Rule changes that passed
 

Link: [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3325273"]ESPN - Owners table re-seeding playoffs proposal; pass other rules - NFL[/URL]

Among the proposals that were passed:

• A recommendation to eliminate force-out decisions on pass completions near the sidelines. Now, officials will only have to decide whether a receiver landed inbounds or not. The intended result is more consistency.

• The "Phil Dawson field goal rule." Now, certain field goals can be reviewed by instant replay, including kicks that bounce off the uprights. Under the previous system, no field goals could be reviewed.

• Deferring the opening coin toss. This is similar to the college rule. Previously, the winner of the coin toss could only choose to receive or to kick off.

• A direct snap from center that goes backward will now be treated as a fumble. Previously, it was ruled a false start.

• Eliminating the 5-yard face mask penalty. Now, only the serious face mask will be called (and will be assessed as a 15-yard penalty). The major foul will involve twisting or grabbing the face mask.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

Didn't the one defensive player also gets communication to the sideline get passed also.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=Mattyk72;436848]Link: [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3325273"]ESPN - Owners table re-seeding playoffs proposal; pass other rules - NFL[/URL]

Among the proposals that were passed:

• A recommendation to eliminate force-out decisions on pass completions near the sidelines. Now, officials will only have to decide whether a receiver landed inbounds or not. The intended result is more consistency.

• The "Phil Dawson field goal rule." Now, certain field goals can be reviewed by instant replay, including kicks that bounce off the uprights. Under the previous system, no field goals could be reviewed.

• Deferring the opening coin toss. This is similar to the college rule. Previously, the winner of the coin toss could only choose to receive or to kick off.

• A direct snap from center that goes backward will now be treated as a fumble. Previously, it was ruled a false start.

• Eliminating the 5-yard face mask penalty. Now, only the serious face mask will be called (and will be assessed as a 15-yard penalty). The major foul will involve twisting or grabbing the face mask.[/quote]

One more, and Coach Zorn voted against this rule.

[url=http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=11026]Recap of League Meetings[/url]

On Tuesday, the owners approved a communication device in the helmet of one defensive player.
One defensive player will wear a helmet similar to what the quarterback is allowed on offense. Should that player leave the game, a teammate can be designated to also have the device. But only one defender with the device can be on the field at a time.
As for the defensive communications device, the vote was 25-7 in favor (24 yes votes were required) and all seven negatives came from head coaches with offensive backgrounds.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan_nn;436852]One more, and Coach Zorn voted against this rule.

[url=http://www.redskins.com/news/newsDetail.jsp?id=11026]Recap of League Meetings[/url]

On Tuesday, the owners approved a communication device in the helmet of one defensive player.
One defensive player will wear a helmet similar to what the quarterback is allowed on offense. Should that player leave the game, a teammate can be designated to also have the device. But only one defender with the device can be on the field at a time.
As for the defensive communications device, the vote was 25-7 in favor (24 yes votes were required) and all seven negatives came from head coaches with offensive backgrounds.[/QUOTE]

Good for defense, will be easier play calling. Who will get it on our defense, London Fletcher?

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=SeanTaylor21;436856]Good for defense, will be easier play calling. Who will get it on our defense, London Fletcher?[/quote]

I also like the rule. Especially when playing home games I could see this possibly being helpful to a degree.

I would certainly think FLETCH he is the Captain of our defense.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

Couple things, the changing the force out rule without giving some “compensation” to the receiver (how about one foot in bounds, a la NCAA) will hurt receivers. What about if a DB was able to carry a receiver coming down out of bounds? The wording implies that that would be ok and that would be stupid.

On the facemask penalty, where was the outcry for this? Does this mean that ALL grabbing the mask is 15 yards or only the more egregious? This will be far more difficult for officials since there is an all or nothing element to something that if they weren’t quite sure there would be at least some penalty.

They just can’t keep from screwing around with things that aren’t broken, IMO.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=lwiedy;436875]Couple things, the changing the force out rule without giving some “compensation” to the receiver (how about one foot in bounds, a la NCAA) will hurt receivers. What about if a DB was able to carry a receiver coming down out of bounds? The wording implies that that would be ok and that would be stupid.

