2019 NFL Rule Changes That Would Improve The Game Big Time

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Late to the party but here's mine:

No more ties. I'm for either a 15 minute OT period with a running clock from the moment of kickoff, or an 8 min OT under regular timing standards. Once the double zeroes hit there most likely should be a winner. People whine about injuries but I can't remember the last time if ever that I saw a gruesome injury from OT. When I played we always trained for OT with the expectation that 5 quarters might be played.

Coaches get 3 challenges(4th with 3 successive challenges) to include for penalties and all challenges are handled by New York. That way the NFL never has to go back and say the officials got it wrong. Zebras are only responsible for the game clock and penalties.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

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.

Well even only 40-50℅ of judgment calls started getting reversed by a replay, that's still significant and definitely warrants instituting it imo

 

[Stanger37]

I think the whole idea of getting to challenge penalties opens up a can of worms that the NFL isn't going to want to do. Unless someone already painted this scenario and explained, I didn't read all 6 pages. So sorry in advance if repeating someone.

So coach challenges an offensive PI call. Refs get in a huddle and go under the hood. Upon reviewing to see if it was in fact offensive PI, there is a blatant hold/hands to the face on the offensive line that was missed. They already show replays of the plays to the stadium so everyone is going to see it clear as day. So do you just ignore that missed call? And then what if it wasn't PI? Do you give the coach his challenge back because he we technically won, it wasn't PI but there was another penalty and do they enforce that now? Or do you ignore that call because that isn't a 'challenge eligible' penalty? And now coaches are mad that they missed that call and didn't do anything about it.

If they're trying to simplify football to limit the amount of "WTFs?!" challenging penalties isn't going to help. I think it sounds better on paper than it would actually play out. Certainly could be wrong.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think the whole idea of getting to challenge penalties opens up a can of worms that the NFL isn't going to want to do. Unless someone already painted this scenario and explained, I didn't read all 6 pages. So sorry in advance if repeating someone.

So coach challenges an offensive PI call. Refs get in a huddle and go under the hood. Upon reviewing to see if it was in fact offensive PI, there is a blatant hold/hands to the face on the offensive line that was missed. They already show replays of the plays to the stadium so everyone is going to see it clear as day. So do you just ignore that missed call? And then what if it wasn't PI? Do you give the coach his challenge back because he we technically won, it wasn't PI but there was another penalty and do they enforce that now? Or do you ignore that call because that isn't a 'challenge eligible' penalty? And now coaches are mad that they missed that call and didn't do anything about it.

If they're trying to simplify football to limit the amount of "WTFs?!" challenging penalties isn't going to help. I think it sounds better on paper than it would actually play out. Certainly could be wrong.

Pretty simple. You limited the challenge to whatever the one item that the coach challenges, same as it is now. It isn't the case of a coach saying "I'm challenging anything and everything that went on during the play, so go find something that makes my challenge stick." I also would phrase that a challenge has to have some kind of direct correlation to the outcome of the play. In other words, a hands to the face of a defensive lineman that is determined to have no bearing on the outcome of the play, is not something you can challenge.

 

[sschind]

I think the whole idea of getting to challenge penalties opens up a can of worms that the NFL isn't going to want to do. Unless someone already painted this scenario and explained, I didn't read all 6 pages. So sorry in advance if repeating someone.

So coach challenges an offensive PI call. Refs get in a huddle and go under the hood. Upon reviewing to see if it was in fact offensive PI, there is a blatant hold/hands to the face on the offensive line that was missed. They already show replays of the plays to the stadium so everyone is going to see it clear as day. So do you just ignore that missed call? And then what if it wasn't PI? Do you give the coach his challenge back because he we technically won, it wasn't PI but there was another penalty and do they enforce that now? Or do you ignore that call because that isn't a 'challenge eligible' penalty? And now coaches are mad that they missed that call and didn't do anything about it.

If they're trying to simplify football to limit the amount of "WTFs?!" challenging penalties isn't going to help. I think it sounds better on paper than it would actually play out. Certainly could be wrong.

Pretty simple. You limited the challenge to whatever the one item that the coach challenges, same as it is now. It isn't the case of a coach saying "I'm challenging anything and everything that went on during the play, so go find something that makes my challenge stick." I also would phrase that a challenge has to have some kind of direct correlation to the outcome of the play. In other words, a hands to the face of a defensive lineman that is determined to have no bearing on the outcome of the play, is not something you can challenge.

I recall one play where the coach (I think it was McCarthy) threw the challenge flag on a play that was ruled short of the first down marker. They looked at the replay and moved the ball a couple of feet further up the field but it was still short of the first down. It was ruled that he lost the challenge and therefore lost a time out even though the initial spot was wrong. I never got an official ruling but it was speculated that he challenged that the result of the play should have been a first down which did not end up being the case. It was further speculated that had he challenged the spot of the ball he would have been right and not lost the challenge. It would have still been 4th down but since he was correct on what he challenged he would not have lost the TO . I may have some of the details wrong but I do recall the gist of that happening.

Also, correct me if I am wrong but can't you only challenge if you have timeouts left since the penalty for losing the challenge is losing a time out. No wonder McCarthy never challenged after the first 10 minutes.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Also, correct me if I am wrong but can't you only challenge if you have timeouts left since the penalty for losing the challenge is losing a time out. No wonder McCarthy never challenged after the first 10 minutes.

I believe that is correct. I have never been a fan of the connection between challenges and timeouts, since IMO they are 2 different things and currently, if you lose the challenge, you have one less challenge and one less timeout, double jeopardy so to speak. Figure out the challenge, right or wrong and then start the game clock back up, if one of the coach wants the clock stopped, use an actual timeout.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

No more ties. I'm for either a 15 minute OT period with a running clock from the moment of kickoff, or an 8 min OT under regular timing standards. Once the double zeroes hit there most likely should be a winner.[/QUOTE]

And what's your plan on doing if the game is still tied at that point???

Well even only 40-50℅ of judgment calls started getting reversed by a replay, that's still significant and definitely warrants instituting it imo

The NFL replay system currently doesn't allow to review judgement calls. The percentage of plays being reversed would be significantly lower if the league ever decided to include those plays.

I also would phrase that a challenge has to have some kind of direct correlation to the outcome of the play. In other words, a hands to the face of a defensive lineman that is determined to have no bearing on the outcome of the play, is not something you can challenge.

A hands to the face of a defensive lineman could have an impact on the play you have no idea about though.

 

[Stanger37]

Pretty simple. You limited the challenge to whatever the one item that the coach challenges, same as it is now. It isn't the case of a coach saying "I'm challenging anything and everything that went on during the play, so go find something that makes my challenge stick." I also would phrase that a challenge has to have some kind of direct correlation to the outcome of the play. In other words, a hands to the face of a defensive lineman that is determined to have no bearing on the outcome of the play, is not something you can challenge.

Quarterback could have been sacked on the play without the hold/hands to the face and that caused the QB to rush the ball out, which in turn, forced the WR to turn around and cause a possible offensive PI call because it wasn't thrown as well as it could have been had the hold not happened but I digress.

what you said sounds simple, but now there is an outrage and people throwing fits that "wow the refs can look at that replay and not do anything about that clear hands to the face they didn't call?! what's the point of being able to challenge penalties if they aren't or can't do anything about another penalty they clearly missed!?"

fans and players are still all triggered because there are still more questions than answers, thinking it is getting simplified but it's just more complicated. unfortunately the human element in sports, you're never going to get everything 100% correct. Sometimes it will benefit you, sometimes it won't. Those calls on Clay early in the year sucked, but Rodgers also gets a lot of benefits of calls himself. Really seems there is an unspoken rule that a missed call like that gets the next iffy call to make up for it.

Saints don't get the PI call at the end. The third play in OT they got a gift of a 20yd PI call that was a horrible call. It has a way of evening out, then Michael Thomas tried to play off getting a call instead of playing the ball and it was picked off. Ultimately the team that played better won. Sports are funny that way.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Quarterback could have been sacked on the play without the hold/hands to the face and that caused the QB to rush the ball out, which in turn, forced the WR to turn around and cause a possible offensive PI call because it wasn't thrown as well as it could have been had the hold not happened but I digress.

what you said sounds simple, but now there is an outrage and people throwing fits that "wow the refs can look at that replay and not do anything about that clear hands to the face they didn't call?! what's the point of being able to challenge penalties if they aren't or can't do anything about another penalty they clearly missed!?"

fans and players are still all triggered because there are still more questions than answers, thinking it is getting simplified but it's just more complicated. unfortunately the human element in sports, you're never going to get everything 100% correct. Sometimes it will benefit you, sometimes it won't. Those calls on Clay early in the year sucked, but Rodgers also gets a lot of benefits of calls himself. Really seems there is an unspoken rule that a missed call like that gets the next iffy call to make up for it.

Saints don't get the PI call at the end. The third play in OT they got a gift of a 20yd PI call that was a horrible call. It has a way of evening out, then Michael Thomas tried to play off getting a call instead of playing the ball and it was picked off. Ultimately the team that played better won. Sports are funny that way.

