In a shortened off season without much to talk about one of the most discussed topics in football was the in placement of the kickoff spot. Vehement posts and countless comments piled high like stolen dorm room furniture on a college bonfire. There were arguments made for both sides of an issue that had almost no discernible effect on the entertainment level of the actual games. The NFL didn't collapse, people didn't stop watching the games because they had become boring, and the longer fields that teams had to traverse didn't devastate teams' ability to score.
The NFL was able to accomplish exactly what they set out to do (reduce the lopsided percentage of injuries on kick off plays) without ruining the game day experience. There were still plenty of exciting kick return plays. In fact, kick return specialists seemed to take more risks in attempting to run out kicks that really should have been knelt upon. All in all the NFL rules committee, as it seems, made the right decision on a rules change.
But not every rule in the NFL is a good one, and this off season the committee should get back in the board room (or bored room, if that's how you choose to imagine a rules committee meeting) and start reviewing some questionable regulations. There are plenty of NFL rules that serve only to make things way more complex than they need be. Simplification is the key to successful implementation and uniform enforcement if any game rule. The more complex or the more situation specific a rule becomes, the harder it will be for the players, coaches, and fans to get behind.
There's not much to simplify in a changing the kick off yard line. There aren't any special situation or stipulations that must be put in place for any specific types of kick offs. And it doesn't take 10 minutes of rewind and slow motion aided reviews to find out if the ball was spotted on the correct yard line. Simple, understood by all, and easy to enforce; That should be a goal for every rule change.

The Brady Rule:
Is an overly complicated, difficult to define, stupid rule that requires officials to make a split second decision on the direction of travel of a quarterbacks arm at the exact moment he's being surrounded, pulled down, and swiped at by a defender whose currently blocking the view of the person trying to make a judgement call. If it were a running back behind the line of scrimmage getting ready to pitch the ball, would we even be having a discussion?
Sure, we can stop the game and mosey over to a black tarp covered television screen to watch the tape from 5 or 6 different angles for the next 15 minutes (effectively killing the momentum built by one team or the other) but why is that a good thing? I can hear you all commenting now, "because getting it right is more important than doing it quickly." However, in the case of a football rule, 'right' is whatever the rules committee has defined it to be.
Couldn't this be made easier to call, and enforce by taking the quarterbacks intent out of equation? Make no mistake, this rule is about intent, not arm movement. Effectively, the rule says that if the quarterback had the intent to pass the ball, and the throwing motion has already started then a lost ball is not a fumble (it's an incomplete pass).
I say, it doesn't matter what the quarterbacks intent was. It doesn't matter if he wanted to throw a pass. It doesn't matter if he's already chosen a receiver. It doesn't matter which direction his arm is moving. None of that matters because it's not a pass until the ball has actually been passed. A legal forward pass is the act of one player releasing a ball through the air from a position behind the line of scrimmage to another player. Therefore, if the quarterback's hand is still touching the football at the time he or the ball are hit by a defender, it's not a pass. The play does not count as legal forward pass until the player in question has actually passed the ball. Any other situation results in a fumble.
There is no gray area. No need to air 15 more commercials while we review the play. And we completely avoid the torturous conversation by 3 guys in a booth trying to describe the slow motion review for the eleventh time in a row. Even if the play has to go to review it should only take seconds to resolve the matter. "Look! Right there, Eli's still squeezing the ball in his hand when Wilfork's 185 pound forearm (I'm estimating the weight based on the font size of the numbers on his chest) slams down onto Eli's shoulder." He's still holding it. So he hasn't passed it yet, so it's not an incomplete pass.
The Slide Rule:
Let me first say what a steaming pile of male cow excrement this particular stupid rule is. Can we all just agree that if any player is in the act of advancing the ball beyond the line of scrimmage, then he is to be treated as a runner? We don't need any special set of rules for a quarterback that decides they want to run the ball.
If you're such a pansy that you don't think you should be allowed to be tackled, then throw the ball out of bounds and don't try to run it. The moment a quarterback crosses the line of scrimmage they no longer have to option to pass. Because they no longer have the option to pass the ball, they should no longer be protected by 'special' rules designed to protect a passer. They are now a running back. When the NFL decides to put in rules that allow full backs to slide feet first (for an extra yard) and then pick up a bonus 15 yard personal foul flag if a defender breathes on them too hard, then the quarterback slide rule should apply. Until then, it's a stupid rule.
Here's the new rule: If any player is carrying the football and actively advancing it beyond the line of scrimmage, that player is subject to being blasted in the mouth by a battering ram of a linebacker. If you don't like it, don't run it. The defenders don't care which way your feet are pointed, they are too busy targeting your skull.
The Playoff Overtime Rule:
If ever there was a rule that defined the phrase 'overly complicated,' this is it. The modified sudden death system of determining the winner shall prevail when the score is tied at the end of a regular playing time of a postseason NFL game. The system guarantees each team a possession or the opportunity to posses, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on it's initial possession or the initial defending team scores a safety.
The team receiving the initial kickoff must score a touchdown to end the game. If they do not score a touchdown on their initial possession, the rules revert back to regular season sudden death rules whereby the first team to score wins the game; Unless the initial receiving team scored a field goal on the opening possession of the overtime period. In the case the the initial receiving team scores a field goal on their initial possession of a postseason overtime game, the initial defending team will receive one possession in which they are given the opportunity to match or surpass the score of the initial receiving team. Should the score remain tied after the second team to have gained possession of the football in the over time period the game rules revert to regular season sudden death rules.
