Competition Committee Rule Change Proposals - The Something Awful Forums

«‹›3 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Sports Argument Stadium* > The Football Funhouse > Competition Committee Rule Change Proposals

Kalli: Jun 2, 2001; To all my critics, you get paid to be negative.

Just coming across the wire now:

On a conference call with Competition Committee. First proposal: Fix the Schwartz rule. (The one where a play will not be reviewed if you try and challenge an automatically reviewed play).

Second? Eliminating ganging up on long snapper

Tuck Rule is changing. If the passer loses control going forward it's still a INT. If he loses ball while tucking, it's a fumble.

TE/H-backs can wear numbers 40-49 now.

The Competition Committee will go after RBs who uses the crown of their helmet outside the tackle box.

Rule change: If a team claims a player, you must keep player on your roster for at least one day.

Changes to PUP proposed: Extending the PUP practice window ... Any 3 weeks between Weeks 6 and 11.

Another change proposed is moving the final cutdown to the Friday night before the Thursday opener, rather than Saturday.

Uniform inspectors will have access to sidelines on thigh/knee pads. Players will be given chance to comply. But can't play until you comply

NFL says field maintenance will be "an emphasis." Will take a "aggressive position." If a field isn't up to par, will require club to fix

Kalli fucked around with this message at Mar 14, 2013 around 19:24

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2013 04:55

Floridiot: Mar 23, 2005; Ever try and tackle a train?

Kalli posted:

The Competition Committee will go after RBs who uses the crown of their helmet outside the tackle box.

Huh? Like dropping their heads to truck people?

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:26

Kalli: Jun 2, 2001; To all my critics, you get paid to be negative.

Floridiot posted:

Huh? Like dropping their heads to truck people?

Yeah, exactly.

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:26

Sweeney Tom: Aug 9, 2012; The elite quarterback, seen here in its natural element.

Field maintenance an emphasis

aka gently caress You Snyder

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:27

Norv Turner: Jul 24, 2007; Norv... Norv never changes.

Kalli posted:

Rule change: If a team claims a player, you must keep player on your roster for at least one day.

This is an issue?

Kalli posted:

Uniform inspectors will have access to sidelines on thigh/knee pads. Players will be given chance to comply. But can't play until you comply

Players not wearing knee/thigh pads has always been baffling to me. During camp my freshman year in college we were in shells for an afternoon practice and I caught a knee right square in the thigh during one-on-one pass rush drills. Getting those massages before practice the following couple of days just so I could bend my knee were enough to convince me of the importance of the thigh pads.

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:28

Floridiot: Mar 23, 2005; Ever try and tackle a train?

Kalli posted:

Yeah, exactly.

Lame. Not much longer and they'll have to play in bubble wrap.

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:33

Intruder: Mar 5, 2003; If you even dream of covering me you'd better wake up and apologize

Floridiot posted:

Lame. Not much longer and they'll have to play in bubble wrap.

Put em in dresses, play flag football, rabble rabble rabble

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:34

Declan MacManus: Sep 1, 2011; THREE STAR RECRUIT

_{rip bama's title hopes

9/1/12-11/10/12}

Norv Turner posted:

This is an issue?

Bill Belichick y'all

Also I'm in favor of most of these rule changes, especially the tuck rule (although I don't know why they're changing it now)

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:42

Intruder: Mar 5, 2003; If you even dream of covering me you'd better wake up and apologize

Kalli posted:

Second? Eliminating ganging up on long snapper

I thought this was already a rule? That you couldn't line up over him or hit him?

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:44

Kalli: Jun 2, 2001; To all my critics, you get paid to be negative.

Intruder posted:

I thought this was already a rule? That you couldn't line up over him or hit him?

Yeah, I think the issue here is some teams double block him after the snap to throw him to the side so they can rush the gut. Not sure though.

Norv Turner posted:

This is an issue?

