BB's proposed rule changes: all plays reviewable; goal line cameras; PAT moved back

Patriot Missile said:

Maybe that is a little overboard but I think it would slow the game down a little bit.

Click to expand...

How?? Teams would still be limited to two challenges (three, if they win the first two). So no slower than it is now.

I saw this at MassLive. Is it a 4th proposal from NE, or part of the "let everything be challengeable" proposal?

MassLive said:

Among them: The Pats proposed for the elimination of the red challenge flag, and instead suggested that challenges be initiated with a team calling timeout before the next snap.

Here's more of the Patriots' proposal, via the NFL's release:

"If a challenge is upheld, the timeout will be restored. A challenge will only be restored if a team is successful on both of its challenges, in which case it shall be awarded a third challenge, but a fourth challenge will not be permitted under any circumstances."
New England also has proposed that teams can challenge under the two-minute warning.

Click to expand...

http://blog.masslive.com/patriots/2015/03/new_england_patriots_propose_t.html

What would NE's reasons be for wanting to change the way a challenge is initiated?

And while incredibly biased as I am a fan of the team with by far the worst Average Draft Position (26th) of any team in the NFL for 14 years straight (last five years: 28, 31, 29, 29, 32) I would like to see the NFL Draft change to a snake format.

1st round picks 1-32
2nd round reverses in order: picks 33-64 and so on.

In my humble opinion, parity can still be maintained by having the worst teams getting first pick at the very best.

rlcarr said:

What would NE's reasons be for wanting to change the way a challenge is initiated?

Click to expand...

Seems like its all about giving some control to the coach in reversing some bad game-deciding calls on part of the refs.

EDIT: In answer to post below.

I think its just a very minor rule-change proposal that streamlines/simplifies the challenge process. Also completely removes the need for Bill to have pockets or wear socks.

Danger Zone said:

Seems like its all about giving some control to the coach in reversing some bad game-deciding calls on part of the refs.

Click to expand...

No, what I mean is, what's the point of changing "Coach signals they want a challenge by throwing a flag. If challenge fails a timeout is lost" to "Coach signals they want a challenge by calling timeout and telling the ref he wants to challenge. If challenge succeeds the timeout is restored"

rlcarr said:

No, what I mean is, what's the point of changing "Coach signals they want a challenge by throwing a flag. If challenge fails a timeout is lost" to "Coach signals they want a challenge by calling timeout and telling the ref he wants to challenge. If challenge succeeds the timeout is restored"

Click to expand...

To me it just seems logistically simpler. Since a failed challenge results in a TO anyway, why add an unnecessary layer of complexity?

fnordcircle said:

The Colts also suggested a rule change after everyone got done huffing glue in Irsay's car or something.

Click to expand...

The ****? I guess Jim is back on the sauce. Lol

Danger Zone said:

And while incredibly biased as I am a fan of the team with by far the worst Average Draft Position (26th) of any team in the NFL for 14 years straight (last five years: 28, 31, 29, 29, 32) I would like to see the NFL Draft change to a snake format.

1st round picks 1-32
2nd round reverses in order: picks 33-64 and so on.

In my humble opinion, parity can still be maintained by having the worst teams getting first pick at the very best.

Click to expand...

I think that would have more support if it was a AABB format. Either way, bottom feeders would be up in arms, and there is no way in hell it would garner support if the Pats propose it.

"Say guys, consistently crushing the AFCE is getting a little tough these days. I think we should get a break in the draft."

Danger Zone said:

And while incredibly biased as I am a fan of the team with by far the worst Average Draft Position (26th) of any team in the NFL for 14 years straight (last five years: 28, 31, 29, 29, 32) I would like to see the NFL Draft change to a snake format.

1st round picks 1-32
2nd round reverses in order: picks 33-64 and so on.

In my humble opinion, parity can still be maintained by having the worst teams getting first pick at the very best.

Click to expand...

The purpose of the NFL Draft is to balance the league, which can be achieved by giving the worst teams the best chance to stock talent through an amateur draft.
The parity on the league, on the issue that the 1st pick team is much worse than the SB winner, can only be achieved in the draft if there is disparity on the order is set up.

IMO, a snake draft would destroy this purpose.

Patriot Missile said:

Not sure how number 1 would work out. Coach throws flag on 70 yard scoring pass. Basically is trying to find something, anything to negate the play. Offensive lineman comes up to coach and says I was held. Coach says I think my lineman was held I am challenging the play on the field.

Click to expand...

This is solved by limiting the challenge to the issue that was flagged, i.e. if flagged for PI and the HC challenges the call, refs can't go "All 22" and find a holding infraction.

nobody was flagged on the 70 yd TD example

Leave it to Belichick to point out that the red flag is more ceremonial than actually useful.

fnordcircle said:

The Colts also suggested a rule change after everyone got done huffing glue in Irsay's car or something.

Click to expand...

I think they should propose a rule for a 38 point play so they can beat us in AFC Championship games.

There's a great clip on youtube of Wilfork saying "throw the flag, Bill" after some missed ref call.

Put a swinging target pendulum behind the goal posts. During a field goal attempt, if the kicker makes the goal then it is 3 points just like now. If he makes the goal AND hits the swinging target, the team gets 4 points. The same for PAT. Hitting the target would make it 2 points instead of 1.

FrodoBagginz said:

Put a swinging target pendulum behind the goal posts. During a field goal attempt, if the kicker makes the goal then it is 3 points just like now. If he makes the goal AND hits the swinging target, the team gets 4 points. The same for PAT. Hitting the target would make it 2 points instead of 1.

Click to expand...

Have you been drinking with Irsay?

4) For the 2015 season no Qb is allowed to throw passes over 10 yards long.

Rob0729 said:

And let's not forget there is a proposal rule to stop the Patriots where they get rid of the ineligible man rule that the Pats took advantage of in the playoffs. Whenever the Pats win the Super Bowl, it seems the rules committee wants to create rules to stop them from repeating.

Click to expand...

You can't really blame them. It's not like their teams can stop the Pats on the field.

This year's competition committee is evenly split between the NFC and AFC, but 3 of the 4 AFC members come from the AFCN, Cincy, Pitt and Baltimore.

Froob said:

t isn't automatic. Vikings lost a crucial game to the Bears on a PAT that cost them homefield advantage vs the Saints in the playoffs (a game they barely lost). Bengals missed a PAT in 2006 in Denver that cost them a playoff spot. How is it a huge injury risk? Players rarely ever get hurt on PATs. Just because Gronk got hurt once doesn't mean it's a huge injury risk that's just absurd. We're trying to find solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

According to an MMQB article (see here), that actually deals with the very same question we have been discussing here, PATs where missed less than 1% looking at 2012-2014. That is pretty much automatic in my book.

Now about the injuries.. Yes, Gronk was injured on one but that is not what I am talking about. Start a recording of a random game and take a look what abuse the OL takes. There have been many rule modifications about where the defense is allowed to line up (e.g. not over the center) just to make those plays less dangerous. Doesn't sound that absurd to me if it required actual rule changes.

If it is ok to move the kickoff to make returns safer, then I don't see how eliminating a play that has a success rate of 99.5% is any different. We have been changing and adjusting the game now for decades to make it safer for players.

rlcarr said:

How?? Teams would still be limited to two challenges (three, if they win the first two). So no slower than it is now.

Click to expand...

It is amazing how that argument is trotted out that making everything reviewable would slow down the game. 'All plays are reviewable' does not mean 'coaches are given infinite number of challenges.' I've seen sportscasters/commentators repeat this stupid argument countless times. I pull my hair out each time, so now am bald and resorting to pulling out my pubes.

Danger Zone said:

I think some system of trading/selling picks for Cap Space would be quite interesting.

Click to expand...

I don't know about this idea. I envision high revenue teams (Dallas, Washington, etc.) circumventing the cap in this scenario, making it that much more difficult for low revenue teams (Jaguars, Browns, etc.) to compete.