2019 NFL Rule Changes That Would Improve The Game Big Time

[PackerfaninCarolina]

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.

Not really

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/10/19/cfl-pass-interference-replays/92384508/

Make no mistake, I was in the shoutbox during the NFC championship game telling people the Saints blew their chances, and they did. Their TE dropped a TD early in that game that also impacted it, and even though they won the coin toss in OT getting that advantage one might think they would have didn't pay off, so no they didn't deserve to win.

But that call could have happened against the Rams with them winning and I'd still argue for the case of being able to challenge it. We've seen other situations where a PI flag was thrown and then officials standing at other angles or the head referee told them to pick it up. Aka that wildcard game where Pettigrew got mugged a few years ago comes to mind.

I just feel like because PI or whatever other penalty can get messy like that, using the eye in the sky to help em out could save a lot of problems in the long term.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

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.

I guess a lot of coaches would challenge pass intereference calls if they would be made reviewable as it's the most severe penalty in the rulebook. Especially considering all scoring plays and turnovers are automatically reviewed.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I guess a lot of coaches would challenge pass intereference calls if they would be made reviewable as it's the most severe penalty in the rulebook. Especially considering all scoring plays and turnovers are automatically reviewed.

Could be, but would you burn one of your limited challenges on a marginal play in the first quarter, knowing that the replay booth may just say "too close to change"? Even if you won that challenge, was it good management of those limited challenges?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Could be, but would you burn one of your limited challenges on a marginal play in the first quarter, knowing that the replay booth may just say "too close to change"? Even if you won that challenge, was it good management of those limited challenges?

I rather challenge a 30-yard penalty than other plays resulting in less yards.

 

[Mondio]

Could be, but would you burn one of your limited challenges on a marginal play in the first quarter, knowing that the replay booth may just say "too close to change"? Even if you won that challenge, was it good management of those limited challenges?

They probably won't, they'd just challenge every big play becuase 95% of the time, there is something, that by the letter is a penalty. a lineman with an arm around a defenders neck, a handful of jersey along the line or in the defensive backfield. an arm grabbed, illegal contact beyond 5 yards etc.

Now you can simply say, unless it's egregious they don't call it or overturn it. and now it's a judgement call, kind of like it already is on the field anyway and the consistency of that will probably about like it is now which has people calling for change every week anyway, so what have we changed? or they call them all, by the letter and IMO that would be very detrimental to the game, much like we saw them do with roughing the passer penalties early in the year. It very quickly became unrecognizable from what made us all fall in love with football.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I rather challenge a 30-yard penalty than other plays resulting in less yards.

I hope to be able to give you that opportunity my friend, because I think you deserve it!

*hands Captain some more PB Kool-Aid*

 

[Stanger37]

Not really

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2016/10/19/cfl-pass-interference-replays/92384508/

Make no mistake, I was in the shoutbox during the NFC championship game telling people the Saints blew their chances, and they did. Their TE dropped a TD early in that game that also impacted it, and even though they won the coin toss in OT getting that advantage one might think they would have didn't pay off, so no they didn't deserve to win.

But that call could have happened against the Rams with them winning and I'd still argue for the case of being able to challenge it. We've seen other situations where a PI flag was thrown and then officials standing at other angles or the head referee told them to pick it up. Aka that wildcard game where Pettigrew got mugged a few years ago comes to mind.

I just feel like because PI or whatever other penalty can get messy like that, using the eye in the sky to help em out could save a lot of problems in the long term.

