2025 NFL Rule Changes

[LacertineForest]

Of course, this won't really get started until later next month at the Owner's meetings, but I do enjoy this little tidbit floating around:

Report: Packers made proposal to ban tush push

They're such bitches.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

More on it here: https://www.nfl.com/news/unnamed-nfl-te ... -by-eagles

One team has submitted a proposal to ban the play known as the "Tush Push", NFL EVP of football operations Troy Vincent told NFL Network Senior National Columnist Judy Battista on Monday. Vincent did not identify the club, but NFL Network Insider Tom Pelissero reported later Monday that the Green Bay Packers proposed the ban.
...

The Tush Push has drawn the ire of opponents, leading to the proposal Vincent revealed Monday. Justifying its illegality, however, could be difficult.


...

Last year, the league's owners approved the new dynamic kickoff format and banned the hip-drop tackle. Outlawing the Brotherly Shove was not on the agenda.

"Hip drop and the Tush Push were in the same conversation three years ago," Vincent told Battista. "A year ago, we felt like let's just focus in on the hip-drop tackle, and the Tush Push, just say, hey, the Philadelphia Eagles, they just do it better than everybody else. But there are some concerns. Our health and safety committee has laid that out today with a brief conversation on the injury report. There's some challenges, some concerns that they'll share with the broader group tomorrow. But the Tush Push will become a topic of discussion moving into March."

The way the Eagles run it it's virtually impossible to defend. It got ridiculous when the Commanders got called offside multiple times in a row.

[Atkins&Rebel]

It wasn’t too long ago that it was illegal for an offensive player to physically assist the ball carrier.
I’d vote to go back to that

[LacertineForest]

NFL to consider changes to kickoff, including touchbacks moving to 35-yard-line

[HisRoyalSweetness]

NFL to consider changes to kickoff, including touchbacks moving to 35-yard-line

I'd rather they move the kick back 5 yards than have the touchback on the 35 yard line. With the distances kickers can make now an offense would only need to gain about 20 yards to be in FG range if playing indoors or somewhere like Denver. The kicker is so far behind the rest of the team anyway he's rarely involved in the return so starting 5 yards further back doesn't really make a difference.

[LacertineForest]

NFL to consider changes to kickoff, including touchbacks moving to 35-yard-line

I'd rather they move the kick back 5 yards than have the touchback on the 35 yard line. With the distances kickers can make now an offense would only need to gain about 20 yards to be in FG range if playing indoors or somewhere like Denver. The kicker is so far behind the rest of the team anyway he's rarely involved in the return so starting 5 yards further back doesn't really make a difference.

Isn't the point to incentivize teams to kick a returnable ball? The threat of having your opponent start closer to FG range is supposed to be that incentive, and I think it might work from the 35 as opposed to the 30. Moving the kick back 5 yards doesn't do much because kickers can still kick the ball through the endzone if they want, unless I'm misunderstanding your proposal.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

Isn't the point to incentivize teams to kick a returnable ball? The threat of having your opponent start closer to FG range is supposed to be that incentive, and I think it might work from the 35 as opposed to the 30. Moving the kick back 5 yards doesn't do much because kickers can still kick the ball through the endzone if they want, unless I'm misunderstanding your proposal.

Both options are posited in the article you provided the link to, both with the same aim i.e. to increase the number of returns. Obviously moving the kick back makes it more difficult for a kicker to reach the end zone but not impossible.

I guess I just don't like making life too easy for the offense. A touchback used to be the 20 yard line and it's been steadily moved forward 5 yards at a time. You used to see more returns from inside the end zone because even with the extra distance to travel teams could still get the ball beyond the 20 yard line. The number of returns fell dramatically because of moving the ball further up the field on a touchback. The risk/reward balance shifted too much for both kicking and receiving teams. It's still an issue. The new format had limited success last season because the average return was only marginally less than the 30 yard line. They're trying to find a way to shift the balance to encourage more returns.

