2019 NFL Rule Changes That Would Improve The Game Big Time

[sschind]

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".

I could probably live without the internet though.

 

[sschind]

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

The only reason the rest of the world likes soccer so much is because its the only sport they have a chance at beating the US at.

 

[scotscheese]

The only reason the rest of the world likes soccer so much is because its the only sport they have a chance at beating the US at.

worth a try loon, but there's plenty sports even my wee nation of scotland would beat the yanks at

haggis munchin, tossing the caber, guddling for fish,

i'll let you decide if these are real or not

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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

I for one wouldn't want replay to include the ability to change the outcome of a play due to a minor infraction, I have said that several times. That goes for both coaches and especially for booth initiated challenges.

Just like with any new concept, details would have to be worked out and IMO there are ways to write rules to make the process better than it currently is. I get the fact that you and a few others are opposed to expanding replay and probably because of that stance, you think there is absolutely no way to improve what it currently being done. I guess we will see what the NFL thinks and does.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I for one wouldn't want replay to include the ability to change the outcome of a play due to a minor infraction, I have said that several times. That goes for both coaches and especially for booth initiated challenges.

Just like with any new concept, details would have to be worked out and IMO there are ways to write rules to make the process better than it currently is. I get the fact that you and a few others are opposed to expanding replay and probably because of that stance, you think there is absolutely no way to improve what it currently being done. I guess we will see what the NFL thinks and does.

Once again, you haven't been able to make a reasonable suggestion on where to draw the line on which infractions affect the outcome of a play.

I understand that officiating isn't perfect by any means and actually support instant replay to a certain degree. I don't like the idea of judgement calls to be included as that wouldn't make the game any better though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Once again, you haven't been able to make a reasonable suggestion on where to draw the line on which infractions affect the outcome of a play.

I understand that officiating isn't perfect by any means and actually support instant replay to a certain degree. I don't like the idea of judgement calls to be included as that wouldn't make the game any better though.

*grinning* Hard to make "reasonable suggestions" to anyone that appears to be dead set against an idea, since in that situation, everything suggested is probably going to sound unreasonable to them. However, I have made plenty of suggestions that other posters seem to have found reasonable. We will see how the NFL weighs in on it.

I respect that you are against the idea of expanding replay to include judgement calls and that for you, doing so wouldn't improve the game, we just happen to fall on opposite sides of this discussion.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

*grinning* Hard to make "reasonable suggestions" to anyone that appears to be dead set against an idea, since in that situation, everything suggested is probably going to sound unreasonable to them. However, I have made plenty of suggestions that other posters seem to have found reasonable. We will see how the NFL weighs in on it.

I'm open-minded to a discussion about altering instant replay but so far you haven't been able to come up with a solution to improve the process in my opinion.

 

[Stanger37]

I'm open-minded to a discussion about altering instant replay but so far you haven't been able to come up with a solution to improve the process in my opinion.

I am all for the discussion as you stated. Players and the game itself are getting faster and faster so you can make the argument that having an extra eye to be able to slow it down isn't a bad thing. But there has been a bunch of bad examples to this point on where and how to apply it. I am sure there is a solution somewhere without any holes in there and I'd be all ears to hear it. But to even think the general fan would enjoy a team throwing a challenge flag on a bang-bang play that slo-mo replay determined the defender was there .1 second early, therefore deemed a PI flag. And because of THAT result, the other team, now having their replay crew sift through replay footage catches an illegal contact on the offensive line. The game isn't played in slo-mo and I don't want breaking down plays to slo-mo determine the game. I don't want to speak for the masses, but that isn't enjoyable to me. I won't feel better inside knowing "I am so glad that 2nd and 7 call got to be re-done instead of going to 3rd and 7 until those challenge flags flew around" I'd look at it like a big waste of time in the middle of the game. In my opinion, you cannot open the door to challenge SOME penalties but not others. On top of that, I don't want the public outcry from one missed call to change the whole landscape of the game. I don't want the game to be dumbed down to cater to the fans that don't fully understand the game when something complicated happens. But I want to be able to explain to someone how and why something is being challenged without losing their interest. After all, the NFL is in the entertainment business as it is just about the last thing on TV that gets live ratings worth a damn these days.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm open-minded to a discussion about altering instant replay but so far you haven't been able to come up with a solution to improve the process in my opinion.

