What would you change in the NFL rulebook?

juvenal

So another NFL game ends with me getting a little stressed with some obscure rules, the control the commercial television networks have over the game, and another fruitless debate with the OH over some aspects of the sport.:o

I've been a fan of both the college and pro game for eight years now, and yet the game still manages to delight and frustrate me in equal measure.

So, you're the NFL commish and you can make changes to the way the game is played. You can make changes to rules/format etc for the benefit of the sport's integrity rather than the commercial/owners/players interests, without taking away the essence of the game.

What would you change?

Here's a few possible things off the top of my head:

- Timeouts. Reduce the number to perhaps one per half, or eliminate them altogether. The game is slow enough without teams taking additional time to discuss tactics etc.

- Radio headsets. I'm paying my QB lottery money, and yet he's still being instructed on a play-by-play basis by a head coach/offensive coordinator who (sometimes) has a birdseye view over the field. Put more responsibility and decision-making in the QBs hands and force them to make on-field decisions and change them on the fly if he feels necessary. They are in the top 50 players in their position in the world, they should be capable of calling audibles.

- Reduce the play clock to at least 20 seconds.

- Reduce the number of players on the roster. There are specialist positions in every team sport, but (for example) surely the same individual can at least be responsible for punting/FGs etc. The game is highly physical and there is a large amount of wear and tear on players bodies, but having ~45 players in uniform on the sideline is a farce, when there are only 11 on the field at any one time. The gameday playing squad should be reduced to at least 50% of what it currently is.

- Amalgamate the eight divisions to four (say NFC E/W & AFC E/W or something along those lines), with each team playing the other seven on a home-and-away basis and an additional two games changing from season to season. There's a large disparity between the strength of divisions, and it's laughable than a team with an 11-5 record doesn't make the postseason while a team with an 8-8 record does. (And I really dislike the Pats!:eek:). Both the Cards & Chargers made the playoffs with records that wouldn't have cut it in other divisions.

- Set up the play-offs with eight teams. The top two from each division go forward, with the four winners taking home advantage. Keep the SuperBowl as AFC v NFC; but with the 1/4 finals set up as NFC-E 1 v NFC-W 2; NFC-W 1 v NFC-E 2 and so forth.

- Change the overtime rule to the collegiate way, where each team have a possession for a shot at the win. Leaving the choice down to the toss of a coin is fine for the kick/receive aspect, but surely in a sport where it's probably the most difficult to turn over the ball each side should have a set of downs.

- Keep the referee's mic on all the time (a la rugby - and don't worry about player's cursing upsetting the FCC ), and we can hear the ruling live. We don't need an additional delay so the referee can explain the ruling offically to the crowd/TV audience.

- Introduce a bonus point system into standings. I like good defensive plays as much as the next man, but if the divisions standings were decided on points rather than percentiles, it would encourage more offensive play, and also give teams the option of playing right to the final whistle if it is close. I know it goes against American sporting etiquette to "run up the score", but a system (again borrowed from rugby) such as:

Win = 4 points
Loss by less than 7 (max score possible in one play) = 1
4 TDs = 1 bonus point (be it losing or winning)
Tie (during regular season) = 2

This may cause a problem if the 2008 Lions are in your division, as it would possibly give you an advantage over other divisions.;)

I also feel the video reviews should be changed to ensure that delays are kept to a minimum and are used a bit more sparingly. If the technology is there it should be utilised, but perhaps only in the red zone? There are seven officials on the field, surely they should be getting it right almost 100% of the time without the safety net of a video review. No-one is perfect, but errors are part and parcel of every sport.

I know I may have pilfered a couple of ideas from rugby, but no sport is perfect and it's on natural to look to somewhat comparable sports for ideas on how to improve the game. It's late here, so I can't think of any more for now - but feel free to add your own (if you have any!)

tallaghtoutlaws

- Timeouts. Reduce the number to perhaps one per half, or eliminate them altogether. The game is slow enough without teams taking additional time to discuss tactics etc.

No Change timeouts are crucial with the current situation. You minimize this and it will affect teams all over the place in crucial parts of the game.

- Radio headsets. I'm paying my QB lottery money, and yet he's still being instructed on a play-by-play basis by a head coach/offensive coordinator who (sometimes) has a birdseye view over the field. Put more responsibility and decision-making in the QBs hands and force them to make on-field decisions and change them on the fly if he feels necessary. They are in the top 50 players in their position in the world, they should be capable of calling audibles.

Eh how well do you actually know American Football. These QB's go through High School and college with out headsets. But the NFL uses them to send plays onto the field. Unlike other sports its not linear enough to just let it happen. AF is a sport of tactics and decision making hence why all the coaching decision. when it comes to the NFL the headset gives coaches the ability to send their message to the QB when there is loud noise and the possibilty of other coaches reading off their plays by judging handsignals.

- Reduce the play clock to at least 20 seconds.

Ok not a bad idea but given other circumstance I can see why it might not change


- Reduce the number of players on the roster. There are specialist positions in every team sport, but (for example) surely the same individual can at least be responsible for punting/FGs etc. The game is highly physical and there is a large amount of wear and tear on players bodies, but having ~45 players in uniform on the sideline is a farce, when there are only 11 on the field at any one time. The gameday playing squad should be reduced to at least 50% of what it currently is.

Defense - 11 starters
Offense - 11 starters
Special Team - 11 starters depending on the returner and who started in game.

So that is an average of 33 without backups. Hence why the large numbers.

- Amalgamate the eight divisions to four (say NFC E/W & AFC E/W or something along those lines), with each team playing the other seven on a home-and-away basis and an additional two games changing from season to season. There's a large disparity between the strength of divisions, and it's laughable than a team with an 11-5 record doesn't make the postseason while a team with an 8-8 record does. (And I really dislike the Pats!:eek:). Both the Cards & Chargers made the playoffs with records that wouldn't have cut it in other divisions.

If its not broken dont fix it. And Im a Pats fan.

- Set up the play-offs with eight teams. The top two from each division go forward, with the four winners taking home advantage. Keep the SuperBowl as AFC v NFC; but with the 1/4 finals set up as NFC-E 1 v NFC-W 2; NFC-W 1 v NFC-E 2 and so forth.

See Above

- Change the overtime rule to the collegiate way, where each team have a possession for a shot at the win. Leaving the choice down to the toss of a coin is fine for the kick/receive aspect, but surely in a sport where it's probably the most difficult to turn over the ball each side should have a set of downs.

Totally agree

- Keep the referee's mic on all the time (a la rugby - and don't worry about player's cursing upsetting the FCC ), and we can hear the ruling live. We don't need an additional delay so the referee can explain the ruling offically to the crowd/TV audience.

Why bother this aint rugby and in fact Rugby got there idea from American sports and adapted it to their free flowing game hence why its on all the time.

- Introduce a bonus point system into standings. I like good defensive plays as much as the next man, but if the divisions standings were decided on points rather than percentiles, it would encourage more offensive play, and also give teams the option of playing right to the final whistle if it is close. I know it goes against American sporting etiquette to "run up the score", but a system (again borrowed from rugby) such as:

Win = 4 points
Loss by less than 7 (max score possible in one play) = 1
4 TDs = 1 bonus point (be it losing or winning)
Tie (during regular season) = 2

This may cause a problem if the 2008 Lions are in your division, as it would possibly give you an advantage over other divisions.;)

Hell no

I also feel the video reviews should be changed to ensure that delays are kept to a minimum and are used a bit more sparingly. If the technology is there it should be utilised, but perhaps only in the red zone? There are seven officials on the field, surely they should be getting it right almost 100% of the time without the safety net of a video review. No-one is perfect, but errors are part and parcel of every sport.

