Potential new rules on horizon

We told you a couple days ago about a few rules proposals that will be voted on at the owners' meetings beginning Sunday in Palm Beach.

But there were a handful of others we didn't get into.

One you've probably heard by now is the proposal put forward by Kansas City to legislate that players' hair not cover their jersey nameplate or numbers. Doesn't mean they have to cut their hair. Players would be allowed to pull their hair up in a way that does not obstruct the name or numbers. Don't know about you, but this gets to the heart of the reason we call it the No Fun League (NFL). Why is a rule of this nature necessary? Because the NFL doesn't like identity. It's why the league has someone stationed at every stadium to spot uniform violations and suggest players not in compliance be fined.

A more reasonable proposal, which I believe the competition committee is recommending, would eliminate the force-out rule on sideline catches. Currently, if a player is pushed out while attempting to make a catch on the sideline, officials can rule that the player was forced out. It's a tough judgment call that usually results in a lot of disagreement. The proposal rule streamline the rule so that the only time a force-out would be applicable is when a player is pulled out of bounds. Sounds like a good idea.

Another proposal would expand instant-replay rules to include field goal, a move that was prompted by a controversial kick last season. If the question pertains to whether the ball cleared the crossbar or whether it passed inside or outside of the upright, this proposal would allow the kick to be reviewed. The only scenario where it would not be allowed is to determine whether a kick that passed OVER the upright is good or not. Those will remain a judgment call for officials.

One other interesting one is a push to do away with the 5-yard facemask penalty, which currently is called when a player "grasps" a facemask. If passed, the proposal would remove that penalty and leave only the 15-yard violation, which requires that a facemask be pulled, twisted or turned.

I'll get into some more detail on the playoff seeding proposal and free agency negotiating window in Sunday's paper. If you don't know what I'm talking about, scroll down a few posts and check it out.

EDIT: Thanks to Jay, who commented below. Forgot to mention the coach-to-defense communication proposal that will be voted on, too. It looks to be gaining support and has a chance to pass after previous defeats. They've worked out some of the kinks in the process. Coaches would be allowed to communicate with one member of the defense. There would be two helmets with speakers in them, but the second would be a backup used only in the event the player wearing the primary helmet was injured or had to leave the game.

In the case of Tampa Bay, Barrett Ruud calls the defense, so it presumably would go in his helmet. But the Bucs might also reserve an extra radio helmet for, say, Jermaine Phillips, in case Ruud became injured, ejected, etc. Only then, would Phillips be permitted to wear his backup helmet.

Comments

[Jay]

One thing they have NEVER addressed, is making Pass Interference reviewable. That is absolutely unacceptable in any way or reason because it changes the dynamic of the game so quickly, and dramatically.

Same with the "down by contact" rule. I admit, the dbc rule is a judgment call and involves a whistle, so it would be harder to review, but if tennis balls and sidelines can have electronic monitoring, they can do the same for whistles.

Lastly, the entire "spygate" story would not have existed had the NFL allowed radios in the helmets of defensive players. It is absolutely ridiculous that one side of the ball can have such an unfair advantage.

But hey, making sure the every has short hair is more important. I'm surprised they didn't mandate that Kyle Orton shave his neckbeard too.

[DR]

Stephen, any word on whether or not the pushed out of bounds call is going to be reviewable? There were a lot of cals last year that were missed because of the misjudgement of the official. If a ref calls it incomplete, it cannot be reviewed to check if he was pushed out.
No Fun League it is. This is the same league that told Jake Plummer they were going to fine him if he wore the #40 in honor of his best friend Pat Tillman. The same league that forced the Press Box to paint over their football logos sfter a decade of being up because they don't want spectators to go to bars to watch a game. They'd rather have everyone watch at home after paying additional money for the NFL network, even though its only worth a crap part of the year.

[eric]

I think if it's able to be caught on camera, then it should be reviewable. The coaches can still only challenge a certain amount of calls anyways... how many infractions are completely overlooked because of whistles and and other technicalities when the TV viewing audience sees it clearly...

As far as long hair, while I enjoyed the tackle that I saw last year on a DB by his hair on an interception return or another play where the DB intecepted the ball and he fell down by the sidelines and his hair touched the out of bounce line, negating a nice runback, I agree with hair length that doesn't cover the player's name.

Spygate... If NE lost a first round draft pick for just one infraction of the rule... and now they find out that they've been cheating ever since Belichick was their coach by taping many of their opponents since 2000... what's the
punishment for that? Let's see how Belichick Spielberg does without any draft picks for the next couple of years??
e?

[Stephen_Holder]

DR, I don't believe there's anything like that under consideration this year. But replay is always evolving, so we'll see what the future holds.

[Bill]

I know this is totally unrelated
but any word of what happened to us trying to sign R. Coleman

[Stephen Holder]

Bill, best I can tell, the sticking point with Rod Coleman is one of two things: money or his health. I don't question whether the Bucs want him. It's pretty clear they do. But if he's a wreck physically, that could obviously be a deal breaker. And we'd also gotten some indication that his contract demands were a little out of whack, too. I tend to think the physical issues are the bigger deal.

[Jay]

Thanks for the shout out, Stephen. I know it's the off season but I'm stickin' with you.

the nfl has a rule that there has to be three rule changes every year. it seems to me the first rule they should change is the rule requiring them to make 3 rule changes per year.