A couple serious questions about the NFL

[Dunnie]

Hey guys. ... in the most boring month of the NFL ... questions arise that really have little importance. That being said ... There are a couple issues I have questions about this year.

1. Changing the extra point rules, FG or kickoff rules ... doesn't anyone else think changes to kicking game have a huge effect on records of the past ??? In more areas than just the kicking game. I mean less FGs will lead to more TDs because there will be no alternative. Fewer point after attempts will lead to more 2PT conversions. I just think rules changes to the fundamental structure of the game will dilute records of the past.

2. The streaming of the London game online. I have not heard anyone comment on the most obvious reason for the NFL to do this. Forced advertising. I don't know about you guys ... but I almost always wait about 20 minutes before watching the games. Why ? Because doing so allows me to skip the commercials on my TiVO. NFL network hosts are all talking about people not having access points to the game other than TV. Advertising is clearly the reason this is happening.

3. Does anyone else think that removing challenges and instant replay altogether would allow the game to be played at a pace that it was always meant to be played?

4. Does anyone else think that because of the defenseless receiver rules, the defense should be allowed contact further down the field in order to balance the game ??

Love to hear your thoughts on these issues and others not mentioned.

I still love the NFL ... but eventually this game will not resemble football.

[patman]

I think you should be able chuck the receiver until the ball is in the air as it was in pre 78.

 

I want the correct call to be made, more than I want the game sped up.

 

I want to get rid of the 40 yard pass interference play unless the receivers hands or arms were grabbed, make it a 15 yard penalty for running into him.

 

no automatic 1st down for pass interference 3rd and 9, a 6 yard hitch does not get rewarded for a 1st down because the defender gets there 1/10 of a second to soon. Spot foul.

 

Enforcement of the 5 yards down field by the olineman during passing plays. One of the great reason why SF and Seattle have the success with the long ball is that  the D reads run once the oline is 5 yards down field and converge and then the qb throws the ball while scrambling.

[section314]

I think you should be able chuck the receiver until the ball is in the air as it was in pre 78.

 

I want the correct call to be made, more than I want the game sped up.

 

I want to get rid of the 40 yard pass interference play unless the receivers hands or arms were grabbed, make it a 15 yard penalty for running into him.

 

no automatic 1st down for pass interference 3rd and 9, a 6 yard hitch does not get rewarded for a 1st down because the defender gets there 1/10 of a second to soon. Spot foul.

 

Enforcement of the 5 yards down field by the olineman during passing plays. One of the great reason why SF and Seattle have the success with the long ball is that  the D reads run once the oline is 5 yards down field and converge and then the qb throws the ball while scrambling.

 

 

Your p#4 is my biggest peeve.......defensive holding an auto 1st down.It should be a 5 yd penalty and replay down. 

[RutgersJetFan]

Advertising is clearly the reason this is happening.

 

It's almost like all they are concerned with is turning a profit.

[TuscanyTile2]

Hey guys. ... in the most boring month of the NFL ... questions arise that really have little importance. That being said ... There are a couple issues I have questions about this year.

1. Changing the extra point rules, FG or kickoff rules ... doesn't anyone else think changes to kicking game have a huge effect on records of the past ??? In more areas than just the kicking game. I mean less FGs will lead to more TDs because there will be no alternative. Fewer point after attempts will lead to more 2PT conversions. I just think rules changes to the fundamental structure of the game will dilute records of the past.

2. The streaming of the London game online. I have not heard anyone comment on the most obvious reason for the NFL to do this. Forced advertising. I don't know about you guys ... but I almost always wait about 20 minutes before watching the games. Why ? Because doing so allows me to skip the commercials on my TiVO. NFL network hosts are all talking about people not having access points to the game other than TV. Advertising is clearly the reason this is happening.

3. Does anyone else think that removing challenges and instant replay altogether would allow the game to be played at a pace that it was always meant to be played?

4. Does anyone else think that because of the defenseless receiver rules, the defense should be allowed contact further down the field in order to balance the game ??

Love to hear your thoughts on these issues and others not mentioned.

I still love the NFL ... but eventually this game will not resemble football.

 

1) I'm all for changing the PAT rule.  I don't care about the record books as far as kickers go anyway.  I guess it could affect offensive stats as well but it's already too late for that as we see w/ 4000+ and 5000+ passing yd seasons due to rules changes

 

2) It won't be on TV any longer?  Only streaming?  Your TIVO explanation is interesting but I wonder how many people do what you do (wait until 20 mins into the game before starting to watch).  I would guess not a significant percentage of people do this.

