JetSkins Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Would you rather Santana take Roy Williams head on if contact was otherwise unavoidable? hes good enough to avoid taking huge hits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XxSpearheadxX Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 hes good enough to avoid taking huge hits Not without going out of bounds sometimes, he isn't really superman, everyone needs to use the sideline to avoid monster hits sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Well...I'm not sure if it's a rule change per se.... ...but the next ref that blows an inadvertant whistle, or blows the play dead before he should - thereby negating the opportunity to overturn an obviously blown call - gets the whistle shoved down his throat as he is hung from the goalpost Seriously though...I like the idea mentioned previously where the WR only needs to get one foot in bounds for a catch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Unfortunately, your ball sensor would make the rules more subject to interpretation. OK, pass to Moss, he catches it, the out-of-bounds buzzer goes off. Did it go out of bounds before or after the catch? At least with the present system, the cameras might be able to tell if his feet touched in-bounds. ("Controll" is still a judgement call, but at least "feet in bounds" is reviewable.) (Same thing with a goal-line sensor. Even if it's a perfect sensor, did the ball cross the plane before his knee touched?) You wouldn't use it for a posession call. You would have refs and cameras for that. When a guy dives for a pylon, you would know if he made it or not instantly. When a ball goes out of bounds for any reason, you would know exactly where it went out. The sensor could mark one frame of the video as well, so you could see if the knee hit before or after the plane was broken, or if it was actually broken at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamptonskinsfan Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 A lot of great ideas here in this thread, and some bonehead ones too. I think the best way to change the rules (for the better) is change the officiating. No part-time referees. Officials should be training in the off season. The Skins alone are worth a billion, the NFL industry warrants having full time professionals calling the shots on the field. 100% of a teams hard work for a season can evaporate with just 1 blown call or a no call. I've seen that happen too many times. Enforce the rules or change them. Take discretion of the refs out of the game wherever possible. This isn't pairs skating. Why should a ref decide when it's OK to horse collar someone or hold them when the rule says you can't? Apologies to all you tuck rule fans out there, but that is discretion at it's highest. Rules that depend on "intent of the player" or "significant contact" need to go. It was or it wasn't, and we have proof on film. Put a team of two or three video-equipment savvy officials in the booth and let them watch and analyze closeups and slo-mo in practically real time so they can cut review times by 95%. This would allow much more use of challenges and still result in drastically speeding up the game. Why do we have to wait for a ref to stroll across the field and stick his head under a hood and have someone dish him feeds? You would think the networks would have already thought of this. That is their business. Add more cameras. Go ahead and install high tech ball and sideline sensors now. This can be done with complete transparency and with no effect on the players or the feel of the ball. Perfect it for 2 or 3 seasons and work out the kinks before actually implementing it. Then throw out all out-of-bounds rules. The ball has to stay within the field, period. A buzzer sounds in the video booth if it goes out, a bell rings if it crosses the end zone. Easy. Most importantly, the on-field officials should all look like Jessica Alba and wear tiny, tiny black and white striped bikinis. i agree with the officals should be full time employees. then during the week they could ACTUALLY watch tapes of players and their habits (i.e. Roy Williams- horse collar, Michael Irvin- push off reciever) and if during the course of the season they do not call the RIGHT call they will loose their jobs. if i do my job half -azzed i will not be working for very long, so why should they. as far as the buzzor add a light with it so in frame by frame analysis you can see exactly when the light goes off. the only problem with the buzzor on the sidelines is when a runner is running down the sideline, the ball is carried on the outside arm to prevent from being knocked out of said runner's hands. this being the case the ball will be going "out of bounds" while the runner's feet will not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tdog56Skins Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 The main Penalty that i wanted changed got changed, it was that down by contact rule where if the Refs blows that whistle and they call you down by contact you cant challenge....but i think they switched up that down by contact rule and made it veiwable/challengeable. We really got screwed by the Refs in that Raiders and that first Bucs game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiefPowhatan17 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 1. Pass Interference is the old rule of 15 yards. 2. No tuck rule. 3. Ground can cause a fumble, so backs better hang on to it. 4. Must maintain control of ball to be a catch in the endzone. 