2020 NFL: Potential Rule Changes

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,262
Hingham, MA
I wonder what late in the half means though. The Falcons did it to the Pats in the 3rd quarter. Vrabel did it with like 6 mins left.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I really wish that the whole coach's challenge aspect would be replaced with the booth official proposal. Basically make it similar to soccer's VAR. Let the booth official and referee decide which plays get reviewed.

Short of that, I would like to see all plays marked down on the 1 or closer (either end) be subject to automatic review. It seems silly to me that if the on-field official marks a ball down at the 1" line, it doesn't get reviewed, but if he says its a TD, it does get reviewed. Treat both plays the same.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,262
Hingham, MA
I really wish that the whole coach's challenge aspect would be replaced with the booth official proposal. Basically make it similar to soccer's VAR. Let the booth official and referee decide which plays get reviewed.

Short of that, I would like to see all plays marked down on the 1 or closer (either end) be subject to automatic review. It seems silly to me that if the on-field official marks a ball down at the 1" line, it doesn't get reviewed, but if he says its a TD, it does get reviewed. Treat both plays the same.
Where do you draw the line though on the second point? Wasn't Harry called out at like the 5 against KC when he really scored? I don't know how you would write that rule.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Where do you draw the line though on the second point? Wasn't Harry called out at like the 5 against KC when he really scored? I don't know how you would write that rule.
Henry was marked out at the 3. So maybe you say anything inside the 3. Or it could be any play where the player ends up in the end zone as part of the play, regardless of where the ref spots the ball. I'm less concerned about that detail as I am about the stupidly unbalanced current situation where only the plays ruled as TD get reviewed. Which is absurdly dumb.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,262
Hingham, MA
Henry was marked out at the 3. So maybe you say anything inside the 3. Or it could be any play where the player ends up in the end zone as part of the play, regardless of where the ref spots the ball. I'm less concerned about that detail as I am about the stupidly unbalanced current situation where only the plays ruled as TD get reviewed. Which is absurdly dumb.
I hear what you are saying, it just gets tricky. You could coach all receivers who are judged to have stepped out of bounds to continue to the end zone even if they are on their own 20 yard line. I think the only true solution here is sky judge.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,262
Hingham, MA

StupendousMan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
1,163
Quick check: last year, 3 out of 30 onside kicks were recovered by the kicking team. Over the period 2002-2018, according to this article, the success rate on certain 4th-and-15 plays was somewhat higher: about 17%. I think that a 4th-and-15 play from scrimmage would be more exciting to watch, simply because the outcome is more uncertain.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,836
Quick check: last year, 3 out of 30 onside kicks were recovered by the kicking team. Over the period 2002-2018, according to this article, the success rate on certain 4th-and-15 plays was somewhat higher: about 17%. I think that a 4th-and-15 play from scrimmage would be more exciting to watch, simply because the outcome is more uncertain.
Not all 4th and 15s are created equal, but I agree with you, that it would be interesting and exciting.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,262
Hingham, MA
I'm fine with 4th and 15. I think I saw that intentional onsides had something like a 19-20% success rate prior to the new rules.

One thing that the league will have to think through: how penalties will affect it. A few examples:

1) Offensive team converts, but is called for holding. Does that mean they failed? Or does it mean a re-do on 4th and 25?
2) Defensive team commits 5 yard penalty but "automatic" first down - e.g., defensive holding or illegal contact. Will that actually mean a conversion? Or will it mean a re-try on 4th and 10?
3) If the scoring team is assessed a dead ball penalty after the touchdown - something that could formerly be assessed either on the try or on the ensuing kickoff - would it still mean 4th and 15, but from the 10 instead of the 25? Or would it mean 4th and 30 from the 10?
 

johnmd20

figuratively like ebola
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
43,785
New York City
I'm fine with 4th and 15. I think I saw that intentional onsides had something like a 19-20% success rate prior to the new rules.

