PDA

View Full Version : Rule Change to Watch out for!


dalemurphy
03-17-2011, 11:51 AM
Obviously, the biggest concern right now is getting an agreement reached and beginning the 2011 NFL off-sesaon at some point before the lockout begins costing us quality football. With that urgency and focus, however, there is an elevated risk that compromises will be made on the periphery of the major issues that will damage the game. I have been hearing of one such area of compromise that is of great concern to me:

18 Game Regular Season- I am in favor of an 18 game season if it is done right. However, I am hearing NFL ownership discussing the issue in a way that makes me very nervous. Here’s the new catch-phrase they are throwing around: “it’s about total/aggregate plays”, responding to the added risk of injury to players if two regular season games are added. I believe it was Mr. Rooney the other day that said they are exploring (and open to) ways that these games can be added without increasing the number of hits a player is subjected to.

Why is this a concern?: Well, if they were to consider my proposal for an 18 game schedule, which includes increasing the roster and additional roster flexibility, I think they can achieve that goal without damaging the product. However, I am terrified that their solution will be to explore ways to decrease the number of game snaps within the game. This has already happened once in the past 20 years and I don’t know anyone else that has detected it.


In order to keep NFL games at roughly 3 hours in length, the NFL had to adjust something after instant replay was installed in order to make up for the 5-10 minutes per game that instant replay was adding to game time. What did they do? They changed the out of bounds rule. Before, as it is in college, when a player runs out of bounds (regardless of the clock), the clock would stop until the next snap. Now, the clock stops until the ball is reset but then it is restarted and an additional 15-25 seconds run off the clock until the next play (except during the two minute warning in the first half and the final 5 minutes of the fourth quarter). Harmless, right? Umm, not if you love football. That single rule change decreased the number of plays in an NFL game by close to 10%. There are six to ten fewer plays a game simply to allow for these ridiculous instant replays. Gross!

Here’s my fear: what if the owners offer concessions to the NFLPA that include a decrease in the number of plays per game? The union would love that. It’s equivalent to management offering a reduction in work hours at a manufacturing company without a reduction in wages.

It is simply one more angle where the selfishness among the owners and players can injure the NFL product and therefore, the fans. Not only would a decrease in ticket price not accompany a reduction in plays per game, but I am sure ticket prices would increase (per game) because the NFL is now replacing a preseason game with a regular season game (never mind that fans have been charged full price for preseason games as long as I can remember, and preseason games are mandatory in all season ticket packages).

Things to watch out for:

1. They could propose a constant running clock with to (2 minute warning and late 4th quarter exception still intact). In other words, when a player steps out of bounds the clock would continuing running just like it was a tackle on the field, instead of stopping it until the referee resets the ball on the field… the impact of that would be 10-15 additional seconds lost of game clock per incident.

2. They could propose running the clock after the change of posession. College football tried that for one season and it was a disaster, but it may be something they could tinker with and consider.

3. They could propose adding more “clock run-off” penalties. As it is now, an offensive penalty in the last minute or so in the game that occurs when the clock is running is often accompanied with a 10 second runoff. They could add these options throughout the game.

Also, just watch out for language from the NFL like, “trying to increase the pace/tempo of the game”, or “ensuring the game remains family friendly”… Those are phrases that could be masking other, and more insidious, intentions.

from TEXANS BULL BLOG (http://www.texansbullblog.com/)

El Tejano
03-17-2011, 12:05 PM
I would like to see them go ahead and put the new OT rule into the regular season.

I'm also hearing they want to move the kickoff back and where the ball is placed after a touchback. I'm not going to like that one bit. Our kicker can't get the ball to the endzone with the ball placed where it is now.

The1ApplePie
03-17-2011, 12:15 PM
Took this from another board...

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

» A quarterback in the act of throwing;

» A receiver trying to catch a pass;

» A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

» A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

» A kicker or punter during the kick;

» A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

» A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

» A player already on the ground.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ec8fca/article/illegal-hits-draw-more-scrutiny-replays-kickoffs-under-review?module=HP_h

infantrycak
03-17-2011, 12:18 PM
I would like to see them go ahead and put the new OT rule into the regular season.

I'm also hearing they want to move the kickoff back and where the ball is placed after a touchback. I'm not going to like that one bit. Our kicker can't get the ball to the endzone with the ball placed where it is now.

The point of the rule changes is to not have touch backs. Move the ball back to make it harder and have a TB come out to the 25 yard line to discourage TB's and encourage returns.

dalemurphy
03-17-2011, 12:27 PM
Took this from another board...

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

» A quarterback in the act of throwing;

» A receiver trying to catch a pass;

» A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

» A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

» A kicker or punter during the kick;

» A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

» A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

» A player already on the ground.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ec8fca/article/illegal-hits-draw-more-scrutiny-replays-kickoffs-under-review?module=HP_h


The QB rule would be a disaster!

DexmanC
03-17-2011, 12:33 PM
The QB rule would be a disaster!

Exactly. Hitting the QB while he's throwing the ball is how most
interceptions are created.

dalemurphy
03-17-2011, 12:50 PM
Exactly. Hitting the QB while he's throwing the ball is how most
interceptions are created.

Actually, maybe this is the perfect rule for the Texans... Since we seldom hit the QB and almost never intercept the ball!

infantrycak
03-17-2011, 12:53 PM
Took this from another board...

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

» A quarterback in the act of throwing;

I saw that also and I don't believe it for a minute. I suspect poor reporting and if anything there is some minor tweak. You want to see Big Ben pump fake 25 times per play instead of just 7, institute this rule.

Double Barrel
03-17-2011, 01:04 PM
I saw that also and I don't believe it for a minute. I suspect poor reporting and if anything there is some minor tweak. You want to see Big Ben pump fake 25 times per play instead of just 7, institute this rule.

It's got to be the case of poor reporting. Otherwise, we really are moving to a point of putting red shirts on QBs and giving them flags as substitutes for being tackled.

gary
03-17-2011, 01:52 PM
ESPN is reporting the samethings.

Doppelganger
03-17-2011, 02:08 PM
Exactly. Hitting the QB while he's throwing the ball is how most
interceptions are created.

Yeah. And if we go down that route, why even play try to play defense?

Brandon420tx
03-17-2011, 02:22 PM
The point of the rule changes is to not have touch backs. Move the ball back to make it harder and have a TB come out to the 25 yard line to discourage TB's and encourage returns.

I thought it was the opposite. They were planning on moving the spot you kick from farther up the field, and making TB's be taken to the 25 yard line to encourage more returners to kneel + make it easier to kick through the endzone. Less returns = less chance of injury. They also want to eliminate all forms of wedges since that is where the highest % of return injuries occur

infantrycak
03-17-2011, 03:00 PM
I thought it was the opposite. They were planning on moving the spot you kick from farther up the field, and making TB's be taken to the 25 yard line to encourage more returners to kneel + make it easier to kick through the endzone. Less returns = less chance of injury. They also want to eliminate all forms of wedges since that is where the highest % of return injuries occur

You are correct. I misread the report I was looking at.

The1ApplePie
03-17-2011, 03:40 PM
Yeah. And if we go down that route, why even play try to play defense?

Offense = Ratings

:fingergun:

Rey
03-17-2011, 03:58 PM
I thought it was the opposite. They were planning on moving the spot you kick from farther up the field, and making TB's be taken to the 25 yard line to encourage more returners to kneel + make it easier to kick through the endzone. Less returns = less chance of injury. They also want to eliminate all forms of wedges since that is where the highest % of return injuries occur

Yep...That's how I understood it...

That kind of sucks IMO...

I don't know how much it would affect the amount of big returns that we see now, but it's pretty obvious that they want to see less kick off's being returned...

Rey
03-17-2011, 04:04 PM
» A quarterback in the act of throwing;

» A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

» A player fielding a punt or a kickoff

» A quarterback at any time after change of possession;


These rule changes scare me a little bit.

I'm a little confused though. Are they talking about helmet to helmet on a defenseless player? Or are they talking about just hitting them period?

If they are talking about helmet to helmet then it's not THAT bad...I still wouldn't like the "runner in the grasp" one....

False Start
03-17-2011, 07:59 PM
As far as the new kickoff rule, just have the kicker try and kick it inside the 5 yard line. With the defensive players being closer, it could work out to their advantage, if I'm understanding the rule correctly. :thinking:

El Tejano
03-17-2011, 09:53 PM
The point of the rule changes is to not have touch backs. Move the ball back to make it harder and have a TB come out to the 25 yard line to discourage TB's and encourage returns.

With our kickers, the other team usually gets the ball at the 10 or 15 already though. Now they are going to be getting it at the 15 or better, plus our KO coverage sux!

srrono
03-20-2011, 12:14 PM
with these rules defense will change 1 DL and 10 DB lol or 1 DL 2 LB 8 DB
and it will be illegal to run the ball