Football Rules that Need to Change

[Cosmic]

Another rule that I'd like to get rid of is the rule that says the ground can't cause a fumble. What's the call if a runner is 10 yards ahead of anyone, trips over his feet, falls down flat on his face and is knocked unconscious while the ground clearly causes the ball to pop out and roll five yards away? He's not down but it's also not a fumble?

I remember this specifically happening with the Bills a few years ago. The opposing QB was scrambling, nobody had touched him yet, he tripped and fumbled when he hit the ground.

Maybe we can get a list of "acts that are common to the game", so that we know what they are in the future?

I know this will be really unpopular, but I would like pass interference called more tightly (on both sides, though). There was a play in the Colts-Broncos game yesterday where the defender had a handful of jersey in the left hand before the ball got there, and reached around with the right hand and swatted the ball away. The announcer even said something like, "One hand on the receiver, one hand on the ball... played it perfectly." What? I hate stuff like that. But I would make it very strict for offensive and defensive PI-- no pushing off the DB down the field to give yourself a cushion, either. Keep the five-yard rule to allow jamming receivers. I'm the same way in hockey; I hate all the clutching and grabbing that's just below what the refs are willing to call as a penalty.

Edit: I don't see how PI can be anything other than a spot foul. If there is a 50-yard bomb, and PI is a 15-yard penalty, why wouldn't the DB knock the WR on their ass? Even a 20-yard pass... if PI is only a 15-yard penalty, it makes more sense for the DB to knock the WR down before the ball gets there than to risk giving up yards after the catch.

[SFCOM1]

Edit: I don't see how PI can be anything other than a spot foul. If there is a 50-yard bomb, and PI is a 15-yard penalty, why wouldn't the DB knock the WR on their ass? Even a 20-yard pass... if PI is only a 15-yard penalty, it makes more sense for the DB to knock the WR down before the ball gets there than to risk giving up yards after the catch.

As a High School Official,

They would have to enforce the unfair acts rule in that case. In both HS and college an official can award as deemed necessary any penalty if an "unfair act" occurs. ex. A non-player or subsitute runs on the field and tackles a runner headed into the endzone. In this case a greater penalty can be enforced if a defender just pulls down a player as they are running by to protect a TD. Now a TD would not be appropriate as one can not garuntee a catch will be made, but a penalty of greater than 15 yards can be awarded due to the unfair act.

Now if the NFL would even enforce that (as in the case of Lovey Smith actualy being in or near the field of play, on the Steelers sideline and forcing the player to avoid them). That would be interesting.

[Cosmic]

I get what you're saying, but I was using a little bit of hyperbole. I think that would be the thing to do if a DB just straight up tackles a receiver anytime there's a bomb, but what if it's just a normal (but very bad by today's standards) PI? I think a DB can do a lot in that "normal" window and still pretty much guarantee themselves a no-catch. Then you've got refs making a judgment call on pretty much any long PI. I think the thing to do is to keep it the way it is, but tell the refs to emphasize the catchability factor. If there's a 50-yard bomb, and it really is a catchable ball, I don't see any legit reason for making the penalty shorter.

[OnWis97]

Don't make pass interference a spot foul rule- it's too damn easy to flip the field in 40 yards without a completion. Just heave it up and draw a flag. All PI penalties should be 10 or 15 yards. Endzone PI is the absolute worst.

If illegal contact penalties come on downs of more than 5 yards, don't make it an automatic 1st down. If it's on, say, 2nd and 12, make it 2nd and 7.

This.

In general, I like college rules a lot better. The biggest rule I don't like in the pros is how PI is a spot foul. There is no reason why a potential 50+ yard bomb that falls to the ground needs to be awarded due to PI. Making that a 10 or 15 yard penalty would be just fine.

Good one. Given that it's a pass-first game (particularly in the NFL) now, pass interference has become a huge deal. I know the 15-yard penalty could encourage defenders to commit the foul, but I have not seen that as a big problem in college games. But since pass interference is becoming a possibility on almost every play, since it's hard to call, and since (even if it's not supposed to) it favors offense, I like the idea of 15 yards (or spot foul for less than 15 from scrimmage) and first down.

[Sport]

Don't make pass interference a spot foul rule- it's too damn easy to flip the field in 40 yards without a completion. Just heave it up and draw a flag. All PI penalties should be 10 or 15 yards. Endzone PI is the absolute worst.

If illegal contact penalties come on downs of more than 5 yards, don't make it an automatic 1st down. If it's on, say, 2nd and 12, make it 2nd and 7.

This.

In general, I like college rules a lot better. The biggest rule I don't like in the pros is how PI is a spot foul. There is no reason why a potential 50+ yard bomb that falls to the ground needs to be awarded due to PI. Making that a 10 or 15 yard penalty would be just fine.

Good one. Given that it's a pass-first game (particularly in the NFL) now, pass interference has become a huge deal. I know the 15-yard penalty could encourage defenders to commit the foul, but I have not seen that as a big problem in college games. But since pass interference is becoming a possibility on almost every play, since it's hard to call, and since (even if it's not supposed to) it favors offense, I like the idea of 15 yards (or spot foul for less than 15 from scrimmage) and first down.

I'm all for this. They were talking during one of the Ravens playoff games that they try to throw the ball deep downfield so often because a defensive pass interference penalty is the same likelihood as their guy catching the ball and it nets the same yardage. That seems sleazy, but I can't really blame them if that's the rule.

Spot of the foul pass interference puts so much power into the officials hands. Make it a 15 yard automatic first down and it's an acceptable punishment for the defense that doesn't just hand the offense a score.

[Kramerica Industries]

You also can't blame them because Torrey Smith racked up over 200 yards in DPI calls this season, far more than any other receiver in the NFL.

[OnWis97]

You also can't blame them because Torrey Smith racked up over 200 yards in DPI calls this season, far more than any other receiver in the NFL.

This is like the "Walk" in pre-SABR baseball. It does not show up on the stats we care about, but it helps create points. I don't know how much money he makes, but perhaps he is "undervalued."

[Mac the Knife]

5. College: One foot in bounds for a catch. No really strong feelings here but I tend to prefer the NFL rule of two feet in bounds. (Visions of Cris Carter falling over the sideline and getting both feet in bounds).

I think it'd be much better on several fronts if the NFL adopted the college rule, actually. Officials would have a much easier time of it, use of instant replay would be down, etc.

8. Raiders' touchdowns/field goals count for double points.

I like it... but it'd only get the Raiders to 6-10 most seasons...

My proposals...

1. One-foot inbounds = catch/interception.

2. Eliminate the extra point kick. Instead, spot the ball as for a 2-point conversion. If you can run it in from there, you get 2 points; if you pass, 1 point.

3. Reduce value of field goals tried from inside the 25-yard line from 3 points to 2. Give 4 points for a 50+ yarder if you're feeling generous.

4. Add the Defensive Return (2 points) to conversion tries.

5. Either move kickoffs back to the 30 yard line, or have touchbacks bring the ball out to the 25 instead of the 20.

6. Make fair catches a foul (Illegal Procedure, enforceable from the spot).

[Sport]

Why does everyone want to make the extra point more convoluted? Just move it back ten yards and call it a day. Also, goalposts are getting 4 feet narrower next season. Field goal misses and extra point misses will go up.

[OnWis97]

5. College: One foot in bounds for a catch. No really strong feelings here but I tend to prefer the NFL rule of two feet in bounds. (Visions of Cris Carter falling over the sideline and getting both feet in bounds).

I think it'd be much better on several fronts if the NFL adopted the college rule, actually. Officials would have a much easier time of it, use of instant replay would be down, etc.

8. Raiders' touchdowns/field goals count for double points.

I like it... but it'd only get the Raiders to 6-10 most seasons...

My proposals...

1. One-foot inbounds = catch/interception.

2. Eliminate the extra point kick. Instead, spot the ball as for a 2-point conversion. If you can run it in from there, you get 2 points; if you pass, 1 point.

3. Reduce value of field goals tried from inside the 25-yard line from 3 points to 2. Give 4 points for a 50+ yarder if you're feeling generous.

