PDA

View Full Version : New Rules-Maybe


I-Want-Troy's-Hair
03-27-2008, 01:47 AM
....and there will be a few more complements of the Beliprick and the *Cheatriots

http://postgazette.com/pg/08087/868318-66.stm

Patriots' misconduct may mean new rules
Thursday, March 27, 2008
By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The goal of the New England Patriots last season was to accomplish something so spectacular it would have an enduring, historic effect on the National Football League.

They might have succeeded in ways they never dreamed.

The Patriots fell short of 19-0 perfection and a dynasty-like fourth Super Bowl victory in seven seasons when the New York Giants upset them in the NFL championship game. But illegal acts by New England and its head coach over the years might produce stricter rules of conduct in the NFL and add another layer of technology to the game.

Commissioner Roger Goodell has proposed widespread rules governing the integrity of the game that owners will consider at their annual meeting beginning Sunday in Palm Beach, Fla. The new rules will be self-policing, much like the service academies, in that owners, general mangers, coaches and others must blow the whistle on each other if they know of violations.

In addition, members of the league's competition committee believe the owners will pass a rule allowing one defensive player to wear a radio receiver in his helmet to hear signals from the sideline the way a quarterback has been able to do on offense. It is an obvious attempt to end the illegal video taping of defensive coaches' signals that cost the Patriots and coach Bill Belichick heavy fines last fall and a first-round draft choice.

There is no doubt the proposals were inspired by Spygate.

"I think the question has been raised because of all the focus that went on with that incident," said Rich McKay, co-chairman of the NFL competition committee. "You have to make fans assured you are paying attention to the issues and are directing as much energy as you can to the issue."

"We are determined to make sure our game is clean and competitively fair," said Ray Anderson, the NFL's vice president of football operations. "The main thing is accountability from top to bottom in protecting the integrity and maintaining accountability with our fans."

"I certainly agree that it's an issue that needs to be addressed," Steelers president Art Rooney II said of Goodell's proposals, "and I think what we've heard from the commissioner so far makes sense. Obviously we have to hear more of the details, but he's going to put some measures in place that will make a difference and certainly make people think twice if they have any thoughts about skirting the rules."

Belichick and the Patriots admitted to Goodell that part of their illegal taping of coaches involved the Steelers before or during two AFC championship games in Heinz Field, both won by New England after the 2002 and '04 seasons.

It's not just stealing signals by video tape either. There have been complaints from visiting teams when their coaches' suddenly lose communication through their sideline headphones. Or, as happened publicly during the 2005 season, complaints that Indianapolis illegally used its indoor sound system to jack up the crowd noise.

Such violations will be policed more closely and dealt with more severely under Goodell's proposals.

"You have to say there's an opportunity to exploit technology to gain an advantage that is not part of the rules," Rooney said. "I think that is something that probably will be an oncoming challenge as technology continues to improve."

Other issues and proposals on the docket for the NFL meetings:

? Change the seeding for playoffs so if a wild-card team has a better record than a division winner, it receives a higher seed. In that case, Jacksonville (11-5) would not have played at the Steelers (AFC North champions at 10-6). "We don't see any reason to fool with that," said Rooney, who believes division champs deserve the reward of a higher seed.

? A 5- to 7-day moratorium before free agency begins to allow team officials to talk to the agents for potential free agents without signing them. It's a process that goes on now anyway, illegally, and the NFL hopes to make it equal for everyone who now follows the rules. "No question there's an issue with people jumping the gun now," Rooney said.

? Eliminate the 5-yard penalty for minor facemask violations with only those involving serious infractions drawing a 15-yard penalty.

? Eliminate the rule that allows the receiver to have a catch if, in the judgment of the official, he was forced out of bounds by a defender to prevent him from getting both feet in bounds. That play now would be ruled an incompletion unless the receiver was carried out of bounds.

? Prohibit long hair from obscuring a player's name on the back of his jersey, ala Troy Polamalu. The player would not be required to cut his hair, but wear it under his helmet. "I think we probably are inclined to not be for the change," Rooney said. "I would say there probably needs to be some consideration of what's too much. Hair out of the helmet is one thing, hair halfway down your back, I don't know."

? Expand instant replay for reviews on field goals, except on those where the ball rises above the uprights because of camera angles.

? Allow the winner of the opening coin flip to defer its choice to the second half, mimicking the college rule.

stlrtruck
03-27-2008, 10:11 AM
As usual like some, hate others.

Like the coin flip rule, the defense getting a headset in their helmet.

Hate the hair, and the seeding rules.

Not sure about the receiver out of bounds

lilyoder6
03-27-2008, 11:07 AM
the wr one would be the most stupidest thing to change.. so basically there would be no point to throw a ball to the wr by the sidelines.. b/c if they catch it all the defender has to do is push him out and there is no catch.. stupid stupid stupid... also the hair thing.. i only see like 5 ppl that has long hair.. y the big deal?? i hate the seeding thing too b/c if that is changed then y are there divisions?? should just be one big ass pool then for afc and nfc...
evrything else i like...

stlrtruck
03-27-2008, 02:15 PM
These are all stupid. I'd much rather they just make it legal to touch the quarterback again.

