OT: Proposed NFL rule changes; video replay for all(!) penalty flags
ESPN posted an article highlighting some of the rules changes that have been proposed by the NFL's competition committee. At the top of the list:
Significant changes to the use of video replay, including reviewing all fouls called by game officials, will be proposed by the NFL's competition committee at next week's owners meetings.
The committee is presenting a proposal by the Detroit Lions that would permit the instant replay system to correct an officiating error. That would include such controversial calls as pass interference.
To which I say, "no thank you". Can you imagine, after every penalty flag is thrown, having to wait for a replay to verify that the correct call was made? The game would be insufferable to watch. There would hardly be any flow at all. Terrible proposal, Detroit.
Other changes mentioned in the article:
- Placing fixed cameras on all boundary lines (proposed by the Patriots). I think this makes sense, and am surprised it's taken this long to be suggested.
- Moving the PAT to the 15-yard line
- Guaranteeing both teams a possession in OT, even if the first team scores a TD.
- Give teams that successfully convert a 2-point conversion the chance to immediately add another point from midfield. I have no idea what this means.
Holy crap that is a bad idea.
Most would say it's a bad idea because you shouldn't be able to review a holding call.
Which is true...but no coach in his right mind is going to waste a challenge flag on a holding call. It's too subjective of a penalty and could be called on almost every play of the game.
HOWEVER, the reason it's a bad idea is because coaches WILL review subjective penalties like holding as a last ditch effort late in the game. So it's going to slow the game down late in the game for no reason.
Any chance someone gets to throw that flag, even if there is a 99.99% chance of it being a losing effort, they're going to challenge - just in case. Because what do they have to lose?
A timeout? Unless they don't have anything else to burn them on?
My reading is that review would be taken out of the hands of coaches altogether -- if all penalties are reviewed then there's no need for a challenge.
Still an atrocious idea unless it comes with a time cap on the review. That should exist anyway. If the reviewing ref can't see in 45 seconds that the call was wrong, then the video evidence is probably not indisputable. No more four-minute reviews, please god.
It is painful enough to wathc a full NFL game now because of all of the commercials. Holy crap this is going to really ruin the viewing experience even more. Leave the penalties alone and run commercials in a PiP screen as the game progresses.
Maybe make all penalties challengable, but don't review all of them by default. I like the idea of being able to challenge an egregious PI call for example.
I like the first 3 bullet points, and agree on the last one, not sure what that would mean. You get the ball at the 50 for a one play chance at scoring another point??
Yeah, seems to me that the conversion rate would be so low on this that teams wouldn't want to waste time trying. Every attempt would essentially just be a jump ball to the end zone or a hook & ladder play. Maybe if they made it like a 5 on 5 thing from the 50 yard line, that might be more interesting. Doesn't really seem plausible though, and seems like a gimmick they would have tried in the XFL or something.
In an effort to give teams a chance to "go for three" at the end of a game. But yeah, I don't get it.
Challengable may make it better than reviewed, but I still don't think I'd like it. Too many of these calls are multi-faceted. Maybe a defender grabs an offensive player because an offensive player pushed off. What are you going to do for holding calls or non-holding calls? Do they actually call offensive PI with this, or is it only for defenses? To me, it sounds like a can of worms to slow the game down and ultimately just make everyone more upset when they don't have enough information to overturn something. "IT WAS EVEN REVIEWED!" I actually think it would hurt the actual product by slowing down the game, and actually hurt fan trust more. In bounds or out of bounds, crossed the goal line, those have less interpretation; flags have a lot of interpretation.
Surprised the "completion of the catch" wasn't brought up. That's an awful rule that I don't think anyone likes.
Another thing I thought of now. When in doubt, refs can rule a questionable fumble a turnover, or a questionable touchdown a touchdown because all turnovers and scoring plays are automatically reviewed, instead of blowing the whistle and killing the play. Would they then be encouraged to call a penalty when in doubt? Because then they will have the opportunity to review it. Not sure if its PI? Might as well just throw a flag then go review it... talk about slowing down the game!
And if you can review/challenge to overturn a penalty, can you challenge the lack of a penalty? Ref misses a call? Challenge/review... blech. game would never end.
About the terrible-ass call in the divisional playoffs.
I'm imagining this exchange taking place between Mr. Rogers and the Lakers fan bro. It fits.
