Andrew Davidson as Roger Goodell for One Day Only

by Andrew Davidson on Jul 16, 2010 11:35 AM PDT in San Francisco 49ers News

Ok, so I'm not really going to be the NFL commissioner for one day, nor am I changing my name to Roger Goodell for 24 hours. What I am going to do is make one rule change to the NFL that I see fit because here in my fantasy land, I can do that. I ask all of you to join in and make your own rule change by posting them in the comments section. Some people may think the NFL is fine and doesn't need any changes, others may disagree. Personally, I think the NFL could use a few changes but for this post's purpose, I only get to pick one.

Let me begin by saying there are many different choices I could've made for off-the-field changes, but I want to stick to on-the-field (don't let that stop you, however). Recently the NFL made changes to its Overtime rules where now a team must score at least six points to win in an effort to take away the coin-toss advantage. Now, two field goals or one TD ends the game; so if the coin-toss winner score one FG, the opposing team can march down and match that to continue the game, or score a TD to end it (no kidding). I was fine with the way OT was, but I'm also ok with how it is now, I just want it to be better. When four quarters of regulation have expired and the teams are tied, the game goes to overtime (rocket science, I know). The Away team is then given the opportunity to call heads or tails on the coin-toss. Why?

The Away team already received that advantage once at the beginning of the game, why do they automatically get it a second time? The Home team has no advantage losing the OT coin toss, where as during the opening toss, the Away team could win and choose the ball and the Home team gets the advantage of receiving the ball at the beginning of the second half (run.on.sentence). Since OT isn't two halves, there's no reason the Away team should automatically get the upper hand on the home team during the coin toss. Here's my suggestion: the winner of the game's opening coin toss gets to call the coin toss at the beginning of OT. Simple I know, but at least it takes the automatic advantage away from the away side. If the away team won the opening toss, it has the right to choose heads or tails at the beginning of OT (and obviously the same for the home team if they win the opening toss).

I understand that a coin toss is either heads or tails, and while there's not much of an advantage of selecting the outcome, there's no denying an advantage exists. Why else would the away team always get to choose the result of the coin toss at the beginning of the game? It's like a courtesy thing, that team is the guest and therefore has the right to choose. Since the team will be facing roaring fans (unless in Jacksonville) in a hostile environment, it may as well select the coin toss to somewhat balance things out, which is fine (just not in OT). So in conclusion, my boring, simple rule change is that the OT coin toss is called not by the Away team, but by the team that won the opening coin toss. If you're still awake, tell me what rule you'd make if you were commissioner for a day (or a few years).

Tweet Comment 25 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Five paragraphs on who chooses heads or tails in the coin toss?

You clearly don’t have enough work to do. ;)

In reality though, I bet an analysis would show that there is absolutely no benefit to being the team that chooses heads or tails in the coin toss, (Those games where they use a ridiculous ceremonial coin that may or may not be obviously weighted might be the only place where this might be an issue.)

I’ve always been a proponent of the field position auction. Don’t start the game with a kickoff, rather, have each team submit a sealed bid on where they are willing to start their drive from, the team that is willing to start from farther away gets the ball at that position. Then continue as expected. First team to score wins.

by tarlinian on Jul 16, 2010 11:48 AM PDT reply actions

Field position auction? That's new....

I always liked how the XFL did it: 2 players sprinting for the ball. I’d just make it 2 gunners (or punters since the Niners have Andy freakin’ Lee and that’s a clear advantage) doing the same thing for the NFL.

Could you imagine the battle for the ball at overtime? Awesome.

"Lord, beer me strength."

by TexansDC on Jul 16, 2010 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Soooo many concussions....

What we've got here is a failure to communicate.

"I'm just like you, but 10 times better"

by SportsChicken on Jul 16, 2010 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah I liked the XFL way of doing it too

it was fun to watch.

Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority

by smileyman on Jul 16, 2010 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions

There's one rule that I always thought was stupid

where if a runner or receiver gets the ball knocked out near the goal line and it goes thru the end zone untouched, possession turns over and the other team gets it on the 20. Happened to Rice once. I think that’s way too severe a penalty for an unrecovered fumble.

by DeathValleyCarl on Jul 16, 2010 12:26 PM PDT reply actions

Bring back the forceout rule

Receivers shouldn’t be penalized for catching near the sideline.

Coach Boone: And who's team is this, Gary? Is this your team? Or is this your daddy's team?
Bertier: Yours.
Coach Boone: Now get on the bus. Put on your jacket first and then get on the bus.

by Amigo on Jul 16, 2010 1:52 PM PDT reply actions

And by penalized

I mean having a catch ruled incomplete because you were pushed out of bounds before you touched the ground.

Coach Boone: And who's team is this, Gary? Is this your team? Or is this your daddy's team?
Bertier: Yours.
Coach Boone: Now get on the bus. Put on your jacket first and then get on the bus.

by Amigo on Jul 16, 2010 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions

Totally disagree

I think it’s awesome that a defender can force a receiver out to prevent a catch, but what I don’t like is the dumb rule about holding onto the ball for a period of time after you hit the ground out of bounds. That doesn’t make sense.

by mr. instigator on Jul 16, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions

I like the ability for the defense to be able to force players out of bounds

The offense already has enough rules helping it, the defense needs some too. But on top of that, the force-out rule is a judgment call and I would like to see a reduction in the amount of rules that require a judgment call on the refs part.

by ZeroOneInfinity on Jul 16, 2010 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions

My ruling

No more of that liberal communist forward passing crap; it has totally ruined the game since it has been allowed.

