2019 NFL Rule Changes That Would Improve The Game Big Time

[azrsx05]

NFL creates rules that make it easier for them to swing and dictate games with calls.

 

[sschind]

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.

The reason I don't like that idea is that it may not solve the "problem". Its is still possible, in a horribly called game, that a coach is forced to use 5 challenges early and even if he gets them all right he is out of challenges on a horrible call like the Rams hit late in the game.

If the goal is to only get certain calls right or a limited number of calls right then limiting the number of challenges is the way to go.

If the goal is to get the calls right there should be no limit on the number of challenges. That is why I would be more in favor of severe penalties for incorrect challenges. If faced with losing a down or 10 or 15 yards or having time run off or added (to prevent a coach from making ridiculous challenges on defense late in the game or half.) a coach is going to think twice about throwing the red flag.

As a compromise may be getting unlimited challenges until you get 2 wrong then you are done but it still brings up the possibility of not being able to challenge a really terrible call late in the game.

Or maybe a way of "buying a challenge. If you go a quarter without using one you get another one. Or you give up 5 or 10 yards but you can still challenge. That way if its 4th and 1 the call is the runner was stopped short, you think he made the first down you challenge, give up 5 yards but if it is ruled he did cross the line to gain its still your ball with a first down.

To help keep the game from slowing down too much start a clock when the flag is thrown and a buzzer goes off after 2 minutes if the officials haven't signaled they are ready to make a ruling the play stands. None of this waiting 3 or 4 minutes when its supposed to be 2 to begin with.

I would add that judgement call challenges would not be ruled on by officials on the field to lessen the chance of a "I'm sticking by my guy's call/non call"

I would also add that I am fine leaving it the way it is. While I do think it could be better

 

[Half Empty]

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.

Then there is a judgement call about what is away from the play. For on thing, distance. More important, what if the hold took place on the QB's first option in a wonderful offensive mis-match?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The reason I don't like that idea is that it may not solve the "problem". Its is still possible, in a horribly called game, that a coach is forced to use 5 challenges early and even if he gets them all right he is out of challenges on a horrible call like the Rams hit late in the game.

While I kind of agree with you in theory, the whole point of limiting challenges is to make a coach really think long and hard of how and when to use his challenges. As Mondio points out, no game is ever going to be called perfect and I agree with that. You can't stop every play and spend 5 minutes making sure all 22 players played within the rules. However, giving coaches the opportunity to decide when a challenge could absolutely mitigate the damage of a blown call is what I desire most. While still limiting the number that they can use, to keep the game from creeping along at a snails pace.

Had Sean Payton used up all his challenges earlier in the game and was left unable to challenge that no PI call, that would be on Sean, because had he managed his challenges better, he could changed things.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Then there is a judgement call about what is away from the play. For on thing, distance. More important, what if the hold took place on the QB's first option in a wonderful offensive mis-match?

I wouldn't be in favor of reviewing that, since the final outcome of the play isn't what is in question. The receiver could have later slipped on his own, dropped the ball, QB gets hit, QB doesn't see receiver, etc. Just not enough direct correlation between events.

However, when a receiver is mugged as a ball is coming directly to him (not 15 yards over his head) and there is no PI called, reviewable in my opinion. Or just the opposite, a receiver is clearly not interfered with, doesn't catch the ball and a PI is called.

 

[Half Empty]

So the defense can now tackle Hopkins/Jones/Beckam/Brown at the LOS if the QB hadn't thrown yet, because the QB certainly isn't going to throw to that receiver once he's on the ground?

 

[sschind]

While I kind of agree with you in theory, the whole point of limiting challenges is to make a coach really think long and hard of how and when to use his challenges. As Mondio points out, no game is ever going to be called perfect and I agree with that. You can't stop every play and spend 5 minutes making sure all 22 players played within the rules. However, giving coaches the opportunity to decide when a challenge could absolutely mitigate the damage of a blown call is what I desire most. While still limiting the number that they can use, to keep the game from creeping along at a snails pace.

Had Sean Payton used up all his challenges earlier in the game and was left unable to challenge that no PI call, that would be on Sean, because had he managed his challenges better, he could changed things.