What this makes no sense. 7 officials are only human and human error still upsets alot of people. These 7 officials all have their own assignements and not all are looking at the action at the same time. Reviews have made some crucial bad calls correct or justified in cases.

I know I may have pilfered a couple of ideas from rugby, but no sport is perfect and it's on natural to look to somewhat comparable sports for ideas on how to improve the game. It's late here, so I can't think of any more for now - but feel free to add your own (if you have any!)

But this isnt Rugby so why change it. Millions love it the way it is bar one or two small things each individual may have gripe with. I still fail to see how all your points improve the game??? Maybe for you they might but you might aswell take all the pads of and speed it up and call it something else wait I know Rugby :D:D

Pherekydes

I'm with TO here.

I'd only change the overtime rule. All else makes Football what it is.

And OP, the play clock is at least 20 seconds already.

davyjose

The OT rule is shocking. It effectively decides 90% of OT games on the flip of a coin (I'm not just saying that because of last night :rolleyes: I swear :pac:). I've always found it puzzling.

You want the play clock shortened and the use of headsets disallowed? That would be an absolute mess. Teams would have no time to come up with a play. The defenses would have too much of an advantage IMO.

titan18

I agree with the change in overtime and getting rid of the headsets.They've played without headsets before the NFL, so why do they need when they get in.The QB should be allowed to call his own plays, like before

tallaghtoutlaws

titan18 wrote: »

I agree with the change in overtime and getting rid of the headsets.They've played without headsets before the NFL, so why do they need when they get in.The QB should be allowed to call his own plays, like before

QB's have rarely ever called their own plays. A few small examples over the years but it used to be all hand signals sending the plays onto the field rather than a headset. NFL just updated themselves with modern technology.

Just look at high school and college they still use the conventional methods of sending plays onto the field. Either the QB goes over to the coach or looks for signals.

juvenal

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

- Timeouts. Reduce the number to perhaps one per half, or eliminate them altogether. The game is slow enough without teams taking additional time to discuss tactics etc.

No Change timeouts are crucial with the current situation. You minimize this and it will affect teams all over the place in crucial parts of the game.

With what current situation? I'm not disputing the fact that timeouts are beneficial to the teams and players involved, as it gives them additional time to manage the game. Of course reducing timeouts will affect teams, but it will also force team, coaches and players to adapt the way they manage the game, while also reducing delays.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

- Radio headsets. I'm paying my QB lottery money, and yet he's still being instructed on a play-by-play basis by a head coach/offensive coordinator who (sometimes) has a birdseye view over the field. Put more responsibility and decision-making in the QBs hands and force them to make on-field decisions and change them on the fly if he feels necessary. They are in the top 50 players in their position in the world, they should be capable of calling audibles.

Eh how well do you actually know American Football. These QB's go through High School and college with out headsets. But the NFL uses them to send plays onto the field. Unlike other sports its not linear enough to just let it happen. AF is a sport of tactics and decision making hence why all the coaching decision. when it comes to the NFL the headset gives coaches the ability to send their message to the QB when there is loud noise and the possibilty of other coaches reading off their plays by judging handsignals.

I'm well aware that QBs go through high school and college without headsets - and I'm also aware of what they're used for.:) All sports are games of tactics and decision making. Loud noise and the possibility of the opposition reading the play is a feature of sports around the world - they're not exclusive to American Football. QBs are the keystone of the team, and as we've seen from some players, are capable of making on-field decisions and changes to plays in a matter of seconds.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

- Reduce the play clock to at least 20 seconds.

Ok not a bad idea but given other circumstance I can see why it might not change

Given what other circumstances?

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

- Reduce the number of players on the roster. There are specialist positions in every team sport, but (for example) surely the same individual can at least be responsible for punting/FGs etc. The game is highly physical and there is a large amount of wear and tear on players bodies, but having ~45 players in uniform on the sideline is a farce, when there are only 11 on the field at any one time. The gameday playing squad should be reduced to at least 50% of what it currently is.

Defense - 11 starters
Offense - 11 starters
Special Team - 11 starters depending on the returner and who started in game.

So that is an average of 33 without backups. Hence why the large numbers.

Sorry TO, I think you missed my point. I understand the current positions and the number of players on a roster, but I was proposing consolidating some of the skill sets so that players fill more than one position on the field. For example, the offensive and defensive line, while requiring some subtle differences in skill, do not have to be different players. Players can do a number of jobs in a team, thus increasing their time on the field of player and also reducing the playing roster.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

- Amalgamate the eight divisions to four (say NFC E/W & AFC E/W or something along those lines), with each team playing the other seven on a home-and-away basis and an additional two games changing from season to season. There's a large disparity between the strength of divisions, and it's laughable than a team with an 11-5 record doesn't make the postseason while a team with an 8-8 record does. (And I really dislike the Pats!:eek:). Both the Cards & Chargers made the playoffs with records that wouldn't have cut it in other divisions.

If its not broken dont fix it. And Im a Pats fan.

- Set up the play-offs with eight teams. The top two from each division go forward, with the four winners taking home advantage. Keep the SuperBowl as AFC v NFC; but with the 1/4 finals set up as NFC-E 1 v NFC-W 2; NFC-W 1 v NFC-E 2 and so forth.

See Above

If it's not broken! How do you content that it is not broken? This season, and others passed, have shown that there is a big difference in the quality of teams between some divisions. What I was proposing is a small change in the makeup of divisions, without eliminating the AFC/NFC set up, to give the better teams a fair shot at the playoffs. (Sorry that you're a Pats fan )

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

- Change the overtime rule to the collegiate way, where each team have a possession for a shot at the win. Leaving the choice down to the toss of a coin is fine for the kick/receive aspect, but surely in a sport where it's probably the most difficult to turn over the ball each side should have a set of downs.

Totally agree

Ironic that apparently Dungy was interviewed before the game and the current OT setup was mentioned, and he said he fully agreed with it and would keep it as it is. :P

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

- Keep the referee's mic on all the time (a la rugby - and don't worry about player's cursing upsetting the FCC ), and we can hear the ruling live. We don't need an additional delay so the referee can explain the ruling offically to the crowd/TV audience.

Why bother this aint rugby and in fact Rugby got there idea from American sports and adapted it to their free flowing game hence why its on all the time.

Why bother? Because there's no need to add the the pageantry by the referee taking additional time to announce to everyone why the penalty was given or what the ruling is on the field. I know that this ain't rugby and that this is where rugby got the idea, and it's a great idea as it makes the game easier to understand for the fan - but a formal announcement after every penalty is totally unnecessary.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

- Introduce a bonus point system into standings. I like good defensive plays as much as the next man, but if the divisions standings were decided on points rather than percentiles, it would encourage more offensive play, and also give teams the option of playing right to the final whistle if it is close. I know it goes against American sporting etiquette to "run up the score", but a system (again borrowed from rugby) such as:

Win = 4 points
Loss by less than 7 (max score possible in one play) = 1
4 TDs = 1 bonus point (be it losing or winning)
Tie (during regular season) = 2

This may cause a problem if the 2008 Lions are in your division, as it would possibly give you an advantage over other divisions.

Hell no

Why not?

