NFL Owners Meeting Concludes, Several Rules Changes Adopted

by TheSportsGuru on Apr 2, 2008 9:45 AM MDT in Headlines

The annual NFL Owner's Meetings concluded today, with the announcement that several proposed rules changes would be adopted for the 2008 season. The rules affected are as follows --

Among the proposals that were passed:

A recommendation to eliminate force-out decisions on pass completions near the sidelines was approved. Now, officials will only have to decide whether a receiver landed in bounds or not. The intended result is more consistency.
The "Phil Dawson field goal rule" change passed. Now, certain field goals can be reviewed by instant replay, including kicks that bounce off the uprights. Under the previous system, no field goals could be replayed.
Coaches can now defer a decision on the opening coin toss. This is similar to the college rule. Previously, the winner of the coin toss could only choose to receive or kick off.
A direct snap from center that goes backward will now be treated as a fumble. Previously, it was ruled a false start.
The 5-yard face mask penalty was eliminated. Now, only the serious face mask will be called (and will be assessed as a 15-yard penalty). The major foul will involve twisting or grabbing the face mask.

On Tuesday, the League voted to adopt a rule allowing a communications device in the helmet of one defensive player.

Two of the bigger proposed rules changes were tabled until a later meeting, possibly May. Those issues included the Kansas City Chiefs' proposal to prohibit hair hanging over the back of jerseys to the nameplate, as well as a proposal to change playoff seeding based on record. In the proposed scenario, a wild card team could host a playoff game if they had a better record than a division champion(see Jacksonville/Pittsburgh this past season). The Broncos were adamantly opposed to the idea.

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Decisions

Good decisions all around, I think- everything but the force out rule is a minor change that would cause no real problems. The force out rule is interesting because it will make the sideline calls easier for the refs, but it'll also change how corners play passes near the sidelines. I think the hair issue is stupid- it's not hard to tell who the players with long hair are... the hair generally makes them more distinct than everyone else. As for image, it's bad behavior that makes me think poorly of a player, not whether they want to cut their hair. I also hope the playoff seeding gets voted down. While passing the rule change might prevent a game or two a season from being competitive, which would probably be a good thing money-wise for the NFL, if you start taking away the advantages to winning your division, it starts to be stupid to even have divisions, rather than a two conferences where the top 6 teams go to the playoffs...

by Jack on Apr 2, 2008 12:43 PM MDT 0 recs

Whether or not...

...you are in favor of the hair rule, the argument for it is not that the hair is disguising the player's name (after all, there is still a player's number back there). The rule proposal is for safety. As more players grow their hair very, very long the chance of a severe neck injury grows if the hair is pulled on a tackle. The other issue is that individualism is part of the downfall of other pro sports, and the traditionalist "team" aspect of football has helped to keep it on top.

But I'm very much with you on the seeding rule. Leave it the way it is, and don't punish teams that play in good divisions.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Apr 2, 2008 3:02 PM MDT up 0 recs

Hair

I knew that long hair posed a safety threat, but to my knowledge, the issue the Chiefs raised was that it was obscuring names on the back of jerseys. I've dug around, and while I found an article that brings up the safety threat posed by being tackled by the hair, I haven't found anything to suggest that that's why the Chiefs proposed the ban. If it was being raised as a safety issue I could understand supporting the ban (which would only be on hair down to the nameplate, so it would still be possible to grab some players by their hair), but as far as I can find, it isn't, so I don't.

by Jack on Apr 2, 2008 6:53 PM MDT up 0 recs

Some quotes from Herm Edwards

that support the uniform code over safety issue.

"We had a pretty good feeling it was going to get tabled," Chiefs coach Herm Edwards said at the NFL owners meetings. "We have to take it to the union to consider. That's OK. I think as long as the players know they can discuss it. Basically what we're looking at is a discussion. In our opinion, it's a violation of the dress code."

"There is a certain way we feel the uniform should be portrayed," Edwards said. "That's why we brought it up. I think we are all naïve if we don't know who those guys are. We are talking about uniform violations in our opinions. There were a lot of years players didn't have names on the backs of their jerseys. All of a sudden, you get it, and you cover it up. When I was growing up playing football, you looked at pro football players and said, 'I can't wait to get my name on the jersey.' Now, you get it on the back and you cover it up."

by MattR on Apr 2, 2008 8:49 PM MDT up 0 recs

If that's the case...

