3 Rules I want to see changed based on Yesterdays Games

[plenzmd1]

1) All personal foul calls are enforced as if it was a dead ball foul. That free hit was just BS.

 

2) Defense can score off two point conversion. Only play in football where only one team can score...why? If that rule is in, Wilson no heaves that ball.

 

3) Each team uses same ball...how freaking hard is this?

 

Way more rules i would change, but those are the ones just from yesterday.

[Peter]

How about both teams should get the ball in OT (regardless of whether one team scores a TD) or play a full quarter?

 

I hated to see that game end without Green Bay at least getting the ball on offense once.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Peter

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

#1 .... Each team uses same ball(s)..

 

I agree how freaking hard is that?

#2 both teams should get the ball in OT (regardless of whether one team scores a TD) .....

[Bangarang]

Both teams posses the ball in overtime regardless if the first team to possess the ball first scores a TD.

[Fadingpain]

How about both teams should get the ball in OT (regardless of whether one team scores a TD) or play a full quarter?

 

I hated to see that game end without Green Bay at least getting the ball on offense once.

YES, especially in an era where most games among top teams are shoot-outs, NBA style, and often the winning team is the one who got the ball last before the clock struck zero.

 

It's absurd that Green Bay didn't touch the ball offensively yesterday, and I didn't really care who won. It just leaves a bad taste in your mouth and feels like a mickey mouse fake resolution to the game.

[plenzmd1]

How about both teams should get the ball in OT (regardless of whether one team scores a TD) or play a full quarter?

 

I hated to see that game end without Green Bay at least getting the ball on offense once.

i think i agree LOL...only thing i don't like about that is the coin toss becomes so important again. Team who wins toss defers, and that now changes their decsion making. 4th and 10 from their own 20 when the other team scored a field goal, they go for it, where the team that got the ball first would punt.

 

See it college

[dpberr]

How about both teams should get the ball in OT (regardless of whether one team scores a TD) or play a full quarter?

 

I hated to see that game end without Green Bay at least getting the ball on offense once.

 

Amen to that. I think for playoff games, overtime should be a full quarter, period.

 

I offer that rules about eligible receivers needs to be changed. The Patriots have weeks, if not months to design those plays yet the defense has at most a few minutes to figure out how to defend it and that's where the advantage lies.

[Optometric Insight]

2) Don't think they should make that change. The team that has gotten a touchdown has always had a Point after Try, dating all the way back to the beginning of rugby. And if the rule is changed and you make it like any other play, what happens if the defense returns it all the way back after a turnover, is it two points? is it seven? do they get a PAT? who kicks the ball and who receives? What if the defense doesn't return it all the way back? is there still a kickoff or does the offense take over where the defender was tackled? What happens if there's a blocked Point After kick or the team doesn't convert their try?

 

Just let the team that just marched all the down the field a free chance at points.

 

And it isn't the only play one team can score, what about muffed punts and onside kick attempts? If you change one, there's going to be arguing for changing the others.

[Fadingpain]

While complaining about NFL rules, here is one I have hated for at least 25 years LOL....

 

NO MORE of this "he broke the plane of the goal line" crap for scoring a TD.

 

They need to introduce a very clear cut approach to what is and what is not a touchdown. Would save a ton of down time, wrong referee calls, and reviews as well. It would also help out defenses making goal line stances, which is one of the more interesting and dramatic parts of any game in my opinion.

 

Football is a tough, physical game of territorial acquisition. If you are going to score a touchdown, you better have your body (or most of it) end up physically in the end zone, on the ground, at the end of the play. That is the starting point for how I would like to change the rule.

 

My particular pet peeve is when the D puts up a valiant stand, gets a good push (with the ball on the 1 foot line let's say)...a giant pile ensues....the ball carrier ends up in the air physically on top of a pile of players....sticks his arm out, "breaks the plane" for 1 millisecond......then gets dumped on his ass 3 yards behind the line of scrimmage. And this is declared a TD.

Screw that crap. Some plays like that are almost indefensible; what do you want the D to do? They stopped the O line push, got a good push themselves, met the player in the air, and dumped him a few yards behind the line.

 

And that's a TD? HOW?

 

What else can the D do on that play, realistically speaking?

 

If a team wants to score a TD, they should have to physically "invade" the end zone and "occupy" it, with more than the tip of the football for 1 millisecond.

[reddogblitz]

YES, especially in an era where most games among top teams are shoot-outs, NBA style, and often the winning team is the one who got the ball last before the clock struck zero.

 

22-22 at the end of regulation is a "shoot-out"?

