2015 Rule Changes

[SeoulSoxFan]

Like sands through the hourglass...
 
@BenVolin #Patriots are proposing 2 rules changes at next week's NFL meetings. 1 is to have coaches call time out instead of throw red challenge flag
 
@BenVolin #Patriots also propose extra fixed cameras in the end lines, sidelines and goal lines for Instant Replay

 

[tims4wins]

The Colts one about getting a PAT try after a successful two is awesome. I hope the Pats vote in favor of it so they can go for 2 every time next year and then tack on a bonus point every time. So every TD would be worth 9 and then instead of winning 70-0 they could win 90-0.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Ravens propose that a DUI is only a five-yard penalty

 

[soxhop411]

View attachment 894


View attachment 895

 

[soxhop411]

@CharlesRobinson: #NFL Comp Committee: Multiple challenge proposals. There will be debate about opening everything to coach's challenge - including penalties.

 

[Toe Nash]

Lost my shit at the ineligible receiver one. Harbaugh is such a baby.
 
Proposal from Ravens: Patriots have to tell us what play they're running and who Brady's first read will be.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Love the proposed rule change for an ineligible receiver.
 
I hate the TO instead of challenge unless it prevents a team from calling time out, going to commercial, then after 2-3 minutes say they NOW want a challenge after reviewing it 10 times.

 

[soxhop411]

Referee
AP
The NFL has announced that the following rule changes, bylaw changes and resolution changes will be discussed by the Competition Committee and considered by the owners at next week’s league meetings:

Rule changes

— Allow any call to be challenged.

— Allow penalties to be challenged.

— Allow coaches to challenge personal fouls.

— Allow personal fouls to be reviewed, but not necessarily on coaches’ challenges.

— Make all fouls that result in automatic first downs reviewable.

— Allow replay review of rulings related to hits on defenseless receivers.

— Review every foul for hits on defenseless players.

— Increase the number of coaches’ challenges from two to three.

— Expand replay

— Add the game clock at the end of the half and end of the game to the list of things that can be reviewed on replay.

— Add the play clock to the list of things that can be reviewed on replay.

— Put fixed cameras on all boundaries of the playing field, sidelines, goal line.

— Allow a “bonus try” after a two-point conversion.

— Do not allow players to push rushers when a team is punting. (This is already the rule on field goals and extra points.)

— Guarantee both teams a possession in overtime.

— Ban peelback blocks by any offensive player.

— Give defensive players “defenseless receiver” protection on interceptions.

— If there’s a dead ball foul, unsportsmanlike conduct or taunting at the end of the first half, it will carry over to the second half.

— Ban running backs from chop blocking outside the tackle box.

— Allow linebackers to wear jersey numbers 40-49 in addition to 50-59 and 90-99.

— If an eligible player reports as an ineligible receiver to the referee, he must align within the tackle box.

Bylaw proposals

— Eliminate the 75-player cutdown.

— Expand rules to allow teams more contact with draft eligible players.

— Permit teams that play on Thursday to designate one player eligible to return to the active list from injured reserve.

— Permit players on Physically Unable to Perform to begin practicing earlier.

Resolution

— Allow teams with retractable roofs to open their roofs during halftime shows.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/18/competition-committee-announces-2015-rule-proposals/

 

[mpx42]

The Colts one about getting a PAT try after a successful two is awesome. I hope the Pats vote in favor of it so they can go for 2 every time next year and then tack on a bonus point every time. So every TD would be worth 9 and then instead of winning 70-0 they could win 90-0.

 
Did you see the part where it's a 50-yard PAT attempt?

 

[Ed Hillel]

Lost my shit at the ineligible receiver one. Harbaugh is such a baby.

 
But we don't know who it's from!
 
The Colts' suggestion is a joke. Why not make field goals worth 4 points to incentivize those? Spend money on offense, try to increase the number of points that can be scored.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
 
— If an eligible player reports as an ineligible receiver to the referee, he must align within the tackle box.

 
I don't really have a problem with this rule substantively.
 
However, I think just on principle Pats should propose something such as "coaches who call a timeout to explain the rules to their players will be immediately ejected"

 

[southshoresoxfan]

Every year theres some team crying because Bill pantsed them during the season...

Hell...lets the colts tds count for 14 pts next oct. Its not gonna matter when Bills running it up

 

[singaporesoxfan]

 
 
Allow linebackers to wear jersey numbers 40-49 in addition to 50-59 and 90-99.

 
I don't understand the rationale behind this particular proposal, which came from the Competition Committee. Are linebacker numbers in such short supply?
 
It does mean linebackers can wear an eligible receiver number though, so would that mean players like Mike Vrabel could just line up as a TE without having to report as eligible?
 
