View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 30th, 2014, 12:59 am



Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 2013 Competition Committee recommedations 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11944
Post 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
PFT wrote:
Competition Committee proposes 6 rule changes, 3 bylaw changes
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 14, 2013, 3:32 PM EDT

The NFL’s Competition Committee has proposed six rules changes and three bylaw changes that the owners will vote on at next week’s league meeting.

Proposed rule changes
1. A play that would have been automatically reviewed by instant replay will still be reviewed even if a coach throws his challenge flag. Any coach who challenges a play that he’s not permitted to challenge would be charged a timeout, and wouldn’t get his timeout back even if he wins the challenge, or would lose 15 yards if his team is out of timeouts. But the play itself will still be reviewed. Call this the Jim Schwartz Rule. The league will also consider reviewing incomplete passes that are ruled a fumble all the way through the fumble — if a play is ruled on the field to be incomplete and overturned on replay as a fumble, the replay can consider everything that happens after that fumble.

2. Player safety: On field goals and extra points, restrictions are added to what rush teams can do. No more than six defensive players would be permitted to align on either side of the snapper, defensive players can’t push their teammates across the line, and the long snapper is considered a defenseless player.

3. Eliminate the tuck rule

4. Allow tight ends and H-backs to wear 40-49.

5. Player safety: Offensive players will not be allowed to block low when going toward their own end lines in the tackle box. Can’t go low when peeling back anywhere on the field.

6. Player safety: Initiating contact with the crown of the helmet is a foul if the runner or tackler delivers a forceable blow against his opponent when both players are outside the tackle box.

Proposed bylaw changes
1. The waiver period will be such that a team that claims a player only needs to keep him for one day, not two days.

2. Adjust the physically unable to perform status to allow players on PUP to practice for any three-week period from Week Six through Week Eleven.

3. Move the final roster cutdown date one day earlier.

The NFL is also planning two new points of emphasis:

1. Mandatory thigh and knee pads — this isn’t a new rule but the officials will start actively enforcing the rule, rather than just urging players to wear the pads as they did last year. A player who refuses to comply with the rule won’t be allowed on the field.

2. Fields must be maintained up to NFL standards, and the league can require clubs to maintain their fields up to the league’s high standards, at the club’s expense.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... w-changes/

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 14th, 2013, 3:49 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11944
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
PFT wrote:
Competition Committee proposes scrapping the tuck rule
Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2013, 3:34 PM EDT

The tuck rule may be no more.

The Competition Committee explained during a Thursday media conference call that it has proposed the scuttling of the tuck rule. The owners will vote on the change next week in Arizona.

Under the new rule (if it is passed), a quarterback who has pumped the ball and who loses possession while bringing the ball back into his torso will be deemed to have fumbled. Under the current rule (and as Raiders fans know too well) it is an incomplete pass.

The strangest aspect of the decision to eliminate the tuck rule is that there has been no recent, high-profile incident that has prompted the move. Chairman Rich McKay explained that officials persuaded the Competition Committee to make the change during the meetings that resulted in this year’s wave of proposed rule changes.

Actually, it appeared that the officials already took matters into their own hands, during the Ravens-Broncos playoff game.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... tuck-rule/

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 14th, 2013, 3:50 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11944
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
PFT wrote:
NFL may prevent runners from lowering their heads into tacklers
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 14, 2013, 3:42 PM EDT

In another sign that the days of punishing, physical running backs like Jim Brown and John Riggins are coming to an end, the NFL is considering a rules change that would penalize runners for lowering their heads and initiating contact with tacklers.

Members of the NFL’s Competition Committee revealed today that they want to see a new rule that would make it a personal foul for either a runner or a tackler to engage in head-first contact with the crown of the helmet when running into each other outside the tackle box.

“This is a pure and simple player safety rule,” NFL Competition Committee Chair Rich McKay said. “We really think the time has come where we need to address the situation in space where a runner or a tackler has a choice of how to approach his opponent.”

Rams coach Jeff Fisher, a member of the Competition Committee, said he believes coaches will be able to properly instruct their players in how to adjust to this rule.

