2019 NFL: Rule Changes

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,726
Portsmouth, NH
I'm not sure why we think this is a result of losing to the Pats, as opposed to just not liking the rule. If they had lost to the chargers in same fashion, I'd imagine they'd still be just as bitter. Reid and BB are notoriously friendly. But we need our persecution complex here so.....

I'd like to see the college style, but there's nothing wrong with what they use now. As Bowhemian said, you want to win, stop us, otherwise shut up.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,319
Hingham, MA
I'm not sure why we think this is a result of losing to the Pats, as opposed to just not liking the rule. If they had lost to the chargers in same fashion, I'd imagine they'd still be just as bitter. Reid and BB are notoriously friendly. But we need our persecution complex here so.....

I'd like to see the college style, but there's nothing wrong with what they use now. As Bowhemian said, you want to win, stop us, otherwise shut up.
If they didn’t like the rule why didn’t they suggest it after SB LI? They should have noticed and have been worried about this potential scenario. Teams only care when something affects them. And the Patriots are the only team that makes anyone pay. Unlike the Saints.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
17,726
Portsmouth, NH
If they didn’t like the rule why didn’t they suggest it after SB LI? They should have noticed and have been worried about this potential scenario. Teams only care when something affects them. And the Patriots are the only team that makes anyone pay. Unlike the Saints.
Did I suggest otherwise? My point isn’t that they didn’t do it because they were salty, my point was it doesn’t immediately mean they did it because ‘we’re jealous of the Pats and want to take them down’.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,276
TV wants the game to end.
Well the leave it as it is, but even then we had two fifteen minute ties this year. Ten minutes each team will almost certainly get the ball and it’s normal football. If it’s a tie it’s a tie.

And of course you can always do a different OT rule for the playoffs. Sudden death in the regular season, a timed period in the playoffs.

I’m not a fan of deciding games with a faux version of the sport, whether it’s putting a runner on second in extra innings, shootouts in hockey, the college football OT rule or whatever.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,319
Hingham, MA
No you are right they would have been doing this if they lost to anyone else in the same fashion, I don’t disagree with that. It’s just that the Pats havemade multiple teams pay for this and that’s when teams get salty. So it is kind of related. Highly doubt the Chiefs would be proposing this if they got the ball first and Mahomes hit Hill for 75 yards on the first snap. It is so, so salty and I love it.
 

ConigliarosPotential

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
A semi-random thought: How about keeping the OT rules basically as they currently are, but making it so that a team that scores a TD on the first possession of OT has to successfully convert the extra point to win immediately? If the XP is missed, the other team gets to come down and try to score a tying TD. It's not much and wouldn't affect too many games - unless the distance of OT XPs is increased, which is a separate idea that could work - but a) it would add another inflection point to a one-sided OT possession that *could* change things; b) if a team does miss its XP, the other team could then come down and win with a TD + PAT, not just tie; and c) I always enjoy the dynamic of games that end with a walk-off kick more than those which end with short walk-off touchdowns that you kind of know is coming (e.g., Super Bowl LI), although maybe that's just me.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
5,930
I'm not sure why we think this is a result of losing to the Pats, as opposed to just not liking the rule. If they had lost to the chargers in same fashion, I'd imagine they'd still be just as bitter. Reid and BB are notoriously friendly. But we need our persecution complex here so.....

I'd like to see the college style, but there's nothing wrong with what they use now. As Bowhemian said, you want to win, stop us, otherwise shut up.
It's not even really "stop us". It's "just hold us to a field goal".

The system as is produces a 55-45 ratio in terms of winners (55% for the team who has the ball first, 45% for the team who has the ball second). That's about as close to dead even as you're going to get.

As evidenced by championship weekend itself. The great Patriots got the ball and immediately won. The great Saints turned it over and lost.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
Jul 18, 2005
25,898
Alexandria, VA
For those arguing that the luck of the coin toss is too big a factor in overtime....how does their coin toss proposal help? Isn’t the opening coin toss just as much a matter of luck as the OT coin toss?
I guess at least it's known ahead of time so you can plan 4th quarter endgame strategy with that in mind? Seems like pretty thin gruel to me.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
16,221
where I was last at
The Bronco's substitute for an on-side kick is an interesting twist. I'm still debating whether I like it or not.

The Chiefs proposal seems geared to mollify their fans and appears pretty light. Why should the coin flip winner pre-game know they also have the options in OT for the entire game?
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,276
The Bronco's substitute for an on-side kick is an interesting twist. I'm still debating whether I like it or not.

