2016 NFL Rule changes

MM had some interesting comments on the 25yd line rule for touchbacks.  That it encourages players to not compete and therefore makes the kick return kind of pointless.  If you're going to kick it off, then encourage returns or don't reward the decision not to return, i.e. ball at the 25.  Also suggested kickers would start kicking just short of goal line to force a return that will most likely be stopped short of the 25.

It's also going to make final roster decisions interesting. Some guys, like gunners on STs or just really good tacklers, make the team based almost entirely on STs. If kickoffs become essentially pointless, then is a guy like Chris Banjo more expendable and does TT instead keep an extra OL, DL or a more valued skill position?

I wonder if a touchback means starting at the 25 will change other decisions related to the kickoff. Maybe 5 yards won't make a difference, but if they continue to encourage touchbacks and give the offense at the ball at the 30 down the road it might.

If you have a Devin Hester type that you don't even want to mess with are you more likely to just kick the ball out of bounds downfield and have absolutely no chance of a return. The ball is at the 40 instead of the 25 then. 15 yards is probably not worth it. If that distance shrinks, things might change.

Also, when does the touchback placement start affecting onsides/squib kicks. if your kicker could squib it past the return team's front line at  midfield and force a recovery by some blockers at the other 35 or so would you be more likely to give up the 10 yards for the chance to recover a squib kick?

Again, maybe the 5 yards isn't enough to change the thinking, but eventually it may come into play.

Kickoffs from 1-5 yards deep to try & draw them out.

If I'm a HC, any kickoff in the endzone is a touchback or I'll fine your ass.

I'm beginning to like football less & less

If Rodgers and this offense is healthy, and someone like Ty Montgomery who's coming off an injury riddled year is fielding KR's, I'm telling him keep it in the EZ and screw risking your health. At the 25 yard line, Rodgers and Co. should be able to move this offense well. Why risk Monty or Cobb or even Janis! if the NFL is giving this much starting field position?

Also, a good summary WITH video examples on chop blocks which are now illegal in 2016:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/20...-illegal-explanation

Many zone blocking OL not happy about the changes:

Is there a difference between an unsportsmanlike penalty and a personal foul penalty?

TJ Lang on new chop blocks:

TJ Lang Retweeted Shaun O'Hara

I see the troubles of eliminating the chop block b/c it's so effective for o-linemen........but hard for me not to get on board with eliminating diving at players knees.  Like any rule change, they'll adapt.  

An unforeseen consequence of this though, is the decreasing effectiveness of the run game.  Have to assume we'll see an even bigger discrepancy in the pass/run ratio.  Maybe the NFL wants that though.  

I really don't see the problem with an O-lineman going low to block a defensive player AS LONG AS it is in FRONT!   Chopping low from behind should be called all the time not just outside the tackle-box or 2-yard zone.

If it's in FRONT of the defensive player, he can take steps to avoid the block the.

SanDiegoPackFan posted:

Is there a difference between an unsportsmanlike penalty and a personal foul penalty?

There is.  Take a face mask penalty for example.  A single finger grabbing the face mask for .5 seconds is an automatic personal foul, 15 yard penalty.  It's not unsportsmanlike conduct, unless it's Aqib Talib doing the facemasking.  

Bruce Arians from the Cards is worried other players will encourage each other to piss off a player already with 1 unsportsmanlike conduct penalty in the game. And for fools like Suh, he's right. It'll probably work. Players prone to taunting may find themselves with early exits.

Boris posted:

I'm beginning to like football less & less

Couldn't agree more Boss. At the rate it's going I can see myself not giving a damn about the NFL anymore sometime within the next few years. Baseball, basketball, and every other professional sport already lost me as a fan a long time ago. Oh well, I guess I'll just have more time for fishing and other activities when it happens.

SanDiegoPackFan posted:

Is there a difference between an unsportsmanlike penalty and a personal foul penalty?

The way I see it, a player couldn't get an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty without it being a personal foul. Said another way, a PF is the penalty, the UC is the reason for the penalty.

A player telling Walt Coleman he can go **** himself is not a personal foul. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. A coach telling Walt Coleman he can go **** himself for a PI call is not a personal foul. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. An assistant coach walking onto the field during a play to tell Walt Coleman he can go **** himself for calling so many unsportsmanlike conduct penalties is not a personal foul. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. 

20 vs. 25 means about a quarter of a point extra.

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics.com/index.php/home/stats/stats-explained/expected-points-and-epa-explained

the baseline EP values for each down-distance-field position situation must be created based on real game situations when points are equally valuable and time is not yet a factor. The baseline EP values are therefore based only on game situations when the score was within 10 points and in the first and third quarters. This eliminates situations like ‘trash time,’ and other distortions.

ChilliJon posted:

 An assistant coach walking onto the field during a play to tell Walt Coleman he can go **** himself for calling so many unsportsmanlike conduct penalties is not a personal foul. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. 

* Unless you are an assistant coach for the Steelers.

ChilliJon posted:

A player telling Walt Coleman he can go **** himself is not a personal foul. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. A coach telling Walt Coleman he can go **** himself for a PI call is not a personal foul. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. An assistant coach walking onto the field during a play to tell Walt Coleman he can go **** himself for calling so many unsportsmanlike conduct penalties is not a personal foul. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. 

This is unsportsmanlike conduct

This isn't unsportsmanlike conduct (repeat offender)

NFLFU

This is a Super Bowl Champion

This isn't

Regarding the new IR return rule. I don't get why the NFL doesn't allow a team to let all players on IR return if they are medically cleared. 

Goal of any business is to continuously put out the best possible product, right?

Set an 8 week minimum for for return from IR with a two week window to activate. Including playoffs. 

Expand the PS, and expand the roster.

Eliminate the inactive list. 

Doesn't it seem like most of this is done to passify Vegas? Which might be another story entirely.

ChilliJon posted:

Regarding the new IR return rule. I don't get why the NFL doesn't allow a team to let all players on IR return if they are medically cleared. 

Goal of any business is to continuously put out the best possible product, right?

Set an 8 week minimum for for return from IR with a two week window to activate. Including playoffs. 

I don't disagree with you but teams will abuse the rule by stashing guys on IR at training camp just to bring them off in 10 weeks, just in time to rest some starters.  Any doubt Belichick would use this as a JV roster?

 And that's unfortunate b/c you're right, the product by December is significantly worse b/c of the injuries, despite some of those injured players being healthy enough to play.  

Won't make any difference for the Packers. The medical staff will never let someone play until they are 100% healed which is usually more than 10 weeks. 

You assume the guys activated allow for starter rest in the stretch run? And who's stashing talent for 10 weeks if they can return sooner? 

The downside is the stress it puts on team physicians. In the era of player safety the question of returning guys from IR fast is problematic. 

ChilliJon posted:

A player telling Walt Coleman he can go **** himself is not a personal foul. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. A coach telling Walt Coleman he can go **** himself for a PI call is not a personal foul. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. An assistant coach walking onto the field during a play to tell Walt Coleman he can go **** himself for calling so many unsportsmanlike conduct penalties is not a personal foul. It's unsportsmanlike conduct. 

um, CJ, don't hold back now....tell us how you really feel about Walt Coleman!  

packerboi posted:

It's also going to make final roster decisions interesting. Some guys, like gunners on STs or just really good tacklers, make the team based almost entirely on STs. If kickoffs become essentially pointless, then is a guy like Chris Banjo more expendable and does TT instead keep an extra OL, DL or a more valued skill position?

Interesting, indeed.
My initial thought was no, because speed is still needed for punt coverage, perhaps moreso than KOs.
It wouldn't seem to make sense to add any of the 'bigs' to STs, but it might at RB, WR, or CB.

I'd say that the same (roughly) applies to the good tacklers. Granted, offensive skill positions aren't generally known to be good tacklers, although Janis was NASTY last year, so it can be taught and coached. DL/OL guys may not have the speed to get to a position to make those tackles.

packerboi posted:

 

Also, a good summary WITH video examples on chop blocks which are now illegal in 2016:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/20...-illegal-explanation

 

 

 

I'm really surprised by how (apparently) "being engaged" is interpreted.
Some plays look like a C or G just giving a quick punch to a DL before going for a LB. Not even looking at the original guy, eyes downfield looking for that LB. I don't see how that is defined as being engaged.

Just as confused to how the refs can see something like that in real time when it happens that quickly. I had no idea this happens in games as often as it appears to, especially considering it's not frequently called.

packerboi posted:

In addition, the league tabled a proposal from the Baltimore Ravens to expand instant replay to review all but eight specified penalties in the rulebook. Competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay said there was enough support for the idea to merit further study and a likely vote at the league's spring meetings in May.