 

OT rules are fine as is and were even fine before the rule change. Defense and Kicking Teams are equal parts of the game.

 

I understand the fairness aspect of both sides getting the ball somewhat, but it's gotta end sometime. Playing a whole extra quarter seems absurd. What if it's tied then? Another quarter?

[BillsFan130]

Am I the only one who thinks that this overtime rule is fair? I had no problem with the old overtime rule as well. Defense is part of your team, shouldn't be that hard to hold another team too a punt or field goal at the worst. If you want the ball back, stop them. Defensive players get paid too

[Fadingpain]

 

22-22 at the end of regulation is a "shoot-out"?

 

OT rules are fine as is and were even fine before the rule change. Defense and Kicking Teams are equal parts of the game.

 

I understand the fairness aspect of both sides getting the ball somewhat, but it's gotta end sometime. Playing a whole extra quarter seems absurd. What if it's tied then? Another quarter?

 

I love your logic: "game has to end some time" so in a game where the offensive team does almost all the scoring, all the time, you give 1 team a chance to have the ball on offense, but not the other.

Seems fair.

 

Sure the game has to end...and almost all football games are going to end, in that first OT period. For the one every 15 years that doesn't (Denver/Baltimore a few years ago; instant classic), cool, it's history in the making.

 

What, you're anxious to get to your manicure appointment? Who doesn't want to see a double OT in a conference championship game anyway!?

Am I the only one who thinks that this overtime rule is fair? I had no problem with the old overtime rule as well. Defense is part of your team, shouldn't be that hard to hold another team too a punt or field goal at the worst. If you want the ball back, stop them. Defensive players get paid too

Yes but football games are won by scoring more points than the opposition, and almost all scoring, all the time, is done by the offense. So if only 1 team touches the ball on offense, they have a massive competitive advantage given to them by....the flipping of a coin. That's BS.

 

Secondly, most of the thinking that goes into the other rules governing NFL playoff overtime is grounded in the concept "We are starting a new, second football game."

 

If that is true, then the new game should not be allowed to end after a single offensive possession, because that is not how football games are played, won, or lost.

Edited January 19, 2015 by Stopthepain

[plenzmd1]

2) Don't think they should make that change. The team that has gotten a touchdown has always had a Point after Try, dating all the way back to the beginning of rugby. And if the rule is changed and you make it like any other play, what happens if the defense returns it all the way back after a turnover, is it two points? is it seven? do they get a PAT? who kicks the ball and who receives? What if the defense doesn't return it all the way back? is there still a kickoff or does the offense take over where the defender was tackled? What happens if there's a blocked Point After kick or the team doesn't convert their try?

 

Just let the team that just marched all the down the field a free chance at points.

 

And it isn't the only play one team can score, what about muffed punts and onside kick attempts? If you change one, there's going to be arguing for changing the others.

Both teams can score on the "play" on a muffed punt...punting team can return a fumble and team receiving team can obviously return the punt...but i believe you are correct on the onside kick, don't think that can be advanced..good catch.

 

In terms of points, have it just like college..if the defence returns it all the way to the other endzone, it is 2 points, same as if the offense got it into the endzone. Seems fair to me. And just like in college, must be returned the whole way...get tackled on 1 yard line...no 2 points and scoring team kicks off just like normal

[Chuck Wagon]

I completely agree on the "Overtime should be a full period" front. One full period, if it's tied after that then it goes to sudden death.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

15 yard penalty every time Brady screams (lays hands on) at a ref

10 yard penalty every time Brady yells at a ref

5 yard penalty every time Brady asks/signals for a ref to throw a flag

 

eviction after the 3rd occurrence

[Cash]

2) Don't think they should make that change. The team that has gotten a touchdown has always had a Point after Try, dating all the way back to the beginning of rugby. And if the rule is changed and you make it like any other play, what happens if the defense returns it all the way back after a turnover, is it two points? is it seven? do they get a PAT? who kicks the ball and who receives? What if the defense doesn't return it all the way back? is there still a kickoff or does the offense take over where the defender was tackled? What happens if there's a blocked Point After kick or the team doesn't convert their try?

 

Just let the team that just marched all the down the field a free chance at points.

 

And it isn't the only play one team can score, what about muffed punts and onside kick attempts? If you change one, there's going to be arguing for changing the others.

 

I like all the baffled questions you throw out there, like there's no possible solution to this crazy problem. Except that college has had this in place as long as I've known - if you return the PAT try (whether via blocked kick or fumble/INT return) all the way to the other end zone, you get 2 points. The team that scored the TD still kicks off as normal. The team that scored the TD can also waive the PAT try, which happens when a team scores a TD to go up 1 or 2 with no time on the clock. I would be fine with the NFL adopting this rule, but I'm also fine with them keeping it as-is.

 

And for the record, both teams can score on punts and kickoffs. In the specific instances of muffed punts and onside kick attempts, it's pretty tough for the kicking team to score, but still possible according to the rules. A lot easier on a muffed punt - if the returner muffed it on the 5, and the ball went back into the end zone, the kicking team could score a TD by falling on it. For an onside kick, the kicking team would need the receiving team to clearly possess the ball after it travels more than 10 yards, then fumble, then the kicking team would have to recover the ball and run it in for a TD. Unlikely, but possible.

 

Am I the only one who thinks that this overtime rule is fair? I had no problem with the old overtime rule as well. Defense is part of your team, shouldn't be that hard to hold another team too a punt or field goal at the worst. If you want the ball back, stop them. Defensive players get paid too

 

I love the current OT rule, and would hate to see it changed. I was rooting for Green Bay yesterday, but felt no sympathy when they just let Seattle waltz in for a TD like that. I hate the college OT rule and don't even like watching college OTs. It's artificial suspense created by spoon-feeding teams the ball on the 25. Doesn't really look like football to me. It's a lot like PK shootouts in soccer, but with more moving parts.

Both teams can score on the "play" on a muffed punt...punting team can return a fumble and team receiving team can obviously return the punt...but i believe you are correct on the onside kick, don't think that can be advanced..good catch.

 

In terms of points, have it just like college..if the defence returns it all the way to the other endzone, it is 2 points, same as if the offense got it into the endzone. Seems fair to me. And just like in college, must be returned the whole way...get tackled on 1 yard line...no 2 points and scoring team kicks off just like normal

 

Once the ball travels 10 yards, it's the same rules-wise as any other kickoff - the receiving team can advance and either team can possess the ball. It's true that the kicking team can't directly recover the ball and advance it - they just get the ball at the spot of recovery in that scenario. But like I posted above, once the receiving team possesses the ball, a fumble is then fair game for either team to score off of.

 

I'm not sure on what the rule is if the ball goes >10 yards and is touched (but not possessed) by the receiving team. I could see it going either way as to whether the kicking team could then advance it or not. But ultimately it doesn't matter, because there's already a way for both teams to score on any kickoff, onside or not.

[BillsFan130]

 

I love your logic: "game has to end some time" so in a game where the offensive team does almost all the scoring, all the time, you give 1 team a chance to have the ball on offense, but not the other.

Seems fair.

 

Sure the game has to end...and almost all football games are going to end, in that first OT period. For the one every 15 years that doesn't (Denver/Baltimore a few years ago; instant classic), cool, it's history in the making.

 

What, you're anxious to get to your manicure appointment? Who doesn't want to see a double OT in a conference championship game anyway!?

Yes but football games are won by scoring more points than the opposition, and almost all scoring, all the time, is done by the offense. So if only 1 team touches the ball on offense, they have a massive competitive advantage given to them by....the flipping of a coin. That's BS.

 

Secondly, most of the thinking that goes into the other rules governing NFL playoff overtime are grounded in the concept "We are starting a new, second football game."

 

If that is true, then the new game should not be allowed to end after a single offensive possession, because that is not how football games are played, won, or lost.

I see your points but i disagree that if you win the coin toss with these new overtime rules that you are given a massive competitive advantage. With the old rules fair enough but with the new rules I have actually seen teams who have won the coin toss kick off first. Bill belichick did that too peyton manning last year. If you have a good defense it can actually be an advantage too get the ball 2nd because if you stop them, you will have better field position plus only needed a field goal too win. Just my personal opinion. I just hate when people think all the rules should revolve around offence (including the nfl for the most part)

 

I like all the baffled questions you throw out there, like there's no possible solution to this crazy problem. Except that college has had this in place as long as I've known - if you return the PAT try (whether via blocked kick or fumble/INT return) all the way to the other end zone, you get 2 points. The team that scored the TD still kicks off as normal. The team that scored the TD can also waive the PAT try, which happens when a team scores a TD to go up 1 or 2 with no time on the clock. I would be fine with the NFL adopting this rule, but I'm also fine with them keeping it as-is.

