NFL News

[Futureshock]

NFL 2021 Playing Rules, Bylaw and Resolution Proposals

Posted by Michael David Smith on April 1, 2021, 9:46 AM EDT

Getty Images

[Editor’s note: The following are summaries of the rules, bylaw and resolution proposals will be voted on by the league’s 32 clubs at the upcoming league meeting.]

2021 Playing Rule Proposals Summary
1. By Competition Committee; to amend Rule 16, to eliminate overtime in the preseason.

2. By Competition Committee; to amend Rule 6, Section 1, Article 3, for one year only, to establish a maximum number of players in the setup zone.

3. By Competition Committee; to amend Rule 12, Section 2, Article 4, to expand the prohibition on blocking below the waist by offensive and defensive players on scrimmage downs when contact occurs beyond five yards on either side of the line of scrimmage and more than two yards outside of either offensive tackle, by Competition Committee.

4. By Competition Committee, Coaches Subcommittee, and Baltimore; to amend Rule 15, Section 3, Article 9, and Rule 19, Section 2, to permit the Replay Official and designated members of the Officiating department to provide certain objective information to the on-field officials.

5. By Chicago; to amend Rule 11, Section 3, Article 3, to ensure the enforcement of all accepted penalties committed by either team during successive Try attempts.

6. By Los Angeles Rams; to amend Rule 8, Section 1, Article 2, to add a loss of down for a second forward pass from behind the line and for a pass thrown after the ball returns behind the line.

7. By Kansas City Chiefs; to amend Rule 5, Section 1, Article 2, to expand jersey number options for certain positions.

8. By Baltimore and Philadelphia; to amend Rule 16, Section 1, to change the options for winner of an overtime coin toss, and create a true sudden death format.

9. By Baltimore; to amend Rule 16, Section 1, to change the options for winner of an overtime coin toss, eliminate sudden death format, and eliminate overtime in the preseason.

10. By Philadelphia; to amend Rule 6, Section 1, Article 1, to permit a team to maintain possession of the ball after a score by substituting one offensive play (4th and 15 from the kicking team’s 25-yard line) for an onside kickoff attempt.

11. By Baltimore; to amend Rule 19, Section 1, Article 1, to add an eighth official who is positioned somewhere other than the playing field, with full communication to on-field officials and access to a television monitor.

2021 Bylaw Proposals Summary
1. By Competition Committee; to amend Article XVIII, Section 18.1 of the Constitution and Bylaws to prohibit clubs participating in the playoffs from signing players waived and terminated by clubs whose seasons have concluded.

2. By Competition Committee; to amend Article XII, Section 12.4 of the Constitution and Bylaws to require clubs to submit tryouts and visits to the League office throughout the entire year; however, such transactions will only be reported to clubs from the start of training camp through the conclusion of the Super Bowl, unless it is with a Restricted or Unrestricted Free Agent.

2021 Resolutions Proposals Summary
G-1. By Buffalo; to amend the Anti-Tampering Policy, for one year only, to require all clubs and personnel interviewing for available Head Coach and Coordinator positions to operate under the same time frame for the hiring process.

[Fraquar]

10. By Philadelphia; to amend Rule 6, Section 1, Article 1, to permit a team to maintain possession of the ball after a score by substituting one offensive play (4th and 15 from the kicking team’s 25-yard line) for an onside kickoff attempt.

Not only no but hell no. There is a reason there is 3 phases to a game.
Want the ball back - stop the other team - or do some magic with your ST.

[Futureshock]

Does Robert Kraft regret letting Tom Brady leave?

Posted by Charean Williams on March 31, 2021, 8:39 PM EDT

Getty Images

The Patriots continue their search to “solidify” the quarterback position a year after Tom Brady walked out the door. New England went 7-9 last season, missing the playoffs for the first time since 2008, while Brady won his seventh Super Bowl ring, this one with the Buccaneers.

Brady, whom the Patriots drafted in the sixth round in 2000, continues to cast a large shadow on the franchise he spent two decades leading to six championships.

“Look, I love Tom Brady and he’s great, but he’s moved on,” Kraft said Wednesday. “What happened here last year was not something to our liking. We had to make the corrections.”

Kraft was asked if he had any feelings of regret that Brady and the Patriots didn’t stay together even longer.

