Possible NFL Rule changes

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,851
Not sure if this should be new thread—-Per NFL twitter folks there’s discussion of rule change limiting DPI to maximum of 15 yards and getting rid of the “going to ground” rule.


 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
What does this mean? The going to the ground rule is awful, you should be applauding this idea.
It's been awful for years. Why is this year different? Why didnt they change it after the Calvin Johnson catch/no-catch? Why didnt they change it after the Dez Bryant catch/no-catch? What are they finally addressing this?
 

Beomoose

is insoxicated
SoSH Member
May 28, 2006
21,395
Exiled
That 15 yard limit on DPI is gonna be rough for some people. When's Flacco's retirement ceremony?
 

Prodigal Sox

New Member
Jul 15, 2005
255
between the buttons
What does this mean? The going to the ground rule is awful, you should be applauding this idea.
True, but it's been a problem for at least 8 years with the Calvin Johnson play and even impacted the 2014 playoffs with the Dez Bryant play. It wasn't until the NE Pittsburgh game this year, with a play that benefited the Patriots that this became so big an issue that the league felt the need to make a change.
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,434
I wonder if limiting DPI to 15 yards means we'll see some intentional PI on deep passes (kind of like a professional foul in soccer)?

Perhaps if a DPI occurs more than 30 years down field they offense gets 15 yards plus the offending player misses the rest of the drive.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
It's been awful for years. Why is this year different? Why didnt they change it after the Calvin Johnson catch/no-catch? Why didnt they change it after the Dez Bryant catch/no-catch? What are they finally addressing this?
But that doesn't mean if they change the rule, this change won't benefit the Pats in 2018. It's a bad rule and if the James play finally got the NFL to address it, I think that is a good thing. But taking advantage of going to the ground isn't a strategy the Pats employ. This isn't quite like Bill Polian changing the DB rules in 2004.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,851
I wonder if limiting DPI to 15 yards means we'll see some intentional PI on deep passes (kind of like a professional foul in soccer)?
It doesn't really happen all that much in college. It'll be interesting to see if this change happens.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
But that doesn't mean if they change the rule, this change won't benefit the Pats in 2018. It's a bad rule and if the James play finally got the NFL to address it, I think that is a good thing. But taking advantage of going to the ground isn't a strategy the Pats employ. This isn't quite like Bill Polian changing the DB rules in 2004.
I don't think anyone here is saying that changing the rule hurts the Patriots moving forward. No, people are simply laughing at how transparent the league's motivations are is when it comes to changes like this. Pretty much everyone on this board predicted that this rule would be looked at in the off season because the Patriots were finally involved.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Yeah, something tells me the owner who proposed that change has a name that rhymes with Loony.

That said, the going-to-ground rule accomplishes three things:
1) Turns some plays that a neutral fan would watch and go "that's a catch!" into an incompletion
2) Provide absolute unambiguous standards as to the otherwise-fuzzy question of "how long is long enough to hold a pass such that it's a catch?", by going to something objective (if oddly-chosen to the layman)
3) Avoid situations where someone touches the ball, goes to ground and loses it, clearly never had it, but it's then ruled a catch and fumble and recovery by the other team.

It's not clear to me that removing the negative impact of #1, while non-zero, would be worth making problems out of current non-problems #2 and #3.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
I like the 15 yard PI rule. I hate the Flacco "chuck it deep" play. To me it isn't particularly satisfying even when the Pats benefit from it, and it sucks when it goes against you. This would tip the scales a little bit back towards the defense, which I think is overdue. College doesn't seem to have an issue with DBs just tackling guys downfield if they are beat, so I am not sure why the NFL thinks this would be an issue.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
I’m not sure I like the DPI 15 yards maximum rule. It would be a shame to see DBs and Safeties just tackling guys when they are out of position. I would be open to something where the Refs had some level of discretion to call it an “Intentional” DPI or something to that affect where they could make it a spot foul. I just feel like if they pass this rule, over the next 3 years we’ll be talking about how it is awful and they need to do something to fix it. I would think the last thing the NFL wants to do is limit the amount of big plays that are made.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Per 2017 stats, the teams that would be hurt the most by the DPI change would be the Steelers (net change of -128 yards) and the Pats (net change of -122 yards).

Do you know who wouldn’t be hurt much? The Ravens (net change of -21 yards).

