2008 NFL Rule Changes

by sunny D on Aug 2, 2008 1:22 PM CDT

As games get closer, here's a review of the rule changes for this year. You know... So you're not screaming at the referee saying, "But he was PUSHED out!" Only to have a nearby ten-year-old tell you the rule has changed.

No "force-out" rule anymore. For a completion, you have to get your feet in whether you're hit or not. Exception: If the defender wraps both arms around the receiver and "carries" [my word] him out, the play can still be called a catch. Apparently, the league didn't want Derrick Johnson grabbing a receiver who's in the air in the middle of the field and running off the field with him before he put him down.
One defender on the field can have a radio earpiece. Only two defensive players get this privilege for the game. And when the play clock hits 15, the radio is turned off. That's been true on offense, but can't say I knew that. I guess it's so the coach isn't yelling, "I'm open!" into the QB's ear while the play is going on.
No 5-yard incidental face mask penalties any more. Only the 15-yard variety for twisting, turning or pulling.
If you win the coin toss, you can defer your choice to the second half, like college football.
Dropped forward hand-offs and all botched snaps (whether or not they contact the quarterback) are now considered fumbles. Hmm... Can't say that I knew they weren't fumbles. Just take care of the ball, guys.
Refs are now allowed to look under the hood and watch the replay of a field goal to make sure the right call is made (as long as the ball flies lower than the top of the uprights). ...You remember the weird one from last year that went through the uprights and over the crossbar (good!), but then hit the curved support piece and bounced back out. The initial signal was "no good" and the Ravens went to the locker room thinking they had a win. Technically, the guys in stripes weren't supposed to consider the video evidence that everyone else in the world could see. Somehow the ref worded the decision in a way that overturned the initial call without implying that the replay had any effect on their decision. Nice job.

References: Wikipedia and Palm Beach Post. Also, http://www.nfl.com/rulebook

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

5 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Preparing for the force-out rule

And the Dolphins are adjusting. On the practice fields at Davie, coaches painted a red line about 6 yards in from the sideline, and the receivers treat it as the new out-of-bounds line. “If you jump for the ball near the sidelines, the defensive back is going to toss you out, so this helps us know where we’re at,” Hagan said.

The above quote comes from the Palm Beach Post article. Hopefully our coaching staff will practice routes and prepare the players for this different reality. I bet Webb will keep it in mind after the lack of toe-tapping against Green Bay eliminated a nice catch and first down.

I’m glad to see the emphasis on fundamentals in this year’s Chiefs training camp. I realize that these detailed points sometime take too much time away from the more important things. So I’m not lambasting our crew for not having a red line. But it affects more than just the catch. The new rule affects patterns and even where the wide-outs line up, perhaps.

by sunny D on Aug 2, 2008 1:31 PM CDT 0 recs

As well as having d backs practicing the push-out as a defensive maneuver.

by sunny D on Aug 2, 2008 1:45 PM CDT up 0 recs

Followed shortly after

By the umpire’s committee changing the rule again after someone gets hurt after being thrown out of bounds and landing on something or someone.

Blame my wife!

by sir eccles on Aug 2, 2008 6:18 PM CDT up 0 recs

Ouch...yeah.

How about defending the corner fade pattern in the red zone. Instead of going for the ball as it goes over his head, the dback just grabs one of the receiver’s legs and pulls him out of bounds.

by sunny D on Aug 2, 2008 10:05 PM CDT up 0 recs

I wonder

what the limit on distance is? As long as they don’t “wrap him up” and carry him out, they could conceivably chuck him from a decent distance.

Think of your featherweight WR’s in the sub 190lb range… if hit hard enough these guys could go for a ride. If you get two guys in coverage, then the effect could be even greater – think safety+CB combining to heft a guy 5+ yards.

Hopefully some measures will be in place to ensure the safety of these WR’s as they get tossed OB.

This year will be interesting.

by Ochophosphate on Aug 5, 2008 12:45 PM CDT up 0 recs

Yeah

Dante Hall – 186 lbs.
Jarrad Page – 225 lbs.

If Hall jumped to catch a pass, Page could catch Hall and probably “carry” him 5 yards, easily.

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 5, 2008 1:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

Herm watching the Olympics

After experimenting with strategies related to the dropped force-out rule, Coach Edwards is watching the Olympic shot putters next week with an eye out for a new strong safety.

“Things change,” Edwards said. “The good thing about the Olympics is that they’re over by the third preseason game. If we can pick up a player able to shot-put competing WRs more than 10 yards, we’re going to take a look. We’ll ask them to play and see what they can do.”

;)

by sunny D on Aug 5, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up 0 recs

You crack me up Sunny D

but seriously, he should be looking at the lumberjack competitions as well, one of those stout guys that can throw a 300lb log 100 feet should fit right in our backfield…

by KCFanatic on Aug 5, 2008 4:58 PM CDT up 0 recs

Hey, competition is good. Even among lumberjacks.

by sunny D on Aug 5, 2008 7:35 PM CDT up 0 recs

The force out rule -- Exception or not?

A receiver now has to get two feet in-bounds on a catch or it is an incompletion. No exceptions.

Now I don’t know if the exception listed in the intial post is accurate or not. The block quote is from today’s official briefing with the Chiefs.

by sunny D on Aug 2, 2008 10:00 PM CDT 0 recs

Force out?

Isn’t the force out rule the way it used to be anyway?

by cmpotter on Aug 3, 2008 12:21 AM CDT 0 recs

Can't find the year it started.

But yes, the rule has been in force maybe 10 years I’m guessing?

It will change the Patriots’ strategy somewhat:

Belichick said that with the force-out rule, he taught defenders to make a play for the ball. Now, he’ll instruct them to play the man.

by sunny D on Aug 3, 2008 5:07 PM CDT up 0 recs

I don't watch college ball,

so what does “defer to the second half” mean?

by Mully on Aug 4, 2008 9:37 AM CDT 0 recs

It means

that, if you win the coin toss, you can choose to leave the kick/receive choice until the 3rd quarter kickoff. Deferring to the second half allows you to gauge how the team is doing during the first half of the game, and decide over halftime if you want to kick or receive at the start of the 3rd quarter.

by Seth_C on Aug 4, 2008 1:44 PM CDT up 0 recs

I thought that was just a Madden rule?

by primetime 07 on Aug 4, 2008 1:48 PM CDT up 0 recs

I get that, but

How do they decide who gets the first kickoff? There could be a cirumstance where a team doesn’t get a kickoff, correct?

have you seen my baseball?

by IISaiNtII on Aug 4, 2008 5:36 PM CDT up 0 recs

Three options

If you won the coin toss, you used to have first choice regarding two questions:
1) Kick or recieve?
2) Which end of the field do you want?

In the NFL, teams who win the toss elect to get the ball first almost all the time. Then the other team chooses which end it wants.
Deferring now adds a third option: Let me choose what I want at the start of the second half.
If you defer, the other team gets its choice at the start of the game: presumably to get the ball.
Most college teams defer. i.e. take the ball at the start of the second half.

If you have a good defense and a strong wind, there are times when teams have opted for a particular end of the field and let the other team get the ball first. Coach Marty Mornhinweg of Detroit tried that in 2002. Got fired. No one has made that choice since then.

If you want to go a particular direction, be careful how you word it. Hank Stram’s Dallas Texans team wanted to go a particular direction in overtime, but worded it by saying, “We want to kick toward the clock.” The referee said Abner had indicated they wanted to kick, so then gave the other team its choice of direction. Bummer. But they overcame it…

12/23/1962: Dallas Texans 20, Houston Oilers 17 (AFL Championship Game)
Who: Hank Stram, Dallas
Why: strong wind, blowing in the direction of the south-end zone clock.
What had happened: Houston rallied from down 17-0 to tie.
The toss: After winning the toss, Abner Haynes, Dallas captain, told referee Harold Bourne that "We’ll kick to the clock." Unfortunately for the Texans, he could not choose both options, and by starting with "We’ll kick," Haynes committed the Texans to kicking off. The Oilers, of course, chose the wind.
What followed: The Dallas defense stopped the Oilers three times, forcing a punt and picking off George Blanda twice. In the second overtime, with the Texans now having the wind at their back, Tommy Brooker made a 25-yard FG, giving the Texans the 1962 AFL Championship.

by sunny D on Aug 4, 2008 6:03 PM CDT up 0 recs

Yes, it's possible that a team could kick-off both halves

Not likely. Because each team gets its first choice one half or the other. A team with really good defense and a good kicking game might choose to kick off because it believes it will stop the opponent, receive the punt, and be in better field position than if it simply took the initial kick off.

by sunny D on Aug 4, 2008 6:14 PM CDT up 0 recs

Rec this up

At least so we can have an easily accessible reference until we get used to them.

by primetime 07 on Aug 4, 2008 5:51 PM CDT 0 recs

Five Yard Incidental Facemask

I can’t say as I like that rule change. Yes, it could be abused by tackled players who faked getting their head yanked when the tackler hadn’t actually facemasked them, but I didn’t see it as being enough of a factor to require a change. The rule’s in place to prevent serious head and neck injuries from facemask tackles and I thought the differentiation between intentional and incidental was fine as was.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Aug 5, 2008 11:28 AM CDT 0 recs