regular PI would just be contact that happens after the pass is thrown, while flagrant PI would be something like a DB gets clearly beat and just tackles the WR instead of making a play on the ball. The normal variety would be a 15 yard penalty while the flagrant variety would be a spot foul.

Now the downside of this would be that it would be really hard to know where to draw that line, and is one more judgement call that refs get to make that could strongly alter games. The problem is, though, that while most people seem to think a spot foul for all PI is excessive, you can't just make all PI calls 15 yards, because then DBs would just outright tackle WRs every time they get beat deep because there would be no good reason not to.

So I think if you were going to change the PI rule, that's how you should do it.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 07:42 PM
To expand on my last post, I would want flagrant PI to be something that's only called on like 5% of PI calls if that. Just for things that are obviously a DB getting beat deep and making a straight play on the WR instead of the ball. The vast, vast majority of PI would need to be of the normal variety for this to work. Adding the flagrant rule just prevents DBs from taking advantage of PI only being a 15 yarder, and would hopefully be called very sparingly.

King87
01-11-2016, 07:44 PM
You just invited a bunch of angry meatheads to yell about how headshots should be legal like they used to be! ;)

If it were up to me, I would revamp the PI rule and split it into 2 calls: Regular PI and flagrant PI. Regular PI would just be contact that happens after the pass is thrown, while flagrant PI would be something like a DB gets clearly beat and just tackles the WR instead of making a play on the ball. The normal variety would be a 15 yard penalty while the flagrant variety would be a spot foul.

Now the downside of this would be that it would be really hard to know where to draw that line, and is one more judgement call that refs get to make that could strongly alter games. The problem is, though, that while most people seem to think a spot foul for all PI is excessive, you can't just make all PI calls 15 yards, because then DBs would just outright tackle WRs every time they get beat deep because there would be no good reason not to.

So I think if you were going to change the PI rule, that's how you should do it.

Man I really like this. It addresses my concerns that corners often will mug a guy just before the WR breaks free for a massive gain and or score. It is subjective, but all PI calls are going to be anyway. My addendum would be in the red zone any PI becomes a spot foul.

King87
01-11-2016, 07:46 PM
They need to get rid of the quarterback slide rule. I also want intentional grounding to be a turnover.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 07:46 PM
Man I really like this. It addresses my concerns that corners often will mug a guy just before the WR breaks free for a massive gain and or score. It is subjective, but all PI calls are going to be anyway. My addendum would be in the red zone any PI becomes a spot foul.

I would equate it with something like the clear path foul in basketball. You don't see it called often, but it stops the defender from just pulling down a guy who has a breakaway.

King87
01-11-2016, 07:48 PM
I would equate it with something like the clear path foul in basketball. You don't see it called often, but it stops the defender from just pulling down a guy who has a breakaway.

Yeah, I like it a lot. I also think it would do a lot to stop those stupid PI's where a defender gets beat, and just mugs the WR by lunging at him and not playing the ball.

But what if a PI occurs seven yards down the field? Some might argue that you would be giving them too many yards. I'm not sure I would agree with them.

spikerman
01-11-2016, 07:49 PM
To expand on my last post, I would want flagrant PI to be something that's only called on like 5% of PI calls if that. Just for things that are obviously a DB getting beat deep and making a straight play on the WR instead of the ball. The vast, vast majority of PI would need to be of the normal variety for this to work. Adding the flagrant rule just prevents DBs from taking advantage of PI only being a 15 yarder, and would hopefully be called very sparingly.

I totally get where you're coming from. I know that, at least in the college rulebook, part of the requirement for a foul for PI is that the defensive (or offensive) player has to commit an act to intentionally restrict the player from making a play on the ball. That's why you'll see a lot of contact, but no call. Hand fighting is ok as both players have equal rights to the ball. I think you bring up a really interesting point though. I like it. Something like, if the defensive player is beaten (you could say if the receiver is further downfield than the defender) and he makes an obvious attempt to prevent the receiver from making a play on the ball, i.e. a tackle, then it's a spot foul. The more I think about it, the more I like it.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 07:51 PM
Yeah, I like it a lot. I also think it would do a lot to stop those stupid PI's where a defender gets beat, and just mugs the WR by lunging at him and not playing the ball.

But what if a PI occurs seven yards down the field? Some might argue that you would be giving them too many yards. I'm not sure I would agree with them.

I wouldn't be opposed to making PI calls under 15 yards from the line a spot foul, but I don't feel to strongly either way on that aspect of it to be honest.

spikerman
01-11-2016, 07:51 PM
Yeah, I like it a lot. I also think it would do a lot to stop those stupid PI's where a defender gets beat, and just mugs the WR by lunging at him and not playing the ball.

But what if a PI occurs seven yards down the field? Some might argue that you would be giving them too many yards. I'm not sure I would agree with them.

Do it like college. If it's less than 15 yards, even non-flagrant fouls are spot fouls (with an automatic 1st down).

*BW beat me to it.

King87
01-11-2016, 07:52 PM
I wouldn't be opposed to making PI calls under 15 yards from the line a spot foul, but I don't feel to strongly either way on that aspect of it to be honest.

It does sort of feel that either approach is commensurate in strength with the other.

chazoe60
01-11-2016, 08:07 PM
Broncowave stole that idea from me. But yeah, that.

spikerman
01-11-2016, 08:12 PM
Broncowave stole that idea from me. But yeah, that.

It's because you're a stinkin' genius. We all steal ideas from you.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 08:12 PM
Broncowave stole that idea from me. But yeah, that.

This is an outrageous accusation. Keeper, I am putting you on retainer. Get him!

King87
01-11-2016, 08:14 PM
Broncowave stole that idea from me. But yeah, that.

The defamation you have made against my client is outrageous, harmful to his reputation, and shows a clear level of malice. Since my client is not a public figure, the fact that I can prove malice and character assassination only aids my case, even though it is not a requirement. As such, I demand you apologize to my client or face the full strength of message board law.

Dapper Dan
01-11-2016, 09:04 PM
I'd get rid of several rules.

More important to me is I'd like to change the calls that change a game. Personal fouls would not be a flag, but it would be a fine and possible suspension afterwards without pay. Also, I don't know how they do fines but I think it should be a percentage of salary. This way the players that make bank aren't out there head hunting.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 09:09 PM
I'd get rid of several rules.

More important to me is I'd like to change the calls that change a game. Personal fouls would not be a flag, but it would be a fine and possible suspension afterwards without pay. Also, I don't know how they do fines but I think it should be a percentage of salary. This way the players that make bank aren't out there head hunting.

I mentioned this in another thread but fine/suspension schedules are collectively bargained. I doubt the NFLPA would ever agree to that last suggestion. It does have merit, though.

chazoe60
01-11-2016, 10:40 PM
Notice the thread start date. Ahem. http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php/591689-Pass-Interference-yuck?highlight=Pass+interference


Pass interference is ruining this game. It is ridiculous when a ref completely blows a call like just happened in the Bears/Jets game (I'm rooting for the Bears BTW so this isn't a bias thing) and the offense is rewarded with 50 yards. It's sickening how this single penalty is allowed to alter games so consistently, especially since it's so often called wrong. The Seahawks get away with murder while most other teams can't breathe on a WR wrong. It's total horse shit.

My ideas:

1. Make two different PI calls, intentional and unintentional. Unintentional will be a 10 yard penalty while intentional would be a spot foul. Intentional would be for when a guy just tackles an open WR in an attempt to save a TD. Unintentional should make up 90% of the calls IMHO it would have to be very obvious to be deemed intentional.

2. A ref watching the game on a TV feed should be allowed to overrule bad PI calls. Everyone watching can tell within seconds if something really was PI or not, so a trained unbiased observer in the refs ear saying "call it" or "don't call it" shouldn't interfere with the game much at all.

It's so frustrating watching a game and cringing with every long pass thinking here comes the bogus PI.

The defense rests.

King87
01-11-2016, 10:46 PM
Unfortunately, sir, you did not file for copyright or patent rights. Ergo nothing was stolen. I accept your concession and move for summary judgment.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 10:50 PM
You are under the assumption that I open threads that you start. ;)

And even if by some miracle I did open it, I'm certainly not filing it in the memory bank for a year and a half.

Also, my post was endorsed by our resident ref while yours was not. Guess I postulated it more intelligently. :)

I think we have this case wrapped up, Keeper!

chazoe60
01-11-2016, 10:51 PM
The evidence is overwhelming. I think I may file a countersuit.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 10:53 PM
The evidence is overwhelming. I think I may file a countersuit.

My proposal isn't even the same. I suggested 15 yards, not 10, and made no suggestion of official reviews. Ya got nothing!

King87
01-11-2016, 10:53 PM
The evidence is overwhelming. I think I may file a countersuit.

In a capitalistic society one only owns an idea or a thought if they have legal rights to it. You did not file such a right, and as such we must remain victorious. :D

aberdien
01-11-2016, 10:58 PM
I would get rid of intentional grounding because what is the point and who really cares.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 11:02 PM
I would get rid of intentional grounding because what is the point and who really cares.

You would see way fewer sacks and far less excitement in the game. A QB could just throw it away from the middle of the pocket when they are about to get sacked.

spikerman
01-11-2016, 11:03 PM
I would get rid of intentional grounding because what is the point and who really cares.

If you got rid of intentional grounding there would never be any sacks.

chazoe60
01-11-2016, 11:04 PM
In a year and a half BW will be talking about how much he wants to get rid of the intentional grounding rule. Shameful.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 11:06 PM
In a year and a half BW will be talking about how much he wants to get rid of the intentional grounding rule. Shameful.

You're just mad because when you started your thread, no one even commented on your proposal in it, while my proposal in this thread has been met with rave reviews. :)

#bitter

chazoe60
01-11-2016, 11:07 PM
You're just mad because when you started your thread, no one even commented on your proposal in it, while my proposal in this thread has been met with rave reviews. :)

#bitter

I think you mean my proposal that you stole.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 11:17 PM
I would like to introduce Exhibit B into evidence:

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2012/11/6/3609152/nfl-officiating-week-9-giants-steelers


If two guys are fighting for the football, I'm sorry, but the offense shouldn't be awarded a first down at the spot of contact. It's simply not fair. If an official feels as if contact was made by the defender, throw the flag. However, why not just make it a 15 yard penalty? Now, if a defender pulls an Ike Taylor and face-guards a receiver, pulls one or both of his arms down as he's trying to catch the football, or simply drags him down after being severely beaten on a long pass, then yes, penalize that man as many yards as are necessary.

This clearly shows the same idea being put forth on a Steelers blog in 2012. So if I'm guilty of stealing this idea from Chazoe, he is just as guilty of stealing it, and from a Steelers fan nonetheless.

So which way is it gonna be, chaz? Did we both steal it, or is my idea my own?

King87
01-11-2016, 11:23 PM
As BW's representation, the accusations of thievery still stand, and as such we cannot withdraw our legal compliant.

Dapper Dan
01-11-2016, 11:24 PM
If it makes you guys feel any better, I didn't read either proposal.

MasterShake
01-11-2016, 11:26 PM
I would like to introduce Exhibit B into evidence:

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2012/11/6/3609152/nfl-officiating-week-9-giants-steelers


This clearly shows the same idea being put forth on a Steelers blog in 2012. So if I'm guilty of stealing this idea from Chazoe, he is just as guilty of stealing it, and from a Steelers fan nonetheless.

So which way is it gonna be, chaz? Did we both steal it, or is my idea my own?

This guy came up with it before it was cool to either of you on his typewriter at a coffee shop where he drank locally sourced organic tea so you guys are both wrong. He transcribed the entire thing onto a vintage tape recorder and had it transferred to vinyl in a lost dialect by a translator of the language known as Kwikionobo from a lost Amazonian Tribe:

8254

His favorite team is the Boston Bees who played one season back in 1938. You've probably never heard of them.

chazoe60
01-11-2016, 11:32 PM
I would like to introduce Exhibit B into evidence:

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2012/11/6/3609152/nfl-officiating-week-9-giants-steelers



This clearly shows the same idea being put forth on a Steelers blog in 2012. So if I'm guilty of stealing this idea from Chazoe, he is just as guilty of stealing it, and from a Steelers fan nonetheless.

So which way is it gonna be, chaz? Did we both steal it, or is my idea my own?

Well, I'm not a fag so I obviously don't read Stealer fan blog posts.

MasterShake
01-11-2016, 11:34 PM
And on topic of the thread, I would change Holding calls on the offense from 10 yards to 5 yards. 10 yards seems so arbitrary and a holding call almost always kills a drive. I think the average yards per play in the NFL is about 5 or 6 so I never understood why it backs the team up 10 yards.

BroncoWave
01-11-2016, 11:34 PM
Well, I'm not a fag so I obviously don't read Stealer fan blog posts.

And I'm not a moron so I would obviously never open a thread started by you.:)

chazoe60
01-11-2016, 11:38 PM
And I'm not a moron so I would obviously never open a thread started by you.:)

Touche, douche.

chazoe60
01-11-2016, 11:41 PM
And on topic of the thread, I would change Holding calls on the offense from 10 yards to 5 yards. 10 yards seems so arbitrary and a holding call almost always kills a drive. I think the average yards per play in the NFL is about 5 or 6 so I never understood why it backs the team up 10 yards.

The defense is punished so much more unfairly that I'm fine with a holding call being that harsh. They get the down over again. If it was 5 yards and loss of down I'd be okay with that.

King87
01-11-2016, 11:46 PM
Holding needs to be called more. It stops a sack and damage to a QB, and when your team is predicated upon a pass rush and it's not called it's damaging. It should be 15 yards.

I Eat Staples
01-12-2016, 12:22 AM
God there are many. Illegal contact is definitely toward the top of the list. That's not a penalty in college and there's even MORE offense there than in the NFL, so it's not like you're significantly nerfing the passing game.

I utterly despise spot of the foul PI as well. With the way they call PI spot of the foul is just...broken. It lets the officials literally decide the outcome of games at times. I'd be ok with a clear path rule like Wave suggested, but I wouldn't mind at all if it were just 15 yards at most. 40+ yards of penalty yardage for slight contact is insane.

I think most people recognize that hits to head needed to be removed, but I'd like to see that penalty be reviewable. It's easy for an official to see shoulder-to-shoulder as head-to-head in real time, so use replay to get the call right. It's not hard.