5. Players are allowed to lead with their heads, helmet to helmet contact is not a penalty anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feeshta Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Personally I would change the rules regarding a franchise player, in order to make it something desireable to both the player and the team. I'd make it a way that a team can reward a player. My thought would be to give the team a 10% discount against the cap on their franchise player. This way, if they really want to keep him, they have an advantage over other teams trying to sign him away. The key is, the player is not punished in any way, which the franchise tag does seem like as of right now. Teams would only be allowed to use have one franchise player at a time, and they lose the tag for the duration of the contract. If however a player is forced to retire due to injury, the team would regain the tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 Peter King suggested adding two games in his "if I were the commish" column a little while back. I'll say the same thing now that I did then:Of course, I'm all for as much football as I can get. The problem is, though, that this is already a League where a lot of the top stars are lost to injury by the time the playoffs start. I wouldn't want the NFL to turn into a League where the Championship was basically won by the playoff team that was the luckiest at avoiding injuries... Simply by removing, or should I say, replacing 2 pre-season games with 2 regular season games, that can be avoided. Over the years, football has become more & more an all year event for the players. The meetings, sympsiums, OTAs, longer TC, etc. So, replacing those last 2 pre-season games won't be harmful. In fact, with all the injuries that DO take place in pre-season, it would probably be better to remove those 2 games anyway. The idea of an interconference rivalry game intrgues me (they could put it at the end of the season, like in college ball...), but I'm not sure I want the Baltimore fans any more uppity than they already are... True. But at the same time, I think adding those 2 games would make things even more interesting. Especially IF we ever faced each other in the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 My final input would have to be the overtime process. i agree that both teams should get atleast one shot at the win. my proposal is that if a team scores on it's opening drive of the overtime then the other team has a chance to match the points. if they don't game over. if they do then the overtime will THEN go into "sudden death". now all of this will be a mute point if the opening drive stalls and the first team punts OR turns the ball over because then BOTH teams would have had a chance at scoring. just my :2cents: HTTR I don't like this idea much. If you want to win an Overtime game & you lose the cointoss, then it is up to your defense to get the ball back for the offense. If you can't do that, then why prolong the thing. A game could go back & forth potentially, for another hour. No one wants that, least of all, the players themselves. And not to be nitpicky, but it's a "moot" point, not "mute." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 The "Screw over the Redskins every chance you get" rule needs to go. I like this one! I'll add that to my list as well. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 A lot of great ideas here in this thread, and some bonehead ones too. I think the best way to change the rules (for the better) is change the officiating. No part-time referees. Officials should be training in the off season. The Skins alone are worth a billion, the NFL industry warrants having full time professionals calling the shots on the field. 100% of a teams hard work for a season can evaporate with just 1 blown call or a no call. I've seen that happen too many times. I've been saying this for years. The NFL officials are suseptible to bribes & making judgement calls based on what their co-workers at their REAL jobs may want (in no way am I implying that this happens with grounds to prove it, but the conspiracy theorist in me sees the potential for it when bad calls are so prevelant in this sport). They are not held accountable by the League in ways that a UNIONIZED officiating crew would have to be. Enforce the rules or change them. Take discretion of the refs out of the game wherever possible. This isn't pairs skating. Why should a ref decide when it's OK to horse collar someone or hold them when the rule says you can't? Apologies to all you tuck rule fans out there, but that is discretion at it's highest. Rules that depend on "intent of the player" or "significant contact" need to go. It was or it wasn't, and we have proof on film. I agree with this as well & couple it to what I said above. Why do we have to wait for a ref to stroll across the field and stick his head under a hood and have someone dish him feeds? You would think the networks would have already thought of this. That is their business. Add more cameras. Commercial breaks. We have become such a commercialized society that the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc. have to go to commercial as often as possible for their sponsors. Unfortunately, it's all about the money these days. Go ahead and install high tech ball and sideline sensors now. This can be done with complete transparency and with no effect on the