Parity vs rule changes

[Oldgeek]

Something to kick around. With the rule changes that favor the offense, doesn't this put the teams with average-bad QBs in an almost certain losing position? There was a time, if you had a good rushing attack, good D and special teams, you could win a SB. With it being a passing league, if you don't have a good to great QB, you have little to no chance to go deep in the post season.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Something to kick around. With the rule changes that favor the offense, doesn't this put the teams with average-bad QBs in an almost certain losing position? There was a time, if you had a good rushing attack, good D and special teams, you could win a SB. With it being a passing league, if you don't have a good to great QB, you have little to no chance to go deep in the post season.

That's a great point.

Look back at the 1985 bears. Heck, the Bears from 1984-1988.

Not only did they win the Super Bowl, but over those years went 62-17 with Jim McMahon playing in just 44 games and Mike Tomczak the others.

Jim McMahon, while colourful, had an average passer rating of 81 over that span. Tomczak was around 60. Between them easily in the 70's.

^ that wouldn't be good enough to win many games these days.

By comparison; Shawn Hill's passer rating this year was 84. Austin Davis 85.

 

[Ramathon]

One aspect of the rules I think could use some review is defensive pass interference. As close as the refs are calling that one these days, I'm beginning to wonder if those penalties shouldn't be a flat 'X' yards, be it 10, 15, or whatever rather than putting the ball at the spot of the foul. Example from the Piit/Balt game last night....

A Ravens WR was running a deep route and had about 1.25 steps on the Steelers' DB. DB is running full out trying to catch up. Ball gets thrown up, but it's underthrown just a hair. The Ravens' WR slows just a smidgeon, and as a result, the Steelers' DB runs into him prior to the ball's arrival. By the letter of today's law, it was DPI. But it was ticky-tack. The DB wasn't reaching out and knocking the WR's arms down or anything like that....it was simply a matter of him trying to catch up and the WR slowing just a hair.

The result was something like a 42 yd penalty. That's an awful lot of yards for what was basically both guys doing exactly what they should have been doing.

Where it gets really inconsistent is in what is sometimes called 'incidental contact'. You see it a fair amount where a WR and DB are running virtually stride for stride and their feet get tangled up and both go down. More often than not that gets blown off by the refs as 'incidental contact'. But IMO, the play I described above is really not much different.

Anyway, that's one rule that can be a major player in a game's outcome that should be reviewed, IMO. Heck, if I were coaching a team, I'd have the WR's practice slowing down a hair to draw the 'inciendental' type penalties I described above. And chances are, they probably are practicing that.

 

[CGI_Ram]

One aspect of the rules I think could use some review is defensive pass interference. As close as the refs are calling that one these days, I'm beginning to wonder if those penalties shouldn't be a flat 'X' yards, be it 10, 15, or whatever rather than putting the ball at the spot of the foul. Example from the Piit/Balt game last night....

A Ravens WR was running a deep route and had about 1.25 steps on the Steelers' DB. DB is running full out trying to catch up. Ball gets thrown up, but it's underthrown just a hair. The Ravens' WR slows just a smidgeon, and as a result, the Steelers' DB runs into him prior to the ball's arrival. By the letter of today's law, it was DPI. But it was ticky-tack. The DB wasn't reaching out and knocking the WR's arms down or anything like that....it was simply a matter of him trying to catch up and the WR slowing just a hair.

The result was something like a 42 yd penalty. That's an awful lot of yards for what was basically both guys doing exactly what they should have been doing.

Where it gets really inconsistent is in what is sometimes called 'incidental contact'. You see it a fair amount where a WR and DB are running virtually stride for stride and their feet get tangled up and both go down. More often than not that gets blown off by the refs as 'incidental contact'. But IMO, the play I described above is really not much different.

Anyway, that's one rule that can be a major player in a game's outcome that should be reviewed, IMO. Heck, if I were coaching a team, I'd have the WR's practice slowing down a hair to draw the 'inciendental' type penalties I described above. And chances are, they probably are practicing that.

I agree; make penalties reviewable. This wouldn't get out of hand as the number of reviews would still be limited but could be used to correct a game changing penalty.

I HATE when a bogus penalty call effects the outcome or momentum of the game.

The other option, I suppose with major penalties like PI... You could have a major and minor element. Sort of like running into the kicker vs roughing the kicker.

 

[Ramathon]

I agree; make penalties reviewable. This wouldn't get out of hand as the number of reviews would still be limited but could be used to correct a game changing penalty.

I HATE when a bogus penalty call effects the outcome or momentum of the game.

The other option, I suppose with major penalties like PI... You could have a major and minor element. Sort of like running into the kicker vs roughing the kicker.

Good idea!

 

[Win1-4Ned]

I'd like to see them allow defensive contact on those rub/pick plays that have come into fashion. If the offense is going to run a play where it's indistinguishable whether the receivers are going to be blockers or receivers, then the defenders should be allowed to go through the potential blocker no matter where it happens on the field.

 

[Win1-4Ned]

I think something else that could certainly help is to get rid of automatic first downs. Defensive holding would just be a five yard penalty, pass interference would be a fifteen yard penalty. It would take some of the influence of the officiating out of the game. To take it even further, perhaps assessing the yardage without changing the down and distance would be another way to penalize an infraction without completely swinging the action. The offense benefits more from penalties because a defensive penalty can provide a new set of downs, but an offensive penalty only adds distant between the LOS and the first down marker.

 

[CGI_Ram]

I think something else that could certainly help is to get rid of automatic first downs. Defensive holding would just be a five yard penalty, pass interference would be a fifteen yard penalty. It would take some of the influence of the officiating out of the game. To take it even further, perhaps assessing the yardage without changing the down and distance would be another way to penalize an infraction without completely swinging the action. The offense benefits more from penalties because a defensive penalty can provide a new set of downs, but an offensive penalty only adds distant between the LOS and the first down marker.

The 10hr contemplation post

 

[Win1-4Ned]

The 10hr contemplation post

Yeah, the George Costanza of thread replies. Actually it was more reading the reactions to the Detroit - Dallas game. I don't believe the game was fixed, but I think the NFL has a serious credibility issue with regards to officiating. There is just too much of their imprint on most games. They've conditioned everyone to analyze every play and look for what is illegal on every play.

 

[Boffo97]

I think something else that could certainly help is to get rid of automatic first downs. Defensive holding would just be a five yard penalty, pass interference would be a fifteen yard penalty. It would take some of the influence of the officiating out of the game. To take it even further, perhaps assessing the yardage without changing the down and distance would be another way to penalize an infraction without completely swinging the action. The offense benefits more from penalties because a defensive penalty can provide a new set of downs, but an offensive penalty only adds distant between the LOS and the first down marker.

I think those need to stay as is... in particular the pass interference one. Otherwise, if I'm a defender and I know I'm beat on a long pass, I'll just flat out tackle the guy because that's better than letting him catch the pass.

 

[rhinobean]

I think those need to stay as is... in particular the pass interference one. Otherwise, if I'm a defender and I know I'm beat on a long pass, I'll just flat out tackle the guy because that's better than letting him catch the pass.

That's still the better option as catching the pass could be a score. Just saying!

 

[Win1-4Ned]

I think those need to stay as is... in particular the pass interference one. Otherwise, if I'm a defender and I know I'm beat on a long pass, I'll just flat out tackle the guy because that's better than letting him catch the pass.

Understood. But I think that the double whammy of giving the offense both the yardage and the automatic first down is something to look at as far as ways to restore a semblance of balance between offense and defense and reduce the officials' power to affect a game.