Iron_Eagle_04

Should teams be able to challenge penalties or non calls?

Recommended Posts

if we're changing the rules, here's a couple that bug me:

1. icing the kicker timeout. i hate it. It drags out the game and while I realize there is a certain psychological effect, it annoys me

2. Pass interference going to the spot of the foul. How many times have we seen a player wide open and the ball goes through his hands or he muffs it? Often enough to tell me there's no guarantee that he would have caught the ball, so I think it should be a 10 or maybe 15 yard gain at the most.

3. Spiking the ball is the most blatant case of "intentional" grounding there is, yet it's not a penalty. Why not?

4. Offensive penalties should include a loss of down. If you have a 5 yard penalty for holding and you're backed up 5 yards but get to replay the down, it only hurts you if you had a big gain on the initial play, so why not make it 2nd and 15 instead of 1st and 15?

 

Just a few minor aggravations I have with the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The_Talon said:

if we're changing the rules, here's a couple that bug me:

1. icing the kicker timeout. i hate it. It drags out the game and while I realize there is a certain psychological effect, it annoys me

2. Pass interference going to the spot of the foul. How many times have we seen a player wide open and the ball goes through his hands or he muffs it? Often enough to tell me there's no guarantee that he would have caught the ball, so I think it should be a 10 or maybe 15 yard gain at the most.

3. Spiking the ball is the most blatant case of "intentional" grounding there is, yet it's not a penalty. Why not?

4. Offensive penalties should include a loss of down. If you have a 5 yard penalty for holding and you're backed up 5 yards but get to replay the down, it only hurts you if you had a big gain on the initial play, so why not make it 2nd and 15 instead of 1st and 15?

 

Just a few minor aggravations I have with the game. 

1. As long as time outs are used legally, (not back to back, or a blatant attempt to delay the game when none are available) I don't want to see them restricted. 

2. I would be ok with a rule change here provided there is an exception for blatant interference, which should be a spot foul.

3. Intentional grounding isn't called because it's not being done to avoid a sack. There is also a trade off as it does use up a down.

4. No opinion on #4 yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The_Talon said:

1. icing the kicker timeout. i hate it. It drags out the game and while I realize there is a certain psychological effect, it annoys me

What change would you make that would restrict a team from using a timeout? Suppose the Eagles have 10 people on the field and realize it at the last second. Would they be restricted from calling the timeout in order to get the correct number of players on the field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being able to challenge pass interference seems like a total nonstarter to me, because there's generally a huge gulf between the "letter" of the rule and the "spirit" of the rule.  The definition of pass interference is contact before the ball arrives, right?  So if it's reviewable, then if the DB grazes the WR, that technically "should" be pass interference.  It's ultimately up to the discretion of the official, but that's what it is in the first place on the field.  Making it reviewable just seems like opening a can of worms.  

Now, all of that is said with the caveat that it's done in the CFL.  I would be interested to see how smoothly it functions there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

What change would you make that would restrict a team from using a timeout? Suppose the Eagles have 10 people on the field and realize it at the last second. Would they be restricted from calling the timeout in order to get the correct number of players on the field?

I don't know. My  frustration with it has nothing to do with logic and just the simple fact that it annoys me. I don't expect a change to being able to call a time out here, I just think it's done to F with the kicker. So it bothers me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, EagleJoe8 said:

1. As long as time outs are used legally, (not back to back, or a blatant attempt to delay the game when none are available) I don't want to see them restricted. 

2. I would be ok with a rule change here provided there is an exception for blatant interference, which should be a spot foul.

3. Intentional grounding isn't called because it's not being done to avoid a sack. There is also a trade off as it does use up a down.

4. No opinion on #4 yet.

Fair enough, but still, it's intentional grounding. You're saying intentional grounding to avoid a sack is what the rule is. Why not just have it be an overall intentional grounding rule? It simplifies the game. Again, I don't expect these rules to change, I just think they're a little annoying. 

On another note I guess you wouldn't be open to seeing my league re-alignment idea either. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The_Talon said:

Fair enough, but still, it's intentional grounding. You're saying intentional grounding to avoid a sack is what the rule is. Why not just have it be an overall intentional grounding rule? It simplifies the game. Again, I don't expect these rules to change, I just think they're a little annoying. 

On another note I guess you wouldn't be open to seeing my league re-alignment idea either. :lol:

If intentional grounding were allowed during the times it's normally called, it would create another big disadvantage for defenses where they would only get sacks on blindside hits. Hence the reason intentional grounding comes with a loss of yardage as well as the loss of down.

On a spike, it's clear the intent is not to avoid a sack or pressure, it's done to stop the clock, but the trade off is they lose a down in the process.

 

I'm also not closed minded about seeing your re-alignment idea. I may not agree with some of it, but I'd check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we're  _REALLY_  talking about here is: correcting the refs 'real time' error calls through the benefit of replay.

If you're going to do this then some sort of system has to be concocted that doesn't slow the game down any more

than it already has been. I don't see how that's even remotely possible. I don't see them implementing this.

Just my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'd like to see is that 5 yd defensive holding automatic 1st down thrown out. That's bailed out a lot of teams on 3rd and long. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, McNabbIsGone said:

What we're  _REALLY_  talking about here is: correcting the refs 'real time' error calls through the benefit of replay.

If you're going to do this then some sort of system has to be concocted that doesn't slow the game down any more

than it already has been. I don't see how that's even remotely possible. I don't see them implementing this.

Just my opinion. 

How about just making personal foul calls reviewable using 1 of your 2 challenges? I can actually see that since the league does review them during the week and hand out fines accordingly. There's been a lot of bs calls and missed calls on that. Throw out the slap to the QBs helmet altogether. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So let me get this straight, we prefer the drama over calls as opposed to the game and rate of play?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 2:51 AM, Iron_Eagle_04 said:

In the wake of the Saints non call fiasco,  I just couldn't help but think about how if coaches can challenge spots,  catches,  or fumbles,  why not penalties too?  As we saw in the other day's games,  penalties and bad calls can change the outcome of a game.   this could very well eliminate a lot of ghost holding calls,  bad pass interference calls.

Of course,  there should be limits on it.  Obviously you don't want every play challenged.  

But it seems to me that some options for teams who are the victims of bad calls or non calls should be available.  

What do you guys think?  

I believe this is a rule in the CFL. I remember seeing it a couple of times watching games from there last summer (their season actually starts now in late spring). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

I believe this is a rule in the CFL. I remember seeing it a couple of times watching games from there last summer (their season actually starts now in late spring). 

I can't tell if you're saying "now starts in" or "starts now, in".  Assuming the former, the CFL season actually starts around the summer solstice in late June.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, xzmattzx said:

I can't tell if you're saying "now starts in" or "starts now, in".  Assuming the former, the CFL season actually starts around the summer solstice in late June.

Last year it started June 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wallyhorse said:

Last year it started June 12.

It started June 14, from what I read, but that's also a week earlier than when it normally starts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019 at 5:44 PM, 55thAndRams said:

Now, all of that is said with the caveat that it's done in the CFL.  I would be interested to see how smoothly it functions there. 

It's not as bad as it's being made out here, but it does slow down the game. Basically when a team doesn't like the result of the play (almost always offense) they'll challenge the call and most of the time it gets corrected in the offensive teams favour.

That being said, I have been at a game where to the letter of the rule, a pass interference should of been called. However, it was pretty ticky tacky at most so the refs let it stand as called on the field, which was no pass interference. I think it can work but the verbage needs to be correct. Something in that if a pass interference wasn't called live during the play, that during the review process you have to determine that the pass interference directly interfered with the pass catcher being able to make a play/catch the ball. That way you can't get awarded massive yards because a ref decided to let go some arm fighting between guys that really didn't have an effect on catching the ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 2:51 AM, Iron_Eagle_04 said:

In the wake of the Saints non call fiasco,  I just couldn't help but think about how if coaches can challenge spots,  catches,  or fumbles,  why not penalties too?  As we saw in the other day's games,  penalties and bad calls can change the outcome of a game.   this could very well eliminate a lot of ghost holding calls,  bad pass interference calls.

Of course,  there should be limits on it.  Obviously you don't want every play challenged.  

But it seems to me that some options for teams who are the victims of bad calls or non calls should be available.  

What do you guys think?  

 

How about they should put a ref in the booth, and allow him 15 or 20 seconds to alert the officials on the field to throw a flag after reviewing footage.  If he doesnt catch it in that amount of time, let the game keep moving.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019 at 2:51 AM, Iron_Eagle_04 said:

In the wake of the Saints non call fiasco, 

What do you guys think?  

 

2

Concerning the no call, when I watched it live it looked like a good no call.

After watching the replay I see how the refs didn't make the call, it was a lot closer than the cry babies are claiming.

While the flag could have been thrown, the ball was reaching the receiver just about the same time the contact occurred.

Besides, I'm happy the Saints lose, don't like Brees or Payton, pompous arses as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. As long as you don’t increase the amount of challenges I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with it. There’s no difference in challenging pass interference or challenging of the ball hit the ground in a catch fundamentally. It will take the same amount of time roughly. No one will even notice a difference.

these are game changing plays, it should absolutely be a rule with how incompetent the officials are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 4:58 PM, The_Talon said:

if we're changing the rules, here's a couple that bug me:

1. icing the kicker timeout. i hate it. It drags out the game and while I realize there is a certain psychological effect, it annoys me

2. Pass interference going to the spot of the foul. How many times have we seen a player wide open and the ball goes through his hands or he muffs it? Often enough to tell me there's no guarantee that he would have caught the ball, so I think it should be a 10 or maybe 15 yard gain at the most.

3. Spiking the ball is the most blatant case of "intentional" grounding there is, yet it's not a penalty. Why not?

4. Offensive penalties should include a loss of down. If you have a 5 yard penalty for holding and you're backed up 5 yards but get to replay the down, it only hurts you if you had a big gain on the initial play, so why not make it 2nd and 15 instead of 1st and 15?

 

Just a few minor aggravations I have with the game. 

1.  Since icing the kicker merely involves taking a legal timeout,  I don't see how you can legitimately make a rule against it.  A team can take a legal timeout for almost any reason.  Sure its annoying and it rarely even works,  but I don't see a feasible way to really make a rule against it.

2.  The only problem with this is,  it would basically encourage every single defender on a long pass to practically rape a receiver to keep him from catching it,  as obviously a fifteen yard penalty would be preferable to a 30 yard pass completion or more from the defense's point of view.   In a sense you are almost awarding them for a penalty.   Yes it seems like a freebie and sort of a cheap gain,  but its probably the only way to go given the above argument.   I think a more feasible way to alleviate the effects of these freebies is to modify the rules for what constitutes pass interference.   For example I think pass interference should never be called if a ball is uncatchable,  but it should merely be holding a five yard penalty and possibly a new set of downs.  Also I wouldn't be opposed to at least limiting the effects of penalties that don't even effect a play.   For instance a 40 yard run or pass play shouldn't be negated by a hold or a block that happened on the other side of the field.  Five yards off the end of the run would be plenty in that instance.  Just seems to flimsy to negate a long gain for something that didn't even effect the play,  I think back constantly to Super Bowl 15 and that Jaworski TD pass that got called back on that flimsy illegal motion penalty on Carmichael.   In my opinion it totally obliterated any chance the Eagles had at seizing momentum that game and may well have altered the outcome. 

3.  This is an interesting point,  I never really thought of it.  But since the motivation of intentional grounding is throwing it away to avoid a sack,  and spiking a ball to merely stop the clock,  it makes them seem like different beasts.  Still you make a fair point.  Not sure how I feel about it,  probably something to at least give some thought to for sure though. 

4.  Again interesting point I'm not sure how I feel about.  I think it depends on what the penalty is.  I don't know if I would agree with every single offensive penalty bringing a loss of down. Some of them are to flimsy in my opinion.  Maybe offensive face masks or pass interference but not some of the others. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2019 at 2:59 AM, Iron_Eagle_04 said:

1.  Since icing the kicker merely involves taking a legal timeout,  I don't see how you can legitimately make a rule against it.  A team can take a legal timeout for almost any reason.  Sure its annoying and it rarely even works,  but I don't see a feasible way to really make a rule against it.

I would change the rules where if it's obvious they are going for a field goal, such would be 25-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty that would be the full 25 yards regardless of field position, with if that taking the ball into the end zone the only such penalty that can result in a touchdown.  The sole exception is when the OFFICIALS call time out for an blatantly obvious injury, and even there if it's discovered a player is faking an injury to ice the kicker, then the penalty is called.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The office in NY needs to step in and force reviews on things like that, not coaches or players.  The problem is I believe they wanted the Rams in the super bowl badly.  I believe they wanted this to make inroads in to the LA market which has not been good to them in the past.   That's my opinion.  I believe this was premeditated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

I would change the rules where if it's obvious they are going for a field goal, such would be 25-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty that would be the full 25 yards regardless of field position, with if that taking the ball into the end zone the only such penalty that can result in a touchdown.  The sole exception is when the OFFICIALS call time out for an blatantly obvious injury, and even there if it's discovered a player is faking an injury to ice the kicker, then the penalty is called.  

So, no penalty is worth 25 yards aside from DPI possibly, and you want to invent a new penalty 10 yards longer than any other set in stone penalty for taking a legal timeout?

Why do you hate football so much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now