So, um, how ’bout those new NFL rules?
Posted on April 3rd, 2008 – 1:00 PMBy Michael Rand
With the draft and other sexier things on the horizon — nothing says sexy like Organized Team Activities — it might have been easy to overlook some of the new rules enacted by the NFL yesterday. Indeed, they were buried at the bottom of an AP account that dealt mostly with a playoff reseeding measure that did not pass. But the changes seemed pretty major in a couple of (bolded) cases. Here they are, as rescued from bottom of that AP story:
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. … 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.
No more “he would have landed inbounds?” That’s a fantastic move and it actually will impact 1-2 plays per game, no? Can they retroactively instate this rule for the 2003 season? (Sorry, everyone). Also, the direct snap thing was always ridiculous as a penalty instead of a fumble. It basically benefited the team that screwed up. Congratulations, NFL.
FYI: Look for a likely return of RandBites this afternoon!
16 Responses to "So, um, how ’bout those new NFL rules?"
You completely forgot to mention the most important rule that was not passed. The man is always trying to hold the Bears down. I smell a conspiracy.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/rumors/post/League-rejects-Devin-Hester-Rule-on-punts?urn=nfl,74820
The removal of the 5-yard incidental facemask is really interesting. Are the refs going to have to try to determine intent on what they were trying to grab? While it was sometimes annoying, I think people just basically accepted the necessity of that penalty as a way to truly discourage defenders from getting their hands near other players’ heads.
rand-bites?
He’s a biter.
Oh, when I saw “Devin Hester Rule” I assume that they were actually legalizing Bears’ clipping on punts, rather than just ignoring it.
Sixth!
Clipping? I think that the hair cut rule got shot down.
Sixth!
That’s what she said.
The hair rule got shot down? Why don’t people start pulling hair more often then? Is it one of those unspoken rules?
Sixth!
That’s what she said.
I hate myself for laughing at that.
roughkat - Ask Chris Kunitz what happens when you pull hair.
(It occurs to me that not everybody will know what I’m talking about - so here.)
Jon, +1.
Kunitz is a bltch.
Jon - Thanks for the link. It saved me from having to google it. That said, it made me realize that hockey and baseball have a means of getting back at players for breaking the unspoken rules. Football though will get you a penalty and probably a fine and/or suspension for retaliating in any way. People are already trying to hit as hard as possible (foregoing trying to actually tackle in some cases) so what else can you do? This is a serious question and not one of my many rhetorical ones.
roughkat says:
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:37 pm
This is a serious question and not one of my many rhetorical ones.
Whoa. I think he is serious about this.
I refuse to believe that.
It’s not a good sign when even your lawyer is siding against you, as Chris Henry will (probably) tell you.
The NHL didn’t institute a hair rule banning Jaromir Jagr’s mullet. Should have.
The interesting thing on the forceout rule change, from what I read, is that a forceout will only be called if the receiver is being “carried” out of bounds. What does that mean?