I do not necessarily disagree with you, nor disagree with PokerBrat2000. The human element in the game is going to cause errors and much like you stated, different POVs on the same play can appear to provide different results. To stay on the Saints game, the view from BEHIND Brees aside from the 2 facemasks/holds, it APPEARS to be tipped at the line which would negate the PI call. However, the view from back of the endzone shows it was NOT tipped. But that play alone with the face-mask and holds, if they threw the challenge flag on the blatant missed PI and they overturned the call, but ignored those other two calls, I'd be just as up in arms! So now the Saints got a free pass and a first and goal at like 3 when if nothing else, should be re-play of the down? That isn't fair. So how does the league decipher how to sort that out? The argument of "it did not affect the play," well there is another judgement call because you can certainly argue it did. I am all for getting to the point where this has a solution and not "oh well, sh*t happens, that's just human nature to make mistakes." All PI calls are different, all have completely different moving parts to get to the end result. They aren't as cut and dry of a turn over or a crossing of a goal line.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

They probably won't, they'd just challenge every big play becuase 95% of the time, there is something, that by the letter is a penalty. a lineman with an arm around a defenders neck, a handful of jersey along the line or in the defensive backfield. an arm grabbed, illegal contact beyond 5 yards etc.

Now you can simply say, unless it's egregious they don't call it or overturn it. and now it's a judgement call, kind of like it already is on the field anyway and the consistency of that will probably about like it is now which has people calling for change every week anyway, so what have we changed? or they call them all, by the letter and IMO that would be very detrimental to the game, much like we saw them do with roughing the passer penalties early in the year. It very quickly became unrecognizable from what made us all fall in love with football.

I would much rather shift the conversation after games to "damn if MLF had just hung on to one of his challenge calls, that play would have been overturned". Then to every week be talking about "damn, if that play could be challenged, possibly the game ends differently".

You are correct, no football game will ever be perfect and thus we will always have reasons to second guess the players, coaches and refs. But players and coaches shape the action on the field, if they make mistakes its part of why their team lost. The referees are just the guys enforcing the rules, when they make a mistake and its unchangeable, it can potentially be an indirect over influence on the outcome of a game.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I do not necessarily disagree with you, nor disagree with PokerBrat2000. The human element in the game is going to cause errors and much like you stated, different POVs on the same play can appear to provide different results. To stay on the Saints game, the view from BEHIND Brees aside from the 2 facemasks/holds, it APPEARS to be tipped at the line which would negate the PI call. However, the view from back of the endzone shows it was NOT tipped. But that play alone with the face-mask and holds, if they threw the challenge flag on the blatant missed PI and they overturned the call, but ignored those other two calls, I'd be just as up in arms! So now the Saints got a free pass and a first and goal at like 3 when if nothing else, should be re-play of the down? That isn't fair. So how does the league decipher how to sort that out? The argument of "it did not affect the play," well there is another judgement call because you can certainly argue it did. I am all for getting to the point where this has a solution and not "oh well, sh*t happens, that's just human nature to make mistakes." All PI calls are different, all have completely different moving parts to get to the end result. They aren't as cut and dry of a turn over or a crossing of a goal line.

All I can say to your post is that it is no secret that there are missed calls in every game, that will never change. I also am not in favor of a process that would stop play and correct every missed call. However, a coach should be given the power to decide if he feels a challenge of what he believes is a missed call is worth one of his limited challenges. He also should be required to specifically say what he is challenging. If he saw 2 missed calls on the same play, then he can only challenge one and he should pick the one he is most confident will win him the challenge.

In your example, the Rams should have been able to challenge the calls you sited, if they felt it important enough to use one.

Expanding what can be challenged won't change the fact that mistakes will be made by the refs, what it will change is the potential impact of some of those mistakes.

 

[swhitset]

Provided that each team is still only allowed a limited number of challenges, I just don’t find any of the reasons to limit their scope to be compelling. Judgement calls vs. simply a better viewpoint at a slower speed etc... I just don’t see why it matters what else might be seen or even corrected. Get the play called as correctly as possible and move on. Once all challenges have been exhausted the rest of these arguments for or against become moot.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Some people don't like change and I get that. I also think there will be some initial growing pains in expanding the review system. However, IMO neither of those reasons are enough to change my mind that an expanded system won't improve the game.

