a defender can get credit for a sack of a quarterback AND THEN also a forced fumble if the ball comes out while sacking the QB on the same play (and then the recovery, too, for the trifecta, if he’s lucky).

I’ve seen plays where the defensive end or safety or LB sweeps around and knocks the ball out of the QB’s hand and then gets credit for a sack and a forced fumble on the play. Or, in the act of tackling the QB, the ball pops out and gets run back for a TD by the defense, and the player who nailed the QB gets credit for the sack and forced fumble. WTF????

This is a grave miscarriage of justice.

If it’s a sack, then the play should be dead at the point of the sack, because the sack of the quarterback is a tackle – and it ends the play. That’s it. Over, down, tackled. You can’t cause a fumble after a tackle.

Unless there’s some part of this ridiculous rule that I do not know about, or do not understand, this is a slam dunk.

Thank you for your votes for commish, I promise to be a benevolent dictator.

though I can see a lot of replay reviews being borne from it, particularly when the ball is batted down at the line. Did it or did it not break the plane of the line of scrimmage? It would have to be dissected on film, as the trenches tend to shift a yard or two in either direction during the course of a play. Love the cut-and-dried ideology behind it, otherwise.

I also completely agree with you on spiking the ball. The reason it’s not intentional grounding is because the QB is not “in imminent danger of being sacked”. That phrase is included in the official definition of intentional grounding. Yet, what would happen if a safety ran and leaped over the pile just as the ball was snapped, as if he were attempting to block a FG? Would the QB be penalized for intentional grounding then? Had he not spiked the ball, there’s a good chance he would have been sacked, being that he’s within a yard of the center. If anything, they’d probably flag the safety for unsportsmanlike conduct. That’s BS. A tight end and a fullback may both be in the general vicinity of a spike (another exception clause), but there is obviously no attempt being made to get them the ball. Spiking to stop the clock should be considered intentional grounding, point blank.

There are several other rule changes I’ve always been in favor of, but since you only asked for my top one, ah here ’tis:

Punts and kickoffs should both be required to hit in the field of play before going out of bounds. What sense does it make to penalize a team for illegal procedure in avoiding a dangerous return man on a kickoff, but not on a punt?

On top of which, how does anyone TRULY know how accurate a referee’s spot is, when lining up a coffin corner punt? The method in doing so involves visually observing where the ball lands, where the punter was standing at the time he punted, then lining those two points up along the sidelines.

If the ball lands in Row 10 of the stands, that method is even less accurate, due to the incline of the seating arrangment. You’re no longer talking about a level A-to-B plane in that instance, but they still treat it as such. Same thing goes for wind. If you don’t think out of bounds gusts at Soldier Field or Candlestick can affect the ultimate landing spot of a 15 ounce projectile, you’re crazy.

Still, until there are overhead cameras sophisticated enough to determine the exact spot the ball crossed the sideline, I think they should continue to use this flawed method … but only to determine the point from which the 15 yard procedure penalty should be enforced. Conversely, if a kickoff strikes the field of play at the one yard line and rolls out of bounds there, then that’s where the offense should begin their possession. Same with a punt.

Think about it. If a kicker is booting it that close to the sidelines, he’s already flirting with a penalty. So, if the returner has the opportunity to field the kick — which he would have, had he been in that spot — then why should the kicking team be penalized? Same thing with a punt. But screw this starting at the 40 yd line BS. If a punt of kickoff goes directly out of bounds, line it up and walk off 15 yards. If that’s not adequate enough, increase the yardage demerit to be enforced uniformly. Don’t try to convince me that a kickoff that goes out of bounds at the 39 and a kickoff that goes out of bounds at the 1 should both be brought out to the same spot (40). That bears no logic whatsoever.

Not only would this better define starting points following intentional changes of possession, it would both deter the pussified avoidance of kicking to Reggie Bush, Devin Hester, etc., while rewarding the few special teams coaches and/or punters/kickers with the cojones/accuracy to intentionally play against that grain. I really don’t think you’d see much of the strategic latter, though. And that’s a good thing, in terms of spectator excitement.

immediately institute the NCAA replay rule. Every play is reviewed, but by a ref upstairs. No stupid challenge flags (why should we be limited to how many ref mistakes could be corrected each game?), no pretense of ref going into the booth to say he was right all along, etc.

You’re welcome

I am sick out seeing loosing teams at the end of games, throw the ball 50 yards down the field just to create a pass interfenence call and kick a field goal to win the game. Pass interference sould be a 15 yard penalty unless the defender tackles the receiver before the ball gets there.

Does that mean everyone else can too? NO! Bwahahahaha! I rule until Dave gets back.

Here’s another one: to score a touchdown a player must be down in the end zone in possession of the ball. No more “breaking the plane” nonsense. You must physically “touch down” in the end zone. I am so sick of watching players run out of bounds but hold the ball over the pylon and get credit for a score. Even when it’s Reggie.

Okay, you guys can go ahead and post as many ideas as you want. Hell, we’ll get more comments that way, anyway. And so, for coldpizza of New Orleans, opportunity knocks!

Overtime. I think it should be more like NCAA rules, only starting field position for both teams would NOT (necessarily) be the opponent’s 25 yd line. Instead, it would be systematically based on the total net yards gained from scrimmage throughout regulation.

I’ll use last season’s game against the Chargers in London as an example. Let’s assume the fourth quarter ended in a 37-37 tie. The game’s official statistician would be consulted. As it turns out, total net yards favored the Chargers, 451-409. A percentage would be calculated and rounded off to the nearest whole number. That number would then be used to determine the centralized point of origin for both team’s initial offensive possession.

