HawkShack.com

Here are some of what the Competition Committee will be discussing:
From PFT:

Rule change proposals:

1. Move the kickoff to the 40-yard line.

2. Expand instant replay to include personal foul penalties.

3. Eliminate overtime in the preseason.

4. Extend the goal posts an additional five feet above the cross bar.

5. Move the line of scrimmage for extra points to the defensive team’s 25-yard line.

6. Put six cameras on all boundary lines — sideline, goal line, end line, to guarantee coverage for replay reviews.

7. Permit a coach to challenge any official’s decision, except scoring plays which are automatically reviewed.

8. Protect players from getting the sides of their legs rolled up on — the rule already says a blocker can’t hit an opponent in the back of the legs, this proposal will add “or side” to the rule.

9. Allow the referee to consult with members of the NFL officiating department during replay reviews. The referee would be able to speak with the command center in New York to help in reviewing a play.

10. Re-organize the rules about what can be reviewed and what cannot be reviewed, including making the recovery of a loose ball in the field of play reviewable. (This is referred to as the NaVorro Bowman rule, after a controversial call in the NFC Championship Game.)

11. Don’t stop the clock on a sack.

12. Modify pass interference so that it can be called within one yard of the line of scrimmage.

13. Enforce defensive fouls behind the line of scrimmage from the previous spot, rather than from the end of the run or from the spot of the foul.

Bylaw proposals:

1. Raise the number of active players on game day from 46 to 49 for regular-season games played on a day other than Sunday or Monday, excluding Week One.

2. Raise the practice squad limit from eight players to 10 players.

3. Permit clubs to trade players prior to the start of the league year.

4. Eliminate the cut-down to 75 players during training camp and instead just have one cut-down from 90 players to 53 players.

5. Permit more than one player to return to the active list from injured reserve so that any player on injured reserve could return after six weeks.

6. Permit each club to time and test up to 10 players at its facility, and allow other clubs to attend timing and testing at another team’s facility.

7. Adjust the time of the roster reduction from 53 after the fourth preseason game from 6 p.m. Eastern to 4 p.m. Eastern. All teams would have to have their list of final cuts in by 4 p.m.

Resolution proposal:

1. Permit a home team with a retractable roof to open or close its roof at halftime, instead of having to determine at the start of the game whether it is open or closed.

You for got the rule were they say you have to let the offense score all the time, since they obviously do not want the defense to be able to stop them. Pathetic.

I actaully got no problem with any of those proposals.

Depends on how they call the pass interference within 1 yard.
If it means no contact within 5 yards then it's another step towards flag football, but if it's about shallow crossing patterns and a player is running along the LoS, then it's not so bad.
It's going to mean more disputed calls by Referees that are already under pressure from too many rules.

Pass interference only applies while the ball is in the air, shouldn't effect the 5 yard rule on 90% of routs.

So why examine the change, then? I don't recall many controversies about PI within 5 yards of the LoS.
The only thing I can think of is to call it on quick tosses, bubble screens, etc. when WRs are being contacted by the CB within 5 yards. Maybe even call penalties on DBs on the other side of the field.
Then we get into Referees and calls or non calls about when the contact was made and when the throw was made.
I think it would be more controversy than effect.

They have to be careful with how they word it, and enforce a PI that close to the line IMO. A DB is allowed a chuck within 5 yards, I can see offenses abusing it if it isn't clear. A QB doesn't have to take a three or five step drop, a DB playing press coverage can get called for a chuck at the line should a QB simply lob it that way on the snap. Which in effect makes playing man press coverage almost impossible to avoid that type of penalty. A DB is NOT looking at the QB on the snap, and can't reasonably be expected to....

That's a lot of rule changes for one season. I can't see them approving half of them.

It's ironic that they are attempting to eliminate boring plays by moving the XP try to the 25 yet they want to move kickoffs up to the 40. They might as well eliminate the one point try and just award 7 points for a TD and preserve the option of going for 2, and eliminate all kickoffs and just start play at the 25 or 30 at the start of each half and following scoring plays.

Boy, that would run shivers up the spine of place kickers, wouldn't it?

