NFL meeting: rules, changes, replacing tags.

Oh how that game pissed me off. Just like the Bucs debacle but I understand that there will be mistakes made. Hell I can find EVERY holding, pass interference, horse collar, fumble, or any call that may have been missed by a ref after I get to see it again on t.v. I know that no matter what I will watch the games but I know, excuse me, I feel that there are some fishy things that go on. I don't know if it's me but since The Danny has gotten here I feel there is some sort of vendetta against the Redskins. Not just from the media but the league as well. A lot of calls go aginst the Skins that wouldn't for another team. Then again maybe I feel that way because I am a Redskins fan, who knows ? The point is that there will always be calls that someone misses, and there will be some that I see that really weren't there. I just don't like to see my team F'd over, plain and simple.

Redskins vs Panthers '03 I think- Steven Davis' fumble I mean touchdown

Anyone remember that crap ? Anyhoo, take it easy folks !


HAIL !!!!

It'd be pretty ridculous to think that every official employed by the NFL is equally unbiased to all 32 NFL teams. So some shady stuff probably does occur from time to time. However, I think a lot of fans, all teams represented, feel that calls that go against their team are due to some conspiracy against them and thats just not the case. Although I'm sure someone somewhere with influence has had a bias against the Redskins, a majority of bad calls are simply that, a bad call. Nothing more, nothing less.

NFL | Tagliabue to choose committee for commissioner search
Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:21:33 -0800

The Associated Press reports NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue will choose a committee during the owner's meetings to search for his successor. Possible members include Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, Houston Texans owner Bob McNair, Jacksonville Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver, New York Giants owner John Mara and Oakland Raiders chief executive officer Amy Trask.

Bengals | Team considering selling naming rights to stadium
Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:32:32 -0800

Mark Curnutte, of the Cincinnati Enquirer, reports the NFL's new labor deal will force the Cincinnati Bengals to find new revenue options, which could lead to selling the naming rights to Paul Brown Stadium. "We'll be thinking about a lot of things," said Bengals owner Mike Brown. "We're going to have to adapt to this deal, and the best way to do that is find whatever revenue streams wherever we can find them." Brown paid $5 million for the rights before the stadium opened, which went towards the team's $44 million contribution to construction. Had a company wanted the naming rights, the next $11.67 million would have gone to the Bengals. Anything beyond that amount would have been split between the county (30 percent) and the team (70 percent), according to stadium documents.

interesting on the bengals selling naming rights... and that the city gets 30% of that money. I guess the bengals figured it wouldn't matter since they'd never sell them, but thats not a good thing to put into a contract.

NFL | Los Angeles stadium update
Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:50:52 -0800

ESPN.com's John Clayton reports NFL owners listened to updates on the status of stadium plans for Anaheim and the Los Angeles Coliseum, and might be prepared to vote on a preference in their May meeting in Denver. The LA Coliseum is believed to be the leading candidate at the moment.

NFL | Tagliabue trying to stop poison pills
Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:59:13 -0800

Mike Sando, of the Tacoma News Tribune, reports NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue said he plans to speak with NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw about putting a stop to the poison-pill offer sheets signed by Minnesota Vikings OG Steve Hutchinson and WR Nate Burleson.


who didn't see that coming?

Steelers | A. Rooney wins executive award
Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:39:36 -0800

Ed Bouchette, of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney will be named the NFL executive of the year by the Sporting News.

OK No on the Horse Collar rule I agree people get hurth but come on it's football you're sopouse 2 be tough I played the game my hole life its a physicall sport that's why I love it if you don't want contact play baseball that's a sport evenb girls can play.

every time they put more of this rules to protect the players it hurts the game yeah they are trying to prevent unecesary injuries but hey at 1 point it's going to become flag football.

No on the rule for Quarterbacks .... come on there's no real way tha ta Defensive player can controle that really I played DE my hole life you can try not hitting him in the face but really once you're in the air you can stop.

No on the celebration rule... .they're taking away some of the spectacule and emotion out of the game when I used to play in college and made a sack or returned a Fumble for a TD you had to control your emotions because it cost you a flag and it SUCKED ( I got flag a lot hahaha), this is a mans high testosterone sport humilliate the other team is part of the game ( offcourse there are limmits) but to say no it takes the fun out of the game.

yes on making all the calls reviewable come on we all had questionable flags like pass interferance that weren't there and got called and sometimes there're some that don't get called I remmember last year thanksgiven game against Denver great game it went to OT and on the run that Ron Dayne almost took for a TD but sealled the game there was a clear holding on Glover that didn't get called it should be reviewable because it totally afected the outcome of that game.

Yes on taking away fall starts that don't have an outcome on the play (flinches) how many times a fallstart has been called and you can't even see it on replay ..... example Seattle in the SB.

No on expanding the playoffs from 12 to 14 or 16 teams, taht blows it's going to let mediocare teams get in to the playoffs and its going to take away achievements teams have done trough out the season. After the games we lost last year and ow we were playing I didn't believe we deserved to be in the playoffs and with the new rule we might had a chance I just don't like it the playoffs is for the best team in each conference not the somewhat best and even wit hthat we get 8-8 teams in the current way.

Yes on defensive players to use head phones for signals it gives the same chance as it does to QB's

Yes on reducing the callenge from 90 to 60 seconds, it just takes 2 long and if the referee didn't saw desputable evidance that it should over rule the call on the field in 60 second he won't see it in 90 it just makes it boring.

the QB rule isn't really enforceable in any way. I agree with you except on the horse collar (but your team has roy williams, so big surprise there). Its really unsafe and, like chop blocks, ends up with unneeded injuries.

the QB rule isn't really enforceable in any way. I agree with you except on the horse collar (but your team has roy williams, so big surprise there). Its really unsafe and, like chop blocks, ends up with unneeded injuries.

The reason I'm Against it is that I played DE my hole life and sometimes a runner would go past you or a receiver in a screen and the only way you could bring him down and prevent a score it's was by grabing him from behind you're playing catch up with guys that are faster than you.

And this rule got a lot of attention because it produce 3 injury's in 1 year bad luck really last year it didn't get called once and no real injury happend and I know you're going to call the Portis play where he was brought down from the back and had to sit for a few plays, man players get banged up each week what about the concussion Alexander faced against you guys that it completly took him out of the game.

You see freaky injuries all the time it's part of the game you can't prevent it players fall occuard and brake a leg or hand it happends all the time, did you see anything wrong in the play Carson Palmer gut hurth I didn't and stil are thinking on putting a rule to prevent it YOU CAN'T, and every time you put more rules on how the game is played and how they can tackle it takes fun away from the game.

We love R. Williams and Sean Taylor Highlights seeing does hits and bringing down the pain wel levery time we make them more conciuos on how they have to bring down a player it take away their instinc tha tmakes them great.

All thsi rule sometimes are so dull it upsets at least me or don't you get upset when you see a flag for personal foul against the QB for hands in the face where you barelly see a DL touch a qb in the face and him making so much drama like a kicker and it cost you 15 yards, it's ridiculous.

A player can just as easily go for the legs rather than reaching for a collar, that's my main problem with the horse collar.

Wrenching a player backward against their own momentum is just a dangerous tackle.

Get rid of it.

And it seems to me it's much HARDER to reach out and grab them from behind rather than going for the legs.

NFL | League cutting down on sideline traffic
Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:38:37 -0800

Mike O'Hara, of the Detroit News, reports local television affiliates were removed from the sidelines under a policy adopted Tuesday, March 28, by the NFL owners. They no longer will be allowed on the sidelines during games, which prevents them from shooting footage to show on news and highlight shows.

this would be bad for local fans :/