1/30/03 - At this time of the year, the President of the United States addresses both houses of the Congress in something called the State of the Union Address. It is something that thinking people watch because it is a part of the political fabric of the country but there is usually nothing of substance that justifies the 90 – 120 minutes of one's life that it costs to watch and listen. During the Super Bowl Week it is traditional for the NFL commissioner to give a "State of the Game Address". Given the fact that Paul Tagliabue has no chance of assuming the position that Demosthenes now holds in oratorical legend, the address and the questions and answers are guaranteed to be pretty bland. Come to think of it, the only way in which Tags' speech is better than the State of the Union Address is that it is shorter. Shorter is good when you are involved with something that has all the enjoyment and entertainment value of a root canal.

At the commissioner's speech, he said that the league needed to look at a few rule changes for next year and he would hope that the Competition Committee would address things like the "Overtime Rules". I have a couple of ideas for the Competition Committee to consider but I suspect that none of these ideas will make it onto their agenda.

First and foremost, the Competition Committee needs to commission a group of people to look at something over the next year with an eye toward change a year from now. This task is too big to do before the next season begins so they need to start now. Here is the problem. The NFL Rule Book has to be cut down to a manageable size. After the Giants/49ers fiasco a couple of weeks ago, we learned that the NFL Rule Book is 210 pages in length. Excuse me but The Old Man and the Sea was only about 100 pages long and that literary work contains lots more important information than is contained in the NFL Rule Book. The rules need to be simplified and condensed and one place to start is with the timing rules. Listen carefully to the referee next time he tosses a coin for an overtime; he tells the captains that the overtime will be played under the 4th quarter timing rules. That's right, the timing rules change in the midst of the 4th quarter. If you ask why and I tell you that it is a "TV thing" you would look at me with shock and amazement, but I think that is the reason…

If you want the officials to get the rules right – even if their call on a specific play may appear to you as blockheaded as can be – one of the first steps is to simplify the rules. One way to begin the simplification process is to say that the timing of the game is the same from the opening kickoff until the final score is recorded in the book. Trust me, there are lots of other places where simplification and condensation is possible. I don't know if I could get the book down to 75 pages, but I think that a goal of 100 pages is perfectly within the grasp of people who are charged to do it – or not get paid a dime for their efforts.

After you get folks to look at that long-term problem of rules simplification and send them on their merry way, here are a couple of rule changes that can make the game better next year. First of all, get rid of the "onside kick do-over". If a kicker sends a kickoff out of bounds, the receiving team gets the ball thirty yards from the spot of the kick. Except, of course, if the kicking team is trying an onsides kick whereby if they kick it out of bounds, they get a "do-over' and a five yard penalty. Excuse me but why is an onside kick different from a kickoff here? Here is a simplification of the rules because it applies a single principle to all kickoffs that wind up out of bounds:

The receiving team takes possession of the ball thirty yards from the spot of the kickoff no matter what the score is, what quarter it is, what the phase of the moon is or what the alignment of Bill Romanowski's charkas happen to be at that moment. Do-overs are for the playgrounds and kids under the age of 14, not the NFL.

Speaking of rules involving the kicking game, here is a change that would be very interesting. I suggest that the points earned by field goals be dependent on the length of the kick. Before you yawn, this is not the rule change you have heard proposed before; I want shorter field goals to count more than long field goals. Here's why. Suppose that a kick of 50 yards or more is worth only 1 point and a kick of 35-50 yards is worth 2 points and anything under 35 yards is worth 3 points. Now if you had the ball on the defense's 35-yard line with a 4th and 3, you would face a significant strategic decision. You can try for a one-point field goal from the 42; you can punt to secure field position but risk gaining only 15 yards if the ball goes into the end zone; or you can go for it. I'm not saying that all the coaches will go for it all of the time, but more will go for it than they do now and that is good. Here is an immutable principle of NFL football:

Plays from scrimmage where offense is pitted against defense are fundamentally more interesting plays than placekicking – and that intends no disrespect to place-kickers. So I want to find ways to provide an incentive for coaches to go for it on fourth down more frequently than they do now and changing the scoring incentive is one way to do that.

