Proposed Rule Changes for 2016

[DanoooME]

Some real doozies on this list. My comments in italics

2016 Playing Rules Proposals

1. By Competition Committee; Permanently moves the line of scrimmage for Try kicks to the defensive team’s 15-yard line, and allows the defense to return any missed Try.

Keeping last year's rule in permanently. That's good.

2. By Competition Committee; Permits the offensive and defensive play callers on the coaching staffs to use the coach-to-player communication system regardless of whether they are on the field or in the coaches’ booth.

I would have thought this was already happening, but I guess not.

3. By Competition Committee; Makes all chop blocks illegal.

What's not clear from the article is it just chop blocks or cut blocks too? I would have thought there wasn't a legal chop block and they are referring to cut blocks here.

4. By Competition Committee; Disqualifies a player who is penalized twice in one game for certain types of unsportsmanlike conduct fouls.

Probably a lot of discussion on this one. I can see the argument both ways, but if it does pass, I'm sure something controversial will happen with the rule year 1. Also ties to #14.

5. By Competition Committee; Changes the spot of the next snap after a touchback resulting from a free kick to the 25-yard line.

Trying to encourage more returns again?

6. By Baltimore; to amend Rule 5, Sections 3, Articles 1 and 2 (Changes in Position) to require players to wear jersey vests with numbers appropriate for their positions.

LOL Harbaugh, get over yourself. Surprised they didn't propose a rule where there has to be an equal number of players on either side of the center.

7. By Baltimore; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Articles 1, 4, and 5 (Instant Replay) to provide each team with three challenges and expand reviewable plays.

Gives everyone 3 challenges regardless. Don't care either way personally.

8. By Buffalo; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Articles 1, 4, and 5 (Instant Replay) to permit a coach to challenge any official's decision except scoring plays and turnovers.

Interesting that Rex jumps on the Belichick bandwagon on this one.

9. By Carolina; to amend Rule 8, Section 2, Article 1 (Intentional Grounding) to expand the definition of intentional grounding.

Fuck you Carolina, just because your QB isn't smart enough to throw away the ball when he's in trouble. And this would result in more QB injuries, so it's likely not going to pass. Maybe we should call it the Wilson rule?

10. By Kansas City; to amend Rule 14, Section 2, Article 1 (Half-distance Penalty) to add penalty yards to the distance needed to gain a First Down.

This is interesting and I can be in favor of this. So, as explained in the article, if you are 1st and 10 on your own 10 and you get a holding penalty, it's half the distance to the goal as usual, but then the rest of the penalty yardage gets tacked on to your yards to get the 1st down, keeping it 1st and 20 instead of 1st and 15.

11. By Kansas City; to amend Rule 8, Section 1, Article 2 (Legal Forward Pass) to prohibit quarterbacks from falling to the ground, getting up, and throwing a forward pass.

LOL you get screwed by Manning on one play so you propose a rule to prohibit it? You guys should hang out with the other butthurt teams, Carolina and Baltimore.

12. By Minnesota; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Article 1 (Coaches' Challenge) to eliminate the requirement that a team be successful on each of its first two Instant Replay challenges in order to be awarded a third challenge.

Similar to #7, I'm not caring much one way or another.

13. By Washington; to amend Rule 16, Section 1, Articles 1, 4, 6 and 7 (Overtime procedures) to eliminate overtime periods in preseason games.

Makes perfect sense, make it so. It's like not playing extra innings in spring training if the teams don't want to.

14. By Washington; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Article 4 (Reviewable Plays) to subject personal foul penalties to Instant Replay review.

Could be a good part of #4 to prevent a possible screwjob (or cause more controversy)

15. By Washington; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Article 1 (Coaches' Challenge) to eliminate the requirement that a team be successful on each of its first two Instant Replay challenges in order to be awarded a third challenge.

Ties to #7 and #12. Not sure why it's listed twice.

16. By Competition Committee; Expands the horse collar rule to include when a defender grabs the jersey at the name plate or above and pulls a runner toward the ground.

Totally agree with this one. Takes out a lot of the judgement in the call.

17. By Competition Committee; Makes it a foul for delay of game when a team attempts to call a timeout when it is not permitted to do so.

Makes sense and addresses what happened last year (can't remember which game off of the top of my head)

18. By Competition Committee; Eliminates the five-yard penalty for an eligible receiver illegally touching a forward pass after being out of bounds and re-establishing himself inbounds, and makes it a loss of down.

Is this a spot foul? Not sure I completely get this one and the linked article doesn't talk about it.

19. By Competition Committee; Eliminates multiple spots of enforcement for a double foul after a change of possession

So make multiple penalties concurrent instead of consecutive? Not sure I get this one completely either.

 

[santadevil]

2016 Playing Rules Proposals

16. By Competition Committee; Expands the horse collar rule to include when a defender grabs the jersey at the name plate or above and pulls a runner toward the ground.

Totally agree with this one. Takes out a lot of the judgement in the call.

I don't follow the NFL, but wouldn't there be one team that lowers their names on their jersey's to take advantage of this rule?
Or just put names below the numbers instead?

I'm sure there is some rule about name placement on the jersey's though.

 

[Bosoxen]

5. By Competition Committee; Changes the spot of the next snap after a touchback resulting from a free kick to the 25-yard line.

Trying to encourage more returns again?

Wouldn't this discourage returns? Now the break-even point is five yards further out, which seems to me would further disincentivize returners from taking the ball out of the end zone. For example: if a returner decides to go for it and gets tackled at the 15, he would then cost his team 10 yards of field position, as opposed to five.

 

[DJnVa]

Some real doozies on this list. My comments in italics

2016 Playing Rules Proposals

5. By Competition Committee; Changes the spot of the next snap after a touchback resulting from a free kick to the 25-yard line.

Trying to encourage more returns again?

Don't you get touchbacks at the 20? Why would it encourage more returns if we'd now get it at the 25?

Unless idea is to make teams stop drilling them into end zone.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

11. By Kansas City; to amend Rule 8, Section 1, Article 2 (Legal Forward Pass) to prohibit quarterbacks from falling to the ground, getting up, and throwing a forward pass.

LOL you get screwed by Manning on one play so you propose a rule to prohibit it? You guys should hang out with the other butthurt teams, Carolina and Baltimore.

I kind of agree with KC here - defenders shouldn't be forced to try and figure out whether a QB is 'going to ground' or just fell down - it just leads to ambiguous situations where defenders pulling up to prevent getting called for a penalty leads to a big gain.

There was a rule (and it may still be) that you couldn't hit a player who was attempting to go out of bounds - Michael Vick was the master of this - he'd run a couple feet from the sideline and fake going out of bounds when a defender got close - either the defender pulled up, or he got called for a penalty.

I think you want to do anything you can to avoid situations where a good chunk of the players on the field don't know whether the play is alive or dead. If quarterbacks want tons of protection when they go to ground untouched, they need to be down when they're on the ground.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Some real doozies on this list. My comments in italics
11. By Kansas City; to amend Rule 8, Section 1, Article 2 (Legal Forward Pass) to prohibit quarterbacks from falling to the ground, getting up, and throwing a forward pass.

LOL you get screwed by Manning on one play so you propose a rule to prohibit it? You guys should hang out with the other butthurt teams, Carolina and Baltimore.

It was the Steelers that got screwed on that play. I agree that KC is making a good rule.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

The fact that 13 needs to be proposed is beyond a joke. I never would have assumed they played OT anyway, but you'd think the league would cut it. #5 seems to be further discouraging returns. Even less incentive to bring it out of the end zone if you need to get it to the 25 to gain anything.

Edit: or what drew and bosox said

 

[savage362]

Might a compromise to #5 be something to the effect of:

If kickoff flies through the end zone (ie does not land in the end-zone) ball comes out to the 25. If ball lands short of end-zone and bounces in, lands in the end-zone, or is caught and the return team takes a knee, they get it at the 20.

That would give the kicker more incentive to kick it shorter while the return team still must decide to take a knee or return it.

