Owners to vote on rule changes at league meetings

[DoobieKeebler]

NFL owners to decide on possible changes to replay, OT, IR


By Steve Wyche NFL.com

Depending on what NFL owners agree to at next week's league meetings, teams might be able to regain the services of a player who was seriously injured during the regular season, the trade deadline could be moved, overtime policies could become uniform and the penalty for having too many men on the field could be altered.

The NFL Competition Committee announced during a conference call Wednesday that it will introduce multiple rule changes and bylaw proposals to ownership next week in Palm Beach, Fla., including the following:

» Making the penalty for having too many men on the field a dead-ball foul. This stems from an incident that took place during the most recent Super Bowl. With the New York Giants' defense illegally having 12 men on the field, the New England Patriots ran a play and wound up losing valuable time, although they gained 5 yards. The new proposal would immediately stop the play and make it a 5-yard infraction.

» Making the playoff overtime rules, which give one team possession in overtime should the team that had the ball first kick a field goal, also apply during the regular season. Coaches would prefer a uniform approach to this so they can prepare the same way in the playoffs as they do during the regular season. The existing regular-season rule allows a team to win in sudden death, should it kick a field goal on the opening possession.

» Allowing a player who's seriously hurt after the first week of the season to be placed on injured reserve and return later that season. Teams tend to place a player with a significant injury sustained early in the season on IR to open a roster spot, ending the injured player's season. In this instance -- think Green Bay Packers running back Ryan Grant in 2010, when he hurt his foot -- a player who has been placed on IR could be designated to return in the future.

» Having replays viewed solely by the official in the booth, not the referee on the field. "This proposal will definitely spark some discussion," Rich McKay, president of the Atlanta Falcons and chairman of the committee, told The Associated Press about possibly taking away review responsibilities from the refs. "We developed our system based on the last time we had replay. That's how we developed the referee to be the decision maker."

» Automatically having turnovers reviewed.

For any rules to be changed, 24 of the 32 teams have to vote for approval of these and other suggestions from the competition committee.

Follow Steve Wyche on Twitter @wyche89.

 

[CalamityX11]

Hope the fucking Forward progress BS gets reviewed as well.

 

[threelittleturds]

I don't like the idea of a guy in the booth being in charge of such an important decision. I think we need to put a face to the guy who fucks us out of possessions. The referee needs to keep being the guy who makes that decision.

I don't like the idea of automatically having turnovers reviewed. It'll slow the game down too much, and if they want to set it up like TDs where coaches can't review them if the booth official decides it isn't worth challenging... then that will lead to bad scenarios.

 

[CalamityX11]

if they want to set it up like TDs where coaches can't review them if the booth official decides it isn't worth challenging... then that will lead to bad scenarios.

+1, good point.

 

[threelittleturds]

Generally, I like the idea of automatically reviewing turnovers, just like I like the idea of reviewing all scoring plays. I just don't like the catch that if the guy in the booth says no, the coaches can't throw their own challenge.

 

[Jikkle]

I don't like the idea of a guy in the booth being in charge of such an important decision. I think we need to put a face to the guy who fucks us out of possessions. The referee needs to keep being the guy who makes that decision.

I don't like the idea of automatically having turnovers reviewed. It'll slow the game down too much, and if they want to set it up like TDs where coaches can't review them if the booth official decides it isn't worth challenging... then that will lead to bad scenarios.

If it speeds up the process than I'm for it.

The guy in the booth is going to see the same replays as all of us on TV do and a lot of the time it's pretty cut and dry if the play should be reversed or not.

 

[imac_21]

Generally, I like the idea of automatically reviewing turnovers, just like I like the idea of reviewing all scoring plays. I just don't like the catch that if the guy in the booth says no, the coaches can't throw their own challenge.

My question for this is what exactly does it mean.

To compare it to the scoring play rule. . .

if a player is running down the sideline for a TD and dives for the pylon, then the decision on replay ultimately falls on the side judge who is right there. If he rules it a TD, it's automatically reviewed. If he rules the guy out of bounds on the 1 inch line then the team has to challenge.

The replay official can't challenge if the play isn't ruled a TD, even if replay shows the player broke the goal line.