On the facemask penalty, where was the outcry for this? Does this mean that ALL grabbing the mask is 15 yards or only the more egregious? This will be far more difficult for officials since there is an all or nothing element to something that if they weren’t quite sure there would be at least some penalty.

They just can’t keep from screwing around with things that aren’t broken, IMO.[/quote]

The facemask clearly says twisting and grabbing. I like this rule becuase offense wont get lucky breaks becuase a tackler accidently put a hand on the mask.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

WTF does deferring a coin toss mean?

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

The force out rule is kind of iffy in my opinion. So are they saying the receiver has to clearly be coming down in bounce? Are they basically saying there is no more force out rule established? If so, DB's certainly have an edge now. I guess it's ok though. I mean most of the rule changes have been for the WR's. About time they paid attention to the defense.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=Redskin;436879]The facemask clearly says twisting and grabbing. I like this rule becuase offense wont get lucky breaks becuase [B]a tackler accidently put a hand on the mask[/B].[/QUOTE]

When is it NOT done accidently? This is not one of those ancient rules that finally the league is catching up with, the rule originally was 15 yards only and they added the 5 maybe 25 years ago.

There will have to be some that used to get fives that will be upped to 15 (which will be an automatic 1st down) and if that happens in a critical situation, just wait for the outcry. Or an official will swallow the whistle because he's not sure and miss the call entirely.

The point is, with replay (which this is not reviewable) there are going to be increased second guessing BOTH ways whereas before, there was an option when the evidence is not quite clear.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

• Deferring the opening coin toss. This is similar to the college rule. Previously, the winner of the coin toss could only choose to receive or to kick off.

What are the other choices to start with? Either you pick to kick or receive.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

Deferring the opening coin toss:

You let the other team decide what to do with the ball.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=saden1;436921]Deferring the opening coin toss:

You let the other team decide what to do with the ball.[/quote]

Basically if you are to much of a vag and you can't make a decision you let the other team.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

I believe what it means is you let the other team decide what to do in the in the beginning of the game and then you decide the start of the 2nd half. Usually the team that receives in the first half, kickoffs to start the second.

But that wouldn't neccesarily be the case here. Theoretically you could kickoff or receive twice. By deferring until the 2nd half you have the opportunity to get a sense of the flow of the game, weather conditions, etc. And then make your decision then.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=SmootSmack;436932]I believe what it means is you let the other team decide what to do in the in the beginning of the game and then you decide the start of the 2nd half. Usually the team that receives in the first half, kickoffs to start the second.

But that wouldn't neccesarily be the case here. Theoretically you could kickoff or receive twice. By deferring until the 2nd half you have the opportunity to get a sense of the flow of the game, weather conditions, etc. And then make your decision then.[/quote]

hmm, or if you playing a team like the Bears, you might want to kick to them twice because their offense may give better field position rather than going against their D. Interesting.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=hooskins;436933]hmm, or if you playing a team like the Bears, you might want to kick to them twice because their offense may give better field position rather than going against their D. Interesting.[/quote]


Only if they kick it out of bounds and away from Devin Hester! LOL

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

I am concerned about the force out for receivers.
Now there will be an incredible incentive to drill a WR on a sideline patters....especially if they are moving.

There is gunna be some serious hitting on the sidelines because of this.
Hopefully they don't go low to drive the legs out of bounds.

Although I hate the earlier subjective "force out" rule....I worry about the lack of it....especially year 1. After that, things should settle down.

All I can say is WRs should be prepared for a whale of a hit if they are near the sidelines.
Smaller WR's watch out!

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=skinsnut;436986]I am concerned about the force out for receivers.
[B]Now there will be an incredible incentive to drill a WR on a sideline patters....especially if they are moving.[/B]

There is gunna be some serious hitting on the sidelines because of this.
Hopefully they don't go low to drive the legs out of bounds.

Although I hate the earlier subjective "force out" rule....I worry about the lack of it....especially year 1. After that, things should settle down.

All I can say is WRs should be prepared for a whale of a hit if they are near the sidelines.
Smaller WR's watch out![/quote]

Isn't there always an incentive to drill someone if the opportunity is there?

The rule was too subjective, I like that they are taking it away.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=hooskins;436931]Basically if you are to much of a vag and you can't make a decision you let the other team.[/quote]

I didn't know this was a rule in the NFL, but I had always noticed that in the NFL teams will always take the ball if they win the toss, but in college teams often choose to kick off (actually, what they do is defer the choice). I am assuming, then, that previously when you won the toss in the NFL you could choose to kick or receive, but if you chose to kick then you would actually end up kicking twice because winning the toss simply gave you the opportunity to choose kick/receive for the first half and in the opening of the second half the other team would obviously choose to receive (since they lost the coin toss in the first half they would then be given the chance to choose in the second). Now a team could defer the choice to the second half, thereby giving themselves the ability to receive coming out of the half - whereas previously that was not possible.

Previously, just because you kicked off in the first half did not give the right to receive in the second. It only worked that way because the team that won the toss would always choose to receive (so as not to kick off twice) and thus in the second half the other team would (essentially by default, because who would give up a possession) receive. If you chose to kick in the first you would end up kicking off in both halves because the team that lost the toss in the first would get first choice in the second [url=http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/cointoss]NFL Rules Digest: Coin Toss[/url]. It doesn't work like this in Madden (perhaps where some of the confusion stems from) because there if you choose to kick in the first half you automatically receive in the second.

So that is a long way of saying it has nothing to do with being a "vag", as you put it.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;437043]I didn't know this was a rule in the NFL, but I had always noticed that in the NFL teams will always take the ball if they win the toss, but in college teams often choose to kick off (actually, what they do is defer the choice). I am assuming, then, that previously when you won the toss in the NFL you could choose to kick or receive, but if you chose to kick then you would actually end up kicking twice because winning the toss simply gave you the opportunity to choose kick/receive for the first half and in the opening of the second half the other team would obviously choose to receive (since they lost the coin toss in the first half they would then be given the chance to choose in the second). Now a team could defer the choice to the second half, thereby giving themselves the ability to receive coming out of the half - whereas previously that was not possible.

Previously, just because you kicked off in the first half did not give the right to receive in the second. It only worked that way because the team that won the toss would always choose to receive (so as not to kick off twice) and thus in the second half the other team would (essentially by default, because who would give up a possession) receive. If you chose to kick in the first you would end up kicking off in both halves because the team that lost the toss in the first would get first choice in the second [URL="http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/cointoss"]NFL Rules Digest: Coin Toss[/URL]. It doesn't work like this in Madden (perhaps where some of the confusion stems from) because there if you choose to kick in the first half you automatically receive in the second.

So that is a long way of saying it has nothing to do with being a "vag", as you put it.[/quote]

Honestly I think the way it is in Madden messed me up too on this.

Most of the time in Madden I choose to kickoff so I can have the ball first in the 2nd half. I guess I just thought that was the way it is in the NFL too.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=Mattyk72;437047]Honestly I think the way it is in Madden messed me up too on this.

Most of the time in Madden I choose to kickoff so I can have the ball first in the 2nd half. I guess I just thought that was the way it is in the NFL too.[/quote]

I do too, which is why I thought maybe that was where the confusion stemmed from (being that it is such a cultural icon). I actually didn't know you couldn't defer in the NFL until I saw this thread and saw that they were instituting the rule. I had actually always wondered why I had never seen a team win the toss and do anything but choose to receive, even though that happens all the time in high school and college. Now that makes perfect sense.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72;437001]Isn't there always an incentive to drill someone if the opportunity is there?

The rule was too subjective, I like that they are taking it away.[/QUOTE]

You are right about it being too subjective, but you have now penalized the offense (yeah I know, "who cares, everything favors the offense).

I see very little complaints with the NCAA rule of no force out but only one foot in. This would give the receiver a better chance dealing with the DB's as the mechanics of getting one down is far easier than two.

