New rules instituted at owners meetings

Posted by Darren Urban on March 28, 2012 – 9:40 am

With all the overtime games the Cardinals played in 2011, it’s amazing that, had the playoff overtime rule been in place at the time — the one mandating a possession for each team, unless a touchdown was scored first — it wouldn’t have mattered in any of Arizona’s four OT wins. Three came after the Cards had held a possession on defense, and the fourth came after the Cards scored a TD on the opening possession of the overtime.

Nevertheless, the NFL owners voted to make the playoff overtime rule the regular season rule. Basically, a team can’t win on an opening possession of overtime on just a field goal.

The rule that was passed that will have a greater impact will be automatic replay review of all turnovers. Now all turnovers and all scoring plays don’t have to take up a coach’s challenge.

Tabled until further discussion at the owners’ May meeting were a couple of other proposals: One allowing the teams to have rosters up to 90 players in the offseason (80 is the current limit; teams had 90 last year because of the lockout) and the other would be to have an exception to the injured reserve rule. Currently any player sent to injured reserve cannot return that season. The new rule would allow a player to return after eight weeks. Also tabled was a suggestion of moving the trade deadline two weeks later, from Week 6 to Week 8.

Posted in Blog | 40 Comments »

40 Responses to “New rules instituted at owners meetings”

  1. By MIKE G on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    Hey Darren–Hope all is good! What is your opinion on reviewing all turnovers and scoring plays????. I guess being accurate is the goal- but these games just seem to be taking forever – a good 3.5 hours. Have you ever noticed the replays in college football?? They seem to go a lot quicker and smoother. I wish the process was just quicker in the NFL??? Your thoughts???

  2. By Darren Urban on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    Mike G —

    RE: Replays

    The idea now is that, since turnovers will automatically looked at — and since games usually go to commercial at that point anyway — the challenge will be figured out by the end of the commercial anyway.

  3. By Chuck 1 on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    To Big B,

    Has Darren picked on you or been “unpolite” to others and you lately???

    And, is he still being “unprofessional”???

    Please tell us why you are in the distinct minority who criticize him.

  4. By chad on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    You said,Also tabled was a suggestion of moving the trade deadline two weeks later, from Week 6 to Week 8. Is that something that would be voted on next year or are they planning on voting on it this year or it was just talked about?
    I would rather have it before 12:01 am week 9. That seems better. in week 6 you could be 2 and 4 with12 games to go its more of a gamble than 4 and 4 or 3 and 5 or 2 and 6 with these 3 options trade up or for the draft. I think the deadline would see more trades this way…

  5. By William Lutz on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    Personally, I think the injured reserve rule does need to be seriously looked at. I think it’s unfair to players and teams to lose all that potential playing time when a player is injured early in the season. As long as the player is medically capable to perform, I see no problem having them be roster eligible after 6 or 8 weeks.

  6. By Darren Urban on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    William Lutz —

    RE: IR

    The whole reason IR exists as it currently does was because of teams cheating the system. Once, the injured list kept guys out four weeks or so; I’ve heard stories about how teams would stash guys there who weren’t hurt at all just because they didn’t want him on the roster but didn’t want to lose him. IR was created to make sure teams couldn’t do that anymore. With the invention of the practice squad, perhaps there is less reason these days.

  7. By Mike Ellingboe on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    Would really prefer to see the NFL either stay with their true sudden death format, or switch to an actual overtime, but this hybrid idea of mixing the two is ridiculous.

    Will give them props for the replay changes, however. Games shouldn’t be decided on who has the better eye for challenges, kind of the whole reason for having officials in the first place.

  8. By Eazy E on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    So far, I like all the rule changes and proposals. The overtime rule you knew was going to spill over into the regular season, the turnover replay is a good one also, and the other 3 that are proposed I like too with up to 90 players on a roster for training camp, IR being 8 weeks and not always the rest of the year, and the trade deadline moved a couple weeks back, good job NFL!

  9. By Bernie on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    Chuck 1
    Are you and Darren personal friends? You act as if you need to protect him. Darren seems like a smart guy and I am sure if he really wanted to could respond to me in an appropriate manner. Let me summarize what I originally stated. I think Darren should be more understanding of fans that ask stupid and repeated questions, there is not a need to be unpolite when he responds to those types of questions.It would be better to not repsond to something like that. When you have a blog you will get all types of questions that is the nature of a blog. I believe Cardinals representatives, which includes Darren, need to be professional when dealing with fans especially on a blog. I expect more out of Darren since he is in charge of this blog, you are on the other hand, I do not expect anything out of since you are not in charge of anything except for maybe protecting Darren….

