Rules Changes from the NFL Owners Mtg.

https://www.shawlocal.com/bears/2023/03/28/nfl-approves-change-to-training-camp-cuts-allows-uniforms-with-no-0/#:~:text=There will be only one,then subsequently down to 53.

More than a dozen proposals were approved. Here’s a few noteworthy changes coming in 2023:

• Players may wear the No. 0. Offensive and defensive linemen are not allowed to wear No. 0.
• Replay officials may allow for reviews on failed fourth-down attempts at any point in a game.
• There will be only one cut-down day during training camp for rosters to be reduced from 90 players to 53. In the past, there were tiers of cuts. Previously, teams had separate dates to cut the roster to 85 players, then to 80, then subsequently down to 53.
• When an injured player has been “designated for return” to practice but technically remains on the injured reserve list, that player must be listed on the weekly injury report and must have a game-day status designation. Previously, teams did not have to include such players on the injury report.

The resolution that changed the cut-down deadline was submitted in conjunction by 25 teams, including the Bears, indicating it had wide appeal across the league.

Keeping 90 players on the roster throughout training camp will give teams more bodies during those summer practices. It also means that teams will have 10 additional players available during the third and final preseason game, when many teams rest their starters.

It will make for a hectic cut-down day. With 37 players from each team being cut, there could be as many as 1,184 players cut that day.

Several more proposals were not approved. That included a proposal to make roughing the passer reviewable. (the bold is mine)

A proposal to replace onside kicks with a fourth-and-20 deep inside a team’s own territory was not approved. A similar rule has been used in the XFL this spring. There is a desire among owners to improve onside kick recovery rates, per the NFL Network’s Tom Pelissero. In 2022, only 4% of attempts were recovered by the kicking team, marking an all-time low. But no changes to the rule are coming in 2023.

Additionally, a proposed rule change allowing for an emergency QB was not approved. Teams are allowed to carry only 46 active players on game day. Many teams elect to include only two quarterbacks among those 46. The proposal would’ve allowed teams to add a 47th player, but that player would have to be a quarterback. The league used to have a similar rule, but it was abolished in 2011. The failed proposal came after both active QBs on the 49ers roster suffered injuries in the NFC championship game.

EDIT: Evidently, the author of the article is mistaken regarding the emergency QB It DID pass, because KingRoach posted links from CBS Sports and NFL.com stating that it did pass.
****

Thoughts?

I'm surprised that neither reviewing the roughing the passer call nor the emergency QB passed.

I'd like to ask the owners how they thought that doing away with the onside kick would help improve the recovery rates.

 

Yeah, I'm also sick that the roughing the passer call was not passed. I truly don't understand that. You're right that those calls were routinely botched, and I would think that every team in the league had been victimized by it.

I hear what you're saying, but I think the odds of getting a 1st down on 4th and 20 are less than the odds of recovering a kick. It seems to me that's a skill that a lot of kickers don't have any more. If they worked on it, most could get better, and more kicks would be recovered. Also, how much do teams practice it or use it? The saying "Practice makes perfect" didn't come about for no reason. If they want a higher success rate, practice it more, and use it more times in games. I love it when teams are really aggressive and sometimes do it early in games to try to fool the opponents and get an early lead.

 

I'm not so sure about the roster cuts change being a negative thing. I think the Jets will want to keep most of their players. We are no longer in a position where we need to steal other team's players. If anything, it might cause other teams to miss out on the players we waive/cut. I think each team will let every player that they want to keep know that they plan to sign them to the PS when they have to waive them to cut down to 53. I think the Pro Player Scouts and Personnel people will already have players they covet targeted, and each person will have a player or players and their team(s) assigned to them, and they will immediately go to see who that team waived. Regardless all teams will be on an equal footing. They'll all be looking at a mass number of players released. It will be interesting to see how, if at all, it affects players moving from one team to another and if it causes any delays in teams getting their PSs filled.

For certain, it will be a lot more players at one time, but if they really want another player, they will have him targeted, and the rest they can probably sign off another team's PS. I think there will be positives and negatives to it. One of the positives will be that players that they will want to keep on their PS, they'll have a longer time to evaluate and develop them before they're waived. One of the negatives will be that if they want to sign a player that was waived from another team to their active roster, that player will have less time to learn the new offensive or defensive scheme. I think the effect of this will be that perhaps fewer players will change teams. I think that's probably one of the reasons that the change was made. Teams probably want to keep the players that they drafted or signed as UDFAs that they have made an investment in, and give them a chance to develop, rather than see them snatched away by another team. Perhaps another positive will be that older veterans who are going to be cut, may get traded instead for a middle or more likely, a conditional lower round draft pick. That could make it very interesting around draft time. An older team that may be beginning a rebuild, could wind up with a lot of lower round draft picks by trading off their older vets, but of course any of those older vets with big contracts probably won't be able to be traded and will still be released.

As for the onside kick, they want to improve the percentage on recovering those kicks, but they didn't want to abandon the onside kicks at least not yet. Maybe they're considering changing one or more of the changes that were made to onside kicks a few years ago that have made them less effective and lowered the percentage of recoveries. (Perhaps allowing not all to have to line up on the LOS which could bring back running starts or perhaps allowing teams to have 6 players on one side of the kicker again.)

 

I understand the dangers and chaos involved, but I always liked the onside kick. They make for more excitement. Some kickers excelled at them and could make the ball bounce up into the air or take a unique bounce which increased their chances of recovering the ball. Other kickers sucked at it. It always was kicked too hard, right at a player on the other team, and it didn't take any unique bounces. I think the rules changes made several years ago to try to limit injuries lessened the chances of recovering a kick, and as you said having to practice it, increases the chances that their players could get hurt in practice, so they don't practice them, and that has lessened the chances of recovering an onside kick as well.

 

If it did, then the author of the article is mistaken, because I copied and pasted. I thought I remembered reading that it was going to happen this year, but then saw this article and thought maybe I had just read that they were talking about it.