Here we go:
View: https://twitter.com/NFLFootballOps/status/1237453921498456065
I like the replay one.
View: https://twitter.com/NFLFootballOps/status/1237453921498456065
I like the replay one.
So no fix to the punt / penalty clock scenario? WTFHere we go:
View: https://twitter.com/NFLFootballOps/status/1237453921498456065
I like the replay one.
I think that's covered in the Dolphins proposal. Even if not, the competition committee can make its own proposalsSo no fix to the punt / penalty clock scenario? WTF
Ah that makes senseI think that's covered in the Dolphins proposal. Even if not, the competition committee can make its own proposals
came into the thread to post this. not just from a safety standpoint, I think they're fun to watch.I'm really liking the XFL kickoffs. Wouldn't mind the NFL adopting that.
Where do you draw the line though on the second point? Wasn't Harry called out at like the 5 against KC when he really scored? I don't know how you would write that rule.I really wish that the whole coach's challenge aspect would be replaced with the booth official proposal. Basically make it similar to soccer's VAR. Let the booth official and referee decide which plays get reviewed.
Short of that, I would like to see all plays marked down on the 1 or closer (either end) be subject to automatic review. It seems silly to me that if the on-field official marks a ball down at the 1" line, it doesn't get reviewed, but if he says its a TD, it does get reviewed. Treat both plays the same.
Henry was marked out at the 3. So maybe you say anything inside the 3. Or it could be any play where the player ends up in the end zone as part of the play, regardless of where the ref spots the ball. I'm less concerned about that detail as I am about the stupidly unbalanced current situation where only the plays ruled as TD get reviewed. Which is absurdly dumb.Where do you draw the line though on the second point? Wasn't Harry called out at like the 5 against KC when he really scored? I don't know how you would write that rule.
I hear what you are saying, it just gets tricky. You could coach all receivers who are judged to have stepped out of bounds to continue to the end zone even if they are on their own 20 yard line. I think the only true solution here is sky judge.Henry was marked out at the 3. So maybe you say anything inside the 3. Or it could be any play where the player ends up in the end zone as part of the play, regardless of where the ref spots the ball. I'm less concerned about that detail as I am about the stupidly unbalanced current situation where only the plays ruled as TD get reviewed. Which is absurdly dumb.
Not all 4th and 15s are created equal, but I agree with you, that it would be interesting and exciting.Quick check: last year, 3 out of 30 onside kicks were recovered by the kicking team. Over the period 2002-2018, according to this article, the success rate on certain 4th-and-15 plays was somewhat higher: about 17%. I think that a 4th-and-15 play from scrimmage would be more exciting to watch, simply because the outcome is more uncertain.
These are excellent questions. The defensive holding, in particular, would be an absolute KILLER for the defense.I'm fine with 4th and 15. I think I saw that intentional onsides had something like a 19-20% success rate prior to the new rules.
One thing that the league will have to think through: how penalties will affect it. A few examples:
1) Offensive team converts, but is called for holding. Does that mean they failed? Or does it mean a re-do on 4th and 25?
2) Defensive team commits 5 yard penalty but "automatic" first down - e.g., defensive holding or illegal contact. Will that actually mean a conversion? Or will it mean a re-try on 4th and 10?
3) If the scoring team is assessed a dead ball penalty after the touchdown - something that could formerly be assessed either on the try or on the ensuing kickoff - would it still mean 4th and 15, but from the 10 instead of the 25? Or would it mean 4th and 30 from the 10?
My brother brought up another good point: will the clock run on a conversion if in the field of play? (answer should obviously be yes, but NFL)These are excellent questions. The defensive holding, in particular, would be an absolute KILLER for the defense.
That is probably a yes.My brother brought up another good point: will the clock run on a conversion if in the field of play? (answer should obviously be yes, but NFL)
Here are my guesses:I'm fine with 4th and 15. I think I saw that intentional onsides had something like a 19-20% success rate prior to the new rules.
One thing that the league will have to think through: how penalties will affect it. A few examples:
1) Offensive team converts, but is called for holding. Does that mean they failed? Or does it mean a re-do on 4th and 25?
2) Defensive team commits 5 yard penalty but "automatic" first down - e.g., defensive holding or illegal contact. Will that actually mean a conversion? Or will it mean a re-try on 4th and 10?
3) If the scoring team is assessed a dead ball penalty after the touchdown - something that could formerly be assessed either on the try or on the ensuing kickoff - would it still mean 4th and 15, but from the 10 instead of the 25? Or would it mean 4th and 30 from the 10?
The NFL is limiting this to twice per team per game.If the 4th-and-15 conversion rule were introduced to the Big 12 or one or two other college conferences where defense is obsolete, you might see some teams decide to never kick off - what have they got to lose?
That’s kind of a biggie.View: https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/status/1263811703973838850
Albert Breer
NFL owners will vote on bylaw proposals next week to change IR rules in two significant ways, I'm told. 1) Increase the number of players that teams can designate for return off IR from 2 to 3. 2) Make players placed on IR the day before the cutdown eligible to return.
Does the proposal eliminate the on-side kick or simply give the option to try the 4th and 15? I think it should be either/or. The completely out of the blue onside kicks should remain.I wonder how the league - and, more specifically, certain teams and fan-bases - will feel about this rule when particular teams's offenses are more heavily geared toward the run game. This rule does seem to favor certain systems in a way that the onside kick doesn't.
I don't think they are ruling out the surprise onsidesDoes the proposal eliminate the on-side kick or simply give the option to try the 4th and 15? I think it should be either/or. The completely out of the blue onside kicks should remain.
Honestly, who cares (not trying to be a wise guy)? The changes to a lot of rules or calls - specifically ones like pass interference, hand check, crackback blocks, kickoffs, etc - are going to inherently be better for some teams than it is for others. It is what it is. The really is no "3 yards and a cloud of dust" style teams anymore; they're at no bigger disadvantage on one play than they are all game if they have a weak passing attack and can't muster up a play for 4th and 15 (which I'd argue doesn't exist the way teams offenses are constructed anymore).I wonder how the league - and, more specifically, certain teams and fan-bases - will feel about this rule when particular teams's offenses are more heavily geared toward the run game. This rule does seem to favor certain systems in a way that the onside kick doesn't.