PDA

View Full Version : NFL proposes rules changes for 2017 season



Denver Native (Carol)
03-24-2017, 10:54 AM
NFL head of officiating Dean Blandino on Thursday announced proposed rules changes for the 2017 season (via ProFootballTalk). The most surprising new rule would be that all penalties, including ones that were unreviewable in the past, could be challenged.

Here are the other proposed rules changes:

— Jumping over the line to block an extra point or field goal attempt would be outlawed.

— The rule moving touchbacks to the 25-yard line, which was passed on a temporary basis last season, would be made permanent.

— The automatic ejection for two unsportsmanlike conduct fouls, which was also passed on a temporary basis last season, would be made permanent.

— Protection of defenseless players would be expanded to include receivers running routes, when they’re tracking the quarterback or looking back for the ball, even within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage.

— The referee would be allowed to make replay announcements during commercial breaks, rather than waiting for the TV broadcast to resume.

— A 40-second clock after extra points would be instituted when going to a kickoff if there is not a commercial break.

— The length of halftime would be standardized to 13 minutes and 30 seconds, rather than allowing the referee to give teams additional time to get in and out of the locker rooms.

— The league office would be given final say over replay decisions, with input from the referee.

— Sideline replay monitoring would be eliminated, with a tablet being handed to the referee on the field to review replays in consultation with the league office.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/nfl-proposed-rules-changes-2017-season/2f76jp52us9d1245o6dnjzkps

NightTrainLayne
03-24-2017, 12:07 PM
Biggest news to me is that the league office is essentially taking over replay decisions.

Davii
03-24-2017, 12:14 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/nfl-proposed-rules-changes-2017-season/2f76jp52us9d1245o6dnjzkps

I like being able to challenge penalties. I like the changes to speed up play (replay announcement, 40 second clock on kickoff, time in locker rooms). That time in locker rooms really gives some teams a bigger homefield advantage. Like, well, the Broncos for instance. Not sure if you guys have been on a stadium tour or not, but the visitors have to walk a long way from their locker room to the sidelines where the Broncos have a very quick walk into the locker room from theirs. This gives the Broncos an advantage at home where the other team really isn't going to have much time for halftime speeches, treatment, etc.

I don't think I like the defenseless receiver because he's looking at the QB even within 5 yards, I don't see the need for it. Can someone educate me on why?

I REALLY don't like the no jumping over the line on kicks. Stupid rule. Why make that change? If a guy is athletic enough to make that leap without leaping off of someone else that's something a team should be able to use for their advantage. If jumping is the problem then RBs can't do it at the goal line anymore either.

NightTrainLayne
03-24-2017, 12:35 PM
I like being able to challenge penalties. I like the changes to speed up play (replay announcement, 40 second clock on kickoff, time in locker rooms). That time in locker rooms really gives some teams a bigger homefield advantage. Like, well, the Broncos for instance. Not sure if you guys have been on a stadium tour or not, but the visitors have to walk a long way from their locker room to the sidelines where the Broncos have a very quick walk into the locker room from theirs. This gives the Broncos an advantage at home where the other team really isn't going to have much time for halftime speeches, treatment, etc.

I don't think I like the defenseless receiver because he's looking at the QB even within 5 yards, I don't see the need for it. Can someone educate me on why?

I REALLY don't like the no jumping over the line on kicks. Stupid rule. Why make that change? If a guy is athletic enough to make that leap without leaping off of someone else that's something a team should be able to use for their advantage. If jumping is the problem then RBs can't do it at the goal line anymore either.


Keep in mind, the defenseless receiver thing is contact to head/neck area. With that in mind, I don't think it's a huge issue.

King87
03-24-2017, 12:44 PM
They really do need to come up with some rules to bring passing offenses back in check.

MasterShake
03-24-2017, 01:01 PM
Sounds like they are trying to speed up the game, too. I'm tired of a score, commercial, kickoff, then BACK to commercial. Of course they aren't interested in losing ad revenue so I'm sure we will so more shots of coaches holding Microsoft Surface pads, and maybe we will start hearing audibles like "Blue 22!... Macbook Pro! Macbook Pro!... set.. hike!"

Nomad
03-24-2017, 01:16 PM
The rule against 'jumping over the line' is ridiculous.

MasterShake
03-24-2017, 01:22 PM
The rule against 'jumping over the line' is ridiculous.

We would be 8-8 without that rule last season! One of the more exciting plays, and if I recall it happened a few times.

GEM
03-24-2017, 01:23 PM
The rule against 'jumping over the line' is ridiculous.

Yea, if they are going to do that....just give them the point and fire the kickers.

King87
03-24-2017, 01:25 PM
Yea, if they are going to do that....just give them the point and fire the kickers.

I hate kickers! **** yeah! **** YEAH!

Nomad
03-24-2017, 01:28 PM
We would be 8-8 without that rule last season! One of the more exciting plays, and if I recall it happened a few times.


Yea, if they are going to do that....just give them the point and fire the kickers.

Yeah, I don't get this one. As Davii stated, if a player is athletic enough to be successful to jump over the line and block a kick, that's impressive and deserves a slap on the ass.:D

BroncoWave
03-24-2017, 02:00 PM
I think their worry with the leaping issue is when players who AREN'T athletic enough try it, and wind up landing on the center who has his head down snapping it. When a RB leaps over the line, you aren't dealing with players in a vulnerable position like that.

King87
03-24-2017, 02:20 PM
I think their worry with the leaping issue is when players who AREN'T athletic enough try it, and wind up landing on the center who has his head down snapping it. When a RB leaps over the line, you aren't dealing with players in a vulnerable position like that.

Jumping + cleats+ head and neck = an eventual major injury that makes people go 'why was this legal in the first place?' and a whole lot of shit.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-24-2017, 03:44 PM
They really do need to come up with some rules to bring passing offenses back in check.