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

I also feel the video reviews should be changed to ensure that delays are kept to a minimum and are used a bit more sparingly. If the technology is there it should be utilised, but perhaps only in the red zone? There are seven officials on the field, surely they should be getting it right almost 100% of the time without the safety net of a video review. No-one is perfect, but errors are part and parcel of every sport.

What this makes no sense. 7 officials are only human and human error still upsets alot of people. These 7 officials all have their own assignements and not all are looking at the action at the same time. Reviews have made some crucial bad calls correct or justified in cases.

There's no disputing that video reviews can eliminate errors made by officials, and that they enhance the game. What I was saying was that I wasn't sure how to streamline the process so it was a bit more efficient, but that the current process could do with some adjustment. I'm not proposing eliminating video at all, far from it, but I think the current process can be tweaked to make it more efficient. It's not like television need another opportunity to go to another commercial break.:rolleyes:

I know I may have pilfered a couple of ideas from rugby, but no sport is perfect and it's on natural to look to somewhat comparable sports for ideas on how to improve the game. It's late here, so I can't think of any more for now - but feel free to add your own (if you have any!)

But this isnt Rugby so why change it. Millions love it the way it is bar one or two small things each individual may have gripe with. I still fail to see how all your points improve the game??? Maybe for you they might but you might aswell take all the pads of and speed it up and call it something else wait I know Rugby :D:D

You obviously think the game is perfect and I disagree.:) There's no sport that is perfect, otherwise we'd give up on the rest and follow the perfect one! It's as far removed from rugby as soccer is, with the only similarities being the physical nature and an oval (and not even the same!) ball.

The reason millions love it, like any other sport, is as much anthropological as the market in which it has evolved - but that's a debate probably more suited to the humanities forum.;) Just because millions love it, doesn't make it flawless. Look at how the game has evolved over the past 25 years and the changes that have been made, and the NFL are in a period of previously unseen popularity. The right changes won't dimish the lustre of a game if they're introduced properly, rather the opposite.:)

Every game can be analysed and changed to enhance the game from a sporting point-of-view, and not from a commercial pov. There's nothing wrong with a bit of balanced thinking on how to enhance a sport without losing what makes it unique.

Pherekydes wrote: »

I'm with TO here.

I'd only change the overtime rule. All else makes Football what it is.

And OP, the play clock is at least 20 seconds already.

The NFL playclock is 40 seconds from the end of the last play. Or in some cases (after a penalty) 25 seconds from when the ball is marked.

LuckyLloyd

davyjose wrote: »

The OT rule is shocking. It effectively decides 90% of OT games on the flip of a coin (I'm not just saying that because of last night :rolleyes: I swear :pac:). I've always found it puzzling.

You want the play clock shortened and the use of headsets disallowed? That would be an absolute mess. Teams would have no time to come up with a play. The defenses would have too much of an advantage IMO.

While I quite like the collegiate system, I can see the flip side of the current NFL one. Yes winning the coinflip will increase your percentage chances of winning. BUT, to win a championship you need a team, not just an offense. If you lose the flip, you can still stick them on special teams leaving them with poor field position. And then your defense can **** them up and prevent them from gaining the 30 - 65 yards (depending on starting field obv) they need before they are in field goal range.

The suddenness and finality of the current set up does jar at times, but in it's own way that makes for a spectacle every bit as exciting as giving both teams a shot from the 25.

Vikings

juvenal wrote: »

For example, the offensive and defensive line, while requiring some subtle differences in skill, do not have to be different players. Players can do a number of jobs in a team, thus increasing their time on the field of player and also reducing the playing roster.

Have you played the game at all or is this an opinion from watching the game?

While at our level over here in Ireland a lot of players play numerous positions, this is out of necessity rather than choice. At NFL level the players are as good as they are mainly because they have been playing that position their entire lives.

You can't take a defensive tackle throw him on the offensive line and tell him to go nuts, repitition after repitition make these players the stars that they are. If they played more than one position then their experience would be cut down by less playing time at their main position.

Case in point, the Falcons at the start of this season had just one K/P on the team. In the preseason and I think & game 1, game 2 at a push he took case of kick offs, punts, field goals and extra points - basically anything that needed a foot on the ball.

Falcons soon realised this couldn't be done successfully. You get a guy in specifically to do one job, place kick and then punt. Believe it or not if you are punting 4/5 times a game then that extra couple of yards you might have got an an ensuing kick off can really make a difference. Now they have a punter and a kicker.

While your idea is good in theory, it doesnt work in practice. Take a look at Devin Hester if you want another example, they took him off kick returns so he would be fresh to play on offense.

tallaghtoutlaws

juvenal wrote: »

Sorry TO, I think you missed my point. I understand the current positions and the number of players on a roster, but I was proposing consolidating some of the skill sets so that players fill more than one position on the field. For example, the offensive and defensive line, while requiring some subtle differences in skill, do not have to be different players. Players can do a number of jobs in a team, thus increasing their time on the field of player and also reducing the playing roster.

Without quoting the rest of this. My point was you said 40 men on sideline is ridiculous what Im saying to you is that you need a min of 33 guys just for Offense, Defense and Special Teams combined. Contrary to what people think having played and coached the sport it is a energy zapping sport and playing multiple positions to make smaller depth charts is never going to happen. Have you played the game dude? Any of the guys on here will agree with me that when you play it looks alot easier on tv etc etc and this can be said for other sports also.

On the QB thing I have worked with a High School and College in Wisconsin and California learning from them to gain experience coaching and have seen first hand on the sideline the difference it would make letting QBs call the plays. There is no doubt letting QBs call the plays would show their ability look at Peyton Manning and Tom Brady excellent under pressure. But the problem is the Head Coach and his Coordinators set the plays to justify their playbook in any given situation. These are his tactics and these are plays the coach wants played simple as. This is why QBs dont call the plays they simple execute the plays designed by the coach.

Now there is teams in HS, College and the Colts were the QB walks on to the field or gets messgae from the sideline or mic in the case of the nfl, were the QB gets more than 1 play given to him and then it is up to him to read the Defense to chose the play out of those given. And this includes audibles. Peyton manning is the most famous for this. Coaches will never hand over total offensive play calling to the QB because thats why they hire OC and it stops the QB picking what he wants and not what suits. Or stops him getting influenced by others around him. At the end of it all its the Coaches that pick the plays as the game has always been designed this way.

On the division thing even as a Pats fan I like the current setup. Us Pats fans have had it all too easy these last 10 years in the AFC East. Finally the Jets and Fins step up to the plate and made it very interesting. Going 11-5 and not making the Playoffs was not the fault of the NFL. The pats from Day 1 know what is needed to make the playoffs. Win the Division or get a better record than those in second place in the other AFC conferences and making sure you are above them also in Wildcard requirements. The Pats failed to do this. Losing to the Fins and Chargers was our biggest downfall when it came to deciding the AFC East and Wildcard spot. So again you cannot blame the NFL's system for that. Yes there are stronger teams than others but we can all agree the NFL has been far more interesting this year than the last 7 years.

Your response to my response on the Refs: No I don't think the sport is perfect thats why I told you getting rid of the video replays or making less of them and letting the 7 refs call it is a bad idea. 1. Not all 7 refs follow the ball. 2. Again the video replay has overturned alot of good and bad decisions. I never said the NFL was perfect but to go drastically changing the whole sport to suit our own preferences or opinions is daft. Abeit I do respect your opinions and decsions and alot of them are well thought out and well fought but I like the NFL the way it is now so why fix something that isnt broken. I do like HS and College ball more but thats another days story :D

Pherekydes

juvenal wrote: »

The NFL playclock is 40 seconds from the end of the last play. Or in some cases (after a penalty) 25 seconds from when the ball is marked.

