2019 NFL Rule Changes That Would Improve The Game Big Time

[Deleted member 6794]

I agree with you both in regards to pass interference and I would throw in offensive holding as probably the 2 most "judgmental" calls made in football. If either or both become reviewable things, the league is going to have to continue to try and make it more clear as to what is and isn't a penalty and then what would or wouldn't constitute a reversal of a refs call. I don't think reviews will 100% correct these 2 penalties, but at least it would allow a coach to challenge and possibly get corrected the ones that were egregiously called or missed.

The only way to clarify the rule on pass interference is not allowing any contact on a receiver after five yards. That would make stopping an offense even more difficult than it already is.

I don't see any possibility to come up with a rule to eliminate judgement when talking about holding.

How could every single play be overturned if there is a limited # of challenges as well as a coach having to say exactly what is being challenged? To me this is like saying "why enforce speed limits, everyone speeds."

It's important that officiating is consistent. If plays are overturned by review referees have to start calling the game the same way, meaning that every contact after five yards will be flagged on passing plays. Once again, that would ruin the game.

My wording was bad in the previous post though.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The only way to clarify the rule on pass interference is not allowing any contact on a receiver after five yards. That would make stopping an offense even more difficult than it already is.

I would hate to see that rule change. If people hate stoppages for replay now, all the stoppages for incidental contact being called a penalty would drive them nuts.

Once again, I am not proposing being able to challenge a WR running down the field and getting bumped off his route. However, if the ball is in the air and on its way to him and he is interfered with or not interfered with, that would be a situation I would be fine with a coach being able to challenge.

Also, as I have given this more thought, I would not want to change the current rules on automatic booth reviews in the final 2 minutes of the game and half. The booth would continue to automatically review scoring and possession changes during that time, but NOT penalties, that would be up to coaches to hang on to as many challenges as they may want for that time period.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would hate to see that rule change. If people hate stoppages for replay now, all the stoppages for incidental contact being called a penalty would drive them nuts.

Once again, I am not proposing being able to challenge a WR running down the field and getting bumped off his route. However, if the ball is in the air and on its way to him and he is interfered with or not interfered with, that would be a situation I would be fine with a coach being able to challenge.

Also, as I have given this more thought, I would not want to change the current rules on automatic booth reviews in the final 2 minutes of the game and half. The booth would continue to automatically review scoring and possession changes during that time, but NOT penalties, that would be up to coaches to hang on to as many challenges as they may want for that time period.

Well, the only way to not rely on a person's judgement to rule on pass interference is to not allow any contact after five yards though.

You realize that the non call in the NFCCG, that started the discussion again, happened with less than two minutes remaining in the game, don't you??? With you backtracking about possible expanding plays that are reviewable by the booth that call wouldn't have been subject to instant replay, so much ado about nothing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You realize that the non call in the NFCCG, that started the discussion again, happened with less than two minutes remaining in the game, don't you??? With you backtracking about possible expanding plays that are reviewable by the booth that call wouldn't have been subject to instant replay, so much ado about nothing.

IF PI became subject to challenges by a coach throwing his red flag, how would it not have been a challengeable thing? As long as Payton held onto a challenge, that is the very call I would like to see fall under review. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote? I merely said that I don't want the booth having to scrutinize every play in the final 2 minutes, looking for a mistake by the ref. Thus why I said "The booth would continue to automatically review scoring and possession changes during that time, but NOT penalties, that would be up to coaches to hang on to as many challenges as they may want for that time period."

 

[Deleted member 6794]

IF PI became subject to challenges by a coach throwing his red flag, how would it not have been a challengeable thing? As long as Payton held onto a challenge, that is the very call I would like to see fall under review. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote? I merely said that I don't want the booth having to scrutinize every play in the final 2 minutes, looking for a mistake by the ref. Thus why I said "The booth would continue to automatically review scoring and possession changes during that time, but NOT penalties, that would be up to coaches to hang on to as many challenges as they may want for that time period."

Well, it seems like I misunderstood your last post as you're suggesting to completely get rid of booth reviews within the last two minutes of each half aside of scoring plays and turnovers which are automatically reviewed at any point during the game anyway.

I don't consider that to be a good idea either.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

IF PI became subject to challenges by a coach throwing his red flag, how would it not have been a challengeable thing? As long as Payton held onto a challenge, that is the very call I would like to see fall under review. Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote? I merely said that I don't want the booth having to scrutinize every play in the final 2 minutes, looking for a mistake by the ref. Thus why I said "The booth would continue to automatically review scoring and possession changes during that time, but NOT penalties, that would be up to coaches to hang on to as many challenges as they may want for that time period."

This, the no challenges inside of 2 minutes rule could be amended to account for penalty challenges.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Amen!

Owners voted 31-1 in favor of expanded replay

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.co...ass-interference-review-challenge/3283189002/

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Amen!

Owners voted 31-1 in favor of expanded replay

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.co...ass-interference-review-challenge/3283189002/

I don't like it at all but hopefully it will work better than I expect it to.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

I'd love to know who the 1 team that voted no for the rule change. Rams probably

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'd love to know who the 1 team that voted no for the rule change. Rams probably

Bengals.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Bengals.

Oh no kidding? Hmm well okay. I feel like I am one of the only people on this forum who is okay with this rule change. Of course itll have to be fine tuned but none the less I like the change.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Amen!

Owners voted 31-1 in favor of expanded replay

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.co...ass-interference-review-challenge/3283189002/

I'm not entirely convinced the Robey-Coleman play wasn't an uncatchable ball. Be that as it may, if this goes the way of most NFL "fixes" they're putting the cart in front of the horse.

What the NFL needs to address first is the question, "what constitutes pass interference?" It's perhaps the most inconsistently called penalty other than last year's roughing debacle which got cleared up once it was largely ignored. The wording of the rules is not the issue, rather the application from one crew to the next. Three aspects of the rules are the most troublesome:

(1) "Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass"

A lot of arm hooks do not get called when the defender is in position to play the ball.

(2) "Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball"

Some refs give more latitude to the defender than this rule permits. As with (1) above, with some refs it's as though so long as the guy is playing the ball anything goes.

(3) "Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating separation"

You see a lot of this from receivers going uncalled so long as the guy is playing the ball.

Does the NFL refuse to send refs to "school", drilling them on one replay after another as to what is and is not interference, like they are some kind of artists free to make their own interpretations? Or do the crews get their disks with those examples and throw them in a bottom drawer?

Then there seem to be those instances where the league just can't make up their minds. Recall the league's public release of tape with 3 plays illustrating instances of roughing under the new rule, including one of the suspect Matthews calls. No sooner had this tape been released than refs stopped making those calls! Around the same time Roethlisberger called BS on the whole thing. Coincidence?

If this goes according to script, we'll get some obvious arm hook non-calls corrected. However, we won't be very far into the season before the question is broadly asked, "what is interference anyway?" as the reviews are scutinized and debated, not unlike "what is a catch?" which in that case it took the league most of decade to finally get right. Hopefully this one won't take so long.

 

[Stanger37]

I'm not entirely convinced the Robey-Coleman play wasn't an uncatchable ball. Be that as it may, if this goes the way of most NFL "fixes" they're putting the cart in front of the horse.

What the NFL needs to address first is the question, "what constitutes pass interference?" It's perhaps the most inconsistently called penalty other than last year's roughing debacle which got cleared up once it was largely ignored. The wording of the rules is not the issue, rather the application from one crew to the next. Three aspects of the rules are the most troublesome:

(1) "Grabbing an opponent’s arm(s) in such a manner that restricts his opportunity to catch a pass"

A lot of arm hooks do not get called when the defender is in position to play the ball.

(2) "Extending an arm across the body of an opponent, thus restricting his ability to catch a pass, and regardless of whether the player committing such act is playing the ball"

Some refs give more latitude to the defender than this rule permits. As with (1) above, with some refs it's as though so long as the guy is playing the ball anything goes.

(3) "Initiating contact with an opponent by shoving or pushing off, thus creating separation"

You see a lot of this from receivers going uncalled so long as the guy is playing the ball.

Does the NFL refuse to send refs to "school", drilling them on one replay after another as to what is and is not interference, like they are some kind of artists free to make their own interpretations? Or do the crews get their disks with those examples and throw them in a bottom drawer?

Then there seem to be those instances where the league just can't make up their minds. Recall the league's public release of tape with 3 plays illustrating instances of roughing under the new rule, including one of the suspect Matthews calls. No sooner had this tape been released than refs stopped making those calls! Around the same time Roethlisberger called BS on the whole thing. Coincidence?

If this goes according to script, we'll get some obvious arm hook non-calls corrected. However, we won't be very far into the season before the question is broadly asked, "what is interference anyway?" as the reviews are scutinized and debated, not unlike "what is a catch?" which in that case it took the league most of decade to finally get right. Hopefully this one won't take so long.

I think you make some great points. The only thing I would add is there is a "flow" to every game and how do you translate that into reviewing these calls? Some games are more physical than others, some teams are more physical than others.

Seahawks "LOB" got away with a lot, and that is because they were going to punish you for trying to make a play. They played physical, there was hand fighting and WRs would challenge them too.

Some refs let them play and some don't. Especially when it comes to playoff time, across the board in all 4 big sports. No ref wants a whistle to cause the result in the game. And there will be some exceptions, even though I still don't think the refs blew the NFCC game, but that is a moot point at this time.

