I would support these changes, but then I enjoy Australian Rules Football as well as Rugby. I have not seen you on this site before, welcome!

PS Perhaps you should post a pic for an avatar so Zappa doesn’t get confused.

welcome and glad you are here. I am worried your proposed changes could invite a little more injury by choice. Holding plays would result in a guy being held by the jersey and thrown to the ground (Maybe) also the pass interference call being eliminated could cause pushing at the last second and hurt some players who weigh a little less ( ie Glenn Martinez 180’s vs a CB at 205). Just some thoughts to add.

Offensive holding is a joke. Two giants at close quarters with exact opposite plans. Neither has an objective other than he wants to do what he is to supposed to. The offense wants to protect and execute. The defense wants to execute and destroy. The defence has long had the advantage—which is why the NFL seeks out special Giants for the offensive line. Take away that advantage and we would see fireworks…I love the 4th of July.

Do not take away pass-penalties. Too many people would be hurt if high-speed-flight plays had no protection.

Do not take away passing wrongs. Too many people will be hurt if high-speed cruelties are aloud.

Very interesting username to be sure.

I don’t think you will find too many knee-jerk reactions around these parts, however you did get a double eyebrow raise from me.

As far as a safety rebuttal, I’m not sure it would be any different from any of the tackling allowed in the sport (including the perfectly legal blindside tackle that appears absolutely devestating, even when laid by a kicker.) Safety probably shouldn’t be considered a valid argument against it.

I do wonder about your thoughts that you don’t think it would radically alter the game. I think hoosierteacher will be around to say something about this, but if I might anticipate his thoughts a little, I think we would be talking a change in fundamental personnell attributes for WR and DBs, where the TE becomes the dominant receiver and the WR becomes the “option” that the TE has traditionally been.

As far as offensive holding goes, the holding that goes on every play that they are talking about is holding inside the body of the defensive lineman, which still gives the Dlineman options and leverage for moving. I don’t think it would be a stretch at all to allow holding of this type, but to allow the olineman to put his hands on the OUTSIDE of a dlineman could possibly radically alter how lineplay is conducted. I think it might look like a scene out of a chuck norris movie, where there are fifty ninjas going at it.

When I was learning Judo, I learned a lot about body leverage, adn fundamentally, keeping your opponent away from outside holds was key to success. Once you are able to get your hands on an outside elbow, or to get your feet (in time) outside of your opponents, you could use their own weight and momentum against them. But of course, every throw had a counter move that could reverse your opponents momentum, and so on. If you allowed holding to the outside of a player, I think you would get a similar dynamic, with some really big guys flying around, and overall a pretty useless situation at the line. Running through the line would be almost nonexistent, but passing would be much easier (maybe). Running outside seems like it would also be feasible.

Any of this make sense?

I agree with Styg on the major points he raised. I agree that “safety isn’t a valid argument against your proposal. I also agree with Styg on his point that we would see radical differences in what would make good players for certain positions.

My problem with rules changes is the potential for unbalancing a game. In the trenches, where we to allow OFF holding there would be a few negative changes.

1. A crowd favorite, “blitzing” and the pass rush, would lose a lot of effectiveness. QBs would gain a lot of advantage.

2. RBs would also benefit from more lanes to run.

Another point I would make is this. While the refs don’t see every infraction regarding holding in the trenches, they catch enough to keep it in check. Loosen the rule and we have an imbalance. Tighten the rule (perhaps bring in another ref) and you get more ref “interference” in the game (which is what you wrote you don’t want). The refs catching the ration of holds to actual infractions works for me right now (just my opinion).

I’m a defensive guy, and my background is entirely defense. Even when I played rugby I was a scrummer (not a backer), so I rarely even touched the ball. So I may be a little biased on this rule change. But my thinking is that if we give the offense such a powerful tool, the scores will rise. Some folks think that people pay to see this happen (touchdowns), but I don’t think so. If that were the case, Arena Football would be very popular.

The other rule is allowing players to fight for the reception (in a sense). The defensive coordinator in me loves the idea, but the football purist hates it.

First, the law of unintended consequences may rear it’s head. Consider the many rules on what constitutes fairness in this situation, and the complexity involved. At what point can you fight for the ball? Immediately from the line of scrimmage? As the ball is thrown? If we are only talking about purely “going for the ball”, well, that’s the rule already. To allow further conflict for the reception, we have to go “back in time” on the play and allow the defensive player to go for the offensive player instead of the ball.

One might point out that one rule favors the offense while the other rule favors the defense. The idea might be that these new rules balance each other out. But I think that one rule would possibly have a more dramatic effect (though it’s hard to determine which one that might be).

Here’s a final consideration on the offensive hold. One element that keeps the game moving is the concept that a player on the defense will eventually get to the QB if he doesn’t do anything. While the defensive players dedicated on most plays to seeking out the QB are less than the number of players protecting the QB, they do have the advantage of not being limited by certain uses of the hands. As time goes on, the QB has to make a decision or face the consequence. With the proposed rule changes, I envision QBs staying in the pocket all day (too much protection) while they have no one to throw to (the WRs are layed out on the field), and we end up with very long plays with little action.

Still, I come to two conclusions.

One, I recommend your post for insightful thinking and a terrific conversation so far. Great job! You also make some good points defending your propositions.

Two, that Styg is a judo guy too? I’m not messing with him!

I do agree with the notion that these proposed changes may change the type of player who is most effective in the league…but I’m not sure that’s necessarily a bad thing. I had a good laugh at the idea of “fifty ninjas going at it” in front of the QB and, again, don’t know that this would be a negative either. It would turn the offensive line battle into more of a Judo match than a Sumo wrestling match, but c’mon, that would be AWESOME! We might as well just go full out MMA on the lines (kidding…sort of).

On the holding penalties, I think it’s very difficult to atticipate what kind of effect these changes would have. I still think blitzing would be effective, perhaps even necessary, to get to the QB. I still think D lines would be able to occasionally come crushing through the O line as they do now. I’m not sure this change would inevitably make running easier. Judo matches frequently look much like Sumo matches until a throw occurs…and I don’t know that we’d see too many Judo throws on 300 lbs. lineman. Honestly, I don’t think it be that big of a change.

I’ll admit that I am less enthusiastive about eliminating pass interference. Mostly because of several of the points that HT brought up. How far would they be allowed to take it? I guess I envision the freedom allowed to a DB in the first five yards to be extended to the whole field…but what’s to prevent them from simply tackling the receiver before he’s allowed a chance at the ball? Like I said, let them battle it out on the field.

In terms of the unusual username, as questioned by Styg, it is a Madden carryover. It was a humorous (and available) suggested alternative to the Madden username I wanted (which was not available)..so I went with it. Again, I thank you all for your comments and welcome. I have been a daily MHR reader for some time and finally decided to try my hand.

I like this idea. What bugs you about the NFL, and how could you change it…. I don’t know how I would change things, but I know it would be to promote more throwing the ball around via laterals. Not sure I wouyld want to touch the single forward pass rule…

What I really wish was that Madden was open source, and we could implement these rules and play a few games, just to see what happens. I am guessing you would have to change the (not so intelligent) AI dramatically though….

I would think in that world B-Marsh is a beast. Can you imagine people trying to outmuscle him for the ball?

Implemented as told, we would have 10 people on each side engaged in unarmed territorial warfare and the 11th on the D chases the QB around the field Simultaneously, the QB waits for a receiver to get back up and run away.

Sort of interesting, really, but not really football. Sure got me laughing, though!