 

And for the record, both teams can score on punts and kickoffs. In the specific instances of muffed punts and onside kick attempts, it's pretty tough for the kicking team to score, but still possible according to the rules. A lot easier on a muffed punt - if the returner muffed it on the 5, and the ball went back into the end zone, the kicking team could score a TD by falling on it. For an onside kick, the kicking team would need the receiving team to clearly possess the ball after it travels more than 10 yards, then fumble, then the kicking team would have to recover the ball and run it in for a TD. Unlikely, but possible.

 

 

I love the current OT rule, and would hate to see it changed. I was rooting for Green Bay yesterday, but felt no sympathy when they just let Seattle waltz in for a TD like that. I hate the college OT rule and don't even like watching college OTs. It's artificial suspense created by spoon-feeding teams the ball on the 25. Doesn't really look like football to me. It's a lot like PK shootouts in soccer, but with more moving parts.

 

Once the ball travels 10 yards, it's the same rules-wise as any other kickoff - the receiving team can advance and either team can possess the ball. It's true that the kicking team can't directly recover the ball and advance it - they just get the ball at the spot of recovery in that scenario. But like I posted above, once the receiving team possesses the ball, a fumble is then fair game for either team to score off of.

 

I'm not sure on what the rule is if the ball goes >10 yards and is touched (but not possessed) by the receiving team. I could see it going either way as to whether the kicking team could then advance it or not. But ultimately it doesn't matter, because there's already a way for both teams to score on any kickoff, onside or not.

Agreed, i would hate if they NFL adapted college like overtime rules

[Optometric Insight]

While complaining about NFL rules, here is one I have hated for at least 25 years LOL....

 

NO MORE of this "he broke the plane of the goal line" crap for scoring a TD.

 

They need to introduce a very clear cut approach to what is and what is not a touchdown. Would save a ton of down time, wrong referee calls, and reviews as well. It would also help out defenses making goal line stances, which is one of the more interesting and dramatic parts of any game in my opinion.

 

Football is a tough, physical game of territorial acquisition. If you are going to score a touchdown, you better have your body (or most of it) end up physically in the end zone, on the ground, at the end of the play. That is the starting point for how I would like to change the rule.

 

My particular pet peeve is when the D puts up a valiant stand, gets a good push (with the ball on the 1 foot line let's say)...a giant pile ensues....the ball carrier ends up in the air physically on top of a pile of players....sticks his arm out, "breaks the plane" for 1 millisecond......then gets dumped on his ass 3 yards behind the line of scrimmage. And this is declared a TD.

Screw that crap. Some plays like that are almost indefensible; what do you want the D to do? They stopped the O line push, got a good push themselves, met the player in the air, and dumped him a few yards behind the line.

 

And that's a TD? HOW?

 

What else can the D do on that play, realistically speaking?

 

If a team wants to score a TD, they should have to physically "invade" the end zone and "occupy" it, with more than the tip of the football for 1 millisecond.

First off, I think the rule for scoring a touchdown is pretty clear cut, if the nose of the ball breaks the plane, it's a touchdown. Pretty easy to call and review with the cameras on the goal line unless its a big pile up with the runner somewhere in there.

 

BUT, I can see how this can be a pet peeve, it's just wayyyyy to easy to score from inside the 1, so many high percentage things you can do from a dive up the middle to an easy outside-inside slant for the receivers.

 

How do you feel about receivers making tip-toe catches in the back of the endzone or when the player is going out of bounds but he reaches the ball all the way across the goal line before he goes out, kind of like what Sammy Watkins did Week 2 against the Dolphins? Are they in the endzone long enough for it to count as a touchdown or is enough of the ball across the goal line?

 

It kind of sounds like you want it like Rugby, where the player actually has to touch the ball down to the ground for the points to count. I think there's a reason why the founders of American Football changed that rule to just breaking the plane.

[NoSaint]

 

Amen to that. I think for playoff games, overtime should be a full quarter, period.

 

I offer that rules about eligible receivers needs to be changed. The Patriots have weeks, if not months to design those plays yet the defense has at most a few minutes to figure out how to defend it and that's where the advantage lies.

And if tied another quarter?

1) All personal foul calls are enforced as if it was a dead ball foul. That free hit was just BS.

 

2) Defense can score off two point conversion. Only play in football where only one team can score...why? If that rule is in, Wilson no heaves that ball.

 

3) Each team uses same ball...how freaking hard is this?

 

Way more rules i would change, but those are the ones just from yesterday.

3) I'm still not sure why it isn't the case already

[LabattBlue]

Go back to the old rule in the playoffs. First team that scores, wins.

 

Rule change desperately needed....get rid of kickoffs. It has become the most boring play in football. After a score, the other team gets the ball at the 20...go.