Proposed rule changes

ChrisPozz · Post #1 » by **ChrisPozz** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 1:55 am

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12507 ... -next-week

Dodub · Post #2 » by **Dodub** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:24 am

Seems like a lot of that would add a ton more downtime during games

NinerSickness · Post #3 » by **NinerSickness** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:45 am

ChrisPozz wrote:http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12507 ... -next-week

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDoIM1dRzGo[/youtube]

Tomikcon1971 · Post #4 » by **Tomikcon1971** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:43 am

23?

I dozed off after number 3

DoobieKeebler · Post #5 » by **DoobieKeebler** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:25 am

For the heck of it, "Yes" to #10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 21, & 23. And if I could split the rule down the middle, I'd say "Yes" to #7-A (a "Defenseless receiver" call is reviewable) but not 7-B (a failed challenge doesn't cost a timeout)

Bylaws: Don't care about #1; Yes #3; #4 depends on if they want to move the date forward or backward.

Resolution: No. Nobody cares about your roof, Jerry.

Post #6 » by **CalamityX12** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:09 pm

1 Yes/No, got to be a limit on how often they can challenge.
2 YES
3 YES
4 No
5 YES
6 YN
7 ???
8 Grant 3 Challenges
9 YES you ****
10 No
11 No
12 Yes
13 NO
14 Yes
15 Yes, may increase in 2 pt attempts
16 ???
17 YES
18 what was it
19 No but could allow penalized yards against Intercepting team
20 whatever
21 No
22 Yes, really?
23 YES

Post #7 » by **CalamityX12** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 4:10 pm

what now needs to be clarified is how do they rule roughing the passer? whats the clear distinction that will say yes or no to call on the field?

Post #8 » by **MHSL82** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:33 pm

One rule change I want is that the coach has to challenge an actual disputed call if challenging.

Explanation: Bruce Arians challenged a fumble after forward progress was ruled (or something of that nature), but since that's not reviewable (whatever it was), he challenged that the ball was not caught. The ball was caught and run with for 12 yards or so, but since the whole play is subject to review upon a challenge, they called a fumble, which was borderline anyway.

I get that Arians was smart and used the system, but that's ****, IMO. I'd hate to lose on that in the future.

Post #9 » by **MHSL82** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:34 pm

CalamityX12 wrote:what now needs to be clarified is how do they rule roughing the passer? whats the clear distinction that will say yes or no to call on the field?

If it is against the Niners or for a team we need to lose to get in, then it is correct. If it isn't, then it will be reversed.

Post #10 » by **MHSL82** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:19 pm

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/ ... le-changes

Post #11 » by **MHSL82** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:58 pm

"A foul against a defenseless receiver may be enforced when a reversal results in an incomplete pass."

Does that mean it wouldn't be enforceable if he catches it? But if he drops it, they call it, review it, determine reversing the ruling would result in an incompletion, so enforce it, but if he caught it, the reversal of the penalty call would be a catch but no penalty, so no enforcement?

The double negatives are getting me, I guess.

ChrisPozz · Post #12 » by **ChrisPozz** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:16 pm

NFL passes five player safety rules

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ety-rules/

ChrisPozz · Post #13 » by **ChrisPozz** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:18 pm

Replay proposals voted down, NFL to study fixed cameras

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... d-cameras/