“I would have loved for him to retire as a Patriot,” Kraft said. “Everybody knew that but in life things just happen in a way that you have to balance a lot of things. After 20 years, I thought he was entitled to make a decision that was what he thought was best for him and where he was at. We gave him the ability to do that.

“It’s like marriages sometimes. No one knows on the outside everything going on and you try to balance a lot, and it is what it is.”

The Patriots gave Brady the option to leave as a free agent. He did, and he won big. That surely hurt Kraft and the Patriots organization — as well as its fans — even more than seeing him in another uniform.

“Well, after 20 years with any player, I’ll make this commitment to any player in the future,” Kraft said. “Anyone who spends 20 years with us and helps us win six Super Bowls. . . . Look, we could have, contract-wise, kept him in our camp, but it’s just not the right thing. Naturally, we want to win, but who knows what would have happened if he stayed here. Look what happened at the end of his last season here.”

Brady returns to New England this season . . . when his Buccaneers play a road game against the Patriots. The Patriots will get a reminder both of what they had and what they might have had.

[LightninBoy]

Not only no but hell no. There is a reason there is 3 phases to a game.
Want the ball back - stop the other team - or do some magic with your ST.

Not sure I like this either, but the issue is that the new kickoff rules have made onside kicks nearly impossible. So the "magic with your ST" is much less effective no matter how good your ST unit is. Its a modern rule to fix an unintended consequence of other modern rules.

[Fraquar]

The whole point is it's not supposed to be easy to keep the ball after a score - let alone it being automatic.

[LightninBoy]

The whole point is it's not supposed to be easy to keep the ball after a score - let alone it being automatic.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. There is no proposal that makes it automatic to keep the ball after the score. I do agree that converting a 15 yard play seems too easy. I'd like to see data that compares 4 and 15 conversions to onside kick conversions (when using the old kickoff rules). But I do understand and agree with the spirit of the proposal: bring back the end of game drama that the onside kick provided in the past.

[froot loops]

I would they rather let you take a running start as long as the kickoff doesn't go more than 20 yards without being touched.

[Futureshock]

Unusual play against Bucs led Rams to propose a rule change

Posted by Josh Alper on April 2, 2021, 7:55 AM EDT

USA TODAY Sports

The NFL announced 11 proposed changes to the rules on Thursday, including one that had its genesis in one play during a Week 11 game between the Buccaneers and Rams.

On a third-and-10 with the Rams up 24-17 in the fourth quarter, Tom Brady had a pass batted back to him that he caught before throwing an eight-yard completion. Two forward passes are not allowed on the same play, but the five-yard penalty for what Brady did is not accompanied by a loss of down, which is the case for a forward pass thrown by someone over the line of scrimmage.

That meant the Rams were faced with a choice of accepting the penalty and giving the Bucs a third-and-15 or declining it to leave them with a fourth-and-two. They declined the penalty and the Bucs punted on their way to a loss.

The Rams proposed a change that would amend the penalty for such a play to include a loss of down. Given the penalty for a pass over the line of scrimmage, it seems like a logical addition but team owners will decide if they agree later this offseason.

[Futureshock]

It is a very long article, so I will just post the link here:


On booth umpire, Competition Committee advocates a half-measure

Posted by Mike Florio on April 2, 2021, 6:40 AM EDT

At a time when the Ravens have proposed an eighth member of the officiating crew who would be in the replay booth and assist the seven on-field officials based on the available camera angles, the Competition Committee has proposed a watered-down version of the rule that simply enhances the game-day obligations of the replay official, allowing that person to assist the officiating crew with certain objective decisions, like whether a pass was completed.

It’s a mistake, for multiple reasons.

First, it fails to close the gap between the things the seven officials see on the field and the things that millions see at home. For years, we’ve argued that the league needs an extra official who sees what we see and who helps and supports the seven people who don’t. The eighth official ensures that any and all major blunders will be fixed before they become controversies — like, for example, the notorious non-call of defensive pass interference in the 2018 NFC Championship.

Under Baltimore’s prior proposal, the booth umpire would be able to fix that mistake. Under the Competition Committee’s proposal, the replay official would not be able to fix that mistake.

Second, and as a source with extensive knowledge regarding the NFL’s overall officiating function told PFT, the replay official already has a lot to do. The source believes that the booth umpire/sky judge should be utilized in order to avoid adding to the replay official’s obligations. The source also believes that a booth umpire/sky judge should be utilized, even if that person only has the power to help with matters like 15-yard fouls for safety infractions (like illegal contact on a defenseless receiver) and pass interference calls and non-calls, with the possibility of limiting pass interference intervention to the later stages of a game or overtime.