I read this on BSJ, but the research was done by @NFLResearch on Twitter
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
I’m not sure I like the DPI 15 yards maximum rule. It would be a shame to see DBs and Safeties just tackling guys when they are out of position. I would be open to something where the Refs had some level of discretion to call it an “Intentional” DPI or something to that affect where they could make it a spot foul. I just feel like if they pass this rule, over the next 3 years we’ll be talking about how it is awful and they need to do something to fix it. I would think the last thing the NFL wants to do is limit the amount of big plays that are made.
What are the circumstances where that's really going to happen though? If the DB is in a position to possibly make a play on the ball, he's going to try to make a play on the ball. And in most circumstances where the DB is just plain beat but can still make contact with the receiver under the current rules they should commit the penalty rather than allow the easy catch, so I don't see how this rule change shifts that meaningfully. Is there really a circumstance in football today where a defensive player has a chance to prevent a catch downfield but will probably get called for PI, and the player makes the conscious decision to allow the receiver to catch the ball rather than take the chance of being called for a penalty?
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
It's not clear to me that removing the negative impact of #1, while non-zero, would be worth making problems out of current non-problems #2 and #3.
Yes. I'd prefer they leave it as is. It's consistent and pretty obvious.
The controversial catches are generally because the receiver doesn't know the rule and/or is careless. Its been in place quite a while now so there's no reason for a player not to know.

We'll see how it goes but I expect any changes will cause more confusion and inconsistency.

I also have zero faith in NFL officiating.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
People who think this was a Patriots-inspired change are incorrect. (IMO, obviously.)

I think there are many reasons, but the catalyst - aside from many folks hating the rule - was the difficulty the NFL faced in articulating/justifying the difference between the James play (no catch) and the Ertz play (catch) in the Super Bowl. Now, I can understand the difference. And most Pats fans understood and accepted the difference. But the NFL felt vulnerable. And nothing guarantees a reactionary change more than making the NFL league office/owners feel vulnerable.

I think they will regret this modification, since it brings back an inconsistent, subjective standard of “when does a receiver gain possession.” But it will be entertaining.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
Maybe something like defensive pass interference within 15 yards of the LOS gets rolled into "illegal contact" rule, so 5 yards and an automatic first down. Pass interference beyond 15 yards of the LOS nets a 20-yard penalty.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
What does this mean? The going to the ground rule is awful, you should be applauding this idea.
The rule isn't awful - there's just no good way to clearly define a catch that doesn't either lead to calls that look like catches being overturned, or balls that clearly weren't caught turning into fumbles. Its just messy.


Add these two changes together (making catches easier, and lessening the penalty for PI), and I see a lot of beat DBs tackling receivers.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
People who think this was a Patriots-inspired change are incorrect. (IMO, obviously.)

I think there are many reasons, but the catalyst - aside from many folks hating the rule - was the difficulty the NFL faced in articulating/justifying the difference between the James play (no catch) and the Ertz play (catch) in the Super Bowl.
Since Goodell publicly talked about changing the rule prior to the Super Bowl, I highly doubt that play had much, if anything to do with this possible change.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Since Goodell publicly talked about changing the rule prior to the Super Bowl, I highly doubt that play had much, if anything to do with this possible change.
I disagree.

It was clear they were going to address it. But after Collinsworth spent the Super Bowl bitterly criticizing the NFL for fucking up the rules, they simply threw out the rule in its entirety.
 

Jeff Van GULLY

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
4,029
If they can't separate intentional PI and a larger penalty (spot foul) from standard PI that is 15 yards, they could allow that any PI call is 15 yards, automatic 1st down and reset of game clock.

This could help prevent DB's tacking WR's at end of half/game situations. Not perfect but would give the offense an extra 15 yards and essentially a reset.

Or mandate that any PI in the endzone is automatically placed at the 1 and all other PI is 15 yards.
 

ragnarok725

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2003
6,364
Somerville MA
It's been awful for years. Why is this year different? Why didnt they change it after the Calvin Johnson catch/no-catch? Why didnt they change it after the Dez Bryant catch/no-catch? What are they finally addressing this?
I don't know that I really agree with the rule being awful. Discussion of the catch rule is probably most easily understood/organized by addressing the flow chart that has been floating around for a couple years.



