Some New Changes in the NFL?
The NFL Competition Committee (with newly extended Colts GM Bill Polian (tip to Bullard47)), will meet next week to discuss various things around the league. Here are a few of the more interesting items: (A complete list can be found here from FOXSports.com.)
![]() |
|
|
- Winning your division may not guarantee you a home playoff game. The two division winners with the best records will still be given the bye. However, seeds 3-6 would then be seeded by the best record, regardless of whether they won their division or not. The first tie-breaker would then be a division title.
This rule would have made the playoffs last season much different. The Jaguars would have been hosting the Steelers, and the Buccaneers would have visited Giants Stadium on the opening weekend. I'm guessing that the Giants are pretty glad that wasn't in effect already. I think this is a very good idea, as it will reward teams with better records with home games. In most instances, teams with better records without winning their division will have played a tougher schedule. This would definitely be the case for the Giants and Jaguars last year. Teams should not be "rewarded" with a better record against better teams with a road trip based strictly on geography.
- Commissioner Goodell wants to take more actions to ensure "SpyGate" doesn't happen again. He wants more authority to punish teams if they are caught "spying." He also wants someone high up in each organization to, in essence, sign a contract saying they have followed all NFL rules and regulations. This seems good on the surface, but will it really help? What will the punishment be if it is found out that they did, in fact, break a rule? It seems like something he's doing to remove himself from any blame. It makes sense, since he is getting a good amount of scrutiny over the Patriots situation.
Along these same lines, they will be voting again on whether to allow a defensive player to wear a wireless receiver, like a quarterback does. This makes perfect sense, and should have been 5 years ago. All owners who vote against this should be called out for being a proponent of spying. I hope this is unanimous.
- It will be illegal for a player's hair to cover up their name. This is making the biggest news of all of these changes. They will claim it is a safety precaution. However, I can only think of one instance where a player was actually tackled by his hair, and here is the video.
Current Colts that may have their hair tucked in, or cut off include Defensive Player of the Year Bob Sanders, Clint Session, and Anthony Gonzalez (I just had an image of him with corn rows. The shaved head is definitely the way to go).
- No longer having a "force-out" rule of catches on the sideline. The new rule would be very cut and dry: Two feet in-bounds, or it is incomplete. This takes some of the subjectivity out of the officials hands, and makes for a simpler rule. My guess is this will lead to more pass interference calls along the sideline, as defenders try to knock receivers out of bounds before they can get their feet down. I do not think this will pass.
- Officials will be able to review a field goal with instant replay. This is obviously stemming from the Browns - Ravens game from last season. Makes sense, and should pass.
- Teams will be able to defer until the second half. College teams take advantage of this most of the time, except for those coached by former NFL coaches (Charlie Weis has only deferred 1 time in 3 years.) I don't see many teams doing this, and I really don't see the Colts doing this. It seemed we played much better with the ball first. Teams seemed to have a habit of taking the opening kickoff and keeping the ball for 6-7 minutes.
- All nationally televised games will be announced. I'm guessing we'll have 4 or 5 games on national TV, including New England, Jacksonville, and San Diego. I'm hoping we aren't playing a Monday night game in Green Bay in December.
0 recs |
16
comments
Comments
Could you explain what
by yellowsnow on Mar 26, 2008 9:11 PM EDT 0 recs
Defer your decision until the second half
Kick
Receive
Make the other team choose, and choose either kick or receive at the start of the second half.
It basically means we want to play defense first, and take the ball to start the second half.
by mgrex03 on
Mar 26, 2008 9:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
So if you defer
by shake n bake on
Mar 26, 2008 10:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The only time I can remember it happening
USC did this against Nebraska this year. I'll let you decide what you make of Pete Carroll.
by mgrex03 on
Mar 27, 2008 9:37 AM EDT
up
0 recs
My team did it the other way this year
by LovinBlue on
Mar 27, 2008 1:47 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Division Winners and Force Outs
And I personally think that the "force-out" rule is the single worst rule in all of professional football. It's the most subjective call that can be made. Force-outs handicap a defensive back trying to make a play on the sideline. The rule makes it so they're better off not touching a receiver who's jumped to make a catch near the sideline, hoping that they don't land with two feet inbounds. I really hope the amend this rule somehow.
by DoTheMathis98 on Mar 27, 2008 8:50 AM EDT 0 recs
I like the current force-out rule
To put it more plainly: The dback can beat the receiver and jump for the ball himself, or tackle the receiver hard causing him to drop the ball - that's the range of options the dback has. Now what exactly can the receiver do to counter the dback pushing him out of bounds midair? Nothing.
That's just not fair.
by Bluebulb1 on
Mar 27, 2008 9:30 AM EDT
up
0 recs
No
by Colts Homer on
Mar 27, 2008 5:59 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Then what can receiver do?
I might be being simplistic here and if someone tells me it's not as bad as I'm thinking, then I'll quit worrying.
by Bluebulb1 on
Mar 28, 2008 11:11 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Another player who got his hair pulled
by shonuff on Mar 27, 2008 8:57 AM EDT 0 recs
offensive players
This rule is probably aimed more at defensive players since they don't run the risk of that kind of tackling if wearing the long hair. I can see why they would want this rule. If a players hair is so long that you can't read the name on the jersey it is a bit ridiculous, and it could get caught in another players face mask, etc which could be a hazard. Tucking it up under the helmet isn't really practical either since a helmet won't fit correctly and can be a worse than no helmet in that circumstance.
by bluegirl on
Mar 27, 2008 12:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
But you are ready for the big time
by BigBlueShoe on
Mar 27, 2008 1:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I could see Gonzalez with a giant fro
by Colts Homer on
Mar 27, 2008 6:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs






