No Fun League?

[Andrew Longman]

I'm actually usually in favor of a lot of what the NFL does to keep the emphasis on team and not individuals. Teamwork, more than any other sport defines what success requires in football.

BUT, starting my playing days in the 70s I thought a mane of hair out the back was cooler than white shoes and certainly made you better able to smack the crap out of receivers.

If a guy pulls your hair he clearly wants to fight like a girl and just gets his ass handed to him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/football/nfl/03/26/bc.fbn.nfl.hair.ap/index.html?eref=si_topstories

[WickerBill]

I know Polamalu on sight because of his hair, not the stupid nameplate on his uniform. I bet he's like Sampson... take the hair away and he would turn into Brian Russell.

[chop456]

Long hair should be allowed until someone's standing on the field with a handful of hair and a bloody chunk of scalp swinging from the other end.













That'd be cool.

[Insomniac]

Long hair should be allowed until someone's standing on the field with a handful of hair and a bloody chunk of scalp swinging from the other end.













That'd be cool.

I think that's what the outcome was last time. It came up because Polamalu was tackled by his hair. They debated whether that is a horse collar and decided if you don't want to be tackled by your hair, cut it. But now the reason is it obscures the name on the back...

[nrc]

They're also considering a radio helmet for defensive calls along with these other changes:


# In an effort to cut down on tampering before free agency, it has been proposed that a window of five to seven days be opened before free agency in which agents can talk to teams but not sign deals.

Under the proposal, players still couldn't take visits or talk to prospective teams until free agency begins. Rich McKay, president of the Falcons and co-chairman of the competition committee, said he thinks that would help teams re-sign their own players because there would be a better feel for the market.

# No longer will a division winner automatically get a higher playoff seed and home game. It will go by best record and ties will go to the division winners in an effort to make the last games of the regular season mean something to teams that have already clinched a spot. In the six-team conference fields, the two top seeds go to the division winners with the best record and then the last four clubs are broken down by record.

Asked if that now cheapens a division championship, McKay argued it would not because it still guarantees a playoff berth and determines a better seeding if a tie is involved.

# There will be no more forceouts on the sidelines after a receiver catches the ball. Either he has both feet in-bounds or out-of-bounds when the catch is made no matter what. Only if a receiver is carried out will it be called.

# Field goals can be challenged with instant replay if there a question of left or right of the uprights or over or under the crossbar. But not if the ball goes directly over the uprights, because there isn't a good enough camera angle.

# No more five-yard facemask penalties. It's either the twisting or turning variety for 15 yards. Or nothing.

# The team that wins the toss can defer.I don't know if I like the idea of division champions not having an automatic top seed. Seems like a champion in a tough division could get seeded below a weaker team from a weak division.

Dropping the force-out rule is probably a good thing. It's always been such a wild guess.

No five yard face mask? Does that mean it's ok to grab the face mask as long as you don't pull it? Or does it mean any grasping of the face mask is 15 yards? Bad idea, I think.

[Insomniac]

They're also considering a radio helmet for defensive calls along with these other changes:
I don't know if I like the idea of division champions not having an automatic top seed. Seems like a champion in a tough division could get seeded below a weaker team from a weak division.

Dropping the force-out rule is probably a good thing. It's always been such a wild guess.

No five yard face mask? Does that mean it's ok to grab the face mask as long as you don't pull it? Or does it mean any grasping of the face mask is 15 yards? Bad idea, I think.

The tampering change makes legal the cheating (everything that breaks a rule is now cheating I guess) that was going on unpunished.

They would be seeded below a wildcard team though. That means that 2 teams in the other division had better records that the other division winner. Also, with only 4 teams in each division, a strong division top to bottom is only 3 losses per team.

Count me as a fan if changing the force out rule. Get both feet down. Only exception should be in a defender carries a receiver out of bounds.

I don't understand this camera angle stuff. There seem to be so many cameras at the game. Two guys can't stand behind the uprights and film the field goal? It's too much trouble to have cameras on the goal lines? Even the rich owners are too cheap to pay for extra cameras to help make sure the right calls are made...

I think all facemasks will be 15-yards (grasping whether you turn or not).

I like the current coin toss rule. Once every few years some team would mess up and end up kicking off twice and we all could get a laugh about it. :)

[rabbit]

# There will be no more forceouts on the sidelines after a receiver catches the ball. Either he has both feet in-bounds or out-of-bounds when the catch is made no matter what. Only if a receiver is carried out will it be called.That one's a little too late for Kellen Winslow and the Browns... :irked:

[WickerBill]

A couple of thoughts:

1. So sideline routes are now basically permission for the defender to blast the receiver while he is in the air instead of attempting to defend the pass or tackle him. Might be better than the previous "wild guess" rule but not by much.

2. If we can put lipstick-sized cameras in the asphalt at racetracks and in front of home plate for baseball, why can't the top of the goalposts have cameras in them, perhaps even with a line on the lens to define in or out?

3. I know everybody just *loves* how football helmets look, but there's got to be a way to eliminate the ability to grab them, and subsequently the ability to get a finger caught between the bars. The five-yard facemask was a great rule because it was a middle ground between zero and personal foul. Last year, I might be ticked that someone only got called for a five yard facemask instead of a fifteen, but next year I'll be angrier when it's not called at all...

