2023 NFL Competition Committee and Club Playing Rules Proposals

[Ann]

Not going away

 

 

 

 

[Taro T]

13 hours ago, Ann said:

Thursday flex games?

 

 

 

 

 

Would there be ANY rule change that says they don't give a single flying #### about ANY of the fans that pay to attend games in person than this rule change?

 

Hey, you bought tickets to the game 4 months ago and made flight and hotel arrangements for the game?  Well guess what, unless you paid for the "trip insurance" you can kiss all the out of pocket money you spent (except for the tix, presuming you can show up 3 days earlier) goodbye.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

7 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

Would there be ANY rule change that says they don't give a single flying #### about ANY of the fans that pay to attend games in person than this rule change?

 

Hey, you bought tickets to the game 4 months ago and made flight and hotel arrangements for the game?  Well guess what, unless you paid for the "trip insurance" you can kiss all the out of pocket money you spent (except for the tix, presuming you can show up 3 days earlier) goodbye.

 

The league cares about fans...watching on TV.

 

The league's run on TV revenue, not gate revenue.

[Taro T]

58 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

The league cares about fans...watching on TV.

 

The league's run on TV revenue, not gate revenue.

 

When the league gets $10 BILLION per year from the networks, of course they care more about their TV "partners" than the schmucks that show up in the seats.

 

Doesn't mean things like moving Sunday games to Thursday and vice versa don't stink for those few 1,000 that get their plans turned upside down. 

[KD in CA]

On 3/23/2023 at 8:01 PM, Ann said:

Thursday flex games?

 

 

 

 

I think they should be forced to flex the late season Thursday games to be a match up of two losing teams. It’s an appropriate punishment for sucking and gives us that one chance a year to see Washington or Atlanta play.

[Ann]

NFL's annual meeting starts today.






 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

7 hours ago, Ann said:

NFL's annual meeting starts today.






 

 

So you can't grab a ball carrier and use your weight to bring him down?

 

How many ways of tackling are left?

[Ann]

 

[Ann]

Zero

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

9 minutes ago, Ann said:

Zero

 

I'm guessing that involved far too much discussion.

[Ann]

This is a change...

 

 

 

[Fansince88]

3 hours ago, Ann said:

Zero

This will definitely improve the game by leaps and bounds!

[Ann]

Not reviewable

[Ann]

What was approved
 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

43 minutes ago, Fansince88 said:

This will definitely improve the game by leaps and bounds!

 

They've finally discovered- zero is a number - what the Hindus knew 1500 years ago.

[Ann]

Oh goodie, more Thursday night games.

 

 

 

 

 

[Spartacus]

https://www.outkick.com/nfl-tables-proposal-for-4th-20-play-to-replace-onside-kick/

 

There’s a better solution that should make — almost — everyone happy

My thinking is that the possession play — for lack of a better description — should be its own play. The stats shouldn’t count and points shouldn’t be at stake for the offense. Plus, a penalty shouldn’t guarantee possession.

So what to do. Simple: add a conversion play. The offense gets a play from the 15-yard line. If they get the ball into the endzone, they get possession at their own 25. If they don’t, the other team takes over at the failing team’s 40-yard line.

 

In this case, a penalty may award multiple attempts at the play, perhaps closer, but not guarantee possession. Pass interference in the endzone? Sure, run the play again from the 5-yard line. Or the one or two, whatever they want.

Defensive holding? Get another shot from the 10.

 

This solves all of the problems. Penalties can play a role, but not be deciding factors. The defense only has to defend the endzone and not the entire field. Plus, the play would be incredibly exciting.

 

Maybe the 15-yard line is too far out. Perhaps the 10. The NFL wants the play to succeed at around a 15% rate. One play from the 10-yard line to get into the endzone feels like 15% is probably about right.

 

To me, though, the conversion play makes more sense than the “4th and 20” proposal.

[Ann]

@Taro T, John Mara agrees with you. Maybe it will be voted down or tabled again in May? 

[Nanker]

14 hours ago, Spartacus said:

https://www.outkick.com/nfl-tables-proposal-for-4th-20-play-to-replace-onside-kick/

 

There’s a better solution that should make — almost — everyone happy

My thinking is that the possession play — for lack of a better description — should be its own play. The stats shouldn’t count and points shouldn’t be at stake for the offense. Plus, a penalty shouldn’t guarantee possession.

So what to do. Simple: add a conversion play. The offense gets a play from the 15-yard line. If they get the ball into the endzone, they get possession at their own 25. If they don’t, the other team takes over at the failing team’s 40-yard line.

 

In this case, a penalty may award multiple attempts at the play, perhaps closer, but not guarantee possession. Pass interference in the endzone? Sure, run the play again from the 5-yard line. Or the one or two, whatever they want.

Defensive holding? Get another shot from the 10.

 

This solves all of the problems. Penalties can play a role, but not be deciding factors. The defense only has to defend the endzone and not the entire field. Plus, the play would be incredibly exciting.

 

Maybe the 15-yard line is too far out. Perhaps the 10. The NFL wants the play to succeed at around a 15% rate. One play from the 10-yard line to get into the endzone feels like 15% is probably about right.

 

To me, though, the conversion play makes more sense than the “4th and 20” proposal.

Obviously this was proposed to promote more gambling scenarios. The NFL is making gambling in the US like it has been in Great Britain for decades, if not centuries. Feed those addicted gamblers with dozens of new ways to lose, so the League’s coffers get filled to overflowing. 

[Ann]

On Tuesday night, at the Phoenix restaurant Tomaso’s, two groups were having dinner in large rooms—the Giants and the Steelers. The Giants finished first and a few of their people stopped by to say hi to the Pittsburgh contingent, which included Roger Goodell at owner Art Rooney II’s table. When Giants co-owner John Mara saw Goodell, he smiled wryly and said, “I should get out of here.”

 

All’s fair in love and NFL debates. Mara, maybe three hours earlier in a session of owners and top execs, was the strongest in arguing against the NFL’s proposal to make Thursday night games in weeks 14 through 17 on Amazon eligible to move to Sunday, with a corresponding trade of a more attractive game into the Thursday night slot. Mara, and others, were surprised when word about this proposal leaked to Sports Business Journal just days before the annual meeting in Phoenix. Mara’s strident complaint: It’s unfair to fans who make plans to travel to games to have them changed 15 days prior, it’s unfair to fans and teams planning on a 1 p.m. Sunday game to have the game played three days earlier on a weeknight at 8:20, and there’s no data on short-week Thursday games to suggest they can be interchangeable without consequences.

 

The Giants, Jets, Chicago, New Orleans and Green Bay were among those who opposed the flex. For Green Bay, a ton of fans both follow them on the road and make bucket-list pilgrimages to Lambeau Field for games, and the Packers felt it unfair to have potentially thousands of fans be stuck with travel issues should a game be moved from Sunday to Thursday, or vice versa. Carolina and Denver abstained. With 24 votes needed for passage, the vote was 22 to 8 with the two abstentions. The NFL will arm-twist, most likely, prior to the next league session in late May, and unless the anti forces can muster some momentum, it’s likely the measure will pass then.

 

</snip>