I think that's why defensive backs are allowed to get away with so much holding.

dogfish
03-26-2017, 12:23 PM
Sounds like they are trying to speed up the game, too. I'm tired of a score, commercial, kickoff, then BACK to commercial. Of course they aren't interested in losing ad revenue so I'm sure we will so more shots of coaches holding Microsoft Surface pads, and maybe we will start hearing audibles like "Blue 22!... Macbook Pro! Macbook Pro!... set.. hike!"

you're correct, they aren't going to lose any ad money. . . goodell's brilliant idea is to have fewer commercial breaks, but make them even longer. . . :rolleyes:

King87
03-26-2017, 12:26 PM
you're correct, they aren't going to lose any ad money. . . goodell's brilliant idea is to have fewer commercial breaks, but make them even longer. . . :rolleyes:

This might help me out when a commercial break hits but the wings I just ate are rebelling in my belly!

#bellyrebellion
#Idonecrackedtheporcelain
#silverlining
#godIhopethetoiletpaperisthere
#definitelywashyourhands
#commerical
#commercialbreak
#posts
#hashtag

BroncoWave
03-26-2017, 12:55 PM
you're correct, they aren't going to lose any ad money. . . goodell's brilliant idea is to have fewer commercial breaks, but make them even longer. . . :rolleyes:

Except it's a great idea. Gives fans at the game more time to go to the bathroom/get concessions and get back to their seats, and there are less overall interruptions. Each break being 30 seconds longer will be barely noticeable, but having fewer breaks total will definitely be noticeable.

Joel
03-27-2017, 01:47 PM
Yea, if they are going to do that....just give them the point and fire the kickers.
As they should've from the start: You can have a "free" (once you score a TD) single point, or go double or nothing trying to reach the end zone again from the 2.

Clear, simple, flexible and (unlike moving kicks to the 15) not arbitrary. I still want to know how they decided kicks are bad from the 2 but fine from the 15. Why not the 20? Or the 30? Why not the 23.86063 yard line? Makes as much sense as the 15 or any other random number.

As to the other popular topic of discussion here: Back when The Hidden Game of Football suggested "just make a TD=7 pts," it further noted one reason they won't do that is because the time when teams are swapping their offense for their PAT team is when networks show the umpteen obligatory multi-angle TD replays. If they couldn't do it then they'd have to cut into the post-TD ads to show replays, and "TV gives up commercials about as easily as the Russian army gave up Stalingrad."

VonDoom
03-28-2017, 12:46 PM
Ian Rapoport‏Verified account @RapSheet 2m2 minutes ago

The @NFL's no leaping rule for field goals passed, I'm told. Not a surprise. All about player safety

VonDoom
03-28-2017, 01:14 PM
ProFootballTalk‏Verified account @ProFootballTalk 7m7 minutes ago

Per source, the rule to shrink OT to 10 minutes was tabled. There were nine teams opposed to it.

Mike Garafolo‏Verified account @MikeGarafolo 28m28 minutes ago

Proposal to put the ball at the 20 if the kicker puts it through the uprights got 11 votes. Not enough. That proposal is ... no good.

Ian Rapoport‏Verified account @RapSheet 28m28 minutes ago

The NFL rule on automatic ejections for egregious hits to the head was approved. Sounds like the competition committee expected this

BroncoWave
03-28-2017, 01:56 PM
Oh man, I can't wait to see all the triggered outrage when the first guy gets ejected for targeting. It's going to be glorious. :lol:

King87
03-28-2017, 01:59 PM
Oh man, I can't wait to see all the triggered outrage when the first guy gets ejected for targeting. It's going to be glorious. :lol:

The league has to almost pray that a known dirty player launches themselves crown first into a player, from behind, five seconds after the play is over, damn near on the sideline, while the targeted player is rescuing an orphan.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-28-2017, 02:02 PM
The league has to almost pray that a known dirty player launches themselves crown first into a player, from behind, five seconds after the play is over, damn near on the sideline, while the targeted player is rescuing an orphan.

😂🤣😆

VonDoom
03-28-2017, 02:04 PM
https://twitter.com/AndrewSiciliano/status/846798448498110464

slim
03-28-2017, 02:11 PM
Just what the NFL needed, more rules!

Timmy!
03-28-2017, 02:39 PM
15 needs a better explanation, because the way it's worded is really, really stupid and obviously not the case.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-28-2017, 02:46 PM
15 needs a better explanation, because the way it's worded is really, really stupid and obviously not the case.

It's perfectly clear, if you fake an injury to stall the clock with less than two minutes left you will be arrested.

Timmy!
03-28-2017, 02:49 PM
It's perfectly clear, if you fake an injury to stall the clock with less than two minutes left you will be arrested.

Well spiking the ball and running out of bounds are also "actions to conserve time." We are going to need some good lawyers.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-28-2017, 02:54 PM
Well spiking the ball and running out of bounds are also "actions to conserve time." We are going to need some good lawyers.

I don't care. I'm dying to see Boston's finest try to get cuffs on Gronk.

VonDoom
03-28-2017, 03:12 PM
15 needs a better explanation, because the way it's worded is really, really stupid and obviously not the case.

I thought so too, because it's really hard to tell what the hell they're talking about there. The best I could find on Twitter was this, when someone asked if spiking the ball would be "illegal" under that wording:

Fᴏᴏᴛʙᴀʟʟ Zᴇʙʀᴀs‏Verified account @footballzebras 7m7 minutes ago

Fᴏᴏᴛʙᴀʟʟ Zᴇʙʀᴀs Retweeted Chaches Sr.

