Proposed Rule Changes for 2016

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
Let them wear the gloves. Chicks dig home runs. I dig occasional circus catches and fewer dropped balls. There isn't a competitive disadvantage, as long as Nike isn't sending boxes of them to only 1 team and then not selling them at Dick's sporting goods stores.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Then let MLB players use aluminum bats, too.

I don't watch sports to see how an athlete can help technology do interesting things. Let them use contact lenses and gloves that prevent frostbite, but honestly my enjoyment of watching that crazy Beckham catch was diminished by the fact that I knew it never would have happened without the gloves.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
Then let MLB players use aluminum bats, too.

I don't watch sports to see how an athlete can help technology do interesting things. Let them use contact lenses and gloves that prevent frostbite, but honestly my enjoyment of watching that crazy Beckham catch was diminished by the fact that I knew it never would have happened without the gloves.
So you're in favor of going back to wood rackets in tennis and wood shafts in golf too?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
There are really two questions here:

Do gloves help receivers make catches they might not otherwise make?

and

If so, is that a detriment to fair play which demands regulation?
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
So you're in favor of going back to wood rackets in tennis and wood shafts in golf too?
No. Let them use contact lenses, gloves that prevent frostbite, modern rackets, etc. Don't let batters use aluminum bats, or WRs stickum, or OTs plate-mail armor. The extremes at both ends are obvious; for me, tacky-gloves are over the line of adding to/subtracting from the game, others may disagree.

To E5: it isn't a detriment to fair play if everyone is able to use them, but it may be against the way people want the game to go.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,272
I think you are the first person I've talked to to say the Beckham catch was bad for the game or made that game less enjoyable. If anything the league wants more of them.

That play has been shown over and over. I don't see how it's a bad thing for the game. much like the catch Gronk made behind him in the end zone
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
To be clear, I'm not opining about it being good or bad for the game; I'm saying that I don't like it. The first many times I saw that catch on Top Ten Plays (or whatever) my mind was blown, then it slowly occurred to me that I've never seen a catch like that in large part because there hasn't been gloves like that. It made me a little sad.

If Beckham made an amazing catch using a lacrosse stick or a butterfly net that nobody else could have made even with a lacrosse stick or a butterfly net, would that make you like football more? Perhaps it would, and that's okay, but for me I'd prefer less catch-aiding equipment. I may be in the minority opinion here, but it's just that -- an opinion.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,701
Bow, NH
They aren't like super-tacky coming out of the package either. It's not like the ball sticks to the glove like fly paper. The Nike gloves haven't gotten tackier all of a sudden as long as WRs aren't pulling a Dwight Howard. I don't know why it's all of a sudden a big deal.
I don't know man, a couple kids on the high school team that I coach wear them. Purely anecdotal, but they sure seem to me to be tackier than they ever were in the past. They really are that tacky.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Shouldn't you have been excommunicated by now for a maybe kinda DFG joke?
Or at least a naked walk through town to redeem your status "Shame! . . . Shame!"
It was a joke, but it was a reference to the sanding, scrubbing, blow drying, scuffing, etc. that goes on with the game balls. It was your mind that took it to DFG land, not mine.

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.
 

baruch20

New Member
Jul 31, 2006
226
North Shore
Dan Patrick has been talking about this for a year or two. He said retired receivers constantly bring it up off air but most don't want to discuss it during his radio show for fear of sounding jealous (or like a "hater" as Brown put it).
I'm sure some baseballers from the late 1800's griped about baseball gloves too. No way Ozzie Smith makes some of those plays without dem new-fangled webbed-glove abominations.
I think we can try to slow some changes down but ultimately we probably have to just continue to group stats, etc into different eras.
Evolution, yo.
 
Last edited:

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
61,996
New York City
In the aftermath of what some people called the most athletic catch in league history, Beckham acknowledged he had a small assist on the play — the red-and-white XXL Nike Vapor Jet 3.0 gloves he was wearing. But he wasn't the only one to give some love to the gloves.
"You have to be careful about the way you analyze that play because you don't want people calling you a hater or whatever," said Tim Brown, a Hall of Fame receiver. "But you can't make that play without those kind of gloves. It's just impossible.
"The guy's a freak of nature, no doubt about it, I'll give you that. He has the big hands and all that. But those gloves are so 'tackified' these days that that's part of the reason you see guys making those kinds of catches."

...