Which leads me into the thing I think I'd want changed most, which is abolishing the ridiculous "indisputable evidence" standard of replay. Being a ref in football is HARD, why should the call on the field made in real time be more valuable than what you can see in a slow motion replay? In like 95% of replays, even if the play is close, you can definitively confirm or overturn the call on the field. Make a reasonable call based on what you see in the video replay, and stop giving so much credit to the call on the field. The only way you should have to defer to call on the field for lack of evidence would be if it's literally impossible to see a good angle on replay, such as a fumble recovery or spot of the ball when a player is completely covered by bodies.

Ravage!!!
01-12-2016, 11:08 AM
God there are many. Illegal contact is definitely toward the top of the list. That's not a penalty in college and there's even MORE offense there than in the NFL, so it's not like you're significantly nerfing the passing game.

I utterly despise spot of the foul PI as well. With the way they call PI spot of the foul is just...broken. It lets the officials literally decide the outcome of games at times. I'd be ok with a clear path rule like Wave suggested, but I wouldn't mind at all if it were just 15 yards at most. 40+ yards of penalty yardage for slight contact is insane.

I think most people recognize that hits to head needed to be removed, but I'd like to see that penalty be reviewable. It's easy for an official to see shoulder-to-shoulder as head-to-head in real time, so use replay to get the call right. It's not hard.

Which leads me into the thing I think I'd want changed most, which is abolishing the ridiculous "indisputable evidence" standard of replay. Being a ref in football is HARD, why should the call on the field made in real time be more valuable than what you can see in a slow motion replay? In like 95% of replays, even if the play is close, you can definitively confirm or overturn the call on the field. Make a reasonable call based on what you see in the video replay, and stop giving so much credit to the call on the field. The only way you should have to defer to call on the field for lack of evidence would be if it's literally impossible to see a good angle on replay, such as a fumble recovery or spot of the ball when a player is completely covered by bodies.

I agree with everything you said, except your last paragraph.

The PI call shouldn't be such a big penalty BECAUSE its so arbitrary and judgemental. But then you want to turn around and give the ref the power to change a call with arbituary judgement. That would give the ref to CHANGE a call based on judgement and maybe's. Not sure I agree with you on that one

Valar Morghulis
01-12-2016, 02:58 PM
In a one score game, inside he two minute warning, plays for negative yardage would stop the clock.

Davii
01-12-2016, 04:36 PM
In a one score game, inside he two minute warning, plays for negative yardage would stop the clock.

I like it. A lot. How much more exciting would games be knowing you CAN'T just take a knee? You MUST run the ball and you MUST gain yardage in order to keep the clock moving. Good call foreigner.

Valar Morghulis
01-12-2016, 04:40 PM
I like it. A lot. How much more exciting would games be knowing you CAN'T just take a knee? You MUST run the ball and you MUST gain yardage in order to keep the clock moving. Good call foreigner.

Thanks dude!

King87
01-12-2016, 04:41 PM
It's also fair - teams with great defenses might be inclined to like this rule for obvious reasons; however, since many teams with great defenses run the ball a lot, their playcalling and offensive abilities would be, presumably at least, strained when they were the team with the ball.

Offensive teams would be in an interesting place as well, because they could move the ball well enough to win, but many offensive teams have mediocre or bad defenses. Of course the real winners would be balanced or the dominant teams, who could survive well in both scenarios.

BroncoWave
01-12-2016, 05:16 PM
I like it. A lot. How much more exciting would games be knowing you CAN'T just take a knee? You MUST run the ball and you MUST gain yardage in order to keep the clock moving. Good call foreigner.

The arena league has always done this and it's a great rule. You should have to actually play out 60 minutes to win a football game. In no other sport can you just run out the clock and stop playing.

Davii
01-12-2016, 05:21 PM
The arena league has always done this and it's a great rule. You should have to actually play out 60 minutes to win a football game. In no other sport can you just run out the clock and stop playing.

It's also the only sport that lends itself to that ability. Others are either based on number of attempts (baseball), or they are a sport where possession is changing rapidly (basketball, hockey, etc). You can't just "quit playing" you just let the clock expire by taking a lot of time and protecting the ball. The QB taking a knee is a running play, it's just a very safe one.

BroncoWave
01-12-2016, 05:26 PM
It's also the only sport that lends itself to that ability. Others are either based on number of attempts (baseball), or they are a sport where possession is changing rapidly (basketball, hockey, etc). You can't just "quit playing" you just let the clock expire by taking a lot of time and protecting the ball. The QB taking a knee is a running play, it's just a very safe one.

Fair enough, but it's as close to quitting playing as you can get. I don't know that I can think of more than 1 or 2 times in my entire life where I have ever seen a kneel play fail.

spikerman
01-12-2016, 05:27 PM
In a one score game, inside he two minute warning, plays for negative yardage would stop the clock.
This would only apply when the team with the lead has the ball, right?