It's worded really badly, but this might be a change to the rule that you lose a roster spot for 3 weeks for signing a guy, even if you cut him the next week. Or maybe it's for Bill Belichick signing and cutting guys before and after every game.

~~~~~

Also they said they're not considering anything about low blocks, because after polling players they said they all are big buff dudes who can handle it. (No, really)

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:48

Blitz7x: Sep 19, 2007; Why the fuck isn't Lamonica out at QB. Who the fuck is Campbell?

Kalli posted:

Tuck Rule is changing. If the passer loses control going forward it's still a INT. If he loses ball while tucking, it's a fumble.

Eat poo poo early 00's Patriots

# ? Mar 14, 2013 19:49

SteelAngel2000: Feb 22, 2007; Win Win Win, cut down nets
A-Z-T-E-C got next
Let 'em play, let 'em play
Home team all day
Work hard like Coach Fish say
Aztecs, what's up?

Blitz7x posted:

Eat poo poo early 00's Patriots

This made me laugh a lot more than it should have

# ? Mar 14, 2013 20:02

The Puppy Bowl: Jan 31, 2013; Footbawwww at it's finest.

Any explanation as to why they are changing the tuck rule now as opposed to last decade?

The Puppy Bowl fucked around with this message at Mar 14, 2013 around 20:52

# ? Mar 14, 2013 20:46

Nail Rat: Dec 29, 2000; Haters gonna hate

Kalli posted:

Tuck Rule is changing. If the passer loses control going forward it's still a INT. If he loses ball while tucking, it's a fumble.

Thank loving god, this was the stupidest bullshit ever.

quote:

TE/H-backs can wear numbers 40-49 now.

Was Dallas Clark needing to report specially every play he ever played for the Colts?

quote:

NFL says field maintenance will be "an emphasis." Will take a "aggressive position." If a field isn't up to par, will require club to fix

Yeah, okay. *bears roll out deathtrap again*

Nail Rat fucked around with this message at Mar 14, 2013 around 20:54

# ? Mar 14, 2013 20:51

Kalli: Jun 2, 2001; To all my critics, you get paid to be negative.

The Puppy Bowl posted:

Any explanation as to why they are changing the tuck rule now as opposed to last decade?

Bill Polian finally left the committee? that's about the only change I know of.

The rule came up like once-twice a year (hell, it was called that season against the Patriots before the 'tuck rule game'), and the committee would answer a question every year saying they weren't looking at it.

# ? Mar 14, 2013 20:53

Azhais: Feb 5, 2007

Floridiot posted:

Lame. Not much longer and they'll have to play in bubble wrap.

Early proposal for new pop warner uniforms:

# ? Mar 14, 2013 21:04

Elephanthead: Sep 11, 2008

So more cap fines for the Redskins? What is the punishment for a poo poo field? Lose draft picks so you can afford grass seed?

# ? Mar 14, 2013 21:31

Knightmere: Aug 29, 2002; Clearly, they've got big plans for Tebow the Hero

Lose one of your home games to England for each violation.

# ? Mar 14, 2013 21:47

Blitz7x: Sep 19, 2007; Why the fuck isn't Lamonica out at QB. Who the fuck is Campbell?

# ? Mar 14, 2013 22:42

SteelAngel2000: Feb 22, 2007; Win Win Win, cut down nets
A-Z-T-E-C got next
Let 'em play, let 'em play
Home team all day
Work hard like Coach Fish say
Aztecs, what's up?

Blitz7x posted:

Still the best playoff game ever

# ? Mar 14, 2013 22:43

That Which Squeaks: Aug 28, 2006; "Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you."
-Bill Belichick

Was about to post that, I love when team media is legitimately funny.

# ? Mar 14, 2013 22:47

Intruder: Mar 5, 2003; If you even dream of covering me you'd better wake up and apologize

SteelAngel2000 posted:

Still the best playoff game ever

# ? Mar 14, 2013 22:49

SteelAngel2000: Feb 22, 2007; Win Win Win, cut down nets
A-Z-T-E-C got next
Let 'em play, let 'em play
Home team all day
Work hard like Coach Fish say
Aztecs, what's up?

Intruder posted:

I was trying to find some hilarious Texans playoff images but it's a very limited selection

# ? Mar 14, 2013 22:50

Norv Turner: Jul 24, 2007; Norv... Norv never changes.

Intruder posted:

FALL THE gently caress DOWN MARLON.

# ? Mar 14, 2013 22:51

Intruder: Mar 5, 2003; If you even dream of covering me you'd better wake up and apologize

SteelAngel2000 posted:

I was trying to find some hilarious Texans playoff images but it's a very limited selection

It's not even hard, you're just lazy

# ? Mar 14, 2013 22:53

Chichevache: Feb 16, 2010; Can't post for 22 hours!

Tuck Rule is bullshit.

# ? Mar 14, 2013 22:53

SteelAngel2000: Feb 22, 2007; Win Win Win, cut down nets
A-Z-T-E-C got next
Let 'em play, let 'em play
Home team all day
Work hard like Coach Fish say
Aztecs, what's up?

Intruder posted:

It's not even hard, you're just lazy

You know the dumb joke I was making okay

# ? Mar 14, 2013 22:54

DancingMachine: Aug 12, 2004; He's a dancing machine!

Fixing the Schwartz rule seems kind of unnecessary. Teams should really have somebody devoted to telling the coach when and when not to throw the red flag.

I'm mostly happy about RB's being required to keep their head up as much as defenders. But it's going to be a mess to enforce and probably really inconsistent.

# ? Mar 15, 2013 04:26

Sour Diesel: Jan 30, 2010; You come at the king, you best not miss.

Intruder posted:

It's not even hard, you're just lazy

Jacoby owns.

# ? Mar 15, 2013 04:30

swickles: Aug 21, 2006; Scoring? No, sir, I trust my opponents to be men of upstanding moral character.

DancingMachine posted:

Fixing the Schwartz rule seems kind of unnecessary. Teams should really have somebody devoted to telling the coach when and when not to throw the red flag.

I'm mostly happy about RB's being required to keep their head up as much as defenders. But it's going to be a mess to enforce and probably really inconsistent.

I don't know, I am a pretty big proponent of the facts being the basis for rulings and not obscure rules. Let what actually happened be the basis for the rules, not reactions to it.

# ? Mar 15, 2013 04:41

Kalli: Jun 2, 2001; To all my critics, you get paid to be negative.

swickles posted:

I don't know, I am a pretty big proponent of the facts being the basis for rulings and not obscure rules. Let what actually happened be the basis for the rules, not reactions to it.

Yeah, flag teams, eject coaches if need be, but saying you won't review an obviously wrong call because a coach hosed up a piece of procedure is just remarkably stupid and totally against the spirit of why replay even exists.

# ? Mar 15, 2013 04:42

DancingMachine: Aug 12, 2004; He's a dancing machine!

I suppose that's fair. It should at least be a penalty in my opinion.

# ? Mar 15, 2013 06:03

horseblow.avi: Jul 10, 2004; NEEEEIGHHHHH!

Kalli posted:

TE/H-backs can wear numbers 40-49 now.

I thought it's been this way already? Dallas Clark, Delanie Walker, and Chris Cooley are obvious examples. And back in the day, wasn't Keith Byars of the Eagles considered an H-Back?

# ? Mar 15, 2013 06:45

Toussaint Louverture: Mar 31, 2007; Atkins Diet

Kalli posted:

Tuck Rule is changing. If the passer loses control going forward it's still a INT. If he loses ball while tucking, it's a fumble.

do you mean incompletion? How would it be an INT?

# ? Mar 15, 2013 06:56

shiksa: Nov 9, 2009

horseblow.avi posted:

I thought it's been this way already? Dallas Clark, Delanie Walker, and Chris Cooley are obvious examples. And back in the day, wasn't Keith Byars of the Eagles considered an H-Back?

Probably something along the lines of why Keyshawn Johnson wore 19 way before WRs were allowed to wear 10-19 without exception, something like all of the available numbers for that position (80-89) were assigned before said player was a part of the team, so they got a number outside the norm. And after that they're allowed to keep that number because they had played with it before and are grandfathered into the arcane bullshit behind the NFL numbering system. Or maybe they started out at HB/FB and got switched to TE later on so they kept the old number for the same reason. For instance, Dexter McCluster and Devin Hester wearing numbers in the 20s despite being WRs (lol Devin Hester is a WR) because they started at other positions.

I just wish the NFL would set aside numbers for linemen so they're ineligible recievers and let everyone else go hog wild, personally.

e: Apparently Keyshawn Johnson just paid fines to wear 19 during his career. Weird, but makes sense. Either way, I remember there being a few other rare 10-19 WRs before they changed that rule, and I think it was because of availability of numbers.

shiksa fucked around with this message at Mar 15, 2013 around 07:35

# ? Mar 15, 2013 07:29

Obama Yo Mama: Jun 19, 2004; What about the NLCS?

STAY AWAY FROM THAT

DO NOT GO TO THE NLCS

Floridiot posted:

Lame. Not much longer and they'll have to play in bubble wrap.

yes getting unnecessary concussions because some rear end in a top hat doesn't know how to do anything but fall forward like he's leroy hoard is rad as gently caress

# ? Mar 15, 2013 08:05

Anals of History: Jul 29, 2003

Absolutely nothing about cut blocking? Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

# ? Mar 15, 2013 11:50

MD2020: May 29, 2003

shiksa posted:

e: Apparently Keyshawn Johnson just paid fines to wear 19 during his career. Weird, but makes sense. Either way, I remember there being a few other rare 10-19 WRs before they changed that rule, and I think it was because of availability of numbers.

I had thought that I heard that Johnson was the emergency QB for some of his teams and that's why he got away with 19, but that is probably wrong.

# ? Mar 15, 2013 12:59

Kalli: Jun 2, 2001; To all my critics, you get paid to be negative.

horseblow.avi posted:

I thought it's been this way already? Dallas Clark, Delanie Walker, and Chris Cooley are obvious examples. And back in the day, wasn't Keith Byars of the Eagles considered an H-Back?