4. Add the Defensive Return (2 points) to conversion tries.

5. Either move kickoffs back to the 30 yard line, or have touchbacks bring the ball out to the 25 instead of the 20.

6. Make fair catches a foul (Illegal Procedure, enforceable from the spot).

This (the four-pointer, anyway) actually gives more importance to kickers.

But what really makes me cringe when I see this one is that it punishes good drives. As fun as it would be to see teams run backwards on 3rd and 10 with a 3/4 point deficit, I think the beauty of the field goal is that the reward for a better drive is an easier kick. Therefore, I feel they should all be the same value.

[GFB]

The entire rulebook of what constitutes a catch has become so convoluted, the entire section needs to be thrown out and re-written.

The simplest fix would be to define a catch as "bringing the original momentum of the ball's forward pass under control, thus exhibiting full possession;" or in normal language, "if you stop the flight of the football and put the ball under your own control, force, and movement, you have proven that you have fully re-established possession of the football." That allows you to keep the whole "cleanly catching the football" that the NFL and their referees love and also puts a stop to this tomfoolery that the process of catching a pass lasts longer than a second.

Both of those catches GIF-d above should have counted as catches and the idea that the NFL let it get to this point by going further and further down the rabbit hole by adding additional stipulations to the rules instead of reverting to common sense.

[See Red]

To be clear, Calvin Johnsons catch was incomplete as well?

[BBTV]

My proposals...

1. One-foot inbounds = catch/interception.

2. Eliminate the extra point kick. Instead, spot the ball as for a 2-point conversion. If you can run it in from there, you get 2 points; if you pass, 1 point.

3. Reduce value of field goals tried from inside the 25-yard line from 3 points to 2. Give 4 points for a 50+ yarder if you're feeling generous.

4. Add the Defensive Return (2 points) to conversion tries.

5. Either move kickoffs back to the 30 yard line, or have touchbacks bring the ball out to the 25 instead of the 20.

6. Make fair catches a foul (Illegal Procedure, enforceable from the spot).

1. I like the dragging of feet to come down with the ball. What happens if a guy catches the ball at the hash marks then hops on one foot out of bounds - would that be an incomplete pass?

2. I don't like that at all. It's not that I like the extra point kick as is, but I see no reason to change the value of a pass vs run. Besides, if it was a two point game, the defense would know that the offence can't run, and all kinds of bizarre formations could occur - like having all 11 defenders guarding 5 eligible receivers.

3. This is down right silly and against the very nature of the game. If anything, long-distance field goals should be worth less. Why on earth would you reward a team for not being able to move the ball closer to the goal line? What if you are going for a TD but get stopped close to the goal line. Should you snap the ball 30 yards back in order to kick a longer field goal? The game is silly as is since you only need to get to the 35 any more to have a reasonable chance at 3 points. It's just wrong to give any incentive to offenses to stall and not attempt to advance the ball.

4. cool

5. cool

6. Totally dangerous. Even with a halo, if you're looking up to catch a ball you could still get drilled without being ready. There's nothing wrong with a fair catch.

#3 gets brought up quite often, and I cringe every time I see it. I think it's the absolute worst thing you could do to the game.

[Gothamite]

something I don't get about receivers catching the ball at the sidelines -

since such a big deal is made about "breaking the plane" at the goaline, and how the ball gets spotted where it was reached out (not necessarily where it hits the ground), why is it different at the sideline than at any other point of the field? If a guy has both feet in bounds, but catches the ball clearly outside the plane of the boundary, shouldn't it be an incomplete pass? If the invisible plane counts for touch downs, first down, and any other spot, it should count for out-of-bounds too.

Sidelines aren't analogous to the goal line, but the back of the end zone. Play can happen within the end zone, a player could be standing entirely within in when he catches the ball in outstretched hands on the 1-yard line, so the plane itself is important.

With the sidelines, as well as the back of the end zone, the player is in danger of going out of the field of play so refs need something observable to determine if he remains within it.

The plane for any play on the field, position of a player's feet once the ball leaves it. I don't see an issue with that.

[Gothamite]

To be clear, Calvin Johnsons catch was incomplete as well?

Yes to both.