 

[Mondio]

Some people don't like change and I get that. I also think there will be some initial growing pains in expanding the review system. However, IMO neither of those reasons are enough to change my mind that an expanded system won't improve the game.

what do you do, when there's hand fighting down the sideline? the receiver goes to give a little shove and the defender hooks it for a second? both are penalties by the letter of the rule, which do you call? leave it? offsetting and redo the down? that's a win for the offense at the very least. Why would reviewing more of those plays make the game better over just missing a few?

One thing I know turns fans off, and not just me, games that feel over officiated. The game will always withstand blown calls. I simply point to history to prove my point. I think fans can handle that a lot more than feeling like the games are over officiated.

Myself, I hated the PI called almost always in the offenses favor up until about 2 years ago. all the illegal contacts and PI etc when the offensive guy was the one initiating at the minimum, 50% of it. and I'm very glad they "let them play" a little bit out there and don't have much issue with the way most of it is called anymore.

 

[Stanger37]

All I can say to your post is that it is no secret that there are missed calls in every game, that will never change. I also am not in favor of a process that would stop play and correct every missed call. However, a coach should be given the power to decide if he feels a challenge of what he believes is a missed call is worth one of his limited challenges. He also should be required to specifically say what he is challenging. If he saw 2 missed calls on the same play, then he can only challenge one and he should pick the one he is most confident will win him the challenge.

In your example, the Rams should have been able to challenge the calls you sited, if they felt it important enough to use one.

Expanding what can be challenged won't change the fact that mistakes will be made by the refs, what it will change is the potential impact of some of those mistakes.

just so I understand you fully and we are on the same page. The statement "the Rams should have been able to challenge the calls you sited, if they felt it important enough to use one."

You would have seriously rather watched the Saints challenge a PI call, refs go through all the motions, review it, settle it and have it changed to a PI call. THEN.....as a rebuttal, the Rams throw THEIR challenge flag about the face mask/holding call and have the refs go through the motions all over again and waste 5+ minutes? That is the proposal fix to this?

Watching that would literally be worse than watching the botched PI call to begin with.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

just so I understand you fully and we are on the same page. The statement "the Rams should have been able to challenge the calls you sited, if they felt it important enough to use one."

You would have seriously rather watched the Saints challenge a PI call, refs go through all the motions, review it, settle it and have it changed to a PI call. THEN.....as a rebuttal, the Rams throw THEIR challenge flag about the face mask/holding call and have the refs go through the motions all over again and waste 5+ minutes? That is the proposal fix to this?

Watching that would literally be worse than watching the botched PI call to begin with.

You are correct, if that was the outcome, I would have been just fine with it and I will tell you why. First, if it goes down as you state, the play would have been washed out and replayed. Second, 2 bad calls is worse than 1 bad call, whether they happen on the same play or not, so to me it doesn't matter that both coaches felt it worthwhile to use a challenge in that situation. Finally, the total time used to do a double challenge would be the same or even a bit less, than doing 2 challenges on separate plays.

Bottom line for me is, if it corrects bad calls and coaches feel a correction is worth one of their limited challenges, then let the challenge flag fly!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

what do you do, when there's hand fighting down the sideline? the receiver goes to give a little shove and the defender hooks it for a second? both are penalties by the letter of the rule, which do you call? leave it? offsetting and redo the down? that's a win for the offense at the very least. Why would reviewing more of those plays make the game better over just missing a few?

One thing I know turns fans off, and not just me, games that feel over officiated. The game will always withstand blown calls. I simply point to history to prove my point. I think fans can handle that a lot more than feeling like the games are over officiated.

Myself, I hated the PI called almost always in the offenses favor up until about 2 years ago. all the illegal contacts and PI etc when the offensive guy was the one initiating at the minimum, 50% of it. and I'm very glad they "let them play" a little bit out there and don't have much issue with the way most of it is called anymore.