BroncoWave
01-12-2016, 05:32 PM
I really liked it when Greg Schiano has his players rush the snap o kneel-downs a few years ago. I thought all the outrage over it was comical. Just because the offense decides to stop playing doesn't mean the defense should have to. Had that caused a fumble and helped his team win everyone would have called it genius.

Valar Morghulis
01-12-2016, 05:41 PM
This would only apply when the team with the lead has the ball, right?

Yeah

Buff
01-12-2016, 05:42 PM
I really liked it when Greg Schiano has his players rush the snap o kneel-downs a few years ago. I thought all the outrage over it was comical. Just because the offense decides to stop playing doesn't mean the defense should have to. Had that caused a fumble and helped his team win everyone would have called it genius.

This is silly IMO. You're hoping for like a .005% outcome - yet the risk of injury on that play is substantially higher. For a guy who has generally supported changing the actual rules to prevent head injuries, I don't see how this is consistent with that at all.

Ravage!!!
01-12-2016, 05:44 PM
It's also the only sport that lends itself to that ability. Others are either based on number of attempts (baseball), or they are a sport where possession is changing rapidly (basketball, hockey, etc). You can't just "quit playing" you just let the clock expire by taking a lot of time and protecting the ball. The QB taking a knee is a running play, it's just a very safe one.

Before the kneel, you simply had the RB fall to the ground. It's not different. Call a pass play, drop back, and fall behind your RBs.

BroncoWave
01-12-2016, 05:47 PM
This is silly IMO. You're hoping for like a .005% outcome - yet the risk of injury on that play is substantially higher. For a guy who has generally supported changing the actual rules to prevent head injuries, I don't see how this is consistent with that at all.

I don't really see how that play would cause a head injury.

Buff
01-12-2016, 05:50 PM
I don't really see how that play would cause a head injury.

Well then you are bad at thinking.

BroncoWave
01-12-2016, 05:53 PM
Well then you are bad at thinking.

Concussions tend to happen when players are running full-speed at each other. Maybe I am ignorant to this, but how often do you have concussions cause by linemen hitting each other at the snap? I guess it happens, but it sure seems like the vast majority of them are when players get laid out at full speed.

I'm willing to concede that the chance of any sort of injury is probably much higher than that play actually working, but I still liked seeing a coach actually trying to challenge a team taking a kneel.

Buff
01-12-2016, 06:05 PM
Concussions tend to happen when players are running full-speed at each other. Maybe I am ignorant to this, but how often do you have concussions cause by linemen hitting each other at the snap? I guess it happens, but it sure seems like the vast majority of them are when players get laid out at full speed.

I'm willing to concede that the chance of any sort of injury is probably much higher than that play actually working, but I still liked seeing a coach actually trying to challenge a team taking a kneel.

It was a little bit exciting, but judging from the opposing coaches and players reaction, I think they all found it to be gratuitous and dumb. Obviously the risk of head injury isn't as great as when players are running at full speed, but clearly any high impact collision has some risk involved. And even if it's not a head injury, if a guy dives at your knee and blows it out for a 1 in 1000 occurrence, is that really worth it in this day of added emphasis on player safety?

Ravage!!!
01-12-2016, 06:06 PM
I thnk it just showed one team demonstrating bad sportmanship, as they knew the other team wasn't "firing out" but merely standing there because the game is over. It's just something that is pretty looked down upon since you aren't accomplishing anything other than looking like a douche for doing it.

----
A rule I would like to change is in the last two minutes of both halves, is that when a player is down in bounds, the clock stops from the time the ball is called down to the time it takes to SPOT the ball (not until the snap).

This would eliminate in the ref having a part in seconds being shedded, as they become so precious in those last 2 minutes. As is, the clock is ticking while one ref has to get the ball from the player, tosses the ball to another ref, and then that ref has to run and place the ball, while then trying to then get out of the way before the whistle is blown so that the ball can be snapped....taking up time while the "speed" of the refs and THEIR actions are a determining factor. There should be no reason to look at how 'fast' a 65 yr old referee is at running to determine how quickly you can spike it. It's usually 7 seconds dripped off the ticker from the time the ball is ruled down, to the moment the ball is placed. SEVEN seconds adds up pretty quickly.

King87
01-12-2016, 06:14 PM
I think if you score a TD and you don't celebrate you should be fined.

Valar Morghulis
01-12-2016, 06:16 PM
I think everyone should be made to have huge side burns

Ravage!!!
01-12-2016, 06:21 PM
I think if you score a TD and you don't celebrate you should be fined.

I would also like them to start scoring the real games like they do in Fantasy Football. This could add some strategies on a lot of teams. Perhaps you get a bonus 2 points for having a rusher get over 100yrds...so instead of calling that pass play, perhaps you decide to run it and get him over the 100? Same thing with WRs...throw that ball MORE to the guy that is getting allllll those catches for points, baby!!

