[myr10]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns

"The owners did pass several resolutions, including eliminating the forceout on receptions; allowing teams to defer their decision to the second half when winning the opening coin toss; and making field goals and extra points subject to replay review to determine whether the ball passes over the crossbar and through the uprights.

Reviewing field goals was a slam dunk for the owners after a kick by Cleveland’s Phil Dawson to tie a game at Baltimore hit the support behind the crossbar, then came back onto the field. Officials got the call correct despite not being allowed to use replay. Now they can.

Tennessee Titans coach Jeff Fisher said eliminating the forceout rule was approved unanimously and that it will help officiating. A receiver now must get two feet inbounds unless he actually is carried out of bounds by a defender after catching the ball.

Fisher also noted how strongly deferring the choice on the coin toss, currently the rule in college, was accepted 30-2.

In addition, any direct snap from center that is untouched by the quarterback now will be a live ball; in the past it was considered a false start and the play was blown dead. The 5-yard penalty for incidental contact with a facemask has been eliminated, with the 15-yarder remaining for any grasping or twisting of the facemask." copied from the article

Thoughts on these changes?

[chandler1981]

I read an article about the "force out" rule being eliminated. I have never agreed with that one and I am glad it was changed.

I didn't even know that the coin toss in college and the NFL were different.

I am assuming that in the past, if you won the toss in the NFL, you had to receive the ball first? If so, I totally agree with this change too.

There were some interesting suggestions by the writer, Michael Silver. He wanted them to be more leniant on TD celebrations as long as the players aren't taunting the other team.

Thanks for sharing. I was about to post a thread on this.

[Cyclone]

I think the rule should be like basketball - you aren't out of bounds until part of you actually touches the ground.

[SBR Lou]

I am assuming that in the past, if you won the toss in the NFL, you had to receive the ball first? If so, I totally agree with this change too.

No, you were always able to choose whether to receive or kick. Or you could choose which goal to defend and allow your opponent to receive. Now the rule is you can defer this choice all together to your opponent and you get to choose what to do with the ball at start of second half.

[chandler1981]

No, you were always able to choose whether to receive or kick. Or you could choose which goal to defend and allow your opponent to receive. Now the rule is you can defer this choice all together to your opponent and you get to choose what to do with the ball at start of second half.

So, it is possible that you can either kick off or receive the ball both times? I know it wouldnt happen often, but is that what you are saying?

Thanks for the clarification.

[SBR Lou]

So, it is possible that you can either kick off or receive the ball both times? I know it wouldnt happen often, but is that what you are saying?

Thanks for the clarification.

Well what would happen is, say you win the toss...

you can choose 1 of the following

-receive ball or kick off
-choose goal you want to defend
-choose to defer this choice to opponent, and at the start of the 2nd half you are given this choice once again.

The third choice is what they've added in this rule, seems silly. I think they should've just left the rules as they were.

[imgv94]

Well what would happen is, say you win the toss...

you can choose 1 of the following

-receive ball or kick off
-choose goal you want to defend
-choose to defer this choice to opponent, and at the start of the 2nd half you are given this choice once again.

The third choice is what they've added in this rule, seems silly. I think they should've just left the rules as they were.

I wonder if any coach will decide to kick off twice..

[Dark Horse]

Force out rule change sounds very bad.

A guy who catches the ball one yard in bounds, but in the air, and then gets knocked out in the air by a defensive back - this is effectively narrowing the field of play by a couple of yards.

Have a feeling this will get changed back quickly.

I agree. If defensive backs get the hang of this it could change the totals. F*ck!

[MrX]

Force outs were officiated horribly in my opinion. They either needed to get rid of it or make it subject to replay review. I think they made the right choice.

All the better if it affects the totals. Just be better prepared than the rest of the market!

[myr10]

I'm for all of the rule changes listed above. I wish they also did something with the playoff seeding though. Division Champ or not an 8-8 team shouldn't be home vs an 11-5 team for the 1st round of the playoffs.

I agree....but the owners disagree. They feel that winning a divison earns the reward of playing at home, which i think is the dumbest thing ever for the same reason you said.

[Cee]

I like all the changes. The forceout rule was too much of a judgement call. I remember seeing a few games during the regular season where this basically decided the game. Now officiating becomes less of a factor in these situations and it;s up to the players more.

[SBR Lou]

They need to make pass interference calls REVIEWABLE...

This is ridiculous, so many times this year obviously horrid calls were made that can really change the outcome of a game. Calls that would clearly be overturned if they were able to be challenged.

[McBa1n]

They need to make pass interference calls REVIEWABLE...

This is ridiculous, so many times this year obviously horrid calls were made that can really change the outcome of a game. Calls that would clearly be overturned if they were able to be challenged.

Here's why they won't/can't and I think that'd be horrible for the game. In 'bigtime' games, officials dont want ANY part of deciding the game. Also, there's interference on every single play. It's impossible to not have it be a subjective rule.

If you could review pass interference, you'd burn your challenges constantly. Also, it would require rules changes to allow SOME contact. Here's the thing about the NFL and the way the rules are trying to be addressed: If you can't quantify it with exacts (like the rules in catching a pass), then it can't be reviewable and is subject to the zebras.

There's so much contact on every play that it's impossible to imply intent with replay (in the instances of incidental contact) in 'reviewed' pass interference calls. Also, it's impossible to pinpoint so many of the factors that make a play interference or not. You'd have to rip up and change the fundamentals on what is legal and what is not in the pass receiving and pass defense to make it reviewable - and I don't think that's possible.

Frankly, I think they call too many illegal contacts/interference as it is. The receiver has too big of an advantage already.