Collinsworth said the use of gloves has forever changed the game.
"Before these gloves, I'd never seen anybody make an overhand catch — when their fingers point toward the ground — below the waist, but now I see guys make those catches below the knees," he said.
"They're brilliant catches, and brilliant players, I don't want to take anything away from them. But if you played before gloves, you had to slide or dive to make that catch. Maybe somebody could make the ball stick in their hands like that, but I had never seen it."
Collinsworth, in the broadcast booth for Beckham's catch, rubbed his eyes in disbelief at that incredible play.
"Odell Beckham is probably in another class; he's got Spider-Man hands," he said. "But some of the catches you see now would be different catches. Not that they wouldn't make them, but they would be different kinds of catches."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-receiver-gloves-20150830-column.html
Both Brown and Collinsworth make excellent points about certain catches that are happening which wouldn't happen with the gloves. They also go out of their way to compliment Beckham but also not that these video game, one handed catches couldn't happen without some tackiness on the gloves. I have to agree with them. One handed catches are hard. One handed catches on the run or extending high or low are nearly impossible. With the gloves it becomes less impossible.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
Do other players wear these? What about the holder for field goals? Defensive linemen? Offensive linemen? Defensive backs? The entire return team? Wouldn't the gloves help many players?
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
Dan Patrick has been talking about this for a year or two. He said retired receivers constantly bring it up off air but most don't want to discuss it during his radio show for fear of sounding jealous (or like a "hater" as Brown put it).
These are probably the same set of retired guys (like Jerry Rice) who smeared themselves with Stickum.

In pretty much every sport (and in most walks of life), players think that what was developed during/before their career is 'ok' but anything that comes after is wrong/unacceptable/etc. Retirees were complaining about the forward pass 100 years ago. Things change, and people don't like that.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
Patrick's point wasn't that equipment shouldn't evolve. It's that retired receivers feel that the new gloves are a much greater advantage than the public thinks. Its not just an incremental improvement.
I don't think the public cares

If you go out on the street and show people how incredible the gloves are in demonstrations or science experiments, no one is going to start calling for them to be banned.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,494
Chop blocks of all kinds are now illegal.

Is it possible to make money off of shorting the Broncos running attack next season?
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
So if parts of the jersey are now considered horse collar tackles do parts of hair/dreadlocks above the nameplate now count as horsecollar tackles?
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,702
Wayland, MA
Pretty much every ZBS system uses cut blocks, not sure if that falls into this.
Yeah, that's right, cut blocks != chop blocks, at least not necessarily. The article in the Globe quotes Kubiak as saying it will cause a change in the way you teach a ZBS, so there is that.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,494
The Broncos were one of only four teams that voted against this rule change. Draw your own conclusions.
 

Dr. Gonzo

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2010
5,213
Approved this morning per multiple sources on Twitter:
  • Touchbacks on kickoffs to the 25 yard line
  • Two personal foul penalties lead to an ejection, one year pilot
  • Expansion of instant replay tabled until May
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,494
I'm sure that Belichick has Ghost practicing his kickoffs inside the 5 yard line this offseason. Given the Pats excellent gunners, this is a rule change that the Pats will exploit HEAVILY.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I'm sure that Belichick has Ghost practicing his kickoffs inside the 5 yard line this offseason. Given the Pats excellent gunners, this is a rule change that the Pats will exploit HEAVILY.
I disagree on both counts.

I think BB encourages Ghost to go for touchbacks whenever possible because BB likes the certainty of making sure the opponents are starting on the 20 (now 25). I don't think he values the incremental possible gain of 3-7 yards of field position when weighed against the possibility of a big return.

I also think that the Pats strength when it comes to gunners only applies on PR (when there really are Gunners). On kick coverage, it's more of a team thing and I don't think the Pats are notably better than any other team in that regard. (It's hard to find stats that show this. I'd appreciate any help here)
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
I am curious to see how the kick return changes how the Patriots value special teams players. Does it diminish the value of a 'gunner' type player and/or 'return specialists' which in turn allows the team to spend more in other areas? Or does it create a market inefficiency where other teams value these players less and the Patriots are able to acquire the 'cream of the crop' by continuing to value them as high impact players?

Will we see changes to team building specifically for special teams where some teams will construct their special teams to always work for the touch back and other teams construct their special teams to try to pin the opposing offense inside their twenty?
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
I disagree on both counts.

I think BB encourages Ghost to go for touchbacks whenever possible because BB likes the certainty of making sure the opponents are starting on the 20 (now 25). I don't think he values the incremental possible gain of 3-7 yards of field position when weighed against the possibility of a big return.

