[Elvis]

Wrapping up NFL competition committee meetings on potential rules changes, per league officials including executive VP of football operations Troy Vincent …

• Special teams coordinators will meet Saturday and try to craft modified kickoff rules that deliver an acceptable injury rate. Hope is to have a formal proposal to discuss by middle of next week. Multiple onside kick options, including uneven formations and the 4th-and-long alternative, are under discussion.

• No changes expected to the rule on a fumble through the end zone being a touchback. Only happened four times in over 40,000 snaps last season and the feeling is it’s a product of poor technique.

• QB push play is still a concern for the health and safety committee, but injury rate is low. There were 299 sneaks last season — most in modern NFL history — and success rates were actually slightly higher without a push.

• A rule proposal will be written on outlawing the hip-drop tackle, defined by three components: grab, swivel and dropping weight on the back of the ankle. Only to be called when it’s clear and obvious that all three components are present, and officials are confident they can see it. There is support for outlawing it.

• Intentional grounding fouls are way up (59 in 2023) and take a long time to administrate. There should be a rule change proposal aimed at reducing fouls and protecting QBs.

Any votes could happen at next month’s annual meeting.

[actionjack]

We better not see some BS 4th and long option in lieu of an onside kick. This really screws the time that has worked for 58+ to get the lead.

[Elvis]

A needed change but i think i'll miss the pageantry and absurdity of the chain gang:

[ramsman34]

A needed change but i think i'll miss the pageantry and absurdity of the chain gang:

It’s about damn time.

[rams74]

Intentional grounding fouls are way up (59 in 2023) and take a long time to administrate. There should be a rule change proposal aimed at reducing fouls and protecting QBs.

I'm all in favor of making it easier to ground the ball. The fact that we have certain areas of the field, and certain circumstances, in which grounding is legal, and others where it's not, is absurd and ridiculous. What's the problem? If a QB grounds the ball under any circumstances, he's throwing away a play. That's penalty enough for me. Just let it go.

[snackdaddy]

A needed change but i think i'll miss the pageantry and absurdity of the chain gang:

They start the process as soon as Belichick retires. Coincidence?

[actionjack]

It’s about damn time.

I dunno, judging by what occurred in the Supper Bowl Im not so sure lol. I thought several times the Chiefs clearly got a first down only for the refs say no, weird.

[Elvis]

I'm all in favor of making it easier to ground the ball. The fact that we have certain areas of the field, and certain circumstances, in which grounding is legal, and others where it's not, is absurd and ridiculous. What's the problem? If a QB grounds the ball under any circumstances, he's throwing away a play. That's penalty enough for me. Just let it go.

I hear you. The thing you want to prevent, IMO: QB is about to be sacked, just throws the ball straight down (like stopping the clock) and now it's an incomplete instead of a sack. Maybe just give the refs more leeway to call a play like that a sack?

But the thing where there's a miscommunication, the QB throws the ball to an empty spot on the field and they call grounding, that's more than maddening...

[Elvis]

Even as they get better at knowing where the ball is, they still have to know when a player is down which is not an exact science...

[rams74]

I hear you. The thing you want to prevent, IMO: QB is about to be sacked, just throws the ball straight down (like stopping the clock) and now it's an incomplete instead of a sack. Maybe just give the refs more leeway to call a play like that a sack?

But the thing where there's a miscommunication, the QB throws the ball to an empty spot on the field and they call grounding, that's more than maddening...

The problem with all this is the "intentional" part of intentional grounding. So it's ok to throw it at a receivers' feet to avoid a loss or a sack? What's unintentional about that kind of incompletion?

It all carries the implication that every pass attempt must include a real attempt to complete the pass, or it's illegal.

Yet we allow "clocking" to stop the clock? That's 100% intentional grounding, and it's fine. So is winging the ball 35 yards out of bounds and up into the stands, AS LONG AS the passer is outside the box and the pass is beyond the LOS. What's unintentional about that?

The referee has to come to a determination as to whether the passer was intentional with his incompletion or not. And that's absurd. If the passer is off balance because he's under a heavy rush, or he's just a lousy passer, he might not get the ball to the area near a receiver. Doesn't mean he wasn't trying to complete it.

There are just too many fine lines and inconsistencies in this rule for me.

Sorry about going on like this, but this rule is my pet peeve. I could go on all day about this one. But I won't. Done for now. I just hope they do something, anything, with this.