Sometimes you have to let two athletes battle it out and let them play. Especially when most rules these days favor offense, let the defensive guy try to make some plays. WRs are already divas, I see this making them even worse.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sounds like the Coaches all pretty much united and collectively told the owners that this rule change had to be made. Bill Belichick being one of the most vocal ones in the process.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Amen!

Owners voted 31-1 in favor of expanded replay

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.co...ass-interference-review-challenge/3283189002/

I second that, this is one change that was long overdue once replay got brought into football.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

I think you make some great points. The only thing I would add is there is a "flow" to every game and how do you translate that into reviewing these calls? Some games are more physical than others, some teams are more physical than others.

Seahawks "LOB" got away with a lot, and that is because they were going to punish you for trying to make a play. They played physical, there was hand fighting and WRs would challenge them too.

Some refs let them play and some don't. Especially when it comes to playoff time, across the board in all 4 big sports. No ref wants a whistle to cause the result in the game. And there will be some exceptions, even though I still don't think the refs blew the NFCC game, but that is a moot point at this time.

Sometimes you have to let two athletes battle it out and let them play. Especially when most rules these days favor offense, let the defensive guy try to make some plays. WRs are already divas, I see this making them even worse.

You do realize though that this also could keep some of those diva receivers from getting away with offensive pass interference though right?

 

[Heyjoe4]

Oh no kidding? Hmm well okay. I feel like I am one of the only people on this forum who is okay with this rule change. Of course itll have to be fine tuned but none the less I like the change.

I think it was a necessary change. As long as IR is going to be used, may as well use it on PI calls, especially considering the yardage usually involved. I don’t think you’re alone in liking this change.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

Now ... Just need to see an OT format instituted that does away with ties.

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

I think it was a necessary change. As long as IR is going to be used, may as well use it on PI calls, especially considering the yardage usually involved. I don’t think you’re alone in liking this change.

Good to see I am not alone. There will be things put in place im sure that will not make this so every single pass can be checked for PI like some people on this forum seem to think

 

[Cheese Headed Monster]

Now ... Just need to see an OT format instituted that does away with ties.

Would love to see this as well

 

[Heyjoe4]

Now ... Just need to see an OT format instituted that does away with ties.

Would LOVE to see them do away with ties. Actually, that should go hand in hand with both teams getting a possession. Remove the time limit in OT and play till there’s a winner. Way too many ties last year, and really, no one goes home happy with that, especially the fans.

 

[sschind]

Oh no kidding? Hmm well okay. I feel like I am one of the only people on this forum who is okay with this rule change. Of course itll have to be fine tuned but none the less I like the change.

They drew the short straw to keep it from being unanimous.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I will gladly take a tie over a loss any day.

I'm all about fixing OT to at least give each offense a possession, but I wouldn't be in favor of possibly playing too long or changing the way the game is played, just to say it wasn't a tie. Play an extra quarter during regular season, no coin toss or kickoff, continue where you left off at the end of the 4th. If there is a winner after the 5th Q. great, if not.....a tie. For playoffs, same format until you have a winner.

I've never really been a big fan of "sudden death" in any sport. Throws in too many variables that shouldn't decide a game.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think you make some great points. The only thing I would add is there is a "flow" to every game and how do you translate that into reviewing these calls? Some games are more physical than others, some teams are more physical than others.

Seahawks "LOB" got away with a lot, and that is because they were going to punish you for trying to make a play. They played physical, there was hand fighting and WRs would challenge them too.

Some refs let them play and some don't. Especially when it comes to playoff time, across the board in all 4 big sports. No ref wants a whistle to cause the result in the game. And there will be some exceptions, even though I still don't think the refs blew the NFCC game, but that is a moot point at this time.

Sometimes you have to let two athletes battle it out and let them play. Especially when most rules these days favor offense, let the defensive guy try to make some plays. WRs are already divas, I see this making them even worse.

Most of of what you are willing to accept, seemingly, I consider a problem of inconsistency. Officiating crews that call it tight vs. the "let 'em play" guys is a reality but I see no reason to consider it acceptable. The Legion of Boom presented a differet issue: hand checking and jostling through the route, more an issue of illegal contact if one was of a mind to call it which no crew seemed to do. I'm OK with that if it is always called the same way by all crews.

I don't see more consistency or this new replay option as necessarily favoring the offense. WRs push off all the time especially on backshoulders and those calls are not consistent either.

 

[HardRightEdge]

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.

It's going to be pretty amusing when a receiver gets held with no flag, the ball is thrown his way, the challenge flag is thrown, and the replay clearly shows it was illegal contact before the ball left the QBs hand, not interference. "The call on the field stands." Given Rodgers likes to throw where he sees illegal contact it probably won't take too long.