2019 NFL Rule Changes That Would Improve The Game Big Time

[Pokerbrat2000]

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

Yet, you loose a timeout if you loose a challenge but keep it and not the challenge if your challenge is upheld.

 

[Mondio]

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.

The only advantage is it’s easier to score points on offense rather than defense. Outside of that most offensive possessions result in something other than points. So let’s not over state the advantage they have. If your defense doesn’t completely **** the bed or get extremely unlucky, you have as good of a shot as anybody. If teams were winning in the opening possession 70% of the time maybe you’d be in to something. But they aren’t.

 

[sschind]

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.

Those are advantages and disadvantage based on the teams. When the Rams played the Cardinals the Rams certainly had advantages but it wasn't because the way the game was run. Shouldn't the process be set up so that there is no inherent advantage for one team over the other. Like you said, there is probably no way to do that but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the goal.

Don't get me wrong. When I see that 52.6% winning average by the team receiving the toss I think its pretty damn equal and I don't think there needs to be a big change. You said that football is offense, defense and special teams. In giving both teams a possession you allow all three aspect for both teams to be involved in determining the outcome. If a team with a great offense but a poor defense loses the toss their strength may never get a chance to win them the game.

On the other hand if they don't change it I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

 

[sschind]

Yet, you loose a timeout if you loose a challenge but keep it and not the challenge if your challenge is upheld.

That's part of the penalty for not being more judicious on what plays you choose to challenge.

 

[Mondio]

Those are advantages and disadvantage based on the teams. When the Rams played the Cardinals the Rams certainly had advantages but it wasn't because the way the game was run. Shouldn't the process be set up so that there is no inherent advantage for one team over the other. Like you said, there is probably no way to do that but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the goal.

Don't get me wrong. When I see that 52.6% winning average by the team receiving the toss I think its pretty damn equal and I don't think there needs to be a big change. You said that football is offense, defense and special teams. In giving both teams a possession you allow all three aspect for both teams to be involved in determining the outcome. If a team with a great offense but a poor defense loses the toss their strength may never get a chance to win them the game.

On the other hand if they don't change it I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Unless a defense is completely terrible, the odds are very much in their favor they hold an offensive possession to a FG or less.

And if your defense is terrible, tough ****.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The only advantage is it’s easier to score points on offense rather than defense. Outside of that most offensive possessions result in something other than points. So let’s not over state the advantage they have. If your defense doesn’t completely **** the bed or get extremely unlucky, you have as good of a shot as anybody. If teams were winning in the opening possession 70% of the time maybe you’d be in to something. But they aren’t.

But why even have a situation where a team is afforded any kind of random (coin flip) advantage at all, when you don't have to?

My theory is that fans and the NFL love the drama of "sudden death" and there is something to be said about that, except for the times your team loses and never had the chance to possess the ball. Doesn't matter to me that it doesn't happen a lot, the point is, it can and does happen.

How would you like to be in a big court battle, the opposing side presents their closing statement first. After it the judge stands up, puts his hand up and says "I have heard enough, you win! Everyone can go home now".

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That's part of the penalty for not being more judicious on what plays you choose to challenge.

EXACTLY!! Which is how the two (timeouts and challenges) are connected. If you have a limited amount of challenges, it forces the coach to be more judicious on what he challenges.

Personally, I got tired of McCarthy calling timeouts or challenging plays that really at the time meant sh*t, always fearing we would need that timeout or that challenge later in the game.

 

[Mondio]

But why even have a situation where a team is afforded any kind of random (coin flip) advantage at all, when you don't have to?

My theory is that fans and the NFL love the drama of "sudden death" and there is something to be said about that, except for the times your team loses and never had the chance to possess the ball. Doesn't matter to me that it doesn't happen a lot, the point is, it can and does happen.

How would you like to be in a big court battle, the opposing side presents their closing statement first. After it the judge stands up, puts his hand up and says "I have heard enough, you win! Everyone can go home now".

And what situation has anyone come up with where a potential advantage isn’t given to a team?

And still the odds are very much in favor of the team on defense holding to a FG or less thus ensuring a possession for their team.

 

[sschind]

EXACTLY!! Which is how the two (timeouts and challenges) are connected. If you have a limited amount of challenges, it forces the coach to be more judicious on what he challenges.

Personally, I got tired of McCarthy calling timeouts or challenging plays that really at the time meant sh*t, always fearing we would need that timeout or that challenge later in the game.