40 seconds is at least 20. Maybe you meant 'at most 20 seconds'?

Chucky the tree

For someone who's watched it for 8 years I'm prett suprised at some of your opinions. I cant understand how you can think that a DL player can easily switch to OL player is strange to say the least. Reducing the play clock to 20 seconds would be a disaster aswell. What if the ball is thrown for 80 yards? It's hard to ask the player to get up the field, set themselves in 20 seconds. Most of your ideas seem to steem from the fact you dont like the delays, thats part of the game and if you cant put up with the delays/how long a game takes then the sport probaly isnt for you.

titan18

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

On the QB thing I have worked with a High School and College in Wisconsin and California learning from them to gain experience coaching and have seen first hand on the sideline the difference it would make letting QBs call the plays. There is no doubt letting QBs call the plays would show their ability look at Peyton Manning and Tom Brady excellent under pressure. But the problem is the Head Coach and his Coordinators set the plays to justify their playbook in any given situation. These are his tactics and these are plays the coach wants played simple as. This is why QBs dont call the plays they simple execute the plays designed by the coach.

Now there is teams in HS, College and the Colts were the QB walks on to the field or gets messgae from the sideline or mic in the case of the nfl, were the QB gets more than 1 play given to him and then it is up to him to read the Defense to chose the play out of those given. And this includes audibles. Peyton manning is the most famous for this. Coaches will never hand over total offensive play calling to the QB because thats why they hire OC and it stops the QB picking what he wants and not what suits. Or stops him getting influenced by others around him. At the end of it all its the Coaches that pick the plays as the game has always been designed this way.

The game has not always been designed this way.Nearly all quarterbacks called their own plays until the early 1980's.Elway and Peyton Manning were the only ones after that who do it on a consistent basis.

Most of the time, Manning does have the total offensive play calling to himself.Occasionally Dungy and Moore suggest play calls to Manning, but he is free to do what he chooses, he has completely ignored Dungy a lot of the time.

tallaghtoutlaws

titan18 wrote: »

The game has not always been designed this way.Nearly all quarterbacks called their own plays until the early 1980's.Elway and Peyton Manning were the only ones after that who do it on a consistent basis.

Most of the time, Manning does have the total offensive play calling to himself.Occasionally Dungy and Moore suggest play calls to Manning, but he is free to do what he chooses, he has completely ignored Dungy a lot of the time.

Dude not all QBs called their own plays. They were sent out on to the field with set plays given to them by their coach depending on what the D lined up with. Defensive systems and Offensive systems were alot simpler back in the day and until the 80's systems got more tactical and complicated hence why QB's no longer have what seems full control. And what you said about Dungy and Manning is BS I will find an interview hopefully on Video with Peyton Manning and post a link him explaining how the Offense is called. I was only talking about this whole topic before I left the US last week with 4 football coaches one of them who happens to be a QB coach and former College QB. Football has become alot more tactical in the last 30 years. Playbooks went from 25 pages long to a few hundred pages long.

Modern Day QBs are given a wristband with the set plays for that game. These are the plays they generally stick with as the coaching staff have set these plays. Now the likes of Manning and Brady have the ability to choose plays from this band depending on what they see in the defense but they are class of their own as was Brett Favre in the modern game. QBs stick to the coaches playbook as if they dont the rest of their offense will be lost and they will go nowhere and this includes Manning. If you see him changing a play it means he has looked at the D and decided what play in the playbook is best. But I gaurantee you the first play picked is what the coaches suggest. When he audibles that is Manning seeing something and changing to one of the Audible sets designed in their O playbook.

Karlusss

Nothing there except the overtime rule makes any sense, and unsurprisingly in a commendably self-aware game like the NFL has, they're discussing that rule change at the moment. Rules change every year with the input of GMs and coaches. But any of those other suggestions are never going to work.

Play-clock seems long sometimes, but there are reasons to keep it at 40 seconds. For example, if you reduced the play clock to 20 seconds, you are essentially swinging the game yet further towards the offense, because the O has time to call their play and maybe make adjustments, but the D has no time to respond - as we saw the Chargers do against Peyton Manning's no-huddle last night.

juvenal

Vikings wrote: »

Have you played the game at all or is this an opinion from watching the game?

While at our level over here in Ireland a lot of players play numerous positions, this is out of necessity rather than choice. At NFL level the players are as good as they are mainly because they have been playing that position their entire lives.

You can't take a defensive tackle throw him on the offensive line and tell him to go nuts, repitition after repitition make these players the stars that they are. If they played more than one position then their experience would be cut down by less playing time at their main position.

Case in point, the Falcons at the start of this season had just one K/P on the team. In the preseason and I think & game 1, game 2 at a push he took case of kick offs, punts, field goals and extra points - basically anything that needed a foot on the ball.

Falcons soon realised this couldn't be done successfully. You get a guy in specifically to do one job, place kick and then punt. Believe it or not if you are punting 4/5 times a game then that extra couple of yards you might have got an an ensuing kick off can really make a difference. Now they have a punter and a kicker.

While your idea is good in theory, it doesnt work in practice. Take a look at Devin Hester if you want another example, they took him off kick returns so he would be fresh to play on offense.

I've only played the sport at a basic level - so the majority of my thoughts on the professional game are from a watching viewpoint.;)

Of course this discussion is on a theoretical level, as some of the changes would take at least a generation to implement. Players are groomed for certain positions from high school, so of course no-one could expect an OT to morph into a DT overnight. There's no doubt that certain positions require a specialist, but the reality is that over the past few decades the game has evolved to the point that there is a specialist for almost every aspect of the game.

Nowadays we cannot expect the punter and the placekicker to be the same player, but that is because they've been groomed as separate players since their teens, rather than because the skills are mutually exclusive. Because they've been developed as totally separate skillsets since their teens, and because the pro game has room for a specialist at every discipline, this has a knock on effect to the point where there are the same amount of players at almost every level of the game in the US.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Without quoting the rest of this. My point was you said 40 men on sideline is ridiculous what Im saying to you is that you need a min of 33 guys just for Offense, Defense and Special Teams combined. Contrary to what people think having played and coached the sport it is a energy zapping sport and playing multiple positions to make smaller depth charts is never going to happen. Have you played the game dude? Any of the guys on here will agree with me that when you play it looks alot easier on tv etc etc and this can be said for other sports also.

There's no doubt that the sport is one of the most energy-sapping games played anywhere in the world, but the reason the depth charts are so big is because the revenue, the organisation and the playing-pool exist to support such large organisations. My point was the the game has evolved over several decades, for reasons not necessarily always sporting, to the point where the skillsets involved are being split to the nth degree to ensure that each skill is covered by an individual, rather than different individuals multi-tasking.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

On the QB thing I have worked with a High School and College in Wisconsin and California learning from them to gain experience coaching and have seen first hand on the sideline the difference it would make letting QBs call the plays. There is no doubt letting QBs call the plays would show their ability look at Peyton Manning and Tom Brady excellent under pressure. But the problem is the Head Coach and his Coordinators set the plays to justify their playbook in any given situation. These are his tactics and these are plays the coach wants played simple as. This is why QBs dont call the plays they simple execute the plays designed by the coach.