LOL.....if you want a complete solution, I am not paid enough to come up with that. What I have offered are ideas towards a solution. Let the experts figure out the exact details.

However, before talking about a solution, people first have to decide whether there is a problem and thus a need for a solution. I get the impression that you don't think the current system needs fixing?

If you did want to discuss need, the first notion we should explore and what seems to be a sticking point for many is the term "judgement call". IMO, most of the decisions a referee makes are judgement calls and made "in his judgement of what he observes at the time". Whether its crossing the goal line, stepping out of bounds, completing a catch, interfering with a receiver, down by contact, grabbing a face mask, horse collar tackle, hitting a QB late and on and on. Basically, he is on the field trying to enforce all of the rules of the game. What was decided a long time ago was that refs weren't always seeing things clearly and that their judgement of what happens on some plays was proven time and time again not to always be correct and those errors were seen as critical enough that they should be subjected to being reviewed. So replay was instituted to try and correct certain calls when the refs judgement was in question.

So now people will say "well jeesh, the ball crossing the goal line, a receiver having 2 feet in bounds, completed catch, those aren't strictly judgement calls, they are calls that can be made more clear and concise with replay and should be enforced/ruled upon as per the rules of the game. Yet at the moment those plays are initially ruled on by a ref, they were so with split second judgement calls, calls made based on what the referee saw or didn't see at the moment they occurred, right or wrong, they relied on the Referees best judgement of what happened and then open to be reviewed in case that judgment was off.

Now we have progressed to the sacred cow or the current dividing line of "we can't use replay to question a ref calling or not calling a penalty no matter how it impacts the play/game". Yet, having 12 men on the field is a 5 yard penalty and can be challenged. What makes that a special penalty, refs aren't expected to be able to count up to 12? The league reviews hits after the game and fines players, even if a penalty wasn't called at the time, so that kind of a review is ok? Are all penalties just strictly judgement calls and a referee should never be questioned that he missed something, didn't follow the rules correctly, his judgement for whatever reason was off on that one play? No matter how it impacts the outcome of a play, that is ok, because it is an acceptable error in judgement and thus part of the game? He throws the flag or he doesn't, case dismissed?

Replays during and after games have proven time and again that referees aren't perfect and have missed all sorts of calls for various reasons. Thankfully, some of those can currently be corrected via replay, but missed calls on almost every type of penalty is some how immune from that process, why?

 

[Mondio]

12 men on the field is, or isn't. whether or not contact down the field was enough to throw a flag on or not should be judged in the action of the play IMO, not reviewed in super slow mo 15 times. i'm fine with first impressions calling the flag or not.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

12 men on the field is, or isn't. whether or not contact down the field was enough to throw a flag on or not should be judged in the action of the play IMO, not reviewed in super slow mo 15 times. i'm fine with first impressions calling the flag or not.

I agree with you in a sense and if they decide to make PI reviewable, which I think they should, I think its going to have be clear, definite and directly related to the outcome of the play or they don't overrule.

We all know that on almost any play a ticky tack penalty for this or that can be found to have occurred, I for one don't want that part of this process. A review shouldn't change the result of the play unless there is a gross violation of the rules that was misjudged on the refs part and that in turn influenced what happened on the field. I know you or Captain won't like the verbage of what I just wrote, nor really do I , but it could be tweaked. I also think the number of reviews a coach is allowed has to be a very limited number.

 

[sschind]

worth a try loon, but there's plenty sports even my wee nation of scotland would beat the yanks at

haggis munchin, tossing the caber, guddling for fish,

i'll let you decide if these are real or not

I'll put noodling up against guddling any day and you can keep your sheep guts.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'll put noodling up against guddling any day and you can keep your sheep guts.