The eight penalties that would not be reviewable in the Ravens' proposal are:

* Offensive or defensive holding

* Offensive or defensive pass interference

* Illegal contact

* Illegal use of hands

* Whether a forward passer has been forcibly contacted

* Whether a defenseless receiver has been forcibly contacted

* Whether a kicker has been forcibly contacted

* Unsportsmanlike conduct

While unsportsmanlike conduct wouldn't be reviewable if the Ravens' proposal ultimately is adopted, it will still come under heavy scrutiny by the league after Wednesday's approval of the automatic ejection rule. The measure is aimed at curbing penalties outside the perimeter of the game such as taunting, punching and kicking.

 

Not sure I understand the idea behind reviewing (mostly?) 5 yard penalties, as opposed to OPI/DPI, as an example. Ditto for delaying a game to review something like an offsides or false start.

I think the league should change the rule from Unsportsmanlike Conduct to Personal Foul. It's tough for a player to be on the verge of automatic ejection for a foul like cuqui posted above.
PFs should deal with the crap like OBJ pulled last year, or headhunters like Merriwether.

What would you guys/gals change, add, or delete regarding this proposal?

If you cannot overturn a call in 45 seconds, the call stands

I like it EKB.  And on that note, I read that while there are no changes to the catch rule, they've indirectly changed it by telling refs that if it's not 100% clear on instant replay, the call on the field stands.  That would get rid of the "well he had control for 1.5 steps but then it slightly bobbles but then he regains control and lunges for the goal line but then it pops out when it hits the ground so maybe it's a catch but it was only 1.5 steps and not a full 2 so thus not a football move so I don't know maybe it was a catch let's just say the opposite of Mike Carey to make it interesting" explanation that refs give and changes it to "replay was inconclusive, so call on the field stands".  Everyone complains but fact is, there will never be 1 definition of a catch that fits every situation.  It's a "I know it when I see it" but you can't officiate like that.  

Your mic's on.

I posted this in the It Was A Catch thread back in Feb.

The keys...

ARTICLE 3. COMPLETED OR INTERCEPTED PASS

A player who makes a catch may advance the ball. A forward pass is complete (by the offense) or intercepted (by the defense) if a player, who is inbounds:

1. secures control of the ball in his hands or arms prior to the ball touching the ground; and
2. touches the ground inbounds with both feet or with any part of his body other than his hands; and
3. maintains control of the ball after (a) and (b) have been fulfilled

Note: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered a loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession.

If the player loses the ball while simultaneously touching both feet or any part of his body to the ground, it is not a catch.

Item 1. Player Going to the Ground. A player is considered to be going to the ground if he does not remain upright long enough to demonstrate that he is clearly a runner. If a player goes to the ground in the act of catching a pass (with or without contact by an opponent), he must maintain control of the ball until after his initial contact with the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, the pass is incomplete. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, the pass is complete.

Items 2 & 3 refer to defining Sideline and Endzone catches, but in both cases refer to Item 1 above.

Then there is this...

Item 4. Ball Touches Ground. If the ball touches the ground after the player secures control of it, it is a catch, provided that the player continues to maintain control.

I think many of the WRs think touching the ball is maintaining control, and it is not.

Besides voting on the next 5 SB sites, the owners did this:

Here’s the official verbiage from the playing rule proposal:

“The Replay Official and designated members of the Officiating Department at the League office may consult with the on-field officials to provide information on the correct application of playing rules, including appropriate assessment of penalty yardage, proper down, and status of the game clock.”

NFL owners also voted to expand reviewable plays to include game administration (changes in bold).

“The Replay System will cover the following play situations:

(a) Plays involving possession.

(b) Plays involving touching of either the ball or the ground.

(c) Plays governed by the goal line.

(d) Plays governed by the boundary lines.

(e) Plays governed by the line of scrimmage.

(f) Plays governed by the line to gain.

(g) Number of players on the field at the snap, even when a foul is not called.

(h) Game administration:  (1) Penalty enforcement.   (2) Proper down.   (3) Spot of a foul.   (4) Status of the game clock.

” The official reason for the rule change is it “provides for more extensive use of Instant Replay system.”

Just saw this link

Using replay to enforce penalties now??