A few ways to improve the NFL.....

Assani Fisher · #1 09-08-2006, 12:03 AM

Was just thinking about this since there were talking about the new commish tonight and he was discussing some of his plans for the league. Let me begin by saying that I think the NFL is in the best shape of any sports league and its my favorite sport to watch, so I'm not complaining....I'm just offering a few ways to improve:

1. Offensive/defensive pass interference- the refs call too much PI on the defense and too little on the offense. Imo, both players have EQAUAL rights to the ball and the refs should try to ignore who is on offense and who is on defense when determining who interfered with whom.

2. Pro Bowl- By far the least competitive of any of the major sports' all star games. I understand the injury risks in football, but people get hurt just as much when going 1/2 speed imo. I'm not really sure of a solution here, but its obviously an area that can be improved. Anyone have any suggestions here?

3. Blowing the whistle on questionable down by contact or down before a fumble plays- since plays in which the whistle blows are not reviewable, the refs must NOT blow the whistle if there is not certainty here imo. I do think they've improved some in this area, but they can improve more.

4. Allow celebrations, but not taunting. I hate the NFL's recent decision to disallow props during celebrations. I think that fun celebrations are good for the game. However, mimicking other player's celebrations, celebrating on the other teams' logo, or anything else disrespectful is different and should NOT be allowed. JMHO here. I think theres a key distinction between having fun and rubbing it in.

Anyone have any others?

DCopper04 · #2 09-08-2006, 12:11 AM

I'm not a fan of all the "defenseless receiver" rules that are in place. I'd like to see them relaxed. But I would guess I'm in the minority here.

MacGuyV · #3 09-08-2006, 12:14 AM

Interference & illegal contact is the big one for me. Especially frustrating that it always seems to get called on 3rd down.

Also, intentional freaking grounding. It's not called enough on anybody, but especially against good QB's. When it finally is called, it takes 3 coaches and 11 defenders to beg & plead for the call before the flag is finally thrown about 45 seconds late.

IggyWH · #4 09-08-2006, 12:19 AM

One rule that really pisses me off is if a receiver catches the ball and gets two feet down in the endzone, then gets cremed and when he hits the ground he loses the ball, it's ruled incomplete.

It should be a TD as soon as he gets his 2 feet in bounds with control of the ball. Running backs don't have to run into the endzone with 2 feet, get cremed by a LB/DB and hold onto the ball. Once they cross, it's a TD. So, why do receivers get screwed?

youtalkfunny · #5 09-08-2006, 08:15 AM

I'm certain that my contribution to this thread will be the least popular: abolish instant replay reviews. Whatever the original call was, go with it.

You wouldn't have so many blown calls if you didn't hand the game over to 65-year-old men who can't keep up. I've got to think there are ATHLETES who would do this job, if it were a full-time paying gig. The fact that this multi-billion dollar league uses part-timers for officials is disgraceful.

[ QUOTE ]
One rule that really pisses me off is if a receiver catches the ball and gets two feet down in the endzone, then gets cremed and when he hits the ground he loses the ball, it's ruled incomplete.

It should be a TD as soon as he gets his 2 feet in bounds with control of the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, it is.

pudley4 · #6 09-08-2006, 08:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm certain that my contribution to this thread will be the least popular: abolish instant replay reviews. Whatever the original call was, go with it.

You wouldn't have so many blown calls if you didn't hand the game over to 65-year-old men who can't keep up. I've got to think there are ATHLETES who would do this job, if it were a full-time paying gig. The fact that this multi-billion dollar league uses part-timers for officials is disgraceful.

[ QUOTE ]
One rule that really pisses me off is if a receiver catches the ball and gets two feet down in the endzone, then gets cremed and when he hits the ground he loses the ball, it's ruled incomplete.