[Insomniac]

A good write-up on the rules changes here (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2008/03/30/proposed_changes_sure_to_rule_the_day/).

Of note, I was wrong on the facemask thing. They are going to just drop the 5-yard penalty. Now it will be OK to grasp it and let go. I don't like that.

[dando]

UUPDATE! Hair put on hold, D radio use approved:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3323895

Peter King's take on the hair issue:


I have this quick reaction to the proposed hair penalty, which would prohibit players from covering the names on the back of the jerseys with hair cascading out of the helmet: Who cares? Where's the hue and cry over this? I have never, ever heard a player or coach say any game was remotely affected by the length of a player's hair. And some of the biggest hair guys in the league are also some of its best people and best leaders. Al Harris. Troy Polamalu. Rashean Mathis.

To me, this is the classic case of people who don't play the game policing an element of the game that needs no policing whatsoever. I don't think Polamalu's hair is unsightly; I think it's cool. I'll have some thoughts from Harris and New Orleans cornerback Mike McKenzie tomorrow morning. Suffice it to say they're not pleased.

Though I think the Competition Committee is behind the proposal of Kansas City coach Herman Edwards ("This is not about culture,'' Edwards said, "it's about the uniform''), I'd be surprised if the rule passes. Like it or not, there's been a racial overtone to banning players wearing their hair the way they want.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/03/30/owners/1.html

:thumbup:

He also points out the big miss with the new rules...time outs after snaps still being allowed:


1. I think it's a total cop-out, that the Competition Committee is doing nothing about the brazenly unsportsmanlike timeout rule that was used over and over last year to ice field-goal kickers a millisecond before they attempted important field goals. As bad as the committee's inaction is, it's worse that not a single team turned in the field-goal-icing issue as a point of concern in the league's end-of-season survey. Talk about short memories.

What is fair, or sporting, about a ball being snapped and two teams of 11 men straining and going all-out, one team to make a field goal and the other to block it, and meanwhile a timeout has strategically been called so the play goes on but then has to be run again? Absolutely nothing. It teases the fans, it perverts the purity of the game and it subjects 22 men to one more chance of being injured. What the committee should have done is prevent a timeout from being called at some point of the play clock winding down -- say, at eight seconds, or five seconds -- and charge the defensive team with an unsportsmanlike-conduct penalty if it tries to call time inside that time period.

:shakehead

-Kevin

[Insomniac]

Updating nrc's post:


# No longer will a division winner automatically get a higher playoff seed and home game. It will go by best record and ties will go to the division winners in an effort to make the last games of the regular season mean something to teams that have already clinched a spot. In the six-team conference fields, the two top seeds go to the division winners with the best record and then the last four clubs are broken down by record.

Tabled. No vote because it wouldn't pass.


# There will be no more forceouts on the sidelines after a receiver catches the ball. Either he has both feet in-bounds or out-of-bounds when the catch is made no matter what. Only if a receiver is carried out will it be called.

Passed.


# Field goals can be challenged with instant replay if there a question of left or right of the uprights or over or under the crossbar. But not if the ball goes directly over the uprights, because there isn't a good enough camera angle.

Passed.


# No more five-yard facemask penalties. It's either the twisting or turning variety for 15 yards. Or nothing.

Passed.


# The team that wins the toss can defer.

Passed.

[Insomniac]

He also points out the big miss with the new rules...time outs after snaps still being allowed:

I don't agree with him. It makes no sense to set some arbitrary time limit where after that you can't call a timeout. How many times have you seen a team with too many or not enough players on the field? How about the fire drill FGs?

If you want to eliminate it, then the best option is to only allow players on field to call the timeout on FGs. Of course, that is not ideal since they added the rule so that coaches can call timeouts just a couple years ago.

The fact of the matter is the only people who care are talking heads and fans of the team where the timeout "cost" them. The coaches don't care.

[nrc]

Wonder if someone will come up with a mechanism to foil the last instant time out stunt. The trick would be to force them to call a timeout because they can't call two in a row (right Joe?). Practice a drill where you rush the FG team on and then line up for a regular play. If they don't call a timeout, then call one yourself (obviously you'd have to have one).

The great thing about that would be if they don't fall for it and burn their time out then you get two time outs in a row (one for each team) and the League just loves having their games go on and on. :D

[WickerBill]

There's no time in any football game where the defense is more susceptible to a fake FG attempt then right after they tried to ice the kicker.

[Insomniac]

Wonder if someone will come up with a mechanism to foil the last instant time out stunt. The trick would be to force them to call a timeout because they can't call two in a row (right Joe?). Practice a drill where you rush the FG team on and then line up for a regular play. If they don't call a timeout, then call one yourself (obviously you'd have to have one).

The great thing about that would be if they don't fall for it and burn their time out then you get two time outs in a row (one for each team) and the League just loves having their games go on and on. :D

I always wondered why a team didn't employ a similar tactic to get a team to waste a challenge. After a not so questionable catch and the receiver hits the ground, but one for a good distance, the team starts to scramble to get the next play off.