 

3) The instant replay rule has gotten ridiculous.  I wish they would just implement the initial rule of "they have to make a decision in 30 seconds" else the call stands.  Heck, I'd be fine w/ 45 seconds.  But the way it stands right now, it takes way too long

 

4) I'm not an expert in the nuances of this but I do hope they look at the rules and allow the defenders more leeway.  I fully agree w/ you that the game is starting to not resemble football.  I wish defense and the running game mattered more.  RBs are so devalued these days and defenders are penalized for very minor things.

[Jet Fan RI]

It's almost like all they are concerned with is turning a profit.

 

That is exactly all they care about. That's why they keep expanding the number of night games. I'll bet the only reason they don't expand them even further is that they suspect it might cut into the Sunday Ticket profits.

[Dcat]

Hey guys. ... in the most boring month of the NFL ... questions arise that really have little importance. That being said ... There are a couple issues I have questions about this year.

1. Changing the extra point rules, FG or kickoff rules ... doesn't anyone else think changes to kicking game have a huge effect on records of the past ??? In more areas than just the kicking game. I mean less FGs will lead to more TDs because there will be no alternative. Fewer point after attempts will lead to more 2PT conversions. I just think rules changes to the fundamental structure of the game will dilute records of the past.

2. The streaming of the London game online. I have not heard anyone comment on the most obvious reason for the NFL to do this. Forced advertising. I don't know about you guys ... but I almost always wait about 20 minutes before watching the games. Why ? Because doing so allows me to skip the commercials on my TiVO. NFL network hosts are all talking about people not having access points to the game other than TV. Advertising is clearly the reason this is happening.

3. Does anyone else think that removing challenges and instant replay altogether would allow the game to be played at a pace that it was always meant to be played?

4. Does anyone else think that because of the defenseless receiver rules, the defense should be allowed contact further down the field in order to balance the game ??

Love to hear your thoughts on these issues and others not mentioned.

I still love the NFL ... but eventually this game will not resemble football.

 

1.  As long as it makes the game better, I strongly support rule changes.  Over the last 35 years, there have been dozens of rule changes to help the offense.  Just the PI rules implemented in the 80's and 90's alone dramatically reshaped the face of NFL stats.  I don't really care about prior records.  Never seemed important to me as compared to MLB.  Not sure why.  I no longer care about records in MLB either ever since Bonds, McGuire and Sosa tainted them.  As for NFL records, how can anyone be serious about them after crap like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C2W62HNNsc.  I actually think the changes to the point-after will help the game.  

 

2. The NFL will always do whatever it can to generate revenue.  would you expect anything else?  Is it true that there will be no way to record the game on your DVR?  I guess I don't understand this.

 

3.  You're probably right, but to me, getting the call right is paramount. So I am in the Bill Belichick camp that anything and everything should be subject to review.

 

4. Would love to have some rule changes to benefit the defense.  The force-out rule change a few years ago was not one I particularly liked, but it did help defenses.

 

The game will continue to evolve and rules will continue to change.  Like it or not.  I just hope it makes the game better.  The recent KO rule changes were designed to dramatically reduce the number of returns and increase touch backs.  Fears about concussions on those plays led to that and I think they have removed one of the most exciting facets of the game.  That's one rule change I really didn't like.

[Jet Fan RI]

1) I'm all for changing the PAT rule.  I don't care about the record books as far as kickers go anyway.  I guess it could affect offensive stats as well but it's already too late for that as we see w/ 4000+ and 5000+ passing yd seasons due to rules changes

 

2) It won't be on TV any longer?  Only streaming?  Your TIVO explanation is interesting but I wonder how many people do what you do (wait until 20 mins into the game before starting to watch).  I would guess not a significant percentage of people do this.

 

3) The instant replay rule has gotten ridiculous.  I wish they would just implement the initial rule of "they have to make a decision in 30 seconds" else the call stands.  Heck, I'd be fine w/ 45 seconds.  But the way it stands right now, it takes way too long

 

4) I'm not an expert in the nuances of this but I do hope they look at the rules and allow the defenders more leeway.  I fully agree w/ you that the game is starting to not resemble football.  I wish defense and the running game mattered more.  RBs are so devalued these days and defenders are penalized for very minor things.

 

I don't do it for games. But I do do it for the pregame show. Nice to avoid the commercials.

[RutgersJetFan]

That is exactly all they care about.

 

That is fascinating. I wonder why?