It should be a TD as soon as he gets his 2 feet in bounds with control of the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. If a receiver is falling as he catches the ball, he has to maintain possession through the impact with the ground. If his feet touch as he's falling, but he loses the ball when he hits the ground, it's technically an incomplete pass.

youtalkfunny · #7 09-08-2006, 08:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm certain that my contribution to this thread will be the least popular: abolish instant replay reviews. Whatever the original call was, go with it.

You wouldn't have so many blown calls if you didn't hand the game over to 65-year-old men who can't keep up. I've got to think there are ATHLETES who would do this job, if it were a full-time paying gig. The fact that this multi-billion dollar league uses part-timers for officials is disgraceful.

[ QUOTE ]
One rule that really pisses me off is if a receiver catches the ball and gets two feet down in the endzone, then gets cremed and when he hits the ground he loses the ball, it's ruled incomplete.

It should be a TD as soon as he gets his 2 feet in bounds with control of the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's not. If a receiver is falling as he catches the ball, he has to maintain possession through the impact with the ground. If his feet touch as he's falling, but he loses the ball when he hits the ground, it's technically an incomplete pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about diving catches. I was replying to situation where a receiver was upright, with possession, feet on ground, then got hit, then hit the ground, then lost the ball.

I hadn't considered diving catches when replying.

pudley4 · #8 09-08-2006, 09:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
One rule that really pisses me off is if a receiver catches the ball and gets two feet down in the endzone, then gets cremed and when he hits the ground he loses the ball, it's ruled incomplete.

It should be a TD as soon as he gets his 2 feet in bounds with control of the ball. Running backs don't have to run into the endzone with 2 feet, get cremed by a LB/DB and hold onto the ball. Once they cross, it's a TD. So, why do receivers get screwed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the RB has already established possession of the ball. A receiver does not have possession until he holds the ball, gets the proper number of body parts in contact with the field, and proves possession by either: A) making a "football move", or B)holding on to the ball throughout contact with the ground.

IggyWH · #9 09-08-2006, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One rule that really pisses me off is if a receiver catches the ball and gets two feet down in the endzone, then gets cremed and when he hits the ground he loses the ball, it's ruled incomplete.

It should be a TD as soon as he gets his 2 feet in bounds with control of the ball. Running backs don't have to run into the endzone with 2 feet, get cremed by a LB/DB and hold onto the ball. Once they cross, it's a TD. So, why do receivers get screwed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the RB has already established possession of the ball. A receiver does not have possession until he holds the ball, gets the proper number of body parts in contact with the field, and proves possession by either: A) making a "football move", or B)holding on to the ball throughout contact with the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the rules for possession, I just think it sucks when it relates to the endzone.

The reason for the "football move" is because anywhere else on the field, the receiver is still in play once they catch the ball.

In the endzone though, once they catch the ball and have 2 feet down, I think that should be possession, because it's not like they can actually go somewhere. It's either a TD or not a TD. It also allows the defense to take a free shot at changing the result of the play.

One of these days, a receiver is going to get murdered, probably from an illegal hit, because of this rule.

I guess I can't have it both ways though and possession rules have to be equal no matter where you are at in the field.

legend42 · #10 09-08-2006, 06:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The reason for the "football move" is because anywhere else on the field, the receiver is still in play once they catch the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if that is the reason for the rule, but either way, I don't think you do need to make a football move in the end zone. Shockey certainly didn't against Seattle last year (he barely had one toe down) and they called that a touchdown, even after a replay review (I know the NFL said that call was a mistake, but not because he didn't make a football move).

You DO need to maintain possession when falling to the ground, though. And that situation is much more common (i.e. Edell Shepherd last year).

[ QUOTE ]
One of these days, a receiver is going to get murdered, probably from an illegal hit, because of this rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has anybody ever been seriously hurt on one of these kinds of plays? The receiver should be prepared to take a hit, even in the end zone. He's no more exposed or vulnerable than any other place on the field, where DBs have much more space to launch themselves at an outstretched receiver. I think the rule is fine- it's the defender's right to try to jar the ball loose.