That is still legal. Rule change is the 10-sec runoffs (false start, grounding, injuries) that are at 1:00 to go in half are now at 2:00 wng

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
03-28-2017, 05:58 PM
I'm very intrigued with things on the field now being "illegal".

VonDoom
05-17-2017, 11:17 AM
Judy Battista‏Verified account @judybattista 4h4 hours ago

NFL owners are also expected to approve the proposal that was previously tabled to reduce regular season OT from 15 to 10 minutes.

Judy Battista‏Verified account @judybattista 4h4 hours ago

At league meeting next week, NFL owners will vote on proposal to allow a second player to come off IR in season. Likely to be approved.

NightTrainLayne
05-17-2017, 11:26 AM
Judy Battista‏Verified account @judybattista 4h4 hours ago

NFL owners are also expected to approve the proposal that was previously tabled to reduce regular season OT from 15 to 10 minutes.

Judy Battista‏Verified account @judybattista 4h4 hours ago

At league meeting next week, NFL owners will vote on proposal to allow a second player to come off IR in season. Likely to be approved.


Say goodbye to overtime in the regular season. Reducing it from 15 minutes to 10 is just a step. It will be gone soon. Once you've made the case that it's in the interests of player safety to reduce from 15 to 10, you've already opened the door too wide to be shut. If 15 minutes of OT is unsafe, then so is 10.

Goodbye OT, welcome to the era of ties, and more convoluted playoff scenarios at the end of the season.

Krugan
05-17-2017, 12:12 PM
Ide buy, its a player safety issue, if they got rid of games on 4 days rest.

Thursday night football is dangerous...

VonDoom
05-17-2017, 12:13 PM
Say goodbye to overtime in the regular season. Reducing it from 15 minutes to 10 is just a step. It will be gone soon. Once you've made the case that it's in the interests of player safety to reduce from 15 to 10, you've already opened the door too wide to be shut. If 15 minutes of OT is unsafe, then so is 10.

Goodbye OT, welcome to the era of ties, and more convoluted playoff scenarios at the end of the season.

Yeah, I hate this, and I'm sorry that they're going this way. There's really no reason to shorten OT. They use player safety as a catch all - that's why touchbacks come to the 25 now.

I do like the second player returning from IR though. Gives more flexibility and every team deals with injuries. I don't see a downside there.

King87
05-17-2017, 12:22 PM
Say goodbye to overtime in the regular season. Reducing it from 15 minutes to 10 is just a step. It will be gone soon. Once you've made the case that it's in the interests of player safety to reduce from 15 to 10, you've already opened the door too wide to be shut. If 15 minutes of OT is unsafe, then so is 10.

Goodbye OT, welcome to the era of ties, and more convoluted playoff scenarios at the end of the season.

This is shitty policy by the league.

NightTrainLayne
05-17-2017, 12:22 PM
Yeah, I hate this, and I'm sorry that they're going this way. There's really no reason to shorten OT. They use player safety as a catch all - that's why touchbacks come to the 25 now.

I do like the second player returning from IR though. Gives more flexibility and every team deals with injuries. I don't see a downside there.

Absolutely. The IR thing is good.

slim
05-17-2017, 12:29 PM
I'm very intrigued with things on the field now being "illegal".

which things?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-17-2017, 01:17 PM
which things?

The concept in general: "illegal" suggest against the law and therefore able to be prosecuted.

spikerman
05-17-2017, 05:29 PM
The concept in general: "illegal" suggest against the law and therefore able to be prosecuted.

Illegal contact
Illegal motion
Illegal formation
Illegal touching
Illegal use of hands.

BroncoWave
05-17-2017, 06:18 PM
I would be fine with overtime being eliminated. It would actually make the end of regulation more exciting. Probably see teams go for 2 to win or try to score touchdowns instead of tying field goals. And if more ties happen, so be it. Nothing wrong with a tie.

King87
05-17-2017, 06:24 PM
Ties aren't fun, and OT is super exciting.

Davii
05-17-2017, 07:00 PM
I would be fine with overtime being eliminated. It would actually make the end of regulation more exciting. Probably see teams go for 2 to win or try to score touchdowns instead of tying field goals. And if more ties happen, so be it. Nothing wrong with a tie.


Ties aren't fun, and OT is super exciting.

10524

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-17-2017, 07:24 PM
Illegal contact
Illegal motion
Illegal formation
Illegal touching
Illegal use of hands.

Man, it's becoming increasingly difficult to get away with tongue in cheek comments around here.

I still think the concept of saying anything on the football field is illegal is silly, conceptually speaking

VonDoom
05-23-2017, 10:21 AM
Tom Pelissero‏Verified account @TomPelissero 1m1 minute ago

Roger Goodell is expected to tell NFL owners group celebrations, using ball as prop after TDs, going to ground, snow angels are now allowed.

Tom Pelissero‏Verified account @TomPelissero 46s47 seconds ago
Replying to @TomPelissero

Prolonged acts, miming weapons, offensive gestures, sexually suggestive stuff still expected to be banned. That includes twerking. Sorry, AB

Tom Pelissero‏Verified account @TomPelissero 2m2 minutes ago
Replying to @TomPelissero

Goodell has been meeting with players for months on this. Emphasis on spontaneous exuberance. Result should be more fun, fewer flags.

VonDoom
05-23-2017, 10:58 AM
Albert Breer‏Verified account @AlbertBreer 7m7 minutes ago

Per source, the owners just passed a resolution eliminating the 75-man cutdown. So now, there'll be just one cutdown day -- 90 to 53.

VonDoom
05-23-2017, 11:10 AM
Ian Rapoport‏Verified account @RapSheet 4m4 minutes ago

.@NFL owners have passed a resolution allowing two players to return off Injured Reserve, source says. Used to be just one.