And thinking about it, why was Tully Banta-Cain allowed to wear 48 when he was first with the Pats? Wasn't he always listed as a LB?

 

[E5 Yaz]

— Give defensive players “defenseless receiver” protection on interceptions.

 
I would have thought this was already part of the rule.

 

[P'tucket rhymes with...]

The Colts one about getting a PAT try after a successful two is awesome. I hope the Pats vote in favor of it so they can go for 2 every time next year and then tack on a bonus point every time. So every TD would be worth 9 and then instead of winning 70-0 they could win 90-0.

Best comment at Deadspin:  "If anyone knows about getting 9 points on one drive, it's Irsay."

 

[joe dokes]

 
I don't understand the rationale behind this particular proposal, which came from the Competition Committee. Are linebacker numbers in such short supply?
 
 

 
 
The proposal says there is a shortage of LB numbers.
 
 

— If an eligible player reports as an ineligible receiver to the referee, he must align within the tackle box.
 

 
If I understand the formation/eligibility rules (a big 'if') I think this also forces the offense to "cover" that player with another player on the line of scrimmage, or else he will be an ineligible receiver lined up as eligible. So it has the effect of limiting the offensive formation in two ways...where this player lines up, and who lines up next to him. (

 

[E5 Yaz]

— If an eligible player reports as an ineligible receiver to the referee, he must align within the tackle box.

 
So, would this eliminate using linemen as a blocking back behind the quarterback?

 

[joe dokes]

 
So, would this eliminate using linemen as a blocking back behind the quarterback?

Thats ineligible as eligible, so probably still ok? (and does inside the tackle box mean "on the line?"
 
EDIT::These questions just demonstrate that this is little more than the product of a Jim irsay bender and a Harbaugh butt-hurt.

 

[loshjott]

 
I don't understand the rationale behind this particular proposal, which came from the Competition Committee. Are linebacker numbers in such short supply?
 
It does mean linebackers can wear an eligible receiver number though, so would that mean players like Mike Vrabel could just line up as a TE without having to report as eligible?
 
And thinking about it, why was Tully Banta-Cain allowed to wear 48 when he was first with the Pats? Wasn't he always listed as a LB?

Did Brian Bosworth propose this rule? IIRC he sued the NFL (or at least petitioned the league) coming out of college because he wore 44 at OU and wanted to keep that number.

 

[Conigliaro's Potential]

This is probably as good a place as any to suggest the one rule change I've been thinking I'd like to see for a while: on any play which results in a first down (including via change of possession), the ball should be respotted by moving it backward to the nearest yard line. So for example, if you pick up a first down or return an interception/punt/kickoff to your own 31-and-a-half yard line, you get the first down but move the ball back to exactly the 31. This would have little impact upon the flow of the game and on most plays, but it'd completely eliminate the need to slow the game down for the chain gang to come in off the sidelines to measure for a first down: if you've reached the right yard line, you've got a first down, and if you haven't, you don't. I think this would also make life rather easier on the referees and booth reviews, insofar as they'd be able to judge forward progress toward a first down (particularly on third and fourth down) by eyeballing specific markings on the field instead of having to compare forward progress toward wherever the chains happen to be on the sidelines.

 

[Jed Zeppelin]

They'd have to add another set of hashmarks down the middle of the field. The bigger problem though is stealing yards from the offense, which could have an impact on end of game situations. Say you're starting at your own 22 and you only have time to run four plays to get reasonable field goal range. Each play is a first down where you gain 10.75 yards. That should take you 43 yards to the 35, but under that rule change it would actually only take you 40 yards to the 38. At the upper limit of field goal range every yard counts. The issue it solves isn't worth the potential headaches it would cause.
 
I'm hoping that eventually technology will solve the measurement problem.

 

[SumnerH]

My pet rule proposal: if you're on the 10 yard line and get a 15 yard penalty (so half the distance makes it only back you up 5yards) the yard to go line gets moved out 10 yards. So If it was 1st and 10 on your 10, it's now 1st and 25 on your 5 instead of 10 yards of penalty vanishing entirely.

 

[southshoresoxfan]

Backing up the offense penalties are never half. They always go back the full amt.

Defensive penalties inside 15/10/5 respectively get the half treatment

 

[kartvelo]

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1426701703.110889.jpg

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1426701710.260224.jpg

Isn't the existing incentive to go for two points that, you know, you get two points?