With all due respect, I just don't agree with this notion of "we can't change things, it will make it too complicated and thus it shouldn't be done".

If humans stuck to that mantra, we wouldn't have landed on the moon, explored the depths of the ocean or been communicating via this internet forum. Why even have any rules or refs, don't they just complicate a simple game?

 

[Half Empty]

I'd think there's a difference between "let's not change football, because then it wouldn't be football any more" and "let's not pursue this Internet thing because it wouldn't be communication any more".

 

[swhitset]

With all due respect, I just don't agree with this notion of "we can't change things, it will make it too complicated and thus it shouldn't be done".

If humans stuck to that mantra, we wouldn't have landed on the moon, explored the depths of the ocean or been communicating via this internet forum. Why even have any rules or refs, don't they just complicate a simple game?

I think the problem is all the half measures and compromises we make in order to please the opposing viewpoints. As far as i’m concerned.. if a play is going to be reviewed... anything that happened in that play that can be clearly seen is fair game. I’m fine with limiting the number of replays so that we don’t have play stoppage after every play, but if it’s being reviewed, anything should be on the table. That is simply the risk a coach takes asking for the review.

 

[Mondio]

I think the problem is all the half measures and compromises we make in order to please the opposing viewpoints. As far as i’m concerned.. if a play is going to be reviewed... anything that happened in that play that can be clearly seen is fair game. I’m fine with limiting the number of replays so that we don’t have play stoppage after every play, but if it’s being reviewed, anything should be on the table. That is simply the risk a coach takes asking for the review.

the thing is, on almost ever single play, you can find something that by the letter, is against the rules. That's not hyperbole, that's pretty much a given. You can always find an arm outside the frame of the defender on a pass rush. You can always find a handful of jersey being grabbed by someone. A hand that slides up to the face and back off quickly. some contact more than 5 yards down field etc. We'd just end up with ever big play being reviewed and scoured for something "wrong" and when it's not called it will be complained about, and if it is, it will be complained about because it had nothing to do with the play.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think the problem is all the half measures and compromises we make in order to please the opposing viewpoints. As far as i’m concerned.. if a play is going to be reviewed... anything that happened in that play that can be clearly seen is fair game. I’m fine with limiting the number of replays so that we don’t have play stoppage after every play, but if it’s being reviewed, anything should be on the table. That is simply the risk a coach takes asking for the review.

the thing is, on almost ever single play, you can find something that by the letter, is against the rules. That's not hyperbole, that's pretty much a given. You can always find an arm outside the frame of the defender on a pass rush. You can always find a handful of jersey being grabbed by someone. A hand that slides up to the face and back off quickly. some contact more than 5 yards down field etc. We'd just end up with ever big play being reviewed and scoured for something "wrong" and when it's not called it will be complained about, and if it is, it will be complained about because it had nothing to do with the play.

This is an instance when I stand between you two.

While I agree with swhitset on everything being open for review, I agree with Mondio that you just can't look at every single player on any given play from start to finish. It should be on the coach to say "Hey, I am challenging that "this did/didn't occur" in very specific language. If the review officials think the Ref got it wrong and because of that it directly impacted the outcome of the play, then review upheld.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If the review officials think the Ref got it wrong and because of that it directly impacted the outcome of the play, then review upheld.

Actually everything that happens on the field has a direct impact on the result of a play.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Actually everything that happens on the field has a direct impact on the result of a play.

Are you referring to "The Butterfly Effect"? I'm not so sure about "direct" but I guess if you wanted to get technical, all 22 players on the field have the potential to influence any given play directly or indirectly.

You and I could go back and forth on direct VS. indirect situations. Ultimately, it would be up to the rules committee to define just how direct it has to be in influencing the outcome of the play. Then it would be up to the coaches to decide if they want to use a challenge on a given play, knowing that they will be limited in the # of challenges that they have.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ultimately, it would be up to the rules committee to define just how direct it has to be in influencing the outcome of the play.

In my opinion it would be close to impossible to draw the line though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In my opinion it would be close to impossible to draw the line though.

They already have drawn that line today, with the officials on the field being the only ones able to make calls on certain plays, but not all plays. I don't think you shy away from correcting an obvious blown call/no call, when it has a very obvious effect on the outcome of the play. All the little ticky tack things that you see happening in the trenches or away from a play, get called or don't get called with the current rules. I personally don't see those situations as something I would want to risk a challenge on, unless it was an extremely obvious bad call that in the judgement of the review officials, directly influenced the outcome of the play.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They already have drawn that line today, with the officials on the field being the only ones able to make calls on certain plays, but not all plays.