[BBTV]

something I don't get about receivers catching the ball at the sidelines -

since such a big deal is made about "breaking the plane" at the goaline, and how the ball gets spotted where it was reached out (not necessarily where it hits the ground), why is it different at the sideline than at any other point of the field? If a guy has both feet in bounds, but catches the ball clearly outside the plane of the boundary, shouldn't it be an incomplete pass? If the invisible plane counts for touch downs, first down, and any other spot, it should count for out-of-bounds too.

Sidelines aren't analogous to the goal line, but the back of the end zone. Play can happen within the end zone, a player could be standing entirely within in when he catches the ball in outstretched hands on the 1-yard line, so the plane itself is important.

With the sidelines, as well as the back of the end zone, the player is in danger of going out of the field of play so refs need something observable to determine if he remains within it. I don't see an issue with that.

That makes sense. Basically the true boundary is a variable equal at most to the maximum reach of a player with both of his feet inside the line. I didn't think of the end zone as being in play, but you're absolutely right.

[AnPheitseog]

My proposals...

1. One-foot inbounds = catch/interception.

2. Eliminate the extra point kick. Instead, spot the ball as for a 2-point conversion. If you can run it in from there, you get 2 points; if you pass, 1 point.

3. Reduce value of field goals tried from inside the 25-yard line from 3 points to 2. Give 4 points for a 50+ yarder if you're feeling generous.

4. Add the Defensive Return (2 points) to conversion tries.

5. Either move kickoffs back to the 30 yard line, or have touchbacks bring the ball out to the 25 instead of the 20.

6. Make fair catches a foul (Illegal Procedure, enforceable from the spot).

1. I like the dragging of feet to come down with the ball. What happens if a guy catches the ball at the hash marks then hops on one foot out of bounds - would that be an incomplete pass?

2. I don't like that at all. It's not that I like the extra point kick as is, but I see no reason to change the value of a pass vs run. Besides, if it was a two point game, the defense would know that the offence can't run, and all kinds of bizarre formations could occur - like having all 11 defenders guarding 5 eligible receivers.

3. This is down right silly and against the very nature of the game. If anything, long-distance field goals should be worth less. Why on earth would you reward a team for not being able to move the ball closer to the goal line? What if you are going for a TD but get stopped close to the goal line. Should you snap the ball 30 yards back in order to kick a longer field goal? The game is silly as is since you only need to get to the 35 any more to have a reasonable chance at 3 points. It's just wrong to give any incentive to offenses to stall and not attempt to advance the ball.

4. cool

5. cool

6. Totally dangerous. Even with a halo, if you're looking up to catch a ball you could still get drilled without being ready. There's nothing wrong with a fair catch.

#3 gets brought up quite often, and I cringe every time I see it. I think it's the absolute worst thing you could do to the game.

6: The Canadian game has survived for a quite long time without major injuries with not being able to fair catch the ball, and taking the rules straight over I dont see it being an issue in the NFL

[LAWeaver]

I have a rather crazy idea that I came up with a month or so ago:

Have someone up in the booth or whatever like college football does with reviews. Give the head official an ear bud or bluetooth-like device. When the man in the booth sees a penalty, he'll tell the head official to throw a flag and why. The man in the booth would have a better view of the whole field.

As I'm typing this I realize now that there are A few issues with this, but I never said it was a great idea.

I do like the idea of the possibility of a defensive player returning the ball for 2 on a failed conversion attempt. I also like the one foot in bounds on a catch rule. I'm starting to see why I like college football more than the NFL

[See Red]

To be clear, Calvin Johnsons catch was incomplete as well?

Yes to both.

Okay. I didn't know if it was an example of the rule being applied inconsistently or not.

The rule really does need to be changed, but I'm not sure how to fix it without it being a complete judgement call.

[DCarp1231]

I remember watching the Maryland-West Virginia and a Maryland punt returner called for a fair catch... He muffed the catch and it was picked up by another Maryland player and ran for a touchdown, but due to the fact that it was initially a fair catch, the play was called back to the spot of the original catch.

Long story short... Trash that rule because apparently a WVU defender could have picked it up and ran for a touchdown but not a Maryland player.

New rule: Once that ball touches a player and is dropped, muffed, etc. anyone should be able to touch it and try to score.