That's about as clear as mud. I'm sure we can all understand the rules given enough time to digest them, but that doesn't make them any less stupid. There is simply no reason good enough to implement a different set of rules for regular season and post season games. Name one professional sport other then football where individual game rules are different in the post season. I'll wait..... go ahead.... name one.....
I'm sure many of you reading this could come up with a rule that you think would make more sense. I'm not going to argue that I have a better idea than anyone else's idea. I'm just going to argue that the rule should remain consistent from the regular season to the post season. Put 15 minutes on the clock and play a 5th quarter. Change the rule so that the first team to score 6 points in the overtime wins if you're hell bent on taking away a winning filed goal kick on the opening possession. Have all the players march out onto the 50 yard line and measure dicks if you like, just make sure the rule is the same for every NFL game.
0 recs | 169 comments
I have ALWAYS hated the QB slide rule
Once you cross the line of scrimmage, you become a runner. From that point on, all extra protection should cease to exist. You wanna run the ball, then it is time to man up
Chiefs fan in ST Louis - January 24, 2012 via mobile
i wonder, can a RB slide and not get hit?
if yes i understand, if no then the QB should be hit
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
no
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
ok time for QB to step up and be a man
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Are you sure?
In a game this season (I dont remember for sure but im thinking it was a Giants prime time game) a receiver caught it untouched and just laid on the ground making no attempt to get up. They blew it dead and he let go of the ball, which the D tried to recover. The commentators explained if any player gives up his attempt to advance the ball, even if he is not touched, he is down.
smuckj - January 24, 2012
are you sure that's not college
I remember the chargers rookie WR (nanee maybe?) who caught the ball, laid on the ground, not touched, went around showing off, and the opposing team picked up the ball as a fumble.
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
College has the stupidest rules ever.
If his knee touched the ground.. he was down. No one has to touch him.
The play is over.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
I sorta remember the play he's talking about
just don’t remember who it was, and the Chargers game it wasn’t a fumble since he spun the ball and it went forward they called it an illegal forward pass
banshee_01 - January 24, 2012
i found it, it was the chargers vs pat game
richard goodman caught the ball and decided to show off. The pats jumped on the ball and got the fumble
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
the player surrendered
technically, if he would have stood up and tried to run again, and no one had touched him… they would have let him (if the whistle had not been blown).
That’s not the same thing though.
The Quarterback has the option to slide feet first.. making it completely illegal for a defender to tackle or hit them. A running back/receiver NEVER has the option to slide feet first to avoid a hit. If they surrender, and no one hits them…. luck for them. If they surrender (and the whistler hasn’t blown) and someone does hit them in the act of them surrendering… its not an illegal hit.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
It also doesn't solve the issue where a QB can...
run down field advancing the ball….
hesitate… as if he going to slide feet first….
…see a defender hesitate or pull up in their attempted tackle….
…and then spring forward for a couple more yards before actually sliding….
The defender has to worry about a personal foul call. The QB gets free yardage.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
Hold on
Obama is about to speak
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
and I should care why?
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
who cares...
Chiefsdodgerslakers2415 - January 24, 2012
dont care either
banshee_01 - January 24, 2012
Let him speak. I'm not stopping him.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
obama's speech=pioli interview
you have a good feeling going in
and extremely confused going out
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
not from where I sit.
You can smell the bullshit before he starts talking, and then you have dig your way out it for the next week while idiots that can’t see the forest through the trees keep quoting him.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
I can't tell if you're talking about pioli or obama
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
I'll give you a hint.
I’m talking about the guy that claimed to be a moderate the entire time he lobbied for his job, and then swung 90 degrees to socialist once he got the gig.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
definitely pioli
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Yep
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
No question.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
This pretty much sums up anything politicians say.
It took me years to be able to decipher what the hell they’re saying, Democrats or Republicans. I guess they think it’s better to just say nothing than to say something concrete that someone might disagree with.
wustl_chiefs_fan - January 24, 2012
that's why I don't vote
doesn’t matter who I vote for. I’ll still get raped.
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Reminds me of a Louis CK bit.
Where he said that in the 2004 elections, he hated Bush and Kerry because they were both rich and didn’t understand problems of poor people. I think that’s a pretty good point. Certainly the idea was that anybody should be able to run for office. The entire idea behind compensating elected officials is that it’s supposed to be a full time job and being rich isn’t supposed to be a requirement.
wustl_chiefs_fan - January 24, 2012
that's actually the reason why I didn't vote in 2008
mcCain—crazy old guy who wants to bomb everything
obama—some guy who keeps telling us to have hope but not telling us that his plans are..
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
I'll probably end up voting for Obama.
Better than Mitt or Newt. The sad part is that pretty much every progressive is thinking the same thing, and every conservative is thinking the same thing but in reverse.
wustl_chiefs_fan - January 24, 2012
I wouldn't vote for Obama if you held a gun to my head and my testicles in a vice.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
but I'd do that to you in a non-election year
upamtn - January 24, 2012
he's bored of you. There I said it
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Nobody cares
about your sexual fantasies
bktzoo - January 24, 2012
I'll stop at KFC and buy their sauceless wings
screw voting
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
The only time I get a good feeling around that Douche...errr...the Pres
is when he shuts the hell up. Go on another damn vacation, you fraud!