Kicking out of bounds has long meant the ball being placed on the 40 yard line. The 35 for a touchback won't be dissimilar, but it's harder to control distance than direction. I still remember the Panthers effectively blowing the Super Bowl by kicking out of bounds and giving Brady a short field to get his team into field goal range. Jake Delhomme played the game of his life that day. He should have at least shared the MVP award, but of course they always give that to someone on the winning side, usually the QB.

[LacertineForest]

I guess without knowing just how far the average kicker can consistently kick the ball, I can't say whether or not kicking off from the 25 would make a difference or not (I suspect that most kickers can easily still kick it into the endzone from the 25), so I think if they want kicks to be in the landing zone and not the endzone, they need to move it back even farther.

If I had my way, I would eliminate the touchback altogether by just making the endzone out of bounds. If the kicker kicks the ball and it lands in or out the back of the endzone, I would treat it as if they kicked it out of bounds on the sidelines (penalty - start at 40). If the ball bounces in the landing zone and then goes into the endzone or out of bounds, there would be no penalty and the receiving team would have to field it. That would ensure you'd get a return just about every time.

[dplank]

I think your way (out of bounds call) is the best answer. Teams won’t do it purposely anymore.

[RichH55]

I think your way (out of bounds call) is the best answer. Teams won’t do it purposely anymore.

I like it.

It's got a simplicity in its incentive

[HisRoyalSweetness]

NFL to examine implementing postseason OT rules for regular season games in 2025

The NFL said on Wednesday that it will review rules for overtime this offseason, potentially implementing postseason overtime rules for regular season games.

During a football operations session with the media in Indianapolis for the NFL Scouting Combine, the league noted that there has been an uptick in wins for teams that receive the opening kickoff in overtime, per NFL Network Insider Mike Garafolo.

NFL executive vice president of football ops Troy Vincent said on Wednesday the Competition Committee agrees overtime rules need to be addressed. Receiving the ball first has become more of an advantage than pre-2011 when it was a sudden death period. Receiving teams won 56.8% of games in overtime from 2017-24, up from 55.4% from 2001-11.

"It's time to rethink the overtime rule," Vincent said.

Under current regular season rules, each team is guaranteed an offensive possession in overtime unless the team that receives the ball scores a touchdown on the opening possession. In the postseason, both teams are guaranteed an offensive possession in OT.
...

https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-to-examine ... es-in-2025

Also from that article:

As the league continues to consider expanded replay assistance for the 2025 season, Vincent told reporters that replay assist would only apply to fouls that are called on the field. Vincent described the idea of the league office throwing flags on plays a "nonstarter."

Additionally, the league said on Wednesday that the Hawk-Eye technology for measuring the line to gain is slated to replace chains as the primary measurement system for regular-season games in 2025. Garafolo noted that the chain gang would remain on sidelines as a backup.

[LacertineForest]

Not necessarily a rule change, but nice to see the league trying to use tech to improve accuracy:

NFL plans to use state-of-the-art technology for measurements in 2025

[HisRoyalSweetness]

The full list of proposed changes: https://media.nfl.com/content/dam/commu ... 0Clubs.pdf

Detroit's proposed changes to the rules around contacting a receiver inside 5 yards look far too complicated and difficult to enforce to me.

If they remove the automatic first down element of the penalty for illegal contact beyond 5 yards and defensive holding then they should increase the yardage from 5 to 10 yards otherwise it's too big a shift in favour of the defense.

If they change the playoff seedings to base it purely on record per Detroit's suggestion then they may as well do away divisions altogether.

[LacertineForest]

The full list of proposed changes: https://media.nfl.com/content/dam/commu ... 0Clubs.pdf

Detroit's proposed changes to the rules around contacting a receiver inside 5 yards look far too complicated and difficult to enforce to me.

If they remove the automatic first down element of the penalty for illegal contact beyond 5 yards and defensive holding then they should increase the yardage from 5 to 10 yards otherwise it's too big a shift in favour of the defense.

If they change the playoff seedings to base it purely on record per Detroit's suggestion then they may as well do away divisions altogether.

I find Detroit's proposal about illegal contact to be interesting. I do agree with the automatic first down element is too punitive for illegal contact, but I think removing the first down element then gives too much of an incentive for a defense to mug receivers. I suppose I'm good with making it a 10-yard penalty and no first down. That definitely would keep it simpler.

