NFL: Rule Changes

[mj4cy]

None of these are too earth shattering, but I think the all face mask penalties now being an automatic 15 yarder will make a difference.

Proposal to reseed NFL playoffs teams withdrawn by owners - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

 

[superdorf]

The 5-yard penalty for incidental contact with a facemask has been eliminated, with the 15-yarder remaining for any grasping or twisting of the facemask.

I think that I read that as incidental face mask not being a penalty period... But the major facemask still a penalty.

I think making the incidental face mask a 15 yard penalty would not be good.

 

[ISUAlum2002]

I agree, any incidental face mask being a 15 yard penalty would be disastrous. Hopefully it has been eliminated completely.

 

[cycloneworld]

I force out rule for receivers is also gone. Receivers now have to get 2 feet in bounds no matter what. That will give a big advantage to the defensive player.

 

[drmwevr08]

I hated that push out rule, great change!

 

[tim_redd]

I'd like to see some skinny WR jump and catch the ball in the middle of the field and have a LB catch him and carry him to the sideline.

 

[cyclonemaniac7]

I'd like to see some skinny WR jump and catch the ball in the middle of the field and have a LB catch him and carry him to the sideline.

Very funny. :biglaugh:

 

[cmoneyr]

I force out rule for receivers is also gone. Receivers now have to get 2 feet in bounds no matter what. That will give a big advantage to the defensive player.

Thank god, I was waiting for them to change that. The defender should be able to do whatever he needs to do to keep the WR from staying inbounds.

 

[Wesley]

Will the hair below the helmet line be gone also? Too bad for the Packers. I always knew who the players were by their hair hanging out behind. And will Chad Johnson be a Bengal?

 

[Mr Janny]

Receivers now have to get 2 feet in bounds no matter what. That will give a big advantage to the defensive player.

The D-backs need anything they can get. Receivers have so many more advantages than they used to. This change isn't a big one. How many times do you really see force outs called? It's not going to affect that many games.

I heard that discussion on the Kansas City Rule, (Long hair rule) was being tabled until a later meeting, which is usually what happens when they want to kill a proposal. That's what they just did with the Playoff Seeding Restructuring Proposal. They put it to a preliminary vote, saw that it didn't have near enough support, and then postponed the vote to a later meeting, effectively killing the motion. That's what I heard, anyway.

 

[MrGreg]

I force out rule for receivers is also gone. Receivers now have to get 2 feet in bounds no matter what. That will give a big advantage to the defensive player.

Thank goodness, it's about time! This was the most ridiculous rule. And even if it didn't affect many games, it certainly affected the outcome of one game/season that I remember clearly...

/Bitter Vikings fan :realmad:

 

[brianhos]

I'd like to see some skinny WR jump and catch the ball in the middle of the field and have a LB catch him and carry him to the sideline.

That will happen at some point... And then the rule will be changed again.

 

[Mr Janny]

/Bitter Vikings fan

I'm right there with you. That rule couldn't go soon enough.

In my opinion, it's not that hard to see that it was a bogus rule in the first place. Once the receiver touches the ball, he's free game. As far as I'm concerned, the defender is free to unload on him. Getting two feet in bounds is the receiver's problem. Guys like Cris Carter were never affected by rules like this, because he had a great sense of himself, and knew how to get his feet in, regardless of the situation.

 

[Whin4Cy]

I'd like to see some skinny WR jump and catch the ball in the middle of the field and have a LB catch him and carry him to the sideline.

Actually, if you read a little more you will see this has already been addressed by the rules people:
"Eliminating the forceout rule on receptions. A receiver now must get two feet inbounds unless he actually is carried out of bounds by a defender after catching the ball."
So, it will just come down to whether the refs think the receiver was "carried out of bounds" by the defender. But, I imagine most will just push or hit (w/o wrapping up) the receiver out of bounds.

 

[cloneu]

Actually, if you read a little more you will see this has already been addressed by the rules people:
"Eliminating the forceout rule on receptions. A receiver now must get two feet inbounds unless he actually is carried out of bounds by a defender after catching the ball."
So, it will just come down to whether the refs think the receiver was "carried out of bounds" by the defender. But, I imagine most will just push or hit (w/o wrapping up) the receiver out of bounds.

If a D player was carrying the WR wouldn't the play get stopped on forward progress before the player goes out of bounds anyway, unless it was say 5 yards. I think it would be pretty clear if the defender pushes the guy or carries him out of bounds. Either way I like the rule.

 

[jdoggivjc]

First, I think most defenders are more concerned about getting the receiver down on the ground and not getting burned to come up with something as devious as catching a receiver in mid-air and carrying them out of bounds. Second, this rule change was to remove the judgment call that a ref had to make as to whether he thought that a receiver would land in-bounds or not based on a defender knocking him out of bounds before he could get his feet down. There's no judgment call when a receiver catches a ball at the field numbers and is carried out of bounds - clearly the receiver would have landed in-bounds. See a situation like that and it will be called a catch.