How is correcting a call considered to be "over officiating?" Because it was under or wrongfully officiated to begin with? Again you are making it sound like this would be a constant and ongoing thing.....one challenge after another on questionable calls. I wouldn't be in favor of that either.

Why would a coach waste a precious challenge on a questionable call like the one you described? A predetermined # of challenges should alleviate any concerns of this turning into "over officiating" or as I would call it "excessive challenges".

Thank god the court system allows for the right to appeal or a lot of innocent people would be behind bars or dead.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

what do you do, when there's hand fighting down the sideline? the receiver goes to give a little shove and the defender hooks it for a second? both are penalties by the letter of the rule, which do you call? leave it? offsetting and redo the down? that's a win for the offense at the very least. Why would reviewing more of those plays make the game better over just missing a few?

One thing I know turns fans off, and not just me, games that feel over officiated. The game will always withstand blown calls. I simply point to history to prove my point. I think fans can handle that a lot more than feeling like the games are over officiated.

Myself, I hated the PI called almost always in the offenses favor up until about 2 years ago. all the illegal contacts and PI etc when the offensive guy was the one initiating at the minimum, 50% of it. and I'm very glad they "let them play" a little bit out there and don't have much issue with the way most of it is called anymore.

Well keep in mind the challenges wouldn't just be for missed calls, they'd also be for overblown phantom calls or ticky tack calls. So if the refs are getting too flag happy, being able to throw the challenge flag on them and get a few penalties reversed is one way to slow down flag fests imo.

 

[Half Empty]

Thank god the court system allows for the right to appeal or a lot of innocent people would be behind bars or dead.

Not sure making officiating a game analogous to felony administration is on point. And, even in the legal system, there are rules, judgement calls, and limits on appeals.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Not sure making officiating a game analogous to felony administration is on point. And, even in the legal system, there are rules, judgement calls, and limits on appeals.

Well considering the number of felons in the NFL.....why not?

In all seriousness, the court system isn't just full of felons, nor is it a system that one and only one person is given the final say, unless of course you exhaust all of your appeals.

Yes, in the court system, just like the NFL, there are rules and judgement calls, but just like referees, judges/juries don't always see things the same, nor would I like a system where I couldn't at least plead my case.

Use whatever analogy you like, but when you have a situation where not everything is always as it appears, there should be room for getting it correct.

 

[Mondio]

How is correcting a call considered to be "over officiating?" Because it was under or wrongfully officiated to begin with? Again you are making it sound like this would be a constant and ongoing thing.....one challenge after another on questionable calls. I wouldn't be in favor of that either.

Why would a coach waste a precious challenge on a questionable call like the one you described? A predetermined # of challenges should alleviate any concerns of this turning into "over officiating" or as I would call it "excessive challenges".

Thank god the court system allows for the right to appeal or a lot of innocent people would be behind bars or dead.

I only have to look back to last year to know that Replay doesn't really "correct" all that many calls.

and if you expand replay to include more challenges, they will use them ESPECIALLY on plays like i just described, as big plays or potential big yardage plays can be the difference between winning and loosing. If they're letting OT's hold more than normal and it's being called both ways, i'm fine with it. I'm not fine with it if suddenly they throw a flag, review it and decide like they did on the field, because if they do that, what's the point. and if they do overturn it and call a holding, then why was that one any different than the others they let go?

These refs don't see everything, but they also don't miss a lot. and some games have certain flows and should be left alone. When you see a play like that, and you can see it's offensive holding, but they've been letting that slide all game, but now call it because it was challenged would be silly . You're not really getting calls right, you're just using them to prevent big plays against your or try and get them to benefit you.

you're kidding yourself if you don't think every big play wouldn't be scrutinized and challenged at a high rate if they gave them more things to look at. and slowing down every play to look at it, is the very definition of over officiating.

I'm more than fine with the rules being more of "guidelines" for officials and knowing that and playing accordingly. I don't need them to replay it and then hold the tape up to the letter of the rule and then decide only on certain plays. and if they're not going to hold it up to the letter of the rule on these judgement calls, then what's the point of replay?