I'm fine with the suggestion to base seedings on record. It's annoying seeing a 9- win team in a shit division get a home-field game when a 10+ win team has to go on the road because they play in a tough division. Divisions are still useful to organize the schedule and maintain rivalries, but I don't need them to impact playoff seedings.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

I find Detroit's proposal about illegal contact to be interesting. I do agree with the automatic first down element is too punitive for illegal contact, but I think removing the first down element then gives too much of an incentive for a defense to mug receivers. I suppose I'm good with making it a 10-yard penalty and no first down. That definitely would keep it simpler.

It isn't part of the proposal, but making it a 10 yard penalty would still result in first downs but would eliminate the ridiculous situations where a team can be in 3rd and 15 or 3rd and 20 and get a first down because of hold that occurs 5 yards downfield. That seems disproportionate to the infringement to me. But simply leaving it as 5 yards and getting rid of the automatic first down will surely result in defenders being more willing to grab a bit and hope to get away with it knowing they'll just face another 3rd and long.

I'm fine with the suggestion to base seedings on record. It's annoying seeing a 9- win team in a shit division get a home-field game when a 10+ win team has to go on the road because they play in a tough division. Divisions are still useful to organize the schedule and maintain rivalries, but I don't need them to impact playoff seedings.

The problem is teams don't face similar strengths of schedule.

You could just as easily end up with a team who wins a really tough division with a modest record while also having had to play 4 games against opponents in another tough division. Conversely you could have a team with a better record who comes second in a weak division who also played 4 games against another weak division.

Ultimately divisions have become pretty meaningless as far as the integrity of competition goes. When there were 30 teams and each division comprised 5 teams it meant half of their 16 games were against division opponents. Now it's only 6 games out 17 (35%).

[WagonForce]

I’m pretty old school in actually wishing divisions mattered more, not less. The expanded playoff format was inevitable but I wasn’t in favor of it.

It seems that the league is moving away from divisions more and more as time marches on but it takes away from the romance, for me at least. This isn’t just limited to the NFL either, we’re seeing it in other sports too.

Nonetheless, I’ve made peace with the trend. I wouldn’t be surprised to see divisions dissolved altogether one day.

[Shadow]

I find Detroit's proposal about illegal contact to be interesting. I do agree with the automatic first down element is too punitive for illegal contact, but I think removing the first down element then gives too much of an incentive for a defense to mug receivers. I suppose I'm good with making it a 10-yard penalty and no first down. That definitely would keep it simpler.

It isn't part of the proposal, but making it a 10 yard penalty would still result in first downs but would eliminate the ridiculous situations where a team can be in 3rd and 15 or 3rd and 20 and get a first down because of hold that occurs 5 yards downfield. That seems disproportionate to the infringement to me. But simply leaving it as 5 yards and getting rid of the automatic first down will surely result in defenders being more willing to grab a bit and hope to get away with it knowing they'll just face another 3rd and long.

I was thinking along the same lines. Get rid of the automatic 1st down or make Offensive holding an automatic 4th down. (Or 5 yards and loss of down if that is too extreme).

[Atkins&Rebel]

One idea:
Any PI penalty occurring within 15 yards of the Line of Scrimmage is a spot foul and automatic first down.
Any PI outside of 15 yards, is a 10 yard penalty, but the DB also gets a PI mark. Get 2 in a game and the DB must sit for a specified amount of time. (like Hockey penalties).
Because the spot foul was put in place so there were real consequences for grabbing a guy instead of letting him score.

[G08]

I find Detroit's proposal about illegal contact to be interesting. I do agree with the automatic first down element is too punitive for illegal contact, but I think removing the first down element then gives too much of an incentive for a defense to mug receivers. I suppose I'm good with making it a 10-yard penalty and no first down. That definitely would keep it simpler.

It isn't part of the proposal, but making it a 10 yard penalty would still result in first downs but would eliminate the ridiculous situations where a team can be in 3rd and 15 or 3rd and 20 and get a first down because of hold that occurs 5 yards downfield. That seems disproportionate to the infringement to me. But simply leaving it as 5 yards and getting rid of the automatic first down will surely result in defenders being more willing to grab a bit and hope to get away with it knowing they'll just face another 3rd and long.