Some rules like more cameras make sense. And I like the coach being able to challenge any call by the ref.
If the coaches still have the same number of challenges per game, it should keep the coaches flags in their pockets unless it was a critical play and coach was sure ref screwed up.

Some of these bogus holding calls are what I am thinking about.

Why increase the bar 5 feet? Are the kickers making too many kicks these days?

Eaglehawk wrote:Some rules like more cameras make sense. And I like the coach being able to challenge any call by the ref.
If the coaches still have the same number of challenges per game, it should keep the coaches flags in their pockets unless it was a critical play and coach was sure ref screwed up.

Some of these bogus holding calls are what I am thinking about.

Why increase the bar 5 feet? Are the kickers making too many kicks these days?

I don't understand why they want to raise the goal posts, either, not when every scoring play is reviewed and they have plenty of cameras to see if a kick was inside the uprights. Besides, that's probably the easiest call for a ref to make on 99+% of all kick attempts.

So long as there is a good penalty for being wrong and that the total number of challenges aren't increased, I don't mind expanding the types of plays that are challengeable, especially on those where there's good, irrefutable evidence, like a play clock running out or too many men on the field.

But I don't want to increase the number of game stoppages of which IMO there are already too many. It's like taking a commercial break during sex.

i wonder when they will test for HGH. This will most certainly reveal a lot of cheaters in the NFL

Numbers 3, 6, and 10 sound fine for the proposals. I'm confused by #11, because they don't stop the clock on a sack anyway.
I think some are confusing the goal post with the cross bar. Makes some sense to raise goal posts, so that high FG attempts don't have to be a judgement call as much. It either hits it and bounces in or is a miss off the deflection.

Some of the other proposals sound good on paper, but I could see the refs screwing them up on game day. I don't like the 40 yd line kickoff at all, and at the end of the day I'm against reviewing personal fouls.

Pretty much all the bylaw proposals make sense, though I'm not sure why the 2hr time change for #7 is an issue to begin with. I mean, it's 2 hrs, who cares.

Edit: The PAT should either be kept as is, or eliminated altogether.

What they should add is coaches get unlimited challenges as long as they keep getting them right - otherwise they get the minimum of 2.
Why should a team lose any game because the Referees are incompetent or just having a real bad game and at the end of a game an obvious bad call is made but the coach has used 3 challenges?
If they want to get things right, then that's an obvious solution.

The NFL has now banned roll up blocks from the side, not just the back.
Good move to protect the Defensive players for a change.

The Refs will now talk to the Officiating Dept. in New York during replays.
Another good move to help get things right in my opinion.

NorthHawk wrote:What they should add is coaches get unlimited challenges as long as they keep getting them right - otherwise they get the minimum of 2.
Why should a team lose any game because the Referees are incompetent or just having a real bad game and at the end of a game an obvious bad call is made but the coach has used 3 challenges?
If they want to get things right, then that's an obvious solution.

There needs to be some sort of limit on challenges. We don't want to go back to a system similar to what they had in the 80's, which was continual, excessive play stoppages that 90% of the time ended up with a ref saying "after further review, the play stands as called". It slowed the game way down, and casual fans started losing interest. It was boring as hell to sit in the old Kingdome waiting for them to make up their minds on some inconsequential play. That's what killed the system back then.

If they're that serious about improving the quality of officiating, they need to employ officials full time and year round.

RiverDog wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:What they should add is coaches get unlimited challenges as long as they keep getting them right - otherwise they get the minimum of 2.
Why should a team lose any game because the Referees are incompetent or just having a real bad game and at the end of a game an obvious bad call is made but the coach has used 3 challenges?
If they want to get things right, then that's an obvious solution.

There needs to be some sort of limit on challenges. We don't want to go back to a system similar to what they had in the 80's, which was continual, excessive play stoppages that 90% of the time ended up with a ref saying "after further review, the play stands as called". It slowed the game way down, and casual fans started losing interest. It was boring as hell to sit in the old Kingdome waiting for them to make up their minds on some inconsequential play. That's what killed the system back then.