So you are forcing him to predict the future. To guess if there will be another call later on that would be a more effective use of a challenge. I can see that for timeouts because they are part of your strategy (do I call one now or should I save it) but bad calls are bad calls whenever they occur and if you think there should be an opportunity to get a call right in the first quarter there should be that same opportunity in the 4th quarter.

That's why I would be in favor of penalties to make a coach really think long and hard of how and when to use his challenges. IMO limiting the number just raises the problem from 2 to 4 or 5 or whatever number you choose. In a poorly called game a coach could easily use 4 in the first half leaving him with none on an important 4th quarter play. If you simply raise the number allowed it is certainly going to increase the number used. If a coach knows he has 4 he is going to be twice as likely to throw a flag on a close call because he knows he still has 3 more. If he has unlimited but he knows he will lose 10 yards if he is wrong he is going to think twice. Raising the number of allowed challenges with implementing some sort of penalty for being wrong is a sure way to increase the number of challenges and slow down the game.

However, when a receiver is mugged as a ball is coming directly to him (not 15 yards over his head) and there is no PI called, reviewable in my opinion. Or just the opposite, a receiver is clearly not interfered with, doesn't catch the ball and a PI is called.

Or with your proposal reviewable as long as the coach hasn't used up all his challenges You can make that call reviewable but if the coach has used all his challenges the result is the same. A blown call with no chance to correct it. You say that's on the coach for not managing them better but what if he used all his challenges and was right on all of them.

I guess what it comes down to for me is why do want challenges. Is it to get bad calls fixed or is it to just fix certain bad calls.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I would add that judgement call challenges would not be ruled on by officials on the field to lessen the chance of a "I'm sticking by my guy's call/non call"

This is essentially the sum of why I am in favor of allowing the challenge of judgment calls like PI or even roughing the passer. And if the man in New York reviewing the play catches one of those penalties, or if he looks and sees that no holding or block in the back took place, play can be overturned. Will it get rid of all phantom penalties? Maybe not but I'd be willing to bet at least some ridiculous holding and roughing the passer calls would be overturned.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

So the defense can now tackle Hopkins/Jones/Beckam/Brown at the LOS if the QB hadn't thrown yet, because the QB certainly isn't going to throw to that receiver once he's on the ground?

Tackling would be "holding", a penalty that's classified separately from illegal contact. Just as hands to the face is also separate. My wanting to get rid of illegal contact is that it seems to be highly subjective in terms of when it's called. Not to mention seems the commentators up in the booth say hand fighting every time it's called.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So the defense can now tackle Hopkins/Jones/Beckam/Brown at the LOS if the QB hadn't thrown yet, because the QB certainly isn't going to throw to that receiver once he's on the ground?

Sure, but they can do that under the current system, but in both cases, if a referee sees it, they get flagged. If the refs miss it, its not subject to review now, nor would I want it subject to review ever.

Again, I am sure that on many plays, you could find something that could be interrupted as a penalty, the key to me is to give coaches the ability to have a limited amount of challenges to decide when and which play is worthwhile spending a challenge on. Calls/no calls subject to challenge, should be those only directly involved with influencing the outcome of the play.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So you are forcing him to predict the future. To guess if there will be another call later on that would be a more effective use of a challenge.

Exactly, I am asking him to be a smart coach, just like he should be with the use of his timeouts. His decisions on every down, etc.

While it sucks that a bad call in the 1st quarter could potentially cost you points, as a coach, you have to decide, is it worth one of my challenges?

 

[Title Town USA]

The NFL needs to fix the overtime rules. Each team should have a chance to possess the ball, regardless if a touchdown is scored. A coin toss should not be determining who wins playoff games and Super Bowls.

Live betting odds change in favor of who wins the coin toss for overtime. How is that fair?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

For the life of me, I don't understand why they just don't add time (10 minutes) on to the clock at the end of the 4th quarter and continue play if the score is tied. Whoever is up at the end of that time period wins. If the score is still tied at the end of that, unless its the playoffs, it ends in a tie.