SCKSChief - January 25, 2012
Trent Green disagrees
Chiefsdodgerslakers2415 - January 24, 2012
reply fail
Chiefsdodgerslakers2415 - January 24, 2012
I think
the late hits on QB’s and the hitting a defenseless reciever need to be reviewable somehow, cause there were alot of them that changed games this year that were BS calls,
banshee_01 - January 24, 2012
this
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
It's a judgement call.
You’d just be changing who makes the judgement.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
I say no late hit. you can hit the QB at anytime you want
even before the game
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
See a QB at the grocery store? Feel free to beat the shit out of that guy.
wustl_chiefs_fan - January 24, 2012
i'll bring my bat
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Get back to me
when the NFL’s popularity sinks because all their best players are on IR.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
best players on IR?
sounds like the 2011 chiefs
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Any quarterback, not currently under contract with the Kansas City Chiefs, may be hit by a Chiefs defender at any time
Including, before, during, and after the game.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
i hate the OT rule
we should start from the 50 and throw 4 hail marys into the end zone. First to catch it is the first to win
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
I think the OT rule should be the same as it is in the playoffs all season
banshee_01 - January 24, 2012
nah, we should go for the 4 hail marys
cassel/orton wins us games or give us OT, and palko wins OT
we’ll have an unstoppable team
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Hey, Joel?
On a totally unrelated topic. I googled some info on Mike Mayock’s Top Five Draft prospects by position. I saw two hits from other SBN blogs that were covering it and giving their teams assessment of what they think their team should go for. Any chance you could do that for our site ??
Please !
DanielKCh - January 24, 2012
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
At the bottom of the page there is a link that would allow you to send a message (email) directly to Joel, or Chris or any other contributor (except me /cry)
Since neither Joel or Chris have commented on this post… I think your best shot to get a response would be to email them.
I KNOW how hard it is to keep the content fresh and informative… I’m sure they’d appreciate the story idea.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
and WHY aren't you linked? you contribute more to this site than ANYONE
well, anyone other than Steve_Chiefs … and Joel, and Chris (who posts the BEST Caption This’s on the planet) … but OTHER than those guys (and maybe a few dozen other posters and commentators) you absolutely contribute FAR more to this site than ANYONE
(take that, Thorman!)
upamtn - January 24, 2012
geee, thanks for the vote of... ummm mediocrity =P
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
So I guess he's saying you're the embodiment of the Chiefs
TRSChief - January 25, 2012
male cow??????? har har har, u funny dude
dubld - January 24, 2012
From Mills
I want to create a monster Defense :)
I will read soon I promise Texas
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
I rather play the tampa 2
crowd the line with 8-9 LB. let’s see a 5 men OL block our rush
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Gunther, is that you?
upamtn - January 24, 2012
maybe
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
But seriously, I hate the automatic review TD rule.
I understand using it for certain things (disputable TD).
But I hate the nondisputable TD. RB runs 50 yards and made a TD. Let’s spend 10 minutes determining if the RB went into the end zone and had possession of the ball even though the closest guy was 20 yards away
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
I hate that EVERY play is not eligible for review.
I don’t understand what the point of giving the coaches challenge flags is… if you’re only going to allow them to challenge certain plays.
The coaches should be allowed to throw that flag to challenge any play/call they want to challenge.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
Don't like the challenge flags at all.
Make every play reviewable upstairs, like it is in college. Get of of that stupid antiquated booth on the sidelines.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
I don't like the college rule.
It kills the momentum of a LOT of drives while the guys up in the booth decide to ‘review a play’ so that they can feel important.
I prefer the system where the coach decides if he things it’s screwed up.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
Maybe you watch more college than I do.
But I’ve never gotten the impression that the overtime rule slows games down any more than the NFL rule. It certainly doesn’t slow down the Ducks, for example. Ideally, they only look at impact type plays, rather than every single play that might be called wrong. In that case, it should have minimal impact.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
That just doesn't happen
but otherwise, great point.
bktzoo - January 24, 2012
Hey, you know what?
If they hadn’t implemented the Tuck Rule, the Raiders would have won.
THAT would have been awful.
So screw you, buddyMully - January 24, 2012
i rather have the raiders win than brady smug ass
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Blasphemy!
Mully - January 24, 2012
I DON'T CARE
I RATHER HAVE TEBOW WIN THE SB THAN BRADY AND HIS SMUG ASS
AND YES I MUST WRITE IN CAPS TO SHOW MY DISDAIN
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Even Jesus
couldn’t get Tebow in the Superbowl
bktzoo - January 24, 2012
At some point
People were praying harder for Tebow to lose, than they were praying for him to win. Jesus followed the polls on this one.
TwelfthMan - January 25, 2012
Umm... I kind of pointed that out in the poll answer...
Or did you not bother to read past the paragraph headings? =-)
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
no.....you didnt mark it "must read"
banshee_01 - January 24, 2012
Also this.