Ian Rapoport‏Verified account @RapSheet 3m3 minutes ago

.@NFL owners tabled the discussion on whether coaches can reach agreements in principle if they are still in the playoffs. More discussion.

Davii
05-23-2017, 12:46 PM
Albert Breer‏Verified account @AlbertBreer 7m7 minutes ago

Per source, the owners just passed a resolution eliminating the 75-man cutdown. So now, there'll be just one cutdown day -- 90 to 53.


Ian Rapoport‏Verified account @RapSheet 4m4 minutes ago

.@NFL owners have passed a resolution allowing two players to return off Injured Reserve, source says. Used to be just one.

Ian Rapoport‏Verified account @RapSheet 3m3 minutes ago

.@NFL owners tabled the discussion on whether coaches can reach agreements in principle if they are still in the playoffs. More discussion.

Well, the 90 straight to 53 will give just a small chance more to 15 guys instead of getting cut a week earlier. That's going to be an even more jarring transition than it currently is. You hear players talk every year about how much cut days suck seeing people go away, etc, I think a cut that drastic will magnify that.

On the second one, I think coaches should be able to reach agreement, even if they're in the playoffs. Otherwise you're penalizing good coaches. I think it's either that or you say no team can talk to a coach until after the Super Bowl.

VonDoom
05-23-2017, 01:03 PM
Well, the 90 straight to 53 will give just a small chance more to 15 guys instead of getting cut a week earlier. That's going to be an even more jarring transition than it currently is. You hear players talk every year about how much cut days suck seeing people go away, etc, I think a cut that drastic will magnify that.

On the second one, I think coaches should be able to reach agreement, even if they're in the playoffs. Otherwise you're penalizing good coaches. I think it's either that or you say no team can talk to a coach until after the Super Bowl.

I think a lot of times coaches and teams can come to a handshake agreement, even if the coach is in the playoffs with another team. But it leaves room for one side or the other to back out, and obviously nothing is official or in writing. It would just be easier to allow that legally (everyone knew Shanahan was taking the 49ers job before the Super Bowl, for example) and I agree that it penalizes coaches on good teams, when other teams don't want to wait around and hope, while the other coaches get snatched up.

dogfish
05-23-2017, 02:41 PM
Well, the 90 straight to 53 will give just a small chance more to 15 guys instead of getting cut a week earlier. That's going to be an even more jarring transition than it currently is. You hear players talk every year about how much cut days suck seeing people go away, etc, I think a cut that drastic will magnify that.

man, poor P is gonna be a wreck on cutdown day. . . that shit is hard enough on her as it is. . . the league really should have been more considerate of her feelings on this one. . .

BroncoWave
05-23-2017, 05:58 PM
Ties aren't fun, and OT is super exciting.

Looks like this passed. Honestly, I don't think it will change much. How many games make it to the last 5 minutes of OT in a year, two or three maybe? Teams will adjust to play more aggressively before OT runs out, so I don't expect to see too many more ties.

King87
05-23-2017, 06:01 PM
Looks like this passed. Honestly, I don't think it will change much. How many games make it to the last 5 minutes of OT in a year, two or three maybe? Teams will adjust to play more aggressively before OT runs out, so I don't expect to see too many more ties.

I'm a policy wonk, though. I think it's a bad rule, regardless of how often it comes up. This makes me sad and as such no more style for today.

BroncoWave
05-23-2017, 06:02 PM
I'm a policy wonk, though. I think it's a bad rule, regardless of how often it comes up. This makes me sad and as such no more style for today.

If two teams can't separate themselves in 70 minutes of play, then I'm fine with a tie.

King87
05-23-2017, 06:15 PM
If two teams can't separate themselves in 70 minutes of play, then I'm fine with a tie.

But that could be said for 65, or 68 minutes. The extra quarter is the more logical increment of time - I have also read that the data does not suggest that this will actually do anything for player safety, either. IDK.

BroncoWave
05-23-2017, 07:05 PM
But that could be said for 65, or 68 minutes. The extra quarter is the more logical increment of time - I have also read that the data does not suggest that this will actually do anything for player safety, either. IDK.

Fwiw, the NBA only plays 5 minute OT. It's not unprecedented to have OT be shorter than a quarter.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-23-2017, 07:07 PM
Let the kickers settle OT with a bareknuckle fistfight

King87
05-23-2017, 07:15 PM
Let the kickers settle OT with a bareknuckle fistfight

Make the kickers do it - they should have to do something entertaining FFS.

King87
05-23-2017, 07:16 PM
Fwiw, the NBA only plays 5 minute OT. It's not unprecedented to have OT be shorter than a quarter.

Yeah, but the NFL is a much better sport to watch than the NBA. If this won't prevent injuries then give us the longer quarter.

BroncoWave
05-23-2017, 08:23 PM
Yeah, but the NFL is a much better sport to watch than the NBA. If this won't prevent injuries then give us the longer quarter.

I mean, with less football being played, that will absolutely equate to at least the same amount if not fewer injuries.

King87
05-23-2017, 08:27 PM
I mean, with less football being played, that will absolutely equate to at least the same amount if not fewer injuries.

http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/237938/nfl-overtime-proposal-does-nothing-for-player-safety

That's what I thought at first...but then....the game changed!

BroncoWave
05-23-2017, 08:33 PM
http://www.espn.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/237938/nfl-overtime-proposal-does-nothing-for-player-safety

That's what I thought at first...but then....the game changed!

The guy who wrote this isn't even really against the change.


I can't say I have a strong position against a 10-minute overtime. The shorter the better at that point. I even question whether it will lead to more ties. As noted, the team with possession as the 10-minute mark approaches would probably increase its urgency earlier, creating the kind of frenetic pace that often leads to a score or a game-ending turnover.


Harbaugh had a "second of all," and I suspect it is the true reason for this change.

