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

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.

Originally Posted by Davii

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.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

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.

Originally Posted by Davii

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.

Originally Posted by Valar Morghulis

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?

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.

Originally Posted by spikerman

This would only apply when the team with the lead has the ball, right?

Yeah

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

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.

Originally Posted by Davii

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.

Originally Posted by Buff

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.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

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

Well then you are bad at thinking.

Originally Posted by Buff

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.

Originally Posted by BroncoWave

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?

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.

I think if you score a TD and you don't celebrate you should be fined.