SeniorFlaJet Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Some significant changes to be discussed by the committee: If you win the coin toss you can defer to take the ball starting the second half. Doing away with the force out. The defender can only be penalized if he actually picks up the receiver and throws him out of bounds. Wow NO more 5 yards penaltys for incidental face mask. All penalties are 15 yards. And the long hair cutting rule. There may be more but that all I have heard at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Some significant changes to be discussed by the committee: If you win the coin toss you can defer to take the ball starting the second half. Doing away with the force out. The defender can only be penalized if he actually picks up the receiver and throws him out of bounds. Wow NO more 5 yards penaltys for incidental face mask. All penalties are 15 yards. And the long hair cutting rule. There may be more but that all I have heard at this point. I'll go along with being able to defer to the second half, but I don't like any of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tparich Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 NO more 5 yards penaltys for incidental face mask. All penalties are 15 yards. The way I read this change was that the incidental face mask will no longer ba called. The only face mask penalty that will be called is when they pull to turn the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsis Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 The way I read this change was that the incidental face mask will no longer ba called. The only face mask penalty that will be called is when they pull to turn the head. Well I hope that is what they mean, calling 15 yards for an incidental facemask is pretty harsh. I don't see why they have to get rid of the force out, just because it's something you can't review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMaynard Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 Doing away with the force out. The defender can only be penalized if he actually picks up the receiver and throws him out of bounds. Wow I thought they already did away with that when I watched the Chris Baker stolen TD against the Browns in 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeniorFlaJet Posted March 27, 2008 Author Share Posted March 27, 2008 Some others I have heard about are: Each of the four div winners in each conf. would earn post season berths, but only the two div winners in each conf with the better record would get auomatic home games. The divwinners with the lower records plus the 2 wild card teams will compete for seeds 3 thru 6 based on record. Also instant reply on field goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joiseyjet Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I thought you were already able to defer to the second half by choosing to kick or recieve & if you kicked you got the ball to start in the second half .The 1 rule I wish they would look into is each team should get at least 1 possestion in overtime then after that the first team to score would win if they were still tied.It sucks losing on a coin toss after playing hard for 60 min. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyjetsjetsjets Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 I thought you were already able to defer to the second half by choosing to kick or recieve & if you kicked you got the ball to start in the second half .The 1 rule I wish they would look into is each team should get at least 1 possestion in overtime then after that the first team to score would win if they were still tied.It sucks losing on a coin toss after playing hard for 60 min. Nope, only in madden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoicsentry Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Nope, only in madden. So you can choose to kick and then have to kick again second half? Huh??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Bit Special Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/cointoss Coin Toss The toss of coin will take place within three minutes of kickoff in center of field. The toss will be called by the visiting captain before the coin is flipped. The winner may choose one of two privileges and the loser gets the other: (a) Receive or kick ( Goal his team will defend Immediately prior to the start of the second half, the captains of both teams must inform the officials of their respective choices. The loser of the original coin toss gets first choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 NFL may change free-agency rules March 27, 2008 The 49ers' tampering with Bears linebacker Lance Briggs could be directly related to a proposed change in the NFL rules. With the annual meetings set to start Monday in Florida, the league held a teleconference Wednesday to discuss some of the proposed changes by the competition committee. One proposal involves the creation of a five- to seven-day dead period before free agency during which teams could talk to the agents of the players, but not to the free agents themselves. During the period, a contract could be negotiated but not executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Some others I have heard about are: Each of the four div winners in each conf. would earn post season berths, but only the two div winners in each conf with the better record would get auomatic home games. The divwinners with the lower records plus the 2 wild card teams will compete for seeds 3 thru 6 based on record. Also instant reply on field goals. I think that rule regarding the home seeds is good. Now it is less likely that playoff contenders will get screwed due to teams taking a week off and playing the backups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I think that rule regarding the home seeds is good. Now it is less likely that playoff contenders will get screwed due to teams taking a week off and playing the backups. Then why play 6 division games? Why should some team that fails to win their division host a team that actually did? The Jets won the AFCE in 2002 with a 9-7 record and hosted the wildcard 10-6 Colts. Should that game have been played at the Meadowlands or the RCA Dome? I hope this doesn't pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I really liked the idea "the team with the better record is the home team". I am so sick and tired of seeing a 10-6 or 11-5 Wild Card team at a 8-8 or 9-7 Division Champion. Screw that. As posters said before, this will limit teams playing Jim Sorgi, Quinn Gray and other useless backups in the final game(s) of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Then why play 6 division games? Why should some team that fails to win their division host a team that actually did? The Jets won the AFCE in 2002 with a 9-7 record and hosted the wildcard 10-6 Colts. Should that game have been played at the Meadowlands