Welcome to Gaia! ::

NFL's overtime procedures are expected to stay the same, but new rules designed to enhance player safety likely will be put in place for the 2009 season.

Those are among the highlights of what will be addressed -- along with big-picture items such as negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association -- during the NFL Annual Meeting scheduled to begin Sunday in Dana Point, Calif., NFL.com has learned.

A source close to the NFL Competition Committee, which met last week in Naples, Fla., to discuss new rules proposals and other matters impacting the game's competitive structure, said the group is recommending to team owners that no changes be made to the current overtime system. Owners are expected to concur.



Some people within the league have suggested the team that wins the coin toss has an unfair advantage, prompting the committee to study the matter and consider revisions. Although there was no real possibility of the NFL adopting the college format that eliminates the kickoff and gives each team the ball from the opponent's 25-yard line, continuing play until there's a winner, the committee did review moving the kickoff from the 30- to the 35-yard line to help make the receiving team's field position less favorable.

However, according to the source, the committee was greatly persuaded by an emphatic opinion that players expressed through a league-wide survey that they didn't want any alterations to overtime (which, in the regular season, ends with the first score in the extra period or when the clock expires, resulting in a tie; for the postseason, teams continue to play 15-minute periods until the first score).

"The players just didn't want any fooling around with it at all," the source said.

Improving player safety is the primary motivation behind three recommendations that are expected to be approved in voting by all 32 team owners during the four-day meeting:

» A defender who hits a defenseless receiver in the head with his helmet or any part of his body will draw a 15-yard unsportsmanlike-conduct penalty and be subject to a fine from the NFL. Call this "The Anquan Boldin Rule." The Arizona Cardinals' wide receiver suffered a fracture of a facial bone that required surgery after a vicious helmet-to-helmet hit from New York Jets safety Eric Smith last season. Smith wasn't penalized, but he did draw a $50,000 fine and one-game suspension from the league.

» If a pass rusher, who is blocked into the quarterback's legs or into the ground on the way to the quarterback, continues to run or drives forcefully into the player, he'll draw a 15-yard unsportsmanlike-conduct penalty and be subject to a fine. Call this the "Tom Brady Rule." The New England Patriots' quarterback suffered a season-ending knee injury during the 2008 opener on a hit by Kansas City Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard, who claimed the contact happened by "accident" after he was blocked into Brady's leg. Patriots wide receiver Randy Moss disagreed, saying after the game the hit looked "dirty" to him.

» The "wedge," typically formed by the middle blockers on kickoff returns, might be outlawed because it has a long history of causing injuries.

In addition, the committee is recommending that instant replay -- which currently covers certain fumbles -- be expanded to include all fumble plays, including the "tuck rule," whereby a quarterback is deemed to have thrown an incomplete pass rather than fumbled if his arm is moving forward.



This is in response to referee Ed Hochuli's infamous decision last season to blow the whistle after determining, at first glance, that Denver Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler had lost the ball late in a game against the San Diego Chargers via a tuck-rule incompletion. Replays showed that Cutler actually fumbled the ball and the Chargers recovered it, which would have sealed a San Diego victory. Instead, because the whistle had blown, the Broncos retained the ball and later scored a touchdown and a winning two-point conversion.

Under the committee's recommendation, officials will not blow a whistle on such plays. "So, if there's a loose ball, you play through the recovery, and the recovery can be adjudicated on replay," the source said.

Another change the committee is recommending is the elimination of a rule -- put in place at the urging of former Pittsburgh Steelers coach Bill Cowher -- that allows teams attempting an onside kick outside of the final five minutes of the game to have a second attempt if the ball goes out of bounds.

Cowher believed the rule was necessary to allow teams to attempt a surprise onside kick at early stages of the game rather than only while attempting a late comeback. Under the proposal, the receiving team would gain possession at the point the ball goes out of bounds.

"The committee came to view it as, 'Why should we reward failure?'" the source said. "If the guy can't kick the ball in bounds, that's his problem."

Yup. But there a real bunch of them that keep those players safe and for the fans to enjoy the game.

Exactly. I hope that that does become implemented into rule. It can really screw teams over. But one other thing they should do is that with the mounting incidents of bogus/questionable penalties and non-calls, they should allow the teams to use their replay challenges for that as well. For instance, and I know this may sound homerist of me, but take the last quarter of the NFC Championship game. Long pass down the sidelines to Kevin Curtis and he was tripped. No call but should have been and obivious call. Stuff like that should be allowed to be challenged. By having it limited to the number of challenges given to the team, they still keep it under control.

tired, so I hope I did not sound like I was rambling.

For the most part, I have no problem with these changes... For the most part. Sometimes I have to wait and see how they are implemented in an actual game before I can say if it was a good adjustment to the rules or not.

As for OT. I've never had a problem with the current system. And according to sources, last season only 43% of the teams that won the coin toss won on their first possession in OT, not even Half. Showing that Defenses can and still do get the job done. Besides, they are talking about safety for the players, if they extend OT to include more play by the opposing team to try and counter the first teams score, that would only increase the chance of further injury.

So for me, I'm satisfied with the current OT system, leave it as it is.

Unfortunately there have been a bunch more showings of the honesty of the calls anymore. We keep seeing on the replays that the ball clearly was a fumble, or that was clearly a legal hit or so forth and such which. I guess what I am trying to say here, is that by allowing teams to do that, it will force the refs to be more consistent and more honest about their calls and non-calls. Plus teams always have to weigh the risk of burning that challenge. Just another tool for them to use it on and make the game a bit more interesting. Think about it, there were a few games last year that both teams used both their time outs including the one being granted their third one and still using that as well. It would not make the game any longer by granting the team the ability to challenge a penalty as well as any other challengable call.

Hope I didnt ramble too much. Just got home from work and way too tired.

Ok, on the rule changes I for the most part like the rule changes except.. How much can you change the rules before it's a whole different game.. I mean you can barely scrub a QB's helmet and get a foul called, now if your a defender and you get knocked to the ground you have to stand back up before you can initiate contact with the quarteback, it's ridiculous..