McLovin Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I didn't see this posted, If it was I apologize and Mods please delete this thread. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALM BEACH, Fla. -- NFL owners concluded their annual meeting owners with quick passages of several proposals and by tabling the re-seeding idea for the playoffs. Without the necessary 24 votes to pass a re-seeding plan to give wild-card teams the chance to host playoff games, the Competition Committee tabled the concept to a later meeting, most likely May. Among the proposals that were passed: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 3, 2008 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 Personally, I think the no force out rule is going to have the biggest impact. I mean this is a huge advantage for defensive backs compared to last year. They don't have to worry about which direction they hit the receiver because it doesn't matter where they land anymore. Also, I think its great that defenses will be able to use radios now. Now we'll just have to see how long it takes the Pats to learn how to steal radio signals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxman Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 So Chris Baker was officially out of bounds 2 years ago, is that what they are saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 3, 2008 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 So Chris Baker was officially out of bounds 2 years ago, is that what they are saying? Haha, Yep. I honestly believe that this rule change is because of the controversy caused by plays like what happened to Baker. That play would have changed the outcome of the game. Also, because force outs are not really a reviewable play because it's based solely on the opinion of the closest official to the play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJ667 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 It certainly seems that a majority of those rules will help the defense. especially the force out rule. I'd certainly expect Revis to benefit from that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 3, 2008 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 Just curious, whats everyones take on the "no 5-Yd facemask rule"? I always thought that this was a good penalty to have multiple levels of severity. In my mind, there is a big difference from getting your hand caught up in someones face mask, and getting your hand caught and twisting someones head, or pulling them down by the face mask. I've been wondering if this will lead to an overall reduced number of facemask penalties, or if there is still going to be (more or less) the same amount of class, except the refs will be calling 15yrders for what was previously the 5 yrd type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJ667 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Just curious, whats everyones take on the "no 5-Yd facemask rule"? I always thought that this was a good penalty to have multiple levels of severity. In my mind, there is a big difference from getting your hand caught up in someones face mask, and getting your hand caught and twisting someones head, or pulling them down by the face mask. I've been wondering if this will lead to an overall reduced number of facemask penalties, or if there is still going to be (more or less) the same amount of class, except the refs will be calling 15yrders for what was previously the 5 yrd type. I think its good that it is gone, you really aren't affecting anything, and guys are going so damn fast that most of the time you are just reaching for anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alk Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 3, 2008 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Jet Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 This was because of the field goal this year (Balt game I believe...) where the ball bounced a couple times and it wasn't immediately apparent if it was good or not. The officials ended up getting the call right, but it pointed out that their are instances when field goals should be reviewed. It was minor, but had to be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 3, 2008 Author Share Posted April 3, 2008 It was minor, but had to be done. I personally don't think there is much of an argument against having FG's be reviewable. It's probably something that will happen once or twice a season at most, but if their is ever an instance where the two officials don't agree on if it's good or not, why not be able to take a look the video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY JET 29 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I didn't see this posted, If it was I apologize and Mods please delete this thread. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALM BEACH, Fla. -- NFL owners concluded their annual meeting owners with quick passages of several proposals and by tabling the re-seeding idea for the playoffs. Without the necessary 24 votes to pass a re-seeding plan to give wild-card teams the chance to host playoff games, the Competition Committee tabled the concept to a later meeting, most likely May. Among the proposals that were passed: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Personally, I think the no force out rule is going to have the biggest impact. I mean this is a huge advantage for defensive backs compared to last year. They don't have to worry about which direction they hit the receiver because it doesn't matter where they land anymore. Also, I think its great that defenses will be able to use radios now. Now we'll just have to see how long it takes the Pats to learn how to steal radio signals. I think the elimination of the five yard facemask will have the biggest impact. I think both rule changes are idiotic. If anything, they should have made force-outs reviewable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 I think the elimination of the five yard facemask will have the biggest impact. I think both rule changes are idiotic. If anything, they should have made force-outs reviewable. I think I remember reading that the reason forceouts were not reviewable is because it's purely a judgement call made by the closest official... The forceout rulings were very inconsistent. I guess they figured it was