Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proposed Rule change for 2017

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proposed Rule change for 2017

    The NFL announced a list of proposed rule changes for 2017. (See Rams website for it's story on March 23, 2017 for a full list and which team requested each).

    A couple seem worthy; a couple rolled my eyes. But one rule in particular caught my interest:


    15. By Competition Committee; Makes actions to conserve time illegal after the two-minute warning of either half.


    Makes me wonder what actions they're trying to prohibit. Wouldn't the language of this rule affect qb spikes to stop the clock?
    I understand Goodell and crew have been active in trying to keep game length under 3 hours. This proposed rule seems to support that mindset. But, if an offense is in control of the ball and trying to score at the end of half or end of game... should they be penalized for sacrificing a down to stop the clock?

    Something tells me that's not the type of conduct they're trying to prevent. But if that's the case, can someone tell me what action they might be trying to regulate here? what am i missing?



  • #2
    Originally posted by KoaKoi View Post
    But, if an offense is in control of the ball and trying to score at the end of half or end of game... should they be penalized for sacrificing a down to stop the clock?
    Under the old rules, a quick spike of the ball was ruled intentional grounding (though the penalty wasn't as severe). I believe the rule was changed to cut down on the "acting" jobs. I prefer the rules and pace of the mid-'70s game, but that may just be my personal bias and fond memories of the great Ram defenses of the era.

    Comment


    • #3
      The first thing I thought of was faking an injury. I could see something like a clock stoppage by an injured player would cause that player to be removed from the remainder of the game and a charged timeout. If the team doesn't have a timeout, a 15 yard penalty and/or automatic first down depending on if the "injured player" is offense or defense.

      Another thought is delay of game by not allowing a player to get up off the turf, but that is more to let a clock run out instead of allowing the next play to be run.


      gap

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by gap View Post
        The first thing I thought of was faking an injury. I could see something like a clock stoppage by an injured player would cause that player to be removed from the remainder of the game and a charged timeout. If the team doesn't have a timeout, a 15 yard penalty and/or automatic first down depending on if the "injured player" is offense or defense.

        Another thought is delay of game by not allowing a player to get up off the turf, but that is more to let a clock run out instead of allowing the next play to be run.
        gap

        Hmmm, well they already automatically charge a timeout to the injured players team if they get hurt inside of 2 minutes. Perhaps this rule is trying to expand that a bit and include yardage as part of the penalty. Thanks for your thoughts gap.

        Comment

        Related Topics

        Collapse

        • Nick
          NCAA extends play clock among other rule changes
          by Nick
          NCAA extends play clock
          Pace of play addressed again by rules committee
          By TONY BARNHART
          The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
          Published on: 02/13/08

          Two years ago the NCAA Football Rules committee, concerned that games were running too long, put in a series of changes in hopes of speeding things up.

          They worked. In 2006 the average game time dropped from 3:21 to 3:07 but fans and coaches howled because there were about 13 fewer plays and five fewer points per game than in 2005.

          So last season college football went back to the old rules and the bad news is that games averaged 3:22, a minute longer than in 2005. The good news is that plays and scoring also went back to the desired 2005 levels.

          In an attempt to produce more plays and points in a shorter game, the rules committee went back to the drawing board and on Wednesday recommended a few changes for the upcoming season.

          "Hopefully this time we got it right," said Michael Clark, the chairman of the rules committee and head coach at Bridgewater (Va.) College.

          The first is the implementation of a 40/25-second play clock, similar to that of the NFL. At the end of every play, the 40-second clock will start, which is the rule in the NFL. The old college rules featured a 25-second clock that did not start until the officials marked the ball ready for play. On a change of possession, the first play will be run on a 25-second clock.

          A number of college coaches have said they wanted the 40-second play clock because officials from league to league used different amounts of time to mark the ball ready for play.

          "We think this will give us some consistency when it comes to pace of play," said Connecticut coach Randy Edsall, who is a member of the rules committee.

          "If the NFL boys are doing it we seem to want to do it, too," South Carolina coach Steve Spurrier said. "I think it favors the teams that run the no-huddle. That gives the quarterback a bunch more time to stand up there and read the defense."

          The rules committee made another recommendation that will certainly shorten the game.

          After a player runs out of bounds and the ball is made ready to play, the official will start the game clock. Under the old rules the game clock would not start until the ball was snapped. This new rule will not apply in the final two minutes of the first half and the final two minutes of the game.

          In other recommended rules changes announced Tuesday:

          A coach will get an extra instant replay challenge if his first one is upheld. Under the old rule the coach had only one challenge whether he was right or wrong. Under the new rule the coach, if he's right, will get one extra challenge, but no more.

          If a kickoff goes out of bounds, the receiving team will...
          -02-13-2008, 06:51 PM
        • Nick
          NFL makes significant change to tackling rules
          by Nick
          NFL institutes 15-yard penalty, possible ejection for lowering head to make hit
          8:32 PM ET
          Kevin Seifert

          ORLANDO, Fla. -- NFL owners passed an unexpected rule Tuesday that will expand penalties for helmet-to-helmet contact, one that is more significant and far-reaching than the NCAA's targeting rule.

          Under the change, a player will be penalized 15 yards and potentially ejected any time he lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent. It will apply to tacklers, ball carriers and even linemen, and it will take the place of a previous rule that limited the penalty to contact with the crown of the helmet.

          The NCAA's targeting rule penalizes players only when they hit opponents who are in a defenseless position. It calls for mandatory ejections, but the NFL's competition committee has not yet addressed how ejections would be adjudicated, according to chairman Rich McKay. There is little doubt, however, that the NFL is determined to aggressively address a 2017 season that included 291 concussions, its highest total on record, and a severe spine injury to Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker Ryan Shazier on a play that would fall under the new rule.

          "It just seems that players at every level are getting more comfortable playing with their helmets as a weapon rather than a protective device," McKay said. "Therefore, we need a rule that is broad and puts that in context, and that's what we think this does."

          Players, coaches and fans were left guessing on how the rule will impact the game. NFL Players Association president Eric Winston took to Twitter to share his thoughts.



          According to NFL research, nearly one out of every two helmet-to-helmet hits caused a concussion in 2017. That's up from a ratio of one out of every three in 2015. NFL chief medical officer Allen Sills said in February that the current concussion data had sparked a "call to action," and on Tuesday he said this rule would be a key part of reducing head injuries in 2018.

          "We spoke previously this year of having an all-time high of concussions," Sills said. "And we said that wasn't acceptable, and that we would respond to this, and this was part of the response. This is a very key component of the injury-reduction strategy on how we can reduce concussions immediately."

          The competition committee initially planned to make lowering the helmet a 2018 point of emphasis rather than a rule change, McKay said. But after a leaguewide discussion Tuesday, owners instructed McKay to convert it to language that could be added to the rule book immediately. The league called a late-afternoon news conference and acknowledged that some parts of the rule still must be fleshed out.

          At the top of the list is how to merge a long-standing league ethos against two issues: wide-ranging ejections...
          -03-28-2018, 05:14 AM
        • r8rh8rmike
          'Tuck Rule": NFL Could Eliminate Controversial Call
          by r8rh8rmike
          'Tuck Rule': NFL could eliminate controversial call

          By Gregg Rosenthal
          Around The League Editor
          Published: March 14, 2013 at 03:21 p.m.

          The NFL Competition Committee held a conference call Thursday to go over possible rule change proposals that will be discussed at the NFL Annual Meeting, which starts Sunday in Phoenix.

          One item on the agenda is sure to be cheered by Oakland Raiders fans, although the notion probably will be seen as too little, too late.

          The NFL will propose to eliminate "The Tuck Rule."

          The change would make it so a player loses possession when he tries to bring the ball back to his body. (Yes, then Tom Brady's play should have been ruled a fumble in that case.) If the passer loses control while the ball is going forward, it's still incomplete. If he loses the ball while tucking, it's a fumble.

          This is a rule that never made a lot of sense to us in the first place. We're not sure why it took more than a decade after the Patriots-Raiders divisional-round playoff game after the 2001 season for this rule to change.

          Other proposals included:

          The league would change the rules regarding illegally throwing the challenge flag. This is in response to last season's Thanksgiving game, in which a Houston Texans touchdown could not be reviewed after Detroit Lions coach Jim Schwartz illegally throw a flag. Moving forward, the play still would be reviewed no matter what. Any coach who illegally challenges a play would be charged a timeout. He wouldn't get the timeout back even if he wins the challenge. If the team is out of timeouts, it would be charged a 15-yard penalty.

          Call this the "Jim Schwartz Rule." It's a no-brainer.

          The league would allow H-backs to wear uniform numbers 40 through 49.

          The league also will propose three player health and safety rules. They include eliminating low blocks when offensive players are going toward their own end lines in the tackle box. One other proposal includes not allowing a runner to initiate contact with the crown of his helmet when outside the tackle box. This is sure to be a hot topic.

          NFL owners will vote on these proposals, among other more minor ones, at the annual meeting.
          -03-14-2013, 05:12 PM
        • laram0
          NFL Rule: Overtime
          by laram0
          Should the overtime rules be changed?
          -01-08-2009, 06:37 AM
        • RamWraith
          NFL rule benefits Seahawks
          by RamWraith
          By Jim Thomas
          ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
          Monday, Oct. 16 2006

          A little-known wrinkle in the NFL rulebook worked against the Rams in the
          closing moments of Sunday's 30-28 loss to Seattle.

          Because Seattle was flagged for an illegal-formation penalty -- and not, say, a
          false start -- there was no 10-second runoff on the game clock. Seattle
          quarterback Matt Hasselbeck hurriedly spiked the ball with 4 seconds remaining
          when the penalty was called.

          "It was an illegal formation," referee Ed Hochuli told a pool reporter. "The
          players were all set, but the widest receiver, instead of being up on the line
          of scrimmage, he was in the backfield, putting only six men on the line of
          scrimmage."

          So that was the penalty. But why no 10-second runoff?

          "There are limited penalties that give a 10-second runoff, and this is just not
          one of those on the list," Hochuli said. "There's only three or four penalties
          that bring with them a 10-second runoff. The common ones are the false start,
          or when the teams are not all set. If that happens when there's less than a
          minute to go in the (game), there's a 10-second runoff. But this is just not
          one of those penalties."

          If the 10-second runoff had occurred, the game would have ended with the Rams
          winning 28-27. Without the runoff, Seattle had a chance to attempt a 54-yard
          field goal, which place-kicker Josh Brown drilled for the game-winning points.

          Interestingly, Rams defensive end Leonard Little said he heard Hochuli tell
          other members of his officiating crew that there were two penalties on the
          play: false start and illegal formation.

          "That's what he said," Little said. "I thought you run 10 seconds off the clock
          with a false start.

          "He said something like: 'The quarterback's going to (spike) the ball anyway.'
          That shouldn't make a difference. ... I think we got the short end of the stick
          with how that went. But I'm not an official. I don't know all the rules that go
          along with that. We came up short. If we'd have gone out and stopped them on
          that drive on defense, we would've won that game."
          -10-16-2006, 05:35 AM
        Working...
        X