There were a whopping 23 rules changes proposed by/to the NFL's competition committee that will be voted on at next week's owners meetings. I'm not sure if that number's actually high or not, but it certainly seems like a lot. And they run the gamut. There are some that are good, some bad ones, and, thanks to the Colts, some that are downright strange.
It should be noted that none of these rule changes are guaranteed to pass. As of now, they're just proposals. In order to pass, 24 of the 32 owners have to agree. But there's going to be plenty of discussion about some of them, which was inevitable after the two high-profile situations involving the Dallas Cowboys in the playoffs. I'm still not sure how that wasn't a catch by Dez Bryant in the Green Bay game. I'm not alone, either. You can bet that one's getting pushed to the forefront, if only to give people some idea what the hell is going on when seemingly obvious plays are overturned.
The catch-or-no-catch thing is obviously what garnered the biggest attention. Call it the "Calvin Johnson rule" or, more likely now, the "Dez Bryant rule." Interestingly, though, the owners said they'll discuss it, but there's no specific proposal on the table. So, it looks like we're stuck with the confusing interpretation that no one understands for at least another season. But, since they're discussing it, it's pretty obvious the owners know there needs to be a change of some sort. I'd expect a new rule in place for 2015.
Surprisingly, another thing they're not going to vote on is expanded playoffs. Roger Goddell has been obsessed with this idea for like a year and a half, and I think everyone just expected the owners to not only vote on adding a seventh playoff team per conference, but for it to pass with flying colors. Evidently there was some pushback, though (my guess is from the networks), so they're likely going to maintain the 12-team playoff format that's been used since 1990 for at least one more season.
Most of what they're actually going to discuss involves replay. After what happened on the pass interference that wasn't in the playoffs, the Lions proposed that all penalties can be reviewed. That would open up a whole can of worms, so it's probably not going to pass, but reviewing personal fouls might, and that's not a bad idea. Because those 15 yards can be huge and we've seen enough plays that weren't personal fouls draw a flag and vice versa that it's worth a conversation. Same thing with penalties that lead to an automatic first down, which is also on the table.
I also like the idea of adding the time on the game clock and/or play clock to the list of things that can be reviewed. Frankly, it seems silly that they can't be. If you've been watching the NCAA Tournament, you know that 95 percent of replay reviews in college basketball involve checking the clock. It makes sense that they should be able to do the same thing in football. Just like it makes sense to place fixed cameras on the goal line, giving officials the same view in every stadium, and allowing them to use stadium video to aid in replays, especially if it gives them an angle they wouldn't have had otherwise.
Likewise, it makes sense to expand defenseless receiver protection to the intended target on interceptions. So does enforcing the penalty instead of just picking up the flag when the pass would've been incomplete.
However, I don't think it's necessary to change the challenge system. One proposal suggested teams can simply call timeout instead of throwing the red flag, and they'll get the timeout back if the challenge is successful. That's not really any different, so why change it? Others want teams to get three challenges no matter what. The whole idea of only getting a third challenge if you're right on the first two is an incentive to not challenge every play. That's what I think could end up happening. Also unnecessary: allowing challenges in the last two minutes. Why? They already review everything that's close in the last two minutes automatically.
Some of the other rule changes are so inconsequential that nobody will really notice them. For example, they want to allow linebackers to start wearing numbers in the 40s. Some teams are apparently running out of numbers in the 50s and 90s, which are currently the only ones linebackers are allowed. I'm not really sure how that's possible (all 20 numbers in the 50s and 90s are taken? Really?), but is anyone going to care if some random rookie backup linebacker that only plays special teams is wearing No. 48? Probably not.
Then there's the ridiculous suggestion from our friends in Indianapolis. I'm not even sure I can explain this. It's that stupid. The Colts proposed that teams have the opportunity to kick a "bonus field goal" from 50 yards out after successful two-point conversions. If the kick was good, teams would get an extra point, thus making it theoretically possible to get nine points on one possession. I don't know who's brainchild this was or how the idea came about, but mostly everyone agrees it's pretty dumb. If anything, why not try the Canadian football rule where you get four points for a field goal of 50 yards or more? That would have a much better chance of passing.
While everyone seems to be OK with the overtime rule, the Bears would like to see both teams get a possession regardless. When they changed it a couple years ago to match the playoff rule, that was the right thing to do. I'm not sure there's a need to revisit it again. If a team scores a touchdown on their first possession of overtime, they win. If your defense can't stop them, that's your problem. And what if both teams score a touchdown? Then does it become sudden death? You're running the risk of turning this into the college game if you keep tinkering with the overtime rules.
Bill Belichick was the inspiration for one proposal. In what can be interpreted as a direct response to the Patriots' tactics in the playoffs, the Ravens proposed a change to the eligible receiver rule. Currently, linemen (basically, anyone with a number in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 90s) have to report to the official in order to be recognized as an eligible receiver on any offensive play. Otherwise, it's illegal formation. There's no such rule on players with legal numbers (1-49, 80-89) reporting as ineligible and lining up as a blocker. New England exploited that loophole that Baltimore would like to see closed. I think I'm with the Ravens on this one. It's not technically illegal, but it's definitely gamesmanship.
Speaking of Belichick, he won't let that extra points from the 15-yard line thing go. He brought it up again. No word on whether or not he also made a proposal about changing the minimum amount of air you're required to inflate a football to.
No comments:
Post a Comment