players or the feel of the ball. Perfect it for 2 or 3 seasons and work out the kinks before actually implementing it. Then throw out all out-of-bounds rules. The ball has to stay within the field, period. A buzzer sounds in the video booth if it goes out, a bell rings if it crosses the end zone. Easy. But, what happens if the ball is out of bounds, but the player is NOT? is the play still dead? I like the idea if the endzone sensors. That would eliminate contraversial endings like the Tampa game, or even the Super Bowl with Ben Roethlisburger. But the sideline sensors, I think, can wait. There are too many variables where the sideline sensors could be concerned. Most importantly, the on-field officials should all look like Jessica Alba and wear tiny, tiny black and white striped bikinis. :thumbsup: AND All teams get a 2 Touchdown lead against Dallas! :point2sky :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 If we are going to have instant replay to correct officiating mistakes, then a coach should be allowed to review ANY play with his 2 (3 if the first two are correct) challenges. Forget this mess about "that is a non-reviewable play." EVERY play should be reviewable. I thought it was about correcting mistakes, not just some mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmonkforHOF Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 No more fair catches allowed You must be: 1) A CFL fan. 2) Highly intelligent and an outstanding human being. I agree, no fair catch with a 2 yard halo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramdizzle Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 that you cant use the ball in your TD celebration/ no team celebration Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_33 Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 It seems like they are really making it impossible for ANY defense to play against any offense with all the favorable rules for the offense... From babying the QB to WR's not being able to be touched.. .among many other rules... First of all...Denver should not be able to cut block below the knees just like all the other 31 teams in the league...(and they wonder why they can just stick anyone in there at RB...?) I think delay of game should be harsher than a 5 yard penalty...?Perhaps 10 yards...or 5 yards and a loss of down... This would force a teams offense to either run the damn play or call a T.O...Nowadays...5 yards isn't that much to have to recover from (see colts)so they just take the penalty...Same thing goes for when a punter doesn't like his position on the field and wants more room to work with so he takes the "Delay of game" penalty... Force him to punt!! Challenges: If I could only change 1 rule,this is it!Teams should be allowed to challenge as long as they have a T.O.(the get 2 and a 3rd if both are right is stupid!) The refs make too many mistakes for there to be restrictions on Challenges...It would also be a very good indicator of how often they SCREW up,by how many challenges a team would use in a game... Keep the rule on if your right then you keep the TO and if your wrong then you lose it..But if a team were to use 8 challenges in a game because they were right on their CHALLENGES,I think the Officiating would be held more responsible than they are right now...!"we will review the matter"...PLEASE!!!) Do I need to mention the TUCK rule..? OVERTIME RULE:If they change it to college rules,That might just do away with football for me..! Wanna know why I DON'T watch college ball...?That's 1 reason right there... That playing to 21-21 tie in OT and the game ending 167-164 Final is just pretty stupid...J/K about score) but still! There's a reason it's called sudden DEATH people?Not Sudden (ill give you a ton of chances to win the game) PANSY! LEAVE IT ALONE!!!(sorry about the caps)But I hear alot of voices on this matter and people want it to change...You guys just keep watchin' virginia TECH...?I'll watch the NFL.! The REF should actually have to see someone spitting on another player before ejecting him...Not takes some Wife beaters word for it!! (and instead of using instant replay for something like that they should actually use it for the football game...!) Which brings me to the 2:00 warning or less instant replay BOOTH!Away teams should actually get a fair replay from the booth like the home team... Being at HOME shouldn't allow the rules to only apply to that team...! And last.....When a sports anchorman makes a bet with absolute passion about how he feels (salsberry steak)almost to the point of being BIASED,he should have to honor the BET!(start walking *****?) or never say anything bad about the skins again!