How dare you think the QBs should be allowed to be touched (with the exception of our own)? I mean that would make them...football players (just like our QB)!

RoethlisBURGHer
03-27-2008, 03:02 PM
How dare you think the QBs should be allowed to be touched (with the exception of our own)? I mean that would make them...football players (just like our QB)!

Tom Brady is against that rule, so it isn't gonna happen.

CanadianSteel
03-27-2008, 03:51 PM
Like the coin flip one
Don't like removing the 5 yard facemask as the everything will likely become 15 yards
Out of bounds, I am not really sure the purpose of this change ?
Hair rule sucks leave alone
Filed goals review - sure whatever

One change I woud love to see with all the advantages to the offense recently is pass inetrference moved to 15 yards like college and not the point of the infraction.

xXTheSteelKingsXx
03-27-2008, 05:10 PM
Basically, college usually seems to be a step ahead as far as making rules that work.

Yeah, but they lose points for the BCS.:banging:

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
03-27-2008, 07:54 PM
One change I woud love to see with all the advantages to the offense recently is pass inetrference moved to 15 yards like college and not the point of the infraction.

I think this topic was already on the owners meeting table a couple years ago but they gave it the boot.

Galax Steeler
03-28-2008, 04:24 AM
I just don't understand the out of bounds rule for the recievers that has to be the dumbest one yet.

CanadianSteel
03-28-2008, 09:44 AM
Now THAT is something I could get behind. I can't think of many things more infuriating than watching the other team get rewarded for throwing up a 50-yard moonball that nobody's going to catch, then have it count just like a reception because a guy kind of got bumped on the arm.

I also think the out-of-bounds rule is another case where it'd be a stupid change, unless they adopted the college rules entirely (meaning 1 foot).

Basically, college usually seems to be a step ahead as far as making rules that work.

Ya seems to make too much sense for the owners to bring in a rule like this.
I also hate seeing sometimes quetionable infractions cost a team 50 yards + sometimes, specially since pass interfernce is often a judgement call by the official.

Borski
03-28-2008, 11:20 AM
I just don't understand the out of bounds rule for the recievers that has to be the dumbest one yet.

I'm perfectly fine with that change, from what I understand it will be closer to old school football and give away some of the edge offenses have. I think a defender should be able to push someone out of bounds to keep it from being a completed pass.

BettisFan
03-28-2008, 04:05 PM
Thats BS to remove the 5 yard facemask

Elvis
03-28-2008, 07:16 PM
Thats BS to remove the 5 yard facemask
Agreed 100% Bettisfan.
But the rule that just absolutely kills me is the Conference Play-off standings' Changes!! If it doesnt matter if you win your division come play-off time, why even have divisions? No Use In It!! That Rules Stinks!!!
:bs:

SteelCityMan786
03-28-2008, 07:22 PM
Yeah, but they lose points for the BCS.:banging:

MAKE THE DAMN PLAYOFF!!!!! :sofunny:

Preacher
03-28-2008, 08:13 PM
I LOVE the WR rule.

Here is why...

1. it takes the guess work out of the ref's job. was it a catch and if so, could he have possibly came in inbounds? If so, what are the chances? Nope. all that is gone. The question is simply, did he or did he NOT get both feet in bounds, REGARDLESS OF HOW.

2. It does NOT take the sideline pattern out of play. It does however, demand the QB to throw the ball BETTER, so the receiver doesn't have to jump for the ball at the sidelines. To do so will decrease the chances of making the reception. Thus, this rule demands more skill of the QB AND WR, and puts some of the hitting back into the game. You watch how the players will T-off on players going up for the ball on sideline patterns now.

3. Job of Safeties... You wanna talk about big hits? Imagine this. a guy is a two yards away from the sideline and catches a pass late in the game. A safety comes over and CRANKS the guy, knocking him 6 feet away and lands out of bounds. INCOMPLETE!

That my friends, is a REWARD for good aggressive defensive play. It will also change some Endzone plays. A guy goes up in the endzone, well, he catches the ball, but if you can hit him hard enough, he wll STILL land out of bounds.

Yeah... I LOVE this rule. Actually, I have been wanting it for a few years now and glad to see it is being discussed.

silver & black
03-28-2008, 08:19 PM
These are all stupid. I'd much rather they just make it legal to touch the quarterback again.

Hell yeah! :cheers:

Preacher
03-28-2008, 08:20 PM
Hell yeah! :cheers:

Does it really matter for you? The immaculate reception was still legal! :wink02::wink02:

:poke:

Just felt like a loving shot was in need at the time!

silver & black
03-28-2008, 08:52 PM
Does it really matter for you? The immaculate reception was still legal! :wink02::wink02:

:poke:

Just felt like a loving shot was in need at the time!

Hmmm... its been 30+ years since the immaculate deception. Its like crying over spilled milk. I think I'll just pass on this one Preach. :wink02:

Preacher
03-28-2008, 11:58 PM
Hmmm... its been 30+ years since the immaculate deception. Its like crying over spilled milk. I think I'll just pass on this one Preach. :wink02:

Just pass on it, right?