Also.. more points for longer TD plays. You get that 50 yrd TD rush..extra 2 points! You get that 50 yrd TD reception..extra two points!

Kicks should be worth more points the farther back they are. A kick for 27 yards should be worth as much as a 50 yrder. AGAIN..it could add strategy! Maybe you are 5 points back. You COULD go for the TD, or.. you intentionally lose yardage so that your kicker has a chance at the 50 yrder!

MAYBE.. if you kick a FG LONGER than 55 yrds... you get an EXTRA point, just like a TD! That 57yrd FG and exra point, is now a 6 point combination!

Punters also should get points. PIn the other team inside the 10, you get a point. Pin them inside the FIVE yrd line, you get 2 points! This would definitely add some pressure to the punter, as well as provide a sense of accomplishment to the special teams players. They are no longer just guys that run down the field, they are scorers baby!

King87
01-12-2016, 06:23 PM
I like this, but your way still has kickers. I ******* hate kickers. So after a TD you should be able to get three offensive lineman to take turns kicking a former kick in the nuts.

Ravage!!!
01-12-2016, 06:27 PM
I like this, but your way still has kickers. I ******* hate kickers. So after a TD you should be able to get three offensive lineman to take turns kicking a former kick in the nuts.

How about this.

After a TD... your team has the option to go for further kicks if they wish to tack on more points!?!?! You can go for the 2 point conversion, the 3 point conversion (4 yrds out), or the 5 point 55 yrd 'add-on kick?'

King87
01-12-2016, 06:29 PM
How about this.

After a TD... your team has the option to go for further kicks if they wish to tack on more points!?!?! You can go for the 2 point conversion, the 3 point conversion (4 yrds out), or the 5 point 55 yrd 'add-on kick?'

Only if the kicker is either on fire or being attacked by dogs.

Work with me here, Ravage. We can get this deal done!

Timmy!
01-12-2016, 08:21 PM
Attack dogs. I like that.

Tned
01-12-2016, 10:14 PM
Something I thought I would like, but don't, is the ability to push a receiver out of bounds and cause the catch to not count. It doesn't come up often, but I prefer the old rule.

That said, that's not my choice if I choose only one. Instead, it's the annual screwing with what a catch is. Isn't there a Clinton joke there (the definition of is is....)?

I think the whole football move and constant tweaking and screwing up of the rule needs to change. They need to go back to something as simple as control and two feet down is a catch, period. If they are going to the ground and the ground causes it to bounce out, then it's a catch. Shouldn't matter if it's out of bounds or not, whether it's in the endzone, or not.

Jaded
01-12-2016, 11:42 PM
Pass Interference, that's where officials don't even pretend to be consistent. I'd simply start by making officials call it the same for the Titans as they do for the Seahawks.

spikerman
01-13-2016, 06:37 AM
I really liked it when Greg Schiano has his players rush the snap o kneel-downs a few years ago. I thought all the outrage over it was comical. Just because the offense decides to stop playing doesn't mean the defense should have to. Had that caused a fumble and helped his team win everyone would have called it genius.


Pass Interference, that's where officials don't even pretend to be consistent. I'd simply start by making officials call it the same for the Titans as they do for the Seahawks.
Consistency is nearly Impossible because of the speed of the game and the fact that it is such a judgement call. The only way that you may be able to get that consistency is to make it reviewable.

Ravage!!!
01-13-2016, 11:28 AM
Something I thought I would like, but don't, is the ability to push a receiver out of bounds and cause the catch to not count. It doesn't come up often, but I prefer the old rule.




That's interesting because the ability to push the WR out before he hit the ground was a rule that I was advocating. I really like the new rule, as there is no other sport that says "if he wasn't touched, he would have come down in bounds." It just made ANOTHER rule that was purely a guess by the refs. This eliminates that 'guess' so I really like that change.

Ravage!!!
01-13-2016, 11:28 AM
Consistency is nearly Impossible because of the speed of the game and the fact that it is such a judgement call. The only way that you may be able to get that consistency is to make it reviewable.

The only way it can be "consistant" is to have the same ref make all the calls on it.

spikerman
01-13-2016, 06:11 PM
The only way it can be "consistiant" is to have the same ref make all the calls on it.

Even then it wouldn't be because each play is different.

Ravage!!!
01-13-2016, 06:18 PM
Even then it wouldn't be because each play is different.

True, but thats the same thign in every sport. Every play is 'diferent'...but at least you would have the same set of eyes interpreting the rule as the violation the same way. But that's my point, that obviously can't happen, so it's why a rule that has to be interpreted on the spot, won't be the same across the board because that interpretation will always be slightly different from person to person.

BroncoJoe
01-13-2016, 06:51 PM
Holding should be a 5 yard spot foul penalty.

/thread

spikerman
01-13-2016, 07:27 PM
Holding should be a 5 yard spot foul penalty.

