vegas55 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I will give Roger Goodell credit for at least considering rule changes that may help the game. Whatever you think about the merits of eliminating the kicked extra point, at least Goodell considers changes and is not tied down completely to the past. The tyranny of the status quo it's called, and so many sports are damaged by their fear of change. So here's two rule changes I would love to see. Both are designed to lessen the impact/role of the refs and their calls, which are so often wrong and/ or impact the game in a negative way. Rule change 1 - if a team receiving a punt calls for and completes a fair catch, no holding call should ever be assessed on that team. If a ref saw a hold and threw the flag it should be picked up. The call, IF it was correct, had zero impact on the play anyway. The receiving team gained no advantage, even if they did hold. Rule 2 - holding calls on a clearly defined running play, should be 5 yards, not ten. Penalty yardage is supposed to equate to what would occur if the penalty was not committed. That's why pass interference is a spot of the foul penalty, and why holding on a pass play is 10 yards, as many sacks can be for 10 or more yard loss. But a running play is rarely stopped for a 10 yard loss, and the hold, if it did not happen, usually would have resulted in no gain or small gain, not a 10 yard loss. Too many times a good offense gets on a roll, runs the ball well only to have a marginal or bad holding penalty on a run play called, resulting in 10 yard penalty and putting the offense in a big hole. And the refs so often make bad calls on holds they think they see on a run play. Say what you will about these changes, at least they lessen the impact of bad calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Linen Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I really like your suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) instead of eliminating extra points wouldnt it be better to make all kicks in general more difficult?...kicking is a part of football, to eliminate any part of it would be stupid rule 1: although what you are saying makes sense i think this would create more holding on punt returns as players and teams would hold intentionally to keep defenders away from the returner trying to catch the ball or field a muff punt rule 2: i actually like this rule my proposed rule is to shorten the width of the goal posts to make all kicks harder which would cut down on the insane amount of long kicks we have been seeing last few years and make teams at least think about going for it more often....id also move the extra point try on a kick back 10 yards to at least make it a little more difficult Edited February 11, 2014 by Max997 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 I like both of the OP's rules and would also make kicks harder by putting a miniature golf windmill thing in the goal posts. They could widen it for extra points and eliminate it for really long field goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 There was a suggestion by a kicker recently about awarding 4 points for a FG over 50 yards. That would have a dramatic affect in how the game was played , and maybe for the better. Higher risk higher reward. 55 , i really like the holding call change you suggest. and i would like to see it called more often to clean up how ridiculous that has become. There is holding on both side of the line every play. and rule one sounds perfect but i think thats tough because the fair catch wave does not occur directly after the kick. Difficult to judge. But in theory they should just not call it unless it been an aggressive tendency during the game . Good stuff . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judman Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Like the ideas OP. I'd say keep the PAT but narrow the goal. Some have suggested moving the PAT attempt back... I disagree as it would make a fake PAT attempt for 2 pt. conversion longer than it is now. Narrowed goal posts would make the kicking game more interesting, especially if the hash marks stay put. Edited February 11, 2014 by judman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Romes Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Instead of eliminating kicks make it easier to block them such as by removing all rules against leveraging your teammate for height and/or requiring the kick to be made within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. That will put the fun and strategy back into kicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve O Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 instead of eliminating extra points wouldnt it be better to make all kicks in general more difficult?...kicking is a part of football, to eliminate any part of it would be stupid rule 1: although what you are saying makes sense i think this would create more holding on punt returns as players and teams would hold intentionally to keep defenders away from the returner trying to catch the ball or field a muff punt rule 2: i actually like this rule my proposed rule is to shorten the width of the goal posts to make all kicks harder which would cut down on the insane amount of long kicks we have been seeing last few years and make teams at least think about going for it more often....id also move the extra point try on a kick back 10 yards to at least make it a little more difficult Field goal posts stay where they are but slightly narrowerSeparate set of posts for PAT, 10 yards back, posts 2/3 current width. All PAT attempts from 7 yard line so difficulty of 2 pt PAT is also increased. Makes the 1 pt conversion approx 34-35 yards on narrow posts. Puts some excitement back into the PAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max997 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I am against longer FGs being worth more as teams would start kicking even more FGs especially if they are down 4 points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I am against longer FGs being worth more as teams would start kicking even more FGs especially if they are down 4 points Fifty yarders though ? Field goal posts stay where they are but slightly narrower Separate set of posts for PAT, 10 yards back, posts 2/3 current width. All PAT attempts from 7 yard line so difficulty of 2 pt PAT is also increased. Makes the 1 pt conversion approx 34-35 yards on narrow posts. Puts some excitement back into the PAT there never ever was any excitement in kicking a pat was there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I like both suggestions, a lot. And I'm going to continue to harp on this one: offensive pass interference should result in a loss of down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas55 Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 instead of eliminating extra points wouldnt it be better to make all kicks in general more difficult?...kicking is a part of football, to eliminate any part of it would be stupid rule 1: although what you are saying makes sense i think this would create more holding on punt returns as