Third, and as the source explained it, the NFL’s current officiating department does not support anything more than limited expansion of the duties of the replay official. That’s a huge mistake. The officiating department — from top to bottom — should want to have any and all devices available to avoid a controversy that would make those mistakes the focal point of media coverage and fan consternation into the following week. As more and more states legalize sports betting, the NFL and its officiating department must embrace, not shun, opportunities to avoid errors. There’s no better opportunity to do that than to have an extra member of the officiating crew, who would have the same power to caucus with the referee as the on-field officials currently have.

Fourth, and as the Ravens pointed out in the documents related to their proposal, the booth umpire/sky judge eventually will be adopted. That will happen, at the latest, after the next 2018 NFC Championship-style debacle, whenever it may be. So why not just accept that reality and do it now?

[Futureshock]

Multiple players are intrigued by single-digit number proposal

Posted by Mike Florio on April 1, 2021, 7:35 PM EDT

Getty Images

Reggie Bush was 15 years ahead of his time.

Back in 2006, marketing agent Mike Ornstein lobbied aggressively for the NFL to change its No Fun League approach to numerology, adjusting the rules so that Bush could wear No. 5 as a pro. It didn’t work.

This year, it could. With the Chiefs proposing a change that would allow running backs, tight ends, receivers, linebackers, and defensive backs to wear single-digit numbers, NFL games could look very different, if at least 23 teams agree with Kansas City.

It’s likely a tall order, especially since it’s coming out of the blue — and since the NFL isn’t exactly known for embracing change. Multiple players, reacting to our prior story regarding the proposal, have made their endorsement of the change clear.

Buccaneers running back Leonard Fournette said to the team, “I need number 7 thank you.”

Chargers linebacker Kenneth Murray, who wore No. 9 at Oklahoma, said, “Need this ASAP!!! K9 is back!!!!” Chargers safety Derwin James, who wore No. 3 at Florida State, said it has to be an April Fool’s Day joke. (It isn’t.) Meanwhile, Chargers cornerback Chris Harris Jr. said he’s fine with 25.

Other players didn’t like the idea of single digits being limited to certain players. Ravens tackle Orlando Brown Jr., using an excellent GIF of the great Fred Sanford, said that “I feel like OL should get first dibs on single digit numbers.”

Chiefs receiver Tyreek Hill wants to take it a step farther; he wants 00. (Former Oilers receiver Ken Burrough wore 00 from 1971 through 1981.)

There’s no reason for the league’s rules to be so restrictive wen it comes to jersey numbers. As long as ineligible players on offense wear ineligible numbers, it doesn’t matter what players on defense or at eligible offense positions wear.

So open it up. It’s been nearly 20 years since the NFL made the then-revolutionary step to let receivers wear numbers from 10 to 19. Embrace single digits. Let eligible offensive players wear any number from 1 to 49 and 80 to 89. Let defensive players wear any number they choose.

And, yes, bring back 00.

[Futureshock]

Chiefs proposed expansion of single digits to make more numbers available

Posted by Mike Florio on April 2, 2021, 10:21 AM EDT

Getty Images

The proposal by the Chiefs to allow running backs, receivers, tight ends, linebackers, and defensive backs to wear single-digit numbers was not stylistic but practical.

Per a source with knowledge of the specific terms of the proposal, the Chiefs have made this suggestion in order to ensure that there will be enough jersey numbers available for all players.

The problem arises when, for example, an offensive player on the practice squad has the same number as a defensive player on the active roster. If/when the offensive player is elevated to the active roster, he needs a new numbers.

The rule also will limit the number of duplicated jerseys numbers during the preseason.

The Chiefs recognize the collateral benefit to this proposed change. As the source said, “It’s just fun.”

Initially, it won’t be fun for the teams, because players who would be able to wear single digits will clamor for the unclaimed numbers — and will try to cajole those numbers from kickers and punters. (There’s a chance for some teams that the process of calling dibs already has begun.)

If the goal is to make more numbers available, here’s to letting players also wear 0 and 00. Whether it’s Jim Otto or Ken Burrough, 00 is an awesome number that the No Fun League dumped in the ’70s. (Burrough was allowed to keep wearing it through the balance of his career.)