Altering the rule basically means altering the flow chart. When I look at each individual decision point, it becomes difficult to figure out exactly what part of the logic is flawed. The focus is on "Did he survive contact with the ground without bobbling the ball?" Do you remove that step and end up with a ton more fumbles? Do you try to tweak the wording? Make it more complex with additional steps/pre-conditions?
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
The "Did he become a runner" decision node is fairly subjective as well.
Well they've at least removed the "football move" part of that, and focus on, what is it, 2 full steps of motion? It's not totally black-and-white like a boundary call, but it's not as bad as it used to be.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
What are the circumstances where that's really going to happen though? If the DB is in a position to possibly make a play on the ball, he's going to try to make a play on the ball. And in most circumstances where the DB is just plain beat but can still make contact with the receiver under the current rules they should commit the penalty rather than allow the easy catch, so I don't see how this rule change shifts that meaningfully. Is there really a circumstance in football today where a defensive player has a chance to prevent a catch downfield but will probably get called for PI, and the player makes the conscious decision to allow the receiver to catch the ball rather than take the chance of being called for a penalty?
Not if he’s up against Julio Jones, he isn’t, or any big, sure handed receiver with jumping ability. Because 90% of time, the DB loses that fight. Any pass over 20 yards, the receiver will be tackled and that will be a good decision.

But it’s probably irrelevant because the current rules is unlikely to be changed.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
I like the 15 yard PI rule. I hate the Flacco "chuck it deep" play. To me it isn't particularly satisfying even when the Pats benefit from it, and it sucks when it goes against you. This would tip the scales a little bit back towards the defense, which I think is overdue. College doesn't seem to have an issue with DBs just tackling guys downfield if they are beat, so I am not sure why the NFL thinks this would be an issue.
The Huck and Suck is awful, however this was a key call in the Josh McDaniels playbook this year. There were a good number of times that they went to the Huck and Suck and hoped to get a PI call later in games. I hated when they did it.

I think this rule is going to be a mess if they do it. I also wouldn't be surprised if Bill teaches the CB's that if you're close to getting beat deep, just tackle him at the knees or push him intentionally. It's the right play to do so, despite it being bad football.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
The "Did he become a runner" decision node is fairly subjective as well.
Right - but it's easy to point out decision nodes that are subjective - the hard part is finding an actual fix.

The problem isn't that the catch rule is bad, or wrong, or too subjective - the problem is that it's complicated (because it has to be) and the commentators, and most fans, can't be bothered to actually understand how it works.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
The catch rule wasn't a problem. The problem was the use of replay to make the determination, which led to the officials having to resort to the "hypertechnicalities" to determine if a catch was made. Personally, I'd prefer that they use replay to decide if the player was in or out of bounds, but otherwise let the call on the field with regards to catch/possession stand. I realize that this will never happen, so the NFL will take the way out that appeases the bottom of the fan base.

I'm wondering what they're planning to do when DPI occurs in the end zone; will it still be first down at the 1?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,851
I'm wondering what they're planning to do when DPI occurs in the end zone; will it still be first down at the 1?
If LOS was the 16 or closer then yes, if not, then just a 15 yard penalty I'd imagine.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
If LOS was the 16 or closer then yes, if not, then still a 15 yard penalty.

College puts it at the 2.
Which basically will mean that there will be almost no downside for a DB to push a receiver that is awaiting a catch in the end zone out of bounds.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,851
Which basically will mean that there will be almost no downside for a DB to push a receiver that is awaiting a catch in the end zone out of bounds.
In theory yes, but we really don't see that in college. If you could push the receiver you could possibly make a play on the ball.

In most cases the receiver is so wide open that really won't be an option, or the DB is close enough that he's just gonna go for the ball.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
I think this rule is going to be a mess if they do it. I also wouldn't be surprised if Bill teaches the CB's that if you're close to getting beat deep, just tackle him at the knees or push him intentionally. It's the right play to do so, despite it being bad football.
You could also give an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on top of that for those situations, adding an extra 15 yards for the blatancy, plus if the player racks up 2 of those, he's ejected.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,851
You could also give an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on top of that for those situations, adding an extra 15 yards for the blatancy, plus if the player racks up 2 of those, he's ejected.
That's not for every type of unsportsmanlike conduct though, it's only for these types:

1. Throwing a punch, or a forearm, or kicking at an opponent, even though no contact is made.

2. Using abusive, threatening, or insulting language or gestures to opponents, teammates, officials, or representatives of the League.

3. Using baiting or taunting acts or words that engender ill will between teams.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
But that doesn't mean if they change the rule, this change won't benefit the Pats in 2018. It's a bad rule and if the James play finally got the NFL to address it, I think that is a good thing. But taking advantage of going to the ground isn't a strategy the Pats employ. This isn't quite like Bill Polian changing the DB rules in 2004.
Which also benefited the Patriots, as it turned out they weren't cheating, they were just extremely disciplined.