Seriously though, I would allow for newer, more modern, offensive formations like the A-11 to be legal

by danknerd49 on Jul 16, 2010 2:42 PM PDT reply actions

A few old school rules I want back

No Tom Brady Rule (Hitting the QB in the head and below the knees should be allowed; keep tuck rule though)

Allow DB’s to shove WR’s passed 5 yards

Allow the hitting on the head of defenseless receivers (With the exception of head to head contact)

Make the NFL fun again for players like OCHOCHICO AND T.O

New School

Have a Rookie Salary Cap

1. Pat Devlin QB 2. Jack Crawford DE/OLB 3. Kendric Burney CB 4. DeAndre Brown WR 5. John Estes C 6. Chris Hairston OT 7. Stephfon Green RB 7. Julian Posey CB

by supraman on Jul 16, 2010 2:54 PM PDT reply actions

NO NO NO!!

No tuck rule! And NO Rookie Salary Cap!

by mr. instigator on Jul 16, 2010 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions

What's wrong with a rookie salary cap?

by ZeroOneInfinity on Jul 16, 2010 8:42 PM PDT up reply actions

I'd disagree on the allowing of hitting the QB or WRs in the head.....

but I forgot about rookie salary cap. That should definitely happen.

"Lord, beer me strength."

by TexansDC on Jul 17, 2010 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Hmmm coin toss ...

… they should change it too … rock, paper, scissor’s …!!

Gotta love a woman that wear's knee pad's to work ...!!

by Edggy on Jul 16, 2010 3:28 PM PDT reply actions

I prefer

rochambeau

by mr. instigator on Jul 16, 2010 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions

I would eliminate field goals

Touchdowns or nothing.

On second thought, maybe that rule change can wait until Nedney retires.

by marble47 on Jul 16, 2010 4:03 PM PDT reply actions

The One rule I would love to see changed is...

The 5 yard bump rule on DB’s. I think there are WAY too many pass interference calls, and that helps bad teams advance the ball and even keeps them in the game. There should be a rule change that the DB’s can not impede the progress of the receiver, but if they just bump them inadvertently, they should not get the huge penalty. And if they are 10 yards down field and there is no impeding the progress of the receiver, there is no harm in the db’s playing aggressively.

Another year, another chance to hope for the team !!

by FaStRmAn on Jul 16, 2010 4:45 PM PDT reply actions

i always thought...

the easiest way to fix OT was to eliminate FGs in OT, or, short of that, make it first-team-to-6-wins. I think the problem with OT is that people perceive it unfair to have a situation where win the toss + good kick return + 30 yards + FG = win. Stats show that this happens an inordinate amount of the time.

So unfairness is the crux of the issue. The irony is that the current reliance on a coin toss seems like the fairest possible thing to do, given that it’s totally random. Of course, the reason it’s ended up being unfair is the rest of the equation: good kick return + 30 yards + FG = win. That’s why I advocate the above: it puts fairness back into the rest of the equation. No one would say that it was unfair if a team won the toss and scored a TD on that position. I mean, the losing team has to play defense for about 70 yards of field position (or not give up a KO return TD).

Similarly, no one would say that it was unfair if a team won the toss, kicked a FG, the other team kicked a FG, and then the winning team kicked another FG. In that situation, the losing team had the opportunity to end the game with a TD, but didn’t. In this way, I think that, as far as fixing unfairness goes, the rule change that was adopted is a good step in the fairness direction.

by (Florida) Danny Tuccitto on Jul 16, 2010 6:40 PM PDT reply actions

I like this for overtime

I hate field goals in OT

Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority

by smileyman on Jul 16, 2010 10:04 PM PDT up reply actions

The one rule I'd change

is the PI penalty rule. I would not give the offense the ball at the spot of the foul but would have two categories of penalties—incidental and flagrant. Incidental PI is 5 yards and automatic first down. Flagrant is 15 yards and first down unless in the end zone then it’s first down on the one yard line.

Penalties shouldn’t change the course of the game and the PI one does.

Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority

by smileyman on Jul 16, 2010 10:05 PM PDT reply actions

I get what you're saying

but don’t think your new rule is the way to get there. You would be seeing automatic (and flagrant) interference on any pass over 15 yards that looks like it’s going to be caught. What’s the downside?

by McTee on Jul 17, 2010 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions

if i could change one rule, i would

LEGALIZE TOUCHDOWN CELEBRATIONS ALREADY!!!!

seriously, the highlight reels have been so lame since they did away with those. whats wrong with entertainment?

The enemy of my enemy is collateral damage.

by these3words on Jul 17, 2010 2:06 AM PDT reply actions

50/50 chance

Regarless of who calls the OT coin toss. No advantage there.

Favre's ankle, Starcaps BS and hopefully a busy Piston offseason, oh my. Go Netherlands/Holland/Dutch Soccer(no its not Football)! Also, Lesnar, Lesnar, Lesnar!!!!!!!

by VikesPma on Jul 17, 2010 10:35 AM PDT reply actions