You know, that play that screwed Jim Schwartz and the Lions oh so good on Thanksgiving Day. The way the rule currently works is that if a coach errantly throws the red flag on a play that can not be challenged (a scoring play or a play within two minutes of the end of the half or the game) then that play will not be reviewed.
The revised rule would penalize the team 15 yards or a timeout, but still review the play in question.
Proposed rule #2: on field goal attempts, no more than 6 men can line up on either side of the snapper
This is basically eliminating the field goal block-version of the wedge, a tactic that was deemed illegal on kick returns seasons ago. This rule would lead to fewer injuries that occur in the inevitable man pile that results from such a tactic.
Verdict: Good rule. As much as we all love man piles, seeing a rusher fly off the edge and block a kick with their fingertips is way more exciting anyways.
Don't worry, the man pile will never be fully extinct from the game
Ah yes, the infamous tuck rule, the rule that launched a thousand [Patriot champion] ships. Here's the rule as written in the books:
When [an offensive] player is holding the ball to pass it forward, any intentional forward movement of his arm starts a forward pass, even if the player loses possession of the ball as he is attempting to tuck it back toward his body. Also, if the player has tucked the ball into his body and then loses possession, it is a fumble.
That underlined section is what came into play during the 2002 AFC championship game between the Patriots and the Raiders, and whether or not that's what actually happened on the field, or if the rule makes any sense at all is still hotly debated (the rule came into existence just 3 years prior to that playoff game, and is only used in the NFL). Either way, it's time for it to go.
Verdict: Too late. To loosely quote Russell Crowe, as we should all strive to do in our day-to-day, "the call made back on that fateful night in Foxboro will echo throughout an eternity."
... Looks like a fumble...
Proposed rule #4: H-Backs can now wear numbers 40-49
Tired of how predictable the jersey numbers are in the NFL? Remember how exciting it was the first time your team got a wide receiver who wore number 11? I mean, ELEVEN?! Are you kidding me?! It may be madness, but you know what, it's fun.
Now, what the heck is an H-Back, you ask? They're like tight ends, but chunkier! And now, as early as This Septembe, you can catch your H-Back on the gridiron sporting something as silly as #43! All I've gotta say is, who's bringing the pineapple bacon guacamole? Cuz all bets are off!
Would somebody put a #43 jersey on this boy please?!
Proposed rule #5: elimination of the peel-back block inside the tackle box
This block, which is already illegal outside the tackle box, garnered attention after Brian Cushing of the Houston Texans sustained a season-ending injury on Monday Night Football against the Jets. A peel-back block is basically a block landed below the waist of a defensive player from the side or behind. Even more basically, it's very startling, it hurts, and it sucks to have done to you.
Verdict: It's the responsible thing to do .Though a well-placed peel-back block might spring a tailback loose for a big play, we've got to chalk this one up to player safety. This is what growing up feels like, everybody. Also, look, it's Tim Tebow in a football play! Tee hee.
Matt Slauson ending Brian Cushing's season for breast cancer awareness.
Proposed rule #6: ballcarriers will be penalized for lowering crown of their helmets outside the tackle box
H-Backs wearing numbers in the forties aside, this is the big one. Matt Forte called the proposition absurd. Emmitt Smith says it's proof that that NFL has lost it's mind. Naturally, my opinion shold follow that of Matt Forte and Hall of Fame running back Emmitt Smith: I think it's a bad rule.
I understand that player safety goes both ways, and that defensive players need to be protected as well, but with the peel-back block rule serving as an example of a smart change to the game, this is the kind of change that would, in essence, begin to neuter football as we know it.
Wide receivers are now protected from the helmet-to-helmet hit that happens so often when they're trying to hall in a pass, when they're defenseless. The difference here is that the would-be tacklers are not defenseless. They've got the whole play in front of them! If they can't take the hit, they should get out of the way, and consequently, out of the league.
Verdict: No! Don't do it! If this rule were put in play, would Jerome Bettis have ever been? What about Mike Tolbert?!
Vote no on Prop 6!