Things You Would Change About the NFL

[Nawzer]

I was having a discussion with some friends last night during the game about some things you would like to see changed in the NFL. The game is pretty good (understatement) as is but there's always things here and there that people don't like. For example, my biggest gripe is the holding penalty. There's holding on virtually every play but some are called while others are overlooked. I don't have a problem with the rule per se, but I think penalizing 10 yards is a bit too much. I think 5 yards should be enough. I don't see why false starts are penalized less than a holding call. Also, why can't the NFL just do away with the extra point? Why isn't a touchdown worth 7 pts. instead of 6? I understand it gives the special team a chance to block that extra poin attempt, but what are the percentages? Anyway, fire away with your thoughts about things you would change.

[bah007]

The only thing I want to see changed is pass interference. Everything else is great.

If I was in charge, the NFL would have two options:

1. Pass interference would be a 15 yard penalty max and a spot foul inside of 15 yards. There would be no automatic 1st down on a pass interference, holding, or illegal contact penalty against the defense.
Ex.- a PI on a 20 yard pass on 2nd & 16 would move to 2nd & 1.

OR

2. The rules for pass interference should be changed. Putting your hand on a guy's hip so you can turn to the ball without losing him should NOT be a penalty. There should be no penalty for face guarding unless you obviously impede the receiver (the rules for PI should be the same whether you are facing the receiver or not).

[Speedy]

Also, why can't the NFL just do away with the extra point?

Because the extra point is like a reward for scoring a TD, a free throw so to speak.

I don't like messing with what works. Other than some ticky-tack stuff that's turning the game to touch football, there's nothing I'd change. The game works just the way it is, and works well.

[Nawzer]

Originally Posted by Speedy

Because the extra point is like a reward for scoring a TD, a free throw so to speak.

I don't like messing with what works. Other than some ticky-tack stuff that's turning the game to touch football, there's nothing I'd change. The game works just the way it is, and works well.

I understand your logic there but I don't think I quite agree with the free throw analogy. Free throws are rewarded to a player who's been fouled. It's a reward for trying to score a basket but not given the proper opporutnity to do so. Just because you make a basket doesn't mean you get to shoot a free throw for "reward" unless it's a continuation. In my view, getting the six points awarded to your team for getting into the endzone IS the reward. Why should there be an additional point after that?

[bah007]

Originally Posted by Nawzer

I understand your logic there but I don't think I quite agree with the free throw analogy. Free throws are rewarded to a player who's been fouled. It's a reward for trying to score a basket but not given the proper opporutnity to do so. Just because you make a basket doesn't mean you get to shoot a free throw for "reward" unless it's a continuation. In my view, getting the six points awarded to your team for getting into the endzone IS the reward. Why should there be an additional point after that?

I'm not sure what your problem with the PAT is...

Do you think only TDs should count?

No more PATs, safeties, FGs...

[Thorn]

If there was only the option of the kick for one point, I think I might agree with just doing away with it. But since you can go for two points (or the one) I think it should stay.

I also don't have a problem with the pass interference rules as they are, as far as the penalty goes. But I could see treating pass interference like face masking, giving the officials the option of a serious or minor infraction and basing the penalty in yardage on that.

I think on unsportsmanlike like conduct, the player guilty of it has to stay on the bench for 15 minutes of game time. Upon his second in the same game, he's ejected.

[Speedy]

Originally Posted by Nawzer

I understand your logic there but I don't think I quite agree with the free throw analogy. Free throws are rewarded to a player who's been fouled. It's a reward for trying to score a basket but not given the proper opporutnity to do so. Just because you make a basket doesn't mean you get to shoot a free throw for "reward" unless it's a continuation. In my view, getting the six points awarded to your team for getting into the endzone IS the reward. Why should there be an additional point after that?

OK, not a good analogy, but the extra point has been around since the beginning of the game, back to it's rugby roots when a TD was worth 1 point and the free kick was worth 4. 1912 is when they changed to the current points for TD and PAT's.

I just don't see why you want to change a rule that's been around since the beginning of time. There's nothing wrong with an extra point. Changing rules like pass interference or whatever is one thing, changing the structure of the game is another.

[edo783]

Originally Posted by bah007

The only thing I want to see changed is pass interference. Everything else is great.

If I was in charge, the NFL would have two options:

1. Pass interference would be a 15 yard penalty max and a spot foul inside of 15 yards. There would be no automatic 1st down on a pass interference, holding, or illegal contact penalty against the defense.
Ex.- a PI on a 20 yard pass on 2nd & 16 would move to 2nd & 1.

OR

2. The rules for pass interference should be changed. Putting your hand on a guy's hip so you can turn to the ball without losing him should NOT be a penalty. There should be no penalty for face guarding unless you obviously impede the receiver (the rules for PI should be the same whether you are facing the receiver or not).

OK, let me guess, you are/where a defensive player. LOL

[bah007]

Originally Posted by edo783

OK, let me guess, you are/where a defensive player. LOL

...I played cornerback.

I thought the rules were fine a few years ago, but then they started making it harder and harder for the defensive player.

Besides QB, CB is the hardest position on the field to play. And that gap is closing because of the rule changes.

[Nawzer]

Originally Posted by Speedy

OK, not a good analogy, but the extra point has been around since the beginning of the game, back to it's rugby roots when a TD was worth 1 point and the free kick was worth 4. 1912 is when they changed to the current points for TD and PAT's.

I just don't see why you want to change a rule that's been around since the beginning of time. There's nothing wrong with an extra point. Changing rules like pass interference or whatever is one thing, changing the structure of the game is another.

I understand. I think if we're talking about reward, how about rewarding the team with that one point if they block it? I think that's a fair reward.

[awtysst]

I would change the whole Challenge system. I would say that anything at all is up for a challenge. I say ANYTHING at all can be challenged. For example, the lack of a penalty could be challenged, the spot of a ball could be challenged, a ref making a mistake and calling a penalty that should not have been called also could be challenged. I say ANYTHING from the coin flip to the end of the game would be open to a potential challenge.

The thing is I would still say each coach gets 2 challenges and if they are successful they get an extra. If they are not successful they lose a time out. Therefore coaches need to be prudent in those challenges and make good ones.

[Fox]

I would institute an OT system like they have in NCAA. I find that to be more exciting and it seems more fair to me.

[Speedy]

Originally Posted by Fox

I would institute an OT system like they have in NCAA. I find that to be more exciting and it seems more fair to me.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

That isn't even football!!

[Texaninlild]

Originally Posted by Fox

I would institute an OT system like they have in NCAA. I find that to be more exciting and it seems more fair to me.

Exactly. I hate the OT in the NFL. The one thing the NCAA got right.

You do not mess with the point system in the NFL.

[drewmar74]

All field goals are not created equal.

55 yards and up - 1 point.

40 - 55 yards out - 2 points.

chip shot to 40 yards - 3 points.

teams that get better field position get rewarded for their time and effort.

[The1ApplePie]

Originally Posted by Speedy

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

That isn't even football!!

Every level of football uses it except NFL

I'd say Rodger Goodell is what needs to be changed. He wants the whole NFL to play two-hand-touch or with flags

[TexanSam]

I would change the overtime system. I'd make it similar to the one the NCAA uses but not exactly the same. Each team would get the ball at the 50 yard line instead of the 20.

I'd also get rid of so many TV timeouts. Gets annoying real quickly.

[gunny]

Full time referees, the amount of costly mistake made this year has shown it is needed.

In regards to Overtime, I'd like to see a team get a chance to respond if scored against, though having kick off and all, not start at a certain place like in NCAA

[BattleRedToro]

1) Move the Pro Bowl to the same city that is awarded the Super Bowl and play it on the weekend before the Super Bowl. Any players elected to the Pro Bowl that are on the Super Bowl teams would not play and alternates would take their places.

2) Consider either playing the Super Bowl on a Saturday instead of Sunday, or starting the game a little earlier on Sunday. For instance, actual kickoff was at 6:30 PM ET. Why not move it to 4:30 PM ET?

3) Overtime should be a normal full quarter, or become sudden death upon each team having 1 offensive possession. For instance, under the revised sudden death format, Team A wins the coin toss, receives and scores a FG, then Team B would receive the ball from a kickoff, just like normal. If Team B doesn't score, then game over Team A wins. If Team B scores a TD, then game over Team B wins. If Team B scores a FG, then overtime would continue but the next team to score would win.

4) I also agree with needing full time referees, and ...

5) coaches should be able to challenge more, as explained in previous posts.

[Showtime100]

Originally Posted by Speedy

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

That isn't even football!!

I agree totally Speedy. I'm not sure, but I think it was you and I that had a discussion a few weeks ago about OT and how to make it better. I'll edit this post with a lick if I have time to find it later this morning, but I would much rather keep it the way it is (which if memory serves was your positition) than to institute a form of NCAA OT rules.

====================================

As for my on the thread topic. I've always wondered why a safety, the accomplishment of forcing the opponent off a cliff if you will, is only worthy of two points. The problem then is how many points do you allow for forcing an opponent - against their will - into the endzone and once you've increased the reward for a safety do you still allow the team the caused the safety to get the ball back?

Well, if it weren't for the team scoring the safety getting the ball back I would hate the lack of points awarded for a safety, as it is I would still have the rule changed to a 4 point safety + the football back via a normal kickoff. That way you have your safety, 4 points, and the ball back, but if you get good field position after the kickoff it was due to good special teams and not because the spot of the kickoff was so deep in the opponent's territory.

In short: instead of 2 pts and a free kick at the 20, 4 pts and a normal kickoff to the team that scored the safety.

Please understand I haven't really thought this out as much as I would like, but thought I would throw it out there and see what you guys thought. If 4 pts and the ball sounds a little steep or radical, just think about how rare and radical a safety is. It would add impotance to a great punt inside the 5 as well.

Let the bashing begin, I need to make some coffee.