2019 NFL Rule Changes That Would Improve The Game Big Time

[Mondio]

Again, I never said the coin flip is determining a game, I said that statistically it gives one team an unearned advantage, unless you consider having a coin land your way as being earned. How would you feel if they did a second coin flip to determine who gets what end of the field? They don't, because in some stadiums it is a distinct advantage to be going in one direction for OT. So they try to use that to balance out the advantage gained by the team winning the coin toss and choosing first. Dome stadium, advantage probably lost.

No kidding there's an advantage to being able to chose what you'd like to do, receive or kick, and which end to defend. That's not my point that his is completely equitable and fair and even and only the true winners will prevail because the OT rules are so perfect. there will ALWAYS be inequity. there will always be something that favors one over the other. be it field position, happenstance, injury, wind gust whatever. It's part of football. and to date, not a single proposal has made it any more "fair" or even, just different. So you give each team a possession, not the first team gets a 2nd. Fair right? There is no fair. It's football. Stop them or score.

 

[Mondio]

and I get that, but the 80% odds are something a team has the ability to effect. A coin flip, not so much.

SO what? determine it by first downs gained. Determine it by 3rd down stops. Determine it by who won their week 3 game in 1962 by more points. I don't care. Someone is going to get the ball first. and they'll score or not. if they score a TD it's over. If not, the other team gets a chance. Or make it both teams get a chance and they both score TD's. Now the first team gets it again. Now it's uneven. The only way it ends up even is if they don't score and the 2nd teams does. But then that is just because of circumstance, not because it was really fair and besides. There is a distinct advantage to going 2nd when you know what is needed. I'm sure every team would rather have 4 downs than 3 and have a tough decision to make.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As I alluded to in my other post, it would be interesting to know if those stats fluctuate with the stadium. Some stadiums/windy days, its a distinct advantage to be able to pick which end you defend. This advantage I am sure at times could offset the advantage of receiving the ball first.

Just to be absolutely clear about it, I will double check the numbers of games won by the team receiving tge ball first in overtime, I don't have enough time to include windy days in stadiums into the equation though

 

[OldSchool101]

After reading this and digesting it all... I’m just so thankful right now you guys don’t set the league rules. I would be absolutely confused and I can’t even imagine trying to explain the new rules to my friends

 

[Mondio]

After reading this and digesting it all... I’m just so thankful right now you guys don’t set the league rules. I would be absolutely confused and I can’t even imagine trying to explain the new rules to my friends

Don't try and digest all at once, approach more from the standpoint of ruminating. Be mindful of the gas

 

[Curly Calhoun]

1. Move kickoffs back to the 30 yardline and bring all touchbacks out to only the 15 yard line instead of the 25.

2. Eliminate both illegal contact penalties and the offensive PI penalties that get called whenever WRs setup those blocks on the screens or quick outs.

3. Give coaches an unlimited amount of challenges and allow the challenge of any and all penalties

4. Eliminate all ties from the game by keeping OT periods going until it's broken or having no game clock on during OT

Mmmmmm…….No.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

After reading this and digesting it all... I’m just so thankful right now you guys don’t set the league rules. I would be absolutely confused and I can’t even imagine trying to explain the new rules to my friends

We are working on "NFL Rules as set by Packer Forum Members." However, rumor has it that we ran out of trees and ink to print it. Plus, there is that whole month long discussion of which font to use, that never got resolved.

 

[Dblbogey]

Relax the personal foul calls. If it's not helmet to helmet or blatantly cheap, let them play football.

 

[Half Empty]

Mmmmmm…….No.

It took until post #106 to get this?

 

[sschind]

Well if you know BB, he's always the man who loves it when a plan comes together.

I think as to this coin flip in OT thing and sudden death ... Well I've certainly stated before I'm open to an alternative to that. Unfortunately, I assume it's only still in place because there just is no easy alternative presenting itself.

But they can definitely fix this dumb regular season game OT end in ties nonsense by shutting the game clock off.

There's no dumb ties in basketball, baseball, or even hockey now. Ridiculous to allow ties in football. If they want the games to end quicker in OT, have a no punt rule during that period. But I'm telling you, ties in OT are up big time with the shortened OT game clock, and that's bad.