Now there is teams in HS, College and the Colts were the QB walks on to the field or gets messgae from the sideline or mic in the case of the nfl, were the QB gets more than 1 play given to him and then it is up to him to read the Defense to chose the play out of those given. And this includes audibles. Peyton manning is the most famous for this. Coaches will never hand over total offensive play calling to the QB because thats why they hire OC and it stops the QB picking what he wants and not what suits. Or stops him getting influenced by others around him. At the end of it all its the Coaches that pick the plays as the game has always been designed this way.

Fair points; perhaps I would just like to see less in-game tactics and players being entrusted with more decision making responsibility, rather than in some organisations, coaches constantly influencing what happens on the field of play. Obviously the majority of responsibility with a teams performance lies with the head coach, and as such it's in their interest to control as much of the game as possible, but I guess it's just wishful thinking that once kick-off comes on Sunday/Monday, the players should be playing the game the way the coach has coached them all week. (Not sure if this makes sense!)

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

On the division thing even as a Pats fan I like the current setup. Us Pats fans have had it all too easy these last 10 years in the AFC East. Finally the Jets and Fins step up to the plate and made it very interesting. Going 11-5 and not making the Playoffs was not the fault of the NFL. The pats from Day 1 know what is needed to make the playoffs. Win the Division or get a better record than those in second place in the other AFC conferences and making sure you are above them also in Wildcard requirements. The Pats failed to do this. Losing to the Fins and Chargers was our biggest downfall when it came to deciding the AFC East and Wildcard spot. So again you cannot blame the NFL's system for that. Yes there are stronger teams than others but we can all agree the NFL has been far more interesting this year than the last 7 years.

True that it's been very interesting for the past few years, and I'm sure we can also all agree that it would be very boring if there were not at least one "fairytale" story every postseason.:) I don't even like the Pats, so my reasons for an amalgamation of divisions was more from a general pov rather than specifically in relation to this seasons situation.

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Your response to my response on the Refs: No I don't think the sport is perfect thats why I told you getting rid of the video replays or making less of them and letting the 7 refs call it is a bad idea. 1. Not all 7 refs follow the ball. 2. Again the video replay has overturned alot of good and bad decisions. I never said the NFL was perfect but to go drastically changing the whole sport to suit our own preferences or opinions is daft. Abeit I do respect your opinions and decsions and alot of them are well thought out and well fought but I like the NFL the way it is now so why fix something that isnt broken. I do like HS and College ball more but thats another days story :D

Sure some of my proposals would change the sport, but I disagree that it would change it drastically or change it to the point where the fundamentals are lost. Video replay is a good thing, no question, my main gripe is the way it's used. Perhaps all decisions should be made upstairs if there is even a doubt? Surely the needless pageantry of the referee running over to the booth, the network going to a commercial break, and then another announcement to all present can be reduced to make it more efficient.:)

Pherekydes wrote: »

40 seconds is at least 20. Maybe you meant 'at most 20 seconds'?

Yeah, my bad. I meant reduced to at least 20 seconds (if not less).

Chucky the tree wrote: »

For someone who's watched it for 8 years I'm prett suprised at some of your opinions. I cant understand how you can think that a DL player can easily switch to OL player is strange to say the least. Reducing the play clock to 20 seconds would be a disaster aswell. What if the ball is thrown for 80 yards? It's hard to ask the player to get up the field, set themselves in 20 seconds. Most of your ideas seem to steem from the fact you dont like the delays, thats part of the game and if you cant put up with the delays/how long a game takes then the sport probaly isnt for you.

I wasn't suggesting that an OL can change to a DL player over night, as I said above it would probably take a generation for this to happen. My issue is that in the modern game, the skillsets are being separated to the most basic levels, so that there is a specialist for every aspect of the game. Surely some of the skills required to play the game can be consolidated so that different players can peform different functions?

In any sport we could increase the number of players to the maximum possible to ensure that there was a specilist to kick the ball, catch the ball, throw the ball, sprint the fastest, climb the highest, jump the longest etc., but that doesn't mean that the sport would be the better for it.

Regarding the play clock, I agree that on big yardage plays it causes an issue if the play clock is too short. Perhaps there can be varying times on the play clock depending on the previous play. Or perhaps this would over complicate the game even more (which is something I'd rather avoid!:D)


Thanks all for your input - the different opinions make interesting reading .

unknown13

I would bring in the AFL positive yardage rule, where a winning in the last quarter must gain positive yards to keep the clock running. I'm getting fed up of QB's kneeling in tight games.

Also I would make the tie breaker easier to follow because it is very confusing

evil_seed

i'd bring in the college overtime rule alright. at least everyone seems to agree with this. I also would change the ruling that division winners get a home game in the playoffs

JJ

Most of OP's suggestions I wouldn't go for but I would love to see bonus point system in the NFL. It would help reduce garbage time which isn't a huge problem but it does happen on a regular basis throughout the season.

If I had the time, I'd love to sit down and figure out how many "points" teams would've accumulated if the NFL had a bonus point system. It may not be a true reflection of what the standings would be like if such a system was in place (since teams would probably change tactics if they had bonus points to play for) but it would be interesting nonetheless to see if it did change the final standings and the playoff outlook.

Trampas

unknown13 wrote: »

I would bring in the AFL positive yardage rule, where a winning in the last quarter must gain positive yards to keep the clock running. I'm getting fed up of QB's kneeling in tight games.

So how does this rule work when the QB gets sacked or RB gets stopped behind the line

evil_seed wrote: »

i'd bring in the college overtime rule alright. at least everyone seems to agree with this. I also would change the ruling that division winners get a home game in the playoffs

All Divison winners get a home game in playoffs.

Top 2 division winners get a home game in the Divisional Championship game and other 2 division winners get a home game in the Wild Card round

death1234567

Karlusss wrote: »

Nothing there except the overtime rule makes any sense.

+1. Some of the ideas are just terrible and totally unfeasible. If I was comissioner I would bring in the Overtime change and change the playoffs so that the team with the best record gets home field advantage regardless of whether they won the division or are a wildcard.

jdivision

juvenal wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that an OL can change to a DL player over night, as I said above it would probably take a generation for this to happen. My issue is that in the modern game, the skillsets are being separated to the most basic levels, so that there is a specialist for every aspect of the game.
.

Sorry but the skillsets are so different it wouldn't work. Offensive line players are there for a reason, defensive line players are there for a reason. The change in mentality alone is vast let alone the skills. As somebody who's played Guard, OT, DE, DT I can tell you that the difference between each is vast. Also do you realise how much it wears you down blocking a 300 pound plus man while you play on the line? Now imagine doubling that workload. Their bodies simply wouldn't hold up.

unknown13

Trampas wrote: »

So how does this rule work when the QB gets sacked or RB gets stopped behind the line

If the QB gets sacked and they haven't gained any yards the clock is stopped and if the RB is tackled behind the line the clock is stopped

death1234567

unknown13 wrote: »

I would bring in the AFL positive yardage rule, where a winning in the last quarter must gain positive yards to keep the clock running. I'm getting fed up of QB's kneeling in tight games.

If the QB gets sacked and they haven't gained any yards the clock is stopped and if the RB is tackled behind the line the clock is stopped

Not a good idea IMO as all you would get is some Full back charging into the pile to gain half a yard for three downs. There's nothing wrong with a QB kneeling. I went to bed at the two minute warning in the Cards-Falcons game as Warner was just going to Kneel 3 times to ice the game.

Hazys

I dont agree with making gameday rosters smaller.