  10. By in fitz we trust on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    i like the change in an automatic review on turnovers, theres so many blown calls that force a coach to use a challenge ( and loose timeouts in the process ) which doesnt always work in the teams favor. ATLEAST teams can save challenges/timeouts for more complex play challenges, like spot of the ball or if it was a catch or not ect. really will effect how teams use timeouts in gameplans.

    @ darren, im assuming, say for example, if there is a turnover and the ball stays inbounds the officials stop the clock for the review? if theres only 10 seconds left in the half and the fumble occurs when theres a few seconds left and the time runs out before the whistle, but the fumble/turnover happened when there was, say 2 seconds on the clock… will the officials reset the timeclock??? hopefully i worded that ? right…. just curious….

  11. By Darren Urban on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    In Fitz —

    RE: Clock issues

    I will be honest, I do not know.

  12. By Dre 1368 on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    Nice strory on q and fitz great players great peeps. Sure all cards fan miss them as much as I do.

  13. By BIG RED on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    To bernie and chuck, you guys remind me of this two characters that used to come out on tv and later had their own movie. Can you guess! B and B…

  14. By Andy K on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    Hey Darren,
    Is Oshimogho Atogwe one of the players the Cardinals are looking at? If not, then who else are they planning to sign or resign?

  15. By Darren Urban on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    Andy K —

    RE: Atogwe

    No, and I do not know.

  16. By Billy on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    @In Fitz. If there is a turnover the clock automatically stops. That is, if there actually is a turnover (i.e. the other team gains possession of the ball). However, if there is a non-fumble call on the field which needs to be reviewed, remember that the other team has to gain clear possession of the ball in order to be overruled. So, in that case, if the other team gains possession of the ball then the clock would of course stop when they gain possession of the ball because a turnover occurred. Which means if they gain possession with 2 seconds left, the clock would be reset to 2 seconds left, just as they are now, even if the clock ran out prior to the review. Again, this is just based on what I’ve seen in the league on challenges in the last two minutes of ball games, and I have seen time replaced on the clock for fumble reviews and interceptions.

    Darren, if any of this seems wrong, please feel free to correct my mistake.

  17. By Chuck 1 on Mar 28, 2012 | Reply

    The following is not a glowing assessment by Jason Smith of of the Cards’ success (or lack of it) during Free Agency)

    Arizona Cardinals: Hey, I’ve been on Mars for the last month. Can you bullet point what’s happened in the offseason for Arizona for me? Sure!

    • Missed on Manning.
    • Missed on Reggie Wayne.
    • Gave Kevin Kolb seven million more dollars.
    • Let go of Jay Feely, Levi Brown and Early Doucet.
    • Then re-signed all of them.

    New guys? Let’s see. Um, William Gay? Adam Snyder? Don’t worry, I’ll send you links to their Wikipedia pages so you can find out who they are. Hey, I know it’s all about keeping an organization together, but this wasn’t a 13-3 world-beater of a team that just needed to fill a hole or two. They needed an infusion of talent. It’s still the San Francisco 49ers’ division. The Seattle Seahawks got better. The St. Louis Rams have added weapons for Sam Bradford (and have a boatload of draft picks to continue doing so). How does last place in the NFC West sound?

  18. By Brandon on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    I think we should go for a WR or an O-Linemen with our first draft pick.

  19. By chad on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    I cant beleave on the fan pole everyone thinks Snyder is are best free agent signing…? Guys Levi Brown is so fare are best signing…!

  20. By cardsalltheway on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    “The new rule would allow a player to return after eight weeks.”
    I would consider putting one or both G. Toler and R. Williams on IR. If Williams goes down early he will likely BE the 2nd round bust I and other fans were afraid of. Why take that chance?

  21. By cardsalltheway on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    Chuck 1,
    Please provide a link to whatever you’re talking about? I don’t know what it is and we wouldn’t know who ‘Big B’ is/was if ‘Bernie’ didn’t reply to you ~ I’m guessing ‘Bernie’ is ‘Big B’? Still, I think you’re lost(wrong thread?). Anyway Bernie, I think Darren enjoys the “protecting” fans go out of their way(while sounding silly) to show for him. BTW, “unpolite” is not a word.