By penalizing them for bad challenges you would do the same thing but still give them a chance to get the obvious bad calls corrected. IMO the purpose of the challenge is to make sure the call is right. Your reasoning isn't really as much about getting the call right as it is about teams not being hurt by bad calls.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

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

Well if you know BB, he's always the man who loves it when a plan comes together.

I think as to this coin flip in OT thing and sudden death ... Well I've certainly stated before I'm open to an alternative to that. Unfortunately, I assume it's only still in place because there just is no easy alternative presenting itself.

But they can definitely fix this dumb regular season game OT end in ties nonsense by shutting the game clock off.

There's no dumb ties in basketball, baseball, or even hockey now. Ridiculous to allow ties in football. If they want the games to end quicker in OT, have a no punt rule during that period. But I'm telling you, ties in OT are up big time with the shortened OT game clock, and that's bad.

 

[swhitset]

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?

Lol... this is why I like this forum. I think I probably agree with over 90% of what you post... and yet I completely disagree with you about replay. I would like every play to be called as correctly as possible. If a play needs to be looked at a second time possibly from another angle to accomplish that, I’m all for it. I realize that this will still leave some plays in question, but at least it won’t be because they happened too quickly to get a good look at it. I actually don’t care if prolongs the game or not. That is simply my opinion.... I realize it is not a popular one to many.

 

[Mondio]

Lol... this is why I like this forum. I think I probably agree with over 90% of what you post... and yet I completely disagree with you about replay. I would like every play to be called as correctly as possible. If a play needs to be looked at a second time possibly from another angle to accomplish that, I’m all for it. I realize that this will still leave some plays in question, but at least it won’t be because they happened too quickly to get a good look at it. I actually don’t care if prolongs the game or not. That is simply my opinion.... I realize it is not a popular one to many.

This proves you’re only wrong 10% of the time. That’s way above average

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

By penalizing them for bad challenges you would do the same thing but still give them a chance to get the obvious bad calls corrected. IMO the purpose of the challenge is to make sure the call is right. Your reasoning isn't really as much about getting the call right as it is about teams not being hurt by bad calls.

I would love to have every play be officiated correctly. However, I don't think that is a reasonable or logistical thing to ask for or expect. If someone wanted to look at every single play and every single player on each play, they might be able to find a penalty. So yes, I would prefer to let the coaches decide "hey that call/no call could really impact the outcome of the game and its important enough to use one of my challenges to attempt to get it corrected."

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And what situation has anyone come up with where a potential advantage isn’t given to a team?

And still the odds are very much in favor of the team on defense holding to a FG or less thus ensuring a possession for their team.

Really? Since 2011 when overtime rules were changed, there have been 8 playoff games that were decided in OT. 5 of those were won by the team winning the coin flip and scoring a TD on their first possession.

Football is a game made up of 46 game day players on each team, 3 units (offense, defense and special teams), I think its a joke to let one unit potentially decide the outcome of a game in OT.

People bring up College Football OT format and the "fairness" of equal possessions. But actually, the coin toss in college is even more important statistically in college. It's considered an advantage to win the toss and defer to going on defense, so you know what you have to do to win the game when you get your shot on offense. College teams winning the OT coin toss win 54.9 % of the time.

 

[Mondio]

Really? Since 2011 when overtime rules were changed, there have been 8 playoff games that were decided in OT. 5 of those were won by the team winning the coin flip and scoring a TD on their first possession.

Football is a game made up of 46 game day players on each team, 3 units (offense, defense and special teams), I think its a joke to let one unit potentially decide the outcome of a game in OT.

People bring up College Football OT format and the "fairness" of equal possessions. But actually, the coin toss in college is even more important statistically in college. It's considered an advantage to win the toss and defer to going on defense, so you know what you have to do to win the game when you get your shot on offense. College teams winning the OT coin toss win 54.9 % of the time.

Ohhh, so now only OT games in the playoffs count?

What are the odds an offense scores any points on any possession? I’m betting it’s only 30% give or take. A TD? I bet it’s even less. It’s not a game being handed to the offense, unless of course the defense sucks I’m which case, quit sucking for one possession and get the ball back if you want to win.

It’s not a joke, now tell me your more equitable way. You haven’t. No matter what it’s unfair. If you want to win, score points or stop them. Any team that goes second now knows what it needs and extra downs become important. Think it’s not an advantage to know what you need?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Ohhh, so now only OT games in the playoffs count?

What are the odds an offense scores any points on any possession? I’m betting it’s only 30% give or take. A TD? I bet it’s even less. It’s not a game being handed to the offense, unless of course the defense sucks I’m which case, quit sucking for one possession and get the ball back if you want to win.

It’s not a joke, now tell me your more equitable way. You haven’t. No matter what it’s unfair. If you want to win, score points or stop them. Any team that goes second now knows what it needs and extra downs become important. Think it’s not an advantage to know what you need?

I've stated my fix many times. You play a 5th quarter. Put 10 minutes on the clock when the game is tied at the end of the 4th. Switch ends just like you do after the 1st and 3rd quarters, but play continues where it left off at the end of the 4th. Play the entire 10 minutes, whoever is ahead at the end of that, wins. In the regular season, a tie at the end of that, is a tie. In playoffs, repeat and rinse.

 

[Mondio]

and one team will most likely have an extra possession. What have you changed? Just one more chance? Why not 15 minutes? Why not 20? Why favor a ball control running team?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

and one team will most likely have an extra possession. What have you changed? Just one more chance? Why not 15 minutes? Why not 20? Why favor a ball control running team?

What I have changed is the fact that the game continues as is. The team getting the ball at the start of the 2nd and 4th quarter isn't given an unfair advantage, they are just continuing play where it left off, why not do that for the 5th quarter? Why has the game all of a sudden entered the Twilight Zone just because it is tied at the end of the 4th quarter? Why does it have to be stopped and a coin flip used to restart it? Why does the first team to score under the parameters of the current rules win, when there is still time on the clock?

As far as possessions, that would come into strategy for the team with the ball at the end of the 4th. However, I guarantee you that you won't see teams kneeling down at the end of the 4th to get to overtime. To me it would be the most seamless continuation of a game that you could possibly get.

How does this favor a ball control running offense? In your own words, if the defense can't stop them, they don't deserve to win. You really think a team can chew up 10 minutes of clock time to run the ball and just kick a FG?

10 minutes was thrown out there based on trying to limit injuries and playing too long.

 

[Mondio]

How can you not see how it isn’t more fair, it just benefits someone else? Why does the team with the ball not have to worry about time running out on them?

Why wouldn’t it favor a ball control offense? 7-8 minute drives aren’t uncommon for them. But like you said, defense is important. So, what have you changed besides making change? I’d love to call an offense knowing time isn’t running out on me. What an advantage over the first half ending.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you are worried about "ball control teams" consistently being able to use up 7-8 minutes on the clock in overtime, you appear to be scrambling to find a reason for disagreeing. I didn't do extensive research, but I found a 2016 chart that showed "ave. time of possession". Detroit lead the league with an average of 3:08/drive.

https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-time-of-possession-per-drive/2016/

And if a team did put an 8 minute drive together, you don't think the opposing team can't do anything with the remaining 2 minutes and 2 timeouts? What do teams currently do when they have a 3 or 7 point lead in the 4th quarter with less than 10 minutes on the clock?

If you want to talk about change, isn't stopping play, flipping a coin to determine possession and then putting an arbitrary way of ending the game with a score as what determines a winner, change from how the game is normally played? Why is OT treated like the start of a game or the start of the second half, yet has this magic bullet aspect of "you scored, you win" ? Treat it like the game never ended and you are still playing the same game as you left off with at the end of the 4th quarter.

 

[Mondio]

If you are worried about "ball control teams" consistently being able to use up 7-8 minutes on the clock in overtime, you appear to be scrambling to find a reason for disagreeing. I didn't do extensive research, but I found a 2016 chart that showed "ave. time of possession". Detroit lead the league with an average of 3:08/drive.

https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-time-of-possession-per-drive/2016/

And if a team did put an 8 minute drive together, you don't think the opposing team can't do anything with the remaining 2 minutes and 2 timeouts? What do teams currently do when they have a 3 or 7 point lead in the 4th quarter with less than 10 minutes on the clock?

If you want to talk about change, isn't stopping play, flipping a coin to determine possession and then putting an arbitrary way of ending the game with a score as what determines a winner, change from how the game is normally played? Why is OT treated like the start of a game or the start of the second half, yet has this magic bullet aspect of "you scored, you win" ?

Forget ball control, why doesn’t the team with the ball last have to worry about time running out on them? You don’t think that’s an advantage over the team with the ball at the end of the first half? Or the team that has the ball at the end of the OT with time running out? Why does it run out on 2 of them but not the other? No advantage? Please.

Go ahead and play it that way, but don’t kid yourself that you’ve just made it more “fair”. You’ve made it different.

And the magic bullet now, is a TD. You must score a TD first or the game continues. What are percentages on TDs scores on any offensive possession? I’m still guessing 30% or less. Hardly a gimme for the team winning the toss.

Football doesn’t lend itself to “even”. Just play

 

[HardRightEdge]

The AAF had their inaugural games this evening, though I can't say I watched. Here are a few of the rule differences from the NFL, some of which I find interesting:

https://www.covers.com/Editorial/Ar...te-Guide-to-the-Alliance-of-American-Football

• No kickoffs! The team that gets the ball simply starts on its own 25.
• That also means no onside kicks. Teams can instead try an “onside conversion”, meaning they must convert a fourth-and-12 from its own 28-yard line to keep the ball. Teams can only try an onside conversion inside of five minutes remaining in the game, or if they are trailing by 17 or more.
• No point-after attempts. Teams must go for two every time.
• Field goals are permitted, but not in overtime.
• The addition of the “SkyJudge” referee, whose job it is to use real-time technology to correct missed calls that concern player safety and to correct pass interference calls inside of five minutes remaining in the fourth quarter.
• Coach’s challenges: Each team gets two for the game. No additional challenges for getting one right.
• Overtime rules: Each team gets the ball once and its first-and-goal from the 10. You must score a touchdown and go for two. Games can end in ties.
• No blitzing! No more than five players can rush on passing plays and those rushers can only line up from a position no more than two yards outside the widest offensive lineman and more than five yards from the line of scrammage. This is what the league is calling the "defensive pressure box." So what does this mean? No delayed blitzes. No corner blitzes. Basically no exotic blitzes. And the punishment for illegal blitzing is severe: a 15-yard illegal defense penalty.
• A 35-second play clock, as opposed to the NFL's 40-second play clock.

I read elsewhere their objective is to play games in 2 1/2 hours. Of course if this leagues takes off, the TV timeouts will be back.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Forget ball control, why doesn’t the team with the ball last have to worry about time running out on them? You don’t think that’s an advantage over the team with the ball at the end of the first half? Or the team that has the ball at the end of the OT with time running out? Why does it run out on 2 of them but not the other? No advantage? Please.

Go ahead and play it that way, but don’t kid yourself that you’ve just made it more “fair”. You’ve made it different.

Well at least we can forget about your ball control argument.

Not sure what your point is about why a team controlling the ball "last" has an advantage. You are assuming they will always score with no time left on the clock? How many times did you see MM start calling timeouts while on defense at the end of the 2nd or 4th quarter, thinking he would get the ball back, sometimes he did, sometimes he didn't.

Stats show that the team having the ball first in OT win more than they lose, so if you are fine with that, not sure why you and I are discussing this. If OT wasn't an issue, it wouldn't be discussed at the end of every season.

This reminds me of instant replay, which I am sure when it first came out, you said was stupid. Now any changes discussed to improve it, are also stupid?

I understand the old adage of "if it isn't broke, don't try to fix it", but in the case of replay and overtime, there sure seems to be a lot of people thinking both are broke.

 

[OldSchool101]

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

I like that. For instance, they could increase each team to a maximum 3 challenges per half so it doesn’t become unreasonable. However, to limit the usage, each initiated coaches challenge that doesn’t overturn is immediately awarded a loss of down along with the standard loss of challenge.
If it’s a 4th down play that’s not overturned? 15 yards is added to the return or half the distance.

Unrelated to football note: I’m highly surprised they haven’t utilized this concept in civil court. If you sue someone and they are found “not guilty”, there should be a consequence for wasting everyone’s time.
E.g, The courts should retain 10% of the named monetary value of the lawsuit as a fine. The fine amount should be split 50/50 between the accused and to defray the court costs. You want 5 Million in damages for a spilt cup of hot coffee? Be prepared to pony up 500,000 if you lose.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If the goal is to get the calls right there should be no limit on the number of challenges.

There's no way of getting all calls correct. I'm absolutely fine with limiting challenges especially considering most game deciding plays are automatically reviewed.

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.

It would be impossible to draw the line on which plays are allowed to be challenged though.

What are the odds an offense scores any points on any possession? I’m betting it’s only 30% give or take. A TD? I bet it’s even less.

You're actually pretty spot on with your numbers. Since the NFL moved the kickoff to the 35-yard line in 2011 teams getting the ball that way have scored points on 31.8% of the drives with 19.5% resulting in a touchdown.

Not sure what your point is about why a team controlling the ball "last" has an advantage.

Let me be clear about that I don'tconsider overtime to be fair but I don't have a proposal making it any better although I would like both teams to get an equal amount of possessions.

To you point, a team not having to worry about the clock at the end of the fourth quarterbis a distinct advantage though.