/thread

Well, in a way holding is a spot foul. If the hold occurs at or behind the LOS (except in the end zone) it's enforced from the previous spot. If the hold happens downfield it's enforced from the spot of the foul. That's why you may see someone with a decent play... let's say a 20 yard run, but a hold happens 8 yards beyond the LOS it would then be 1st and 2 after enforcement of the penalty.

chazoe60
01-13-2016, 07:35 PM
Well, in a way holding is a spot foul. If the hold occurs at or behind the LOS (except in the end zone) it's enforced from the previous spot. If the hold happens downfield it's enforced from the spot of the foul. That's why you may see someone with a decent play... let's say a 20 yard run, but a hold happens 8 yards beyond the LOS it would then be 1st and 2 after enforcement of the penalty.

Then it would be first and 12. Damn refs always screwing shit up.

spikerman
01-13-2016, 07:47 PM
Then it would be first and 12. Damn refs always screwing shit up.

Ummm.. no it wouldn't. It would take the ball back 10 yards from the spot of the foul. The foul happened 8 yards downfield. The enforcement would leave it behind the original line to gain and repeat the down. So, still first down and 2 yards to go to achieve the original line to gain. 1st and 2.

Oh, and although I didn't type it, assume it was 1st and 10 on the play initially.

King87
01-13-2016, 07:50 PM
Holding needs to be more severe. Since defenses are hamstrung in today's day and age, when an offense commits a penalty they need to really feel it.

chazoe60
01-13-2016, 07:53 PM
Ummm.. no it wouldn't. It would take the ball back 10 yards from the spot of the foul. The foul happened 8 yards downfield. The enforcement would leave it behind the original line to gain and repeat the down. So, still first down and 2 yards to go to achieve the original line to gain. 1st and 2.

Oh, and although I didn't type it, assume it was 1st and 10 on the play initially.

Look again Spike. If a hold happens 8 yards from the LOS on 1st and ten then it becomes 1st and 12.

spikerman
01-13-2016, 07:58 PM
Look again Spike. If a hold happens 8 yards from the LOS on 1st and ten then it becomes 1st and 12.

You're right.. i'm sorry, I meant 8 yards past the line to gain. Been a long day.

Jaded
01-13-2016, 10:08 PM
Consistency is nearly Impossible because of the speed of the game and the fact that it is such a judgement call. The only way that you may be able to get that consistency is to make it reviewable.

I don't think it's too much to expect consistency from the same crew for both team in a single game, yet that's as rare as a $1.5 billion lottery.

spikerman
01-13-2016, 10:35 PM
I don't think it's too much to expect consistency from the same crew for both team in a single game, yet that's as rare as a $1.5 billion lottery.
Define consistency in this case. Would it be calling everything exactly the same way every time? If so, that's impossible. Each play is different and there's contact on almost every play. Officials have to make a judgment about whether the contact is worthy of a foul, and by whom, each time and it's tough.

King87
01-13-2016, 10:38 PM
Define consistency in this case. Would it be calling everything exactly the same way every time? If so, that's impossible. Each play is different and there's contact on almost every play. Officials have to make a judgment about whether the contact is worthy of a foul, and by whom, each time and it's tough.

It's not giving a 'defenseless player' three steps and then eschewing a RB that same call when he only took two.

spikerman
01-13-2016, 10:47 PM
It's not giving a 'defenseless player' three steps and then eschewing a RB that same call when he only took two.

Again, that's an issue with the rule book. A player becoming a runner isn't defined by the number of steps he takes, but by making a move common to he game. Each official has to determine in a split second whether that happened or not. Judgment calls, by their nature, are inconsistent.

King87
01-13-2016, 10:49 PM
Again, that's an issue with the rule book. A player becoming a runner isn't defined by the number of steps he takes, but by making a move common to he game. Each official has to determine in a split second whether that happened or not. Judgment calls, by their nature, are inconsistent.

He was turning around, had not completed that turn around, and got his bell rung. What I'm getting at is that yeah, judgment calls are inconsistent, but that does not preclude officials from ******* them up, i.e. some judgment calls are incredibly obvious. Factor in your point about the crown of the helmet, and mine that Shazier launched himself, and that non-call was an abortion wrapped in a holocaust.

BroncoWave
01-13-2016, 10:51 PM
He was turning around, had not completed that turn around, and got his bell rung. What I'm getting at is that yeah, judgment calls are inconsistent, but that does not preclude officials from ******* them up, i.e. some judgment calls are incredibly obvious. Factor in your point about the crown of the helmet, and mine that Shazier launched himself, and that non-call was an abortion wrapped in a holocaust.

Wrapped in a breakfast buffet being out of bacon.

King87
01-13-2016, 11:07 PM
Wrapped in a breakfast buffet being out of bacon.

I hate the world, man. We deserved to lose, I hate it. The calls were still wrong.