Mully - January 24, 2012
epic fail right there
and THAT’S why he’s not linked at the bottom!
upamtn - January 24, 2012
I'm sure he can take a little ribbing without getting all bend out of shape
After all, his name isn’t Skitzo
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
LOL
upamtn - January 24, 2012
I ignore polls
that don’t have “Not Sure” as an option
Mully - January 24, 2012
not sure? That's communist talk
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
I don't want to talk about Zebras
kk
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
i think baily will be a good rusher
big ass guy who pushes people out of his way
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
in a 4-3 D
We play that big boy 3-4
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
College playoff rules
Enough nonsense
ArrowheadHunter - January 24, 2012
Overtime rules that is
ArrowheadHunter - January 24, 2012
So then no rules at all?
College football doesn’t have any playoffs.
=P
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
rules? That's terrorist talk
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
I think that, overall, the rules make sense, but you pretty much hit the ones that could use tweaking.
The Brady rule, and the rules that govern QB hits, annoy me. To me, you should be able to play as aggressive as you can, and as long as you’re not obviously hitting the guy when you could easily stop yourself you should be fine.
Overtime is somewhat complicated, but so is the entire game of football. If you think about it for a minute it becomes pretty obvious. They try to give each team a chance to score, unless a team scores a touchdown. But I do like your idea of needing to score 6 points (although I’d put it at 5 so you could win with a field goal and safety) since it accomplishes the same objective and is much simpler.
wustl_chiefs_fan - January 24, 2012
Tex, you sound positively LOGICAL tonight ...
you ok? feeling alright, buddy? kinda worried about ya here, you running a fever? you sure you’re ok … ?
upamtn - January 24, 2012
I'm always logical
It’s just that sometimes you’re open to logic.. and sometimes you only entertain fantasy
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
I love to entertain fantasy ...
she’s young, hot and … well, you get the idea
upamtn - January 24, 2012
So Courtney Upshaw
Devon Stills and can’t remember now the Couples guy are the topics
Who makes the Chiefs awesome in 2012?
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
78 Bobby Bell OLB (L)
85 Chuck Hurston
63 Willie Lanier MLB
51 Jim Lynch OLB®
66 Bob Stein
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
I hate the pocket rule
that allows the QB to throw the ball away if they’re outside the pocket, to avoid a sack. Hate it, hate it, hate it.
I don’t mind the new OT rule. Didn’t mind the old one either. I hate with every fiber of my being the college OT rule.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
but that's just the point..
There isnt a ‘new’ and an ‘old’ overtime rule.
There’s one set of rules for the regular season, and a completely different set for the playoffs.
If the coin flip / field goal kick to win is so unjust that it must be changed for the playoffs… isn’t it also AS unjust to use in deciding which teams get the privilege to go to the playoffs?
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
I get that.
I’m just saying I don’t mind either rule. But yeah, they should have it the same for both the regular season and the postseason. Though it was always somewhat different in the postseason anyway (multiple OT periods possible).
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
I think the reason is because the regular season one ends the game quicker.
In the regular season there’s usually 15 other games on, so they don’t want the early games running long. In the playoffs, however, there’s more at risk and there aren’t as many games on, so there’s less risk of conflict with late games.
wustl_chiefs_fan - January 24, 2012
that sounds like a television station problem to me
and personally.. I don’t care what the TV stations problems are.
If they don’t like it that the game runs long and interrupts 60 minutes, or the the pregame of the NEXT game…. don’t air it.
The rules should be consistent.
in my (already established) NOT so humble opinion
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
I agree.
But if people cared more about fairness than making money, we wouldn’t have the BCS.
wustl_chiefs_fan - January 24, 2012
More World Champion Chiefs
87 Aaron Brown DE®
86 Buck Buchanan DT®
61 Curley Culp DT (L)
82 Ed Lothamer DT
75 Jerry Mays DE (L)
74 Gene Trosch DE
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
Can we make the Chiefs dominate like the 60's Chiefs Defense?
How far away are we?
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
close, need another rusher and backups
but we need more O than anything else right now
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
It would't take much to make the Chiefs D dominate
Romeo has won numerous Super Bowls with his D
the O can have most of the picks but what would push the D to World Champion level?
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
backup with depth
as we have seen, the chiefs D is basically an illusion. It looks good with our best players.
take them away and we have a mediocre D. i.e. berry/hali/flowers/carr.
if we want to compete, we need to 1) have all our stars stay healthy the entire season (unlikely) or 2) have people who can take over and help with the D
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
We have players in place for a number of those spots
two deep is one thing, three deep is another
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
I would disagree. langford, sabby, etc really?
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Sabby was 3rd on the depth chart
Why was Sabby 3rd?
Cause we had no rookie up-an-comer at that spot
letting rookies learn is hard, letting Sabby’s hang on rosters is (should not) be the Chiefs way
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
Is Sabby's speciality............
a ham on rye?
LadyChief - January 24, 2012
Right next to Palko
on the made for consumption sandwich line
Steve_Chiefs - January 24, 2012
Are you sure...... ?
….. I thought it was Kaiser.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
whoa now
no need to get the nazis involved
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
Bart knows about rules
LadyChief - January 24, 2012
nice
upamtn - January 24, 2012
My dream overtime rules:
1. Add a 15-Minute Quarter(no sudden death)
2. Add another 15-Minute Quarter(no sudden death)
3. Have a PK Shootout, but with FGs.
a. start with a 30 yarder, if both teams make it, add 5 yrds to the FG, if both miss, keep the distance
b. once a kicker makes it, while the other misses, that team wins
kckrazy25 - January 24, 2012
my overtime rule
1) each side send out one player
2) each drink 5 gallons of whiskey
3) then spin in a circle
4) the first to pick the red MM from the sea of blue MM wins
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
that sounds like a bronco rule
LadyChief - January 24, 2012
sounds like a good rule
I am willing to volunteer my body for the good of the chiefs
i prefer my whiskey on ice
Chiefshero - January 24, 2012
OT Suggestion: The Bidding System.
Before the game both coaches write down a yard line. Whoever writes down the worst field position gets the ball, and they have to start at the place they bid, and then you can have overtime as usual. If they both have the same bid, then the coin flip determines who gets the ball, but they still have to start at that spot.
wustl_chiefs_fan - January 24, 2012
Ebay football?
LadyChief - January 24, 2012
1) The OT rule needs to be changed. The rules are already set up for the offensive passing game so each team should be able to get the ball regardless of a TD or a FG score and regardless if it is a playoff game or a regular season game..
2) I think the 5 yard defensive illegal contact down field should be changed to allow contact within 10 yards.
3) Pass Interference calls should be included and subjected to a coaches challenge—half of the interference calls are induced by the offensive guy but are called on the defense. Like fumbles these calls happen in a split second and should be allowed to be challenged. They can’t change the call(defense to offense—offense to defense) but they can pick up the flag if deemed incorrect call.
NFL season ticket holder - January 24, 2012
What if both teams score a TD
on their first possession of OT? Then you’re right back where you started.
I have an idea. Play some defense and special teams, and then maybe you won’t be so worried about the coin toss.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
Hits on the QB can definitely use some tweaking
If the bs “block” that Stevie Johnson threw on Berry is legal, then hitting the QB anywhere except the head should be legal too.
I 1000% agree with the elimination of the “tuck rule”. If a QB is pump faking, he had no intention of throwing the ball, he gets hit in the process, its a fumble. Nuff said.
I actually like the playoff overtime rule. I’m in favor of going to college rules. Every team should get a chance to score, imo, especially in the playoffs.
I know this wasn’t discussed, but I have come to better understand the defenseless receiver rule. As a defender, if you don’t want to be flagged, at least appear to be trying to take him. As in, wrap your arms around him in a tackling motion. When a player flies in, using his shoulder as a battering ram, the opposing player is likely to fly back, head first into the ground anyway. Tackling him with your arms around him puts more emphasis on your chest to his body, which is a much lighter impact. Additionally, it will make all defensive coaches happier that you didn’t just go for the big hit, opening up the possibility of not succeeding on said hit, and the opposing player runs free down the field for a TD. Wrapping him up slows him down and gives the defender a better chance of making a play on the ball, our at the very least, preventing him from running further downfield.
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
Absolutely.
In fact, didn’t a Giant this year in the playoffs have a nice long touchdown run against the Packers because of a failed big shoulder-hit?
Mully - January 24, 2012
Could have been because his head was down--He tried to tackle him with his arms--and then his teammates were on nowhere to be found.
NFL season ticket holder - January 24, 2012
I wouldn't be surprised
I’m sure it drives defensive coaches crazy. Just wrap him up, try to get your hands in around the receivers hands, break up the pass that way instead of trying to severely injure the pass catcher by blowing them up with a unnecessary blast
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
Here we go
Skip to 1:50 for the play
Mully - January 24, 2012
I can't view it
It is the play that Hicks broke away after the catch for a long TD run, correct?
Did the defender even try to wrap him up?
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
Yes
and nope, doesn’t look like it to me:


Links Here and here.
Mully - January 24, 2012
Very good example
Arms tucked in, no intention of tackling the receiver, just wanted to hit him with his shoulder. Now if Nicks would have ducked down, and the defender’s shoulder hit him in the head and Nicks went down, he would have been flagged. Just wrap up, it lessens the blow, and you remove the chance for a penalty. Simple
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
Another great example of why I hate shoddy tackling.
TRSChief - January 25, 2012
new kick off rule is the biggest loss in sports
Its like taking the slam dunk out of basketball the homerun out of baseball its the most exciting play in football and u removed it its just horrible and don’t tell me about injuries every player risks injuries every play. Its just tragic what money has done to sports
sexassassin - January 24, 2012 via mobile
Kickoff rule is a non-issue
If studies show that a good number of concussions are attributed to kickoffs, make them less likely to happen. Money has absolutely nothing to do with this rule. Its about player safety, and even the players are talking about that
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
Weird
I don’t usually agree with you this much. What’s going on?
Mully - January 24, 2012
Maybe you should more often. We call it "the dark side"
Let the doubt and skepticism flow through you
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
So just give the offense the ball at the 20 or 25
and be done with the farce of touchbacks.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
You don't have to completely remove it
Just limit it, like they have done. Kickoff returns can be exciting, but the likelihood of a returner taking one to the house is so slim, there really is no point in having so many returns that add up to nothing but a couple of yards of field position and the potential for concussions. Just shave a good percentage of those unnecessary kickoff returns off the yearly total. Done and done.
