- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 405,355
- Reaction score
- 43
The headline when it comes to the three new rules NFL teams have proposed for the 2025 season belongs to the Green Bay Packers. The biggest change to the game, however, may come from their division rival -- the Detroit Lions.
The Packers, coming off a season bookended by losses to the Philadelphia Eagles, are looking to ban the Tush Push rugby-style play Philadelphia has turned into an art form the last three seasons. But the Lions have a proposal that could make the game significantly more fair for defenses across the league.
They want to take away the automatic first down that comes with defensive holding.
It's a suggestion aimed at eliminating bailout calls that offer offenses a free set of downs on third and long after running a play with little hope of getting to the sticks. A defensive hold -- or illegal contact -- would still be a five-yard penalty. Under Detroit's recommendation, it wouldn't mean starting over with first-and-10.
That means James Bradberry's still-illegal grab of JuJu Smith-Schuster at the end of Super Bowl 57 wouldn't have effectively clinched the game but instead turned third-and-eight into third-and-three to give Patrick Mahomes a new, different opportunity to set up a championship-winning field goal.
The intent of the free first down has its logic. Impeding a wideout before he can finish his route means erasing a play that could have ended up with a first down or touchdown. In that case, the rulebook shrugs, believes in an offense's potential and gives it that first down anyway. Eliminating the fresh set of downs that comes with a hold could result in more defensive backs seeing they're beaten and opting to take a five-yard penalty rather than risk a game-breaking play on their watch.
But it would also prevent offenses from profiting on a penalty away from the ball. A defensive hold on third and long could extend a drive thanks to a violation that happened to a player either way down his quarterback's priority list or nowhere near the first down marker. Defenses might start grabbing on third-and-long to avoid a deep ball letdown, but opposing offenses still get the yardage associated with the penalty and a chance to replay the down. How many defensive coordinators are going to green light a situation that turns third-and-14 (which has roughly a 21 percent conversion rate) into third-and-nine (converted nearly twice as often)?
The downside is the penalty would put more pressure on officials to draw the line between what's a hold and what is pass interference. A hold can take place anywhere downfield before the ball is thrown. Once it's in the air, that grabbing becomes interference -- and a spot foul with a free first down compared to the five yards a hold grants. Changing the rule means a hold is significantly less costly, creating more room for error in a game that can be swung by one bad call.
Would defensive holding reform mean adding a wrinkle to replay that allows officials to precisely determine when a foul occurred and whether or not the ball had left the quarterback's hand? Would it mean adding more time to a game that's been trying to speed up its running time? Both would be significant considerations and the reasons why we may not see this proposal approved by a three-quarters majority at the owner's meeting.
But eliminating a rule that deems a five-yard penalty worthy of a first down no matter what an offense was facing would help make things more equitable for NFL defenses. It would give officials fewer opportunities to impact the outcome of the game. Even if the Lions' proposal fails in 2025, it should be brought back up each spring. Defensive backs across the league will thank them.
This article originally appeared on For The Win: The Lions want to erase free first downs for defensive holding and they're right
Continue reading...
The Packers, coming off a season bookended by losses to the Philadelphia Eagles, are looking to ban the Tush Push rugby-style play Philadelphia has turned into an art form the last three seasons. But the Lions have a proposal that could make the game significantly more fair for defenses across the league.
They want to take away the automatic first down that comes with defensive holding.
It's a suggestion aimed at eliminating bailout calls that offer offenses a free set of downs on third and long after running a play with little hope of getting to the sticks. A defensive hold -- or illegal contact -- would still be a five-yard penalty. Under Detroit's recommendation, it wouldn't mean starting over with first-and-10.
That means James Bradberry's still-illegal grab of JuJu Smith-Schuster at the end of Super Bowl 57 wouldn't have effectively clinched the game but instead turned third-and-eight into third-and-three to give Patrick Mahomes a new, different opportunity to set up a championship-winning field goal.
The intent of the free first down has its logic. Impeding a wideout before he can finish his route means erasing a play that could have ended up with a first down or touchdown. In that case, the rulebook shrugs, believes in an offense's potential and gives it that first down anyway. Eliminating the fresh set of downs that comes with a hold could result in more defensive backs seeing they're beaten and opting to take a five-yard penalty rather than risk a game-breaking play on their watch.
But it would also prevent offenses from profiting on a penalty away from the ball. A defensive hold on third and long could extend a drive thanks to a violation that happened to a player either way down his quarterback's priority list or nowhere near the first down marker. Defenses might start grabbing on third-and-long to avoid a deep ball letdown, but opposing offenses still get the yardage associated with the penalty and a chance to replay the down. How many defensive coordinators are going to green light a situation that turns third-and-14 (which has roughly a 21 percent conversion rate) into third-and-nine (converted nearly twice as often)?
The downside is the penalty would put more pressure on officials to draw the line between what's a hold and what is pass interference. A hold can take place anywhere downfield before the ball is thrown. Once it's in the air, that grabbing becomes interference -- and a spot foul with a free first down compared to the five yards a hold grants. Changing the rule means a hold is significantly less costly, creating more room for error in a game that can be swung by one bad call.
Would defensive holding reform mean adding a wrinkle to replay that allows officials to precisely determine when a foul occurred and whether or not the ball had left the quarterback's hand? Would it mean adding more time to a game that's been trying to speed up its running time? Both would be significant considerations and the reasons why we may not see this proposal approved by a three-quarters majority at the owner's meeting.
But eliminating a rule that deems a five-yard penalty worthy of a first down no matter what an offense was facing would help make things more equitable for NFL defenses. It would give officials fewer opportunities to impact the outcome of the game. Even if the Lions' proposal fails in 2025, it should be brought back up each spring. Defensive backs across the league will thank them.
This article originally appeared on For The Win: The Lions want to erase free first downs for defensive holding and they're right
Continue reading...