 

[NortheasternPJ]

This is probably as good a place as any to suggest the one rule change I've been thinking I'd like to see for a while: on any play which results in a first down (including via change of possession), the ball should be respotted by moving it backward to the nearest yard line. So for example, if you pick up a first down or return an interception/punt/kickoff to your own 31-and-a-half yard line, you get the first down but move the ball back to exactly the 31. This would have little impact upon the flow of the game and on most plays, but it'd completely eliminate the need to slow the game down for the chain gang to come in off the sidelines to measure for a first down: if you've reached the right yard line, you've got a first down, and if you haven't, you don't. I think this would also make life rather easier on the referees and booth reviews, insofar as they'd be able to judge forward progress toward a first down (particularly on third and fourth down) by eyeballing specific markings on the field instead of having to compare forward progress toward wherever the chains happen to be on the sidelines.

In all the things that slow the game down measuring for a first isn't in my top 5. How many times do they measure these days?

 

[SumnerH]

Backing up the offense penalties are never half. They always go back the full amt.

Defensive penalties inside 15/10/5 respectively get the half treatment

So if I'm on my own 5 and get a 15 yard penalty, I run a play from the back of the end zone? That's totally untrue.

 

[southshoresoxfan]

I thought you were talking about on the offensive end. My apologies.

 

[southshoresoxfan]

I do like that however now that ive reread your point!

 

[BigJimEd]

Thats ineligible as eligible, so probably still ok? (and does inside the tackle box mean "on the line?"
 
EDIT::These questions just demonstrate that this is little more than the product of a Jim irsay bender and a Harbaugh butt-hurt.

ineligible are always on the line. I think it's a dumb proposal but I think it's also pretty straightforward.
Could affect punting formations though.


Many proposals about replay. Sounds like that will expanding. If not this year than soon. I think they need to look at the whole process. No need to buzz down and then have the ref look at one screen on the sidelines when you can have a team looking at multiple large screens.



Some other rule proposals I hope go forward:

- Put fixed cameras on all boundaries of the playing field, sidelines, goal line.

Seems like a no brainer but owners are cheap.


- If theres a dead ball foul, unsportsmanlike conduct or taunting at the end of the first half, it will carry over to the second half.

Another no brainer imo. Why shouldn't they? You shouldn't get a pass just because it's half time.

- Ban running backs from chop blocking outside the tackle box.

Safety issue. If they are truly concerned about player safety then they should institute it. I don't think it would have a major effect on play.


- Allow linebackers to wear jersey numbers 40-49 in addition to 50-59 and 90-99.

Who cares what numbers defensive players wear?


My vote for dumbest proposal goes to the bonus try. That's just idiotic. I think the xfl would have rejected that one as too gimmicky.

 

[Devizier]

Can I just say, I kind of like the Colts' proposal. Like bowling a strike in the 10th frame.

 

[ElcaballitoMVP]

I'm kind of intrigued by the Colts proposal, but I'd add the following to it: 

If you miss the 50 yd bonus kick, your opponent has the option of taking the ball from where the kick was missed (40 yard line), rather than receiving a kickoff. Similar to how missed field goals are treated now. Do you want to risk giving the other team really good field position to get that 1 point?

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

Can I just say, I kind of like the Colts' proposal. Like bowling a strike in the 10th frame.

 
Here is the entire rule as proposed.  I might support the rule if the offense was penalized a point if they miss the 1 point try.  
 

 

[joe dokes]

They should have know Vereen was ineligible anyway....only the end guy on the line of scrimmage is eligible and Vereen is "covered" by Edelman.  That's why Hooman was eligible. The guys outside him were off the line.
 

 

[doc]

If you do that play with a player with an ineligible number in place of Vereen then I bet the Ravens still screw up the coverage.

 

[joe dokes]

If you do that play with a player with an ineligible number in place of Vereen then I bet the Ravens still screw up the coverage.

 
Yes, because as Brady hinted at, while they might have been "deceived" (legally), the Ravens' reaction showed they didn't know the rules.  In addition to being warned by the ref, Vereen was *not* lined up as an eligible receiver.
 
And that's *exactly* what BB will do next time. Fleming (for example) does *not* report as eligible, lines up where Vereen is, but is covered by a WR to keep his ineligibility intact; and then runs backwards on the snap.  "He didn't report!," they'll scream, as someone else scores a touchdown while a LB vacates his responsibility pursuing Fleming. "He didn't have to report, but once again Belichick is in the news for a rules controversy," says Peter King.

 

[soxhop411]

Jeff Howe ‏@jeffphowe  14s14 seconds ago
On Belichick's "all plays are reviewable" proposal, Mara said competition committee informally voted 9-0 against it in their discussion.

 

[soxhop411]

Jeff Howe ‏@jeffphowe  56s56 seconds ago
Mara also made it sound like penalties (pass interference, etc.) won't be reviewable anytime soon due to the subjective nature of the calls.
 
of course....