Ahh yes, the "Packer-Referee-Wink-Wink Special".


I do think there is a delicate balance which needs to be observed, lest not forget the Seattle Seahawks directive to hold on every play because "the officials won't always call it".

I hate the concept of a defensive hold being an automatic first down -- I like the idea of it being a 10-yard penalty.

Pass Interference is tough as well, should it always be an automatic first down if you have PI on 3rd and 20 and the flag is on an 8-yard dig route?

[LacertineForest]

One idea:
Any PI penalty occurring within 15 yards of the Line of Scrimmage is a spot foul and automatic first down.
Any PI outside of 15 yards, is a 10 yard penalty, but the DB also gets a PI mark. Get 2 in a game and the DB must sit for a specified amount of time. (like Hockey penalties).
Because the spot foul was put in place so there were real consequences for grabbing a guy instead of letting him score.

I like this quite a bit! It has real consequences, but prevents the offense from benefiting too much.

Edits: fu, autocorrect

[wab]

It isn't part of the proposal, but making it a 10 yard penalty would still result in first downs but would eliminate the ridiculous situations where a team can be in 3rd and 15 or 3rd and 20 and get a first down because of hold that occurs 5 yards downfield. That seems disproportionate to the infringement to me. But simply leaving it as 5 yards and getting rid of the automatic first down will surely result in defenders being more willing to grab a bit and hope to get away with it knowing they'll just face another 3rd and long.

Ahh yes, the "Packer-Referee-Wink-Wink Special".


I do think there is a delicate balance which needs to be observed, lest not forget the Seattle Seahawks directive to hold on every play because "the officials won't always call it".

I hate the concept of a defensive hold being an automatic first down -- I like the idea of it being a 10-yard penalty.

Pass Interference is tough as well, should it always be an automatic first down if you have PI on 3rd and 20 and the flag is on an 8-yard dig route?

I have always thought that PI being a spot foul is silly. Just make it a 10 yard penalty be done with it. Offensive PI and defensive PI being so incredibly opposite has never set well with me.

[G08]

Ahh yes, the "Packer-Referee-Wink-Wink Special".


I do think there is a delicate balance which needs to be observed, lest not forget the Seattle Seahawks directive to hold on every play because "the officials won't always call it".

I hate the concept of a defensive hold being an automatic first down -- I like the idea of it being a 10-yard penalty.

Pass Interference is tough as well, should it always be an automatic first down if you have PI on 3rd and 20 and the flag is on an 8-yard dig route?

I have always thought that PI being a spot foul is silly. Just make it a 10 yard penalty be done with it. Offensive PI and defensive PI being so incredibly opposite has never set well with me.

It's difficult because there will be coaching points that on any deep ball, if you feel beat, just tackle the WR and take the 10-yard penalty.

I just felt strongly that referees could control games and momentum with these "automatic fist down" calls.

[wab]

I have always thought that PI being a spot foul is silly. Just make it a 10 yard penalty be done with it. Offensive PI and defensive PI being so incredibly opposite has never set well with me.

It's difficult because there will be coaching points that on any deep ball, if you feel beat, just tackle the WR and take the 10-yard penalty.

I just felt strongly that referees could control games and momentum with these "automatic fist down" calls.

Then you de-incentivize it by ejecting the player if it's intentional or egregious.

[G08]

It's difficult because there will be coaching points that on any deep ball, if you feel beat, just tackle the WR and take the 10-yard penalty.

I just felt strongly that referees could control games and momentum with these "automatic fist down" calls.

Then you de-incentivize it by ejecting the player if it's intentional or egregious.

That's a slippery slope but I like where your head's at... maybe a warning and then ejection or something along those lines.

I still vividly remember Pete Carroll telling his DBs to hold on every play because the refs won't throw a flag every time.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

NFL Competition Committee proposes to make dynamic kickoff permanent, expand replay assist

Two more proposals have been added to the docket for consideration during the upcoming Annual League Meeting, which is scheduled for March 30 through April 1.

