Competition Committee unveils two proposals to change replay rules

Getty Images

The NFL has released this year’s proposed changes to the league’s playing rules and nine of them have to do with the replay review system.

Two of those proposals come directly from the Competition Committee while the other seven were generated by teams. Each of the proposals from the Competition Committee propose to amend the current replay rules for a one-year period.

The first of those proposals calls for fouls for pass interference to be reviewable. It also proposes expanding automatic replay reviews to include scoring plays and turnovers negated by a foul as well as any attempt for points after a touchdown. The second proposal would include pass interference fouls as well as penalties for roughing the passer and unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

On the team side, Kansas City made a proposal to make personal fouls reviewable. Unlike the committee’s recommendations, their proposed change would cover both penalized and unpenalized plays.

Washington offered a pair of proposals. One calls for making all plays that occur during a game subject to review while the other asks for personal fouls to be reviewable plays.

The Eagles proposed automatic reviews for all scoring plays and turnovers negated by a penalty. They also joined the Panthers, Rams and Seahawks in a proposal to make player-safety rules violations reviewable whether or not a flag is thrown on the field.

Finally, the Broncos made two proposals. One would subject fourth down plays spotted short of the line to gain or goal line to an automatic review. Their other proposal would make all extra point and two-point conversion attempts subject to automatic review.

Proposed changes by the Competition Committee generally have a better chance of being approved by league owners and we’ll find out next week if the one-year trials they are floating are put into place.

13 responses to “Competition Committee unveils two proposals to change replay rules

  1. The Redskins proposal to make everything reviewable by far makes the most sense. Perhaps that best explains why it won’t be adopted by the league, which instead seems more focused on a piecemeal approach to remedy this glaring deficiency in the NFL’s replay review process.

  2. Everything should be reviewable. Caveat being that it shouldn’t be reviewed unless requested by an official or coach and even then those should be limited to no more than 5 per team. The coach’s challenge is outdated and penalizing a team because the refs made a mistake or missed something that the coach wants corrected is absurd.

  3. Here’s my proposal: Get rid of the replay system and go back to letting the officials on the field do their jobs the way it was for 100 years.
    I hate the replay system because the NFL will never get it right — even when it’s blatantly obvious.
    So stop messing around with the tempo of the games and get rid of the whole stupid system. All it does is create more controversies than it’s worth.

  4. These clowns keep trying to expand replay when they really need to contract it, or at least figure out a way to make it less disruptive.

  5. How about the challenges come from a booth official? They are not looked at by the refs on the field but by a ref. in the booth. Same logic applies, if it is clear that the refs on the field were wrong change the call. If it is not clear, no change. I don’t like the whole pass interference being review-able; WR against CB is a game within the game, don’t mess with it.

  6. I favor making everything reviewable, but reviews should strictly be booth, no need to get the game ref involved. And put the video of the replay review on the big screen. Let’s see what they’re watching.

  7. Gronk should absolutely not retire if the PI replay is voted in. His yardage doubles if they actually flag every time he gets held or interfered with.
    I will enjoy the summary delivered by the refs when explaining the reviews of PI. Broadcasters are often flummoxed by the review calls.

  8. So the review of roughing calls I’m pretty sure I know the single play that got somone to demanding that. And it was a questionable call to be sure. But the irony is if they reviewed that play they would probably (not definately since there was contact) taken back the roughing call but then review would also have assessed a DPI (since that becomes reviewable here too) on the same play so the net result would have been the same.

  9. Is it just me (perhaps it is) or do all the KC rule change proposals this offseason directly relate to plays they messed up, feel slighted on, and cost them the AFCCG? Sour 🍇

  10. xxsweepthelegxx says:
    March 22, 2019 at 8:17 am
    Is it just me (perhaps it is) or do all the KC rule change proposals this offseason directly relate to plays they messed up, feel slighted on, and cost them the AFCCG? Sour 🍇

    ———————-
    No, Ive been seeing a lot of that too. I think they had gotten to counting their chickens so much they had come to think that win was their just due and they feel wronged that they lost. But you can’t just ask for a rule against your team losing (they apparently realized after some discussion) so the next step is to pick out isolated events in the game to play shoulda/woulda. And after working through ‘if our guy woulda made that catch/prevented that catch/made a stop on on 3rd and 10/lined up onsides/etc…” they finally get to “If the rules woulda been different”.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!