“The ballcarrier is still going to be permitted to lower his shoulder, and the head is also going to come down to protect the football,” Fisher said. “We’re not taking that part of the run out of the game. What we’re saying is, in space, one-on-one, head-up, we’re not going to allow you to load up and use the crown of your helmet. It’s an obvious thing.”

It’s obvious that each year, the NFL’s Competition Committee is going to try a little bit harder to take us closer to a time when helmet-to-helmet hits are removed from the game completely.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -tacklers/
Now if they would only change the facemask rule to include offensive players...

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 14th, 2013, 3:52 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11944
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
PFT wrote:
Competition Committee proposes changes to the red-flag rule
Posted by Mike Florio on March 14, 2013, 3:53 PM EDT

One of the most embarrassing plays of the 2012 season — for everyone involved — occurred on Thanksgiving Day, when Texans running back Justin Forsett clearly fell down, got up, and ran the rest of the way to the end zone for an 81-yard score.

The obvious mistake wasn’t reviewed via replay, under strict application of a rule that wipes out the review if the coach throws the red challenge flag at a time when the review is automatic.

Basically, Lions coach Jim Schwartz didn’t get that to which he was automatically entitled, simply because he asked for it.

Under a new proposal from the Competition Committee, the review would still occur.

Also, the automatic 15-yard penalty would be wiped out. A foul would be called only if the coach’s team has no remaining timeouts, or if the coach has no remaining challenges.

So, basically, a coach who throws the red challenge flag at a time when the review is otherwise automatic will be viewed as having thrown the red challenge flag under normal circumstances.

This change, if passed, would provide an extra benefit to coaches. If the replay assistant chooses incorrectly not to call for an on-field review, the coach could still initiate the process by throwing the red challenge flag. Last year, there were multiple situations in which, for whatever reason, the replay assistant failed to call for a full review. (For example, Trindon Holliday.) Under current rules, the coach can do nothing to force the issue when the replay review is supposedly “automatic.”

For all of those reasons, we won’t be throwing the red challenge flag on this proposed rule change.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... flag-rule/

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 14th, 2013, 4:00 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11944
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
A little perspective from one of the greatest to play RB:
PFT wrote:
Jim Brown says he didn’t need to use his head to run
Posted by Darin Gantt on March 18, 2013, 6:33 PM EDT

Some running backs are worried about a rule that would prevent them from initiating contact with the crown of their helmets outside the tackle box.

But the guy who doled out as much punishment as he ever received said he didn’t see a problem with it.

Quote:
“I didn’t use my head,” Hall of Famer Jim Brown said, via Newsday’s Tom Rock. “I used my forearm. The palm of my hand. And my shoulder. And my shoulder pads. I wasn’t putting my head into too much of anything. I don’t think that’s a good idea.

“At least it doesn’t sound like a good idea to me if I’m not guaranteed that my head is going to be strong enough to hurt somebody else and not hurt myself.”


All-time leading rusher Emmitt Smith was among the first critical of the proposed rule, saying it was “almost impossible” to not lower your head going into contact.

“Emmitt probably used his head,” Brown said. “I don’t know.”

Quote:
“Nobody I ever broke bread with, and I see players all the time, talked about using their head running the football. I’ve seen Barry Sanders and Eric Dickerson and Marcus Allen and Franco Harris and we’ve all been together — we were all together at the Super Bowl — and no one talked about using their head.”


If the league gets its way, no one will, either.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ad-to-run/
Perhaps this is another example of 'lazy' coaching. Teach the proper fundamentals and this likely wouldn't be an issue.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 19th, 2013, 9:58 am
Profile
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
It was a pretty different NFL when Brown played, and he was a very different running back. LT or Barry would have more of a legitimate argument, IMO.


March 19th, 2013, 11:47 am
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9377
Location: Dallas
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
wjb21ndtown wrote:
It was a pretty different NFL when Brown played, and he was a very different running back. LT or Barry would have more of a legitimate argument, IMO.


True dat. Brown was as big or bigger than the guys tackling him - he didn't need to lower his head. A 5'8" like Sanders would be 6+ inches shorter than the guy trying to tackle him...

