It's time for some changes in the NFL.

[Titaw]

1) Refs should be made full time and have a large base salary. When the league cuts the checks they have the director of officiating (guru of the rule book) review their performance. If there is a missed call, bad call, or downright ticky tack call then they cut their pay for each. This would ensure the refs get it right because they would lose money if they don't.

1a) I would also revamp the replay system as such.

1a.1) Hire a replay official. His sole purpose is to review every call that is in question even before a challenge flag is thrown.

1a.2) Bury a wire sensor along the front of the goal line. Also emplant a series of sensors in the football (with tehcnology the way it is right now, this would not add to the weight of the football). On TD calls all they would have to do is watch for a lamp to light up and signal TD. Now say the ball carrier is down but still extends and lights the lamp. The replay official will the have a spllit creen, one side soley the lamp the other the ball carrier. If the runner is down and no lamp lit, no TD.

1a.3) Implement the use of about 20 or more cameras strategically place around the stadium for the sole use of replay. More angles = better and correct calls.

2) I really have no problem with the way OT is done. If there was a change I would just add another quarter and whoever comes out on toop wins if not then it results in a tie.

[Mooka]

1. Full time refs won't solve anything. Some of the better more established refs would quit because they would lose money. (would lose their other jobs) Like mcary says, its just a part of sports, bad calls are made and will always be made no matter how well the refs know the rules.

2. OT is fine. The college way would be rediculous. If you wanna win, stop em. No difference between OT and the last minutes of the 4th quarter. Game tied, if your on defense, stop em or you lose.

I always hear people say they want the refs accountable for their bad calls. No offense, but no one has any clue. I'm sure they are held accountable for bad calls, because teams constantly send in film to the league. You guys want more media coverage? :puke:

The refs should be encouraged to dismiss calls that do not impact a play.

Absolutely not. That would encourage dirty play.

How about just putting the NFL back to the way it used to be. The league makes up new rules every year, like the "illegal contact" penalty, and stupid **** like that.

That was always a rule. The league just started enforcing it.

[bschurm]

It has been mentioned for years that the referees need to be full time. I remember hearing that argument in the 80's. God, now I know I'm getting old.

This idea is not a cure for what ails the referee situation, but there is a technology out there for a sitution like the Ben Rothlisberger touchdown. The technology was developed too late for the World Cup this year, but it is in many world class soccer matches.They have developed a microchip that they attach to the ball and sensors on the field to detect whether the ball has gone out of bounds. FIFA has anounced this technology will be present in the 2010 World Cup.

Not exactly sure how it works, but this tecnology would have negated the touchdown by Allstott and the Redskins would have gone into the playoffs as a #2 seed.

Just a thought.

[P007]

It's real simple. two changes need to be made in the NFL.

1) Full time refs.

2) change the overtime so it's more like college. First two overtimes are like college. if it goes to a third overtime...then it's sudden death.

Thoughts?

The refs I agree with, but not the overtime.

[Phixius]

Refs yeah but the O.T. I dont think so.

[NYSkins1]

On Overtime:

I don't think it needs to be changed. I read somewhere that, statistically speaking, the coin toss has little to no bearing over who wins the game. How often the team that wins the coin toss wins the game vs. how often the team that loses the coin toss wins is almost exactly 50-50.

[desertfox59]

I must say, I'm really shocked at the numbers of people who are for the current overtime.

Having watched several college overtimes (and played in a few) I Have to say that there is no more exciting period in all of sports. As a fan it is exciting. As a player it is either crushing or exsilherating.

I am against the current overtime venue in the NFL because it doesn't reflect the entire game.

Whoever wins the toss has the advantage. In most other overtime periiods of other sports the entire game is reflected in the overtime period, guarenteed. In the NFL there is no Guarantee that one half of your team will even see the field. It's all based on the toss of a coin.

Maybe college isn't the way to go, but the sudden death NFL is just not as exciting or fun or even true to the spirit of fairness built into the game itself.

I liked someones suggestion of another quarter only six minutes or whatever...as long as both offenses get the ball that IMHO is a better reflection of the game.

[atloldskin]

I hate the college overtime; the first score should win!

[portis&taylor]

I like the full time ref thing but i like sudden death overtime.

[FunBunch7]

How about the first team to score 6 points in OT wins.