The league allowing judgement calls to be reviewed would open a can of worms on a whole different level though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The league allowing judgement calls to be reviewed would open a can of worms on a whole different level though.

Unlike the can of worms that gets opened every time there is a blown call? I'm willing to take that chance, if it means correcting the obvious and impactful mistakes made.

I also think using the term "judgement" as a broad stroke description to try and sway the debate of this is incorrect. Making correct calls isn't "judgement", its using the rule book. Before any reviews were allowed it was up to the refs "judgement" if the ball carrier was down, if the ball crossed the line to gain, if feet were in bounds, if targeting occurred, etc. When a receiver by rules is clearly interfered with, enforcing that correctly isn't "in the judgement of the ref", it would be "by the letter of the rules".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I also think using the term "judgement" as a broad stroke description to try and sway the debate of this is incorrect. Making correct calls isn't "judgement", its using the rule book. Before any reviews were allowed it was up to the refs "judgement" if the ball carrier was down, if the ball crossed the line to gain, if feet were in bounds, if targeting occurred, etc.

The problem being that the rules on those plays are designed to leave room for interpretation resulting in close to all of them actually being judgement calls. Expanding replay the way you suggest would only result in a different set of eyes taking a look at those plays and judge them based on their interpretation of the rule.

The rules on the other plays you mentioned are not open to interpretation.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Expanding replay the way you suggest would only result in a different set of eyes taking a look at those plays and judge them based on their interpretation of the rule.

The rules on the other plays you mentioned are not open to interpretation.

Not just a different set of eyes. People are saying that like it simply means "oh, lets have another opinion." I think you are missing a key element here, the fact that referees on the field don't always see everything, may not have the proper angle or it just happened way too fast. These are all reason why replay was initiated to begin with.....get the call correct.

As far as which rules are open to interpretation, you are correct, some are more black and white than others, but here again, use replay to see all the angles and determine if the rules were not interpreted correctly. Not much different than the way the catch rule is now replayed and interpreted. If the play is too grey, you stick to the call on the field.

 

[scotscheese]

"Judgement" shouldn't really take place from any referee, I used to be a trained (real)football referee after i stopped playing, and though the rules of the game are stated in a certain manner, you are then told HOW TO interpret them, in an effort to make it as consistent as possible, it doesn't quite work everytime, but i would think that NFL officials are also told how to interpret the rules to try and get some level of consistency between officials.

one thing that has been introduced in football in europe is VAR(Video Assistant Referee), it was first trialed at the world cup last year in russia, under this the VAR official is able to highlight to the referee on the field when he/she has made a clear and obvious error, and then the referee on the field can review the play and then make another decision if his min is changed. maybe something like this would be more suitable to the NFL, it would negate the need for HC's to need more challenges, but could bring things like the blown PI call in the NO/LA game more to the referees attention.

i like the idea of what it's supposed to achieve, but it is still not perfected yet

 

[scotscheese]

FYI, the world cup is an actual international competition to find a "WORLD" champion of a sport

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Not just a different set of eyes. People are saying that like it simply means "oh, lets have another opinion." I think you are missing a key element here, the fact that referees on the field don't always see everything, may not have the proper angle or it just happened way too fast. These are all reason why replay was initiated to begin with.....get the call correct.

As far as which rules are open to interpretation, you are correct, some are more black and white than others, but here again, use replay to see all the angles and determine if the rules were not interpreted correctly. Not much different than the way the catch rule is now replayed and interpreted. If the play is too grey, you stick to the call on the field.

As we're talking about pass interference here I'm absolutely convinced that close to all plays reviewed wouldn't be overturned if the league allows them to be reviewed as there wouldn't be enough evidence to overturn it.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't like the egrogious non-call in the NFCCG either but rather have that happen than every pass interference call to be challenged moving forward.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As we're talking about pass interference here I'm absolutely convinced that close to all plays reviewed wouldn't be overturned if the league allows them to be reviewed as there wouldn't be enough evidence to overturn it.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't like the egrogious non-call in the NFCCG either but rather have that happen than every pass interference call to be challenged moving forward.

I would be fine with that, not having "close to all plays" that are subject to review not overturned, that would mean the refs would be doing their jobs. What I am not fine with is not allowing a coach to use one of his limited reviews, because he and pretty much everyone else think the ref got it wrong.

Some people are acting like every play will now be challenged since "there has to be something that was missed and thus the play will be overturned." With a limit on the # of challenges available and the scope of how a challenge can be made clearly defined, a coach isn't going to just randomly burn up his challenges on plays that have minimal effect on the game, no matter how they are called.