Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes

I like the change in OT! As far as the crack back blocks on the defensive backs, might as well be consistent. Protect everybody from head shots. I think it's time the players all go back to learning how to tackle, textbook style, instead of relying on the highlight reel big hit.

I'd like to see them take away being able to blow up the QB after an INT.

I'd like to see them take away being able to blow up the QB after an INT.if it's viewed as unnecessary, the official can call it w the current rules

ok i like the OT change but whats up with the crack back block? how can you penalize someone for blocking someone that didnt see them? thats crazy, what if the guy sucks and doesnt have good awareness? this is just like the denfenseless receiver rule, is the defense just suppose to let a player catch it in front of him. He is defenseless because he is trying to catch the ball and score, i guess they jsut want the defender to let him do that and then catch him in their chest! i understand the speering at the head, thats understandable but head to head contact happens every play. come on man this is football

if it's viewed as unnecessary, the official can call it w the current rules

I agree. By that point, the QB becomes a defender and is open to getting blown up as much as the other defenders on the field. As long as they're not cutting him low or hitting in the head, then I see no problem with that.

I don't like the OT rule, but I like this adaptation of it. If you will have it at all, don't wait until the playoffs to use it.

Everything else seems like a step in the right direction.

I don't like the OT rule, but I like this adaptation of it. If you will have it at all, don't wait until the playoffs to use it.

Everything else seems like a step in the right direction.

:confused:

?

Maybe they could add any face mask is a penalty. It's one thing to stiff arm a defensemen by using his body it's another to grab the CB's facemask and try to hold him off. If the defense can't do it neither should the offense.

I would like that rule change a lot...

I never understood the point of having a player on IR being done for the season. Why don't they have an injury policy more like MLB with a 30-60-90-120 day injury list. That allows players hurt in preseason to contribute down the stretch. I guess stashing could be an issue but the way its done now is kinda dumb.

Actually, the IR rule as it stands comes from the days when "stashing" was very prevalent in the NFL. With a salary cap system in place, it becomes more difficult - - but not impossible - - to do any significant amount of "stashing".

The NFL actually does had a MLB-like system but without the duration designations. If a contributing player is hurt but it looks as if he will be OK to play again in whatever is left of the season at the time of the injury, he does not go on IR but does not dress for future games. He is one of the 53-man roster who is in street clothes until he is well...

A compromise rule that might demonstrate how all of this is beneficial to NFL teams would be to allow each team to designate ONE player a year for "Injured Reserve-Eligible For Reactivation". After that demonstrates that it is not Earth-shattering", they can increase the limit to TWO per year for each team. And then...

Any word on whether they are moving the trade deadline? I always thought week 6 was wayyyy too early.