Team "A" could take the opeing kickoff and go kick a field goal but not be the winner. Team "B" could tie it up with a field goal or go for a TD. After 15 minutes in OT, who ever is ahead wins.

The college OT is stupid. Why start at the 25? Sometimes there is a game that is 14-14 at the end of regulation. Pretty good defenisive game right? Then they do 4 OT's and the final score is like 41-38 and a Hiesmann Candidate get's 3 more TDs on his stats...it's just stupid. Not PURE at all.

[roadkill]

Great idea. How about revising every rule to make each one less confusing i.e. tuck rule, pass interference, what is classified as a reception and what is a fumble. What the **** is a "football move?"

[Darth Tater]

Whoever wins the toss has the advantage.

Not true.

BTW, the tuck rule is an attempt to make a certain event based on black and white rules as opposed to the judgment of the referee.

[desertfox59]

How about the first team to score 6 points in OT wins.

Team "A" could take the opeing kickoff and go kick a field goal but not be the winner. Team "B" could tie it up with a field goal or go for a TD. After 15 minutes in OT, who ever is ahead wins.

The college OT is stupid. Why start at the 25? Sometimes there is a game that is 14-14 at the end of regulation. Pretty good defenisive game right? Then they do 4 OT's and the final score is like 41-38 and a Hiesmann Candidate get's 3 more TDs on his stats...it's just stupid. Not PURE at all.

Some good points. But what about a hybred of the two....either start at your own 45 or 40, or 6 minute overtime run just like the game?

[desertfox59]

Not true.

BTW, the tuck rule is an attempt to make a certain event based on black and white rules as opposed to the judgment of the referee.

true...just because the stats may say the winner of the toss only wins it 50% of the time does not mean that the winner of the toss does not have the advantage.

...think about it. Wouldn't you rather win the toss ????

[desertfox59]

How about the first team to score 6 points in OT wins.

Team "A" could take the opeing kickoff and go kick a field goal but not be the winner. Team "B" could tie it up with a field goal or go for a TD. After 15 minutes in OT, who ever is ahead wins.

The college OT is stupid. Why start at the 25? Sometimes there is a game that is 14-14 at the end of regulation. Pretty good defenisive game right? Then they do 4 OT's and the final score is like 41-38 and a Hiesmann Candidate get's 3 more TDs on his stats...it's just stupid. Not PURE at all.

There is no hiesmann...it's the pros. So this point is mute.

[slik]

yes to full time refs and yes to OT rules. im not sure about the college style but i say equal possesions. i hate games being decided by a flip of the coin

[dent19]

I think the game is fine. Refs just need to call better games. More training and practice is whats needed.....

[skinfan133]

Refs absolutely, the overtime bit, not so sure. i think the current OT is ok, but they need to let the winning teams kick the extra point, its only fair they get the "try" like everyone else. also take away the OT we have now and football loses an old tradition that has always been a pat of the game; Ties. i happen to like seing a tie game once in a while (which hasn't happned since '01 right?) it jazzes things up and complicates the playoff run:D

[Kosher Ham]

OT is perfect. Please leave it be.

And Refs should not be Full Time. If they change it to a full time job I will go out of my way to become an NFL ref. A months worth of work for a years worth of pay. Sign me up.

[roulette]

desertfox59:

College OT is built around the idea that every team should have a chance to score, no matter what. Sounds very fair and noble. However, it takes most of the 'game' out of overtime. Special teams are eliminated with the exception of the field goal team. And the defense is put up against a wall. Momentum becomes irrelevant. And the offenses are curtailed into a overly dramatic game of HORSE to see who can one-up the other first.

Quite frankly, that takes something away from the competition. Even if you lose the coin toss, you're provided every chance to stop them and get the ball back, unlike the college system. Does the receiving team have an advantage? Sure. But it's not insurmountable by any means. I expect my defense to stop their offense. I expect my special teams to make them go a long way to score and to make my walk as short as possible. I expect my offense to move the ball down the field and put some points up. If that doesn't happen, the coin didn't cause it. My team failed to achieve what was needed. The other team rose to that challenge.