Since San Diego gained 52% of the net yardage total in the game, their overtime possession would begin from the Saints 48 yard line. This would also be the Saints’ starting point, only they’d be driving in the opposite direction, thereby giving the Chargers a four yard advantage, which they would have earned in regulation.

In this particular case, there is little difference between the two teams, so the field position advantage is negligible. However, in a 3-3 game where one team completely dominated the other throughout, only to miss a handful of chip shot FGs in a hailstorm, this could (and should) prove greatly advantageous.

Also, unlike the college system, it doesn’t completely disregard the importance of a stingy defense by handing the ball to the opposing offense within FG range. The net yards gained actually takes BOTH offense and defense into account and — to varying degrees — awards the team that proved superior through 60 minutes of play.

I’ll take three steps further:

a.) Both teams would be alotted an equal number of possessions. However, you would either have to be ahead by six points, OR by at least one point at the end of the 15 minute OT period, in order to win. That means no matter what sort of field position advantage you were given, a single FG probably would be enough to win you the game.

b.) If the defense scored on the opponent’s possession — i.e., a fumble, interception or blocked FG attempt returned for a TD — the game would automatically end, provided they were ahead by six points or more following that score. In other words, the sheer formality of kneeling the ball four times by the scoring team to preserve the margin of victory would never factor into the aforementioned “equal number of possessions” rule.

c.) If a defensive team gained possession of the ball, OR held the opposing team on downs, they could opt to take possession at that point, rather than at the predetermined starting point.

Assume the Chargers start on the Saints 48, Tracy Porter intercepts a Philip Rivers pass and returns it to San Diego’s 15, the Saints could opt to start their first possession right there, not back on their own 48. Pretty much a no-brainer there. However, suppose San Diego winds up stifling our offense anyway. A couple of sacks, a missed FG, fumble, whatever. Well, they’d obviously opt to start on our 48 again, not deep in their own territory. It would be a possession-by-possession decision that would have to be made. The pre-determined starting point would merely demarcate the worst case launching spot for the offense.

Each team starts at the 20 yard line and tries to score. If one team does and the other doesn’t, the team that scored wins!

The college way. :)

is a nightmare. I think it should just be that each team gets at least one possession. If you get the opening kicjoff and go down and score a TD, you have to kickoff to the other team and they get that possession to try and tie it up again. You get a max of 15 minutes to break the tie. That way all phases of the game O, D and ST come into play.

would be to eliminate all regular network games, shifting them all to the NFL network. I’d also set the Sunday NFL ticket prices to reflect how many teams you were interested in following, with one team being the equivalent to the average stadium seat price of that team’s home stadium. You’d get discounts the more teams you subscribed to, kind of like a cable/phone/internet package with Cox. Of course, you’d only be paying for what amounts to one season ticket, if all you wanted to do was follow the Saints. You’d still save on gas, parking, you could get your friends to come over and pitch in, etc. I just think there should be more of an financial upside (or less of a downside, depending on how you look at it) to actually attending games, i.e., supporting the NFL. Waaaay too many freeloaders out there. If that makes me a money-hungry “fascist”, then so be it.

This one’s a bit drastic, but I wouldn’t mind seeing the goalposts narrowed considerably and placekickers done away with all together. Just use punters. If the FG attempt falls short, there’d be a guy back there to return it. Kind of like Arena ball, just without the rebound nets. Kickoffs could also be handled by punters, like they are on free kicks following safeties. If the 30 yard line is inadequate for the average punter to reach the end zone, move the kickoff line up to the 40 or 45. You could still “bloop” an onside punt. That would be the official term, too. “Bloop”. Bunting with the foot. Say it with me. “Bloop”. Fun stuff.

These effing squiggly sky dancer things?

BANNED!

If I never see another one of those in my life, it will be too soon.

Also, any team caught using an inflatable entrance tunnel, or playing “Sirius” by the Alan Parsons Project during pre-game introductions, would be penalized 15 yards on the opening kickoff and fined heavily.

The whole point of football is capturing territory, right? So why does a field goal from the 50 count the same as a field goal from the 10? Yeah, it’s harder…but so what? Too many times great kickers compensate for inept offenses.

Under my system, if the line of scrimmage is from the 1 to the 20, you get three points for a field goal. If it’s from the 21 to the 40, you get two; if it’s from the 41 to anywhere else on the field, you only get one point. You want more points? Then drive deeper, you bunch of wusses.

Imagine this: there’s five seconds left and one team is down by 3. They need a field goal to tie it and send it into overtime…but they’re on the 21, with no time outs left. They need one more yard. Talk about your sports drama.

Then holding would be flagrant on its own.

seriously, it is absolutely ridiculous that players are getting flagged for celebrating. I, for one, have never taken offense to it and have always found many of those moments funyy, even if the players were asses (TO). Besides a celebration never hurt anyone. In fact it might help an opposing team by giving them something to get motivated about.

that I thought of reading another thread: include penalties among those plays that can be challenged. If we could have challenged Reggie’s fumble-after-the-face-mask play, for instance. Really: if the league is going to give a team only two challenges per game, why should it limit what you can challenge? Why should it care?

If his head was rolling around on the ground next to him, Bush’s body should still be holding the ball, but the facemask happened BEFORE the fumble, which, if penalized correctly, would have negated the fumble I think. Nothing in the rulebook to fix a call like that, though. And that’s how reffing the wind out of a team’s sails works.

I would also demand that all team owners have their faces surgically removed and replaced with generic [insert face here] prompts like mine. My UFA (United Faceless Army) would represent Phase One of my masterplan to seize and control the landscape of professional sports. Anna Kournikova would perform for me daily in pigtails and a fishnet body suit. Perhaps I’ve divulged too much information.