It's only a problem if you don't like ties. Personally I don't have a problem with them. You set a game time of 1 hour and if no one is ahead after that its a tie. If you need 70 minutes to determine a winner why not just add 2.5 minutes to each quarter.

Believe me if there were no OT you would have fewer games ending in ties than went into OT as many coaches wouldn't go for the tie they would go for the win. If there was no prospect of OT and another opportunity to win you would undoubtedly see some coaches going for the win. That would completely eliminate any advantage a coin toss might give.

 

[elcid]

You realize that in soccer approximately 90% of penalties result in a goal, don't you??? That makes it way tougher to stop than an NFL offense.

I'd dare even claim that number to be 95%. Almost as high a probability as the Packers defense allowing a TD on the first possession of OT.

That's probably the reason why I would like the rule to change so much. Seattle was hard enough to accept by itself, let alone with the added Cards OT loss.

 

[sschind]

I get that, but you're still left with the potential of un-even possessions. What happens when neither scores on their first possession? and then the team that got it first gets a short field on a punt runs 2 plays and kicks a game winning FG? Now they've had 2 possessions and the other team only 1. What's fair?

For me its simple. Each team had 60 minutes to score more than the other team. Neither team could do it so now we have given each of them an extra chance. If no team can do it with the extra chance well then it comes down to the its not fair aspect. The reason I think it is more fair than the way it is now is because each team has 1 chance for their offense to score and each team has 1 chance for their defense to stop the other team. It allows all three aspects of the game (offense, defense and special teams) to be a part of it for both teams. You have said many times that it is not fair it will never be fair and it shouldn't be fair. Although I still don't know don't know why it shouldn't be fair I agree on the other two points. I just think giving both teams a chance is more fair that the way it is now.

 

[sschind]

After reading this and digesting it all... I’m just so thankful right now you guys don’t set the league rules. I would be absolutely confused and I can’t even imagine trying to explain the new rules to my friends

Just wait, we haven't even started on the special leap year rules yet.

Besides, this is for overtime. Overtime is very controversial necessitating lots of controversial and often contradictory rules. We will make up for it when we start discussing what is a catch because I'm sure we will all agree on that.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

It's only a problem if you don't like ties. Personally I don't have a problem with them. You set a game time of 1 hour and if no one is ahead after that its a tie. If you need 70 minutes to determine a winner why not just add 2.5 minutes to each quarter.

Believe me if there were no OT you would have fewer games ending in ties than went into OT as many coaches wouldn't go for the tie they would go for the win. If there was no prospect of OT and another opportunity to win you would undoubtedly see some coaches going for the win. That would completely eliminate any advantage a coin toss might give.

I'm open to that suggestion, although if the season hung in the balance and a coach determined a tie would give his team a better shot to make the playoffs, he'd probably kick the FG at the end of the fourth if down by 3 and in range vs going for a hail Mary to win it.

But either way, as long as they have OT still in place, just shut the damn game clock off and demand that play keep going until there's a winner

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Judgement calls would still remain jugdement calls with a different set of eyes taking a look at the play, in most cases not making it any better.

Disagree, because if that was the case they would not need replay in the college game to determine whether or not there was intentional targeting on the player in question who they're debating should be ejected or not. If they need replay for that in college, I'd say it could work to overturn judgement calls like PI and RTP in the NFL.

 

[longtimefan]

Disagree, because if that was the case they would not need replay in the college game to determine whether or not there was intentional targeting on the player in question who they're debating should be ejected or not. If they need replay for that in college, I'd say it could work to overturn judgement calls like PI and RTP in the NFL.

I agree..

However, it would be like the catch or no catch. Some would be obvious and some maybe like Capnt said. Judgment calls

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

However, it would be like the catch or no catch. Some would be obvious and some maybe like Capnt said. Judgment calls

There is a distinct advantage though of reviewing judgement calls.....sometimes that judgement is so far off, that a fresh set of eyes (with replays) can look at it and go "what the hell was that ref drinking?" But yes, if the judgement was close enough and the call could have been made either way, much like other calls, you don't reverse.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If they need replay for that in college, I'd say it could work to overturn judgement calls like PI and RTP in the NFL.