I'd like to see gameday roster's increased.

It seems pointless to me that a team has 53 players on their roster but can only pick 43 to play on gameday.

Increasing the rosters would:

Decrease injuries
Help develop younger players

So overall, it would increase the quality of play. Less injuries to starters. Younger players can be developed. During the course of a game 3/4 players can be knocked out of the game which has disasterious effects on the team and gives an unfair advantage.

OP, I think you're looking at the NFL and trying to suggest changing the rules to be more like soccer and rugby, which is fine because it probably more what your are used to but I think the game currently is fine the way it is with a few tweaks here and there. Its good that the NFL isen't afraid to change a rule or two here and there but they didn't go overboard like the IRB and change everything when Rugby was the most exciting and popular its been in years.

Outside the playing field the 2 things id like to change/have is a salary cap for rookies and remove the ability for teams to franchise players (it nearly always ends up in holdouts and stupid disputes)

death1234567

Hazys wrote: »

Outside the playing field the 2 things id like to change/have is a salary cap for rookies

Oh I forgot that one, Rookies contracts should be based on achievements in the game. You shouldn't get X million upfront just because your the first pick. Ryan Leaf anyone?

jdivision

Hazys wrote: »

Outside the playing field the 2 things id like to change/have is a salary cap for rookies and remove the ability for teams to franchise players (it nearly always ends up in holdouts and stupid disputes)

I disagree with the franchise thing because it helps small market teams keep hold of players who could earn more in endorsements etc in a larger market but I do agreee on the salary cap for rookies. I think the NBA's one of a fixed salary with a fixed increase every year is the way to go. Jake Long for example is being paid far too much, we've seen other examples with Robert Gallery, Tony Mandarich and others who've underwhelmed beyond belief. LT is often the highest paid player on a team now but it's often more difficult to predict that QB hence the number of them taken in the first round each year and if you make a mistake it can destroy your salary cap. This year there's likely to be four or five taken in the first round alone.
By the way, people should get a look at the size of Herman Johnson from LSU. Jesus!! MAn's a monster. He'd be a good pick up for the Cards or Detroit, who've guard problems, but don't think he'll be a first round pick. He's great at getting to the second level but needs to improve his blocking when he gets there. In pass protection his arms are so long he's superb.

DonkeyPokerTour

Trampas wrote: »

All Divison winners get a home game in playoffs.

Top 2 division winners get a home game in the Divisional Championship game and other 2 division winners get a home game in the Wild Card round

I think he means that they shouldn't get a home playoff game. I think what he means is if the Wildcard team is 11-5 and the Divisional Winner is 8-8 then the Wildcard team should have homefield advantage, this to me is not such a bad idea.

Lothaar

Regarding the QB calling plays:

The reason the coaches send in the plays is to afford the highest possible level of tactical football. The coaches create an intricately detailed gameplan, with formations, shifts, motions and plays designed specifically to attack each team they face. This is based on hours/days/weeks of analysing gamefilm. They will then analyse in-game data in real time and make adjustments. The QB can't possibly reach this level of analysis and strategic decision-making, as he is in the game, focusing on his assignments and also working from a restricted field of vision (ie - just his perspective).

The headsets just make it easy for coaches to call in plays. It was back in the 1940s (I think) that Coach Paul Brown first started calling plays, rather than leaving it to his QB. The result was an incredible legacy of victories. Brown is now credited with having revolutionised the game.

So... what you're suggesting would undo more than 60 years of evolution within the sport! The whole POINT of football these days is that tactics reign supreme and the team who can outthink their opponent wins.

BTW - Manning doesn't call the plays. He generally works from a 'check-with-me' package, meaning the coaches give him a handful of plays on each down and it's his job to ensure they run the best possible play to attack what the defense appears to be doing.

juvenal

Hazys wrote: »

I dont agree with making gameday rosters smaller.

I'd like to see gameday roster's increased.

It seems pointless to me that a team has 53 players on their roster but can only pick 43 to play on gameday.

Increasing the rosters would:

Decrease injuries
Help develop younger players

So overall, it would increase the quality of play. Less injuries to starters. Younger players can be developed. During the course of a game 3/4 players can be knocked out of the game which has disasterious effects on the team and gives an unfair advantage.

Fair point re injuries in a game which is among the most physical played anywhere. More depth in a variety of positions would negate the impact of injuries to key players. Although injuries to key personnel is a feature of every sport, and call it fate/destiny/whatever you want, but it's part and parcel of physical exercise that some individuals will get injured. It's a reality that if a key player gets injured, it will impact upon the teams performance, but IMO there are enough players in uniform on gameday to cover any potential number of injuries.

Hazys wrote: »

OP, I think you're looking at the NFL and trying to suggest changing the rules to be more like soccer and rugby, which is fine because it probably more what your are used to but I think the game currently is fine the way it is with a few tweaks here and there. Its good that the NFL isen't afraid to change a rule or two here and there but they didn't go overboard like the IRB and change everything when Rugby was the most exciting and popular its been in years.

Like most people here, I grew up with GAA, hurling, soccer and rugby as a child, but I've been following American Football since my late teens. It's probably true that the delays are my main gripe, and that a game that is 60 minutes long last anywhere between 3 - 4 hours. I've no problem with a sport taking several hours, but when the delays are not there for sporting reasons, rather commercial, it grinds my gears a little. I don't think anyone here can deny there's a little too much pageantry in the NFL (and indeed this is not exclusive to the NFL!)

I totally agree that the NFL are excellent at tweaking rules here and there, rather than making wholesale changes like the IRB have done, and effectively changed the game for the worse.

I suppose as well I'm a bit of an ideallist regards sport, and I hate to see commercial interference and cynicism in a game, and the corinthian spirit more and more muddled (probably as much a human trait as anything). This isn't just a problem in the NFL, as professional sports around the world are seeing unprecedented levels of money and celebrity come into their game.

I still enjoy following the NFL (and being a long-suffering Redskin!), but prefer Collegiate football (despite the fiasco that is the BCS) for a variety of reasons. Depsite that, and despite what I see as some flaws in the game, I'm not going to stop following it.;)

jdivision wrote: »

Sorry but the skillsets are so different it wouldn't work. Offensive line players are there for a reason, defensive line players are there for a reason. The change in mentality alone is vast let alone the skills. As somebody who's played Guard, OT, DE, DT I can tell you that the difference between each is vast. Also do you realise how much it wears you down blocking a 300 pound plus man while you play on the line? Now imagine doubling that workload. Their bodies simply wouldn't hold up.

Obviously if they positions were the same at every level of the game, players would be indoctrinated form a young age to play in that position with the necessary skills involved (and being 300lbs wouldn't be one of them!)

What I'm saying, is that the skills involved in any sports are dictated by the way the sport is played. If you have to be on the field for twice as much as you currently do, then being 300lbs isn't going to cut it, and players will evolved into lighter, more dynamic athletes. Then it might be two guys who are 240lbs each blocking each other, and so forth.


Any thoughts on the NFL, performance-enhancing substances, and the shorter penalties (comparable to other major sports) for positive tests?

tallaghtoutlaws

juvenal wrote: »

Obviously if they positions were the same at every level of the game, players would be indoctrinated form a young age to play in that position with the necessary skills involved (and being 300lbs wouldn't be one of them!)

What I'm saying, is that the skills involved in any sports are dictated by the way the sport is played. If you have to be on the field for twice as much as you currently do, then being 300lbs isn't going to cut it, and players will evolved into lighter, more dynamic athletes. Then it might be two guys who are 240lbs each blocking each other, and so forth.