"Ten minutes seems like it's long enough for sudden death," he said. "Usually by 10 minutes, it seems like everybody is trying to survive the last five. It's a hard game to play."

I think we can all agree on that.

King87
05-23-2017, 08:46 PM
If it's for player safety, but it doesn't actually do what it's intended, why do it? There should be an actual justifiable reason for a policy change - for any policy change.

BroncoWave
05-23-2017, 08:50 PM
If it's for player safety, but it doesn't actually do what it's intended, why do it? There should be an actual justifiable reason for a policy change - for any policy change.

Quality of play. Read the second part I quoted again.

BroncoWave
05-23-2017, 08:52 PM
Also, the article said it will cut off on average 20 plays per season. While that's admittedly negligible, it's still 20 fewer chances for someone to get hurt.

King87
05-23-2017, 08:59 PM
Also, the article said it will cut off on average 20 plays per season. While that's admittedly negligible, it's still 20 fewer chances for someone to get hurt.

Technically, yeah, but it was something barely more than half a percent. It's not meaningful or substantive and creates the possibility for more weird playoff scenarios. Eh.

DT88TheGreat
05-23-2017, 09:55 PM
Cutting overtime short is a good move, it should make the intensity go up, create more sense of urgency to just go win the game unless teams continue to play for the tie.

VonDoom
05-24-2017, 12:38 PM
Also, the article said it will cut off on average 20 plays per season. While that's admittedly negligible, it's still 20 fewer chances for someone to get hurt.


The NFL claims this is a player safety issue. That seems dubious. There hasn’t been a rash of injuries in the 70th-to-75th minute of overtime games. ESPN Stats & Info’s Vince Masi estimated this will shave off about 20 plays a season from over 32,000, and that’s being generous. He was only solving for the number of plays each year that actually occur after the 70-minute mark in overtime games, but with the shorter period, end-of-game timing rules will kick in after just five minutes, and teams will speed up their game plan sooner in OT. Either way, if “player safety” is the issue here, and the way the NFL is fixing it is by playing less football, that seems to be an admission that playing football is inherently unsafe. I agree, but for its sake, the NFL probably shouldn’t.

https://theringer.com/nfl-overtime-rule-10-minutes-problem-3d457f5b0478

BroncoWave
05-24-2017, 01:13 PM
Honestly, I think this is just a stepping stone to further shortening or just completely eliminating regular season OT. Which, again, I'd still be fine with. You'd just see teams play the 4th quarter more aggressively and go for wins late in games instead of ties.

chazoe60
05-24-2017, 01:15 PM
Also, the article said it will cut off on average 20 plays per season. While that's admittedly negligible, it's still 20 fewer chances for someone to get hurt.

If we got rid of the sport entirely wed cut injuries down to 0.

VonDoom
05-24-2017, 01:21 PM
If we got rid of the sport entirely wed cut injuries down to 0.

I was going to say something like this. They use "player safety" as a catch all when they want to push a change through, like potentially eliminating kickoffs. You know what would be really safe? Not playing at all.

BroncoWave
05-24-2017, 01:26 PM
I disagree with where that guy said that the NFL shortening overtime is the NFL basically saying that playing football is inherently unsafe. It's more likely that they are saying that playing football for too long is unsafe.

BroncoWave
05-24-2017, 01:27 PM
If we got rid of the sport entirely wed cut injuries down to 0.

This is such a stupid argument. It's not an all or nothing thing.

chazoe60
05-24-2017, 01:28 PM
This is such a stupid argument. It's not an all or nothing thing.

It's an absolutely relevant argument to the post I quoted.

BroncoWave
05-24-2017, 01:32 PM
It's an absolutely relevant argument to the post I quoted.

If they can reduce the amount of plays, thus reducing injuries, without reducing the quality of the product, where is the downside?

chazoe60
05-24-2017, 01:36 PM
If they can reduce the amount of plays, thus reducing injuries, without reducing the quality of the product, where is the downside?

How does it not reduce the quality of the product? There will be more ties. It's not a big deal and it won't result in an exorbitant number of ties but it is guaranteed to result in more ties. Ties suck. Therefore the quality of the product will go down.


I love the college OT system, I'm probably in the minority on that but it is a lot more fun to watch IMHO.

BroncoWave
05-24-2017, 01:42 PM
How does it not reduce the quality of the product? There will be more ties. It's not a big deal and it won't result in an exorbitant number of ties but it is guaranteed to result in more ties. Ties suck. Therefore the quality of the product will go down.


I love the college OT system, I'm probably in the minority on that but it is a lot more fun to watch IMHO.

The end result doesn't change the quality of the football that was played. If it was a good, competitive game, a tie doesn't make that not true.

As for there being more ties, I don't know that that's necessarily the case either. As the author of the one article said, teams will just start playing more aggressively earlier, and you'll still probably see the result swing one way or the other.

DT88TheGreat
05-24-2017, 04:00 PM
The end result doesn't change the quality of the football that was played. If it was a good, competitive game, a tie doesn't make that not true.

As for there being more ties, I don't know that that's necessarily the case either. As the author of the one article said, teams will just start playing more aggressively earlier, and you'll still probably see the result swing one way or the other.

Yeah but the last few ties that ive seen resulted in teams packing it in and actually going for the tie when the clock hit about 5 minutes. Nobody wanted to do anything to lose the game at that point since a tie is better than a L when it comes down to playoff tie breakers.

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-24-2017, 08:49 PM
How does it not reduce the quality of the product? There will be more ties. It's not a big deal and it won't result in an exorbitant number of ties but it is guaranteed to result in more ties. Ties suck. Therefore the quality of the product will go down.


I love the college OT system, I'm probably in the minority on that but it is a lot more fun to watch IMHO.