or the RCA Dome? I hope this doesn't pass. Maybe they should implement a college type system where the team that wins the division is solely determine based on divisional games. The overall record is only factored in when considering playoff seeds and if there is a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I really liked the idea "the team with the better record is the home team". I am so sick and tired of seeing a 10-6 or 11-5 Wild Card team at a 8-8 or 9-7 Division Champion. Screw that. As posters said before, this will limit teams playing Jim Sorgi, Quinn Gray and other useless backups in the final game(s) of the season. If this was a rule in 2002 the 9-7 Jets would have have played at Indy in the 1st round of the playoffs. Would you have been happy with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 If this was a rule in 2002 the 9-7 Jets would have have played at Indy in the 1st round of the playoffs. Would you have been happy with that? But that rule wasn't in place. What happened in 2002 doesn't matter. What matters is 2008 and beyond and that is what is best for the sport come Week 16 and 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gainzo Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 But that rule wasn't in place. What happened in 2002 doesn't matter. What matters is 2008 and beyond and that is what is best for the sport come Week 16 and 17. That's a load of garbage. If a team wins the division then they have the right to host a playoff game. What if the Jets go 11-5 and win the AFCE this year but the Jags go 12-4 and don't win the AFC South? Would you be happy that the Jets have to play in Jacksonville? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 That's a load of garbage. If a team wins the division then they have the right to host a playoff game. What if the Jets go 11-5 and win the AFCE this year but the Jags go 12-4 and don't win the AFC South? Would you be happy that the Jets have to play in Jacksonville? I certainly wouldn't be "happy" about it at all. But happiness doesn't factor into it. If this happened, the reality is that means the Jags won more games than we did and they did so with a 13-14 win team in their division. The idea is to have the best teams in the playoffs, and reward the best of those best teams with home field advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Jet Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Teams like Seattle for example do not deserve to host PO games every year because they just beat the **** out of their weak division. It's even worse on the teams that have to visit because they're such a tough road team. That case specifically shows how flawed the current playoff system is IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 That's a load of garbage. If a team wins the division then they have the right to host a playoff game. What if the Jets go 11-5 and win the AFCE this year but the Jags go 12-4 and don't win the AFC South? Would you be happy that the Jets have to play in Jacksonville? Who cares if I would be happy about it? No Jet fan would be happy about it, but you know what? The team with the better record deserves to be the home team. They earned it by winning the most games, which is what its all about in the regular season. Who can win the most games. The teams that do so should be rewarded in the postseason. Oh, and I highly doubt the Jets will A. Win the AFC East and B. A 11-5 team being the 4th seed? No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 Who cares if I would be happy about it? No Jet fan would be happy about it, but you know what? The team with the better record deserves to be the home team. They earned it by winning the most games, which is what its all about in the regular season. Who can win the most games. The teams that do so should be rewarded in the postseason. Oh, and I highly doubt the Jets will A. Win the AFC East and B. A 11-5 team being the 4th seed? No way. Why? This year the AFCE sucked, so it doesn't apply to us or anything, but why punish a division winner in a good division as compared to someone placing second in a weak division? Might as well get rid of divisions and make it like the NBA then. Actually I think even they have moved to divisions now, but I know definitely in the past it was all just by record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 The AFC has a weak division? Where is it? The AFC West? Maybe. I don't see this being a problem for the AFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 I certainly wouldn't be "happy" about it at all. But happiness doesn't factor into it. If this happened, the reality is that means the Jags won more games than we did and they did so with a 13-14 win team in their division. The idea is to have the best teams in the playoffs, and reward the best of those best teams with home field advantage. What if the two other teams were both 1-5 in the division, and had less than 3 wins each, on the season? In that division, the top 2 teams both get 4 free games, which is more of a gap than the division winner and WC records we're complaining about here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 The AFC has a weak division? Where is it? The AFC West? Maybe. I don't see this being a problem for the AFC. The AFCE was pretty crummy. The Bills got 2 off us, and another 2 off the Fins to inflate their record. Only NE was good. People were saying the AFCE was weak last year too, and the Jets and Pats both shouldn't have made the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sperm Edwards Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 What if the two other teams were both 1-5 in the division, and had less than 3 wins each, on the season? In that division, the top 2 teams both get 4 free games, which is more of a gap than the division winner and WC records we're complaining about here. You do know that we always have the Dolphins in our division, yes? And the Bills? But that's still looking way too far into it. There will always be high-win teams in sucky divisions. Reality catches up to them in the playoffs. What if we win the division with a 9-7 record - we would rightly deserve a home game against a 12-win team? C'mon. What the current system does is to potentially penalize a team, frankly, due to its geographical location. I wouldn't want them looking further into it (like opponent win percentage, which is a garbage # to use for a variety of reasons). Wins is good enough: division winners & the next best are wild cards. #1 and #2 are the same & the rest by wins. Doesn't spoil division rivalries. Doesn't affect who makes the playoffs & who doesn't. Doesn't upset anything other than a #3-6 team with fewer wins won't be getting a home game against a #3-6 team who finished the season with a better record. I don't even understand the controversy. It should have always been this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.