NFL Rule Change?

[colowoz]

Good games from 4 top teams competing for the Championships we marred by a no call in the Rams / Saints game that effected the outcome of the game ( this will be discussed as time goes by)

Another tie'd game in Kansas city gave the ball to the Patriots first on OT. So it was seen as the team that wins the coin toss has a advantage. Controversy as to whether the other team should be given a chance on Offense ?

These subjects will be discussed at great length, As these games decide what teams go to the Big Game.The NFL should do a better job of this. Many fans have lost interest, and since gambling is big business on the outcome, they must get it right.

[orange crush75]

I absolutely agree. Both teams should get a possession. If the chiefs were given a chance who knows what happens . Imagine if baseball went to extra innings and the home team didnt get their at bats.

[MHOC]

What would y’all think if they changed the rule to one possession each for the SB in two weeks.


Be hilarious if the game turned out like that again

[CanDB]

Good thread!

I am convinced The NFL will, or at least should, rethink OT, especially in the playoffs. Lets think objectively, not who we want to have won the game. Both Os should get a shot. I don't mind the way the rule is, in part, so that when one team scores a FG, the other team gets one chance to tie or win. But an opening drive TD should not close the deal. What I would prefer (as of 15 minutes ago) is a 10, 12 or 15 minute OT, whatever makes the most sense.

If still tied, for the sake of time, perhaps the next score wins, That way teams will be well into the flow of OT, and do whatever they can to win as the OT period concludes.

[broncolee]

No need to change the rule.

Play defense.

[Butler By'Note]

When you give up 3 separate 3rd and 10 conversions, you don't deserve to have the ball in OT. If the Chefs had played some offense in the first half, or some defense in the second half/OT then fans wouldn't be whining about how unfair the rules are.

Does anyone think that Chef fans would have been upset in 2011 if Pittsburgh had scored a TD on the first play of OT and Denver didn't get a possession?

[Bronco51]

Leave OT the way it is. If your team can’t get motivated to make a stop in crunch time, too bad. If your offense decides to play like Keenum and this years Broncos in crunch time, too bad. Same with adding new replay rules. What if an egregious call that will effect the outcome of the game happens at 2:05? Refs make horrible calls at times, I personally don’t want to see multiple stoppages to look at replays in the last 2 minutes.

Maybe I’m the ‘get off my lawn’ guy.

[Butler By'Note]

Leave OT the way it is. If your team can’t get motivated to make a stop in crunch time, too bad. If your offense decides to play like Keenum and this years Broncos in crunch time, too bad. Same with adding new replay rules. What if an egregious call that will effect the outcome of the game happens at 2:05? Refs make horrible calls at times, I personally don’t want to see multiple stoppages to look at replays in the last 2 minutes.

Maybe I’m the ‘get off my lawn’ guy.

I actually agree with Belichick's thinking on replay. He's long argued that coaches should be able to challenge anything with their two challenges. If they want to challenge a penalty so be it. They only have two challenges and they lose a timeout if they're wrong, so let them decide what and when they want to use them.

[Al Wilson 4 Mayor]

Leave OT the way it is. If your team can’t get motivated to make a stop in crunch time, too bad. If your offense decides to play like Keenum and this years Broncos in crunch time, too bad. Same with adding new replay rules. What if an egregious call that will effect the outcome of the game happens at 2:05? Refs make horrible calls at times, I personally don’t want to see multiple stoppages to look at replays in the last 2 minutes.

Maybe I’m the ‘get off my lawn’ guy.

Sometimes the get off my lawn guy has redeeming qualities.

See Grand Torino.

[CanDB]

What do you folks think of the CFL's rule, whereby, if you have a challenge to use and a time out, you can have a play reviewed for potential pass interference calls.

[Butler By'Note]

What do you folks think of the CFL's rule, whereby, if you have a challenge to use and a time out, you can have a play reviewed for potential pass interference calls.

I hate the way it was initially run (not sure if it's still done this way) where coaches could challenge illegal contact on a play and they would go to replay and go through every receiver and every DB to see if there was any illegal contact on the play, and if there was it was a penalty.

I like being able to challenge anything, but I would specify that the coach that challenges needs to say exactly what they're challenging and with which players. No fishing expeditions like the CFL had.

[broncolee]

If they want to make PI reviewable, they should automatically review called PI penalties. The game is stopped anyway.

Coaches should be able to challenge uncalled PI, if they choose to do so, without adding to the number of challenges allowed.

[CanDB]

I hate the way it was initially run (not sure if it's still done this way) where coaches could challenge illegal contact on a play and they would go to replay and go through every receiver and every DB to see if there was any illegal contact on the play, and if there was it was a penalty.

I like being able to challenge anything, but I would specify that the coach that challenges needs to say exactly what they're challenging and with which players. No fishing expeditions like the CFL had.

Fair enough....

I am not keen about some CFL rules, but thought that one might be worth a try.

Growing up here and knowing the CFL game first, I grew to like the NFL...then love it. And the games are distinct in some obvious ways, like number of downs, field size, number of players. I used to wonder how you couldn't get 10 yards on 4 flippin downs! (ha ha). But the one rule I never have loved, even as a kid, was the punt, whereby a player could make a play of it, call a fair catch (both good so far) or let it bounce around with a bunch of huge men following it around on the ground like puppy dogs! It looked weird to me, and to this day, I think it still looks kind of goofy. I prefer a player receives it, fair catch or not. Hey, not a biggee. As for The CFL's punt return, what is good goes a bit sour, because we have always had some goofy "no yards" rules, where the punting team gets penalized for getting "too close" to the returner, before the ball is touched.


Lets just chalk it up to....punting is nice, but it's not the primary reason for playing!

[Bronco51]

What do you folks think of the CFL's rule, whereby, if you have a challenge to use and a time out, you can have a play reviewed for potential pass interference calls.

Don’t know all the specifics of it. My only problem is what happens if a coach challenges for PI but during the replay, it shows the offensive player put his hands on the defender first? Do they call offensive PI because the replay dictates it? And how strict are they calling it? If the hands graze or touch in normal contact? I just see it creating something else to complain about. But I am not sure how effective it has been in the CFL.

[Butler By'Note]

Don’t know all the specifics of it. My only problem is what happens if a coach challenges for PI but during the replay, it shows the offensive player put his hands on the defender first? Do they call offensive PI because the replay dictates it? And how strict are they calling it? If the hands graze or touch in normal contact? I just see it creating something else to complain about. But I am not sure how effective it has been in the CFL.

Here's the insanity of the CFL rules on challenging, summed up in one play I saw in 2017. Calgary threw deep and caught the ball despite obvious interference, on replay it looked like he dropped the ball. Saskatchewan challenges, it's deemed a drop and the ball is returned to the original line of scrimmage. Calgary then challenges that there was PI, after review it's deemed there was PI and the ball was moved up to where it was marked after the catch.

So on one play there was two challenges, taking 3-4 minutes of time total, both challenges were good, and the ball ended up exactly where it would have been had no challenges been used.

I don't want that in NFL games, but I like the idea of challenging PI as long as it's one of your two challenges.