Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

Some very interesting thoughts here:

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/21/nfl-weighs-changes-on-overtime-defenseless-players-trade-deadline/]Proposed rule changes for 2012 | ProFootballTalk[/url]

1) Playoff OT rules now Regular season as well
2) several defensive player type protections
3) roster exemption for a concussed player
4) one IR could be designated to come back in season

and more.

Thoughts?

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

I like the overtime rule change, all fumble plays being instantly reviewed, the IR rule change, etc....

I don't necessarily have a big issue with any of them.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

Pending explanation on #2, I like the rule changes for once.

I hope #2 doesn't hamper zone-blocking teams.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=Monkeydad;902567]Pending explanation on #2, I like the rule changes for once.

I hope #2 doesn't hamper zone-blocking teams.[/quote]

Making the crackback blocks illegal if the defensive player is hit in the head/neck area.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

Anybody wanna copy/paste the story? I can't read the link.

As far as the OP goes, I like all the proposed changes, although I say that knowing how vague #2 is in the OP. If the crackback rule hurt what we do on offense, I'd tell them to adjust, because that same rule would prevent other offenses from potentially injuring our defensive players some day. Imagine how pissed we'd be if some player took out Kerrigan or Orakpo on a crackback hit and it cost them their season, yet we didn't even get so much as a penalty.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

I wish they would bring back celebrations and return the kickoff to the 30

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=Monkeydad;902567]Pending explanation on #2, I like the rule changes for once.

I hope #2 doesn't hamper zone-blocking teams.[/quote]

If the blocking is done right there should be not issue. Plus there already is a rule in place... no chop blocking (cutting a guys legs out from underneith while he's engaged by another player. Those kinds of rules.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

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.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[QUOTE=ProFootballTalk]Proposed rule changes for 2012
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 21, 2012, 4:03 PM EDT
Cowboys defensive coordinator Ryan argues with referee Coleman about a penalty call during their NFL football game against the Patriots in Foxborough Reuters

The NFL’s Competition Committee announced several proposed changes to the game-day rules and the league bylaws on a conference call with reporters on Wednesday afternoon.

The rules changes that are being proposed are:

1. Giving the authority to determine replay reviews to the replay official in the booth, not the referee on the field.

2. Modifying the horse-collar tackle rule to remove the exception for quarterbacks in the pocket, so that a quarterback in the pocket may not be yanked down by the back of his shoulder pads or inside collar of his jersey.

3. Changing overtime so that the postseason rule will be used in the regular season as well, and no regular-season games will be ended on a field goal on the first possession of overtime.

4. Adding a loss of down to the penalty for kicking a loose ball, as is the case in college football.

5. Adopting the college rule for too many men on the field, which is a dead-ball foul if a team lines up on offense for more than three seconds, or if a team on defense lines up with too many men and the snap is imminent. In those cases, the officials will blow the play dead and assess a five-yard penalty. This change wouldn’t affect the rulings on players running off the field who don’t get off in time.

6. Expanding the defenseless player rule to protect defensive players on crackback blocks, making it illegal to hit them in the head or neck area.

7. Automatically reviewing turnovers via instant replay, just as scoring plays are automatically reviewed.

The league also considered the following bylaws:

1. Modifying the roster rules for teams that play on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

2. Moving the trade deadline from Week 6 to Week 8.

3. Expanding the roster limit for training camp and the offseason to 90 players, with unsigned draft picks now counting toward that limit, whereas in the past unsigned draft picks did not count toward the 80-player limit.

4. Moving this year’s final roster cutdown day to Friday night instead of Saturday, which is designed to give an extra day of work after cutting down to final rosters for the two teams playing in the first game of the season, which this year is on Wednesday instead of Thursday.

5. Adding an injured reserve exemption so that if a player was on the roster through the first regular season weekend, that player can be placed on injured reserve and designated for return, and then can return to practice six weeks later and play in a game eight weeks later, rather than having all players on injured reserve out for the season.

6. Allowing one roster exemption per team per week for a player who is inactive with a concussion.

PFT Planet, tell us how you feel about the proposed rules changes.
[/QUOTE]

sorry didn't have time before.

Thanks for doing that CR. From reading it I don't have a problem wih any of those rule changes, although I don't think all of them will pass.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

3 4 and turnover review are good.. now let us get rid of the archaic inactive for gameday rule

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

I wish they'd make strangling Orakpo a penalty.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

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.

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]

From what I remember, other teams used to complain about Joe Gibbs in the 80's "stashing" players away on IR who weren't really "hurt". Don't know if that's the reason for the current IR rules or not, but I do think it's kind of crazy to force someone on IR for the entire season if they can technically comeback before season's end and be healthy.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=skinsguy;902629]From what I remember, other teams used to complain about Joe Gibbs in the 80's "stashing" players away on IR who weren't really "hurt". Don't know if that's the reason for the current IR rules or not, but I do think it's kind of crazy to force someone on IR for the entire season if they can technically comeback before season's end and be healthy.[/quote]

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)

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.

Re: Proposed New Rule/Bylaw changes
 

[quote=Ruhskins;905210]Any word on whether they are moving the trade deadline? I always thought week 6 was wayyyy too early.[/quote]

Moving it to week 8 is on the table