I don't know if everyone in CFO gets this survey or if I was randomly selected, but here's what they're thinking about:
A 40-second play clock after touchdowns, and/or after punts and free kicks.
Running the clock (never stopping it) after first downs outside 2:00.
Winding the clock on the RFP after incomplete passes outside 2:00.
Banning hurdling by the ball carrier.
Banning forceful blindside blocks - anything more vicious than a screen block.
Banning all low blocks more than ten yards downfield.
Spot fouls for DPI.
Ten-yard penalties for OPI.
Making IDF a foul "when in question" and making IDF fouls reviewable.
Banning two-man wedges on free kick returns.
Here's what I wrote in the big suggestion box:
Pace of play:
Winding the clock after incomplete passes will speed up the game dramatically. Make this one change, then evaluate whether running the clock after first downs is also necessary. Making both changes at the same time might be too abrupt a change.
Winding the clock [EDIT: I meant using a 40-second play clock, oops, I hope they figure out what I meant assuming they read it at all] after a touchdown is an excellent idea for two reasons: Not only does it speed up the game by a few seconds, but it incentivizes hotshot players to curtail any prolonged, almost-unsportsmanlike celebrations, because the clock is literally ticking.
I would recommend an exception, though: Keep the 25-second play clock when Team B scores a touchdown. Field goal units usually consist of offensive players more than defensive players, so the substitutions after a defensive touchdown will usually take more time. And moreover, the officials have to switch balls after a change of possession. This will almost always take too much time, so the referee will have to stop and pump up the play clock to 25 anyway.
Incidentally, the change of possession is why I don't support the 40-second play clock after kicks.
Fouls based on being N yards downfield:
Imaginary lines 3 and especially 10 yards downfield are difficult to officiate consistently. For ineligibles downfield, at least we have two wing officials and an umpire who are in the vicinity of a three-yard line, so such a rule is doable. So for ineligible receivers I'm not opposed to a when-in-question rule that the foul has occurred, because interior linemen really shouldn't be downfield *at all.*
But the proposed change of banning low blocks beyond ten yards sounds hopeless to me. No official is going to be stationed at ten yards downfield; no official will have a good idea of where that imaginary ten-yard line is.
Most low blocks in this area of the field are already illegal. When the play has turned upfield and a low block is ten yards beyond the line of scrimmage, the block has to be from the front (10-to-2) and it can't be a peelback. These are already strict criteria. It's asking for problems to add a new rule whereby these low blocks are legal at 8 yards, but fifteen-yard personal fouls at 12 yards.
Lastly, here's my opinion on "the catch rule" which has drawn controversy from fans of both college and pro football:
The catch philosophy is ideal the way it is. It needs almost no change. A catch is a process. Going to the ground means that the receiver has to survive the ground. This is best even if the fans don't realize it. Relaxing this philosophy would lead to countless catch rulings that would be, frankly, cheap. Fans don't realize how irritating and dubious it would be to have anyone awarded a catch just because the ball is touching his hands in one video frame. Slow down the video enough and *anything* looks like a catch to the layman. Doesn't mean it actually is or should be.
The one way I would adjust the catch philosophy is by relaxing the requirements for a ball moving slightly in a falling receiver's hands. Even if the ball touches the ground and moves perceptibly in his hands, I think it should still be a catch unless there's actual daylight between the ball and his hands. That is, the ball should have to *bounce* slightly, not just *move*.
