2014 NFL Rules & Other Changes

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
I think it's worth a separate thread to track all the proposed/accepted rules changes for 2014.
 
Goodell comes out and says NFL will consider eliminating the extra points:
 
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1930570-roger-goodell-says-nfl-is-considering-eliminating-the-extra-point
 
(also discussed separately here: http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/81497-roger-goodell-says-the-nfl-will-explore-eliminating-the-extra-point/)
 
NFL is also considering playoff seeding based on records:
 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/01/03/nfl-considering-sort-of-seeding-based-on-records/
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
Goodell has plainly stated that playoff re-seeding isn't happening. I have to agree with him, it would lessen the importance of division games.

"I don't think there is momentum for that," Goodell told former Associated Press White House correspondent Ben Feller in an interview at the 92nd St. Y. "I would probably disagree. There may be momentum in the media, that happens when you see San Francisco going to Green Bay, but one of the premises we start with every season is that your first objective is to win the division. And when you win the division, you should have a home game."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000310694/article/roger-goodell-no-momentum-for-playoff-reseeding
 

Morning Woodhead

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2011
967
There are a bunch of rule changes I think the NFL should look at, but I don't think re-seeding should be one of them.  Every few years its an issue, but divisions are cyclical, just look at the NFC West.  If you play 6 games against your division (37.5% of your schedule) there should be a reward for that. 
 

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
Morning Woodhead said:
There are a bunch of rule changes I think the NFL should look at, but I don't think re-seeding should be one of them.  Every few years its an issue, but divisions are cyclical, just look at the NFC West.  If you play 6 games against your division (37.5% of your schedule) there should be a reward for that. 
 
Totally agree with this. Over the long run the fairness balances out with the NFC West being the best example. Division titles should mean something or we should just get rid of divisions altogether, and I don't sense any appetite for that at all.
 
It can be a tough break for the players because careers are short. Most of the Arizona players who got the short end of a brutal division this year weren't around to benefit from the weakness of that division when the Cardinals made their Super Bowl run. But for fans and ownership it's fair over the long haul.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
Roger Goodell: Penalized hits could become reviewable http://t.co/9C4oDAZHvv via @cbssports


Don't know if this proposed change should be its own thread. But this is long overdue and needed.
 

CoffeeNerdness

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 6, 2012
8,711
So will a penalty challenge be one of the two a team has per game?  Can a team challenge a call they believe the refs missed?
 
This looks like the first step towards PI being reviewable as well.
 

Morning Woodhead

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 16, 2011
967
soxhop411 said:
Roger Goodell: Penalized hits could become reviewable http://t.co/9C4oDAZHvv via @cbssports


Don't know if this proposed change should be its own thread. But this is long overdue and needed.
 
BB is right on this one.  If we want to allow coaches to challenge, let them challenge EVERYTHING.  Same rules with 2 challenges, but you can challenge any play you want.  Solves a lot of the dumb reviewable/not reviewable issues we have today. 
 
Also, while we're changing rules, can we change the "fumble through the endzone, other teams gets the ball at the 20 rule".  To me, that is the most arbitrary rule in the game. 
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,586
Panama
soxhop411 said:
Roger Goodell: Penalized hits could become reviewable http://t.co/9C4oDAZHvv via @cbssports


Don't know if this proposed change should be its own thread. But this is long overdue and needed.
Or maybe the personal fouls/helmet to helmet/hit to the head/facemask should have automatic review.  They call a hit to the head, let's see if it really was a hit to the head.  Also valid for someone upstairs to call it if the referees don't see it.  If the idea is to avoid such hits I'd be on board with this.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
They might want to look into being able to review the "everyone knows that ball was wrestled away by the guy whose leg just got shredded, but since the call on the field didn't go that way, we can't change the possession rule"
 

Bucknahs Bum Ankle

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2003
8,487
Taintopolis
Morning Woodhead said:
 
Also, while we're changing rules, can we change the "fumble through the endzone, other teams gets the ball at the 20 rule".  To me, that is the most arbitrary rule in the game. 
 
See, I'd change this one the other way.  Any fumble out of bounds, the opposing team gets the ball where it went out (through the endzone remains a touchback and is now consistent).  I think possession should be completely lost once the fumble occurs and only regained by successfully recovering the ball.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
If you can only regain possession by recovering that fumble, why award the team that never had it?
 