I think Teddy Bruschi addressed this in his own fashion.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
People who think this was a Patriots-inspired change are incorrect. (IMO, obviously.)

I think there are many reasons, but the catalyst - aside from many folks hating the rule - was the difficulty the NFL faced in articulating/justifying the difference between the James play (no catch) and the Ertz play (catch) in the Super Bowl. Now, I can understand the difference. And most Pats fans understood and accepted the difference. But the NFL felt vulnerable. And nothing guarantees a reactionary change more than making the NFL league office/owners feel vulnerable.

I think they will regret this modification, since it brings back an inconsistent, subjective standard of “when does a receiver gain possession.” But it will be entertaining.
Interesting...

I'm intrigued. Like, it's not that all these things are about the Patriots so much as it's a response to being challenged... the Patriots just do a lot of things that seem to challenge the league, so there ends up a correlation.

And a lot of those things are fucking awesome.
 

nothumb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2006
7,065
yammer's favorite poster
I suspect that many people are overestimating the frequency with which DBs will be clearly beat deep, know they are beat and being targeted, know they can't close, know the throw is catchable, and still be able to commit deliberate PI. Especially with the kind of play the man playing the ball trail technique that the Pats seem to teach, where you can close on a faster receiver as he turns for the ball. It would be extremely exploitable if you started teaching guys to just tackle the receiver as soon as you get beat, because a lot of the time there will be help, or the QB will throw it elsewhere, etc.

It would probably only be game theory optimal to do this in very limited circumstances, e.g. if you are lined up in man with no safety help and get smoked on a double move. And you already see guys grab their man pretty often in that situation and take the illegal contact, so I don't see this rule creating a bunch of extra incentive.

ETA - I think what this really does is enable DBs who are in position to contest a deep throw to do so a bit more assertively, knowing the penalty for crossing the line is less than before, and the upside is a potential pick or a tipped ball to another DB. Which means this rule would be good news for physical, top tier DBs, and bad news for finesse speed guys like Cooks or Taylor Gabriel. Even though on paper this probably hurts the 2018 Pats more than it helps based on existing personnel, I think it's good for the game overall and BB would adjust accordingly.
 
Last edited:

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
I think you guys are all missing the fact that EVERY rule change benefits the Patriots. That's what having the best coach in the league does for you - you get to figure out the ramifications of every change sooner and adapt to them faster.
Who’s missing this? Laughing at the league for changing the rules every time the Patriots win something isn’t the same thing as being upset over said rule changes.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Maske talked to the league’s executive vice president, Troy Vinent, who said that the league will allow for some “slight movement” of the ball and will eliminate the required element of “going to the ground.” The competition committee can finalize its rules on Tuesday and then present them to the owners for approval next week. And in what is the most pleasant news for all sports fans to hear, it seems like the NFL is interested in curbing those long replays that take catches away from players who probably deserve it.

“We’ll go back to the old replay standard of reverse the call on the field only when it’s indisputable,” Vincent told Maske.
Link

"slight movement" is going to be fun
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
4,432
“We’ll go back to the old replay standard of reverse the call on the field only when it’s indisputable,” Vincent told Maske.
Did they ever officially change it?

Or is this Vincent admitting that those in NY make up their own rules as they go along because, hey, they know better than everyone else.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
Did they ever officially change it?

Or is this Vincent admitting that those in NY make up their own rules as they go along because, hey, they know better than everyone else.
I noticed that too. Like everything with the NFL, the truth is malleable:

11/7/2017 - NFL: There’s been no change to the replay standard
The NFL recently changed the buzz words for overturning a decision via replay review from “indisputable visual evidence” to “clear and obvious evidence.” The actual standard is still the same.

And despite curious application of the standard in recent weeks, the NFL says that the standard has not changed.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
Looks like they changed the catch rule. It is now control of the ball, 2 feet down or another body part down, and a "football" move such as a 3rd step/reaching or extending for the line-to-gain/or the "ability to perform such an act".

If they had just kept the first 2 lines, that would have cleared things up more. Now the football move part will keep it just as confusing as it was before. "Did he have the ability to extend the ball?" Well, not sure but it's a catch!!" The Jesse James catch/non-catch that benefited the Patriots spured this change as usual.