It’s so awesome that, I had a generic, no-specific-team football jersey from Sears with the number 00 on it. And I loved it.

And then the Catholic grade school I attended had a one-day break from the standard uniform. And then I proudly wore my 00 jersey to school. And then one of the other kids said, “Is that your IQ?” And then I never wore that jersey again.

[Futureshock]

GERALD EVERETTTE, SEATTLE SEAHAWKS
New Seahawks TE Gerald Everett confirmed Seattle's hiring of ex-Rams passing-game coordinator Shane Waldron as offensive coordinator was a factor in his signing with the team.


"Shane is a mastermind," Everett gushed. "He's very creative." Part of that creativity in Los Angeles was being comfortable with a two-tight end approach. The Seahawks still have teacher's pet Will Dissly under contract, to say nothing of 6-foot-7 sophomore Colby Parkinson. Dissly caught 24 passes last season even with Greg Olsen still around. Everett is finally free of Tyler Higbee, but that doesn't mean his seam stretching target competition has vanished. We will be closely monitoring the coaching staff quotes and preseason usage this summer.

SOURCE: seahawks.com
Apr 1, 2021, 6:55 PM

[Futureshock]

DEAN SPANOSC, LOS ANGELES CHARGERS
The sister of Chargers owner Dean Spanos has filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court to force the sale of the team because of alleged "mounting debt that has imperiled the family’s finances."


Dea Spanos Berberian, who actually owns as much of the team as Dean, alleges that the family trust’s debts and expenses "exceed $353 million," and that "the trust doesn’t have a plan to pay more than $22 million it has pledged to charities." Owners of the team since 1984, the Spanos family has encountered frequent financial difficulties, at least by the standards of NFL owners. Dean and two other siblings issued a statement saying they have no plans to sell. “For the three of us, the Chargers is one of our family’s most important legacies, just as it was for our parents. Unfortunately, our sister Dea seems to have a different and misguided personal agenda.” Obviously we have not heard the last of this.

SOURCE: Los Angeles Times
Apr 1, 2021, 5:04 PM

[kdk2002]

Multiple players are intrigued by single-digit number proposal

Posted by Mike Florio on April 1, 2021, 7:35 PM EDT

Getty Images

Reggie Bush was 15 years ahead of his time.

Back in 2006, marketing agent Mike Ornstein lobbied aggressively for the NFL to change its No Fun League approach to numerology, adjusting the rules so that Bush could wear No. 5 as a pro. It didn’t work.

This year, it could. With the Chiefs proposing a change that would allow running backs, tight ends, receivers, linebackers, and defensive backs to wear single-digit numbers, NFL games could look very different, if at least 23 teams agree with Kansas City.

It’s likely a tall order, especially since it’s coming out of the blue — and since the NFL isn’t exactly known for embracing change. Multiple players, reacting to our prior story regarding the proposal, have made their endorsement of the change clear.

Buccaneers running back Leonard Fournette said to the team, “I need number 7 thank you.”

Chargers linebacker Kenneth Murray, who wore No. 9 at Oklahoma, said, “Need this ASAP!!! K9 is back!!!!” Chargers safety Derwin James, who wore No. 3 at Florida State, said it has to be an April Fool’s Day joke. (It isn’t.) Meanwhile, Chargers cornerback Chris Harris Jr. said he’s fine with 25.

Other players didn’t like the idea of single digits being limited to certain players. Ravens tackle Orlando Brown Jr., using an excellent GIF of the great Fred Sanford, said that “I feel like OL should get first dibs on single digit numbers.”

Chiefs receiver Tyreek Hill wants to take it a step farther; he wants 00. (Former Oilers receiver Ken Burrough wore 00 from 1971 through 1981.)

There’s no reason for the league’s rules to be so restrictive wen it comes to jersey numbers. As long as ineligible players on offense wear ineligible numbers, it doesn’t matter what players on defense or at eligible offense positions wear.

So open it up. It’s been nearly 20 years since the NFL made the then-revolutionary step to let receivers wear numbers from 10 to 19. Embrace single digits. Let eligible offensive players wear any number from 1 to 49 and 80 to 89. Let defensive players wear any number they choose.

And, yes, bring back 00.

They should allow triple digits for guys who weigh over 300 pounds. Who is going to be the first #747?

[Mainevent]

Your mom.







(sorry, couldn’t resist