    Big Red,
    Bert and Bernie?

    I don’t think Ken W. will pick an Offensive Lineman at # 13, not even DeCastro. I would normally agree with that if R. Grimm had ever shown he could make our O-line worth much of anything or turn a player into a standout.

  22. By D on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    Less than 30 days to the draft…my best guess of the players that should be around the 13th pick that AZ may have strong interest in:

    1- M. Ingram OLB
    2- M. Floyd WR
    3- L Kuechly ILB

  23. By grabling on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply


    Please give me your opinion about the article “Free-agency losers” published March 28 by Jason Smith… (

    Cardinals last place in the NFC West?


  24. By Darren Urban on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    grabling —

    RE: Article thoughts

    1) Not sure where he got “missed on Reggie Wayne.” They were never chasing him.
    2) It’s his opinion. He could be right, he could be wrong. We’ll see if Flynn is actually better than Kolb, for instance (or even TJax, for that matter). Whether Moss still has something left or if he is the guy who wasn’t worth much two years ago.

  25. By Chuck 1 on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    To cardsalltheway,

    My comment to Big B aka (I believe) Bernie was a response to an earlier thread (“William Gay a Card? Yes, William Gay a Card”) in which we disagreed about him saying that Darren was rude to fans.

    At the time, I was unavailable to respond to his last comment on that thread.

    I don’t consider myself a “protector” of Darren (as pointed out, he is perfectly capable of doing that himself), just a fan who believes that I can respond when another fan makes a comment that I believe is not accurate.

    PS: In checking my Thesaurus, it does list “unpolite” (and “impolite”, which I believe most people would use) as a synonym for “rude”.

  26. By Scott H on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    Darren –

    RE: Article thoughts

    You are correct, sir – they were never chasing Reggie Wayne. THAT is the problem. They didn’t chase Wayne or ANY OF THE OTHER SEVERAL WR’S that were available. And it ain’t like they went down swinging, either. In baseball terms, they stood there with the bat on their shoulders…looking like they had no intention of swinging.

    Unfortunately, that article hit the overall issue right on the nose – the 13-3 49ers ( who were only a few plays away from going to a Super Bowl ) have approached FA like a team that wanted to get even better. And they have. Just saw where they signed Brandon Jacobs today. Is he Adrian Peterson? No. Does he have to be Adrian Peterson to make a team like the 49ers better? No. Does he make the 49ers just a little bit better / deeper? Yes. He does.

    The 8-8 Cardinals have, on the other hand, approached FA like a team that didn’t need to improve anywhere. And, unfortuantely, that is exactly what they achieved. They didn’t get better anywhere. And THAT is truly the source of my angst. Never mind what the 49ers or Seahawks did or didn’t do. It is what the Cardinals DID NOT DO that makes THEIR apparent improvements loom as large as they do.

    Did the Seahawks improve at all with Matt Flynn? Remains to be seen. But they were AGGRESSIVE in addressing an area of obvious need. They apparently tried like heck to get themselves in the bidding for Peyton Manning. When that didn’t happen, they went right after the guy generally regarded as the best FA QB available. And they got it done. Period.

    Did the 49ers improve at all? I believe they absolutely did. Even if they didn’t, it might not matter – because they are already several miles better than this team is right now.

  27. By Darren Urban on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    Scott H —

    RE: Free agency

    I hesitate to engage in this right now, because apparently there are people out there that feel I’m too caustic, but I’m going to anyway.

    Explain to me, exactly, what you would have liked to see them do given the cap space with which they were working with? I don’t know the exact number, but clearly, they were over the cap before they cut Levi and they were going to be working the tight rope the whole time. They made it pretty clear they weren’t going to be attacking in free agency and yet people still act like they were blindsided.

    Let’s suppose, for a minute, that they took Michael Floyd in the first round (and I’m not saying they will or that they plan to or anything. It’s a hypothetical.) Does that change what you are thinking? They clearly looked into Laurent Robinson but he was (over)paid by the Jaguars. Maybe they didn’t like any of the other receivers out there. Maybe they didn’t see what the upgrade was from the WRs in their price range (again, cap can’t be forgotten, even though many seem to want to) compared to bringing back Doucet, for instance.

