2018 Offseason Questions: Which Rule Changes Do You Want Adopted?

The journey toward Super Bowl LII ended far too prematurely for the Pittsburgh Steelers, sending them into offseason mode before we were ready for it. But we are in it now, and are ready to move on, through the Combine, through free agency, through the draft, into OTAs, and beyond.

We have asked and answered a lot of questions over the years and will continue to do so, and at the moment, there seem to be a ton of questions that need answering. A surprise early exit in the postseason will do that to you though, especially when it happens in the way it did.

You can rest assured that we have the questions, and we will be monitoring developments all throughout the offseason process, all the way down to Latrobe. Pending free agents, possible veteran roster cuts, contract extensions, pre-draft visits, pro days, all of it will have its place when the time arises.

Question: Which of the proposed rule changes would you actually like to see get adopted?

We are approaching the end of the Annual League Meeting, during which the owners vote whether or not to approve of changes to the rules (among many other things). We already know what the proposed rule changes are (I wrote about them here). Which are the ones that you would like to see pass?

Obviously the one that everybody is talking about is the proposed changes to the catch rule, which I’m guessing is probably expected to pass. I don’t think it’s a perfect rule, but I would hope that it is at least an improvement.

A rule proposal for changing defensive pass interference from a spot foul to a 15-yard penalty is also on the table, and there are advocates on both sides of the table. Personally, I’m not really sure where I stand. Perhaps it should be up to the official’s discretion depending on the nature of the infraction—but then you add a layer of subjectivity to the process.

Multiple rules want to make certain penalties such as roughing the passer and other personal fouls reviewable. This is another one that seems to have a real mix of both support and opposition. Nobody likes to see an improperly-called penalty affect a game, however.

One proposal on the table would give the officiating headquarters the authority to eject a player from a game for egregious non-football behavior, which is currently a duty that only the on-field official can perform in-game.

A couple of obvious tweaks that are sure to pass round out the list. One eliminates the requirement that a winning team kick an extra point or go for a two-point conversion if the winning score comes with no time left on the clock. The other closes a loophole that fortunately has never arisen that would result in a team losing in overtime in a convoluted scenario that is explained here.

To Top