If they're that serious about improving the quality of officiating, they need to employ officials full time and year round.

I understand the time thing, but if the challenges are all upheld, why would you penalize the team if another bad call happens late in a game and maybe cause a loss because of it?
Sometimes refereeing crews just have bad days.

NorthHawk wrote:

RiverDog wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:What they should add is coaches get unlimited challenges as long as they keep getting them right - otherwise they get the minimum of 2.
Why should a team lose any game because the Referees are incompetent or just having a real bad game and at the end of a game an obvious bad call is made but the coach has used 3 challenges?
If they want to get things right, then that's an obvious solution.

There needs to be some sort of limit on challenges. We don't want to go back to a system similar to what they had in the 80's, which was continual, excessive play stoppages that 90% of the time ended up with a ref saying "after further review, the play stands as called". It slowed the game way down, and casual fans started losing interest. It was boring as hell to sit in the old Kingdome waiting for them to make up their minds on some inconsequential play. That's what killed the system back then.

If they're that serious about improving the quality of officiating, they need to employ officials full time and year round.

I understand the time thing, but if the challenges are all upheld, why would you penalize the team if another bad call happens late in a game and maybe cause a loss because of it?
Sometimes refereeing crews just have bad days.

I don't see the current system as being that totally inadequate. I'm also not sure how many coaches are successful in their two challenges and wish they had a 3rd. They're already reviewing every scoring play and all plays in the last two minutes of the game w/o the expenditure of a coaching challenge, so I don't see the benefit of extending the number of challenges to coaches, even if they're successful on all of them.

Basically, if it's not broke, don't fix it.

Now they have eliminated Dunking the Football after a TD. I think dunking is stupid anyway, but players like to do it.
They say it falls under using the ball as a prop.
I guess they could say that about spiking it, too so why the change for the Dunk?

Jimmy Onecatch rule. He bent the goal posts in a game and delayed it while they fixed it. The "prop" thing is just a convenient place to put it under.....

NorthHawk wrote:Now they have eliminated Dunking the Football after a TD. I think dunking is stupid anyway, but players like to do it.
They say it falls under using the ball as a prop.
I guess they could say that about spiking it, too so why the change for the Dunk?

I never have liked showboating, perhaps because I'm a former offensive lineman, but that rule change is over the top.

I don't mind the dunking on the goal post rule. It makes sense, you damage that goal post then it will delay the game.
I give them that rule.

I actaully got no problem with any of those proposals.

Haven't read the thread past your post yet, but moving the KO to the 40 doesn't bother you?

If they do that, they should just eliminate the kickoff and place the ball at the 20, because they're effectively the same thing without the insult to everyone's intelligence.

Here's a link for the changes as of Wednesday morning 9amish PDT.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... e-meeting/

Some of the highlites:
1. Move the kickoff to the 40-yard line. FAILED

2. Expand instant replay to include personal foul penalties. FAILED

3. Eliminate overtime in the preseason. TABLED

4. Extend the uprights to make them five feet taller. PASSED

The whole list is in the article.

The funniest thing to me is the rule changes and who they were proposed by, and how it is a by product of a call or game going either against them, or an area they simply haven't addressed, like maybe we can get the rule changed to save our hides.... LOL the Kickoff move up is pretty funny to me, as it was a team with horrid special teams recommending it ( Redskins) and the goal post raise ( though to be fair I agree with it). Coming from NE.....

Maybe they should raise the goal post cross bar by 5 ft, thereby eliminating the dunk and at the same time providing more of a challenge for both Extra Points and Field Goals, all the while raising the tops of the uprights by the 5ft. they did with this rule/bylaw change.

90 % of this stuff is stupid. The 1 yard PI rule is the "stop the Seahawks" rule. A defender playing press coverage all the QB has to do is turn and throw the ball and bingo, free first down.Now it might make some sense if it applied on offense to teams like Denver who have blockers engaging DBs before Manning even flails his noodle arm. They lived off that play all year until they met the Seahawks. So now they will adopt the non exhaling on the reciever rule and extend that old fossils career another 5 years. So many other dumb suggestions I don't know where to start. Reviewing any call? that's a recipe for a 5 hour game. Extra points from the 25. Goody two shoes argues they only missed 6 last year. Well that's six ballgames affected dumb ass, doesn't that matter? And then what about the fake and going for 2 from the kick alignment? Aw it doesn't matter. These guys are like congressmen. They don't feel important unless they are passing another onerous law....

