All proposed rule changes for 2016

[Duffman]

The NFL is considering some major rule changes: 14 things to know

Here are 14 things to know about the NFL's potential rule changes for 2016:

1. Touchbacks no longer at the 20-yard line. One of the biggest rule changes proposed by the competition committee this year is to change the touchback. Under the proposed new rule, any kickoff that results in a touchback would give the opposing the team the ball at the 25-yard line instead of the 20. As the rule is currently written, teams would only get the ball on the 25-yard line after a touchback on a "free kick," meaning a touchback after a turnover or a punt would still give the opposing team the ball at the 20-yard line.

2. Make the extra point rule permanent. When the NFL changed the extra point rule for the 2015 season, the competition committee only made it a one-year change, which means there's no extra point rule on the books for 2016. This rule proposal will likely pass and make last year's change permanent, which means kickers better get used to those 33-yard extra points.

3. Automatic ejection for any player who receives two personal foul penalties in one game. This rule proposal by the competition committee is likely going to pass, but there are going to be some caveats. As CBSSports.com colleague Ryan Wilson outlined on Wednesday morning, only two types of personal fouls would be considered for ejection. Taunting, punching or kicking would count against a player's two-penalty limit. Hitting a defenseless players, using the crown of your helmet or hitting a quarterback egregiously late would also count toward the two-penalty limit.

4. Make personal foul penalties reviewable. If personal fouls are going to lead to ejections, then they should be reviewable, right? That's what the Redskins want. Under this proposal from Washington, personal fouls could be reviewed and potentially be overturned

5. Make all chop blocks illegal. There are only a few instances where chop blocks are currently legal and the competition committee wants to get rid of those. Under the rule proposal, all chop blocks would be illegal. Currently, if an offensive lineman chops a defensive player "while the defensive player is physically engaged above the waist by the blocking attempt of another offensive teammate," then the chop is legal.

6. Each team gets three challenges per game. One thing became clear with all the rule proposals this year: Teams are not happy with the current challenge system. Currently, each NFL teams gets two challenges per game and can earn a third one if they win their first two. Under a rule change proposed by the Ravens, each team would get three challenges no matter what. The Vikings and Redskins have also proposed similar rules that would give each team three challenges, so there's a good chance this one will pass.

6-B. All plays can be challenged. What's better than three challenges? Infinity challenges! The Bills have proposed that all plays can be challenged except scoring plays and turnovers, which are automatically challenged. Patriots coach Bill Belichick has long been a proponent of a system where every play is challengeable.

Now we just need a rule where you can challenge a challenge.

7. The Peyton Manning rule. Since Peyton Manning's now retired, it only makes sense to name a rule after him and that's basically what the Kansas City Chiefs want to do, and the Steelers will probably be on board with the change.

During the playoffs back in January, there was a play where Manning fell down, then got back up and threw a 34-yard pass.

It was a weird play and under the Chiefs' new proposal, it couldn't happen ever again. Under the the new rule, quarterbacks would be "prohibited from falling to the ground, getting up, and throwing a forward pass."

8. The Ravens very anti-Patriots rule proposal. Back in January 2015, the Patriots fooled the Ravens with some clever formations during an AFC divisional playoff game. Apparently, the Ravens are still slightly bitter about the entire incident because they're still proposing rules to make sure it never happens again.

Under this rule change, "An offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass receiver is permitted to line up in the position of an ineligible pass receiver, provided that he wears a jersey vest matching the team uniform, with an appropriate number for his eligible or ineligible status that has not already been assigned to another teammate."

Yes. the Ravens want jersey vests. I have a feeling this one's going to get voted down.

9. Eliminate overtime in preseason games. This rule change is pretty straightforward and was proposed by the Redskins. Although the NFL isn't quite ready to shorten the preseason, it can shorten preseason games by guaranteeing that teams can't go into overtime. If this rule passes, there's a good chance you'll see a lot of preseason games end in a tie, not that it matters.

10. Expand the intentional grounding rule. The Panthers have proposed one huge change to the intentional grounding rule: "If a passer is facing an imminent loss of yardage because of pressure from the defense chooses to throw a a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion" then the passer will be flagged for intentional grounding.

This would be a huge change because it means that getting out of the pocket wouldn't necessarily save a quarterback. Currently, a quarterback can escape the pocket and throw it away. The Panthers want grounding to be called if anyone is being pressured and throws a pass that has zero chance of being caught.

11. Add penalty yards to the distance needed for a first down. This is actually an interesting rule proposal by the Chiefs that would mostly be enforced when a team has the ball near its own end zone.

Under current rules, if Kansas City has the ball first-and-10 on its own 10-yard line and gets hit with a holding call, the Chiefs would be penalized five yards because it's a half-the-distance to the goal line foul.