 

[Ed Hillel]

So you can't review PI, but you can review what constitutes "a football move." Got it.

 

[southshoresoxfan]

Ugh. Come on. So stupid.

 

[mwonow]

If I had a chance to slide in a rule change, I'd probably go with "in the last two minutes of each half, the clock stops on a negative yardage play." Take away the kneel down, make offenses try to gain positive yards (or at least not generate negative yards), give the D a chance to stop the clock.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Ugh. Come on. So stupid.

Nothing's dumber than this, though:
 

Fixed cameras on boundary lines (proposal No. 12): “I’m not optimistic that one gets passed because every stadium is configured differently, and to construct camera locations and whatnot, I just don’t know if there is a need to do that.”

 
Stadiums are configured differently, ergo we cannot get cameras on the sidelines and goal lines. I guess that beats saying "we're too cheap for that one."

 

[Ralphwiggum]

If I had a chance to slide in a rule change, I'd probably go with "in the last two minutes of each half, the clock stops on a negative yardage play." Take away the kneel down, make offenses try to gain positive yards (or at least not generate negative yards), give the D a chance to stop the clock.

So instead of a kneel down when the game has already been won, and having possession of the ball when the opposing team can no longer stop the clock before it expires has been a win for as long as football has existed, you want to insert a rule the is just going to cause us to see a whole bunch of QB sneaks?

 

[Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt]

The NFL is run by idiots. We knew this, yes, but it continues every year, and this is yet another reminder. League Personnel, owners and others hate BB because they think he's arrogant. HE HAS EVERY REASON TO BE. On so many issues, he's right, they're wrong. It reminds me of the Sorkin quote from the short-lived STUDIO 60 re: red state blue state culture wars:

"Well, your side hates my side because you think we think you're stupid, and my side hates your side because we think you're stupid."

 

[singaporesoxfan]

If I had a chance to slide in a rule change, I'd probably go with "in the last two minutes of each half, the clock stops on a negative yardage play." Take away the kneel down, make offenses try to gain positive yards (or at least not generate negative yards), give the D a chance to stop the clock.

I don't like the existing rules that make the last few minutes of each half different from the first, so I hate this idea on principle, plus as mentioned all that would happen is you get QB sneaks in place of kneel downs.

 

[m0ckduck]

I'm kind of intrigued by the Colts proposal, but I'd add the following to it: 

If you miss the 50 yd bonus kick, your opponent has the option of taking the ball from where the kick was missed (40 yard line), rather than receiving a kickoff. Similar to how missed field goals are treated now. Do you want to risk giving the other team really good field position to get that 1 point?

 
How about you get yet another point if the kicker makes the PAT while blindfolded. Plus another if he kicks it opposite-footed. And we can make TD drives worth 12 points if the kicker does a motorcycle jump through the flaming crossbars with the ball tucked under his arm.
 
I love that there's no rationale for this beyond 'More offense = more excitement!!!". The only good aspect of this rule is that it would perpetuate the current Colts organizational preference for fan-friendly homefield regular season wins, 30+ point playoff blowout losses and general misuse of the early-prime years of the only generational QB talent in Tom Brady's conference.

 

[Bosoxen]

I don't like the existing rules that make the last few minutes of each half different from the first, so I hate this idea on principle, plus as mentioned all that would happen is you get QB sneaks in place of kneel downs.

 
Imagine what effect this would have on the other side. Say you're down 3 and you have under a minute left. In these situations, taking a sack is just an absolute and utter killer because you not only lose yardage, but all of your receivers now have to sprint 30 yards back down field to get the next play off. Under the proposed rule, getting sacked wouldn't hurt much more than throwing the ball away. In this case, the defense stopping the clock would be a bad thing.

 

[theapportioner]

Surprised nobody proposed any changes to the football inflation parameters, or the processes by which they are validated, or chain of custody issues.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

https://twitter.com/wingoz/status/580017604653256704
 
If this is true, presume it means they're getting rid of the extra point attempt, and the extra point is automatic unless you want to go for two. But funny to read everyone's response assuming it means you must go for two.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Not exactly a rules proposal, but a friend of mine is tight with management of an NFL team, and tells me steam is gathering quickly to expanding the NFL to an 18-game season, and moving the Super Bowl to President's Weekend.
 
Edit:  Wouldn't be this season, of course, but coming as soon as practicable after that.

 

[joe dokes]

https://twitter.com/wingoz/status/580017604653256704
 
If this is true, presume it means they're getting rid of the extra point attempt, and the extra point is automatic unless you want to go for two. But funny to read everyone's response assuming it means you must go for two.

 
That was the rule in the WFL, IIRC. 
 
 
 
 
Long live the Dicker rod!