 

[Import78]

I would assume that teams/punters will place more emphasis on landing the ball in the field of play. Their break even point is now 5 yards farther out so they may be more focused on a kick that lands in the field of play and is therefore returnable. A kick landing at the 15 is now a 10 yard improvement on one that goes into the end zone.

ETA: struggled with phrasing and Savage beat me to it.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Punts will still be at the 20 per the proposal, this is for "free kicks", so kick offs and free kicks after a safety. I doubt it will change the strategy much for most kickers. Trying to get cute and landing it at the five can lead to accuracy and coverage issues that could end up a lot worse than the 25.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

If they wanted to encourage more returns they would have just moved the kickers back five yards. The whole reason they moved them up was to reduce the number of returns.

I agree teams aren't going to want to risk giving up a longer return and will still take the touchback every time they can get it even with the 5 yard difference. I assume the point of the proposed new rule would be to ensure that fewer kicks would be returned when the returner catches the ball in the endzone.

 

[finnVT]

18. By Competition Committee; Eliminates the five-yard penalty for an eligible receiver illegally touching a forward pass after being out of bounds and re-establishing himself inbounds, and makes it a loss of down.

Is this a spot foul? Not sure I completely get this one and the linked article doesn't talk about it.

I imagine this means it would get treated like an incomplete pass, rather than as a penalty. Which I guess is fine... does sort of mean there's no reason not to try to come back in and make a catch if you're the receiver, since worst case is just an incomplete pass anyway.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Deleted for half-baked stupidity.

 

[Saints Rest]

I'd like to see the review rule be changed so that you are never charged with a review if the call is overturned. If the refs keep screwing up on field and your review gets the call overturned (i.e. Corrected), you shouldn't lose the ability yo challenge more bad calls. But leave bad challenges at two.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

I imagine this means it would get treated like an incomplete pass, rather than as a penalty. Which I guess is fine... does sort of mean there's no reason not to try to come back in and make a catch if you're the receiver, since worst case is just an incomplete pass anyway.

The only time I can remember seeing that called is in situations where the offense is desperate - 3rd and goal from the 20, down by a score with limited time left, etc. Usually its a 2 or 3 man rush, where the quarterback scrambles around a bunch and tries to wait until the coverage fails. Receivers aren't running routes anymore, they're just trying to get away from people.

Usually there's someone who gets knocked out of bounds, and then the quarterback throws what looks like a TD to aide open guy in the back of the endzone. The result is a 5 yard penalty and replay of downs. The loss of down instead of 5 yard penalty is way more harsh.

The downside for a receiver coming back in bound is if there are multiple receivers capable of getting open - throwing the ball to the guy who went out of bounds ends the drive.

 

[Dollar]

I'd like to see the review rule be changed so that you are never charged with a review if the call is overturned. If the refs keep screwing up on field and your review gets the call overturned (i.e. Corrected), you shouldn't lose the ability yo challenge more bad calls. But leave bad challenges at two.

Yup, I definitely agree with you here. I hate the way it is currently... the least they could do is change it so that you only need to get one of your first two challenges correct in order to use your third.

 

[KiltedFool]

Yup, I definitely agree with you here. I hate the way it is currently... the least they could do is change it so that you only need to get one of your first two challenges correct in order to use your third.

Just allow coaches to challenge calls until they have two unsuccessful challenges. If they get a crew that's missing shit left and right they shouldn't be penalized for having to fix their mistakes with the red flag.
Would also allow some accountability to the refs, if they're missing enough calls that they're getting them reversed more than the norm, they get dinged on the grades.

 

[leftfieldlegacy]

I like the proposed Rule #10 where teams get yards tacked on to a "half the distance" penalty. That's going to lead to more punts from inside the 20.

There needs to a similar way to penalize the defense when they commit a personal foul near the opposition's goal line. The play in the Superbowl where Talib tried to corkscrew the head off Panther's wide receiver Corey Brown at the 2 yard line only cost the Broncos 1 yard. Maybe delay marking off the yardage until the kickoff (assuming a score).