I see what you are saying but having been on the sideline for HS games seeing first hand some of these kids that end up being 300 pound linemen are usually naturally big guys from day 1 fat 200 pounders + anyway. When they hit their Junior and Senior year in high school they tend to hit that growth spurt and use the Gym more and when they eventually hit college if they go there they then live in the gym when not practicing or partying. So their body mass grows as their body grows in their late teens. Now DT are big for a reason to stuff holes and hence why smaller players that weigh less will never be an option no matter how athletic they are. Some NFL and College teams have 300+ linemen who only play a certain amount of downs on any drive due to their size and they have more athletically built guys less than 300 then who sub in and out depending on Defensive preference.

The funny thing is most linemen in high schools tend to be much smaller than they end up being. Its only when they get spurt in growth and hit the gym do they get as big as they are. One of my friends played for UMD Bulldogs a D2 college and he transferred there from the Badgers to get game time. In high school he was a 220 pound OT and now he weighs 320 pounds and was 305 in College. now this guy is a fooking monster more muscle than fat and now coaches linemen in a high school. He actually ran the Chicago Marathon there recently also.:D

As for the length of time games take. Ever since I started going to the US Football Sundays are fooking class. Going to a bar with NFL Direct TV showing alll the games. 9 hours of football and drink and food you can't go wrong. Its funny its a way of life in the US. Families get to together for more than 3 hours on a Sunday to watch games, Friends go to bars and party and keep an eye on their fantasy teams. So in this aspect its positive and im all for it

juvenal

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

As for the length of time games take. Ever since I started going to the US Football Sundays are fooking class. Going to a bar with NFL Direct TV showing alll the games. 9 hours of football and drink and food you can't go wrong. Its funny its a way of life in the US. Families get to together for more than 3 hours on a Sunday to watch games, Friends go to bars and party and keep an eye on their fantasy teams. So in this aspect its positive and im all for it

Well that's true. Far more family orientated and sociable than a Sunday afternoon at home where children get hopped up on E colours, crisps and red lemonade while Ma & Da get tanked in the lounge.:P

Hazys

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

As for the length of time games take. Ever since I started going to the US Football Sundays are fooking class. Going to a bar with NFL Direct TV showing alll the games. 9 hours of football and drink and food you can't go wrong. Its funny its a way of life in the US. Families get to together for more than 3 hours on a Sunday to watch games, Friends go to bars and party and keep an eye on their fantasy teams. So in this aspect its positive and im all for it

Going to a American Football game is more than a 3 hour game its a whole day. I was lucky enough to going tailgating to a Patriots game 2 years ago. Most of the people tailgating were outside the stadium since 9am with the game on at 1pm. They all had their BBQs set up, a few beers and fans and their families were tossing a football around outside the stadium and they stayed doing this till late Sunday evening. It was a class atomsphere something I wasnt used to. Closest i came was a few sandwiches and tea in a flask outside Pairc Ui Chaoimh on the way home as we waited for the traffic to clear, back in the day. Its a pity we dont have the facilites and more importantly the weather for it because tailgating is great fun.

Americans are used to their games being long, its a different culture to how we watch our sports. If you ever get a chance to tailgate, take it

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

Going to a American Football game is more than a 3 hour game its a whole day. I was lucky enough to going tailgating to a Patriots game 2 years ago. Most of the people tailgating were outside the stadium since 9am with the game on at 1pm. They all had their BBQs set up, a few beers and fans and their families were tossing a football around outside the stadium and they stayed doing this till late Sunday evening. It was a class atomsphere something I wasnt used to. Closest i came was a few sandwiches and tea in a flask outside Pairc Ui Chaoimh on the way home as we waited for the traffic to clear, back in the day. Its a pity we dont have the facilites and more importantly the weather for it because tailgating is great fun.

Americans are used to their games being long, its a different culture to how we watch our sports. If you ever get a chance to tailgate, take it

Done it many a time in MA, Breen Bay and College venues around the US also Baseball Yeah defo going to a game is an all day event for sure. Went to a Brewers game back in August 500 of us big BBQ Tailgate and free drink never actually made the game though I was soo smashed.

I was more talking about the TV version of watching games but yeah defo going to a game can be an all day event for sure.

jdivision

juvenal wrote: »

Any thoughts on the NFL, performance-enhancing substances, and the shorter penalties (comparable to other major sports) for positive tests?

My thoughts are this: In every major sport I believe people are using HGH. Rugby refused to test for it before the last world cup and if you look at the sudden muscle spurts in the All Blacks before the WC and in South Africa about five years ago it's, ahem, surprising. Juventus players appear to have been on it when they won the European Cup. Chelsea players were having their blood cleaned by dialysis a couple of years ago. Therefore drug penalties are unfortunately largely irrelevant now. I wish they'd all accept the test though.
As for the bans in general, I think they're too light and too short and think people who get caught should be banned for a season. However NFL professional careers are very short on average and I believe that's why the players union is not willing to agree to lengthier suspensions. In addition, a lot of players have pay clauses based on them hitting certain weight targets during the year and I don't think this should be allowed because it encourages the use of diuretics.
In general NFL linemen are so big because they're not built to run the length of the pitch like rugby players, they're built for four to five seconds of explosiveness.

davyjose

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

While I quite like the collegiate system, I can see the flip side of the current NFL one. Yes winning the coinflip will increase your percentage chances of winning. BUT, to win a championship you need a team, not just an offense. If you lose the flip, you can still stick them on special teams leaving them with poor field position. And then your defense can **** them up and prevent them from gaining the 30 - 65 yards (depending on starting field obv) they need before they are in field goal range.

I see what you're saying. But that's all well and good. However, put into practice, after an hour of Football, when both sides are smashed, the attacking side have definitely got the psychological edge. They also have the adrenaline rush (get inside the other teams 40, and we've won, basically).*

Perhaps a making it first side to score a TD would be a better rule - THAT would be more exciting IMO. The problem is, I don't think the NFL (or Americans) like the idea of tied games.

* Edit: I wonder what the stats are for teams who lose the toss, winning the game. Low, I'll bet.

themont85

Playoff based-the 1st seeded team get to choose who they want to face after the wild card race for each respective conference. Look at the Giants, no 1 in the NFC and i doubt they would have chosen the Eagles over the Cardinals! Never going to happen but would be funny if it had.

eagle eye

I don't think there is too much needs changing. One thing I think that needs to be changed is the problem with the play clock and long plays. If you complete a long pass then you lose time on the shot clock before you get near the ball. I think for plays over 20 yards you should get a 5 second stop on the shot clock.

Also they got rid of the 'force out' rule and I think that was a good rule or at least make it a 'one foot in' rule so that a wide receiver who makes a good catch and gets a foot down gets credit for it.

Oh and one more that irks me is the rule that there cannot be pass interference if somebody tips the ball at the line. That seems a bit ridiculous as a ball can be tipped and still reach its target, but interference can still prevent the catch. I think thats a rule anyways, was trying to check it out before I put it in here but had no luck googling.

tallaghtoutlaws

eagle eye wrote: »

Oh and one more that irks me is the rule that there cannot be pass interference if somebody tips the ball at the line. That seems a bit ridiculous as a ball can be tipped and still reach its target, but interference can still prevent the catch. I think thats a rule anyways, was trying to check it out before I put it in here but had no luck googling.