players and teams would hold intentionally to keep defenders away from the returner trying to catch the ball or field a muff punt rule 2: i actually like this rule my proposed rule is to shorten the width of the goal posts to make all kicks harder which would cut down on the insane amount of long kicks we have been seeing last few years and make teams at least think about going for it more often....id also move the extra point try on a kick back 10 yards to at least make it a little more difficult I don't really get your objection to rule one - if a punt is muffed the holding call would be enforced - flag is only picked up if a fair catch is called for and successfully completed. And why in the world would a receiving team intentionally hold ? That would negate any punt return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Offensive pass interference needs to be overhauled. It's never called and it is not effective to combat the blatant PI's. Then again, Defensive PI is on the rise like I have never seen. ...but thats more to my favorite drum - losing the fundamentals of football. I will give Roger Goodell credit for at least considering rule changes that may help the game. Whatever you think about the merits of eliminating the kicked extra point, at least Goodell considers changes and is not tied down completely to the past. The tyranny of the status quo it's called, and so many sports are damaged by their fear of change. So here's two rule changes I would love to see. Both are designed to lessen the impact/role of the refs and their calls, which are so often wrong and/ or impact the game in a negative way. Rule change 1 - if a team receiving a punt calls for and completes a fair catch, no holding call should ever be assessed on that team. If a ref saw a hold and threw the flag it should be picked up. The call, IF it was correct, had zero impact on the play anyway. The receiving team gained no advantage, even if they did hold. Rule 2 - holding calls on a clearly defined running play, should be 5 yards, not ten. Penalty yardage is supposed to equate to what would occur if the penalty was not committed. That's why pass interference is a spot of the foul penalty, and why holding on a pass play is 10 yards, as many sacks can be for 10 or more yard loss. But a running play is rarely stopped for a 10 yard loss, and the hold, if it did not happen, usually would have resulted in no gain or small gain, not a 10 yard loss. Too many times a good offense gets on a roll, runs the ball well only to have a marginal or bad holding penalty on a run play called, resulting in 10 yard penalty and putting the offense in a big hole. And the refs so often make bad calls on holds they think they see on a run play. Say what you will about these changes, at least they lessen the impact of bad calls. The Fair Catch rule would have some wrinkles to iron out. I could easily envision returners watching their guys and if they see a call themselves or their back deep partner sees a penalty would tell them to fair catch it to avoid the penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 As far as Rule change number 2 goes, I think you're looking at it wrong. Penalties are not only designed to equate to what would have happened but also to discourage you from doing the act at all. It's sort of like legal damages. They can be compensatory and / or punitive. Compensatory are to make the person whole (similar to what you are suggesting here) while punitive ones are meant to punish offenders for their actions in addition to the harm they caused. To me, it's more about discouraging the act than it is about putting the ball where it may or may not have ended up had the hold not have happened. Also, sack losses average more in the range of 5-7 yards. Too bad I can't seem to get the link to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I like both suggestions, a lot. And I'm going to continue to harp on this one: offensive pass interference should result in a loss of down. YES! I was going to suggest this one as well. Right now there is almost no reason for a WR not to pull down a DB if there is a good chance of an interception. It should clearly be loss of down and I would also say 15 yards. PI now puts the ball at the spot of the foul. They have to make offensive PI sting as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Currently, the team receiving a kickoff gets the ball at the 40 if the kick goes out of bounds on the sideline. I would like to see that rule changed to include the back of the endzone. There should always be a chance to actually return the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Currently, the team receiving a kickoff gets the ball at the 40 if the kick goes out of bounds on the sideline. I would like to see that rule changed to include the back of the endzone. There should always be a chance to actually return the ball. The NFL is basically trying to remove overly dangerous things like kickoffs so good luck with that one. Though logically I agree with you. Out of bounds should be out of bounds in all directions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judman Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Offensive pass interference needs to be overhauled. It's never called and it is not effective to combat the blatant PI's. Then again, Defensive PI is on the rise like I have never seen. It seems to me that there has been a spike in defensive holding calls in place of calls that used to be flagged as PI. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I here you but i don't see getting rid of the extra point as making the game better !! If any thing drop it back say 10 or 20 yards make it a harder thing to achieve & not so automatic as they are saying . They moved the kick offs closer to do away with some of the really violent hits that happens during the run backs , so why not move the extra point further away to make it more difficult ? Seems pretty logical & it makes the game more interesting or at least makes the possibility of the kicker missing more suspenseful & brings the extra point back into the game . I hate to mention it but Wide Right (dam that term still gives me night mares) wouldn't have happened if the offense would have gotten 5 yards closer I'm just saying !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Currently, the team receiving a kickoff gets the ball at the 40 if the kick goes out of bounds on the sideline. I would like to see that rule changed to include the back of the endzone. There should always be a chance to actually return the ball. The NFL is basically trying to remove overly dangerous things like kickoffs so good luck with that one. Though logically I agree with you. Out of bounds should be out of bounds in all directions. Except the odds of a ball BOUNCING then breaching any of the three boundaries is so great that it incentivizes the return team to just wait and see what happens, have a guy close by to down it before the kicking team recovers, but playing the odds of the ball rolling to a stop within the boundaries would make kickoffs nearly obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts