2019 NFL Rule Changes That Would Improve The Game Big Time

[PackerfaninCarolina]

1. Move kickoffs back to the 30 yardline and bring all touchbacks out to only the 15 yard line instead of the 25.

2. Eliminate both illegal contact penalties and the offensive PI penalties that get called whenever WRs setup those blocks on the screens or quick outs.

3. Give coaches an unlimited amount of challenges and allow the challenge of any and all penalties

4. Eliminate all ties from the game by keeping OT periods going until it's broken or having no game clock on during OT

 

[Ogsponge]

So basically you want to make a game that is hurting due to the incredibly dangerous nature of the game, more dangerous and way longer?

 

[PackAttack12]

1. Move kickoffs back to the 30 yardline and bring all touchbacks out to only the 15 yard line instead of the 25.

2. Eliminate both illegal contact penalties and the offensive PI penalties that get called whenever WRs setup those blocks on the screens or quick outs.

3. Give coaches an unlimited amount of challenges and allow the challenge of any and all penalties

4. Eliminate all ties from the game by keeping OT periods going until it's broken or having no game clock on during OT

The league is not going to make rule changes that compromise the progress its made on making the game safer.

The suggestion regarding challenges is senseless. Coaches would be throwing challenge flags every other play and games would last 4-5 hours. Not even a semi-plausible suggestion.

I don't like games that end in ties either, but I also don't like the idea of a game being dragged out longer than necessary. Again, compromises player safety that the league has been promoting recently. Just isn't going to happen.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

It's ridiculous to assume the old kicking off from the 30 yard line made the game more dangerous. No data was ever found to back that up.

Maybe coaches shouldn't get an unlimited amount of challenges, but I think they should be allowed to challenge judgment calls. If certain PI or UR calls get overturned, fans will be happy.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It's ridiculous to assume the old kicking off from the 30 yard line made the game more dangerous. No data was ever found to back that up.

The percentage of kickoffs returned significantly decreased after the rule was changed. With the play being by far the most dangerous one the game is safer because of it.

 

[Half Empty]

It's ridiculous to assume the old kicking off from the 30 yard line made the game more dangerous. No data was ever found to back that up.

Maybe coaches shouldn't get an unlimited amount of challenges, but I think they should be allowed to challenge judgment calls. If certain PI or UR calls get overturned, fans will be happy.

It doesn't make any difference if the longer kickoffs are safer or not (although, obviously, there are now fewer KOR, and no return is safer than any return. The longer kickoffs were instituted as part of an avowed safety concern by the league, and there's no way they're going to take a chance on the PR hit from going back to the 35. I imagine the 15 vs 25 yard line start, while interesting, would meet the same resistance.

With only two responses to the OP, you're now gutting #3? And, as subjective and semantic as all forum discussions are, going from unlimited to, well, let's add a couple of more situations, is a gut.​

 

[Firethorn1001]

Reviewing a judgement call is still going to make it a judgement call.

Wouldn't mind seeing the process tweaked where if a coach is correct on the first 2 reviews that they can keep reviewing plays until they are wrong. If you are correct 3 times in a row why should you be forced to stop asking for reviews. That or after 2, if you request a review and are wrong it is a 5 yard delay of game penalty 1st down or loss of time out situation.

For onside kicks, wouldn't mind them going to a system where the NFL figures out the % of successes that they want (say 10%) and figure out using stats what percent of 3rd or 4th down plays from X yardage are successful in gaining a 1st down around that percent. If 3rd or 4th and 20 is historically successful 10% of the time, setup 4th and 20 from the 35 and that is your onside kick attempt. Kickoffs can then be eliminated which they obviously want to do.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Reviewing a judgement call is still going to make it a judgement call.

Wouldn't mind seeing the process tweaked where if a coach is correct on the first 2 reviews that they can keep reviewing plays until they are wrong. If you are correct 3 times in a row why should you be forced to stop asking for reviews. That or after 2, if you request a review and are wrong it is a 5 yard delay of game penalty 1st down or loss of time out situation.