Bucknahs Bum Ankle

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2003
8,487
Taintopolis
You are penalizing the team that lost it.  They don't get it back unless they recover it.  Other team gets rewarded by default (they likely caused the fumble).
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
They already penalize the offense for not recovering the ball. If it goes out of bounds behind the line of scrimmage, it is then moved to where the ball goes out of bounds. How much more penalty do you want than that?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Bucknahs Bum Ankle said:
 
See, I'd change this one the other way.  Any fumble out of bounds, the opposing team gets the ball where it went out (through the endzone remains a touchback and is now consistent).  I think possession should be completely lost once the fumble occurs and only regained by successfully recovering the ball.
So do you get a new set of downs if you fumble and then recover the fumble?
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
I think they should revisit the possession rules as I believe these lead to a lot of "kill shots".  I don't remember nearly as many big hits on WR when 2 feet down equaled possession because defenders were focused on playing the ball not knocking out the WR while he is attempting to get both feet down, make a football move and not fumble going to the ground.  There is simply way too big a window now for a defender to take out a player to ensure the catch is ruled incomplete.  It also leads to a lot of grey area on the officiating side because now they not only have to look for possession throughout the catch but they also have to look for a "football move" and the ball can't move at all if they are going out of bounds.
 
If the league is serious about injury prevention I think they should go back to 2 feet down or any other body part down equals possession and the second you are down the play is over.  This now enables the WR to brace for contact with the ground and not worry about losing the ball.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Morning Woodhead said:
 
BB is right on this one.  If we want to allow coaches to challenge, let them challenge EVERYTHING.  Same rules with 2 challenges, but you can challenge any play you want.  Solves a lot of the dumb reviewable/not reviewable issues we have today. 
 
Also, while we're changing rules, can we change the "fumble through the endzone, other teams gets the ball at the 20 rule".  To me, that is the most arbitrary rule in the game. 
 
Indeed. It should be spotted at the field position where the fumble occurred with the offense still in possession. The illegal batting rules prevent an offensive player from trying to knock it out on purpose if they think the D is going to recover.
 
Lose Remerswaal said:
They might want to look into being able to review the "everyone knows that ball was wrestled away by the guy whose leg just got shredded, but since the call on the field didn't go that way, we can't change the possession rule"
 
Indeed.  That seems so obvious, I'll be surprised if they don't change the possession-not-reviewable rule. The announcers mentioned something about this near the end of the NFCCG when it was clear that SF recovered the fumble on the 1 (which I think is what you are referring to.)
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
TMQ had this to say about fumbles.
 
"Adventures in Officiating: Everyone agrees NaVorro Bowman recovered Seattle's fumble at the San Francisco 1. Even the football gods agreed, causing Seattle to lose another fumble on the next snap. The frustrating part was that replay review can't overturn a fumble ruling on the field. That needs to be corrected in the offseason. The reasoning is that dog piles following a fumble often are impossible to see into, so replay won't show anything definitive. In this case, replay did have a definitive view.
TMQ maintains that officials consistently call this situation incorrectly. When the ball comes out and a player on the ground grabs it, the whistle should sound immediately. The play should be over the instant a fumble is possessed by a man on the ground who's in contact with an opponent. Instead, officials tend to let the boys fight it out in the dog pile, where matters quickly become Darwinian."
 
I agree.  And it reminds me of the Pierre Woods recovery of Eli Manning's fumble in SB42.  Woods *HAD THE BALL* in his possession lying on the ground, and then Bradshaw dove in and wrestled it away.  Now, give Bradshaw credit (and, likewise, give Woods grief), but the instant Bradshaw touched Woods, it should have been play over, Patriots' ball.  It turned out to be an important play in the game.  
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
ivanvamp said:
TMQ had this to say about fumbles.
 
"Adventures in Officiating: Everyone agrees NaVorro Bowman recovered Seattle's fumble at the San Francisco 1. Even the football gods agreed, causing Seattle to lose another fumble on the next snap. The frustrating part was that replay review can't overturn a fumble ruling on the field. That needs to be corrected in the offseason. The reasoning is that dog piles following a fumble often are impossible to see into, so replay won't show anything definitive. In this case, replay did have a definitive view.
TMQ maintains that officials consistently call this situation incorrectly. When the ball comes out and a player on the ground grabs it, the whistle should sound immediately. The play should be over the instant a fumble is possessed by a man on the ground who's in contact with an opponent. Instead, officials tend to let the boys fight it out in the dog pile, where matters quickly become Darwinian."
 
