Football rules changes...? You've come to the right place

There’s no denying that over the last few decades most all on-field rules changes made by the NFL have been exercises in increasing offense and scoring. This has created an arms race in a sense where the pendulum swings back and forth between the NFL offenses and NFL defenses whereby the offenses get aided by rules changes and the defenses counter with a combination of innovative schemes and superior athletes. To wit, for years, it’s been conventional wisdom that the best athletes in the world were in the NBA. Now days, we would add NFL defensive backs and possibly outside linebackers/rush ends into that mix (you don’t think dudes like Richard Sherman, Darrelle Revis and J.J. Watt can ball a little?).



But to the rule changes…. They’ve become ridiculous. In addition to wanting to increase offensive excitement in the game, the competition committee (the group within the NFL responsible for on-field rules changes) now must address the issues of concussions when tweaking the rules of the game. This has resulted in, quite literally, a hands-off approach to defending receivers downfield and rushing the quarterback to the point that were an NFL fan from 1980 transported forward in time 35 years, he would scarcely recognize the game. And to be sure, this is not necessarily all bad: we understand the need to protect the players while they become bigger and faster as the game’s evolution demands it. And it’s also understandable that as NFL viewers/consumers, we, all bitching and grousing aside, adjust our expectations to what is and isn’t a penalty accordingly (i.e., do we watch any less football because you can’t lay a hand on the quarterback, anymore?).

There are, however, a few rule changes that we would like to see made that would, simultaneously, increase offense/scoring and/or offensive plays without having direct adverse impact on the defenses and defensive personnel.



They are as follows:


1) Decrease the width of the goal post: At this year’s Pro Bowl, it was decided that the width of the goal post would be decreased by 4 ft. and which resulted in Adam Vinatieri missing 2 35 yard extra points and 1 38 yard field goal. This is a good thing. Let’s face it: Place kickers are just too good. Hell, by their appearances these days, lots of them actually look like athletes and inclement weather aside, anything inside 45-50 yards is pretty much automatic. We actually think it should be decreased by 6 ft. but we’ll settle for 4 ft., for now. And do you know why? Do you know what’s fun? 4th downs. 4th downs are fun. Do you know what’s not? Field goals. Field goals suck. Let’s force head coaches and offensive coordinators to make the tough call and keep their offense on the field for a 4th and 2 from the 32 yard line going in instead of picking up the perfunctory 3 points.


2) One foot instead of two inbounds: Why this has not happened by now absolutely baffles us. One foot inbounds while possessing the ball has been the rule at the college level for as longs as we can remember and if you want to increase offense at the pro level without putting the defense at a distinct disadvantage, why must you have two feet inbounds? This is such a no-brainer. C’mon, guys. Hit the Easy Button – make this happen!

3) The Calvin Johnson Rule: Now known as the Dez Bryant Rule. Let’s face it. We were robbed of one of the greatest moments in NFL Playoff history in the divisional playoff game a few weeks back between the Packers and Cowboys because the referees made the, we guess, correct ruling on an NFL rule that no one really understands. Sorry, any rule that contains the verbage “…and then makes a move consistent with the game…” is a bad rule. If the receiver comes down with two feet (one foot? Please see above) and possession of the ball and is downed by contact… it’s a catch. Or as one wag put it: “If 25 drunk guys at the bar think it’s a catch… it’s a catch.”

4) Football inflation: We won’t bother re-hashing any of the controversy surrounding an issue that has garnered more attention than perhaps it has deserved other than to say that both Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, about 10 years ago, lobbied to have control of the footballs they were using for that particular game. As they were granted this concession, why not take it to the logical conclusion that they should be able to inflate/deflate the balls to whatever psi they desire? Honestly, does anyone really care to what pressure the footballs are inflated? We think not. And remember, this rule change does not put the defense at any specific disadvantage. This isn’t baseball where in a mano a mano matchup between the pitcher and the batter, the pitcher is at a significant advantage by “doctoring” the baseball. Besides, defensive backs have hands like snakes so it’s not going to matter anyway.

This simply makes it easier for the quarterback to throw the ball and for the receivers to catch it and for the running backs and receivers to hold on to it. Or does it? Ahhh… therein lies the rub: the quarterback will have to take into consideration the preferences of his receivers and backs… or… he doesn’t. All in all, if this rule change goes through, we don’t foresee the psi of the football moving much out of the league-mandated range of 12.5 – 13.5 psi as it is now. Just let the QBs do with their footballs what they want so we can eliminate silly controversies like DeflateGate.


We have some other proposed rules changes but we wanted to keep this list specific to increasing offense and excitement while not putting the defense at a specific disadvantage.


There you have it gang. Let us know what you think.