For onside kicks, wouldn't mind them going to a system where the NFL figures out the % of successes that they want (say 10%) and figure out using stats what percent of 3rd or 4th down plays from X yardage are successful in gaining a 1st down around that percent. If 3rd or 4th and 20 is historically successful 10% of the time, setup 4th and 20 from the 35 and that is your onside kick attempt. Kickoffs can then be eliminated which they obviously want to do.

While people are up in arms because of the non-call against the Saints I don't like the league to make judgement calls reviewable either as nearly all of them are way closer than the one they missed in that game.

I'm not in favor of getting rid of the kickoff as special teams should be a big part of the game.

 

[Firethorn1001]

I'm not in favor of getting rid of the kickoff as special teams should be a big part of the game.

Nor am I, but the league's actions seem to imply they are wanting to get rid of it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Nor am I, but the league's actions seem to imply they are wanting to get rid of it.

I'm not convinced that to be true but the league definitely wants to make the play safer.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While people are up in arms because of the non-call against the Saints I don't like the league to make judgement calls reviewable either as nearly all of them are way closer than the one they missed in that game.

You are correct, most judgement calls/non-calls are just that, refs are required to make a quick split second decision, which they sometimes get wrong due to a number of factors. As long as a coach isn't given unlimited challenges, he is going to learn only to burn them on calls where that quick judgement looks to be wrong. This really is no different than a referee judging that a ball crossed the goal line or a receiver had 2 feet in bounds. If the review isn't conclusive that the wrong call was made, no reversal. IMO, shouldn't matter if it was a no call or a call. After all, a runner declared short of the goal line is pretty much a "no call" as well, but can be reversed with a reviewed.

Set up a reasonable number of challenges and let the coaches decide how to use them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You are correct, most judgement calls are just that, refs are required to make a quick split second decision, which they sometimes get wrong due to a number of factors. As long as a coach isn't given unlimited challenges, he is going to learn only to burn them on calls where that quick judgement looks to be wrong. This really is no different than a referee judging that a ball crossed the goal line or a receiver had 2 feet in bounds. If the review isn't conclusive that the wrong call was made, no reversal. IMO, shouldn't matter if it was a no call or a call. After all, a runner declared short of the goal line is pretty much a "no call" as well, but can be reversed with a reviewed.

While those things are difficult to see for the officials on the field and sometimes can't get figured out with replay those aren't judgement calls though.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

The percentage of kickoffs returned significantly decreased after the rule was changed. With the play being by far the most dangerous one the game is safer because of it.

Again, there is no data to back that up. NONE

I do not accept this at all without big time hard data

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again, there is no data to back that up. NONE

I do not accept this at all without big time hard data

It took me a total of less than a minute to find an article that shows that according to league injury data kickoff returns are the most dangerous play in football.

Concussions in 2017 were five times as likely to occur on kickoffs as on other plays. A total of 71 concussions occurred on kickoffs between 2015-17, according to McKay. That figure was a dramatic outlier among NFL injury data, even after a number of changes in recent years designed to reduce returns, and prompted a scramble to address it before the 2018 season.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23385442/proposal-trying-make-nfl-kickoffs-more-punt-play

 

[Half Empty]

Again, there is no data to back that up. NONE

I do not accept this at all without big time hard data

Then prove that it isn't

 

[sschind]

You are correct, most judgement calls/non-calls are just that, refs are required to make a quick split second decision, which they sometimes get wrong due to a number of factors. As long as a coach isn't given unlimited challenges, he is going to learn only to burn them on calls where that quick judgement looks to be wrong. This really is no different than a referee judging that a ball crossed the goal line or a receiver had 2 feet in bounds. If the review isn't conclusive that the wrong call was made, no reversal. IMO, shouldn't matter if it was a no call or a call. After all, a runner declared short of the goal line is pretty much a "no call" as well, but can be reversed with a reviewed.

Set up a reasonable number of challenges and let the coaches decide how to use them.