 

[RetractableRoof]

I really really wish they would implement injured player changes. Faking an injury to slow a team from getting a play off quickly or running a hurry up offense. They should change the injured player consequence from "missing one play" to being out until "the next change of possession or a first down which ever comes first". That raises the stakes for the fake injuries.

 

[Toe Nash]

I really really wish they would implement injured player changes. Faking an injury to slow a team from getting a play off quickly or running a hurry up offense. They should change the injured player consequence from "missing one play" to being out until "the next change of possession or a first down which ever comes first". That raises the stakes for the fake injuries.

I disagree. You don't want to incentivize players playing hurt. If someone is hurt, they go get it checked out. I agree this is annoying but the times this is abused can't really be that often.

 

[djbayko]

I disagree. You don't want to incentivize players playing hurt. If someone is hurt, they go get it checked out. I agree this is annoying but the times this is abused can't really be that often.

I'm with @RetractableRoof. It's not an incentive because playing hurt is not beneficial to the team. If their coaches cannot convince them of that fact, that's their problem.

 

[Hagios]

I'm with @RetractableRoof. It's not an incentive because playing hurt is not beneficial to the team. If their coaches cannot convince them of that fact, that's their problem.

People often valorize the toughness of athletes who play hurt, but I think their real incentive is sometimes more cynical: guys don't want their backups to get any playing time and risk losing their job.

 

[mauf]

I kind of agree with KC here - defenders shouldn't be forced to try and figure out whether a QB is 'going to ground' or just fell down - it just leads to ambiguous situations where defenders pulling up to prevent getting called for a penalty leads to a big gain.

There was a rule (and it may still be) that you couldn't hit a player who was attempting to go out of bounds - Michael Vick was the master of this - he'd run a couple feet from the sideline and fake going out of bounds when a defender got close - either the defender pulled up, or he got called for a penalty.

I think you want to do anything you can to avoid situations where a good chunk of the players on the field don't know whether the play is alive or dead. If quarterbacks want tons of protection when they go to ground untouched, they need to be down when they're on the ground.

Completely agree with this. I would go a step further and make it a 15-yard penalty for a QB to simulate the beginning of a slide, similar to the penalty for feigning a fair-catch signal. (Russell Wilson, in particular, is savvy at this.) I would also make it a point of emphasis to spot the ball on QB slide plays where the slide begins, not where it ends -- this gets screwed up more often than not.

 

[DanoooME]

Completely agree with this. I would go a step further and make it a 15-yard penalty for a QB to simulate the beginning of a slide, similar to the penalty for feigning a fair-catch signal. (Russell Wilson, in particular, is savvy at this.) I would also make it a point of emphasis to spot the ball on QB slide plays where the slide begins, not where it ends -- this gets screwed up more often than not.

No, they call this correctly all the time. Even the pinhead announcers point this out pretty much every time these slides happen.

And Russell Wilson doesn't "fake slide". There isn't a QB in the league that does that. Because if you do, you'll end up with a broken leg.

 

[mauf]

And Russell Wilson doesn't "fake slide". There isn't a QB in the league that does that. Because if you do, you'll end up with a broken leg.

What do you call it when a QB leans back (shoulders behind his feet) and a defender stops in his tracks?

I'm not knocking Wilson -- he's taking advantage of the rules as currently written, which effectively require a defender to lay off at the first hint of a slide. I'm saying the rule needs to be revised.

 

[RetractableRoof]

No, they call this correctly all the time. Even the pinhead announcers point this out pretty much every time these slides happen.

And Russell Wilson doesn't "fake slide". There isn't a QB in the league that does that. Because if you do, you'll end up with a broken leg.

Even Brady has done it once... Against the Bears I think. Might have been Urlacher he suckered. I was thinking "he's going to get stapled next time he starts to slide".

I agree w/ a fake slide penalty equivalent to a fake fair catch pemalty. Things are already so slanted towards the QBs without taking advatage of the defense trying to avoid personal foul penalties. It was sleazy when Brady did it, they shouldn't be doing it in my opinion.