WIth respect to the possible turnover challenge does the call on the field have to be ruled a turnover? The forward progress call vs the Giants was not ruled a fumble, so upstairs couldn't challenge. However, if it had been ruled a fumble it could be?

What about the diving interceptions? If it's ruled a catch it can be reviewed, if it's ruled incomplete a coach has to challenge?

 

[threelittleturds]

As to your scenario, do you remember a play by the Saints where Sproles ran down the sidelines and clearly stepped out of bounds but they ruled it a TD? Every replay showed him step out of bounds, but the Bears couldn't do anything about it because they aren't allowed to challenge scoring plays. I don't care what the miscommunication was, all it shows is that their automatic review system has a serious flaw.

NFL blames failure to review Sproles TD on “miscommunication” | ProFootballTalk

One time, is one too many. Eventually this same "miscommunication" will happen on an important turnover, and some team is going to get royally screwed. So, like I said... I like the thought of automatically reviewed scoring plays and turnovers, but they need to adjust it so that if a coach feels it should be replayed and the "automatic" system decides it shouldn't be... the coach can still challenge if he has remaining challenges.

 

[imac_21]

As to your scenario, do you remember a play by the Saints where Sproles ran down the sidelines and clearly stepped out of bounds but they ruled it a TD? Every replay showed him step out of bounds, but the Bears couldn't do anything about it because they aren't allowed to challenge scoring plays. I don't care what the miscommunication was, all it shows is that their automatic review system has a serious flaw.

NFL blames failure to review Sproles TD on “miscommunication” | ProFootballTalk

One time, is one too many. Eventually this same "miscommunication" will happen on an important turnover, and some team is going to get royally screwed. So, like I said... I like the thought of automatically reviewed scoring plays and turnovers, but they need to adjust it so that if a coach feels it should be replayed and the "automatic" system decides it shouldn't be... the coach can still challenge if he has remaining challenges.

Exactly. I think teams should be guaranteed two challenges, and as long as you win the challenge you have another one. Similar to the rule they have now (if you go 2 for 2, you get a 3rd), but not limiting it at one extra challenge. If you get the first two right, you get a third, if you get that right you get a fourth and so on.

It might slow down the odd game, but it removes from the game having to decide how important a random play out of context is to the outcome of the game (you sometimes hear people talk about a "bad challenge" because the reward isn't worth not having the challenge anymore, for example challenging to pick up 3 yards at your own 24 on offense). If the refs make a mistake, and the means exist to correct that mistake, those steps should be taken. Coaches getting a challenge right in the first quarter shouldn't punish them in the 4th if the refs are wrong again.

I'm not saying I expect the refs to be perfect, but the means exist to help correct their mistakes.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Exactly. I think teams should be guaranteed two challenges, and as long as you win the challenge you have another one. Similar to the rule they have now (if you go 2 for 2, you get a 3rd), but not limiting it at one extra challenge. If you get the first two right, you get a third, if you get that right you get a fourth and so on.

It might slow down the odd game, but it removes from the game having to decide how important a random play out of context is to the outcome of the game (you sometimes hear people talk about a "bad challenge" because the reward isn't worth not having the challenge anymore, for example challenging to pick up 3 yards at your own 24 on offense). If the refs make a mistake, and the means exist to correct that mistake, those steps should be taken. Coaches getting a challenge right in the first quarter shouldn't punish them in the 4th if the refs are wrong again.

I'm not saying I expect the refs to be perfect, but the means exist to help correct their mistakes.

I usually don't post something without adding something to the thread but that is one of the first things I've been wanting to see implemented for what seems like a very long time now. That drives me absolutely crazy everytime a coach wins a challenge.

 

[threelittleturds]

Exactly. I think teams should be guaranteed two challenges, and as long as you win the challenge you have another one. Similar to the rule they have now (if you go 2 for 2, you get a 3rd), but not limiting it at one extra challenge. If you get the first two right, you get a third, if you get that right you get a fourth and so on.

It might slow down the odd game, but it removes from the game having to decide how important a random play out of context is to the outcome of the game (you sometimes hear people talk about a "bad challenge" because the reward isn't worth not having the challenge anymore, for example challenging to pick up 3 yards at your own 24 on offense). If the refs make a mistake, and the means exist to correct that mistake, those steps should be taken. Coaches getting a challenge right in the first quarter shouldn't punish them in the 4th if the refs are wrong again.