I agree.  And it reminds me of the Pierre Woods recovery of Eli Manning's fumble in SB42.  Woods *HAD THE BALL* in his possession lying on the ground, and then Bradshaw dove in and wrestled it away.  Now, give Bradshaw credit (and, likewise, give Woods grief), but the instant Bradshaw touched Woods, it should have been play over, Patriots' ball.  It turned out to be an important play in the game.  
 
As I understand it, the rules are such that the if player B wrestles it away from player A after A had recovered the fumble, possession goes to player A's team. The problem is that the officials often can't tell in real time that player A had full, sole possession, especially when a pile ensues, so their hands are tied.
 
I'm not sure what is being proposed. If they are saying that the act of getting on the pile after the whistle should be penalized, then I like the idea.
 

Bucknahs Bum Ankle

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2003
8,487
Taintopolis
Super Nomario said:
OK, then you don't really mean the fumbling team loses possession on the fumble, or you're changing rules around possession.
 
Well, I think you could say possession is lost but may be regained in conformance with the previous possession if recovered by the fumbling team. Not that big of a tweak, IMO.  You certainly can't reward the offense with a new set of downs on every recovered fumble. 
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
22,774
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
Change the rule so that close plays in which a score MAY have occurred are reviewable regardless of call on field. Really ridiculous that automatic reviews can only hurt the offense on close calls, but not help.
 
Allow coaches to hold their reviews if they want the guaranteed ability to challenge a play in the final 2 min. I understand the NFL wants to ensure that the automatic reviews help teams in crunch time when they may have no challenges left. But...its monumentally stupid to force teams to sit idly and take away their power when it matters most.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
j44thor said:
I think they should revisit the possession rules as I believe these lead to a lot of "kill shots".  I don't remember nearly as many big hits on WR when 2 feet down equaled possession because defenders were focused on playing the ball not knocking out the WR while he is attempting to get both feet down, make a football move and not fumble going to the ground.  There is simply way too big a window now for a defender to take out a player to ensure the catch is ruled incomplete.  It also leads to a lot of grey area on the officiating side because now they not only have to look for possession throughout the catch but they also have to look for a "football move" and the ball can't move at all if they are going out of bounds.
 
If the league is serious about injury prevention I think they should go back to 2 feet down or any other body part down equals possession and the second you are down the play is over.  This now enables the WR to brace for contact with the ground and not worry about losing the ball.
I dont hate the rule change, but I dont totally understand how it reduces kill shots by turning incompletions into fumbles.   
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
Stitch01 said:
I dont hate the rule change, but I dont totally understand how it reduces kill shots by turning incompletions into fumbles.   
 
My premise is that defenders would play the ball more instead of playing the man since possession would be granted quicker and the play over sooner once the offensive player was down by contact.
 
Also definitely agree that all "potential" scoring plays should be reviewed not just ones where the on-field official rules a TD.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Are you saying that if the player gets two feet down then gets hit immediately the play is over or is that a fumble?
 
If its a fumble, Im still missing the player safety aspect.  Instead of causing an incomplete pass, I just caused a fumble.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
“@shalisemyoung: re centralized officiating review: Goodell says comp cmte will consider it in coming months, "possibility" some version of that will occur”
https://twitter.com/shalisemyoung/status/429296157488336896
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
ivanvamp said:
Please no to the London franchise. That would be awful.
London isn't a football hotbed, but the sheer numbers make it a viable market.

Full disclosure: my son is, inexplicably, a Jags fan, so I have a dog in this fight -- in a few years , when I surprise him with Jags tix, I'd much rather be traveling to London than Jacksonville.
 

JMDurron

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,127
maufman said:
London isn't a football hotbed, but the sheer numbers make it a viable market.

Full disclosure: my son is, inexplicably, a Jags fan, so I have a dog in this fight -- in a few years , when I surprise him with Jags tix, I'd much rather be traveling to London than Jacksonville.
What the hell did you do to your kid? Nick Punto and the Jacksonville Jaguars?

