NFL Rule Change Proposals

I at least hope the "force out" is finally thrown away. That's the biggest BS call in football. If a receiver can't get his feet down, he doesn't deserve the catch.


NFL rethinking playoff seeding
Competition committee also talks replay on field goals
Posted: Sunday March 30, 2008 10:34PM; Updated: Sunday March 30, 2008 10:34PM

PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- Mike Nolan thinks there are reasons beyond safety for the proposal that could lead to an NFL ban on hair hanging from the back of helmets.

"The nameplate is on his back; the number is on his back," the San Francisco 49ers coach said Sunday, the day before the NFL's meetings officially begin. "That's what we want the fans to see. Not his hair."

This might be a year when fans actually take interest in what owners do at these gatherings. Many meetings are filled with arcane proposals, like changing the positioning of offensive linemen's arms during blocks. This season, at least, there is some meat among the suggestions.

Or at least some hair.

The idea of banning long hair -- players would be allowed to tuck it under their helmets -- was proposed by the Chiefs. Kansas City's Larry Johnson tackled Pittsburgh's Troy Polamalu by the hair after an interception in a 2006 game.

Whether the measure will pass is problematic: The Chiefs bring a proposal for a rules change most years, and almost all of them fail to get the 24 votes needed from the 32 teams.

The other rules proposals come from the competition committee, which has more clout. Among them:

"? Changing the playoff seeding so that a wild-card team could get home-field advantage in a first round game if it has a better regular-season record than a division winner.

"I like it because it makes teams play out the season," said Detroit Lions president Matt Millen, a member of the competition committee.

Last year, two wild-card teams with better records went on the road and both won: the eventual Super Bowl champion New York Giants in Tampa and Jacksonville in Pittsburgh. The Bucs benched regulars for the final game and finished 9-7 to 10-6 for New York, which didn't need its home field, where it finished 3-5. The Giants won their last 10 road games, including three playoff games.

"? The college option on the coin toss, allowing teams to defer taking the ball until the second half.

"? Ending the forceout rule on receptions and interceptions. Currently, the play stands if a player is forced out of bounds making a catch. If changed, a player must get both feet down in bounds under all circumstances.

"? Eliminating the 5-yard "incidental facemask" penalty. Grabbing the facemask and turning it would lead to an automatic 15-yard penalty.

"? Instant replay on field-goal attempts. This was proposed in part because of a game last season in which Cleveland's game-tying field goal against Baltimore appeared to hit the crossbar and bounced back on the field. It was eventually ruled to have hit the support stanchion behind the crossbar and was good. The Browns went on to win in overtime.

On the business side, there will be discussions on a variety of issues, including the impending labor talks. Some owners have predicted the league will opt out of the labor contract in November, the date for reopening the deal. But despite rhetoric from the union and some owners, league officials note all that will do is set the stage for new negotiations -- with no other potential ramifications until 2010, a season without a salary cap if no new deal can be worked out.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

i think eliminating the forceout rule would be stupid

Why's that ? Shouldn't a DB be allowed to play defense?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why's that ? Shouldn't a DB be allowed to play defense? </div></div>

If they were to eliminate it, what would keep a DB from catching an airborne receiver and carrying him 5-10 yards and dropping him out-of-bounds? It's a good rule, keep it.

Forward progess?

The problem is that it is a subjective rule, and it is up to a ref's judgement. College doesn't use it, and the NFL was much better when it didn't. A DB already can't make contact after 5 yards, and can't breathe on a WR without a flag being thrown...so why can't the sideline be his friend? BTW, you don't see college players carrying someone out of bounds...that's a foolish statement. Maybe I'm just one of the few that can remember when the NFL was actually not playing by flag football rules..lol.

If possion of the catch has not been established then can there TRULY be foward progress and if so for the sake of argument the DB packs the recever in a manner that matains foward momentem

If a Db has that kind of strength and agility, the pass needs to be incomplete....lol. C'mon Counts, you played football...and the possibility of something like that happening is remote. But if it did, give the DB the credit.

First, yes, if a receiver has control of the ball, but is knocked backward before getting his feet down, you still give them the progress.

Just amend the rule to state that if a player is controlled by the opponent in the air, and the opponent is inbounds, then there is possession. This eliminates any carry and makes a force out take place by shove or hit.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If a Db has that kind of strength and agility, the pass needs to be incomplete....lol. C'mon Counts, you played football...and the possibility of something like that happening is remote. But if it did, give the DB the credit. </div></div>

I know just like to argue sometimes [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif[/img] and we all know that IF a loophole exists someone will take advangage (Rember the clock starting on the kickoff a few years back)

About this rule I'm serious tho. The NFL was fine without it.... I just don't like leaving a team's fate open to an official's bias...and there is bias in the NFL. The Browns and Packers were both ripped at crucial times last year by the force out rule (both should have had crucial completions nullified when both the officials and league said afterwards they should have been catches under the force out rule). IMO, pro ball should be determined by facts. 2 feet in is something we can all see...that should be a catch. IMO they should at least require 1 foot down to even qualify for a force out ruling.

I agree that the more "Judgment calls" that are taken out of the game the better.