I'm not saying I expect the refs to be perfect, but the means exist to help correct their mistakes.

That isn't a bad idea, I like it. To expand on that, I think it'd be nice if teams start with two and if they win a challenge they keep it. For example, you could lose the first challenge but if you win the next one you still have your challenge. If you challenge again and win you keep it until you lose a challenge. As you said, it might slow down the occasional game, but at least teams don't miss out on a chance to correct a possible mistake by an official.

 

[Bemular]

Exactly. I think teams should be guaranteed two challenges, and as long as you win the challenge you have another one. Similar to the rule they have now (if you go 2 for 2, you get a 3rd), but not limiting it at one extra challenge. If you get the first two right, you get a third, if you get that right you get a fourth and so on.

It might slow down the odd game, but it removes from the game having to decide how important a random play out of context is to the outcome of the game (you sometimes hear people talk about a "bad challenge" because the reward isn't worth not having the challenge anymore, for example challenging to pick up 3 yards at your own 24 on offense). If the refs make a mistake, and the means exist to correct that mistake, those steps should be taken. Coaches getting a challenge right in the first quarter shouldn't punish them in the 4th if the refs are wrong again.

I'm not saying I expect the refs to be perfect, but the means exist to help correct their mistakes.

That isn't a bad idea, I like it. To expand on that, I think it'd be nice if teams start with two and if they win a challenge they keep it. For example, you could lose the first challenge but if you win the next one you still have your challenge. If you challenge again and win you keep it until you lose a challenge. As you said, it might slow down the occasional game, but at least teams don't miss out on a chance to correct a possible mistake by an official.

I like where this conversation is going and agree wholeheatedly with the idea's shared between you two thus far. So I'll add only by asking a couple questions. What would happen if the first challenge is won but the second one is lost and where do timeouts fit into these scenarios?

 

[threelittleturds]

I like where this conversation is going and agree wholeheatedly with the idea's shared between you two thus far. So I'll add only by asking a couple questions. What would happen if the first challenge is won but the second one is lost and where do timeouts fit into these scenarios?

I forgot about the timeouts. With my idea, you don't lose timeouts you just lose the challenge. If you win the first, and lose the 2nd.. you still have one challenge left until you lose it. Simply put, you have two challenges and the only way to lose the ability to challenge is if you lose two challenges.

 

[Bemular]

I forgot about the timeouts. With my idea, you don't lose timeouts you just lose the challenge. If you win the first, and lose the 2nd.. you still have one challenge left until you lose it. Simply put, you have two challenges and the only way to lose the ability to challenge is if you lose two challenges.

Cool, on the lose first/win second scenario. Cool on the not losing timeouts, so would the same timeout rule apply with regard to no timeout(s)/no challenge(s)?

 

[threelittleturds]

Cool, on the lose first/win second scenario. Cool on the not losing timeouts, so would the same timeout rule apply with regard to no timeout(s)/no challenge(s)?

Well, I'd like if it had nothing to do with timeouts. You just get two challenges, and you keep them as long as you win. Basically a two-strike system. As long as you don't lose two challenges, you can challenge a ruling.

 

[DoobieKeebler]

The refs would HATE any rule change that would increase the number of challenges during a game. Ed Hochuli would have to overcompensate through exercise even further.

Personally, I'd love it if rules changed so that a correct challenge resulted in teams gaining an extra, and timeouts were lost only if a challenge is overruled within the last 2 minutes of the 2nd or 4th quarters (I don't want coaches using challenges as bootleg timeouts to stop the clock).


Edit: This hasn't been mentioned, but I think the trade deadline should be pushed back. I think an increase of trades during the season would be awesome.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Paul Domowitch:

NFL owners considering rule that would prohibit road teams from more than 1 time zone away playing in Thursday night games.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

Paul Domowitch:

NFL owners considering rule that would prohibit road teams from more than 1 time zone away playing in Thursday night games.

That would be a great rule.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

NFL owners OK review on turnovers, OT tweak - ESPN

Sounds good to me although 1 season too late. Damn giants fumbling.

 

[clyde_carbon]

NFL passes overtime rules to reflect postseason, all turnovers now reviewed - CBSSports