Too many David and Goliath stories?
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
 
Rule change proposals:
1. Move the kickoff to the 40-yard line.
2. Expand instant replay to include personal foul penalties.
3. Eliminate overtime in the preseason.
4. Extend the goal posts an additional five feet above the cross bar.
5. Move the line of scrimmage for one-point extra point kicks to the defensive team’s 25-yard line. Two-point conversion attempts would still be snapped from the 2-yard line.
6. Put six cameras on all boundary lines — sideline, goal line, end line, to guarantee coverage for replay reviews.
7. Permit a coach to challenge any official’s decision, except scoring plays which are automatically reviewed.
8. Protect players from getting the sides of their legs rolled up on — the rule already says a blocker can’t hit an opponent in the back of the legs, this proposal will add “or side” to the rule.
9. Allow the referee to consult with members of the NFL officiating department during replay reviews. The referee would be able to speak with the command center in New York to help in reviewing a play.
10. Re-organize the rules about what can be reviewed and what cannot be reviewed, including making the recovery of a loose ball in the field of play reviewable. (This is referred to as the NaVorro Bowman rule, after a controversial call in the NFC Championship Game.)
11. Don’t stop the clock on a sack.
12. Modify pass interference so that it can be called within one yard of the line of scrimmage.
13. Enforce defensive fouls behind the line of scrimmage from the previous spot, rather than from the end of the run or from the spot of the foul.
Bylaw proposals:
1. Raise the number of active players on game day from 46 to 49 for regular-season games played on a day other than Sunday or Monday, excluding Week One.
2. Raise the practice squad limit from eight players to 10 players.
3. Permit clubs to trade players prior to the start of the league year.
4. Eliminate the cut-down to 75 players during training camp and instead just have one cut-down from 90 players to 53 players.
5. Permit more than one player to return to the active list from injured reserve so that any player on injured reserve could return after six weeks.
6. Permit each club to time and test up to 10 draft-eligible players at its facility, and allow any club that wishes to attend timing and testing at another team’s facility.
7. Adjust the time of the roster reduction from 53 after the fourth preseason game from 6 p.m. Eastern to 4 p.m. Eastern. All teams would have to have their list of final cuts in by 4 p.m.
Resolution proposal:
1. Permit a home team with a retractable roof to open or close its roof at halftime, instead of having to determine at the start of the game whether it is open or closed.
 
 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/19/competition-committee-announces-new-rule-bylaw-proposals/
 
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
12,750
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
soxhop411 said:
 

 
Rule change proposals[SIZE=1em]:[/SIZE]
1. Move the kickoff to the 40-yard line.
2. Expand instant replay to include personal foul penalties.
3. Eliminate overtime in the preseason.
4. Extend the goal posts an additional five feet above the cross bar.
5. Move the line of scrimmage for one-point extra point kicks to the defensive team’s 25-yard line. Two-point conversion attempts would still be snapped from the 2-yard line.
6. Put six cameras on all boundary lines — sideline, goal line, end line, to guarantee coverage for replay reviews.
7. Permit a coach to challenge any official’s decision, except scoring plays which are automatically reviewed.
8. Protect players from getting the sides of their legs rolled up on — the rule already says a blocker can’t hit an opponent in the back of the legs, this proposal will add “or side” to the rule.
9. Allow the referee to consult with members of the NFL officiating department during replay reviews. The referee would be able to speak with the command center in New York to help in reviewing a play.
10. Re-organize the rules about what can be reviewed and what cannot be reviewed, including making the recovery of a loose ball in the field of play reviewable. (This is referred to as the NaVorro Bowman rule, after a controversial call in the NFC Championship Game.)
11. Don’t stop the clock on a sack.
12. Modify pass interference so that it can be called within one yard of the line of scrimmage.
13. Enforce defensive fouls behind the line of scrimmage from the previous spot, rather than from the end of the run or from the spot of the foul.
Bylaw proposals:
1. Raise the number of active players on game day from 46 to 49 for regular-season games played on a day other than Sunday or Monday, excluding Week One.
2. Raise the practice squad limit from eight players to 10 players.
3. Permit clubs to trade players prior to the start of the league year.
4. Eliminate the cut-down to 75 players during training camp and instead just have one cut-down from 90 players to 53 players.
5. Permit more than one player to return to the active list from injured reserve so that any player on injured reserve could return after six weeks.
6. Permit each club to time and test up to 10 draft-eligible players at its facility, and allow any club that wishes to attend timing and testing at another team’s facility.
7. Adjust the time of the roster reduction from 53 after the fourth preseason game from 6 p.m. Eastern to 4 p.m. Eastern. All teams would have to have their list of final cuts in by 4 p.m.
Resolution proposal:
1. Permit a home team with a retractable roof to open or close its roof at halftime, instead of having to determine at the start of the game whether it is open or closed.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/19/competition-committee-announces-new-rule-bylaw-proposals/
 
What the fuck? I guess if it applies to both offensive and defensive pass interference, the Broncos (and to a lesser extent the Patriots) will have to come up with an entirely new gameplan.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
#12 is nuclear stupid.  Must be the Broncos asking for that one with all the bubble screens they run.
 