 

[sschind]

The NFL needs to fix the overtime rules. Each team should have a chance to possess the ball, regardless if a touchdown is scored. A coin toss should not be determining who wins playoff games and Super Bowls.

Live betting odds change in favor of who wins the coin toss for overtime. How is that fair?

While I don't think a coin toss determines the winner I do think each teams should get a possession regardless of what happens with the first team's possession.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

While I don't think a coin toss determines the winner I do think each teams should get a possession regardless of what happens with the first team's possession.

But that is the problem with the current system, the coin flip HAS in an indirect way decided the game, since it sets up a situation when if the winner of the flip scores a TD on their first possession, they win.

Not going to fish for the stats again, but I do remember the winner of the coin flip winning more games than they lost.

I have never seen a team that won the coin flip choose to go on defense first, that alone tells you why its considered an advantage to win the toss and possess the ball.

Edit: There was a game that Bill Belichick of all coaches, chose to go on defense after winning the toss. However, the reasons that it happened still are up for debate.

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1...hick-patriots-jets-decision-wind-kick-receive

 

[sschind]

Exactly, I am asking him to be a smart coach, just like he should be with the use of his timeouts. His decisions on every down, etc.

While it sucks that a bad call in the 1st quarter could potentially cost you points, as a coach, you have to decide, is it worth one of my challenges?

I view timeouts and challenges as two very different things. Timeouts are something that are within a coaches control, bad calls are not.

Then I would argue that your goal isn't to get the calls right it is to allow the coaches more chances not to have bad calls hurt them. If your goal is to get calls right it shouldn't matter when they happen all that should matter is that there is an opportunity to get them right.

 

[Heyjoe4]

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 ******* river and flood your delta would sum it up well. Now they want a redo on a pass they had no business completing anyway?

I agree. Too much time is already wasted on challenges, which is why they’re limited to two per team. Yeah the Saints call was bad, but please don’t allow challenges on all plays. Keep the human element in the sport, and that includes the refs. One change I would like to see is in overtime. Make it 15 minutes, and give each offense a chance to have at least one possession. And I’m not a Chiefs fan.

 

[sschind]

But that is the problem with the current system, the coin flip HAS in an indirect way decided the game, since it sets up a situation when if the winner of the flip scores a TD on their first possession, they win.

Not going to fish for the stats again, but I do remember the winner of the coin flip winning more games than they lost.

I have never seen a team that won the coin flip choose to go on defense first, that alone tells you why its considered an advantage to win the toss and possess the ball.

But that is the problem with the current system, the coin flip HAS in an indirect way decided the game, since it sets up a situation when if the winner of the flip scores a TD on their first possession, they win.

Yes a team can win on the first possession. That's why I said both teams need a possession regardless of what happens on the first one.

First off you have to distinguish between winning the game and winning on the first possession. I would expect the team to win the toss to win the game more often because they have an extra possession. If team A wins the toss and wins the game on a TD in its first possession that's a lot different than team A winning the toss then trading half a dozen three and outs with team B and winning the game on a FG as time runs out in OT. In both cases you can say the team that won the toss won the game but I highly doubt the second case is what people are concerned about. It still adds to the stat though and people will include it in their argument.

Winning the toss does not determine the winner otherwise it would be 100%. The team still has to score even if they win the toss. IMO each team getting a chance to be on offense regardless of what happens on the first possession is about as fair as you can get. Each team gets a chance on offense to score and a chance on defense to stop the other guy. Do both and you win the game. Do neither and you lose. Do one and not the other well then at some point you have to end the game so the next score wins. Each team had 4 full quarters to score more points than the other. Neither could do it so we gave each team an extra chance. I have no problem whatsoever with next score wins at that point.

I have never seen a team that won the coin flip choose to go on defense first, that alone tells you why its considered an advantage to win the toss and possess the ball.

That's because the way it is set up a team can win on the first possession, They still need to score. If both teams got a possession you might see a very strong defensive team elect to kick hoping to get a stop and better field position.

 

[Half Empty]

Not going to fish for the stats again, but I do remember the winner of the coin flip winning more games than they lost.

52.6%

 

[Mondio]

I'm fine with overtime. Football doesn't lend it'self to "fair". It's offense, defense and special teams. with 1 period to win the game, the odds are so much higher of scoring points on offense than defense, of course I'm going to take the ball first, as the clock starts ticking once I get it. and if I get it first I'll have more possessions should the game remained tied. and if I don't score first, then I have my special teams to kick the ball away. But odds are so much higher of scoring points on offense than defense, even if I had a stifling defense and mediocre offense I'd still go offense first. It's a no brainer in OT to take the ball first.

That said, if you're just looking at possessions, the odds are in a defense's favor of getting a stop. How many offensive possessions result in a score? 30% (I'm completely guessing) How many possessions result in a TD? 20% It's not automatic team with ball first wins at all. They have to gain yards first off, just to avoid giving good field position to the 2nd team. If they gain some, then they can score points or pin the other team deep making it very hard to call an offense and get the ball back with good field position.

But if you give both teams a chance, and then the 1st team scores on it's 2nd possession. Why did it get 2 and the other team only got 1 chance? OT as I see it is completely fair. It's football. Score points and stop the other team if you want to win. That's name of the game, do it, and win. OT will never be equitable and it shouldn't be.

 

[sschind]

52.6%

Is that winning on the first possession or just winning. Either way I hardly think it is a significant difference.

 

[Half Empty]

Is that winning on the first possession or just winning. Either way I hardly think it is a significant difference.

I agree - much ado about nothing.

 

[sschind]

I'm fine with overtime. Football doesn't lend it'self to "fair". It's offense, defense and special teams. with 1 period to win the game, the odds are so much higher of scoring points on offense than defense, of course I'm going to take the ball first, as the clock starts ticking once I get it. and if I get it first I'll have more possessions should the game remained tied. and if I don't score first, then I have my special teams to kick the ball away. But odds are so much higher of scoring points on offense than defense, even if I had a stifling defense and mediocre offense I'd still go offense first. It's a no brainer in OT to take the ball first.

That said, if you're just looking at possessions, the odds are in a defense's favor of getting a stop. How many offensive possessions result in a score? 30% (I'm completely guessing) How many possessions result in a TD? 20% It's not automatic team with ball first wins at all. They have to gain yards first off, just to avoid giving good field position to the 2nd team. If they gain some, then they can score points or pin the other team deep making it very hard to call an offense and get the ball back with good field position.

But if you give both teams a chance, and then the 1st team scores on it's 2nd possession. Why did it get 2 and the other team only got 1 chance? OT as I see it is completely fair. It's football. Score points and stop the other team if you want to win. That's name of the game, do it, and win. OT will never be equitable and it shouldn't be.

I agree that it will likely never be equitable but I wonder why you don't think it should be? Why should one team deserve and advantage.

 

[Mondio]

I agree that it will likely never be equitable but I wonder why you don't think it should be? Why should one team deserve and advantage.

Because every team has advantages or disadvantages. Use them or exploit them. Just win. A whole game was played, now it’s time to find a winner. Score or stop them. Football is simple.

I don’t see anyway to ensure that’s it’s equitable in attempts to win other than the college way, and I do not want that in the pros. You don’t just get handed the ball in scoring position. It’s special teams, field position, risks, reward. Offense defense, beat the man across from you. The team that does will win most times. Sometimes luck will be the factor and those are all the reasons we watch.

I wrestled when it was first take down wins. If that didn’t do it you flipped, one guy got to choose up or down and if you escaped you win, if you maintained control you won. Sudden death. Just win.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

For me the question is "Should an advantage in football be given as a result of a random flip of the coin?" Why not flip a coin after every score and decide who gets the ball now? Flip a coin to decide contested plays, instead of instant replay? Extreme yes, but I think there is a proven advantage to the team that wins the coin flip in OT, so anyway that advantage can be removed would be a positive to me.

Or just remove the "sudden death" element out of OT all together. Keep playing another preset amount of time, team with the most points at the end of that period wins. No coin flip, just keep playing football at the end of the 4th quarter.