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple6mafia Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 I don't think that this has been mentioned, but they should change up the late hit rules because most of the time peole are right by the sidelines and barely take a step out adn get hit instantly and its a late hit. You have to let them go after the ball carrier cuase he can easily just not go out of bounds. The rule should be there but not so strict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamptonskinsfan Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 I don't think that this has been mentioned, but they should change up the late hit rules because most of the time peole are right by the sidelines and barely take a step out adn get hit instantly and its a late hit. You have to let them go after the ball carrier cuase he can easily just not go out of bounds. The rule should be there but not so strict. hell in one game Marcus Washington got called for it and the runner WAS NOT out of bounds yet. i agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamptonskinsfan Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 I don't like this idea much. If you want to win an Overtime game & you lose the cointoss, then it is up to your defense to get the ball back for the offense. If you can't do that, then why prolong the thing. A game could go back & forth potentially, for another hour. No one wants that, least of all, the players themselves.And not to be nitpicky, but it's a "moot" point, not "mute." i understand that the D should hold their own but what of the special teams???? let's say the other team has an excellent return for a td or gets tackled on the 5 yd line. NO DEFENSE can help with that. It would be a MOOT point. that is why i said if the OPENING DRIVE is what they score on then the other team has ONE chance to score. if they do,THEN it goes to SUDDEN DEATH. i am not for a long drawn out affair but i do want it to be a fair affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatsnack Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 And to the guy who said Unitas "played a lot of years like a man" - Johnny Unitas' career high for attempts in a season was 255. Most seasons he was under 200. To contrast, Peyton Manning threw 453 attempts last season, and his career high is 591. Mark Brunell had 454 attempts last season, with a career high of 557. Today's QBs are dropping back about twice as often as QBs did in Unitas' era. So, yes, they should be protected. That's not even mentioning the fact that today's DBs are a lot stronger, faster, and (thus) hit a lot harder than the ones in Unitas' day. That was me. The number of attempts are greater today but that has, historically, more to do with pass interference rules than QB protection rules. QBs are football players. If they choose to take hits rather than dump off balls or get out of the way then they have made their bed to lie in. QBs worked a long time without all the rules in place since the 90's and they haven't added anything to the game except controversial roughness calls. Are airborn receivers less vulnerable than QBs? How about linemen getting chop-blocked? As to DBs, what do DBs have to do with QB longevity? Did Deion and Darrell hit harder than Pat Fisher and Mike Bass? No. Did Ronnie Lott hit harder than Nighttrain Lane? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 For overtime, what the NFL should do is make OT an 8 minute period with 2 TO's and all reviews being done by the replay official and whoever has the higher score wins obviously. However, if the game is still tied, then go to FG's, its best of 5, you start at the 15 and after each kick you have to move back 5 yards. :dallasuck:eaglesuck:gaintsuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbodiesel#44 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 If the game is tied, have one 15 min period with no field goals allowed. This will take away much of the coin flip advantage. I can't quite understand what the big deal is if two evenly matched teams end up ultimately tying anyway. The NFL has a good system in place to determine final conference standings. If two teams tie after the extra period, so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 I'll go with the obvious and say the tuck rule. Beat me to it! That is the worst rule in the NFL. I am sure it has saved many @sses with fumbles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passizle Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 If the game is tied, have one 15 min period with no field goals allowed. This will take away much of the coin flip advantage. I can't quite understand what the big deal is if two evenly matched teams end up ultimately tying anyway. The NFL has a good system in place to determine final conference standings. If two teams tie after the extra period, so be it. I agree completeley. Except, they should still have the overtime, just loose the sudden death part. Let them play the full 15 and whoever wins, wins. Game tie if no one scores in 15. I actually did research on this same issue during college. The winning percentage was somewhere near 85%. Basically, whoever wins the coin toss, wins the game. They might as well just skip the whole game then. Just have the teams meet up and we can do a coin toss before kickoff. Heads wins it!:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted July 24, 2006 Share Posted July 24, 2006 I agree completeley. Except, they should still have the overtime, just loose the sudden death part. Let them play the full 15 and whoever wins, wins. Game tie if no one scores in 15.I actually did research on this same issue during college. The winning percentage was somewhere near 85%. Basically, whoever wins the coin toss, wins the game. They might as well just skip the whole game then. Just have the teams meet up and we can do a coin toss before kickoff. Heads wins it!:2cents: They posted the stat on Fox last year and since the inception of OT the team that wins the coin-flip wins 53% of the time which isn't all that significant. Now that being said, I am a big proponent of the both teams get at least one possession school. After each team has a shot then all bets are off and it becomes sudden death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.