Nahhhhhh...the only true sport in the world is Cow Tipping!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[OldSchool101]

While we’re changing to all these fantastic rules.. can I suggest if there’s a ST foul that’s nowhere near having any impact whatsoever... let’s just call it football.
ST fouls probably have the biggest impact next to scoring plays. Those should be auto Reviewed during the dead time at the change of possession.

 

[OldSchool101]

Nahhhhhh...the only true sport in the world is Cow Tipping!

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

I’ve never had a cow serve me. That’d be glorious. Do you do the standard 15%?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

However, before talking about a solution, people first have to decide whether there is a problem and thus a need for a solution. I get the impression that you don't think the current system needs fixing?

If you did want to discuss need, the first notion we should explore and what seems to be a sticking point for many is the term "judgement call". IMO, most of the decisions a referee makes are judgement calls and made "in his judgement of what he observes at the time". Whether its crossing the goal line, stepping out of bounds, completing a catch, interfering with a receiver, down by contact, grabbing a face mask, horse collar tackle, hitting a QB late and on and on. Basically, he is on the field trying to enforce all of the rules of the game.

So now people will say "well jeesh, the ball crossing the goal line, a receiver having 2 feet in bounds, completed catch, those aren't strictly judgement calls, they are calls that can be made more clear and concise with replay and should be enforced/ruled upon as per the rules of the game. Yet at the moment those plays are initially ruled on by a ref, they were so with split second judgement calls, calls made based on what the referee saw or didn't see at the moment they occurred, right or wrong, they relied on the Referees best judgement of what happened and then open to be reviewed in case that judgment was off.

Now we have progressed to the sacred cow or the current dividing line of "we can't use replay to question a ref calling or not calling a penalty no matter how it impacts the play/game". Yet, having 12 men on the field is a 5 yard penalty and can be challenged. What makes that a special penalty, refs aren't expected to be able to count up to 12?

I don't think the current system is broken therefore don't agree with a need to fix it. It might be possible to improve instant replay with some minor tweaks but overall there's no reason to completely overhaul the process.

It seems that the main difference we're having as on how to define judgement calls. In my opinion you wrongfully consider the ball crossing the goal line, a receiver getting both feet in bounds, a player being down by contact to be a judgement call while there are rules in place leaving absolutely no room for interpretation to make a decision. In those cases reviewing the play makes a ton of sense as another set of eyes taking a look at the video is able to make a definite decision.

If you allow coaches to challenge calls that by rule leave room for interpretation the only thing you get is another set of eyes taking a look at it and possibly coming up with a different ruling based on their judgement. That doesn't make the decision any better but just different.

I agree with you in a sense and if they decide to make PI reviewable, which I think they should, I think its going to have be clear, definite and directly related to the outcome of the play or they don't overrule.

We all know that on almost any play a ticky tack penalty for this or that can be found to have occurred, I for one don't want that part of this process. A review shouldn't change the result of the play unless there is a gross violation of the rules that was misjudged on the refs part and that in turn influenced what happened on the field.

I really don't like the idea of having someone judge which actions on a play had a direct impact on it to review another judgement call.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

It seems that the main difference we're having as on how to define judgement calls. In my opinion you wrongfully consider the ball crossing the goal line, a receiver getting both feet in bounds, a player being down by contact to be a judgement call while there are rules in place leaving absolutely no room for interpretation to make a decision. In those cases reviewing the play makes a ton of sense as another set of eyes taking a look at the video is able to make a definite decision.

So you consider a player clearly grabbing a face mask, a horse collar tackle, hitting a receiver before the ball has arrived, a defensive lineman tipping a pass, throwing a punch all strictly judgement calls and if the refs get it wrong, so be it? Yet, if a referee thinks the ball didn't cross the goal line or a receivers toe is on the line, they turn to replay and if there isn't conclusive evidence either way, they just stick with what.....the call by the rule book or the judgement call made by the referee?