Dapper Dan
01-13-2016, 11:56 PM
I can't remember it being mentioned, so I'll mention this for my late friend. RIP, ShaneFalco.

No more drug testing for marijuana.

Jaded
01-16-2016, 01:30 AM
Define consistency in this case. Would it be calling everything exactly the same way every time? If so, that's impossible. Each play is different and there's contact on almost every play. Officials have to make a judgment about whether the contact is worthy of a foul, and by whom, each time and it's tough.

NFL officiating literally ****s teams over weekly, on purpose, not by mistake, so by "consistent" I mean that they should not intentionally **** teams over on purpose and not by mistake.

I wish I still believed it was just poor judgment and human element.

BroncoWave
01-16-2016, 07:49 AM
NFL officiating literally ****s teams over weekly, on purpose, not by mistake, so by "consistent" I mean that they should not intentionally **** teams over on purpose and not by mistake.

I wish I still believed it was just poor judgment and human element.

I think your tinfoil hat needs adjusting.

spikerman
01-16-2016, 09:25 AM
NFL officiating literally ****s teams over weekly, on purpose, not by mistake, so by "consistent" I mean that they should not intentionally **** teams over on purpose and not by mistake.

I wish I still believed it was just poor judgment and human element.
If I believed this, I wouldn't watch. Fortunately, I know better.

Ravage!!!
01-16-2016, 10:35 AM
NFL officiating literally ****s teams over weekly, on purpose, not by mistake, so by "consistent" I mean that they should not intentionally **** teams over on purpose and not by mistake.

I wish I still believed it was just poor judgment and human element.

see..it's this kind of ridiculous conspiracy theories that completely wipe out any kind of logical points.

King87
01-16-2016, 03:01 PM
When certain teams, typically the ones who consistently do well, get a few break in the calls, it feels unfair. When a team like that is a rival, and they get breaks on player safety calls, and you don't, it's infuriating.

Spikerman, the league called the Shazier hit legal, which I find to be perplexing; again the Wheaton call comes to mind. The league also admitted that the Bryant catch was not a TD, and IIRC it was a third down TD, too. The ultimate irony is that the league was advertising that catch on it's FB page for several days. I mean, that's just pretty damn funny. A league who gets shit all the time for not having 'sensible' catch rules promotes a 'catch' that isn't a catch which was confirmed by refs in the booth and an older referee expert on live t.v.

spikerman
01-16-2016, 03:46 PM
When certain teams, typically the ones who consistently do well, get a few break in the calls, it feels unfair. When a team like that is a rival, and they get breaks on player safety calls, and you don't, it's infuriating.

Spikerman, the league called the Shazier hit legal, which I find to be perplexing; again the Wheaton call comes to mind. The league also admitted that the Bryant catch was not a TD, and IIRC it was a third down TD, too. The ultimate irony is that the league was advertising that catch on it's FB page for several days. I mean, that's just pretty damn funny. A league who gets shit all the time for not having 'sensible' catch rules promotes a 'catch' that isn't a catch which was confirmed by refs in the booth and an older referee expert on live t.v.
I didn't see that the league declared the Shazier hit to be legal. If they did, I have no idea why unless leading with the crown is not a foul in the NFL, which I can't believe.

Jaded
01-17-2016, 09:33 PM
see..it's this kind of ridiculous conspiracy theories that completely wipe out any kind of logical points.

When you make a logical point ill delete the post.

Bronco4ever
01-17-2016, 09:51 PM
For fumbled punts that go into the endzone to be safety's instead of touchbacks.

spikerman
01-17-2016, 10:24 PM
For fumbled punts that go into the endzone to be safety's instead of touchbacks.

Well, technically, a fumbled punt into the end zone recovered by the receiving team would be a safety. A muffed punt into the end zone recovered by the receiving team would be a touchback (like tonight).

I Eat Staples
01-20-2016, 09:55 PM
By the Shazier hit you're referring to the hit on Gio Bernard that caused a fumble, right? It wasn't called a penalty because it was determined that Bernard was a runner. The penalty would have to be "hit on a defenseless receiver," and since Bernard was a runner he wasn't considered defenseless. If it were a penalty, it'd have to be an incomplete pass; or if it were to stay as a fumble, it can't be called a penalty.

As far as I know there isn't a penalty in the NFL for leading with the helmet, or hitting a player in the helmet, other than a hit on a "defenseless receiver." Which is why it feels so disingenuous when the NFL claims to care about player safety.

King87
01-22-2016, 07:04 PM
Shazier delivered a hit on Bernard that was analogous to the same flag thrown on us for the Wheaton hit. Bernard took two steps while Wheaton took three. You can catch the ball and still be a defenseless receiver, as evidenced by the Wheaton ruling.

Ravage!!!
01-22-2016, 07:11 PM
I make it a rule that if the Broncos win vs the Patriots.... every Bronco player gets give McDoosh 1 punch in the face.

#makeitso