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
They're either dangerous or they're not.
Yes, they can be exciting, which is why the new rule sucks.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
the whole sport is dangerous
It’s not about weather or not it’s dangerous.
There has, in the past, been a statistically significant higher percentage of injuries that happened on kick off plays (per 100 plays) than any other play (per 100 plays) in the game.
The object of the rule change was to decrease the number of injuries per kick off, to bring it back in line with the rest of the game. That one play was far more likely to get a player injured than any other play. That’s why the rule was tweaked, instead of the play being eliminated. If moving the ball forward 5 yards is what it takes to bring down the injury rate on the kick off play… so be it.
The game is never going to be ‘safe’, but there is an accepted risk involved.. and that kick off play was above and outside the accepted risk level.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
Big hits are exciting too
But they didn’t remove them completely, just big hits to the head. Its just trying to limit the number of chances for serious injury, not completely remove it
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
Apples and oranges.
They eliminated hits to the head completely. They didn’t eliminate returns completely.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
No they didn't
They eliminated flagrant hits to the head and shoulder area of a defenseless player. (QB, Receiver int he act of catching the ball… or where the tackler leads with their helmet in head to head contact)…
Hits to the head against runners, a receiver with both feet on the ground, or anyone else are completely legal.
Hits to the head where a defender keels his face up, and leads with shoulders or body (instead of the crown of his helmet) are also perfectly legal.
They didn’t eliminate hits to the head… they just tweaked the rule so you can’t do it when it’s most liekly to cause major injury (defenseless players or spearing)
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
and injuries cost money
Ya I see players safety but more and more players are getting hurt and it cost money to pay retirement bills and medical costs after football. I’m all for safety but players know what the risk is. U don’t take away a piece of the game like that. That kick off rule does kills momentum in a game. Its just horrible
sexassassin - January 25, 2012 via mobile
they havent taken away a piece of the game.
And there will always be injuries.
It’s about assessing the risk.. and keeping it within a reasonable set of bounds.
If ANY one type of play consistently causes a significantly and statistically lopsidedly higher rate of injury than any other play…. that type of play needs to be reviewed… and measures taken to reduce the risk to the players.
Texas Chief - January 25, 2012
I don't think the kick off return is the ANYTHING
like the home run in baseball. It’s never been the most exciting play in football for me …ever.
You could remove it from the game entirely and I wouldn’t miss it, personally.
As to the ‘slam dunk’ in basketball. Not much exciting about that. It’s a strong drive to the hole for a score… with a little showboating attached to the play. Nothing really screams ‘most exciting play’ in the sport to me about that either.
And it wasn’t ‘removed’… not even close. It’s just not kicked from the same place. There were plenty of kicks that were run, instead of being knelt on. It’s not like the play disappeared from the game.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
Instead of refs we could have.......
LadyChief - January 24, 2012
Tex, you forgot about an important "rule" here.
Apparently it is ok for a WR to push off on a defensive back and then call the DPI on said defensive back. (see Chiefs-Texans 2010)
NJChieffan16 - January 24, 2012
Someone mentioned above about allowing PA calls to be reviewable
With a spot foul that could potentially cover the entire length of the field in penalty yards (now that is a strong armed QB, throwing end zone to end zone), there definitely should be the chance of review for something that impactful
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
Oh I did not look.
Yea it should be reviewed if they want to cover the whole field like that…or just make it a 10 yarder if they refuse to review
NJChieffan16 - January 24, 2012
Yeah, and I'd go further.
I know some wont like this (because if the potential for abuse)… but I think defensive pass interference should be penailized by a set number of yards and an automatic first down…
NOT a spot foul.
There are already plenty of rules that are bent in the favor of offense, this one isn’t necessary. You get a first down, and 15? 10? 1/2 the distance? whatever yards for pass interference. You don’t get the ball at the spot of the foul.
When it becomes part of the offensive game plan to just ‘throw it up deep’ and try to draw an interference call .. the rule isn’t working. Sure, in a rare case a defender may just tackle a receiver rather than give up the touchdown… but the automatic first down and 15 yards a big enough deterrent against cheating the majority of the time.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
I disagree.
Though I wouldn’t be against having different penalties for flagrant and incidental pass interference.
Tarkus - January 24, 2012
I would be on board with that
Although it would be a difficult thing to enforce, as you have to determine intent. It would be easy enough for a defender to be looking at the ball, jump smack into the receiver purposely to knock him off his route or attempt to catch the ball and it appear incidental.
Tackling a guy mid air while the ball is in the air, simple enough
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
Agreed
Set yardage foul. It is the ONLY penalty that can span an unlimited number of yards. And its not like an offensive pass interference is that same spot foul yardage in the defenses favor. Deep throw from the 50 to the end zone, offensive pass interference, and it should go back to the one yard line the other way, down and 60 to get a first for the offense.
Im not even sure someone could justify defensive pass interference being a spot foul while offensive pass interference is only a ten yard penalty
RememberDelaney37 - January 24, 2012 via mobile
exactly.
The spot foul swings the rule so far in the favor of the offense….
There are already enough rules that favor the offense…. this one needs to be balanced.
Texas Chief - January 24, 2012
Damn.