:chuckle:

silver & black
03-29-2008, 08:52 AM
Just pass on it, right?

:chuckle:

Right. :sofunny:

SteelersMongol
03-29-2008, 01:23 PM
The Hair one sucks. It's just stupid. But I think maybe Mr. Goodell is kind of jealous of our guy Troy, cuz he's not gonna look cool if he had a long hair like Troy's. So if he can't have one then no one is gonna have it in NoFunLeague. :wink02:

fansince'76
03-29-2008, 01:30 PM
I LOVE the WR rule.

Here is why...

1. it takes the guess work out of the ref's job. was it a catch and if so, could he have possibly came in inbounds? If so, what are the chances? Nope. all that is gone. The question is simply, did he or did he NOT get both feet in bounds, REGARDLESS OF HOW.

I completely agree. It does take all the ambiguity out of those close sideline/end line calls involving contact between the DB and WR and makes the refs' job easier, which is always a good thing. No longer can a game possibly be decided on a ref's judgment as to whether a guy would have been inbounds or not on a close-call sideline/end line catch involving contact. Was the WR's feet inbounds when they touched the ground? If not, no catch. Works for me. :thumbsup:

tony hipchest
03-29-2008, 01:35 PM
I completely agree. It does take all the ambiguity out of those close sideline calls involving contact between the DB and WR and makes the refs' job easier, which is always a good thing. No longer can a game possibly be decided on a ref's judgment as to whether a guy would have been inbounds or not on a close-call sideline catch involving contact. Was the WR's feet inbounds when they touched the ground? If not, no catch. Works for me. :thumbsup:an easy compromise is the college rule of 1 foot in bounds and maintain possession to the ground.

(i just hate seeing spectacular atheletic catches wiped out by the white line).

BettisFan
03-29-2008, 03:38 PM
When do we know if these new rules pass? And when would they become effective?

Preacher
03-29-2008, 07:23 PM
an easy compromise is the college rule of 1 foot in bounds and maintain possession to the ground.

(i just hate seeing spectacular atheletic catches wiped out by the white line).

hey, I wouldn't mind that compromise...

one foot in bounds. . . full possession, receiver can be pushed out... that would make for GREAT football.

BettisFan
03-29-2008, 11:47 PM
hey, I wouldn't mind that compromise...

one foot in bounds. . . full possession, receiver can be pushed out... that would make for GREAT football.

It would make the game alot easier, that can be good or bad.

CanadianSteel
03-31-2008, 11:22 AM
Agreed 100% Bettisfan.
But the rule that just absolutely kills me is the Conference Play-off standings' Changes!! If it doesnt matter if you win your division come play-off time, why even have divisions? No Use In It!! That Rules Stinks!!!
:bs:

Totally agree, doesn't make any sense :dang:
If you battle and win a tough division your record may be 10-6 or 11-5.
A widcard team could have a better record but perhaps come from a weak division and also possibly have a softer schedule.
You win your division you should get a home playoff date period. Wildcard you are on the road regardless. (Unless playing a lower seeed wildcard of course...)

Elvis
03-31-2008, 08:44 PM
:jawdrop:
I think that it would be stupid to change that out of bounds rule. Just makes absolutely no sense to me folks. Leave it alone and worry about something else that is more important, like making sure some of these players dont have hair so long that you cant see their names on the back of their jerseys... What a Joke!! Goodell is gonna ruin what used to be the greatest professional league sport on earth. Also, wanting to host a super bowl across seas in another country would be insane and the NFL fans should strike if they decide to send our game out of the country!!

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
04-01-2008, 12:10 AM
Their taking the hair off the table.

from espn.com

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/hashmarks/0-5-856/Hair-apparently-not-a-huge-priority.html?post=true

From profootballtalk.com

HAIR PROPOSAL TO BE TABLED?
Posted by Mike Florio on March 31, 2008, 10:37 p.m.

Bill Williamson, formerly of the Denver Post and newly-hired by ESPN.com, reports that the proposal to keep long hair off the backs of player jerseys likely will be “tabled” — which is fancy talk for “ignored without a vote.”

Falcons president Rich McKay said that the league needs to gather more information before acting on the rule, and could poll players to gauge their feelings on the matter.

In our view, the strategy is a way for the league to avoid a thorny issue (especially in light of Article VII, Section 2 of the CBA) while still saving face.

McKay also pointed out that the proposal was made by the Kansas City Chiefs, and not by the Competition Committee. (Translation: “Don’t blame us for it.”)

Meanwhile, a reader had this to say in response to the comments of Chiefs coach Herm Edwards, who recently compared the NFL uniform to the fact that his father wore an ”Army suit“: “Can someone please let Herm Edwards know that I don’t know his father, but as a 21.5-year active duty Air Force member, I’m pretty sure his dad didn’t put on an ‘Army Suit.’ I’m pretty confident it was a uniform, and his service much like mine was intended to preserve one of many freedoms, including one’s personal grooming choices.”

profootballtalk.com