Under the rule proposal, the Chiefs would move five yards back AND the down marker would be moved five yards so that the Chiefs would be facing first-and-20, just as they would if they had been called for holding anywhere else on the field. Basically, on the next play, the Chiefs would snap it from their 5-yard line and would now have to get to the 25 for a first down, instead of the 20.

12. Increase the amount of active players on gameday. Although each NFL team has a 53-man roster, only 46 of those players are allowed to dress on gameday. The Cardinals have proposed a rule that would bump that number up to 48.

The Redskins have also proposed something similar: Under Washington's proposal, the gameday active list would be expanded for any game that's played outside of the country OR on a day that's not a Sunday or Monday. Of course, the Redskins forgot to specify how many players the active list should be expanded to.

13. Eliminate one of the NFL's cut days. The Redskins must've pulled an all-nighter putting all of their rule proposals together because they have quite a few, including this one. Under this proposal, the NFL would eliminate one of its two cut days.

Under current rules, NFL teams trim their rosters down from 90 to 75 players in late August, then follow that up about a week later by trimming their roster down from 75 to 53. Under this rule, there would only be one cut day: From 90 players to 53.

14. Allow coaches and players to watch video on the sideline. If you've ever seen a player throw a tablet on the sideline, it's probably because they're mad that they can't watch video. Currently, coaches and players can only look at still photos on their team-issued tablets. This rule would allow everyone to also have access to video.

Gotta love the whining by the Chiefs. Also I'm in favor of making all plays reviewable.

 

[Fountain City Blues]

"Blatantly wrong calls are ok as long as they are subjectively less subjective than other rules"

 

[Rockinkuwait]

1. I like... No issue with that, fine if it passes.

2. Love this rule, XP's matter again, no longer a pointless play.

3/4 sound good. Review for ejection purposes.

5. got it. Makes sense, sorry Kubiak lol

6 Meh

7. No, Unless he's sliding feet first or giving himself up, let the play continue.

8 NO

9. Not a huge deal, most teams play for the win (ie, score when down by 7 in the 4th, they go for 2).

10. I doubt it will pass, a QB's protection is he can throw it away outside the pocket.

11... meh If you are losing "half the distance" and throwing out of your end zone, I am fine with that. I count 10 plays in the NFL last year where a team was inside their own 10 and got a "half the distance" call. No reason to muck that up. Defense gets the same advantage, jump offside when the other team is at your 3 yard line, you only lose 1.5 yards.

12. No issue with, not really a money thing, unless they also vote to expand total rosters.

13. I like how it is, other teams have a couple chances to see who's getting released and make relevant moves.

14... Ehh, either way on that one.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

1. No. What's the point? Most kicks are booted out of the end zone anyway. At least give them some sort of reason to return the kick if it's in the end zone.

2. Keep the part about being able to return a blocked kick, but move it back to where it's always been. It if ain't broke, don't fix it. Why make this game more reliant on a one point kick?

3. No. The officiating in the league is bad already. Don't let the zebras have more of an effect on the game.

4. Why not? There might be a 10% chance they overturn a bad call. I watch most games on DVR so it doesn't effect the timing for me. Go for it.

5. Keep the rule how it is. This is a rarely called foul and I think changing it would do more harm than good.

6. My opinion on challenges has always been that you should be able to challenge anything. Teams should also get unlimited challenges until they get two wrong. Also, keep the penalty of losing a timeout for each incorrect challenge. This would have minimal effect on the game IMO.

7. No. If a player legally forces an opposing player to contact anything other than their foot or hand to the ground then the opposing player is down. If a part of a player's body other than the foot or hand are touching the ground and the player is contacted by another player then the player is down. It's that simple. If a QB falls and doesn't get touched they can still complete a pass. Instant replay SHOULD be able to handle this. Making a rule specifically for QB's complicates things too much.

8. No. Just no. I don't like the Pats much either but the Ravens needs to stop bitching on this one.

9. Yes. Overtime in preseason is not necessary. This rule is basically useless though since most coaches play to not tie already if possible.

10. No. Unnecessary change.

11. Not exactly how I would solve the issue. I would simply say that if a penalty puts you in the end zone then the ball goes to the 1 yard line, just like the current PI penalty. Offense or defense. After that do half the distance I guess, it doesn't make that big of a difference.

12. Yes. 53 guys on a roster should mean 53 guys can play each week.

13. No. Unnecessary change.

14. Why not? Can't they just watch 100 consecutive still photos as it is? That the same effect as a video. Just let them do it.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

Just a couple thoughts...

#1 is to increase scoring by getting the average starting field position back where it used to be without bringing back the extra danger of injuries from the kickoff return. The NFL doesn't want more reasons to return kicks, based on their studies of the danger of them.