You had to bring up KC-Hou 2010. I’m still pissed over that one.
Wichita Chief - January 25, 2012
RD had something similar upthread
but I really think that helmet to helmet calls should fall under reviewable calls. 15 yards is a lot to be giving up when the replay clearly shows that it was not helmet to helmet, or the offensive player clearly moved after the defensive player went for the tackle.
another penalty that needs tweaking is the spot foul on pass interference. One of the few college rules that NFL should adopt. 15 yards, first down, that’s all you deserve.
Steve_in_RI - January 24, 2012
put ball back where it should be on kickoffs while allowing the wedge as it was before.
in other words give me a legit kick return game, or just put it on the 20
SDChief - January 25, 2012
That's what they did.
The ball was moved BACK… from where it is kicked now… to create more returns.
After a number of years… that change was reviewed.. and it was found that the change significantly increased the number of injuries on that particular play of the game.
So they changed it BACK to how it was before (minus the 3+ player wedge). The kick off USED to be done from the same place they do it now. So, in my view, they DID “put the ball back where it should be on kickoffs”
Texas Chief - January 25, 2012
How about modifying rules for scoring a TD
The rule as it stands when a receiver is catching the ball is they have to make the catch in bounds, control the ball, and complete the catch 100% for it to count.
Meanwhile a runner can run into the end zone and lose possession of the ball a second after crossing the plane of the goal line and it counts as a TD. I think that runners should control the ball until they are legally downed (by whistle or touch) in the end zone. If you can’t complete your run you shouldn’t get any more benefit of the doubt over somebody who can’t complete their catch.
Also, I may be in the minority, but I really don’t find the OT rule that complicated. And I think it’s a step in the right direction.
shaffe - January 25, 2012
I have no trouble understandint the playoff OT rules. I just think the rules should be consistent... instead of changing in the post season.
And as far as a running back scoring a TD goes…
That one makes sense to me too. A running back HAS possession of the football. (assuming he’s not bobbling it) That player has already established possession, and therefore ONLY needs to break the plane of the goal to score a TD. Once he breaks it, a TD has been scored…and therefore.. the play is over. If he fumbles it AFTER breaking the plane… it doesn’t matter, becuase the act of scoring has effectively ended the play. (It’s as if scoring causes an instantanious blow of the whistle).
In converse to that, a receiver in the end zone has NOT established possession of the football. They do NOT instantly score just by having touched the ball inside the end zone. That player MUST establish possession of the football before they can be said to have scored. The rules for establishing possession in the end zone are no different from establishing possession anywhere else on the field. The receiver must catch the ball, without bobbling it.. and either maintain possession all the way to the ground… or control the ball and make a ‘football’ move…. (if popped out after this has happened.. it’s a fumble, not an incompletion)
The rule for a receiver establishing possession is consistent everywhere and anywhere on the field of play, including the end zone.
The only difference between the two (RB vs. Receiver) is that in the case of the RB the play has ended the second they score. That’s why it’s not a fumble if they lose the ball after crossing the end zone…. In the normal field of play ground cannot cause a fumble, but if a runner leap forward and loses the ball… the play was not yet over. Beacuse the play was not over, and therefore.. the call is a fumble.
The rule is completely consistent. It’s not a rule that is consistent between a RB and a Receiver… Instead its a consistent set of rules for how to establish and maintain possession of the football. You’ve got to have possession in order to score, and a receiver leaping for a ball has not yet established possession until they complete tha act of catching the ball (just like at any other spot on the field)…
Texas Chief - January 25, 2012
One thing that blows my mind
is the way in which touchdowns are scored by a guy running the ball, versus a guy catching the ball. So, if I’m running the ball, the ball only has to touch the goal line. Yet, if I’m trying to catch a TD pass, I must have both feet in the EZ and bring the ball with me through the ground. Wow. That is a disparity.
Also, how can a guy running the ball have the ground NOT cause a fumble, but a guy in the act of catching a ball can secure it, take a step, go to the ground, lose it and it still is not a catch? Those rules seem to contradict one another to me.
SCKSChief - January 25, 2012
If you're a receiver in the field of play trying to catch a ball on the sideline....
you have to catch the ball, maintain control all the way to the ground, and get both feet down in bounds in order to establish possession of a completed pass. If you fail to do any of those things… you have not established possession, and therefore, the pass is called incomplete.
The rest of the team does not get to advance the ball to the place where you TRIED to catch it before running the next play because it wasn’t a catch. If it wasn’t a catch… there was no possession of the ball. If you havent possessed the ball at a certain yard marker.. then you were never there, and the spot of the ball reverts back to the position it was at before the previous snap.
It’s not a disparity at all. It’s a consistency.
The receiver has not established possession of the ball. Therefore, the ball was NEVER advanced to the spot he tried to catch it at. (Just like every other pass in the field of play). Because the ball was never advanced.. there can not possibly be a TD scored. Until the receiver (or someone else) establishes possession, the ball effectively never left the line of scrimmage.
A RB already HAD possession of the football when they crossed the line. That’s why it’s a touchdown. If a runningback WITH possession fumbles the ball on the sideline and it rolls out of bounds… the ball is spotted at the place wherer the ball rolled out because he was the last person to have possession of the ball, and no one else has yet established possession.