 

[Half Empty]

The last two posts finally brought my confusion (or, perhaps, lack of interest) into focus. My knee-jerk reaction was that WIMM's examples were of the 'instant in time' variety and, hence, very appropriate for replay. Brat's were more along the lines of a continuing action - a player's hand on a face mask but not yet grabbing it, a hand on the back of the ball carrier but no indication yet of pulling him down by it. However, then I remembered seeing replays of 'both feet in bounds' which, regardless of what the point in time shots revealed about the feet, became a matter of 'when did he have control?'. My head hurts, and I think I'm going with the 'as long as it's the same for both teams, I don't much care' school of thought.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So you consider a player clearly grabbing a face mask, a horse collar tackle, hitting a receiver before the ball has arrived, a defensive lineman tipping a pass, throwing a punch all strictly judgement calls and if the refs get it wrong, so be it? Yet, if a referee thinks the ball didn't cross the goal line or a receivers toe is on the line, they turn to replay and if there isn't conclusive evidence either way, they just stick with what.....the call by the rule book or the judgement call made by the referee?

Don't get me wrong I don't like when a referee misses a judgement call in my opinion but with a lot of these calls there's a significant grey area, possibly resulting in you and me disagreeing what the correct call should have been. Therefore another set of eyes taking a look at it doesn't automatically result in the call being any better.

While it's possible there's no way of telling the exact location of the ball (that could definitely be changed by using technology) or if a receiver gets both feet in bounds even while reviewing it the rule doesn't leave any room for interpretation, making it an obvious argument for it to be reviewed. The reason it can't be overturned or confirmed in those cases is based on a lack of a perfect camera angle.

I just have a hard time believing that it would do any good by allowing to review plays on which even former referees have differing opinions after watching it in slow motion.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Don't get me wrong I don't like when a referee misses a judgement call in my opinion but with a lot of these calls there's a significant grey area, possibly resulting in you and me disagreeing what the correct call should have been. Therefore another set of eyes taking a look at it doesn't automatically result in the call being any better.

While it's possible there's no way of telling the exact location of the ball (that could definitely be changed by using technology) or if a receiver gets both feet in bounds even while reviewing it the rule doesn't leave any room for interpretation, making it an obvious argument for it to be reviewed. The reason it can't be overturned or confirmed in those cases is based on a lack of a perfect camera angle.

I just have a hard time believing that it would do any good by allowing to review plays on which even former referees have differing opinions after watching it in slow motion.

I think we could both list multiple plays that have happened and were unreviewable, under the current system, yet there would be no question that a review would have reversed them. There is always going to be some grey area in getting certain calls correct, there is now under the current system. If fresh sets of eyes and multiple camera angles can't change the call due to that grey area, so be it, you stick with the judgement of the ref on the field.

Is your fear mainly with Pass interference? That seems to be mentioned a lot by people that are opposed to expanding replay. Much like the review system today, the review officials would have to have strict guidelines on what does and doesn't constitute pass interference. I also kind of shake my head at this whole "too much grey area exists". Because if that is truly the case, than replay withstanding, the NFL needs to figure out how to remove these grey areas out of the process of officiating.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Is your fear mainly with Pass interference? That seems to be mentioned a lot by people that are opposed to expanding replay. Much like the review system today, the review officials would have to have strict guidelines on what does and doesn't constitute pass interference. I also kind of shake my head at this whole "too much grey area exists". Because if that is truly the case, than replay withstanding, the NFL needs to figure out how to remove these grey areas out of the process of officiating.

I'm not solely talking about pass interference. I don't want holding, hands to the face, roughing the passer etc. being reviewable either.

If NFL referees would strictly enforce the rules every single play could be overturned because of a minor infraction. If you want to achieve that be my guest but I don't like the league to be headed in that direction.

 

[swhitset]

LOL.....if you want a complete solution, I am not paid enough to come up with that. What I have offered are ideas towards a solution. Let the experts figure out the exact details.

However, before talking about a solution, people first have to decide whether there is a problem and thus a need for a solution. I get the impression that you don't think the current system needs fixing?