Just looking at the numbers. Since 2011 (rule change on kickoffs) there's been 12805 kickoffs,

6620 have been touchbacks
6185 have been returned for an average of out to the 24 yard line.

Previous 5 years there were 12268 kickoffs. 10038 returns, 2230 touchbacks.

So instead of there being returns putting a team at the 24 yard line 82% of the time, now that only happens 48% of the time. By that change you could figure an average of 3% more drives ending in scores on touchbacks and 3% fewer punts. Offense sells.




On #2 my thought is the 1 yard XP is the most pointless play in all of sports. Or right there with having to watch a pitcher throw 4 balls for an intentional walk. I keep trying to think of when one mattered that failed and all I can come up with is that 2003 Saints game going into week 16 where John Carney missed a game winner that cost them a shot at the post-season. Like you said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's been broke the past 30 or so years as kickers have perfected that kick. In 2014 there were 1231 points. Not one miss affected the outcome of the game. 1231 plays of pointless play a year.

What other sport do you like where something happens 99.5% of the time. When basketball players make 99.5 % of their shots or pitchers strike out their opponents 99.5% of the time? Isn't that broke?

And actually you are making the game LESS reliant on that kick.. You can't rely on the fact that the kicker is making it all the time, so that 7th point is guaranteed anymore, and also 2PT conversions jumped 58% in 2015 with that change with more teams taking a shot at 2 instead of bringing out their kicker.

 

[blue_suns]

The proposal the Ravens submitted had nothing to do with the Pats game.

The Ravens got screwed out of a 1st down last year because the refs didn't see a lineman make a signal that he was an eligible receiver and they penalized them for it.

 

[Broncos6482]

1. No, that's a stupid change. Touchbacks should start at the 20, period.

2. Yes, the extra point rule worked great last year and it needs to stay.

3. No. The refs already have the authority to eject players, they just need to use it more. There's already too many instances where players get a personal foul penalty on bad calls, or something that's just too hard to stop at game speed (such as when a receiver ducks his head at the last second resulting in the defender going head to head). Officials just need to use their discretion and kick out players that need it (like OBJ against the Panthers last year).

4. No, let's not give the refs more to review please. They already can't get enough right. Besides, college football has already proven this doesn't work with their targeting rule that gets enforced incorrectly quite frequently.

5. I don't see a need to change this rule.

6. I'd rather teams just get two challenge mistakes, and as long as they get the challenge right you get to keep it. Once you challenge twice and miss both, then you're done with challenges. And don't make all plays reviewable, I don't want to see things like pass interference or holding reviewed.

7. HAHAHAHAHA no. This is one of the stupidest rule changes I've ever heard of. If no one touches the qb, he's not down. Do the Chiefs hate Manning so much that they proposed this out of spite?

8. This is also one of the stupidest rule changes I've ever heard of. No.

9. Absolutely yes.

10. I think the grounding rule is fine the way it is.

11. The Chiefs make up for their insanely idiotic proposal earlier with this good one. I think this would be a fantastic change.

12. I'm fine with this.

13. No, it's fine the way it is.

14. Sure, why not?

 

[anotheridiot]

and no change to this catch rule, other than the NFL feeling they need to educate the networks and public more.

 

[Cincyfan78]

most of the rules are 'eh'.

#5 should have been done a long time ago. It's dangerous, and considering the way the league has moved in recent years to protect players it only makes sense to remove this kind of blocking. Either block straight up or get a new job.

6.a - This is how it should be. You get 3. Period. Use 'em, you lose 'em. No you get one back if you are right.

7 - while I don't completely agree with it, I do understand it. It almost falls into that "into the grasp" rule they had some time ago. Defensive players see the guy down and slow up. Then again, they should know to be safe to still go over and down the player to ensure he's down.

10 - Not sure I like the change as it is worded, but I do agree with the spirit of the rule. I'd like to see some kind of change here eventually.

14 should be a no-brainer. It's 2016. I have no clue why it's ok to look at still shots, but not a video of a play?

 

[Clayton]

I like all of the rule changes except for 'the Peyton' rule and the Intentional Grounding expansion. The Intentional Grounding expansion is the last thing we need in an NFL with bad oline play

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Unlimited challenges until you get at least one wrong is what I'd like.

 

[Superbelt]

I like the proposed Peyton rule.

As a Steeler fan, I recognize the play was called correctly for that game. And good on Peyton for being heads up enough to realize he was never touched and continue the play. But I feel that if a QB takes a dive to give up, he's giving up on throwing. A Defensive player is required to pull up in that situation, or face a flag. So if a QB can gain protection doing that, there should be a penalty to him for doing it.

Let him continue as a runner until touched down, if the QB wants, just no more forward passes after taking a defensive dive.