The Chiefs proposal seems geared to mollify their fans and appears pretty light. Why should the coin flip winner pre-game know they also have the options in OT for the entire game?
The coin flip winner pregame would likely defer and receive the second half kickoff. So they would have a chance at an extra possession in the second half: this is important because this rule change proposal is driven by the circumstance where both teams QBs are hot at the end of the game facing tired defenses, so an extra second half possession is theoretically more valuable than an extra first half possession.

Then that team would ALSO get the OT kickoff and have a chance at a game-winning score after both teams scored TDs or FGs on their OT initial possessions. So they could get two extra second half/OT possesions based on the one coin flip.

It seems stupid.

Ed: I assume the Chiefs put that in because they won the first coin flip and they wished they could have just had the ball in OT.
 
Last edited:

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
34,170
The coin flip winner pregame would likely defer and receive the second half kickoff. So they would have a chance at an extra possession in the second half: this is important because this rule change proposal is driven by the circumstance where both teams QBs are hot at the end of the game facing tired defenses, so an extra second half possession is theoretically more valuable than an extra first half possession.

Then that team would ALSO get the OT kickoff and have a chance at a game-winning score after both teams scored TDs or FGs on their OT initial possessions. So they could get two extra second half/OT possesions based on the one coin flip.

It seems stupid.

Ed: I assume the Chiefs put that in because they won the first coin flip and they wished they could have just had the ball in OT.
Yes. It’s clear they put the coin thing in because they won the coin toss
 

fiskful of dollars

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,341
Charlottesville, VA
The Broncos solution sounds awful to me. 4th and 15 is a much higher probability than a traditional on-sides kick. With the way first downs are accrued through BS DPI, holding, etc....no way!

The new kickoff rules make the OSK almost impossible however.

My proposal: In an obvious OSK situation, simply allow the kicking team to DECLARE their intent to attempt an OSK - it's usually obvious anyway. Once they declare, the old kick-off formation would be allowed for the announced attempt(s) only. A surprise OSK is still allowable but the kicking team's formation would be the same as a "regular" kid-off. The safety issues prompting the new rules seem to irrelevant in an OSK attempt. Just a thought.
 

Joe Sixpack

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
4,048
Mansfield, MA
The Broncos solution sounds awful to me. 4th and 15 is a much higher probability than a traditional on-sides kick. With the way first downs are accrued through BS DPI, holding, etc....no way!

The new kickoff rules make the OSK almost impossible however.

My proposal: In an obvious OSK situation, simply allow the kicking team to DECLARE their intent to attempt an OSK - it's usually obvious anyway. Once they declare, the old kick-off formation would be allowed for the announced attempt(s) only. A surprise OSK is still allowable but the kicking team's formation would be the same as a "regular" kid-off. The safety issues prompting the new rules seem to irrelevant in an OSK attempt. Just a thought.
4th and 15 is just under 20% success rate, onside kick before the rule change had historically been around 20%.
 

snowmanny

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
10,276
Yes. It’s clear they put the coin thing in because they won the coin toss
Sort of like how Jon Gruden wants to eliminate replay:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2019/03/04/jon-gruden-replay-eliminate-expand-time-machine/amp/

From the article:

He still has to be having nightmares of the tuck rule game replaying in his head on a weekly basis. That’s the only logical explanation. One time Gruden lost a chance to go move on in the playoffs and because a rule was interpreted correctly on replay, he did not get that chance. Therefore, all replay from henceforth — or from the point of that call — was bad and there is no way we can tell Mr. Gruden otherwise.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,319
Hingham, MA
The coin flip winner pregame would likely defer and receive the second half kickoff. So they would have a chance at an extra possession in the second half: this is important because this rule change proposal is driven by the circumstance where both teams QBs are hot at the end of the game facing tired defenses, so an extra second half possession is theoretically more valuable than an extra first half possession.

Then that team would ALSO get the OT kickoff and have a chance at a game-winning score after both teams scored TDs or FGs on their OT initial possessions. So they could get two extra second half/OT possesions based on the one coin flip.

It seems stupid.

Ed: I assume the Chiefs put that in because they won the first coin flip and they wished they could have just had the ball in OT.
I posted about this in the OT thread. If coaches see a big advantage in deferring the opening toss, I wonder if the data correlates with a higher winning %. No one is bitching and moaning that the opening coin toss is unfair, but what if data showed that teams that defer until the 2nd half win 53% of the time? I'd be curious to see that data. And I'd also probably argue that the coin toss should be eliminated for both the opening kickoff and OT - let the road team have choice to start the game, then the home team gets the choice in OT. Or reverse it so the home team gets to pick first. Whatever. Just make it procedural and not a flip of the coin.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
27,888
4th and 15 is just under 20% success rate, onside kick before the rule change had historically been around 20%.
Wonder if that 4th and 15 % is historically consistent or whether it has spiked in recent years.

Intrigued by Broncos’ proposal because I think there is no way they are going back on the kickoff rules.
 

axx

lurker
Jul 16, 2005
6,179
You know how much the NFL hates the kickoff, eliminating it in OT might make sense, if only to save time. Make the starting position back to the 20 though.
 

VORP Speed

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
4,148
Ground Zero
The Broncos scenario should be how all kickoff situations are handled. Get the ball on your own 35, 4th and 15, and go from there. You can gamble to go for it or you can punt. No more kickoffs, but you still get returns—plus a greater variety of outcomes with blocks, great punts pinning the opponent deep, returns, fakes, etc, and average field position would be around the 20-25.
 

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
34,170
Broncos onside kick proposal was shot down and the KC OT proposal was tabled (via Tom Pelissero)
 

mostman

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2003
7,749
Just non-calls it seems. What a clusterfuck.
This will make the end of games so exciting. We win! Wait, we aren't sure until the booth review checks to see if there is an infraction anywhere on the field. Stand by.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
39,367
deep inside Guido territory
Wow, now OPI and DPI calls are reviewable. Also non-calls that can look like PI can be reviewed.

Before 2 minutes, it is reviewable by using a challenge. Inside 2 minutes, it's a booth review.
 
Last edited:

soxhop411

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
34,170
Wow, now OPI and DPI calls are reviewable. Also non-calls that can look like PI can be reviewed.

Before 2 minutes, it is reviewable by using a challenge. Inside 2 minutes, it's a booth review.
31-1 in favor with CIN voting against.

It’s also a ONE YEAR RULE. so I assume it gets revisited end of next season if changes needed to be made.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
21,319
Hingham, MA
I don’t hate it, it is by challenge only and then booth in last two minutes. They aren’t going to hold up play on every play inside two minutes, but they’ll probably look at deep balls or closely contested passes. I’m actually optimistic it won’t be a complete cluster but they have to figure out a way to manage looking at non-calls in the last two minutes. I love everything about the rule outside of two minutes though.
 

genoasalami

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2006
1,751
The problem with the review is that in slow motion almost any contested ball can be called OPI or DPI .... What is going to be allowed?? Will they call DPI because the defender had his hand on a receivers shoulder or arm??
 

staz

Intangible
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2004
12,621
The cradle of the game.
The problem with the review is that in slow motion almost any contested ball can be called OPI or DPI .... What is going to be allowed?? Will they call DPI because the defender had his hand on a receivers shoulder or arm??
That's my question as well. Does replay end up calling Gilmore's hand on Cooks' arm in Q4 of SB53 DPI? Slow down the tape enough and his hand is on his arm for a looooong time, ya know!!11
 

cshea

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 15, 2006
22,104
306, row 14
That's my question as well. Does replay end up calling Gilmore's hand on Cooks' arm in Q4 of SB53 DPI? Slow down the tape enough and his hand is on his arm for a looooong time, ya know!!11
Ah yup. Funny you mention that play.

 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
30,651
Hartford, CT
Do we get to go through all of history’s calls?

How about Eli being in the grasp, or the several holds on the play? Let’s do it.

In all seriousness, I’m pleasantly surprised the league got this right.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
16,221
where I was last at
Do not underestimate the power of Saint's tears.

I hope this doesn't result in one standard for 58 minutes (let 'em play) and ticky-tack BS incidental contact/PI calls in the the last 2 minutes
 
Last edited:

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
3,774
I hope this doesn't result in one standard for 58 minutes (let 'em play) and ticky-tack BS incidental contact/PI calls in the the last 2 minutes
That the NFL thinks the Cooks call would've been changed if challenged tells you that that's exactly what's going to happen.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
17,553
Newton
Belichick’s been advocating to make everything reviewable for an eternity. But like all his other proposals—such as moving back the extra point—by the time the rule is actually asopted, it’s done in a way where it isn’t—or can’t be—credited to him. And in this case, it may be for the best.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
8,591
Sort of like how Jon Gruden wants to eliminate replay:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/touchdownwire.usatoday.com/2019/03/04/jon-gruden-replay-eliminate-expand-time-machine/amp/

From the article:

He still has to be having nightmares of the tuck rule game replaying in his head on a weekly basis. That’s the only logical explanation. One time Gruden lost a chance to go move on in the playoffs and because a rule was interpreted correctly on replay, he did not get that chance. Therefore, all replay from henceforth — or from the point of that call — was bad and there is no way we can tell Mr. Gruden otherwise.
Wasnt Bill Callahan in charge during the tuck rule game? Or are they referring to a different game? Or Am I missing the joke here?