I don't see anything more complicated about live forward passes that do not cross the line of scrimmage vs the current rule of forward vs backward passes. On a pass play the umpire moves up to the line of scrimmage anyway. It would probably be easier to administer correctly to be honest.

lol righttt

lol that would increase the average steals for sure.

Want to see scoring increase in the NHL? Don't allow the team on the penalty kill to ice the puck with impunity. I never understood how that rule evolved the way it did anyway. Did they just say, "Well, if we have to keep calling icing it's going to just slow the game way down, so we'll just let them ice it all they want when they're short-handed."

I posted that while watching a game with a Ton of attempts, a shotclock for pitches would probably be more effectice

The thing is that

1) Powerplay scoring isnt that exciting

2) I'd say with 20% scoring Rate, penalties fit the Crime quite well, while anything more would be too much of a punishment in a Ton of cases

Just calling the game by the rules instead of having the refs giving a Ton of slack to defenses would fix the issue

All NFL replay referees must be given a dictionary that has the word irrefutable underlined in it. They must sleep with it each off season. I mean, there was a play last night in the San Fran Chicago game, where the guy for the Bears made a catch near the sideline, and he was hit as he was catching it.

The play was ruled a catch on the field, and both Al Michaels and Chris Collinsworth, as well as myself, and I'm sure, millions of other people, expected that to be ruled a catch. It seems as if sometimes these guys are ruling as if it is a preponderance of the evidence, which is not the intent, nor the spirit of the rule. This play wasn't even one where if you had to make the first ruling on the replay you would call it incomplete. In the game called football, that is a catch, has always been a catch, and should in the future always be a catch.

That play last night was a catch. Once it is ruled a catch, there is NO SCENARIO that should allow that particular play to get overturned. There were no other video angles that those at the command center saw. That cannot happen. It was a huge play at the time.

It has to be a case where no two reasonable people could possibly disagree. If you have plays where both announcers and over 50 percent of the fans believe one thing, then that is not even a close call. If you have to even think about it, the call on the field should always stand.

Should be able to challenge horsecollar tackles

It is outrageous that the NFL lets these coaches call timeouts on field goal attempts as the guy is about to kick. This ruins the moment beyond words, as you always have to sweat to see if there is a timeout. Something needs to be done immediately.

That is not football, and the NFL cannot possibly believe that this is good for the game. No timeouts under 15 seconds on the play clock might solve this garbage. Coaches not being able to call timeouts would be even better.

Icing the kicker is totally standard and of dubious effect.

Do you hate America?

DOGMOON

The FIBA basketball championships should be hunger games style for the USA. You get voted by in by America and if you as a team don't win gold then you must sit out the nba for 3 years. Every basketball tourney should be like that.

You mean like they had in the olden days?

I'm actually gonna side with dogmoon on this one. Icing is stupid and ruins the climax.

"the snap... the ki... oh the coach got a timeout, the kick doesn't count, let's go to commercial"

el oh el

the two sides of dogmoon summed up in that post

no icing would make defending impossible. The offense needing to keep control of the puck is a huge part of the tension.

Sorry, but that is not icing the kicker, that is what you call "ruining the game". Go ahead and ice the kicker, but there should NEVER be a situation where players, fans, and even the other referees believe that the game is over, only to be told...."wait a minute, someone called time out right as the ball was being snapped".

If you don't understand this then contact me by PM and I will pay for a checkup at a neurologist near you. There is no argument that can possibly be made that the game of football is better off by allowing a time out a split second before a field goal attempt, that leaves everyone in doubt about the play until 5-10 seconds after the kick is made or missed.

It is disgraceful, and I am surprised that the NFL hasn't done something about this. They are tinkering with lots of things. For instance, in the first few games of the Pre-Season, they had extra points being attempted from farther out. The extra point is a wasted play (Cleveland botched one yesterday, but that doesn't prove anything). That play has over a 99 percent success rate, and it needs to be changed in the pros. What is odd about what they did though, is that they had the answer right in front of them before the pre-season experiment. All you have to do is figure out the field goal percentages, on average, from various yardages, and you can get the result that you want. There was no reason to "try it out" for anything other than getting people used to seeing it.

Back to the late timeout disgraces on field goals. As it stands now, EVERY single game changing field goal, whether extremely late in the game, or on the last play, does not have the finality that a play of that magnitude should have. It is a lesser game for all of those involved because of this nonsense. Imagine having something like that on game winning shots in basketball, where you had to sweat out whether the opposing head coach called a timeout before someone drained a game winning jumper (smooth jumper). It is unimaginable in all other situations in sports. Would anyone accept a rule where a baseball coach in the dugout could call timeout right before the pitcher threw the ball, so that a potential game winning World Series homerun would have the potential to be a non-play because of a timeout?

Stop the madness.

Except there is an immediate whistle and every player on the field knows that the field goal or whatever play didn't count because of the whistle. The whistle makes a big difference. Players slow down. There is an immediate removal of pressure. It just doesn't count, and everyone knows it. It isn't mad. It just is.

As for the try, someone here suggested and I really like the idea that whichever player scores the touchdown has to kick the try.

What's the purpose of being able to mess up the coin toss and kick off both halves? Is there any strategic reason that picking which side of the field could possibly be worth more than a possession?

Except for last night, when everyone on the field in an Eagles uniform thought they had won the game, and everyone in a Colts uniform thought they had lost. Literally no one knew about the timeout except Chuck Pagano, because he called it. They had to clear the field just so they could line up and try again. I'm with dogmoon on this one. Enough of this crap. It's marginally effective at best anyway, and just about every kicker that's been asked about it has said it helps them more than it hurts them.

the obviously correct thing to do is to not allow a timeout to be called after a timeout. that would at least cut down on some of it.

It's a trap for the unwary. There are countless high school kids across the country that have insisted they want to kick after winning the toss, because the coach told them they want to receive in the second half and the kid is too dumb to figure out that means to defer if they win the toss.

So something that happens in some pro game somewhere necessitates changing a long established rule that doesn't hurt anyone?

K

I think there's been teams where defense + special teams is so much > than offense that you could argue for kicking off both halves. In theory you could get superior starting field position- especially if they've got a **** punter.