 

[bsartist618]

Are you referring to this play? Gino said something about Urlacher thinking 'slide' but I didn't see anything resembling the beginning of a slide out of Brady.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I don't remember, and I might be confusing the two. But I remember reading that Brady admitted he had done it. Thanks for looking for that clip.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Do the slide rules only apply for QBs? I think any player can give himself up and put the other team at risk of a penalty for a hit. Definitely puts the defense at a disadvantage.

 

[pappymojo]

It seems to me that there is a bit of a disconnect between the grounding rule and the slide rule. When running, the quarterback can slide to avoid taking a hard tackle. In the pocket, though, the quarterback can not throw the ball away to avoid a sack. I understand that a sack is a worse outcome than an incomplete pass for the offense, and so it is not a direct comparison, but why not allow a quaterback the equivalent of a slide while in the pocket? Going to a knee isn't really the correct option. Maybe raising the hand of your nonthrowing arm. The offense would get the loss of yardage and the defensive player would get credit for the sack, but the quarterback could avoid the potential injury/fumble.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

So basically you want the QB to call a Fair Sack?

 

[pappymojo]

I don't know. It just seems weird that a quarterback can avoid the physical tackle when running but can't while in the pocket.

 

[DanoooME]

What do you call it when a QB leans back (shoulders behind his feet) and a defender stops in his tracks?

Somebody that's about to fall over?

I mean, seriously, I've never seen that and have someone continue running. Please feel free to show me anyone that can do that. That Brady play above was a fake, but it never looked like a slide. It was a total head juke like any RB would do. Urlacher just plain whiffed on the tackle and I think that's why he retired shortly thereafter because that was embarrassing.

 

[E5 Yaz]

The NFL will indeed be taking a closer look at the effectiveness of gloves. Specifically, the league will look at whether the gloves are too effective.

“There are no standards right now,” NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent said during Thursday’s conference call regarding the proposed rule changes for 2016. “We have been working with our partners — Under Armour, Nike — to see how we could adjust and have some minimum standards. The challenge is the tackiness, and the gloves now are so tacky that it’s taking away from the true skill level. So we have been working with our manufactures and partners, Virginia Tech, in trying to create a standard in all protective equipment and in particular the gloves. So that frankly is a work in progress because there is no standards in the industry and it appears that we have to create one.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/03/19/nfl-plans-to-create-a-standard-for-gloves/

 

[RedOctober3829]

No they don't. Gloves lose their tackiness after a couple weeks use.

 

[Red Right Ankle]

If that's the case, wouldn't you just buy a whole mess of them and change them when they lose tackiness?

 

[E5 Yaz]

If that's the case, wouldn't you just buy a whole mess of them and change them when they lose tackiness?

Yup

 

[RetractableRoof]

If that's the case, wouldn't you just buy a whole mess of them and change them when they lose tackiness?

If that is the case, I'd change the things at half time, never mind a couple of weeks.

The giants put the damn stuff on their helmets apparently. OK, I made that up... I'm still bitter.

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

The giants put the damn stuff on their helmets apparently. OK, I made that up... I'm still bitter.

If only Asante had too.

 

[DJnVa]

No they don't. Gloves lose their tackiness after a couple weeks use.

So? You put on another pair. Unless you're trying to make a different point here...

 

[RedOctober3829]

So? You put on another pair. Unless you're trying to make a different point here...

Nothing wrong with putting on another pair. They are acting like gloves make bad WRs suddenly good which isn't the case at all. It doesn't take away from the true skill level as Vincent suggests.

 

[RetractableRoof]

Nothing wrong with putting on another pair. They are acting like gloves make bad WRs suddenly good which isn't the case at all. It doesn't take away from the true skill level as Vincent suggests.

I don't disagree with you generally - but I have a hard time believing the two/three finger catches on the point of the ball are happening w/out the gloves.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I don't disagree with you generally - but I have a hard time believing the two/three finger catches on the point of the ball are happening w/out the gloves.

It takes great skill to make hard catches. Do gloves assist? Sure. But not to the extreme that some like Vincent are suggesting. Look at WRa that drop balls all the time and they are wearing same gloves as everyone else.

 

[RetractableRoof]

It takes great skill to make hard catches. Do gloves assist? Sure. But not to the extreme that some like Vincent are suggesting. Look at WRa that drop balls all the time and they are wearing same gloves as everyone else.

