Potential rules changes according to P King

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:14 pm

FYI - I have not seen the article but I understand our boy wants the "rules makers" to consider some game changes. Seems the owners meetings is where there is a possibility of making some adjustments and it at this time of year that "the sleaze" likes to think he can help improve the game.

1) on a kickoff in OT the kicking team gets to kickoff from the 35 to somewhat negate the perceived advantage of winning the toss!

2) the defensive signal caller should also be able to receive instructions from the defensive co-ordinator as is now the case with the OC and the QB!

as I said I have not seen the article I just heard it on Sirius radio. I understand it was within the last few days and somebody may know where to locate that article and see what else he is proposing.

EDIT: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/03/18/overtime/index.html

Cappster · Post by **Cappster** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:17 pm

#1 I don't agree with. #2 is understandable and have an indifferent opinion about it.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:44 pm

I'd rather them go to the college format if they do something.

I don't care if the MLB gets a speaker or not. It'd probably break 3 times a game.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:09 pm

I understand that the NFL is "officially" more interested in scoring than defense and that is why so many of the defensive rules are being enforced. :wink:

I would agree that a MLBs speaker system would undergo some pretty intensive workouts :shock:

Smithian · Post by **Smithian** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:10 am

"I swear to God, Lemar, if you miss one more tackle, I will destroy you. Love, Gregg... Oh yeah, tell Sean even though it is 3rd and 14, if there is a handoff, it probably isn't a fake."

frankcal20 · Post by **frankcal20** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:47 am

I too would like to see the NFL go back to the college system in OT situations. It really comes down to a coin toss as to who wins the game or not. Give each team a try and then determine an outcome.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:24 am

It might be considered that both teams should get 1 possession - if the receiving team did not score then the OT could just continue as usual BUT if the receiving team scored then the other team should get the opportunity to equal the score. If nothing else that would offer a wide open offense as they would know they have to score. If both teams were equal after this then they could go to the current scenario. :shock:

after all that I think they'll probably leave it how it is :oops:

air_hog · Post by **air_hog** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:05 pm

Please, Peter King could say The NFL should play without a ball and people would be sucking his you know what. In particular Dr. Z

Peter King is a joke and just was in the right place at the right time and got a good job for SI and now is seen as a god.

HailSkins94 · Post by **HailSkins94** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:17 pm

The NFL is the #1 sport in America for a reason. Making changes will only water the game down as far as i'm concerned. Like it or lump it. Stop the friggin rule changes every year. If you are going to change something, how about being able to hit a QB????

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:57 pm

no hitting the QB allowed - they want to see more offense, not less! :lol:

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:02 pm

If you are going to change something, how about being able to hit a QB?

Thank you. The game has been so tilted to favor the offense, it is just wrong.

gibbs4president · Post by **gibbs4president** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:06 pm

I like the way the current overtime system is. You still need to be strong on both sides of the football and it calls for being strong in all aspects of special teams as well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Fios · Post by **Fios** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:40 am

I disagree, the team who loses the coin toss faces such overwhelming odds. At that point it stops being a contest, it's a question of luck. You can make rules to keep overtime to a manageable length and, given the opportunity for additional commercial time, I'm surprised this idea isn't taken more seriously.

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:59 am

The current system relies too much on luck, especially with the "pass interference" calls.

I don't think that it's fair to lose a game when a QB like sexy Rexy decides; "screw I"m going deep" and his WR becomes an actor and draws a PI call. Totally unfair.

Giving both teams a chance to score basically negates the refs bias/slowness from the decision.

LOSTHOG · Post by **LOSTHOG** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:26 pm

Chris Luva Luva wrote:The current system relies too much on luck, especially with the "pass interference" calls.

I don't think that it's fair to lose a game when a QB like sexy Rexy decides; "screw I"m going deep" and his WR becomes an actor and draws a PI call. Totally unfair.

Giving both teams a chance to score basically negates the refs bias/slowness from the decision.

Even in Texas Stadium???

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:08 pm

I disagree, the team who loses the coin toss faces such overwhelming odds

The team that wins to toss wins about 60% or the time. Far too much luck is involved in OT.