Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Competition Committee proposes six rule changes, three bylaw changes

  1. #1

    Competition Committee proposes six rule changes, three bylaw changes

    @ProFootballTalk: Competition Committee proposes six rule changes, three bylaw changes http://t.co/YbbvFBt8X0

    Competition Committee proposes 6 rule changes, 3 bylaw changes

    Posted by Michael David Smith on March 14, 2013, 3:32 PM EDT

    AP
    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.

  2. #2
    3. Eliminate the tuck rule.

    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (breath) AHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

  3. #3
    @ProFootballWkly: MT @MarkMaske: Rich McKay said officials' input led, in part, to proposal to eliminate tuck rule--believe they can call new rule correctly.

    @nfl: League proposes change to "Tuck Rule": http://t.co/Mqjc1EMJgS

    One item on the agenda is sure to be cheered by Oakland Raiders fans, although the notion will probably be seen as too little, too late.

    The NFL will propose to change "The Tuck Rule."

    The change will make it so a player loses possession when he tries to bring the ball back to his body. (Yes, then Tom Brady's play should have been ruled a fumble in that case.) If the passer loses control while the ball is going forward, it's still incomplete. If he loses the ball while tucking, it's a fumble.

    This is a rule that never made a lot of sense to us in the first place. We're not sure why it took more than a decade after the Patriots-Raiders Divisional Round game after the 2001 season for this rule to change.
    Last edited by C Mart; 03-14-2013 at 05:01 PM.

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Super Insider Triple VIP Island
    Posts
    9,158
    Quote Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
    3. Eliminate the tuck rule.

    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (breath) AHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
    To coincide with Brady's on the horizon retirement no doubt.

  5. #5
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,190
    Quote Originally Posted by C Mart View Post
    ...the long snapper is considered a defenseless player...
    Has there been a rash of long snapper injuries that would prompt this?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Has there been a rash of long snapper injuries that would prompt this?
    They essentially addressed that years ago by not allowing players to line up head up on the lsnapper. It used to be pretty vicious back in the day.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Vinny Testaverde's Niece View Post
    To coincide with Brady's on the horizon retirement no doubt.
    They never called the thing after the Pats call anyway. Despite there being dozens of plays worse than the Brady tuck.

  8. #8
    Schluberator & Gadfly ®
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    26,736
    Interesting reading this and remembering all of the events during the season, that prompted a lot of it.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by C Mart View Post

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

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Beerfish View Post
    They essentially addressed that years ago by not allowing players to line up head up on the lsnapper. It used to be pretty vicious back in the day.
    Gotcha.

    Do you think the proposed rule change is necessary in light of that?

    I don't know enough to formulate my own opinion...but if it's still as vicious as it was before the line up rule change, I could see the sense in it. Long snapping has to really really suck. Basically throwing a pass upside-down between your legs......and fans are MUCH less forgiving of a high/low/errant long snap than they are of a missed FG/XP. And the guys who do it in the league get it right 99% of the time....

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Gotcha.

    Do you think the proposed rule change is necessary in light of that?

    I don't know enough to formulate my own opinion...but if it's still as vicious as it was before the line up rule change, I could see the sense in it. Long snapping has to really really suck. Basically throwing a pass upside-down between your legs......and fans are MUCH less forgiving of a high/low/errant long snap than they are of a missed FG/XP. And the guys who do it in the league get it right 99% of the time....
    The strategy used to be to have someone beat the living hell out of the long snapper on each and every snap. Especially when the guy guy could never get his arms up to defend getting smashed in the head. It actually worked in a few key pro games in the past with a guy blowing snap at a critical time because he was getting beat on all game.

    You do have a valid point though, not sure why they made this change as there really hasn't been much of that going on for years. You know the NFL though, always up for one more bizarre rule or interpretation.

  12. #12
    @RAIDERS: Tuck Rule? It’s been 11 years, 1 month and 23 days…but who’s counting? http://t.co/63DqAPlWeb

  13. #13
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    2,683
    They will probably wait until Brady retires then eliminate the Tuck rule

  14. #14
    That field condition rule has to be because of fed ex field looking like crap

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by C Mart View Post
    @ProFootballWkly: MT @MarkMaske: Rich McKay said officials' input led, in part, to proposal to eliminate tuck rule--believe they can call new rule correctly.

    @nfl: League proposes change to "Tuck Rule": http://t.co/Mqjc1EMJgS

    One item on the agenda is sure to be cheered by Oakland Raiders fans, although the notion will probably be seen as too little, too late.

    The NFL will propose to change "The Tuck Rule."

    The change will make it so a player loses possession when he tries to bring the ball back to his body. (Yes, then Tom Brady's play should have been ruled a fumble in that case.) If the passer loses control while the ball is going forward, it's still incomplete. If he loses the ball while tucking, it's a fumble.

    This is a rule that never made a lot of sense to us in the first place. We're not sure why it took more than a decade after the Patriots-Raiders Divisional Round game after the 2001 season for this rule to change.

    The greatest referee to ever don the stripes, Walt Coleman, did not invoke the tuck rule on that play. His ruling was that Brady's arm was going forward. It wasn't until the tuckheads started crying that the play became the poster child for whiners.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by C Mart View Post
    @RAIDERS: Tuck Rule? It’s been 11 years, 1 month and 23 days…but who’s counting? http://t.co/63DqAPlWeb
    Wow! Has it really been that long? That means that the Raiders only have another 13 years, 10 months and 7 days left of futility on a 25 year curse that I put on them back then.

    And how sweet it is that the Raiders, a team who proudly carried the motto that "if we ain't cheatin' we ain't tryin'" would get burned by the Pats 25 years after they cheated us out of our first SB appearance.

    Free at last. Free at last. Thank Walt Coleman we're free at last!

  17. #17
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    gainesville ga
    Posts
    1,306
    I guess some one should tell Dallas Clark that he's been illegal all these years


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


    Dallas Clark Indianapolis Colts Stats

    Jersey: #44
    Position: Tight End
    Career: 10 Years
    Height: 6-3
    Weight: 252

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,888
    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.


    *cough* Mud Bowl *cough*

    a little bit late.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us