Bill Belichick proposes 4 wacky rule changes that make sense, including the Adam Carrola rule
Not this year!
Head coach Bill Belichick has talked about a lot of things he didn't like about the NFL the past couple years, now he's made those complaints into official requests.
Some of the proposals are a little bit whacky, but ultimately they all make a lot of sense. They also relate quite a bit to some situations the Patriots have gotten themselves into before.
One of the four is actually an idea that Comedian Adam Carrola has suggested since seemingly the dawn of time. Raising those goal posts.
ESPNBoston:
1. Goal posts extended an additional 5 feet above the cross bar. "The reasoning of this proposal is that definitive rulings cannot be made on many field goal tries that cross over the top of the goal post."
Remember this play back in 2012? The Ravens went to kick a game winning field goal, it soared high up above the goal posts and looked like it might've been no good, but there was no way to tell and the refs called it good and much controversy spawned (here's the video).
So, what's next?
Here's another thing that Belichick has been complaining about since all the way back in 2011. At least publicly.
2. Make the extra point more challenging by making the line of scrimmage the 25-yard line. "In order to make the point after a more competitive play."
Belichick's point has always been that the extra point used to not be a guarantee, when you had guys like Gino Cappelletti weren't specialists kicking them.
Back in August of 2011, Belichick had this to say on WEEI:
Via ProFootballTalk:
“Philosophically, plays that are non-plays shouldn’t be in the game,” Belichick said, via Mike Reiss of ESPNBoston.com. “I don’t think it is good for the game. Extra points, when you’re up to the 99 percent range in extra points it’s not a play. Let’s move the ball back to the 15-20 yard line and not make it a tap in. Make them kick it. Same thing with the kickoff return, if you’re just going to put the ball on the 20, put the ball on the 20.”
He brought up the topic towards the end of January this year.
"I would be in favor of not seeing it be an over 99 percent conversion rate,” Belichick said. “It’s virtually automatic. That’s just not the way the extra point was put into the game. It was an extra point that you actually had to execute and it was executed by players who were not specialists, they were position players. It was a lot harder for them to do. The Gino Cappellettis of the world and so forth and they were very good. It’s not like it is now where it’s well over 99 percent. I don’t think that’s really a very exciting play because it’s so automatic.”
So, there you go. Now it's being proposed. For what it's worth the competition committee proposed moving the PAT attempt back to the 20 yard line as a trial run during a week of preseason.
As for the next rule proposal
3. Place fixed cameras on all boundary lines -- sideline, end line, end zone. "To supplement the TV cameras and to guarantee coverage of those lines for replay, no matter where the TV cameras are located."
This is also something that Belichick has complained about in the past. Saying that cameras should be more prevalent to ensure that calls and reviews are more accurate.
And finally, this has to be Belichick's favorite one.
4. Coaches can challenge any officials' decision other than scoring plays. "To make more extensive use of the replay system."
This is something that at least dates back to December, when Belichick went on a long rant about how he thinks coaches should be able to challenge everything because figuring out what they can and can't challenge just makes things needlessly complicated.
PFT:
“When you have two challenges, I don’t see anything wrong with the concept of ‘you can challenge any two plays that you want,’” Belichick said, via Mike Reiss of ESPN. “I understand that judgment calls are judgment calls, but to say that an important play can’t be reviewed, I don’t think that’s really in the spirit of trying to get everything right and making sure the most important plays are officiated properly.
“If you get a situation where they call a guy for being offside, and you don’t think he was offside and you’re willing to use one of your challenges on that to let them go back and take a look at it — I understand if the evidence isn’t conclusive that the call stands. If it is [conclusive] than they’d overturn it.
“If it’s offensive holding, if you think one of the offensive linemen tackles your guy as he’s rushing the quarterback, and the ball hasn’t been thrown, they go back and look at it and if it’s that egregious of a violation they would make a call. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t. We have to live with that anyway but now it’s only on certain plays and certain situations.
“It’s kind of confusing for me as to which plays are, and which plays aren’t challengeable. I’m sure it’s confusing to the fans to know what they all are. There are multiple pages explaining what you can and can’t challenge. Then you have the officials come over to you in a controversial type of play and say, ‘Well, you can challenge this, or you can’t challenge it’ which is helpful. But I’m just saying the whole idea of simplifying the game and trying to get the important plays right, I wouldn’t have any problem if any play was open to a challenge, understanding that if it’s not conclusive, then it’s not conclusive and the ruling on the field would stand. That’s the way it is anyway. You have to make it a lot simpler in my mind.”