[Cornfed]

3. Does anyone else think that removing challenges and instant replay altogether would allow the game to be played at a pace that it was always meant to be played?

Great post during this boring month. I have thoughts on the others, but for now quick thoughts on this one.

I feel like the scope of replay could be increased. It sucks when we all know something is wrong but it's not "reviewable." We let "wrong" transpire despite our having the tech and ability to correct it.

But I would like a much more strict time limit on reviews. It feels like in 10 seconds you can correct 90%+ of the issues. In 30 seconds it goes to like 95%+ (note, I am making those pcts up, but I think they are directionally correct).

It is those pesky "did he make a football move" calls that we obsess on longer. And they wind up being a judgment call and half of the crowd remains unhappy, anyway.

So I think a strict shot clock on reviews would allow nearly all of the egregious wrongs to be fixed and those insidious questionable ones would remain insidiously questionable, but we'd all be spared of 9000 replays and endless repetitive commentary

Just my 2 cents. Good post and discussion

[Dunnie]

Great post during this boring month. I have thoughts on the others, but for now quick thoughts on this one.

I feel like the scope of replay could be increased. It sucks when we all know something is wrong but it's not "reviewable." We let "wrong" transpire despite our having the tech and ability to correct it.

But I would like a much more strict time limit on reviews. It feels like in 10 seconds you can correct 90%+ of the issues. In 30 seconds it goes to like 95%+ (note, I am making those pcts up, but I think they are directionally correct).

It is those pesky "did he make a football move" calls that we obsess on longer. And they wind up being a judgment call and half of the crowd remains unhappy, anyway.

So I think a strict shot clock on reviews would allow nearly all of the egregious wrongs to be fixed and those insidious questionable ones would remain insidiously questionable, but we'd all be spared of 9000 replays and endless repetitive commentary

Just my 2 cents. Good post and discussion

I love this idea.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dunnie]

1. As long as it makes the game better, I strongly support rule changes. Over the last 35 years, there have been dozens of rule changes to help the offense. Just the PI rules implemented in the 80's and 90's alone dramatically reshaped the face of NFL stats. I don't really care about prior records. Never seemed important to me as compared to MLB. Not sure why. I no longer care about records in MLB either ever since Bonds, McGuire and Sosa tainted them. As for NFL records, how can anyone be serious about them after crap like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C2W62HNNsc. I actually think the changes to the point-after will help the game.

2. The NFL will always do whatever it can to generate revenue. would you expect anything else? Is it true that there will be no way to record the game on your DVR? I guess I don't understand this.

3. You're probably right, but to me, getting the call right is paramount. So I am in the Bill Belichick camp that anything and everything should be subject to review.

4. Would love to have some rule changes to benefit the defense. The force-out rule change a few years ago was not one I particularly liked, but it did help defenses.

The game will continue to evolve and rules will continue to change. Like it or not. I just hope it makes the game better. The recent KO rule changes were designed to dramatically reduce the number of returns and increase touch backs. Fears about concussions on those plays led to that and I think they have removed one of the most exciting facets of the game. That's one rule change I really didn't like.

Interesting points on all ... Regarding recording the London game ... I know of no way to easily record an Internet stream. I guess you could capture it and then replay it back as a movie ... But it's not an easy endeavor.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jet Fan RI]

That is fascinating. I wonder why?

 

Well, there's no begrudging a business owner's desire to make a profit. But NFL owners are going to such extremes I think they may wind up killing the game.

[DaBallhawk]

The last one IMO wouldn't make much sense. Those two are totally different issues. The NFL should get rid of the defenseless receiver rule, that's about it. If you give corners too much freedom to contact receivers down the field it would probably just cripple offenses. You wouldn't have so many damn 1000 yard receivers each year, which probably isn't even a bad thing. It used to be special to crack the 1k mark. Now virtually every starting receiver is expected to do that otherwise they're underachieving.

[BaumerJet]

Well, there's no begrudging a business owner's desire to make a profit. But NFL owners are going to such extremes I think they may wind up killing the game.

For pity's sake Rutgers, The NFL was created by new car dealers way back in the day in Canton.

Only being as a means to make a profit.

That's why consideration for moving the Pro Bowl in 2017 to Rio de Janeiro as well as to London in 2016 is on the table per Jay Glaser.

I would not be surprised if one day the Super Bowl is played out of the United States, just to make a larger profit on the international stage.

[ASH1962]

It's almost like all they are concerned with is turning a profit.