I like #3 and #8.  OT in preseason is pointless, nobody's trying to win those games.  And they do need more protection for linemen.
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
I thought #12 would hurt the Broncos, isnt the rule now that the offense can rub off defenders within one yard of the LOS and it wasnt offensive PI i.e. pick plays are legal in that space?  I assumed that's what the rule was trying to address.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,463
Somewhere
#12 would have been huge for the chuck-it-deep 2007 Patriots and other similar teams. Imagine Randy Moss without press coverage?
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
Devizier said:
#12 would have been huge for the chuck-it-deep 2007 Patriots and other similar teams. Imagine Randy Moss without press coverage?
 
DBs should still be able to press under the rule, since contact is still allowed under five yards. I think this is actually aimed more at offenses that run quick pick plays, most notably Denver. Do we know who proposed the rule?
 
Two others that stood out to me are the kickoff from the 40 and finally extending the goalposts vertically so we can deal with fewer of these unnecessary and impossible judgment calls.
 

mpx42

New Member
Apr 23, 2010
2,684
Seattle, WA
I agree, I think it's about picks set at the line of scrimmage (the Patriots run these too) and nothing to do with press coverage. Press coverage isn't going anywhere. Although listening to Richard Sherman whine would almost be worth it.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Corsi said:
 
Good.  Most boring, unimaginative touchdown celebration there is.  Glad it's banned.
 
Bullshit--if I could do that I would do it every day.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
You are now allowed to clap politely and then gently hand the ball over to the referee while quietly jogging back to your sideline. Surprised they haven't outlawed the spike celebration for touchdowns.
 

DannyHeep

well trained post artisan
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 15, 2003
17,398
Blacklick
bsj said:
Change the rule so that close plays in which a score MAY have occurred are reviewable regardless of call on field. Really ridiculous that automatic reviews can only hurt the offense on close calls, but not help.
 
Allow coaches to hold their reviews if they want the guaranteed ability to challenge a play in the final 2 min. I understand the NFL wants to ensure that the automatic reviews help teams in crunch time when they may have no challenges left. But...its monumentally stupid to force teams to sit idly and take away their power when it matters most.
 
Agree. That is one of the dumbest rules out there. Review everything inside the 2 yard line. Obvious plays that are short, get a quick look by the ref upstairs just like the plays at the end of the game do.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
Corsi said:
 
Good.  Most boring, unimaginative touchdown celebration there is.  Glad it's banned.
 
Well, it may be boring or whatever, but why ban it? Who gives a shit?
 
Are those kids still on your lawn?
 

JerBear

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,582
Leeds, ME
DrewDawg said:
 
Well, it may be boring or whatever, but why ban it? Who gives a shit?
 
Are those kids still on your lawn?
Because the people that can't quite do it right take the uprights out of alignment. It delays the game while they fix it.
 

trekfan55

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 29, 2004
11,586
Panama
So if it passes, does that mean that they can review whether in fact the QB's facemask was touched? One year too late for the 9ers, who basically lost the division on that call vs the Saints.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
JerBear said:
Because the people that can't quite do it right take the uprights out of alignment. It delays the game while they fix it.
 
Well, there you go. Penalize the guys that fuck up the goal posts, not everyone.
 
That said, I've never, ever remember coming back from a commercial and there being a delay attributed to this.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Regarding the goalpost dunk, I like the rule because I don't really care for gimmick celebrations. Spontaneous outbursts of excitement like pumping a fist after a sack, or spiking the ball after a TD, I'm fine with. I don't like TD dances. I didn't like Randy Moss' thing that he did. Mind you, they don't drive me nuts or anything - I just prefer the game without them - it's just a matter of preference. If I'm in the minority, though, I'd be happy to keep them legal. A solution to the "problem" could be that doing anything that delays the game, be it unleveling the crossbar or anything else, is a personal foul.