I would love to see the league adopt the college OT system. It would be must see tv. There's no need to protect the sacred cow. Extra points from the 3 were retarded too.

Jaded
05-25-2017, 12:06 AM
Get off my ******* lawn!

BroncoJoe
05-25-2017, 03:32 PM
I would love to see the league adopt the college OT system. It would be must see tv. There's no need to protect the sacred cow. Extra points from the 3 were retarded too.

This, or just play the whole quarter and eliminate the sudden-death portion of OT. Sudden death breads below average play and aggressiveness.

Cugel
05-25-2017, 04:07 PM
Get off my ******* lawn!

Now that's a man worthy of respect!
10547

Joel
05-26-2017, 03:00 PM
This, or just play the whole quarter and eliminate the sudden-death portion of OT. Sudden death breads below average play and aggressiveness.
This is what I've always wanted (except in the playoffs, obviously.) If it's still tied at the end of a single extra period, both teams "earned" a non-loss (just no WIN.) Arbitrarily handing 100% of a very even game to the first team lucky enough to score first was dumb; changing that to "lucky enough to score THIRD UNLESS both teams have had possession OR one got a lucky TD" makes it worse, not better. Dumb>Dumb+complex, because "complex stupidity" is the worst of both worlds.

Cugel
05-26-2017, 08:06 PM
What? Are we still going on about NFL ties? I'm not that opposed to having an NFL dress code. Shows a little class!

DT88TheGreat
05-27-2017, 12:39 AM
What? Are we still going on about NFL ties? I'm not that opposed to having an NFL dress code. Shows a little class!

An NFL dress code? You can't be serious. Coaches dont even want to wear suits on the sidelines or practice. The players who arent playing are usually in team logo gear, so are the coaches.

Nomad
05-27-2017, 03:49 PM
Let the kickers settle OT with a bareknuckle fistfight

Cheerleader mud wrestling :ponder:

Nomad
05-27-2017, 03:59 PM
College OT is good for college, and I love watching the college game. I like the NFL's the way it is, even though the BRONCOS have been on the losing end at times.

Joel
05-27-2017, 07:43 PM
College OT is good for college, and I love watching the college game. I like the NFL's the way it is, even though the BRONCOS have been on the losing end at times.
College OT is the answer to the question, "Sure, sudden death OT was arbitrary, but how can we make it MORE arbitrary...?" If regulation ends in a tie, why not have the head ref write down a number between 1 and 100, then whichever QB guesses closest wins? That's equally "fair" (i.e. random.)

Jaded
05-28-2017, 12:29 AM
College OT is the answer to the question, "Sure, sudden death OT was arbitrary, but how can we make it MORE arbitrary...?" If regulation ends in a tie, why not have the head ref write down a number between 1 and 100, then whichever QB guesses closest wins? That's equally "fair" (i.e. random.)

But not much fun to watch. If you don't watch college football don't have an opinion on it.

BroncoWave
05-28-2017, 09:16 AM
College OT is fun to watch, but a bit gimmicky. Completely eliminates field position strategy, which is a big part of the game.

Joel
05-28-2017, 10:01 AM
But not much fun to watch. If you don't watch college football don't have an opinion on it.
I HAVE tried, but its very nature always repulses me: The SECAA puts the "amateur" in "amateur sports." And OT rules are a good example of it getting worse.


College OT is fun to watch, but a bit gimmicky. Completely eliminates field position strategy, which is a big part of the game.
Last time I recall watching a college game was my first year in Norway, when I was absolutely desperate for SOME kind of football; college nominally (if marginally) qualifies. The whole thing feels very gimmicky to me. People call the SEC college balls best conference as if that's not part and parcel with its self-fulfilling basis.

spikerman
05-28-2017, 11:34 AM
College OT is the answer to the question, "Sure, sudden death OT was arbitrary, but how can we make it MORE arbitrary...?" If regulation ends in a tie, why not have the head ref write down a number between 1 and 100, then whichever QB guesses closest wins? That's equally "fair" (i.e. random.)
How is it "arbitrary?"

Joel
05-28-2017, 12:33 PM
How is it "arbitrary?"
Why does each teams possession begin at the opponents 25 yard line, as opposed to the 35 (as in the CFL) or 10 (as in most HS games)? Answer: Because.

Kickoff after a coin toss (solely because that's the only fair way to determine the kicking team) and play 15:00, at which point the current score is the FINAL score.

BroncoWave
05-28-2017, 01:05 PM
Why does each teams possession begin at the opponents 25 yard line, as opposed to the 35 (as in the CFL) or 10 (as in most HS games)? Answer: Because.

Kickoff after a coin toss (solely because that's the only fair way to determine the kicking team) and play 15:00, at which point the current score is the FINAL score.

So every OT game goes 5 whole quarters? Sorry man, but I think that's a horrible idea, and opposite of the direction the NFL wants to go for player safety. If we are going to do it that way, they might as well just call a tie after the 4th quarter.

Valar Morghulis
05-28-2017, 01:21 PM
Being brought up on soccer, I am used to tied games, so I have never really saw the problem.

But if player safety IS the real driver.... Just have a kicker shoot out after the end of regulation.

Joel
05-28-2017, 02:43 PM
So every OT game goes 5 whole quarters? Sorry man, but I think that's a horrible idea, and opposite of the direction the NFL wants to go for player safety. If we are going to do it that way, they might as well just call a tie after the 4th quarter.
In the regular season, fine by me, if the NFL truly cares about player safety. The reality is the NFL couldn't care less about player safety, only league liability and marketability: That's why all "player safety" rules focus on positions with the LEAST contact and thus longest careers, yet ignore those with the MOST contact and thus SHORTEST careers. "Player safety" is a rationalization the League Office dons and removes as convenient, so won't be allowed to ITSELF become inconvenient.