What as in a D tackle jumps up and tips the football after it leaves the QB's hand and it still gets to the reciever?

or are you saying the above and before the ball gets to the WR he gets hit and interference cant be called?

If its the 2nd option look at it this way 2 WR moving down field ball is thrown to A he tips it and it goes to WR B. The ball was intended for A and not B so you cannot be done for interfearing with B as the ball was up in the air and was fair game. Same thing can be said for a ball tipped on the line of scrimmage no longer reaching its intended target therefore its fair game once its in the air.

Hazys

jdivision wrote: »

My thoughts are this: In every major sport I believe people are using HGH. Rugby refused to test for it before the last world cup and if you look at the sudden muscle spurts in the All Blacks before the WC and in South Africa about five years ago it's, ahem, surprising. Juventus players appear to have been on it when they won the European Cup. Chelsea players were having their blood cleaned by dialysis a couple of years ago. Therefore drug penalties are unfortunately largely irrelevant now. I wish they'd all accept the test though.
As for the bans in general, I think they're too light and too short and think people who get caught should be banned for a season. However NFL professional careers are very short on average and I believe that's why the players union is not willing to agree to lengthier suspensions. In addition, a lot of players have pay clauses based on them hitting certain weight targets during the year and I don't think this should be allowed because it encourages the use of diuretics.
In general NFL linemen are so big because they're not built to run the length of the pitch like rugby players, they're built for four to five seconds of explosiveness.

I recently watched a movie which was a Michael Moore type documentary on anabolic steriod use in America. Its called "Bigger, Stronger, Faster*" its an extremely well told and investigated unbiased story, a must watch if you have an interest on drugs in sport.

One of the main facts in the film is that only 3 people a year die from steriod use in America while something like 100 people die from cough medicine and how steriod use is demonised in America.

He compares the ilegal use of steriods in sport to the legal laser eye surgery Tiger Woods took to improve his eye sight better than he ever had orginally.

He also interviews Carl Lewis and discovers that he more than likely cheated in the olympics. Its a very entertaining film.

tallaghtoutlaws

Hazys wrote: »

I recently watched a movie which was a Michael Moore type documentary on anabolic steriod use in America. Its called "Bigger, Stronger, Faster*" its an extremely well told and investigated unbiased story, a must watch if you have an interest on drugs in sport.

One of the main facts in the film is that only 3 people a year die from steriod use in America while something like 100 people die from cough medicine and how steriod use is demonised in America.

He compares the ilegal use of steriods in sport to the legal laser eye surgery Tiger Woods took to improve his eye sight better than he ever had orginally.

He also interviews Carl Lewis and discovers that he more than likely cheated in the olympics. Its a very entertaining film.

Michael Moore unbiased now theres a first must give it a watch.

jdivision

Hazys wrote: »

He also interviews Carl Lewis and discovers that he more than likely cheated in the olympics. Its a very entertaining film.

No "more than likely" about it I think. Himself (at the US trials) and Linford Christie both failed the drug test afaik, Christie blaming green tea!! A US cover up as well as fact Olympic authorities didn't feel it could suspend all three medalists though so Johnson got all the bad press. The steroids thing has a point but realistically the drugs imo are one of the main reasons so many former players die in their 40s and 50s. I suppose it's that trade off between earning loads and helping your family and taking 20 years off your life. What would you do?

Hazys

jdivision wrote: »

No "more than likely" about it I think. Himself (at the US trials) and Linford Christie both failed the drug test afaik, Christie blaming green tea!! A US cover up as well as fact Olympic authorities didn't feel it could suspend all three medalists though so Johnson got all the bad press. The steroids thing has a point but realistically the drugs imo are one of the main reasons so many former players die in their 40s and 50s. I suppose it's that trade off between earning loads and helping your family and taking 20 years off your life. What would you do?

I used "more than likely" just in case Carl Lewis is on boards.ie and i get sued...u never can be too careful

In the film he interviews the USA Olympic Team doctor who hands him a letter detailling how he failed the drug test and the cover up.

Also the film debates whether there are any long term risks from the use of anabolic steriods but then again there have never been any long term studies

evil_seed

Pat Kirwan explains my point perfectly "Reseeding the playoffs: Winning a division should still get you in the playoffs but not guarantee a home game. If a division winner and a wild-card team have the same record, the division title could be used as the tiebreaker. However, when the 12-win Colts had to go on the road against the 8-8 Chargers because they won the AFC West, it doesn't equate. San Diego didn't deserve a home game. If you want all regular-season games to have meaning, make winning important. There are only six division games, not even half of the 16-game schedule."

eagle eye

Wow I clicked in and then read this and thought I was in the atlethics forum for a minute.

Hazys

eagle eye wrote: »

Oh and one more that irks me is the rule that there cannot be pass interference if somebody tips the ball at the line. That seems a bit ridiculous as a ball can be tipped and still reach its target, but interference can still prevent the catch. I think thats a rule anyways, was trying to check it out before I put it in here but had no luck googling.

Its also because if the ball gets tipped and if its going to land near where the O line and D line are duking it out, i dont think the refs have enough flags to throw for pass interference if any O line or D line player tries to catch it.

jdivision

eagle eye wrote: »

Oh and one more that irks me is the rule that there cannot be pass interference if somebody tips the ball at the line. That seems a bit ridiculous as a ball can be tipped and still reach its target, but interference can still prevent the catch. I think thats a rule anyways, was trying to check it out before I put it in here but had no luck googling.

Think of the tipped ball as a fumble in the air, it's a free for all (until the ball hits the ground)

Hynzie

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

As for the length of time games take. Ever since I started going to the US Football Sundays are fooking class. Going to a bar with NFL Direct TV showing alll the games. 9 hours of football and drink and food you can't go wrong. Its funny its a way of life in the US. Families get to together for more than 3 hours on a Sunday to watch games, Friends go to bars and party and keep an eye on their fantasy teams. So in this aspect its positive and im all for it

Ya i agree with that theres nothing better than weekends in America during football season. I think you notice the length of the games way more over here because the games are on later. Most people are going to notice the length of the games if its 3 in the morning and you have to be up for work or school in a few hours.

As for rules I agree that the overtime should be changed and that there should be a rookie wage scale.

The thing I would change would be all the flags for celebrations and all the fines. I mean you can bearly celebrate at all these days!! I know they really started clamping down after it got a bit crazy a few years ago, with Joe Horn and the phone and T.O. and the marker, bit its gone way too far. id like to see the NFL loosen up a little. Same with the fines. Im all for player safety, but some of the fines this year were BS. Like when Justin Tuck was fined for driving the QB into the ground against dallas, that was crap.

Coileach dearg

The QB should only be allowed to kneel once per set of downs.

Chucky the tree

Coileach dearg wrote: »

The QB should only be allowed to kneel once per set of downs.

Far to hard to implement I think. What would constitue a kneel? What if the QB took the snap ran a bit sideways then slide? OR in the first quarter a QB scrambles and slides before being tackled it means that if he was to scramble on 3rd he wouldnt be allowed to slide and would be forced to take a hit? Too much of a grey area.

jdivision

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Far to hard to implement I think. What would constitue a kneel? What if the QB took the snap ran a bit sideways then slide? OR in the first quarter a QB scrambles and slides before being tackled it means that if he was to scramble on 3rd he wouldnt be allowed to slide and would be forced to take a hit? Too much of a grey area.

Or like Brees ran backwards for a while and nearly take one of our players heads off