Again, I agree in general. Look at the Bennet training video in the other thread. His trainer hung weights on a football to improve his ability to catch the ball and prevent fumbles. These are talented athletes. And blind squirrels occasionally catch a falling acorn with and without the gloves. It is just a matter of perceived degree of effectiveness. In gaming terms if the gloves are a +1 to the catching skill I'm ok with it. If they are a +3 or something I'm not.

 

[jercra]

Again, I agree in general. Look at the Bennet training video in the other thread. His trainer hung weights on a football to improve his ability to catch the ball and prevent fumbles. These are talented athletes. And blind squirrels occasionally catch a falling acorn with and without the gloves. It is just a matter of perceived degree of effectiveness. In gaming terms if the gloves are a +1 to the catching skill I'm ok with it. If they are a +3 or something I'm not.

How much of a + are shoes? What's the difference, really? All receivers get to wear them so they all have the same advantage. As long as they're not so sticky that you don't have to close your hands around the ball then they're just an aid like the many others worn in many sports.

 

[E5 Yaz]

If only Asante had too.

Too soon

 

[E5 Yaz]

Despite the way Vincent expressed it, it really comes down to the question of why receivers (who might be the most fussy of all football players) are trending toward the tacky gloves. They wouldn't wear them if they didn't believe they were of some help. ... A receiver isn't going to wear something on his hands that makes it harder to catch a ball.

Now, maybe they make it 5% easier. But for an elite athlete, that 5% can be an exponential difference. It's perhaps a factor in why we see an increase in some extreme catches, particularly of the one-handed variety.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Despite the way Vincent expressed it, it really comes down to the question of why receivers (who might be the most fussy of all football players) are trending toward the tacky gloves. They wouldn't wear them if they didn't believe they were of some help. ... A receiver isn't going to wear something on his hands that makes it harder to catch a ball.

Now, maybe they make it 5% easier. But for an elite athlete, that 5% can be an exponential difference. It's perhaps a factor in why we see an increase in some extreme catches, particularly of the one-handed variety.

They aren't like super-tacky coming out of the package either. It's not like the ball sticks to the glove like fly paper. The Nike gloves haven't gotten tackier all of a sudden as long as WRs aren't pulling a Dwight Howard. I don't know why it's all of a sudden a big deal.

 

[RetractableRoof]

How much of a + are shoes? What's the difference, really? All receivers get to wear them so they all have the same advantage. As long as they're not so sticky that you don't have to close your hands around the ball then they're just an aid like the many others worn in many sports.

Next you'll be telling me it's ok for the QB to prepare the balls the way they like them...

 

[E5 Yaz]

In the aftermath of what some people called the most athletic catch in league history, Beckham acknowledged he had a small assist on the play — the red-and-white XXL Nike Vapor Jet 3.0 gloves he was wearing. But he wasn't the only one to give some love to the gloves.
"You have to be careful about the way you analyze that play because you don't want people calling you a hater or whatever," said Tim Brown, a Hall of Fame receiver. "But you can't make that play without those kind of gloves. It's just impossible.
"The guy's a freak of nature, no doubt about it, I'll give you that. He has the big hands and all that. But those gloves are so 'tackified' these days that that's part of the reason you see guys making those kinds of catches."

...

Collinsworth said the use of gloves has forever changed the game.
"Before these gloves, I'd never seen anybody make an overhand catch — when their fingers point toward the ground — below the waist, but now I see guys make those catches below the knees," he said.
"They're brilliant catches, and brilliant players, I don't want to take anything away from them. But if you played before gloves, you had to slide or dive to make that catch. Maybe somebody could make the ball stick in their hands like that, but I had never seen it."
Collinsworth, in the broadcast booth for Beckham's catch, rubbed his eyes in disbelief at that incredible play.
"Odell Beckham is probably in another class; he's got Spider-Man hands," he said. "But some of the catches you see now would be different catches. Not that they wouldn't make them, but they would be different kinds of catches."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-receiver-gloves-20150830-column.html