DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Sports Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/sports-talk-31/)
-   -   NFL News 3/30 (Instant Replay, Playoffs, opening wknd schedule partially revealed) (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/sports-talk/355768-nfl-news-3-30-instant-replay-playoffs-opening-wknd-schedule-partially-revealed.html)

Red Dog 03-30-04 02:53 PM

NFL News 3/30 (Instant Replay, Playoffs, opening wknd schedule partially revealed)
 

ESPN.com news services

PALM BEACH, Fla. -- As expected, instant replay as an officiating aid will be around for another five seasons.

NFL owners voted 29-3 Tuesday in favor of retaining the system, with one amendment: If a team is successful on its first two challenges, it will get a third.


Under the previous rule for the past three seasons, a coach had only two challenges. If they were used up during the first half, coaches had no options if they didn't like a call made on the field.

Only once last season did a team have two successful challenges: the Carolina Panthers.

The Competition Committee recommended the third challenge so that coaches would be more liberal in challenging calls early in game. Committee co-chairman Rich McKay said the extra challenge wouldn't add a significant amount of time to games because members thought it wouldn't happen much.

The only downside for replay supporters is that they didn't get replay into the rules permanently.

The owners were given several proposals on instant replay, including one that would have made it permanent. They chose to go with the five-year option and the extra challenge.

"I think it's time for voting on it permanently," McKay said. "This rule has been tried and tested in our minds. I think we should be a league of permanent rules."

The committee's plan was to vote replay in permanently so if any "tweaks" in the system were needed, they could make them without fear of having replay eliminated from the game.

Replay officiating was in the final year of a three-year resolution.

The Colts, Bengals and Chiefs were the three teams that voted against replay. Bills owner Ralph Wilson, who voted against replay for the past nine years, challenged his vote in favor of keeping replay.

"I was against replay for nine years, but now I think replay is okay," Wilson said.

Several other rules changes will be voted on either Tuesday or Wednesday.

Changing overtime to allow both teams a possession is unlikely to be approved. The competition committee doesn't favor it.

The committee also recommended instituting 15-yard penalties for choreographed celebrations and suggested some minor changes to the fair catch rule that will eliminate any returns by the receiving team once the signal is made.

An expansion of the playoffs from 12 to 14 teams won't be on the agenda after Kansas City withdrew the proposal. Although many coaches said they favor the idea, the Chiefs felt there wasn't enough support among the owners, and the competition committee was strongly opposed.

Concern about the disparity in cash flow between the 32 teams has been a main topic of the meetings. Steelers owner Dan Rooney, Buffalo's Ralph Wilson and Indianapolis' Jimmy Irsay expressed their concerns Monday.

"With our stadium and ticket pricing and market, we are 32nd out of 32," said Irsay, who went into his own pocket to pay a record $34.5 million signing bonus to quarterback Peyton Manning, last season's co-MVP. "There has to be some way to create a shift there, and it's the issue in the NFL right now, revenue sharing."

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue predicted renewal of the NFL Trust, through which teams share revenues from the sale of licensed merchandise. That amounts to about $4 million per team a year. Washington's Daniel Snyder and Dallas' Jerry Jones want to market their own products without cutting in others, although neither has indicated opposition to the NFL Trust. They do seek modifications.

That concerns small-market owners.

"I can't see why we're talking about selling a few more bobblehead dolls in Buffalo," Wilson said. "And I wonder how many Cowboy hats Jerry is going to sell there. There's a far more fundamental issue: the money disparity that will end up making it a league of haves and have-nots."


Patriots, Colts To Kick Off Season Sept. 9

Associated Press
Tuesday, March 30, 2004; Page D07

PALM BEACH, Fla., March 29 -- Super Bowl champion New England will host the Indianapolis Colts in a rematch of the AFC title game to open the 2004 NFL season on Sept. 9.

The league's third Thursday night opener will be televised by ABC as part of its "Monday Night Football" package.

Other Week 1 games announced Monday at the NFL meetings:

Green Bay at NFC champion Carolina on Monday night, Sept. 13;

Dallas at Minnesota in the featured national telecast by Fox on Sept. 12;

and Kansas City at Denver in ESPN's Sunday night game.

The rest of the 2004 schedule will be announced in April.

Dubya 03-30-04 03:02 PM

Interesting to see that the defending champion will host the opening night game since that team usually plays the MNF opener.

Jeremy517 03-30-04 03:35 PM

Glad to see they kept instant replay and that they added the conditional third challenge. I think the coach should keep getting more challenges even past the third (if all the other challenges were successful) but since the chances are already really small that they'll even get a third, three should be fine.

I find it funny that it was owners who wouldn't support the extra playoff spots, since it would mean more money in their pockets. I'm glad the Chiefs dropped the suggestion.

HistoryProf 03-30-04 03:35 PM


Changing overtime to allow both teams a possession is unlikely to be approved. The competition committee doesn't favor it.
so what exactly is the point of the "Competition Committee" then? to prevent fair - and far more exciting - competition?