Point is, take something, give something.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

i think deferring the toss means you can choose the wind to be on your side in the 4th instead of kicking or recieving first

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=SC Skins Fan;437053]I do too, which is why I thought maybe that was where the confusion stemmed from (being that it is such a cultural icon). I actually didn't know you couldn't defer in the NFL until I saw this thread and saw that they were instituting the rule. I had actually always wondered why I had never seen a team win the toss and do anything but choose to receive, even though that happens all the time in high school and college. Now that makes perfect sense.[/quote]

Interesting, and I was wrong. Well I was kinda joking about the whole "vag" thing because I did not know what deferring met.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

Didn’t hear this until today. They are looking at the stiff arm to the facemask as a legal maneuver. Without details, it may be premature to speculate but if they get rid of it, good riddance.

I’m as old school as anyone, but why have ball carriers been immune from what everyone else isn’t. With apologies to Walter Payton fans, this has to go.

I have been very critical of the rash of rule changes, but I must admit, I approve of this.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=lwiedy;437501]Didn’t hear this until today. They are looking at the stiff arm to the facemask as a legal maneuver. Without details, it may be premature to speculate but if they get rid of it, good riddance.

I’m as old school as anyone, but why have ball carriers been immune from what everyone else isn’t. With apologies to Walter Payton fans, this has to go.

I have been very critical of the rash of rule changes, but I must admit, I approve of this.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, if defense got communication thing then why not make them completely even and make offensive facemask a penalty.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[quote=skinsguy;436908]The force out rule is kind of iffy in my opinion. So are they saying the receiver has to clearly be coming down in bounce? Are they basically saying there is no more force out rule established? If so, DB's certainly have an edge now. I guess it's ok though. I mean most of the rule changes have been for the WR's. About time they paid attention to the defense.[/quote]This is a good rule change. Too many times we have seen critical forceout calls made that were strictly a judgement call. The biggest problem is that it was not open to review. Now any sideline reception will be open to review, and two feet will have to come down inbounds.

Having Landry playing deep safety might be an advantage on deep sideline throws where he uses his range to force the receiver out. Lord, what might have been with Landry AND Taylor playing a 2-deep zone.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;436933]hmm, or if you playing a team like the Bears, you might want to kick to them twice because their offense may give better field position rather than going against their D. Interesting.[/QUOTE]

Who in the hell would want to kick to Hester twice?

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=lwiedy;436875]Couple things, the changing the force out rule without giving some “compensation” to the receiver (how about one foot in bounds, a la NCAA) will hurt receivers. What about if a DB was able to carry a receiver coming down out of bounds? The wording implies that that would be ok and that would be stupid.

On the facemask penalty, where was the outcry for this? Does this mean that ALL grabbing the mask is 15 yards or only the more egregious? This will be far more difficult for officials since there is an all or nothing element to something that if they weren’t quite sure there would be at least some penalty.

They just can’t keep from screwing around with things that aren’t broken, IMO.[/QUOTE]

Carry outs are against the rules, other articles I've read on it have mentioned this.

The receivers have been given enough compensation on everything else that the db's SHOULD get something.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;436931]Basically if you are to much of a vag and you can't make a decision you let the other team.[/QUOTE]

You're deferring your choice to the 2nd half, not giving up your decision altogether.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;436933]hmm, or if you playing a team like the Bears, you might want to kick to them twice because their offense may give better field position rather than going against their D. Interesting.[/QUOTE]

Uh.... no. You dont want to kick to Devin Hester once, much less twice. You idiot.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

1997Prelude has been permanently banned. First off, the sig was way out of line and inappropriate. Secondly, in his first two posts he called out others as idiots. Thirdly, the genius can't even spell Sean Taylor correctly.

Hooskins, while tempting, don't respond to his post. He's done here.

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

[QUOTE=SmootSmack;438081]1997Prelude has been permanently banned. First off, the sig was way out of line and inappropriate. Secondly, in his first two posts he called out others as idiots. Thirdly, the genius can't even spell Sean Taylor correctly.

Hooskins, while tempting, don't respond to his post. He's done here.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://www.coipa.org/Images/Miscellaneous/EasyButton.jpg[/IMG]

Re: Rule changes that passed
 

did he set a record for being the fastest person banned? it only took 2 posts?