I also think that the Pats strength when it comes to gunners only applies on PR (when there really are Gunners). On kick coverage, it's more of a team thing and I don't think the Pats are notably better than any other team in that regard. (It's hard to find stats that show this. I'd appreciate any help here)
The incremental gain would increase by five yards though. Instead of an incremental gain of 3 to 7 yards, it is now an incremental gain of 8 to 12 yards.

Not sure how Belichick will react but I definitely think he will consider it and possibly implement changes to his kicking philosophy as a result.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
I'd be beyond shocked if it changed anything with respect to how teams approach kickoffs. Teams will gladly give up the extra five yards of field position to avoid the possibility of much worse field position if the kick is returned. As noted up thread, the only possible rationale for the rule change is to discourage returners from running kicks out of the end zone since now they have to get to the 25 to make it worthwhile.

At this point why don't they just eliminate kickoffs?
Exactly.
 

Dr. Gonzo

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2010
5,213

Bylaw change: IR designated to return rule changed. No longer need to designate, can choose player after 6 weeks. That's significant.
 

Mooch

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
4,494
I disagree on both counts.

I think BB encourages Ghost to go for touchbacks whenever possible because BB likes the certainty of making sure the opponents are starting on the 20 (now 25). I don't think he values the incremental possible gain of 3-7 yards of field position when weighed against the possibility of a big return.

I also think that the Pats strength when it comes to gunners only applies on PR (when there really are Gunners). On kick coverage, it's more of a team thing and I don't think the Pats are notably better than any other team in that regard. (It's hard to find stats that show this. I'd appreciate any help here)
Just looked it up: The Pats were 2nd best in the league last season in yards allowed per kickoff return (18.1 yards per). Since that stat includes kicks into the end zone, it's difficult to determine the statistical advantage gained by kicking it short of the goal line but if you are as good as the Patriots in covering kickoff returns, it sure seems like a strategy that Belichick will be exploring.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
At this point why don't they just eliminate kickoffs?
1) Back when Parcells was coaching, I believe he was quoted at one point about the need to strengthen/preserve the "foot" element in "football." Granted, this has faded with the desire to limit some player injuries.

2) The kickoff provides a natural spot to insert more commercials as the ST units leave the field in favor of the offense and defense.

3) On-side kicks are an exciting play in their own right, and also help keep fan interest late in a game that would otherwise feature an insurmountable lead for one team. Plus, in recent years the ST gurus and kickers have been coming up with some interesting innovations for on-side kicks.
 

Hoodie Sleeves

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 24, 2015
1,204
The incremental gain would increase by five yards though. Instead of an incremental gain of 3 to 7 yards, it is now an incremental gain of 8 to 12 yards.

Not sure how Belichick will react but I definitely think he will consider it and possibly implement changes to his kicking philosophy as a result.
I think Belichick's general philosophy has been that since he generally has the better team, he wants to eliminate variance - consistently giving them the ball at the 25 is better than a couple of 10-15 yardline starts followed by a long return. Its the same reason he talks about not giving up big plays, and focuses on runningbacks that don't fumble.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
I think Belichick's general philosophy has been that since he generally has the better team, he wants to eliminate variance - consistently giving them the ball at the 25 is better than a couple of 10-15 yardline starts followed by a long return. Its the same reason he talks about not giving up big plays, and focuses on runningbacks that don't fumble.
Not arguing but discussing because discussion is good.

Wouldn't it make sense to adjust your philosophy situationally, depending on the score, the time of the game and the condition of your defense? Close game in the first half when your defense is well rested, kick into the end zone. Trailing close in the second half, with a good kick off team, try to pin them in their end zone.

Yes it is a higher risk play, but it the reward may offset the risk, just as an onside kick does.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,069
Hingham, MA
They should add an additional IR-DTR spot as well.
As in, a 2nd spot? I am in favor of this as it is highly likely that most teams have multiple guys who will be out for a month or two and would be able to return.

That being said, the argument against it would be roster manipulation
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,300
deep inside Guido territory
As in, a 2nd spot? I am in favor of this as it is highly likely that most teams have multiple guys who will be out for a month or two and would be able to return.

That being said, the argument against it would be roster manipulation
Yes, there should be multiple IR-DTR spots. As you said, some injuries require 4-6 weeks to come back and shouldn't have to IR them for the season or carry them on the 53 man roster the whole time. Baseball has the 15-day DL and the 60-day DL. Football should have the same.