Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;902638]I could see a creative team cycling IR's like the Giants cycle their defensive linemen. (heck, maybe the giants would combine the fake fall with the IR cycling ... hmmm)[/quote]

Yeah, they're blatant cheaters so I could see that.

Instead of a whole-season IR, I'd like to see a 4-game, an 8-game and an all-year IR choice.

Even just half and whole season would work.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=Monkeydad;902650]Even just half and whole season would work.[/quote]i like it, pick 1 date during mid-season, if you place a player on ir before then, he's eligible on that date, if you place him on ir after that date, he's done for the season. limit the number of spots to 2 or something, the rest have to go on standard, season-long ir

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

Good change

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/nfl-changes-regular-season-overtime-to-match-postseason-overtime/]NFL changes regular-season overtime to match postseason overtime | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/28/nfl-expands-defenseless-player-rule-to-crackback-blocks/]NFL expands defenseless player rule to crackback blocks | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

i don't like either of those 2 changes. i liked the real sudden death ot. i also don't think officials should compensate for an unaware player. i understand a receiver tracking the ball, but i don't see many other examples of players who should be excused as defenseless

Re: 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.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

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

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=Mattyk;904656]I'd like to see them take away being able to blow up the QB after an INT.[/quote]if it's viewed as unnecessary, the official can call it w the current rules

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

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

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=los panda;904659]if it's viewed as unnecessary, the official can call it w the current rules[/quote]

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.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

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.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=GTripp0012;904704]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.[/quote]

:confused:

?

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=SBXVII;902591]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.[/quote]

I would like that rule change a lot...

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=Paintrain;902620]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.[/quote]

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...

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

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