BillsWatch Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true Re-seeding review Just spoke with one club executive who, after emerging from the final meeting of the day, told me that the playoff re-seeding proposal would be put to a vote on Wednesday morning ... and would be voted down. No surprise there. Most clubs are simply uncomfortable with the idea of a division champion not being at home for a playoff game because a wild-card team has a better record, which would have been the case under the new format. There has been considerable debate on the subject, but even the idea that teams would have greater incentive to play starters in the final week or two of the regular season, even after clinching the division, was not enough to sway opponents of the proposal. The same executive told me that other rules proposals -- including elimination of the force-out rule, elimination of the 5-yard facemask penalty, and expansion of instant replay to include field goals -– would pass on Wednesday. The proposal regulating hair length so that it doesn’t cover the nameplate or numbers on the back or sleeves of the jersey has been tabled for future consideration. Vic Carucci has a better record on telling ahead of time what NFL is going to do than most reporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I think I like the elimination of the force-out rule. Should be really interesting to see how that ends up playing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I think I like the elimination of the force-out rule. Should be really interesting to see how that ends up playing out. Agreed. Rule changes favoring defense are rare. I'm not a fan of automatic 15 yards for inadvertant facemask. I don't see an issue with it now -left to referee discretion. Often it IS inadvertant. I think more runners will break free with the new rule -not because some guy isn't hangin' on his facemask- but because defenders will be more wary of just where they grab trying to bring a guy down. Anybody know why this rule change was/is being implemented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Agreed. Rule changes favoring defense are rare. I'm not a fan of automatic 15 yards for inadvertant facemask. I don't see an issue with it now -left to referee discretion. Often it IS inadvertant. I think more runners will break free with the new rule -not because some guy isn't hangin' on his facemask- but because defenders will be more wary of just where they grab trying to bring a guy down. Anybody know why this rule change was is being implemented? Because referees are retards. I'm much more worried that guys are going to "get their money's worth" and rip the guy to the ground because of the guaranteed 15. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Agreed. Rule changes favoring defense are rare. I'm not a fan of automatic 15 yards for inadvertant facemask. I don't see an issue with it now -left to referee discretion. Often it IS inadvertant. I think more runners will break free with the new rule -not because some guy isn't hangin' on his facemask- but because defenders will be more wary of just where they grab trying to bring a guy down. Anybody know why this rule change was is being implemented? I think it is for the same reason as the force-out rule change: To remove the subjectivity in the calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeSpeed Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I think I like the elimination of the force-out rule. Should be really interesting to see how that ends up playing out. I wonder what's to stop the DB from grabbing the WR 5 yards in bounds and carring him out of bounds w/o letting the WR's feet touch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I wonder what's to stop the DB from grabbing the WR 5 yards in bounds and carring him out of bounds w/o letting the WR's feet touch? Reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeSpeed Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Reality. Well maybe our DB aren't strong enough to carry a WR out of bounds, but if I was a coach I certainly would be insisting that they try! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Well maybe our DB aren't strong enough to carry a WR out of bounds, but if I was a coach I certainly would be insisting that they try! Except that the rule would take this into account and consider that situation a completed pass. Seems easy enough to determine a push-out from carrying someone OB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Well maybe our DB aren't strong enough to carry a WR out of bounds, but if I was a coach I certainly would be insisting that they try! I think the "Forward Progress" rule would apply here... Lucky for us you're not a coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Because referees are retards. I'm much more worried that guys are going to "get their money's worth" and rip the guy to the ground because of the guaranteed 15. I didn't think about it in this way. Damn! This could really backfire! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeSpeed Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Except that the rule would take this into account and consider that situation a completed pass. Seems easy enough to determine a push-out from carrying someone OB. True, but it still leaves the ref with a judgement call as to what's a carry and and what's a push. I just don't think they can make the rule black and white. At some point they have to determine that he would have been in bounds if not for the DB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 True, but it still leaves the ref with a judgement call as to what's a carry and and what's a push. I just don't think they can make the rule black and white. At some point they have to determine that he would have been in bounds if not for the DB. You dont know the difference between a push and a carry? Hint: push = extended arms, carry = arms wrapped around said player while you run towards the sidelines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I think I like the elimination of the force-out rule. Should be really interesting to see how that ends up playing out. I foresee more than a few WRs getting "launched" into the sideline area on plays where the DBs can get their hands on the guy while the WR's still airborne. I think this is a dumb rule change for this alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I foresee more than a few WRs getting "launched" into the sideline area on plays where the DBs can get their hands on the guy while the WR's still airborne. I think this is a dumb rule change for this alone. Who wouldn't want to see Peerless Price get "launched"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamsBuffetTable Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 They should just use the college rule. 1 foot in and it's a catch, if you don't get a foot in regardless of the reason it's not a catch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 If they didn't have that stupid force-out rule, Wilford would've been out of the endzone, and that whole season would've been completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Who wouldn't want to see Peerless Price get "launched"? How far could Parrish get launched? Row 10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Who wouldn't want to see Peerless Price get "launched"? He, who laughs last (with millions in the pocket), laughs best. Peerless beat the game... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 How far could Parrish get launched? Row 10? Ooh! New event for "Pros versus Joes"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts