new nfl rules

**Bettingbrothers** · 06-10-11, 02:34 PM

Initially I would say that the tackling rules will favor the receiver, however, I think that tackling could be improved. If the defender is forced to hold back a moment, it may give them a chance to get better position, rather than going for the imediate hit.

**cmendo2005** · 06-10-11, 03:39 PM

I don't see this doing anything but helping the offensive teams and offenses completely. No receiver is afraid to go over the middle he has time to protect himself before hes hit, the QB helmet doesn't really help the defense it just eliminates the iffy calls that continue drives. The league is looking too much into scoring points and being a high flying attraction in my opinion. No runningback is going to be afraid to run between tackles if you can't even deliver a blow when he drops his head...I'm not in favor

**BigFish** · 06-10-11, 04:08 PM

Wait a second, did I read that right? A receiver cannot be tackled until he makes a football move (after making a catch)?! That would be a game changer, IMO. Unless I'm misunderstanding, such a rule would prevent a D-back from timing his hit to happen simultaneously as the ball arrives at the receiver -- as D-Backs so often do in order to break up a pass. Are you telling me a D-Back now must sit back and let the receiver catch the ball, wait for the receiver to make a football move, and then make the tackle? I find that hard to believe.

Is it possible that the new rule only applies to the proverbial "defenseless receiver"? That would make much more sense, and have much less of an impact (but still some).

**dialup_king** · 06-10-11, 07:54 PM

DBs can still time their hits against receivers

**buby74** · 06-11-11, 04:00 AM

The kickoff change might lead to bigger winning margins as teams that concede a score will also have poorer field position on the next drive. Although there is another rule change that the coverage team cannot line up more than 5 yards behind the kickoff line and so will take longer to get to full speed which will slightly offset the 5 yard change in the kickoff line. I don't think there will be any change in total points but a tiny trend towards more lopsided victories

**jackpot269** · 06-11-11, 04:07 AM

Interesting thanks for the heads up !!!

**Tomahawk** · 06-11-11, 04:51 AM

Damn, I need to renew my NFL betting systems. Need to collect new stats after the new rules apply.

**Wrecktangle** · 06-11-11, 07:16 AM

More NFL rule changing horse-shit. Is there any other sport that changes their rules as much? Actually, I'm half-hoping they don't get agreement and CFB moves to Sunday.

**smoke a bowl** · 06-11-11, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by Wrecktangle

More NFL rule changing horse-shit. Is there any other sport that changes their rules as much? Actually, I'm half-hoping they don't get agreement and CFB moves to Sunday.

Don't be ridiculous.

**Emily_Haines** · 06-11-11, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Wrecktangle

More NFL rule changing horse-shit. Is there any other sport that changes their rules as much? Actually, I'm half-hoping they don't get agreement and CFB moves to Sunday.

Best thing they could do for the country is cancel this over priced garbage for good. These pricks think the taxpayers are suppose to build them 1 billion dollar stadiums to play 8 home games. Most people are so dumbed down in this country they couldn't tell you what the three branches of government are or solve a simple math problem but they all know how the local football team is doing.

**fax6202** · 06-11-11, 05:09 PM

Overpriced, agreed. but nevertheless a great product, best US sport hands down.

**Flight** · 06-12-11, 12:58 AM

I hope it gets cancelled as well. The economics are too jacked up to allow it continue.

NCAA FB is no better though, in fact it's worse. They don't have to pay their players, and they make even more money.

**That Foreign Guy** · 06-12-11, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by fax6202

Overpriced, agreed. but nevertheless a great product, best US sport hands down.

This is only true because hockey is Canadian.

**evo34** · 06-12-11, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Emily_Haines

Best thing they could do for the country is cancel this over priced garbage for good. These pricks think the taxpayers are suppose to build them 1 billion dollar stadiums to play 8 home games. Most people are so dumbed down in this country they couldn't tell you what the three branches of government are or solve a simple math problem but they all know how the local football team is doing.

Yeah, we need fewer sports (football) that require obscene athleticism and effort, and more sports (baseball) that require light jogging and quick hands... Or should we just turn all stadiums into libraries?

**Wrecktangle** · 06-12-11, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Flight

I hope it gets cancelled as well. The economics are too jacked up to allow it continue.

NCAA FB is no better though, in fact it's worse. They don't have to pay their players, and they make even more money.

Unfortunately, the universities with the best programs have figured out a way to lose money in this environment. Only the schools affiliated with the best conferences that DON'T send their teams to Bowls, seem to many any money.

Certainly not a perfect system (I particularly hate not have a playoff system) but at least the rules are not changed every season making a hash of any statistical sensibility of the sport.

**evo34** · 06-26-11, 05:31 AM

Did not know this. Where did you read that major conference programs that go to bowl games tend to be net losing operations?

Originally posted by Wrecktangle

Unfortunately, the universities with the best programs have figured out a way to lose money in this environment. Only the schools affiliated with the best conferences that DON'T send their teams to Bowls, seem to many any money. Certainly not a perfect system (I particularly hate not have a playoff system) but at least the rules are not changed every season making a hash of any statistical sensibility of the sport.

**Bogart45** · 07-12-11, 12:40 PM

For my system, fewer kickoff returns for TDs will make it easier to predict results. I don't think the tackling rules will have much effect. The QB helmet rule will make things more predictable as well. I'll never forget losing that game last year when PHI had the game covered vs Ind with 1 minute left and Ind was something like 4th and 30 and PHI gets called for giving Manning a love tap on the helmet and end up losing the cover after Ind goes on to score. I thought that was the worst call of the season, and I think was the #1 reason why the rule was changed.

**CHUBNUT** · 07-12-11, 05:21 PM

It looks like the lockout could have a bigger effect. I read that the lack of practice will be similar to pre-season where defenses have the advantage. I would think new players and teams that rely heavily on timing patterns will suffer early.

any opinions.

**fax6202** · 07-12-11, 06:20 PM

Another area to be seriously considered is young teams with Rookie/New head coaches (i.e. SF). It takes significant time to implement a new system. The veteran teams with long-standing coaches (PIT, NE, IND, GB) will be well ahead of the teams mentioned above. I'm sure the lines will reflect this.

**MCherry281** · 07-12-11, 08:14 PM

I don't get the receiving rule. If the defense really has to let the receiver "make a football move" I guess that means come down and take two steps? That's just ridiculous. How much longer until they ban tackling altogether?