...it's an odd way for Herm to approach it. As a matter of rules, players are identified by officials by number, not name. If Herm's point is that he doesn't like the disrepect to the uniform or to the concept of team (and that is how it sounds), then I agree with him. But making the matter an issue of safety makes much more sense.

If Herm is the primary mover for the rule change he isn't doing a great job making his point (as seen by the delayed consideration).

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Apr 3, 2008 1:23 PM MDT up 0 recs

Why would anyone care which Chiefs had their names

displayed? Other than Gonzalez and Allen most of their big name players can only be seen on replays of seasons past.

Why should the Chiefs care whether or not their opponents' names are visible, would that make any difference when the Chiefs are missing blocks and tackles?

Overall, I think it is ridiculous to restrict the players freedom of choice. If some of them want long hair, that should be a personal choice. I am a soldier and I buzz my head once a week, but that is because I like this hairstyle. Even after I retire I will still go with the buzz (great way to save $ on shampoo).

by Arctic Bronco on Apr 2, 2008 11:00 PM MDT up 0 recs

Well, Chief fans need to know

which defender is chasing the ball carrier from behind.

by MattR on Apr 2, 2008 11:05 PM MDT up 0 recs

force out rule

I'm not a big fan of college football, but I much prefer their force out rule to the NFL's. It takes the judgment call out of the ref's hands, either you get one foot in or you don't.

Most of the time the NFL refs get it right, but I have seen where a pass was called complete (not called a force out), the opposing team challenged, pass was ruled incomplete on the replay even though it could be clearly seen as a force out in the replay - I don't think they are allowed to rule a force out on a replay, it has to be called on the field, but I could be wrong.

by Darin H on Apr 2, 2008 1:41 PM MDT 0 recs

I don't like this change

I don't have a very good argument, but I like the way it is now. The force out rule works better in college where you only need one foot down.

It seems like both this change and the elimination of the 5 yard facemask (which I don't like also) are intended to take discretion from the refs and make everything more black and white.

I just don't see the need for that change. The refs in the NFL are pretty amazing (despite the criticism they get) and I would rather them given some discretion.

I think both these rule changes are gonna have a bigger impact than anticipated.

by MattR on Apr 2, 2008 8:57 PM MDT up 0 recs

Always hated that rule

I've never liked the forceout rule, since it's inception. If a receiver catches the ball and gets his feet on the ground, then we're going to look at it all the way down to the blades of grass (esp with HDTV) to make sure he's in bounds. However, if the defender so much as nudges him, even if it's in going for the ball himself and 18 inches in the air, well, then maybe we'll just assume he would've gotten his feet in or maybe not. So, what does a corner do? Play and defend aggressively or back off in hope the guy will land with at least his little toenail on the line? He's screwed either way. It called for the officials to make a judgment based on wild speculation. The new rule is right on, unless the receiver is actually carried out of bounds, he has to get his feet in.

Or so I'm told.

by MN Bronco on Apr 3, 2008 7:50 AM MDT up 0 recs

hair rule

This whole hair rule thing seems stupid to me. Let the players wear whatever length hair they want and just be sure they are informed of the risk involved. I think this is quite different than, say, hockey players wearing helmets, since no incident involving long hair has ever happened to my knowledge. The only reason why that rule needed to be instituted is that there were quite regular and gruesome injuries that could be prevented. While the possibility exists here, it seems unlikely to make such a rule unnecessary.

by bushwah on Apr 2, 2008 7:12 PM MDT 0 recs

There are...

...a lot of examples of things that people don't address until the worst happens. I think it's better to have a rule in place to prevent it from happening instead of waiting for a player to get paralyzed first.

The reason it probably hasn't happened yet is that in the past there were fewer players with long hair, and the current players are wearig it even longer and (in some cases) in a braided kind of manner that makes it easier to grab.

Informing the players of the risk, and even having them sign a waiver, might not protect the League from liability if it was reasonable to assume that a risk was evident enough and they didn't forbid the practice. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think a waiver protects against negligence.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by hoosierteacher on Apr 3, 2008 1:33 PM MDT up 0 recs

I could see the hair pull being dangerous

for the same reason the "roy williams rule" was put into place, but using the excuse that it is a uniform violation is absurd. The NFL has a right to do it being a private corporation, but like bushwah said tell them the risks and they make the choice.

$%^&!

by Htown Broncfan on Apr 2, 2008 9:56 PM MDT 0 recs