If you did want to discuss need, the first notion we should explore and what seems to be a sticking point for many is the term "judgement call". IMO, most of the decisions a referee makes are judgement calls and made "in his judgement of what he observes at the time". Whether its crossing the goal line, stepping out of bounds, completing a catch, interfering with a receiver, down by contact, grabbing a face mask, horse collar tackle, hitting a QB late and on and on. Basically, he is on the field trying to enforce all of the rules of the game. What was decided a long time ago was that refs weren't always seeing things clearly and that their judgement of what happens on some plays was proven time and time again not to always be correct and those errors were seen as critical enough that they should be subjected to being reviewed. So replay was instituted to try and correct certain calls when the refs judgement was in question.

So now people will say "well jeesh, the ball crossing the goal line, a receiver having 2 feet in bounds, completed catch, those aren't strictly judgement calls, they are calls that can be made more clear and concise with replay and should be enforced/ruled upon as per the rules of the game. Yet at the moment those plays are initially ruled on by a ref, they were so with split second judgement calls, calls made based on what the referee saw or didn't see at the moment they occurred, right or wrong, they relied on the Referees best judgement of what happened and then open to be reviewed in case that judgment was off.

Now we have progressed to the sacred cow or the current dividing line of "we can't use replay to question a ref calling or not calling a penalty no matter how it impacts the play/game". Yet, having 12 men on the field is a 5 yard penalty and can be challenged. What makes that a special penalty, refs aren't expected to be able to count up to 12? The league reviews hits after the game and fines players, even if a penalty wasn't called at the time, so that kind of a review is ok? Are all penalties just strictly judgement calls and a referee should never be questioned that he missed something, didn't follow the rules correctly, his judgement for whatever reason was off on that one play? No matter how it impacts the outcome of a play, that is ok, because it is an acceptable error in judgement and thus part of the game? He throws the flag or he doesn't, case dismissed?

Replays during and after games have proven time and again that referees aren't perfect and have missed all sorts of calls for various reasons. Thankfully, some of those can currently be corrected via replay, but missed calls on almost every type of penalty is some how immune from that process, why?

I think you have hit on a fundamental point that nobody seems to be making clear. It seems to me that many believe pass interference to be different because the refs rarely actually follow the letter of the rules on pass plays. My understanding is that after 5 yards receivers and defensive backs aren’t supposed to be touching each other. However we all know that that is not how the game is played. The judgement calls come in when the refs have to decide how much is too much? Replay is not going to help this situation much unless either the rules are changed somehow or a penalty is actually called on EVERY pass play where there is contact after 5 yards. I don’t think anyone really wants that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Replay is not going to help this situation much unless either the rules are changed somehow or a penalty is actually called on EVERY pass play where there is contact after 5 yards. I don’t think anyone really wants that.

It would be absolutely devastating for the game if referees started to throw a flag on every pass play on which there is contact after five yards.

While that would make it easy to review it nobody would care to watch the game anymore.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Replay is not going to help this situation much unless either the rules are changed somehow or a penalty is actually called on EVERY pass play where there is contact after 5 yards. I don’t think anyone really wants that.

It would be absolutely devastating for the game if referees started to throw a flag on every pass play on which there is contact after five yards.

While that would make it easy to review it nobody would care to watch the game anymore.

I agree with you both in regards to pass interference and I would throw in offensive holding as probably the 2 most "judgmental" calls made in football. If either or both become reviewable things, the league is going to have to continue to try and make it more clear as to what is and isn't a penalty and then what would or wouldn't constitute a reversal of a refs call. I don't think reviews will 100% correct these 2 penalties, but at least it would allow a coach to challenge and possibly get corrected the ones that were egregiously called or missed.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If NFL referees would strictly enforce the rules every single play could be overturned because of a minor infraction. If you want to achieve that be my guest but I don't like the league to be headed in that direction.

How could every single play be overturned if there is a limited # of challenges as well as a coach having to say exactly what is being challenged? To me this is like saying "why enforce speed limits, everyone speeds."