Older AFCE

The AFC North Afternoon Buzz, Rules Edition

The AFC North Afternoon Buzz, Rules Edition
class="post-date-wrap left relative post-date-mob">

Many bracketologists felt like Martavis after last night’s March Madness games, and now some new proposed NFL rules have fans up in arms.
 




 
This week, NFL teams and the rules committee submited proposals for 2016 rule changes and Baltimore submitted two of the 19 potential changes.
 
My Take: While the Ravens first proposal seems to be tongue and cheek (albeit a year late and they already proposed a legitimate change last year), the second is a slight variation of a change that needs to be made. With so many personal fouls and pass interference calls having a major effect on the outcome of games, they have to be challengeable by coaches or reviewed automatically by replay officials not on the field of play.
 
My take on the remaining proposals listed in the link above:
 
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.
 
Maybe teams could return blocked tries, but how many missed PATs actually land in the field of play? My guess is none unless they hit the upright squarely. Even shanked kicks end up out of the endzone.
 
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.
 
My only issue with this is that it would add another potential security breach by those teams who are known to do such things…
 
3. By Competition Committee; Makes all chop blocks illegal.
 
Agree. If the NFL cares about player’s safety, which they say they do, they should listen to the players who have been trying to fight this battle for decades.
 
4. By Competition Committee; Disqualifies a player who is penalized twice in one game for certain types of unsportsmanlike conduct fouls.
 
If so, the NFL better allow coaches to challenge these plays. I have no problem throwing out those with multiple offenses, but the refs better get it right, or these calls will effect the game even more than they already do.
 
5. By Competition Committee; Changes the spot of the next snap after a touchback resulting from a free kick to the 25-yard line.
 
Unless it incentivises kickers to try and drop kicks at the goal line to entice a return, it will just be another rule change that benefits the offense. No thanks.
 
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.
 
Fans will either find this funny or will think its sour grapes. Last year they were more realistic with “If an eligible player reports as an ineligible receiver to the referee, he must align within the tackle box.”
 
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.
 
See earlier take.
 
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.
 
Similar to above, but needs to included a specific number of challenges, or modification such as “if the coach is right, they keep their challenges” or “additional challenge added if coach is correct.”
 
9. By Carolina; to amend Rule 8, Section 2, Article 1 (Intentional Grounding) to expand the definition of intentional grounding.
 
Too ambiguous. Come up with an actual rule, Carolina, like “if outside the tacklebox, a QB has to reach the line of scrimmage within the field of play extended to the out-of-bounds end of the wide white strip (you know the strictly enforced area where the players and coaches aren’t supposed to stand).
 
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.
 
100% agree with this. There is no reason a team on their own 1/2 yard line should only be penalized 1/4 of a yard for a false start. If its 1st and 10 from the 1-yardline, a 5-yard penalty should make it 1st and 15 from the 1/2-yardline.
 
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.
 
What is this, college? If the defense can’t react to a qb falling, like any other ball carrier, they should stop playing football. Play until the ref blows his/her whistle.
 
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.
 
There has to be some penalty for bad challenges, or coaches late in the game could use them in place of timeouts. If you want to make a change, ask that they add a challenge (but still with a penalty if wrong) and expand what can be challenged.
 
13. By Washington; to amend Rule 16, Section 1, Articles 1, 4, 6 and 7 (Overtime procedures) to eliminate overtime periods in preseason games.
 
Of course! Why hasn’t this been done already. Teams already practice their 2pt conversions to eliminate ties anyway.
 
14. By Washington; to amend Rule 15, Section 2, Article 4 (Reviewable Plays) to subject personal foul penalties to Instant Replay review.
 
Yes. Washington is on a roll.
 
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.
 
Washington should have stopped while they were ahead. Make better challenges, or see my earlier answers.
 
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.
 
Agree. This is a dangerous play, and has shortened the careers of Terrell Davis and many others. The hair should still be in play because its on the player, and because its funny.
 
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.
 
As long as the NFL makes it crystal clear when a T.O. can and can’t be called. But because I doubt this will ever be 100% clear, I say no. In the heat of the battle, either a coach or ref will inevitably misinterpret the rule.
 
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.
 
Agree. I always wondered why this wasn’t an incomplete pass or at the very least a 10-yard penalty. IMO a coach should have the option to take the down or penalty just like any other penalized play that includes an incomplete pass. It could even be 5-yards AND loss of down.
 
19. By Competition Committee; Eliminates multiple spots of enforcement for a double foul after a change of possession.
 
Not 100% what they mean here, but I assume for example after a punt, a foul can be assessed at the catch or original 4th down line of scrimmage. If so, the current option(s) seems fine.
 



More in Older AFCE

The Josh Allen Report: Week 4

Brian GrothOctober 6, 2020

Ranking the AFCE Offenses

Archer AllenMay 12, 2020

Slick’s 2019 Week 15 Overreactions

Brian GrothDecember 18, 2019

The Josh Allen Report

Brian GrothDecember 16, 2019

Tank it, to the Limit

finfan5357December 13, 2019

Not Much to be Tankful For

Chris ChambersDecember 6, 2019