"well you see, I know you can see the hold, and I can see the hold, but i don't feel it affected the play and i've been letting that stuff go all game, so i'm not going to call it on replay either" that will go over really well. i'd rather they just don't call it and not be able to replay it.

It gets even worse for the hand checking down the field.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

you're kidding yourself if you don't think every big play wouldn't be scrutinized and challenged at a high rate if they gave them more things to look at. and slowing down every play to look at it, is the very definition of over officiating.

Again, you are making it sound like I am in favor of an unlimited # of challenges, I am not. All I am proposing is expanding the existing challenges to include all calls or missed calls. I would prefer 3 challenges per team but would be fine with 2, how is that much different than what we are seeing now? If you don't think they spend a lot of time trying to figure out some of the replays now, you haven't been watching, although I will say, they are getting quicker and better. Helps that Networks have finally figured out that cutting to a commercial break isn't a bad idea either.

 

[Mondio]

I watch, I know how long they take. I know what they do to the flow of the game, I know how the fans react after. it's no better now than it was 30 years ago after a game, in fact I think it's worse. I don't think more calls are "right" and i the controversy only grows.

and it's not just the time. If you're letting guys play a certain way and coaches are only going to use their limited challenges to challenge big yardage plays and now they can have them look at "anything" that is a massive expansion of replay and for what? So only big plays get scrutinized by the letter of the rule adding even more controversy to games? or they apply the same subjective criteria the initial call was made with, but have them look at it all again how will anyone have any idea how calls will go. When people and fans don't understand whats going on in front of them, they turn it off.

Football is simple, quit making it so complicated.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Football is simple, quit making it so complicated.

Perhaps if you just listen to it on the Radio, or just watch it on your 10" B&W TV with Rabbit Ears and ignore everything but the actual play, you will enjoy it more

Technology has given fans the ability to see each and every play over and over, slowed down and from multiple angles, so if you want to say the game is being ruined for you, blame technology and its ability to show just how wrong the human eyes and brain can be at times. But with that human brain, often comes the quest for correct and fair, at least by some of us.

 

[Mondio]

Perhaps if you just listen to it on the Radio, or just watch it on your 10" B&W TV with Rabbit Ears and ignore everything but the actual play, you will enjoy it more

Technology has given fans the ability to see each and every play over and over, slowed down and from multiple angles, so if you want to say the game is being ruined for you, blame technology and its ability to show just how wrong the human eyes and brain can be at times. But with that human brain, often comes the quest for correct and fair, at least by some of us.

my technology goes a bit beyond that. I get it. though 2 things, It hasn't made it more "fair" or "correct" in my eyes. Not even a little bit. yes they reverse some calls, I get it. I know we get them wrong. I've seen them get enough wrong on replay. Every week it leaves fans saying "WTF?"

Technology has given people more reason to complain, i'll give them that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You are correct, if that was the outcome, I would have been just fine with it and I will tell you why. First, if it goes down as you state, the play would have been washed out and replayed. Second, 2 bad calls is worse than 1 bad call, whether they happen on the same play or not, so to me it doesn't matter that both coaches felt it worthwhile to use a challenge in that situation. Finally, the total time used to do a double challenge would be the same or even a bit less, than doing 2 challenges on separate plays.

Bottom line for me is, if it corrects bad calls and coaches feel a correction is worth one of their limited challenges, then let the challenge flag fly!

The play in the NFCCG happened with less than two minutes left, therefore it would have been subject to booth review.

That sounds like a fun idea to have the guys upstairs correct every missed call at the end of each half as it would take an eternity to finish the last two minutes with a ton of plays being replayed as both teams were guilty of several minor infractions.

But hey, I guess it works for some as long as they get the calls right

 

[sschind]

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?

Come on Poker, you know the moon landing was a big hoax.