easier to get rid of the rule than to keep all the controversy that comes with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 I think the elimination of the five yard facemask will have the biggest impact. I think both rule changes are idiotic. If anything, they should have made force-outs reviewable. Also, how do you think the elimination of the 5 yd rule will have the biggest impact? Do you think that it will cause less facemask penalties to be called? Or, do you think that they are still going to call the same amount of penalties, expect they will be enforcing a 15 yder for what would have previously been a 5 yd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Also, how do you think the elimination of the 5 yd rule will have the biggest impact? Do you think that it will cause less facemask penalties to be called? Or, do you think that they are still going to call the same amount of penalties, expect they will be enforcing a 15 yder for what would have previously been a 5 yd? I'm not completely sure what they did here. I was under the impression that ALL facemask penalties will be 15 yards, not that they would just quit calling the ticky-tack ones where the defender happens to brush the ballcarrier's facemask with his hand. If they really are only going to call it if it's a major facemask, then I have no problem with it. This also eliminates Mike Carey shouting "MAJOR FACEMASK...DEFENSE!!!!", which I am not happy about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 I'm not completely sure what they did here. I was under the impression that ALL facemask penalties will be 15 yards, not that they would just quit calling the ticky-tack ones where the defender happens to brush the ballcarrier's facemask with his hand. If they really are only going to call it if it's a major facemask, then I have no problem with it. This also eliminates Mike Carey shouting "MAJOR FACEMASK...DEFENSE!!!!", which I am not happy about. I could be reading it wrong, but I believe that they are only enforcing the major facemask penalty, as in grabbing the mask and twisting someones head, and that simply touching someones face mask is no longer a penalty. I'm not sure. Obviously, I could be wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I could be reading it wrong, but I believe that they are only enforcing the major facemask penalty, as in grabbing the mask and twisting someones head, and that simply touching someones face mask is no longer a penalty. I'm not sure. Obviously, I could be wrong Hopefully, you are right. It would horrible if every time a facemask was touched, it would be an automatic 15 and a 1st down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
124 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 I agree with everything they changed, minus the force out rule. This will limit the great sideline catches you see week in and week out in the NFL and it will make it even harder for a team to score in the redzone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 Apparently, some team (Chicago, maybe?) proposed a new rule that would make punting out of bounds a penalty (Like on kickoffs) http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/rumors/post/League-rejects-Devin-Hester-Rule-on-punts?urn=nfl,74820 I'm happy this didn't get passed. It's a stupid rule. Being able to accurately punt the ball out of bounds to pin a team deep is a strategic part of the game, eliminating it would be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 I agree with everything they changed, minus the force out rule. This will limit the great sideline catches you see week in and week out in the NFL and it will make it even harder for a team to score in the redzone. The first thing that came to my mind was how much this would effect teams redzone offense. I would be very interested to see a statistic of just how many TD's were called using the force-out rule... I think it would be quite a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJ667 Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 Apparently, some team (Chicago, maybe?) proposed a new rule that would make punting out of bounds a penalty (Like on kickoffs) http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/rumors/post/League-rejects-Devin-Hester-Rule-on-punts?urn=nfl,74820 I'm happy this didn't get passed. It's a stupid rule. Being able to accurately punt the ball out of bounds to pin a team deep is a strategic part of the game, eliminating it would be stupid. It was Chicago, because they know devin hester is their offense. and thats it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSJ Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 What about the BS time out rule during FG's? I assume we will just see more of that kinda thing this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alk Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 What about the BS time out rule during FG's? I assume we will just see more of that kinda thing this year? Well, considering I think every time a coach has attempted that it has backfired I imagine the NFL was like eff it, let them waste their timeouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 Well, considering I think every time a coach has attempted that it has backfired I imagine the NFL was like eff it, let them waste their timeouts. I think that it is OK to call a time out while the teams are lining up, but I think calling the timeout when the kicker had just about started his approach is stupid... Def something I think they should have gotten rid of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetfuel Posted April 4, 2008 Share Posted April 4, 2008 the force-out rule change might result in more violent hits to knock guys out of bounds Seriously, I'm not a fan of this rule. I think it negates some tremendous catches as it is by officials screwing up the call. To take that ruling away altogether does not entice me. But I guess it will give them consistency. Whatever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McLovin Posted April 4, 2008 Author Share Posted April 4, 2008 the force-out rule change might result in more violent hits to knock guys out of bounds just kidding You might be right. Defenders don't have to worry about pushing them out of bounds when they are in the air anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.