Being brought up on soccer, I am used to tied games, so I have never really saw the problem.

But if player safety IS the real driver.... Just have a kicker shoot out after the end of regulation.
I'm sure you realize why that option's impractical (especially in the current political climate.) And while I also don't see why regular season ties are inherently undesirable, that particular problem applies there, too: People would scream that "the NFL is awarding godless commie participation trophies!")

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-28-2017, 03:43 PM
Being brought up on soccer, I am used to tied games, so I have never really saw the problem.

But if player safety IS the real driver.... Just have a kicker shoot out after the end of regulation.

With pistols?

Valar Morghulis
05-28-2017, 03:45 PM
With pistols?

Ar15?

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-28-2017, 03:52 PM
Ar15?

"Sudden death"

Al Wilson 4 Mayor
05-28-2017, 03:56 PM
Ar15?

AR-15's would be a great way to get the crowd involved too.

Jaded
05-29-2017, 12:43 AM
I HAVE tried, but its very nature always repulses me: The SECAA puts the "amateur" in "amateur sports." And OT rules are a good example of it getting worse.


Last time I recall watching a college game was my first year in Norway, when I was absolutely desperate for SOME kind of football; college nominally (if marginally) qualifies. The whole thing feels very gimmicky to me. People call the SEC college balls best conference as if that's not part and parcel with its self-fulfilling basis.

You are chock full of contradictions.

Joel
05-29-2017, 02:36 AM
You are chock full of contradictions.
I'm an enigma wrapped in a riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in a tortilla.

spikerman
05-29-2017, 07:56 AM
Why does each teams possession begin at the opponents 25 yard line, as opposed to the 35 (as in the CFL) or 10 (as in most HS games)? Answer: Because.

Kickoff after a coin toss (solely because that's the only fair way to determine the kicking team) and play 15:00, at which point the current score is the FINAL score.

By this logic, everything is arbitrary. Why are quarters 15 minutes instead of 20? Why kickoff from the 35 instead of the 15? College OT rules, while not my favorite, do guarantee an exciting finish and eliminate the possibility of a tie.

To me, the NFL overtime solution is so simple that I can't believe nobody has proposed it. Each team gets one possession, whatever the first team does, the second team gets a chance to match or beat. If they each do the same thing on their first possession (FG, TD, punt) then it becomes sudden death.

Joel
05-29-2017, 02:31 PM
By this logic, everything is arbitrary. Why are quarters 15 minutes instead of 20?
Because an hour is 60:00, not 80:00; maybe if metric time ever caught on we'd play 10:00 quarters, but it didn't, so we don't.


Why kickoff from the 35 instead of the 15?
To eliminate kick returns, but I grant that one's pretty arbitrary, hence the spot for NFL kickoffs has changed twice in as many decades.



College OT rules, while not my favorite, do guarantee an exciting finish and eliminate the possibility of a tie.
Playing a full OT period would guarantee an exciting finish also, and why is eliminating the possibility of a tie a goal?


To me, the NFL overtime solution is so simple that I can't believe nobody has proposed it. Each team gets one possession, whatever the first team does, the second team gets a chance to match or beat. If they each do the same thing on their first possession (FG, TD, punt) then it becomes sudden death.
Sudden death will always suck because it's SO arbitrary. Using a coin toss to determine INITIAL possession is one thing; it's got to be decided somehow, anything deterministic would also be unfair, and it doesn't matter much who gets the ball first unless they can end the game on the spot before the other team can do anything (note, of course, that "feature" of NFL sudden death remains largely in place.) But using something like that to decide which team can win the game while the opposing offense watches helplessly isn't exciting, just unfair (the Falcons surely agree.) Postponing that result until after both teams have had an opportunity to match each other once, twice or a dozen times doesn't change that dynamic, only delay it. If that's just to prevent a tie, we're back to "what's so bad about a tie?"

spikerman
05-29-2017, 02:37 PM
Because an hour is 60:00, not 80:00; maybe if metric time ever caught on we'd play 10:00 quarters, but it didn't, so we don't.


To eliminate kick returns, but I grant that one's pretty arbitrary, hence the spot for NFL kickoffs has changed twice in as many decades.



Playing a full OT period would guarantee an exciting finish also, and why is eliminating the possibility of a tie a goal?


Sudden death will always suck because it's SO arbitrary. Using a coin toss to determine INITIAL possession is one thing; it's got to be decided somehow, anything deterministic would also be unfair, and it doesn't matter much who gets the ball first unless they can end the game on the spot before the other team can do anything (note, of course, that "feature" of NFL sudden death remains largely in place.) But using something like that to decide which team can win the game while the opposing offense watches helplessly isn't exciting, just unfair (the Falcons surely agree.) Postponing that result until after both teams have had an opportunity to match each other once, twice or a dozen times doesn't change that dynamic, only delay it. If that's just to prevent a tie, we're back to "what's so bad about a tie?"
I don't think I understand your argument. The only reason I'm not in favor of the old sudden death system is that the kickers are so good now that teams only have to get 2 or 3 first downs and they're in FG range. In my scenario neither team can say they didn't have a fair shot to win. At some point it's up to the players to stop or to overpower the other guy. It's, in no way, left to a coin flip.

MOtorboat
05-29-2017, 04:32 PM
Why play football at all? That is the real question.

Joel
05-29-2017, 04:58 PM
I don't think I understand your argument. The only reason I'm not in favor of the old sudden death system is that the kickers are so good now that teams only have to get 2 or 3 first downs and they're in FG range. In my scenario neither team can say they didn't have a fair shot to win. At some point it's up to the players to stop or to overpower the other guy. It's, in no way, left to a coin flip.
In your scenario, even if both teams open OT with 99 yd TD drives, whoever won the toss can still win with a walkoff FG, denying the opponent even an opportunity. It's all well if one team starts OT by driving the field for a TD (or FG, or even a lone first down) their opponent fails to match, but if BOTH score a TD, FG, or just go three-and-out, we're right back to sudden deaths arbitrariness: Whoever loses the toss must manage an EXTRA stop just for a chance to win (or not-lose.)