    I laugh at the idea that it’s about effort, because please, you don’t mean that. You mean that now, but the Cards made that effort last year. They were aggressive, they signed all kinds of players. They grabbed an inside linebacker named Stewart Bradley. Now people can’t wait to get rid of him. People were angry the Cards didn’t sign Braylon Edwards. How’d that work out for the Niners? A waste of time. People want the Cards to re-sign Adrian Wilson to an extension and Darnell and Fitz and now Calais and yet sign every free agent whose name is recognizable.

    Look, I get the frustration. But this doesn’t happen in a vacuum. I feel confident in saying the Cards know they have to get better in places, and I feel confident they know on a deeper level than anyone else. If you want to follow a team that will make a yearly splash in free agency, you need to follow the Redskins. The Cards went out and got the 2011 version of Matt Flynn, remember? They were, from your definition, aggressive.

    (And we’ll see on the Niners additions. Name me one time Manningham did something that made the NFL world take notice before his Super Bowl catch. One Giants writer suggested Jacobs might not even make the team in San Francisco. And I have my doubts on Moss.)

    P.S. And you’ve been on this blog awhile so I believe you will take this in the way I mean in and not get upset with me. But this is how I operate. If some are uncomfortable with that, I’m not sure what to tell those people. Guess I saw your post at the wrong time. Or right time. I’m not sure.

  28. By Louisville Card on Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

    In a way I agree with both of you…the only reason is because they tried to sign Peyton???…who wouldn’t try too but if they obviously didn’t have the money to compete with anyone why even bring him here???

    That for a brief moment made me think they had the money to make a move or two. If you can’t afford a Mercedes don’t go kicking the tires. It gives false hope to fans.

    I would’ve been more than content going into the off season knowing they were in a cap strangle hold and seeing no moves. Is that what happened no, but why is my? Your thought’s Darren I can understand if you need to abstain…

  29. By Darren Urban on Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

    Louisville –

    RE: Manning

    I still believe they were genuine in PM chase. In his case, I think they would have moved heaven and earth to make it happen.

  30. By Rio on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    Darren, i feel sorry for you having to listen to this bunch of jerks.

  31. By Cactus jeff on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply


    Good response, here is my theory on this. I do not believe in FA to add to depth. We get overpaid below average NFL players(Bradley, Heap, McFadden). I want the Cardinals to do what the Ravens did GOT Q, What the Bears GOT Peppers and 2 years later Marshall. What the Packers GOT Charles Woodson. What the Patriots GOT Moss and now Lloyd. Yes Redskins were reckless but not the rest of the good teams. Depth with the draft….studs with FA. Now we are mad because that ship has sailed.

  32. By Darren Urban on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    Cactus Jeff —

    RE: Studs in trade/FA

    I get that and you make good points. But I’d argue that, in every case you cite, there were other factors involved. Q was available here because the relationship had frayed. Marshall has issues beyond the field, and so did Moss. I can’t remember the Woodson specifics, but Peppers came to a defense in which they needed a star and, like Buffalo with Mario Williams, were probably the one team willing to pay him what they did.

    Bottom line is this: I don’t see the Cards, with Graves and Whisenhunt running the show, ever being the team to sign the guy to the huge contract right out of the gate. They prefer to draft a guy and pay him to keep him, a la Fitz, Wilson, Dockett. You can argue they should do it the other way, but I don’t see it changing.

  33. By BIG RED on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    Wrong, Bevis and Butt-head

  34. By Dre 1368 on Mar 29, 2012 | Reply

    Dam d that’s funny as hell. Good job you sounded smart while putting them clowns in there place lol. Your right about fa your up against the cap you can’t do anything. It’s good to pay your homegown talent. The problem I got is that fitz is a great player but his deal is killing the team. how can one player take so much money I know it’s fitz. if we don’t pay him there is 31 teams on that like flys on _. we got stay the coarse build threw the draft it works. Look at the packers one big signing in the last six years or further. Draft smart build depth next man up. I wish we would of gotten Chaz tho tall and fast can return punts and kickoffs to bad he didnt become one of us the red sea. Even tho he get hurt often.

