Any defensive player within the tackle box, and on the line of scrimmage must line up in a 3-pt stance and go toward the line of scrimmage on the snap.
How would this effect defensive strategy?
Its the end of the zone blitz, and a significant aid to the offense, especially the passing game. Increased use of 3 man and less front lines.
Did zone blitzes start because the loophole was noticed by coaches?
Would you also change it that any offensive player within the tackle box and on the line of scrimmage must line up in a 3-pt stance and go toward the line of scrimmage on the snap? So, no pulling guards, etc? If not, why not?
I like offense.
Real tackling, where the player has to make an attempt to grab and hold rather than just a collision.
No helmets and armour, or minimal amounts.
Then you must love the NFL this year, because the new defensive holding and illegal contact rules seem to mean that defense backs aren’t actually allowed to be within two yards of a receiver. (Only a slight exaggeration there.) Though from what I’ve seen, the main effect is to make games slightly more boring, because its turning into a game where either the offense is allowed to run wild, or the referees are allowed to run wild. Might as well just require the defense to only field nine players at a time.
The rule change I’d like to see is to make every offensive player an eligible receiver.
Id like to get rid of the ability to throw the ball away and let more sacks happen. No penalty needs to be thrown; if the QB throws the ball away such that there’s no hope for a reception just to avoid a sack, it counts as a sack and the ball is placed where the QB was when he threw it.
Why? Because I like defense. 
Why do we need a two-minute warning? How come baseball managers are so smart and attentive to the game, that they do not need a ninth-inning warning?
There are a million stupid rules. The quarterback spikes the ball or throws it into the stands, that’s not “intentional grounding”
Snapping the ball one second late is “delay of game”, and then the officials delay the game by a full minute marching off the penalty.
By far the worst, most serious penalty in football is when the kickoff goes out of bounds, in which case the penalty can be as much as 44 yards.
What “loophole?” The defense can line up its 11 players however it wants. This is one of the few strategic advantages the defense has, and it has always been that way. I understand the attraction of “more offense,” but you’re doing pretty serious violence to the basic mechanics of the sport.
I also suspect that if what you like is passing plays, you’d see less of them, not more. Teams will virtually all move away from the 4-man base DL; it’ll be more and more 3-4, 2-4, 2-5 kind of fronts on first downs. The modern passing game is so sophisticated that you really can’t afford to commit 4 guys to the pass rush pre-snap on every single down. The offensive countermeasure will then be to run the ball up the gut against those smaller fronts. From the defenses’ POV, a relatively easy 3-5 yards up the gut might be preferable to the greater explosive potential of the passing game; more of a “bend but don’t break” approach, as teams just learn to live with giving up 6 yards on a first-and-ten run up the gut in order to keep their pass defenses intact. That is increased offense, but probably not in the way you were envisioning.
The two-minute warning is not because coaches don’t know, but as an aid to teams trying to come back.
The intentional grounding rule was loosened in the interests of player (QB) safety. Zyanthia likes defense, and I agree, but the sport also likes healthy QBs.
And think about what happens if you don’t have a clock that determines when a delay of game occurs. A team with the lead, or who just wants to shorten the game, is going to sit on the ball until you make them snap it. What, exactly, is your better solution?
My objection is not to the enforcement of the rule, but to the cavalier terminology of calling it “delay of game”. It’s a clock violation, not a “delay”. The penalty could be to let the play go ahead, but charge the offending team with a time-out. Time-outs are very dear, and if I were a coach, I’d usually rather give up the 5 yards than the time-out.
Zak: pulling linemen are moving parallel to the line.
I get your point with the name. It probably made more sense in the era before interminiable replay reviews and referee huddles and commercial breaks. In fact, it does make sense if you watch a high school game.
Originally it was because many fields didn’t have clocks, and the referee used it to let the teams plan for the end of the game. It has stayed largely as an advertising opportunity.
In some cases sure. More often they take a step or two backwards first. They can’t count on their linemate moving the D forward.
Make pass interference reviewable. It’s the play that seems to get the most whining. Every time a player misses a pass, he spreads out his hands theatrically begging “Where’s the flag?”. I personally consider it the flopping of the NFL.
If it’s reviewed and there was no contact, make it a draconian penalty.
Hub-Other than a draconian penalty for it NOT being PI, I agree totally.
I played DB in high school and college. I guess that makes me a little biased to how often the WR gets the benefit of the doubt. 