Sounds like the two point conversion thing is pretty straightforward. Successfully complete a two point conversion and you get the opportunity to throw a hail mary from midfield for one point.
IMO there needs to be some drawback to making the choice to go for it. Why wouldn't a team take that option every time, even if they're just putting in their third string QB to throw a jump ball to their fourth receiver?
The expected points of going for two, even with the added hail mary, is still lower than the all-but-guaranteed one point with the extra point.
I should have clarified. I meant when a team had already decided to go for two, not as an alternative to kicking for one.
I don't know if that's enough of a disincentive. Maybe, in exchange, make teams kick the ensuing kickoff from 10 yards further back.
They should just adopt the college game's OT rules.
If the NFL wants to adopt the college playoff rules for regular season games, that'd be fine but I don't think I'd like to see a playoff game decided in that fashion.
Similiar to the NHL, they have one set of rules for regular season OT games and another set for the playoffs.
Off topic to this thread (although not your post) it looks like there's going to be some form of 3-on-3 overtime hockey coming to the NHL.
is that a proposal for the playoffs or just the regular season?
I'm guessing just regular season but I hadn't seen that explicitly. The GM's approved the idea but they need to hammer out details, mainly deciding between the AHL format (7:00 overtime, starting 4-on-4 and going to 3-on-3 after 3:00 and a whistle) and the Swedish format (keep the time 5:00, all 3-on-3).
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
in the overtime, but I don't think they should use the college rules. If the team that gets first possession scores, they kick off to the other team. If the team that receives the second kick off doesn't tie the score, game over.
But they'd have to move the starting point back from the 25 yard line. I wouldn't be against the college game looking into moving it back so that some teams aren't immediately in FG range, but in the NFL, it's way too close. If they went to the same rules, I'd think they'd have to start from the 40 or 50 probably. Or, maybe just start from your own 20, you'd get a lot of going for it on 4th down before FG range, might make it interesting.
But college should start at the 30 and NFL at the 35. You shouldn't start in FG position, you should start right on the edge. So we're talking 47 yarders for college and 52 for NFL, that's reasonable.
I think if you start further back, it makes the kicking game more important. I'd rather let the players decide the matter. You either get the TD or settle for the makeable FG. If both teams get stopped from the 30 or 35, whoever has the better kicker wins. I'd rather the better team wins and that's more likely to be determined under the existing college rules.
Why not just say you have to go for it on 4th down?
Strategery
I don't think they should stop, I just think they should be kept seperately. Player John Doe had X amount of yards in his career in the regular season and X amount of yards in the postseason.
Can't say I agree about OT. I see your point though.
March 19th, 2015 at 12:23 AM ^
I agree with the stance made by MLB that the game can't be 100% reviewed. Slows things down way too much. Also, Walter agrees with me:
if they want to make the extra point mean something, then move it to the 1 yard line. bet tons of teams would go for 2.
A much, Much, MUCH better option than moving the XP back.
Move it FORWARD to the 1. That's way more exciting (which the NFL cares about) and it puts power and strategy into the coaches hands.
No one gives a shit about a 32 yard XP. Just wasting time.
Also, losing or winning a game on an XP is bush league, that doesn't tell me who is the winner. Decide it on the field, not with one gimmick play where the best players aren't even playing.
That would be like the basketball sending the 12th man out to go play horse instead of going into OT.
not blocked, but missed...man...no words for that. alternatively, if i won because of that...i'd feel dirty.
however, if my team lost because they couldn't stop a team from converting a 2-point play at some point(s) in the game, then they deserved to lose. and if they won in that fashion, it would feel great.
I'm guessing you're not a Saints fan?
the excitement only goes downhill after that play, good to end it in more excitement.
missing a 5 yard extra point...it's mean to be. missing one from the 15 yard line is stupid.
There is still the infamous homer non-call that isn't reviewable.
It sounds like they really want to discourage PATs, with not only moving them to the 15 but also having the bizarre bonus Hail Mary thing. To have both of those seems excessive. Moving the PAT should be enough.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Stadium-produced video may be used for an Instant Replay review.
That one is rather interesting too, only because I can think of numerous occasions - either when at a game or when watching - where the stadium-produced replay definitely didn't seem to match up with the call, even after reviews sometimes. Once in a while, someone not filming in an official capacity catches something no one else did, or so it seems.