All to avoid the dreaded tie, unsuccessfully if neither team can do ANYTHING for a full 15:00 (remember the 2012 Divisional playoff vs. Pitt?) That's an excuse, not a reason. The NFL managed to "endure" ties for its first 30 years without destroying the game or anyones career. Play 15:00 more; teams can still game the clock for the final possession, but they BOTH can, so the playing field's level, and WHEN the game ends is predetermined objectively, not by who scores last.

King87
05-29-2017, 05:08 PM
I've enjoyed this very much.

Jaded
05-29-2017, 05:57 PM
Why play football at all? That is the real question.

It really is existential gimmickry.

MOtorboat
05-29-2017, 06:01 PM
It really is existential gimmickry.

Why are we here, Jaded? What is the meaning of this?

spikerman
05-29-2017, 06:03 PM
In your scenario, even if both teams open OT with 99 yd TD drives, whoever won the toss can still win with a walkoff FG, denying the opponent even an opportunity. It's all well if one team starts OT by driving the field for a TD (or FG, or even a lone first down) their opponent fails to match, but if BOTH score a TD, FG, or just go three-and-out, we're right back to sudden deaths arbitrariness: Whoever loses the toss must manage an EXTRA stop just for a chance to win (or not-lose.)

All to avoid the dreaded tie, unsuccessfully if neither team can do ANYTHING for a full 15:00 (remember the 2012 Divisional playoff vs. Pitt?) That's an excuse, not a reason. The NFL managed to "endure" ties for its first 30 years without destroying the game or anyones career. Play 15:00 more; teams can still game the clock for the final possession, but they BOTH can, so the playing field's level, and WHEN the game ends is predetermined objectively, not by who scores last.
I only read your first sentence. If you give up a scoring drive and then your offense matches it and you give up another scoring drive well then, that's your fault; not the flip of the coin. Hell, by your logic, the opening coin toss decides the game.

Jaded
05-29-2017, 06:11 PM
Why are we here, Jaded? What is the meaning of this?

We are everything...we are nothing...life...life, is but a gimmick.

Joel
05-29-2017, 08:55 PM
I only read your first sentence. If you give up a scoring drive and then your offense matches it and you give up another scoring drive well then, that's your fault; not the flip of the coin. Hell, by your logic, the opening coin toss decides the game.
Except that's not YOUR SCENARIO: If you give up NOTHING, then your offense matches it, then the opponent gets so much as a FIRST DOWN, you lose, mainly because they won the toss and elected to receive (because who wouldn't in that scenario?) Or if you drive the field but they do the same, it's still the same: One first down wins, before you ever touch the ball again. There's a reason kickoffs are mandatory after each and every score. Except when it matters most.

The opening coin toss doesn't decide the game because even if the receiving team scores they MUST STILL KICKOFF to give the other team an equal chance. That's why the game's not SUDDEN death from the moment the starting line ups are introduced.

spikerman
05-29-2017, 08:58 PM
Except that's not YOUR SCENARIO: If you give up NOTHING, then your offense matches it, then the opponent gets so much as a FIRST DOWN, you lose, mainly because they won the toss and elected to receive (because who wouldn't in that scenario?) Or if you drive the field but they do the same, it's still the same: One first down wins, before you ever touch the ball again. There's a reason kickoffs are mandatory after each and every score. Except when it matters most.

The opening coin toss doesn't decide the game because even if the receiving team scores they MUST STILL KICKOFF to give the other team an equal chance. That's why the game's not SUDDEN death from the moment the starting line ups are introduced.
From reading this post I don't think you understood my scenario at all. I also know that you never change your mind so I will stop the useless debate. Just continue to be annoyed.

Valar Morghulis
05-30-2017, 01:39 AM
From reading this post I don't think you understood my scenario at all. I also know that you never change your mind so I will stop the useless debate. Just continue to be annoyed.

Lol, like a boss spike

Cugel
05-31-2017, 01:24 PM
We are everything...we are nothing...life...life, is but a gimmick.

Or, more properly put, reality is a holographic projection from some higher dimension and our brains are holographic receivers!


"In 1982, French Physicist Alain Aspect and a team of physicists attempting to experimentally investigate Quantum Entanglement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement), were able to actually carry-out the polarization experiment that Einstein had proposed nearly fifty years before (Talbot, 1991, p.52-53). Photon pairs were created by heating calcium atoms with a laser, and then allowed to travel in opposite directions. Aspect discovered that the polarization of one photon immediately polarized the other--just as quantum theory had predicted. The photons were somehow communicating with each other at speeds exceeding the speed of light, or nonlocal connections existed between the electrons, or the separateness of the particles themselves was an illusion.

Princeton physicist David Bohm (1987) concluded that the implications of nonlocal connections are that objective reality itself is entirely a construct of the human brain. The true nature of reality remains hidden from us. Our brains operate as a holographic frequency analyzer, decoding projections from a more fundamental dimension. Bohm concludes that even space and time are constructs of the human brain, and they may not exist as we perceive them.

10567

Jaded
05-31-2017, 06:47 PM
Or, more properly put, reality is a holographic projection from some higher dimension and our brains are holographic receivers!



10567

“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather".

Hawgdriver
05-31-2017, 07:37 PM
“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather".

Nice Hicks reference. I knew you had one redeeming quality.

Jaded
05-31-2017, 10:21 PM
Nice Hicks reference. I knew you had one redeeming quality.

I have all Tom Hicks records.