During the SB there was a play where at full speed when it happened it sure looked to everyone in my party that the Patriots defender obviously interfered. There was no flag and replays showed that there was no interference. Had McVay been able to challenge he may have (Although after seeing the replay I doubt it) and it would have been upheld. Had they called PI BB would have almost certainly challenged if he could have. It is a split second call sometimes and and like you said for a variety of reasons they sometimes get it wrong. make the penalty for getting a challenge wrong such that so they won't be challenging every close play.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

make the penalty for getting a challenge wrong such that so they won't be challenging every close play.

That or just limit the number of challenges and force the coaches to use them wisely. It's easy enough to say "hey, had you hung on to a challenge, you would have been able to challenge the call you are saying cost you the game".

I also think they need to figure out a workable number of challenges or a way of not losing a challenge, when you win the challenge.

 

[ARPackFan]

Add booth review for all plays resulting in a personal foul, an injury timeout, and those that results in a player entering concussion protocol. Two of these already result in a delay and the booth should be able to review without requiring additional time. I've always thought that an illegal hit resulting in the opposing player being lost due to concussion or serious injury should result in ejection.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Then prove that it isn't

Pretty sure every full game YouTube video I dig up would prove that point

 

[Mondio]

Translation= the data doesn't support my emotions

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I also think they need to figure out a workable number of challenges or a way of not losing a challenge, when you win the challenge.

In my opinion two challenges per game is a reasonable number, especially considering all scoring plays and turnovers are automatically reviewed as well as the booth taking over in the last two minutes of each half.

Add booth review for all plays resulting in a personal foul, an injury timeout, and those that results in a player entering concussion protocol.

Why would anyone advocate for injury timeouts to be reviewed???

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

In my opinion two challenges per game is a reasonable number, especially considering all scoring plays and turnovers are automatically reviewed as well as the booth taking over in the last two minutes of each half.

Well if they expand what can be challenged, than I would disagree that 2 is enough, especially given the fact that you lose challenges, even when your challenge is upheld.

Just an idea and haven't fully thought it out, but maybe only allow challenges on plays and incidents that are directly involved with first downs, scoring or change of possessions? This would eliminate challenging things like a hold on CB away from the play or hands to the face on a block, etc.

 

[Mondio]

I hesitate to add to a thread I think could be retitled, but what the heck. If they're going to have replay, leave it alone. It's enough. They aren't going to get them all right. They're never going to get them all right. There are always different eyes, different interpretations always something. I never want to see things like PI be reviewable. It's a judgement and it should be left to the judges on the field. They let guys play a certain way in different games. It's how it is. Someone NOT on the field isn't in the flow of the game. I'm really not looking forward to more replay in any sense. it creates enough controversy already.

and on the Saints play, who cares. They had 15 other chances to win, they didn't. They got away with their fair share of plays in that game and including the most important where they allowed every manner of unnatural noise in that stadium. The Rams figured out how to handle it, but the Saints aren 't even in the game if they Rams don't have to deal with shaker cans, aerosol blasts from horns, whistles and everything else from 70K people plus speakers. You know how sorry I feel for the Saints? Go cry me a ****ing river and flood your delta would sum it up well. Now they want a redo on a pass they had no business completing anyway?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Well if they expand what can be challenged, than I would disagree that 2 is enough, especially given the fact that you lose challenges, even when your challenge is upheld.

Just an idea and haven't fully thought it out, but maybe only allow challenges on plays and incidents that are directly involved with first downs, scoring or change of possessions? This would eliminate challenging things like a hold on CB away from the play or hands to the face on a block, etc.

First of all I don't feel the need to expand plays that can be challenged. In addition scoring plays and turnovers are automatically review so you advocate for plays resulting in a first down to be reviewable. In that case two challenges are enough in my opinion.

BTW a hold by a CB away from the play results in an automatic first down

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

BTW a hold by a CB away from the play results in an automatic first down

I probably didn't word that very well, but a call or no call away from the play, is something I wouldn't want reviewed. Which is why I said "directly involved". Basically, a call that one might point at as "potentially game changing". So yeah, grabbing, clutching, picking....before the ball is thrown, not reviewable.