NFL Competition Committee

Word is they are going to change the rule on coaches calling TOs coinciding with the snap on FG attempts to 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct...don't know any more than that tho. Anyone else heard anything about this or any other rule changes?

they actually mentioned this earlier in the football season. people were concerned about the rule even before the season began. people like aikman, phil simms, and other announcers were pretty critical all season on the air. about 3/4ths of the way through the season i was watching a game (or maybe sportscenter) and they announced then that the competition committee was already looking into changing the rule. personally, i don't see what the big deal is anyway. other than the tv networks can get in another commercial.

IMO the deal is this...a team has a kicker who trots onto the field to win a game. He kicks the ball and after it goes through the uprights, the ref says a TO was called and he has to kick it again. IMO, it's underhanded and cheap. If you have to resort to that kind of crap, you don't deserve the game anyways. Icing the kicker is fine, but deliberately trying to make him kick a game winning FG twice isn't.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Icing the kicker is fine, but deliberately trying to make him kick a game winning FG twice isn't. </div></div>
why not??

i dont see anything wrong with it.......its a good strategy move

football is like a chess match and if you have the TOs....use them to your advantage

Football has been played for decades, and this has only come to light recently....which means, to me, that until recently there was honor about things you do and don't do. If you feel the need to ice a kicker, call the TO...just not in an attempt to disrupt the play once it starts. Kickers are kinda fragile anyways, and blowing the play dead after a coach has intentionally called a TO could be the cause of injury if the kicker tries to stop etc. it's the same as screaming "Stop!!!" when someone is on a green trying to putt IMO, except the golfer wouldn't risk injury. Anyways, if I were coaching a team who tried a last second FG and made it only to realize the opposing coach had called a TO, and then my kicker missed the next attempt, I wouldn't shake the coach's hand....but I would give him a mouthful of what I thought about his integrity. And that's what it comes down to..integrity.

But the problem I see is on most cases the whistle doesn't even blow until the play is over or the ball is in the air, IMO that is too late and they shouldn't over turn it, they should just say tough crap, you should have called the TO quicker Coach.

Look at it this way then, no kickers involved. Say you are driving on someone and down to the 5 you snap the ball and hit a quick slant over the middle and bam GW TD.........not hold on, a whistle has blown (late) after the play has already happened and the ref comes up and says the opposing Coach called a timeout. How do you really know they did, you didn't blow a whistle until the play was either over or the ball was in the air. Would it be fair to make the team try it again from the 5 because they called the timeout too late.

That is the problem I see, the refs wait too long to call the timeouts and the ball is already up. Tough crap to the opposing team who called the TO, you were too late. But that is not the way it works, they grant them the TO and have to kick it again. It doesn't bother me that they do it, it is just the timing in which they do.

A small bit of news about the possibility of shaking up the NFL playoffs was buried, somewhat ironically, by the awesomeness of the playoffs themselves. To me, that suggests that the playoffs don't need changed, but what the hell, I'm open to new ideas.

Roger Goodell wants to make it so that in the first round of the playoffs, division winners wouldn't automatically have a home game. If they played a wildcard team that had a better record, the wild card team would get the game in their own crib.

The idea is that it gives teams more incentive to play hard throughout the end of the regular season, so we don't end up seeing something like a Charlie Batch vs. Jim Sorgi matchup in Week 17.

For example, this year, the Bucs couldn't have sat on their hands in weeks 16 and 17, knowing they had their division sewn up. If they wanted to play a home game in the first round, they'd have had to take the field in Week 17 with a line-up a with a little more firepower than was brought to the table by Luke McCown, Michael Bennett, and Chad Lucas.

I'm not opposed to this idea, necessarily. It makes perfect sense, and a team with a better record probably deserves a home game.

However, if it was put to a vote, I'd vote no, and here's why: If there's a coach out there who saw the Colts and Bucs tank the end of this season, and saw the Giants put forth a gargantuan effort with nothing to play for in Week 17, and then saw what happened in the playoffs, and that coach is still dumb enough to be letting his players collect rust over the last two weeks of the season, then I'm opposed to the league stepping in and saving this coach from his own idiocy.

If this year's postseason didn't hammer home the "tanking is bad" message for a coach, then he deserves a savage beatdown in the playoffs next year.

yep, this year and a couple years a go when the Steelers had to play hard for weeks and weeks before the playoffs even started.