Even the commissioner agrees that the overtime rules need scrutiny; he pointed that out in his address. Marty Mornhinweg knows about this more directly than anyone else in the NFL; he lost his job in some measure because he won the toss in overtime and took the wind. Then his defense took gas and he lost on a field goal. You can't have the game decided without both teams having a shot at scoring.

Unlike some other folks, I do not think that the concept of a "sudden death winner" is an odious proposition. So I don't mind retaining that aspect of the means of determining a winner. So here are two ideas for modification of the current rule. Obviously, you would not want to impose both of them; this is a menu selection not a recipe.

The team that receives the first overtime kickoff may not attempt a field goal unless the line of scrimmage is inside the opponent's 3-yard line. After that initial possession of the overtime period, all play calling options are open to both coaches. Both teams must have possession of the ball and the victor will be the team that is ahead after the second team to take possession of the ball achieves a higher score than the other team or it surrenders possession of the ball to the first team to have possession.

Alternatively, there must always be an equal number of possessions by the teams during the overtime period(s). This is sort of like the baseball context that the home team always gets to bat in the bottom of an extra inning to try to tie the score or win the game. If you adopt this rule, then begin the overtime with the visiting team receiving the ball and forget the added coin toss.

Another rule that needs to be changed – or at least the interpretation of the rule needs changing – is the pass interference rule. Offensive receivers push off and are called for offensive interference about 10% of the time; defensive backs push off and are called for defensive interference about 70% of the time. Rarely is one player the only one pushing or "hand fighting" and the imbalance in the calls has gotten out of hand – so to speak. This needs to be changed.

And while we are at it, something has to be done to define an "uncatchable pass". Without some clear definition, you will have inconsistencies that will be obvious to people watching the games on TV with replays. If you hear that providing such a definition is so complicated that it would take up too much room in my reduced volume rulebook, then recognize this for what it is. It is a way for the officials to make up a call on the fly. And who thinks that's a good idea?

Similar to the situation with pass interference, offensive receivers are picking off defenders in patterns fairly regularly now. If a team does it ten times, it will be penalized once. So there is an incentive for them to do it all the time and that is not good for the game. This needs to be changed.

Taunting is not good and does nothing to help the game along. I would like to see each and every display by a player addressed to the opposing team's bench be flagged as taunting. At least that part of the taunting and self-pumpulation by the players would be brought under control quickly. If it continued even after each and every call was being flagged, that would only mean that the coaches continued to condone this behavior and were willing to accept the yardage penalty. In that circumstance, I'd favor a rule saying that the third "bench taunting call" by a player in a season was an automatic ejection from the game in which it happened.

Here is a new use for instant replay and it can be done entirely by the booth upstairs. Whenever there is a flag on the play for offsetting personal fouls or offsetting unsportsmanlike conduct, the booth will be required to review the play and use "conclusive visual evidence" to try to determine who initiated the incident. If that can be determined, then that player will be sent to the sidelines until five plays are concluded by the team on which he was participating at the time of the foul have happened. Note, that this will be a severe penalty for someone on the kickoff coverage team; he may not ever get back in the game even if he is the nickel back on the defensive unit. Discovering and punishing someone for initiating unruly behavior is a way to motivate coaches to get their teams not to engage in that kind of thuggery.

Do I expect the Competition Committee to consider any of these ideas? Not really. Am I confident that they recognize that all of the things I brought up here are areas of the game that could use improvement? Absolutely not. Am I going to lose any sleep over the fact that there are not likely to be any significant changes made? Not any more than the President of the United States believes that all the applause he got during his State of the Union Address means that the Congressthings will actually consider any of his proposals on their merits. The key phrase related to all of the above is:

Not Happening!

But don't get me wrong, I love sports...

<< Back to the Topical Rants Index

= Home = Recent = Topical = Wagers =
= Archives = Pros = Scores = Contact =