Hawktawk wrote:90 % of this stuff is stupid. The 1 yard PI rule is the "stop the Seahawks" rule. A defender playing press coverage all the QB has to do is turn and throw the ball and bingo, free first down.Now it might make some sense if it applied on offense to teams like Denver who have blockers engaging DBs before Manning even flails his noodle arm. They lived off that play all year until they met the Seahawks. So now they will adopt the non exhaling on the reciever rule and extend that old fossils career another 5 years. So many other dumb suggestions I don't know where to start. Reviewing any call? that's a recipe for a 5 hour game. Extra points from the 25. Goody two shoes argues they only missed 6 last year. Well that's six ballgames affected dumb ass, doesn't that matter? And then what about the fake and going for 2 from the kick alignment? Aw it doesn't matter. These guys are like congressmen. They don't feel important unless they are passing another onerous law....

Perhaps I don't understand the purpose of this rule, but doesn't the PI within 1 yard of the LoS negate contact within 5 yards? How can a player play press or bump and ruln coverage on quick outs?
The other issue is how will the Referee determine who initiated contact? If the WR runs into the DB, will the WR be called for Offensive PI? After all, the DB has established position.

What I really don't want to see is a flag fest on plays where the ball is thrown quickly to one side of the field and PI is called on the other. Those types of calls where PI was called nowhere near the play used to be almost frequent, but aren't called much any more. I hope this isn't a return to those days.

NorthHawk wrote:Maybe they should raise the goal post cross bar by 5 ft, thereby eliminating the dunk and at the same time providing more of a challenge for both Extra Points and Field Goals, all the while raising the tops of the uprights by the 5ft. they did with this rule/bylaw change.

Wow. Did you come up with that on your own, North Hawk? Great idea!

The 1 yard PI rule is the "stop the Seahawks" rule.

There is literally no team in the league that doesn't try to do exactly what we do. I don't think that would hurt SEA disproportionately.

burrrton wrote:

The 1 yard PI rule is the "stop the Seahawks" rule.

There is literally no team in the league that doesn't try to do exactly what we do. I don't think that would hurt SEA disproportionately.

Key word in that sentence is "try" sure they "try" to do it, but there isn't all that many truly good press teams, and Seattle ran it an obscene amount more than other teams, and were obscenely more successful at it ( something like 60% of all defensive snaps for Seattle was man press, with second being in the low 40's).

Like I said earlier, this gives a disproportionate advantage to offenses, and offenses WILL take advantage of a rule like that. That said, I hope Seattle runs a gazillion bubble screens if this rule is implemented.

This change has the potential to blow up in their faces if teams start taking advantage of it to keep drives alive and fans start complaining. It's The law of Unintended Consequences.

A part of me is hoping it does blow up just to send a message to not change the game too much.

RiverDog wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:Maybe they should raise the goal post cross bar by 5 ft, thereby eliminating the dunk and at the same time providing more of a challenge for both Extra Points and Field Goals, all the while raising the tops of the uprights by the 5ft. they did with this rule/bylaw change.

Wow. Did you come up with that on your own, North Hawk? Great idea!

Is that sarcasm? It's hard to tell online.

NorthHawk wrote:

RiverDog wrote:

NorthHawk wrote:Maybe they should raise the goal post cross bar by 5 ft, thereby eliminating the dunk and at the same time providing more of a challenge for both Extra Points and Field Goals, all the while raising the tops of the uprights by the 5ft. they did with this rule/bylaw change.

Wow. Did you come up with that on your own, North Hawk? Great idea!

Is that sarcasm? It's hard to tell online.

Naw, but reading it again, it sure sounds like it. Just trying to be funny. Sorry about that.

It is a very good idea, though. Kills two birds with one stone.

OK then, I'm no longer offended.