Either add this, or take away their advantage when diving and sliding.

 

[Manster7588]

1. Touchbacks no longer at the 20-yard line. I don't see the point, but doesn't matter to me. Yes/No I don't care.

2. Make the extra point rule permanent. Fine, either way.

3. Automatic ejection for any player who receives two personal foul penalties in one game. Yes as long as rule change 4 is adopted.

4. Make personal foul penalties reviewable. Yes, regardless if rule #3 is adopted or not.

5. Make all chop blocks illegal. Yes, I thought Choo blocks already were illegal

6. Each team gets three challenges per game. Yes

6-B. All plays can be challenged. No, it would make the game drag on. If adopted they need to find a way to control flag happy coaches. As suggested earlier give teams 2 misses, or they can challenge all they want, but be penalized 5 yards if they are wrong.


7. The Peyton Manning rule. No

8. The Ravens very anti-Patriots rule proposal. Not NO but FUCK NO

9. Eliminate overtime in preseason games. Yes

10. Expand the intentional grounding rule. Yes

11. Add penalty yards to the distance needed for a first down. Interesting idea, but no. Refs can't get the yards counted right as it is, no need to confuse them more than they already are.

12. Increase the amount of active players on gameday. Yes, the full roster should be eligible.

13. Eliminate one of the NFL's cut days. Don't care either way.

14. Allow coaches and players to watch video on the sideline. Yes, except the Pats, you know they'll find a way to cheat with this. Hell the probably already do watch vids on the sideline.

 

[Broncos6482]

I like the proposed Peyton rule.

As a Steeler fan, I recognize the play was called correctly for that game. And good on Peyton for being heads up enough to realize he was never touched and continue the play. But I feel that if a QB takes a dive to give up, he's giving up on throwing. A Defensive player is required to pull up in that situation, or face a flag. So if a QB can gain protection doing that, there should be a penalty to him for doing it.

Let him continue as a runner until touched down, if the QB wants, just no more forward passes after taking a defensive dive.

Either add this, or take away their advantage when diving and sliding.

How hard is it for a defensive player to touch a qb when he's on the ground?

Quarterbacks already have too many rules that apply only to them that muddy the waters, let's not further complicate it. If you see a quarterback hit the ground untouched, just touch him. Piece of cake.

 

[Superbelt]

How hard is it for a defensive player to touch a qb when he's on the ground?

Quarterbacks already have too many rules that apply only to them that muddy the waters, let's not further complicate it. If you see a quarterback hit the ground untouched, just touch him. Piece of cake.

Not super hard. But once the QB slides down, defensive players do let up a lot. Anything more than a simple hand touch risks flags flying.

If a QB is giving up the pass, they give up the pass. If he wants to get up after that, he should run it.

 

[Southieinnc]

The proposal the Ravens submitted had nothing to do with the Pats game.

The Ravens got screwed out of..... last year.

It breaks my heart that "the Ravens life vest" did not pass.....
I was going to buy one of those!!!!!


8. The Ravens very anti-Patriots rule proposal. Back in January 2015, the Patriots fooled the Ravens with some clever formations during an AFC divisional playoff game. Apparently, the Ravens are still slightly bitter about the entire incident because they're still proposing rules to make sure it never happens again.

Under this rule change, "An offensive player wearing the number of an eligible pass receiver is permitted to line up in the position of an ineligible pass receiver, provided that he wears a jersey vest matching the team uniform, with an appropriate number for his eligible or ineligible status that has not already been assigned to another teammate."

I can't believe Hairball is still whining about his insufficiencies.....

 

[Old Lion]

-Bring back the old intentional grounding rules
-Bring back the old catch rules
-Get rid of kickoffs all together (start at the 20)
-Make extra points variable up to 3 points. 20 yard= 1pt, 40 yards = 2pt, 60 yards = 3pt. Opposing team takes control on their upcoming drive from where the extra point is kicked.
-Make FGs variable. 20 yds=1pt, 1 pt for every additional 10 yards.
-3 guaranteed challenges is enough since every TO and score is now challenged

 

[anotheridiot]

I like the proposed Peyton rule.

As a Steeler fan, I recognize the play was called correctly for that game. And good on Peyton for being heads up enough to realize he was never touched and continue the play. But I feel that if a QB takes a dive to give up, he's giving up on throwing. A Defensive player is required to pull up in that situation, or face a flag. So if a QB can gain protection doing that, there should be a penalty to him for doing it.

Let him continue as a runner until touched down, if the QB wants, just no more forward passes after taking a defensive dive.

Either add this, or take away their advantage when diving and sliding.

Exactly, its like the QB's that make it look like they are going out of bounds, let the DB slow up and then they break up field for another 5-10 yards. They want to be protected, they need to realize what giving them selves up entails.