You say the college system is more exciting? I can see why you would think that. Personally, I find it childish. It's one of the main reasons that I am unable to deeply immerse myself in college ball. It's showmanship with no concern for determining the better team because it focuses on such a narrow aspect of the game. When a team gets into the red zone in the NFL, it's an accomplishment of its own. With this type of overtime, you give that away. All just to put up lots of meaningless points in overtime, which will also invalidate just about every type of scoring statistic currently recorded in the NFL.

It limits the defense's options, restricts the usefulness of special teams, and demeans the effort put forth over the first four quarters by allowing impressive defensive games to collapse into showy shootouts.

[GoDannyBoy]

How about this?

I know how much everyone likes the kicking game.

So, what if for OT we had kicker suddendeath?

The ball is placed on the thirty yard line and the teams each line up for three field goals. The best of three wins!

I bought that up for all the fans who say kickers have too much control in the game!

BTW, Full time refs with performance standards. Blow too many calls and you are fired on national TV.

[Renegade7]

college overtime is garbage. If you're not good enough to stop the other team from scoring, either to tie the game or win the game, then maybe you shouldn't be the winner. Teams that win are the one's that score more points then they ALLOW, end of story, doesn't matter how long the game or overtime is. Defenses just need to get better. Not all defenses are just going to get better overnight, that's why there's only one superbowl champion.

[desertfox59]

Some of your points are valid.....others not so much.

desertfox59:

College OT is built around the idea that every team should have a chance to score, no matter what.

Not just College OT, but the entire game is built on this concept. Think about it, in every possible way the game is structured so that there are equal posessions by each team. In fact the only way that this doesn't happen is because of halftime and the rare safety. Usually the posession is either even or plus or minus one, with a guarentee that each team has the ball at least once. Why shouln't overtime be the same?

Special teams are eliminated with the exception of the field goal team. And the defense is put up against a wall. Momentum becomes irrelevant. And the offenses are curtailed into a overly dramatic game of HORSE to see who can one-up the other first.

good points about the overtimes and defense. That's why I would probably favor another smaller quarter where at least the probablity of both teams getting at least one posession is greater.

...but shouldn't overtimes be overly dramatic...I mean that is a good thing not a bad thing. I hardly think that the extra period being exciting is childish.

Does the receiving team have an advantage? Sure. But it's not insurmountable by any means. I expect my defense to stop their offense. I expect my special teams to make them go a long way to score and to make my walk as short as possible. I expect my offense to move the ball down the field and put some points up. If that doesn't happen, the coin didn't cause it. My team failed to achieve what was needed. The other team rose to that challenge.

your right the coin toss can be overcome...but that's not the point. The nature of the game dictates that even if your expectations on one side of the ball are not met then the other side can overcome that failure. both teams have the oppertunity to score..but in NFL overtime that is turned upside down and on it's head...Because if only one offense see's the field then the other teams offensive is irellevent. How does that fit into Your concept of eliminating the other aspects of the game like special teams...?

Are you really going to tell me that you would rather see one kickoff than one offensive series? I think not.

[yank]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1457923.html

This article states the following:

1. Teams that lose the coin toss for the OT are EQUALLY likely to win as the team that wins the coin toss.

2. Only 28 per cent of teams that won the coin toss score on that first possession.

There you have it. The facts.

The college system equates to shooting free throws to decide a tied basketball game. It takes 80 per cent of the field away, takes away almost a third of the game (kickoffs and punts) and allows a team who gains no yards an easy shot at scoring by a field goal.

It changes the game so much. t's like prohibiting full court pressing in youth basketball. That sort of thing is OK when the players are 9 but come on - these are adults here.

There are no redeeming qualities to the college OT.

Play ball.

[desertfox59]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/clayton_john/1457923.html

This article states the following:

2. Only 28 per cent of teams that won the coin toss score on that first possession.

There you have it. The facts.

Play ball.

Thank you for proving my point with your backwards understanding of the stats you quoted.

if greater than one fourth of NFL overtimes are decided on whoever wins the coin toss than how could that possibly reflect the game? The answer is it doesn't.

Football's concept, ever since the days of Walter Camp, is founded on the idea that there be equal or as close to equal as possible oppertunities for each team to have possession of the ball. IF more than one fourth of the time in NFL overtimes that doesn't happen because the receiving team scores on the first possession than that doesn't reflect the game at all does it.

Would it be o.k. with you if only three fourths of the time the refs were correct in there calls?

strike three....you're out.