The act of crossing the goal line WITH possession of the football constitutes an immediate score. The play is over.
In the same way.. if a receiver catching the ball on the 4 yard line (establishing posession) and then runs to the corner post and hangs the ball out over the goal line… it’s a score. The Receiver has already established possession of the ball.. and crosses the goal line. It’s a score. Even if he is hit running up the sideline and fumbles the ball a millisecond after the ball crosses the plane… it’s still a score… because he has already established possession.
The rule for a receiver establishing possession, as well as the rules for exactly WHAT constitutes a completion maintain perfectly consistent… in the field of play AND in the end zone. There is no disparity or ambiguity in the rules.
Texas Chief - January 25, 2012
I appreciate the length of your response
But to have a WR catch a pass in the EZ, come down with two fee in bounds, while in possession, only to have the ball squirt free upon contact with the ground is inconsistent with the same rules for a RB breaking the plane. If a RB/WR/TE/QB/anyone has the ball break that plane, it doesn’t matter if it comes out? That is inconsistent to the max. “Well, the ball broke the plane before it came out, therefore it’s a touchdown.” It makes no sense. Perhaps I didn’t state my concern completely enough.
SCKSChief - January 25, 2012
It does make sense and it is consistent.
The WR hasn’t established control yet in your scenario.
The RB already had control and had been running make a (or likely many) football move(s) in the process.
With the WR catching in the EZ, it’s not a question of the ball breaking the plane. It’s a question of having control of the ball, since he’s already beyond the plane.
TRSChief - January 25, 2012
I know that is what the current rule says
I just think it is a crappy double standard. I don’t agree with it is the point. I’m not ignorant as to the rule.
SCKSChief - January 25, 2012
Not agreeing doesn't make it not right, though.
You’re wanting the same thing to apply to two very different situations.
TRSChief - January 25, 2012
but its not a double standard. Thats the point
In order to score a TD a player must have possession of the ball, and the ball must cross the goal line.
It’s exactly the same weather its a RB or a WR. The rule is perfectly consistent.
As well, the rules for what constitutes possession by a receiver are exactly the same on the 50 yard line, at the out of bounds marker on the side line, and in the end zone. Those are also completely consistent, with no double standard.
If a receiver catches the ball streaking down the sideline, taps both feet in bounds.. and drops the ball as he comes to the ground… it’s an incomplete pass. He didn’t establish possession. It’s exactly the same thing in the end zone.
You’re senario has nothing to do with weather the rules are consistent. You would seem to prefer if the rules were inconsistent for receivers in the end zone. If I read you correctly.. you want a “possession” in the end zone to ONLY include the receiver getting both feet in bounds while in contact with the football…. and if they fail to maintain possession all the way to the ground… oh well, it’s still a touchdown…
THAT would be a different set of rules for what constitutes both possession, and what is considered a completed pass that ONLY apply if the receiver happens to be in the end zone.
Personally, I think it’s a terrable idea to change the rules for EZ possessions.
But, to each his own.
Texas Chief - January 25, 2012
one thing that irks me is a catch under a player that
lands on the ball. maybe its just the way the announcers describe it, but if you catch a ball 10 feet in the air and land on top of it, it’s a catch. but if it’s close and they review to see whether he trapped it or not, the player can catch the ball and land on it, but not even a fraction of the ball can touch the turf or they call it incomplete. is the ball supposed to vanish after they catch it? NFL players have huge hands, yet none of them could completely cover a ball if they land on it.
rdc - January 25, 2012
Its not about weather or not the ball touches the ground....
It’s about weather or not the receiver maintains control of the ball….even if… it touches the ground.
If the ball is moving around in their hands AND any portion of the ball touches the ground… then they trapped it, and it’s incomplete,
If the are gripping the ball between both hands, and the nose touches the ground.. but the ball never moves in their grip…. it’s a catch… even if the nose touches the ground.
The main issue is that … with a ball that close to the ground… underneath a player… the official on the field has a very hard time making the call because he can’t see very well. And as we all know… the call on the field is HUGE in determining the outcome of the play. There has to be sufficent evidence to PROVE a call is wrong, in order for a call to be reversed. So , if its called incomplete on the field… it takes undenialble video evidence that the receiver maintained perfect control to over turn the call. It’s really hard to see if the receiver had possession of the ball without bobbling it.. or having it move around.. as it comes to the ground… when the players body is blocking the view of the official.
Where as, in a catch up high… the official has a lot of time (comparitively) and a MUCH better view of the ball and the hands… to decide if the receiver actually had a good handle on the ball (not bobbling it around as it came into contact with the ground). So, it’s more likely the play will be called a completion in the first place… which then means there would have to be substantial video evidence that it wasn’t a catch to over turn it.
Texas Chief - January 25, 2012
The NHL
The NHL uses a five-minute, sudden-death OT followed by a shoot-out during the regular season and switches to a continuous sudden-death OT (in 20 minute intervals in the playoffs.
Apologies if someone else has already answered your question.
CRB
Chief Running Bare - January 25, 2012
I stand partly corrected
It’s only partly because…. Hockey isn’t a real sport.
It’s a game invented by Canadians so that they could actually win at something. =P
/duck
Texas Chief - January 29, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Arrowhead Pride to post a comment.