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


March 19th, 2013, 11:55 am
Profile WWW
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11944
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
It was a pretty different NFL when Brown played, and he was a very different running back. LT or Barry would have more of a legitimate argument, IMO.


True dat. Brown was as big or bigger than the guys tackling him - he didn't need to lower his head. A 5'8" like Sanders would be 6+ inches shorter than the guy trying to tackle him...
and as Brown said
Jim Brown wrote:
“Nobody I ever broke bread with, and I see players all the time, talked about using their head running the football. I’ve seen Barry Sanders and Eric Dickerson and Marcus Allen and Franco Harris and we’ve all been together — we were all together at the Super Bowl — and no one talked about using their head.”
So, apparently, per Brown, Barry didn't use his head either, even though he was shorter.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 19th, 2013, 12:22 pm
Profile
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
TheRealWags wrote:
Pablo wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
It was a pretty different NFL when Brown played, and he was a very different running back. LT or Barry would have more of a legitimate argument, IMO.


True dat. Brown was as big or bigger than the guys tackling him - he didn't need to lower his head. A 5'8" like Sanders would be 6+ inches shorter than the guy trying to tackle him...
and as Brown said
Jim Brown wrote:
“Nobody I ever broke bread with, and I see players all the time, talked about using their head running the football. I’ve seen Barry Sanders and Eric Dickerson and Marcus Allen and Franco Harris and we’ve all been together — we were all together at the Super Bowl — and no one talked about using their head.”
So, apparently, per Brown, Barry didn't use his head either, even though he was shorter.


Barry wasn't a contact RB, and he had incredible elusiveness and pretty good speed. He was generally tackled from behind or the side, he rarely took a head on impact. Other players don't have that luxury.


March 19th, 2013, 12:30 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pm
Posts: 10286
Location: Sycamore, IL
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
Walter Peyton did. Just watch the tape. He did and he moved a pile when he needed to.

_________________
_____
I have no faith this team will win a game the rest of the year. The kitties finish at 7-9 and Miss the playoffs as GB wins out and takes it from the kitties.
Image


March 19th, 2013, 2:48 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11944
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
PFT wrote:
NFL passes Jim Schwartz rule
Posted by Michael David Smith on March 20, 2013, 1:06 PM EDT

NFL coaches who wrongly throw a challenge flag for a replay review that was going to be conducted automatically will no longer cost their team the opportunity to have the play reviewed.

The NFL’s owners today voted to change the instant replay rules so that if a play is going to be reviewed automatically (such as a scoring play, a turnover or a play in the last two minutes of a half or in overtime), the referee will proceed in reviewing the play regardless of whether or not a coach throws a red flag.

The rule has commonly been referred to as the “Jim Schwartz rule” after the Lions coach who found out the hard way on Thanksgiving that throwing the challenge flag negated the referee’s automatic review. The rule cost the Lions dearly in their loss to the Texans, as Houston was awarded an 81-yard touchdown run even though running back Justin Forsett was clearly down after seven yards.

Schwartz said after the game that he knew the rule but was caught up in the emotions of seeing an obviously wrong call go against his team, in the future, those obviously wrong calls will be reviewed, even if a coach throws his flag.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... artz-rule/
PFT wrote:
The Tuck Rule is no more
Posted by Josh Alper on March 20, 2013, 12:41 PM EDT

It’s much too late for the Raiders, but the Tuck Rule has been wiped out.

The NFL owners voted Wednesday to wipe out the Tuck Rule at their meetings in Phoenix. With the rule eliminated, quarterbacks who pump fake and lose the ball while trying to bring it back into their torso will be deemed to have fumbled. Before the change, such a play would be ruled an incompletion.

We led with the Raiders because the Tuck Rule will always be linked to their AFC Divisional Round game against the Patriots in 2002. It was a little-discussed rule until Tom Brady was ruled to have thrown an incomplete pass after dropping the ball when he was hit by Charles Woodson of the Raiders. The Patriots drove for a game-tying field goal, won the game in overtime and went on to win the Super Bowl.

That game was a long time ago and there haven’t been a spate of high-profile instances of the rule being used in subsequent years, but the league obviously decided that the Tuck Rule had outlived its usefulness.

