"Fixing" the NFL

[rmw10]

1 minute ago, Rav'n Maniac said:

Agreed. Not a fan of a 60 man roster unless other things change to accommodate it. The cap would have to increase to be able to have a few additional "playmakers".  Without a sizable cap increase, the additional players would be the same developmental players that already exist on the PS.

In addition, I feel they will need to increase the number of players that are allowed to dress on game day. What's the sense in having additional players if only 45 dress and they can't play in the games. 

The active/inactives list is because there's not a Disabled List like in baseball.  It's a way to ensure that all teams have the same amount of players entering the game.  If you have a team with no injuries, you have 53 players you can rotate.  If your team has 6 injuries, you're battling 47 vs. 53 players and that's where the "unfairness" comes in.  If they implemented some sort of DL, maybe they could make that work.  I think it's long been a fear of abuse of the DL system, and also taking the strategy out of the game.  A big part of football is game planning and determining which positions you might be able to go short at in order to get a player at a another position that better fits your game plan.

[Rav'n Maniac]

I also don't see the value in a developmental league. It will not be a viable source of income for the owners and would seriously lack fan support. For all intents and purpose, there is already a developmental league with the CFL that is sustainable. Considering that less then a handful of players come out of that league to the NFL annually, I can't see how a developmental league in the states would be any better.

 

[Rav'n Maniac]

13 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

The active/inactives list is because there's not a Disabled List like in baseball.  It's a way to ensure that all teams have the same amount of players entering the game.  If you have a team with no injuries, you have 53 players you can rotate.  If your team has 6 injuries, you're battling 47 vs. 53 players and that's where the "unfairness" comes in.  If they implemented some sort of DL, maybe they could make that work.  I think it's long been a fear of abuse of the DL system, and also taking the strategy out of the game.  A big part of football is game planning and determining which positions you might be able to go short at in order to get a player at a another position that better fits your game plan.

I understand the strategy involved as you have listed and I agree that they need to maintain an active/inactives list for rotational purposes. Unless, as you said, they incorporate a DL, which would be abused and I don't see as a realistic option. My point, and maybe I didn't explain it thoroughly, is that if they increase the overall roster by 7 players, they should at least increase the active roster to the same degree. Maintaining the same number of inactives weekly at 8 as opposed to 15.

[rmw10]

Just now, Rav'n Maniac said:

I understand the strategy involved as you have listed and I agree that they need to maintain an active/inactives list for rotational purposes. Unless, as you said, they incorporate a DL, which would be abused and I don't see as a realistic option. My point, and maybe I didn't explain it thoroughly, is that if they increase the overall roster by 7 players, they should at least increase the active roster to the same degree. Maintaining the same number of inactives weekly at 8 as opposed to 15.

Oh yeah, definitely.  I'd imagine that if it gets to the expected increase to 55 players, you're still looking at only 7 inactives.

[Willbacker]

13 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

There are times it's not called just like anything else... but accidental contact is called all the time. 

You see CBs just accidentally get their feet tied up with the WR while running and it gets called PI. 

 

I just think forcing a ref to determine if the contact interferes, and then determine if that contact was done with intent or not is just muddying the waters unnecessarily. 

 

I just dont see justification for a rule that says - yes we have deemed the defenders actions took away your 80 yd play... so we're going to "reward" you 15 yds!! 

Then theres also the issue of -- if you make a distinction between intent and no intent, you have to clearly define in the rule book what constitutes intent. 

 

So how do you define intent? What does that look like?

There's a lot of times this also doesn't get called.

To clarify the non intentional/intentional foul is if a guy is at all playing the ball and I don't care if its for a split second at the end then this should be non intentional and I'm talking about 1 on 1 matchups here. How many times have we seen both players playing the ball and still see a 60 yd penalty assessed cuz the defender bumps him a little before the ball arrives. Its ridiculous and it happens more than it should and its still on the referee to "determine" this. Intentional is a guy not playing the ball at all. How many times have we heard announcers say "Well he had to foul to prevent a TD" and pretty much consider this a good play. Tbh its still not fair to the offense since they should have the TD but its an obvious spot foul. In other words this is a good way to teach the defender to play the ball and this would be taught big time by coaches. So it should be fairly easy to determine. Playing the ball (whether you're fouling the guy intentionally or not) 15 yds. Not playing spot the ball.

Def holding should also be 10 yds instead of 5 yds imo cuz this interferes with big plays too.

1 hour ago, Rav'n Maniac said:

Agreed. Not a fan of a 60 man roster unless other things change to accommodate it. The cap would have to increase to be able to have a few additional "playmakers".  Without a sizable cap increase, the additional players would be the same developmental players that already exist on the PS.

In addition, I feel they will need to increase the number of players that are allowed to dress on game day. What's the sense in having additional players if only 45 dress and they can't play in the games. 

Touching on your last paragraph is something that has always disturbed me. I believe 53 players should play like is allotted to your game day roster. First of all inactivating any players that are healthy just seems wrong in my book. So to make the 53 work to me practice squads need to be expanded to 15 players and basically be used as a shuttle system with the deadline for alerting the NFL be on a Weds 4:PM EST or whatever time they come up with. Now the stickler may be someone gets injured between then and gametime well tough cookies you playing with 52. Its gotta be cut and dry.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

38 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

There's a lot of times this also doesn't get called.

To clarify the non intentional/intentional foul is if a guy is at all playing the ball and I don't care if its for a split second at the end then this should be non intentional and I'm talking about 1 on 1 matchups here. How many times have we seen both players playing the ball and still see a 60 yd penalty assessed cuz the defender bumps him a little before the ball arrives. Its ridiculous and it happens more than it should and its still on the referee to "determine" this. Intentional is a guy not playing the ball at all. How many times have we heard announcers say "Well he had to foul to prevent a TD" and pretty much consider this a good play. Tbh its still not fair to the offense since they should have the TD but its an obvious spot foul. In other words this is a good way to teach the defender to play the ball and this would be taught big time by coaches. So it should be fairly easy to determine. Playing the ball (whether you're fouling the guy intentionally or not) 15 yds. Not playing spot the ball.

Def holding should also be 10 yds instead of 5 yds imo cuz this interferes with big plays too.

Touching on your last paragraph is something that has always disturbed me. I believe 53 players should play like is allotted to your game day roster. First of all inactivating any players that are healthy just seems wrong in my book. So to make the 53 work to me practice squads need to be expanded to 15 players and basically be used as a shuttle system with the deadline for alerting the NFL be on a Weds 4:PM EST or whatever time they come up with. Now the stickler may be someone gets injured between then and gametime well tough cookies you playing with 52. Its gotta be cut and dry.

How do you define "playing the ball?"

Is it moving your arm in the direction of the ball? Is it looking back for it?

Youre talking about the league and refs that cant figure out what a catch is. And you think itd be fairly easy for them to decide what intent looks like consistently?

[Tru11]

make PI reviewable.

 

[Willbacker]

8 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

How do you define "playing the ball?"

Is it moving your arm in the direction of the ball? Is it looking back for it?

Youre talking about the league and refs that cant figure out what a catch is. And you think itd be fairly easy for them to decide what intent looks like consistently?

This. If refs cant see this they need to retire.

[redrum52]

I know a guy in Vegas.

[purpletide]

8 hours ago, rmw10 said:

The active/inactives list is because there's not a Disabled List like in baseball.  It's a way to ensure that all teams have the same amount of players entering the game.  If you have a team with no injuries, you have 53 players you can rotate.  If your team has 6 injuries, you're battling 47 vs. 53 players and that's where the "unfairness" comes in.  If they implemented some sort of DL, maybe they could make that work.  I think it's long been a fear of abuse of the DL system, and also taking the strategy out of the game.  A big part of football is game planning and determining which positions you might be able to go short at in order to get a player at a another position that better fits your game plan.

Thanks for explaining the limited suit-up rule I had no idea what the point of it was. I think maybe the suit-ups should be altered to where you can only suit up to the team with the lower amount of active players, so for instance if it's a 49-53 battle then the 53 team will still have to only suit up 49 rather than the suit up rule now that makes it the same for all teams despite roster condition.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

On 3/27/2017 at 11:28 AM, Willbacker said:

This. If refs cant see this they need to retire.

If you're looking back for the ball its already not PI.

So.... youre making a non-penalty a 15 yd penalty now?

[Willbacker]

44 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

If you're looking back for the ball its already not PI.

So.... youre making a non-penalty a 15 yd penalty now?

You're right if you don't bump the player like I said earlier but it gets called if you bump a player (before the ball arrives) even if the defender is making a play on the ball and this should not or never ever be a spot foul. And yes this happens so like Tru11 says maybe PI should be reviewable cuz I really hate seeing 60 yd penalties like that. Only spot fouls should be pushoffs and tackling and not looking for the ball.

Edited March 31 by Willbacker