First up: the kickoff. The NFL debuted the dynamic kickoff format last season with the goal of improving player safety and bringing new excitement to a play that had largely lost its luster, and the league would like to make the change permanent -- with some minor adjustments.

The proposal, submitted by the league's Competition Committee on Wednesday, includes a change to touchbacks, moving the ball spot from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line on kicks sent into the end zone, further incentivizing kicking teams to send the ball into the landing zone instead of the end zone and thus, producing more returns. The proposal also opens up restrictions regarding when a kicking team is allowed to attempt an onside kick, eliminating the fourth-quarter requirement while preserving the condition they must be trailing in order to declare an onside kick. Finally, the proposal also includes changes to alignment requirements for both kicking and receiving teams.
...

Another proposal should resonate with fans who want replay officials to play a larger role in accurately officiating games. The competition committee proposed expanding replay officials' ability to advise on-field officials "on specific, objective aspects of a play and/or address game administration issues when clear and obvious video evidence is present," effectively empowering those with video at their disposal to help on-field officials make correct calls in a timely manner.

If the proposal passes a flag can be picked up if "clear and obvious video evidence exists" in the following: defenseless player, facemask, horse collar, tripping and roughing/running into kicker.
...

Full article: https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-competitio ... lay-assist

[dplank]

NFL Competition Committee proposes to make dynamic kickoff permanent, expand replay assist

Two more proposals have been added to the docket for consideration during the upcoming Annual League Meeting, which is scheduled for March 30 through April 1.

First up: the kickoff. The NFL debuted the dynamic kickoff format last season with the goal of improving player safety and bringing new excitement to a play that had largely lost its luster, and the league would like to make the change permanent -- with some minor adjustments.

The proposal, submitted by the league's Competition Committee on Wednesday, includes a change to touchbacks, moving the ball spot from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line on kicks sent into the end zone, further incentivizing kicking teams to send the ball into the landing zone instead of the end zone and thus, producing more returns. The proposal also opens up restrictions regarding when a kicking team is allowed to attempt an onside kick, eliminating the fourth-quarter requirement while preserving the condition they must be trailing in order to declare an onside kick. Finally, the proposal also includes changes to alignment requirements for both kicking and receiving teams.
...

Another proposal should resonate with fans who want replay officials to play a larger role in accurately officiating games. The competition committee proposed expanding replay officials' ability to advise on-field officials "on specific, objective aspects of a play and/or address game administration issues when clear and obvious video evidence is present," effectively empowering those with video at their disposal to help on-field officials make correct calls in a timely manner.

If the proposal passes a flag can be picked up if "clear and obvious video evidence exists" in the following: defenseless player, facemask, horse collar, tripping and roughing/running into kicker.
...

Full article: https://www.nfl.com/news/nfl-competitio ... lay-assist

Welcome improvements to the game, I hope they both pass

[Grizzled]

Reportedly the owners are making a full court press on expanding to 18 games:

https://www.sportsmockery.com/chicago-b ... ule-again/

I don't know what concessions the players would want for an idea they detest.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

17 games made sense if the goal was to reach the point where there were 16 international (or neutral venue) games a year, one for each team. There will be 7 this year and with Melbourne already announced potentially at least 8 in 2026, so they're pretty much halfway there.

The IS series allows the NFL to test the market in different countries and could be used to test the market for expansion teams within the US, and if every team plays 8 home games, 8 away games and 1 international/neutral venue game then integrity of the competition would be maintained. An 18 game schedule would screw all that up.

On the other hand, divisions are currently verging on the pointless with only 6 of 17 games. Adding an 18th would reduce divisional games to just a third of games played but it would simplify scheduling as each team in a division can face the exact same opponents by playing the 4 teams in 3 other divisions.

Of course the NFL won't really take any of this into consideration. It's all about more money because greedy billionaire owners can never have enough.

[dplank]

I'd rather have 18 weeks of football than 17. They can trade out a preseason game for starters, then maybe move to two bye weeks and I'd also be happy to give up Thursday night games. If they do all that it would seem fair to the players IMO.

[HisRoyalSweetness]