UPDATE 12:42 p.m. ET: Adam Schefter of ESPN reports that the measure passed by a vote of 29-1 with two teams abstaining. One was the Redskins and, appropriately enough, the Patriots were the other.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... s-no-more/
PFT wrote:
Helmet rule passes
Posted by Mike Florio on March 20, 2013, 12:28 PM EDT

Well, that was fast.

Faced with concerns from coaches but possible litigation worries arising from current and future players, owners voted on Wednesday to outlaw the use of the crown of the helmet by offensive or defensive players in the open field.

Per Ian Rapoport of NFL Network, the rule passed by a “wide margin.” (It’ll be interesting to know who opposed it, and whether there was a closer initial vote followed by a more comfortable second tally.)

And so the ultimate reality show will have another layer of reality this year, with players and coaches and media and fans complaining about the latest effort to make safer an inherently unsafe endeavor.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... le-passes/

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 20th, 2013, 4:44 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11944
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
PFT wrote:
New helmet-use rule is more narrow, limited than believed
Posted by Mike Florio on March 20, 2013, 2:15 PM EDT

The Commissioner’s traditional end-of-meetings press conference quickly morphed into a panel discussion, with a variety of coaches, executives, and officials explaining to the media (and, necessarily, to everyone else) the ins-and-outs of the new rule regarding the use of the helmet.

While Falcons president Rich McKay acknowledged that the new rule is a “pretty major change,” the new rule is much narrower and limited than many believe.

The new rule prohibits ball carriers and defensive players from initiating contact in the open field with the crown of the helmet. The crown, as explained by Rams coach Jeff Fisher, is the top of the helmet. The facemask and hairline of the helmet may still be used to initiate contact.

Fisher emphasized that ball carriers will be permitted to protect themselves, by dropping their pads and dipping their helmets. A foul arises only if the top of the helmet is used to ram the opponent.

In that way, the new rule is an extension of the rule against spearing, which in NFL parlance means hitting a player who is on the ground with the crown (top) of the helmet.

Also, the blow with the top of the helmet must be “forcible,” a know-it-when-you-see-it standard that could potentially cause reasonable minds to differ. As a result, the decision will be treated as a judgment call, not subject to replay review.

These types of hits are not rare. The league office studied every game during two weeks of the 2012 season — Week 10 and Week 16 — and determined that 11 total hits during those 32 games would have drawn flags. To the extent those numbers can be extrapolated, that’s one flag for illegal use of the crown of the helmet in the open field every three games.

McKay explained that the league hopes the new rule will trickle down to the lower levels of the sport, like other safety-related changes. McKay specifically pointed to the adoption of the horse-collar rule at the college and high school level.

So it’s not as bad as some think, and anyone who still doesn’t like it has plenty of time to work through the various stages of grief and arrive at acceptance before the Cowboys and Dolphins suit up in early August for the Hall of Fame game.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... -believed/

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


March 20th, 2013, 4:45 pm
Profile
Varsity Captain
User avatar

Joined: October 12th, 2011, 9:00 am
Posts: 289
Location: Vermont
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
So now that I've had a TON of time to think about this, I get it. If you use the helmet as a weapon, you'll be flagged. If you instinctively tuck your head to brace for contact, no foul.

I OK with it. I hate more rules, but I'm OK with it.

_________________
Pablo wrote:
the app worked OK, but it is hard to draft while driving.


March 26th, 2013, 7:56 am
Profile
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
49ers wrote:
So now that I've had a TON of time to think about this, I get it. If you use the helmet as a weapon, you'll be flagged. If you instinctively tuck your head to brace for contact, no foul.

I OK with it. I hate more rules, but I'm OK with it.


The problem is... Who knows?

It's all a "judgment" call by the refs, and it leaves a ton of "gray area," meaning, room to error by the refs (and also more room to be crooked, fix games, etc... I hate these vague BS rules.


March 26th, 2013, 10:13 am
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 9:03 am
Posts: 2297
Post Re: 2013 Competition Committee recommedations
This should be as well as most of the other "player safety" rules that have implemented should be offenses that can be fined and fined heavily if need be but should not be judgement cals that can cost teams games.


April 4th, 2013, 7:00 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.