Couldn't agree more. The amount of ad's during an NFL broadcast is disgusting. The amount of time reviewing every single play, allowing for more TV ad time is disgusting. This is a game, not life and death. There is no need for every single play and call to be scrutinized under an electron microscope. The game is played and officiated by human beings. Mistakes and blown calls are a fact of life, sometimes you get them, sometimes they go against you. Next thing is going to be robot players & referees.

 

This is in no way, shape or form the game I grew up loving.

[RutgersJetFan]

For pity's sake Rutgers, The NFL was created by new car dealers way back in the day in Canton.

Only being as a means to make a profit.

That's why consideration for moving the Pro Bowl in 2017 to Rio de Janeiro as well as to London in 2016 is on the table per Jay Glaser.

I would not be surprised if one day the Super Bowl is played out of the United States, just to make a larger profit on the international stage.

But why?

[RutgersJetFan]

Couldn't agree more. The amount of ad's during an NFL broadcast is disgusting. The amount of time reviewing every single play, allowing for more TV ad time is disgusting. This is a game, not life and death. There is no need for every single play and call to be scrutinized under an electron microscope. The game is played and officiated by human beings. Mistakes and blown calls are a fact of life, sometimes you get them, sometimes they go against you. Next thing is going to be robot players & referees.

This is in no way, shape or form the game I grew up loving.

It's like people only do things because they get paid, and that's just really sad.

[Jet9]

Couldn't agree more. The amount of ad's during an NFL broadcast is disgusting. The amount of time reviewing every single play, allowing for more TV ad time is disgusting. This is a game, not life and death. There is no need for every single play and call to be scrutinized under an electron microscope. The game is played and officiated by human beings. Mistakes and blown calls are a fact of life, sometimes you get them, sometimes they go against you. Next thing is going to be robot players & referees.

This is in no way, shape or form the game I grew up loving.

Disagree. With this much money involved, the integrity of the game must remain. If there's even a whiff of cheating, point shaving, game fixing, etc....then it's the WWE. It's a reason I don't watch the NBA anymore. A ref went to prison and people act like nothing happened there.

[Dunnie]

Disagree. With this much money involved, the integrity of the game must remain. If there's even a whiff of cheating, point shaving, game fixing, etc....then it's the WWE. It's a reason I don't watch the NBA anymore. A ref went to prison and people act like nothing happened there.

Look at the Pats home record and tell me there is no corruption anyway ....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jet9]

Look at the Pats home record and tell me there is no corruption anyway ....

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sure. Doesn't make it okay though.

[BaumerJet]

But why?

All too simple;

only 8 percent of all Super Bowl tickets are sold to the fans, the rest go to corporations.

Moving the game will only increase the amount of secondary sales and ancillary sales for the oncoming event.

Brazil was a chosen location because of the 2016 Olympics, Their Olympic Stadium can hold over a hundred thousand patrons and the fact that the Brazilian American football league was established in 2014.

The NFL wants a piece of that, especially since they've made so much profit over the last 5 years with NFL games being promoted on Brazilian television.

Quite simple, Gudell is looking for a larger audience to draw more money for the NFL.

After all, it is a for profit organizationand not a non-profit one.

[RutgersJetFan]

All too simple;

only 8 percent of all Super Bowl tickets are sold to the fans, the rest go to corporations.

Moving the game will only increase the amount of secondary sales and ancillary sales for the oncoming event.

Brazil was a chosen location because of the 2016 Olympics, Their Olympic Stadium can hold over a hundred thousand patrons and the fact that the Brazilian American football league was established in 2014.

The NFL wants a piece of that, especially since they've made so much profit over the last 5 years with NFL games being promoted on Brazilian television.

Quite simple, Gudell is looking for a larger audience to draw more money for the NFL.

After all, it is a for profit organizationand not a non-profit one.

Ah. It's a profit deal. That takes the pressure off.

[Jetster]

Your p#4 is my biggest peeve.......defensive holding an auto 1st down.It should be a 5 yd penalty and replay down.

Especially on those 3rd & really long plays!

How many times vs Brady & the Patsies have we had them backed up in 3rd & long and got a cheap holding call on us & an automatic 1st down? Those are remote throwing calls!

[BaumerJet]

Ah. It's a profit deal. That takes the pressure off.

What were you expecting, Rollerball?

Of course it's an all profit deal.

[HessStation]

Holy crap...

[RutgersJetFan]

What were you expecting, Rollerball?

Of course it's an all profit deal.

 

I wonder what other things work this way. Do you think this is why some movies get made, but not others? What about music and food?

[RutgersJetFan]

Holy crap...