One thing that the league will have to think through: how penalties will affect it. A few examples:

1) Offensive team converts, but is called for holding. Does that mean they failed? Or does it mean a re-do on 4th and 25?
2) Defensive team commits 5 yard penalty but "automatic" first down - e.g., defensive holding or illegal contact. Will that actually mean a conversion? Or will it mean a re-try on 4th and 10?
3) If the scoring team is assessed a dead ball penalty after the touchdown - something that could formerly be assessed either on the try or on the ensuing kickoff - would it still mean 4th and 15, but from the 10 instead of the 25? Or would it mean 4th and 30 from the 10?
These are excellent questions. The defensive holding, in particular, would be an absolute KILLER for the defense.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,262
Hingham, MA
These are excellent questions. The defensive holding, in particular, would be an absolute KILLER for the defense.
My brother brought up another good point: will the clock run on a conversion if in the field of play? (answer should obviously be yes, but NFL)
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
32,713
Hartford, CT
I'm fine with 4th and 15. I think I saw that intentional onsides had something like a 19-20% success rate prior to the new rules.

One thing that the league will have to think through: how penalties will affect it. A few examples:

1) Offensive team converts, but is called for holding. Does that mean they failed? Or does it mean a re-do on 4th and 25?
2) Defensive team commits 5 yard penalty but "automatic" first down - e.g., defensive holding or illegal contact. Will that actually mean a conversion? Or will it mean a re-try on 4th and 10?
3) If the scoring team is assessed a dead ball penalty after the touchdown - something that could formerly be assessed either on the try or on the ensuing kickoff - would it still mean 4th and 15, but from the 10 instead of the 25? Or would it mean 4th and 30 from the 10?
Here are my guesses:

1) If they handle this scenario like a kickoff or untimed play (e.g. two point attempt or PAT), I think the offensive penalty would be assessed. It would be novel for the league to take the position that any live ball offensive penalty results in a failure to convert, and it would reduce the attractiveness of attempting the conversion. The league is trying to improve the prospect of consecutive possessions not generated by a turnover, and thus reduce the perceived safety of any lead, with this kind of rule. I’d think having to get 15 yards, or 20-25 yards with offensive penalties, in one play is challenging enough as it is.

2) Auto first downs are already intentionally punitive to the defense (see: POINTS!!!), so I can’t see the league changing that for this scenario. And if there wasn’t an auto first down assessed for illegal contact or def holding, you’re going to have receivers get mugged play after play to dare the officials to throw flags.

3) I think they’d assess the personal foul enalty from wherever the dead ball spot on the kickoff or conversion attempt would be. Hard to see them saying that a dead ball penalty just doesn’t matter if that would greatly benefit the offending team.

I also think they would run the clock on the conversion attempt, although two point attempts and PAT are untimed so who knows? Onside kicks ARE timed, but the clock doesn’t run until/unless the ball is touched within the field of play/between the goal lines so it’s arguably less impactful given how quickly an onside kick attempt usually is resolved.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,262
Hingham, MA
If the 4th-and-15 conversion rule were introduced to the Big 12 or one or two other college conferences where defense is obsolete, you might see some teams decide to never kick off - what have they got to lose?
The NFL is limiting this to twice per team per game.

Edit: or I should say that is the proposal
 
Apr 24, 2019
461
I wonder how the league - and, more specifically, certain teams and fan-bases - will feel about this rule when particular teams's offenses are more heavily geared toward the run game. This rule does seem to favor certain systems in a way that the onside kick doesn't.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,262
Hingham, MA

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
40,836
I wonder how the league - and, more specifically, certain teams and fan-bases - will feel about this rule when particular teams's offenses are more heavily geared toward the run game. This rule does seem to favor certain systems in a way that the onside kick doesn't.
Does the proposal eliminate the on-side kick or simply give the option to try the 4th and 15? I think it should be either/or. The completely out of the blue onside kicks should remain.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
24,262
Hingham, MA
Does the proposal eliminate the on-side kick or simply give the option to try the 4th and 15? I think it should be either/or. The completely out of the blue onside kicks should remain.
I don't think they are ruling out the surprise onsides
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,128
Portsmouth, NH
I wonder how the league - and, more specifically, certain teams and fan-bases - will feel about this rule when particular teams's offenses are more heavily geared toward the run game. This rule does seem to favor certain systems in a way that the onside kick doesn't.
Honestly, who cares (not trying to be a wise guy)? The changes to a lot of rules or calls - specifically ones like pass interference, hand check, crackback blocks, kickoffs, etc - are going to inherently be better for some teams than it is for others. It is what it is. The really is no "3 yards and a cloud of dust" style teams anymore; they're at no bigger disadvantage on one play than they are all game if they have a weak passing attack and can't muster up a play for 4th and 15 (which I'd argue doesn't exist the way teams offenses are constructed anymore).