The NFL would be able to eliminate calls that were obviously wrong (like the one the Saints didn't get) but in my opinion most would remain judgement calls on which you don't have clear evidence even by watching a replay.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The NFL would be able to eliminate calls that were obviously wrong (like the one the Saints didn't get) but in my opinion most would remain judgement calls on which you don't have clear evidence even by watching a replay.

Actually, you hit the crux of the problem right on the head, without intending to. While they don't happen at a high rate, they do happen, "obvious missed/bad calls", some of which currently, there is no way to correct them.

Plays that are seen over and over after they occur and everyone is screaming "that can't be, the refs messed up! This can't happen again, fix it!"

Really, these unchallengeable mistakes are not much different than why instant replay was enacted in the first place. Replay was put into place to correct missed calls on catches, fumbles, touchdowns, etc. So why not include other potentially important outcomes? Why is a blatant pass interference excluded? Why can't a late hit call or no call on a QB be looked at again?

I don't buy the "you can't challenge a judgement call" excuse. Because all of us have seen more than enough plays to admit, sometimes a refs "judgement" is just way off, possibly through no fault of his own.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

It took until post #106 to get this?

I'm a tad...……………………..slow.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Actually, you hit the crux of the problem right on the head, without intending to. While they don't happen at a high rate, they do happen, "obvious missed/bad calls", some of which currently, there is no way to correct them.

Plays that are seen over and over after they occur and everyone is screaming "that can't be, the refs messed up! This can't happen again, fix it!"

Really, these unchallengeable mistakes are not much different than why instant replay was enacted in the first place. Replay was put into place to correct missed calls on catches, fumbles, touchdowns, etc. So why not include other potentially important outcomes? Why is a blatant pass interference excluded? Why can't a late hit call or no call on a QB be looked at again?

I don't buy the "you can't challenge a judgement call" excuse. Because all of us have seen more than enough plays to admit, sometimes a refs "judgement" is just way off, possibly through no fault of his own.

Well, it seems you're fine having a ton of plays reviewed that are too close to judge even while taking a look at it in slow motion to get the occasional blatant mistake fixed. That's fine but I don't agree with it. Instead I would prefer the league to finally hire full-time referees to improve their performance.

 

[Half Empty]

Why would full time refs have any better judgement than the current bunch?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well, it seems you're fine having a ton of plays reviewed that are too close to judge even while taking a look at it in slow motion to get the occasional blatant mistake fixed. That's fine but I don't agree with it. Instead I would prefer the league to finally hire full-time referees to improve their performance.

I for one am not advocating a "ton of plays reviewed". I think that coaches still need to be limited on the number of challenges they can make and let them decide just how important when to use their limited # of challenges.

What I am proposing, is if a coach does have a challenge left, he is able to challenge a wider range of things on the field. Thinks that currently can not be challenged, yet can greatly impact the outcome of a game.

It doesn't happen often, but there have been games where coaches have burned up all of their challenges and a critical challenge can't be made. The discussion the next day seems to be centered more around "the coach messed up by not saving a challenge and that may have cost him the game." Not the discussion we hear now, "If the coach would have had the ability to challenge that, the outcome of the game may have been different."

Would full time (better) referees improve things? Perhaps, but they are human and will make mistakes as well. So I don't think that would fully eliminate the same issues.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Why would full time refs have any better judgement than the current bunch?

Because they would be trained year-round while not having to worry about a different job during the week. That worked with players pretty well as well.

I for one am not advocating a "ton of plays reviewed". I think that coaches still need to be limited on the number of challenges they can make and let them decide just how important when to use their limited # of challenges.

You would still end up mostly reviewing plays that are still up for judgement while taking a look at them in slow motion.

I get that fans are up in arms because of what happened in the NFCCG but I don't remember a lot of other plays missed by the referees that were that obvious. Even Matthews hit on Cousins leaves room for interpretation.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You would still end up mostly reviewing plays that are still up for judgement while taking a look at them in slow motion.

Agreed and just like the current review system, if there isn't substantial evidence to overturn a judgement call, so be it. But to not have the ability to review it, is more detrimental in my opinion.