Jericho 03-30-04 04:46 PM

Giving each team a possession in OT isn't exactly fair. It negates a team actually having to drive down the field and the team that goes 2nd is at a huge advantage.

I don't hate the college system, but I fail to see how it's really any better than the current NFL system. And who wants ridiculous 6 OT games? I'll admit it's kinda wacky and a bit fun, but I also don't want to see a final score of Seattle 70 Green Bay 63 in 5 OTs

Red Dog 03-30-04 04:51 PM

There is little unfair about the current OT system. If your defense cannot stop a team from driving 40-50 yds on the 1st possession, they don't deserve to win.

The 1 guaranteed possession rule is hardly fair either. The fairest way to do it would be to simply have no OT or 1 full 15-minute period where they play it out.

Josh H 03-30-04 05:40 PM

Defenses tend to tire more than offenses IMO. I mean, you usually see offense pick up as a game goes on, rather than vice versa. With exceptions when you have a great defense against a crappy or young offense.

Thus I think the current system gives a slight edge to the team that gets the ball first, and much prefer the college system. But then again, I like college football 100 times more than the NFL to begin with.

Red Dog 03-30-04 05:56 PM


Originally posted by Josh Hinkle
Defenses tend to tire more than offenses IMO. I mean, you usually see offense pick up as a game goes on, rather than vice versa. With exceptions when you have a great defense against a crappy or young offense.


One would expect teams getting the 1st possession to dominate then. They do not. However, their rate of success has picked up since the KO was moved back to the 30. How about moving the KO back to the 35 if only for OT.

The Cow 03-30-04 06:01 PM


Originally posted by Red Dog
The 1 guaranteed possession rule is hardly fair either. The fairest way to do it would be to simply have no OT or 1 full 15-minute period where they play it out.
Agreed! :up:

(would like to see the "scrum for possession" at start and overtime *cough, XFL* , for fun, but that would never happen)

As for Replay, I'm fine with the the 2 tries per half, but I would prefer if the team making the challenge didn't lose one if the call was overturned.

Josh H 03-30-04 06:22 PM


Originally posted by Red Dog
One would expect teams getting the 1st possession to dominate then. They do not. However, their rate of success has picked up since the KO was moved back to the 30. How about moving the KO back to the 35 if only for OT.
I don't think you would expect them to dominate, as I said they have a "slight edge."

Thus they win a slight majority of the time.

HistoryProf 04-01-04 12:06 PM

This is.....interesting.....and I can't say I don't approve....watching what the Patriot's were able to get away with last year was really frustrating....


http://www.freep.com/sports/lions/lions1_20040401.htm

Officials will limit cornerbacks' clutching

April 1, 2004

BY CURT SYLVESTER
FREE PRESS SPORTS WRITER

PALM BEACH, Fla. -- The passing yardage was down in the NFL last season -- the lowest in 11 seasons -- and somebody's going to have to pay.

Most likely, the cornerbacks.

The NFL has come to realize the big problem with the passing game -- which averaged barely 200 yards per team per game -- is not entirely a matter of offensive shortcomings.

It seems the cornerbacks, who are free to jam, stuff and plunder opposing wide receivers for the first five yards off the line of scrimmage, are taking liberties all the way down the field.

That is supposed to change, however. Officials will put a renewed emphasis on reducing the contact beyond the first five yards -- no jamming, no bumping, no shirt-grabbing.

That was the message director of officiating Mike Pereira sent coaches in this week's sessions at the NFL owners meetings.

Although it is widely seen as a slap at the style of tough cornerback play practiced by the New England Patriots, it will affect every team, including the Lions.

Neither of their starting cornerbacks -- Dre' Bly and Fernando Bryant -- is a big, physical player. They might occasionally need to make a discreet grab to keep a 6-foot-4 receiver from getting free.

"Now the defensive backs almost have to shadow a guy," coach Steve Mariucci said. "They can't be physical with them down the field, bump 'em, hands on. I'm curious to see how it will work."

In the session with coaches, Pereira made it clear what will and will not be tolerated.

"There was a lengthy discussion," Mariucci said. "We showed a lot of film and talked through a lot of examples. They showed about 10 or 12 examples of what would be called this year. The emphasis will be on calling anything where an official sees a jersey come out. It's a flag without the official seeing that plus having to look back into the backfield to make sure the quarterback is in the pocket. They're going to simply call it holding."

Mariucci's take on the situation?

"I think the league wants passing yards, they want excitement, they want points," he said.

Red Dog 04-01-04 12:13 PM

I definitely do not want to see more restrictions put on corners. The WRs already have such a huge advantage.

POWERBOMB 04-04-04 12:28 AM

If the league wants excitment, as Mariucci suggests, then why would the league penalize celebrations after TD's?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:27 AM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.