I seems that the rules more and more favor the offince (IMHO it is the league legeslating higher scoring games)

That being said should a recever have to maintain control of the ball after hitting the ground out of bounds on a sideline throw where he had both feet inbounds and control of the ball (before hitting the ground out of bounds) I now currently it is an incompleat pass

IMO if a receiver doesn't control the ball when he hits the ground it isn't a catch. Another rule I'd like to see is the old rule concerning contact on WRs by DBs. Back in the day, a DB could chuck a receiver regardless of where he was on the field as long as the ball wasn't in the air. There wasn't a 5 yard limit on contact. Then it was changed to one chuck regardless or position on the field. I'd like em to go back to that. Really, as far as rules go, I'd just as sonn they scrap all these lil ticky tack rules they've made over the past few years unless they deal with player safety.

it isnt a catch if a WR doesnt have control of the ball when they hit the ground........however......in the event they get pushed out before they come down.....i think in a situation where they would have come down in bounds.....you have to give them the benefit of the doubt

I don't...when a kicker misses a field goal by a foot, he don't get the benefit of the doubt. When a DB makes an interception and lands one foot out of bounds he doesn't ge tthe benefit of the doubt....what makes receivers so special that they should. Should we just give a RB a first down if he gets close to the sticks?....nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope....if they keep the force out rule, they should do away with instant replay and just give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Then, football won't be a game of inches anymore.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't...when a kicker misses a field goal by a foot, he don't get the benefit of the doubt. When a DB makes an interception and lands one foot out of bounds he doesn't ge tthe benefit of the doubt....what makes receivers so special that they should. Should we just give a RB a first down if he gets close to the sticks?....nope, nope, nope, nope, and nope. </div></div>
god you're obtuse

comparing a kicker missing a kick and a WR who would have come down in bounds, but got pushed out by somebody is laughable at best

How so? He was close wasn't he?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How so? He was colse wasn't he? </div></div>
seriously............you are embarassing yourself

if youa rent smart enough to see the difference between the two......then im not going to waste my time discussing it with you

You're the one embarrassing yourself. Close doesn't cut it....and the force out rule has been abused for the past couple years. You may like it, but I think it sucks.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're the one embarrassing yourself. Close doesn't cut it....and the force out rule has been abused for the past couple years. You may like it, but I think it sucks. </div></div>
this is the last thing im going to say about this.......it isnt a question of being "close" its a question of......"would he have come down inbounds with the ball if he wasnt forced out?"

emphasis goes on the word "forced"

when your answer is yes......thats why they get the benefit of the doubt

if you cant see why or how that works.....then i dont need to waste anymore time discussing this with you

"? Eliminating the 5-yard "incidental facemask" penalty. Grabbing the facemask and turning it would lead to an automatic 15-yard penalty


Hum that's a big penalty for a accident. Hell If you catch yourself doing it accidentally may as well jerk the hell out of it.

No you are reading it wrong. If you just rake across accidentally, there will no longer be a penalty. Only if you grab the mask creating a head turn as it has been for years.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sup-rbeast</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IMO if a receiver doesn't control the ball when he hits the ground it isn't a catch. Another rule I'd like to see is the old rule concerning contact on WRs by DBs. Back in the day, a DB could chuck a receiver regardless of where he was on the field as long as the ball wasn't in the air. There wasn't a 5 yard limit on contact. Then it was changed to one chuck regardless or position on the field. I'd like em to go back to that. Really, as far as rules go, I'd just as sonn they scrap all these lil ticky tack rules they've made over the past few years unless they deal with player safety. </div></div>
Jack Tatum, Nigthtrain Lane

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1inStripes</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No you are reading it wrong. If you just rake across accidentally, there will no longer be a penalty. Only if you grab the mask creating a head turn as it has been for years. </div></div>

OIC

Proposal to reseed NFL playoffs teams withdrawn by owners
By BARRY WILNER, AP Football Writer

PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP)"?A show of hands made it obvious that reseeding the NFL playoffs wasn't such a good idea.

So the league's competition committee withdrew the proposal Wednesday after an informal vote sent it "down in flames,"? according to New York Giants co-owner John Mara.

The owners did pass several resolutions, including eliminating the forceout on receptions; allowing teams to defer their decision to the second half when winning the opening coin toss; and making field goals and extra points subject to replay review to determine whether the ball passes over the crossbar and through the uprights.

In addition, any direct snap from center that is untouched by the quarterback now will be a live ball; in the past it was considered a false start and the play was blown dead. The 5-yard penalty for incidental contact with a facemask has been eliminated, with the 15-yarder remaining for any grasping or twisting of the facemask.

On Tuesday, the owners approved a communication device in the helmet of one defensive player.

"The owners did pass several resolutions, including eliminating the forceout on receptions; allowing teams to defer their decision to the second half when winning the opening coin toss; and making field goals and extra points subject to replay review to determine whether the ball passes over the crossbar and through the uprights.

In addition, any direct snap from center that is untouched by the quarterback now will be a live ball; in the past it was considered a false start and the play was blown dead. The 5-yard penalty for incidental contact with a facemask has been eliminated, with the 15-yarder remaining for any grasping or twisting of the facemask."


For once the changes are beneficial IMO.