  35. By clssylssy on Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

    As I recall, Fitz’s contract was heavily backloaded and he could go ANYWHERE and probably get a better deal; I consider him a much better player than Calvin Johnson and Megatron’s contract makes the one we gave Fitz pale. Fitz has been the glue to hold this team together while we “rebuild”. Every team needs that veteran great player and the really solid teams have more than one. Fans buy merchandise and season tickets to see the star players like Fitz and, in comparison, the Cards have played it pretty tight to the vest. As I recall, we even beat Green Bay out of the playoffs a few years ago while their youngmen were still gaining experience.
    As far as challenges go, I think this is where you separate the good coaches from the greats and in Coach Whisenhunt’s tenure I think he has won more challenges than he’s lost. I really kinda hate to see the game totally deferring to the booth. I guess I don’t see the logic is not being consistent and still having the refs go “under the hood” on the field, unless it’s just for show and to give the illusion to the fans that this is still the same game. Can you explain that Darren?

  36. By Darren Urban on Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

    Clssy —

    RE: Replays

    I have to be honest, I’m not sure what you are asking me to explain.

  37. By clssylssy on Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

    As I understand it, there was consideration at the meeting to have all plays reviewed and decided in the booth however, teams decided not to and still have some plays reviewed on the field by the officials under the hood. I guess I didn’t understand why they would do this as I’ve read several articles saying that this was going to be the way of the future.

    A break with tradition on replay
    With expansion to turnovers, it won’t be long before booth makes all
    replay calls
    Originally Published: March 28, 2012
    By John Clayton |

    ” The proposal that drew the most opposition was the Buffalo Bills’
    suggestion to take replay officiating out of the hands of the referee
    and move it fully into the replay booth. The Bills were about the only
    team supporting that move, but don’t think they aren’t visionaries with
    their proposal.
    They see the trend. Last year, replay officials were given the ability
    to review all scoring plays. This year, they will review all turnovers.
    The next step is having replay officials do all the reviews. The Bills
    see it coming. Eventually, all replays will be decided by a booth

    lol…no big, nevermind…

  38. By Dre on Mar 30, 2012 | Reply

    I said that in my comment 31 team would be there to sign him did you not read it. So I do know what fitz means to the team.

  39. By Scott H on Mar 31, 2012 | Reply

    Darren –

    First, I appreciate your time in responding and, NO, I take no offense to anything you say. You’ve never been caustic toward me ( that I know of, anyway! ) so, I don’t take your comments that way. Like wise, my comments are never intended to attack you. I know the Cardinals are your employer but I don’t believe you are involved in personnel matters. Some comments in response…

    Last off-season, I appaluded the team for getting Kolb. He was regarded as the best QB option available and they made that happen. But beyond that, I fail to see how any of their other FA aquisitions amounted to much. Richard Marshall was a pleasant surprise. But that is nullified by the fact that he is now somewhere else. They may have signed a “bunch” of players but we didn’t get a lot from most of them. Quantity did not translate to quality, in my opinion.

    And as I’ve pointed out ad nauseum, perhaps Kolb would not have been necessary IF John Skelton had gotten the playing time he COULD have gotten during the 2010 season. Skelton may yet prove to be the better QB. It’s all water under the bridge at this point. But I think it’s no less valid a point that had we seen more of Skelton sooner – during what was clearly a lost season – we may have not “needed” Kolb as much as we did.

    Living in New Jersey, I see a lot of Giants games and with all due respect, i think Manningham is a much better player that you ( apparently ) give him credit for . That’s not something I can make you see if you haven’t seen it on your own. I’ve noticed him MANY times before his big catch in the SB. How many Giants games can you honestly say that you’ve seen during his time there? We can touch base on this down the road when he has had a chance to play with the 49ers for awhile. Who know what he will be? But I think he is a very good WR who landed in a great situation with San Fran.

    Laurent Robinson is an interesting case…he went on an absolute tear in Dallas last year when Austin went down. He may very well disappear in Jacksonville because there is nothing else there. In Arizona with Larry Fitzgerald on the other side? May have been a VERY different story. What some of these guys do in other places may not be what they might have done here with an elite WR occupying so much of the defense’s attention.

    OK, we could go on forever. Again, thank you very sincerely for the time you gave in responding. It’a always appreciated. I DO love this team and that’s where all the frustration comes from. If I didn’t care, you wouldn’t hear from me.

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Mar 28, 2012: New rules instituted at owners meetings |

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: