The NFL's annual meeting got underway in Orlando, Florida, on Sunday and will run through Wednesday. While league meetings aren't tentpole offseason events like free agency and the draft, they can have a massive effect on the upcoming season.

The league's next meeting is scheduled to begin on May 20 in Nashville, Tennessee.

This week, league officials, franchise owners and coaches will gather to discuss, among other things, some potentially impactful rule proposals.

Included in the list is a proposal to ban the hip-drop tackle and a proposal to substantially change how kickoffs are conducted.

Here, we'll dive into the most notable proposals for 2024 and weigh the pros and cons of implementation for each.

Banning the Hip-Drop Tackle

In an effort to emphasize player safety, the league will consider banning the controversial hip-drop tackle. The language of the proposal calls for a 15-yard penalty when a defender grabs or wraps a ball-carrier and unweights himself by swiveling and dropping his hips and/or lower body, landing on and trapping the runner's leg(s) at or below the knee."

It's the type of tackle that Cincinnati Bengals linebacker Logan Wilson used on Baltimore Ravens tight end Mark Andrews that led to Andrews' Week 11 ankle injury.

It's worth noting that Andrews didn't blame Wilson for the injury.

"It kind of was just an unfortunate event," the tight end said, per Clifton Brown and Ryan Mink of the team's official website.

However, the league believes the technique carries a significantly higher risk of injury than other tackles and will consider removing it from the game.

Pro: Player Safety

The NFL is a star-driven league, and no one wants to see players injured when an injury could have been avoided.

"The greatest asset for any athlete is durability and availability," NFL executive vice president Troy Vincent said, per ESPN's Kevin Seifert. "When you have a play that has a 20-25 times the injury rate, it doesn't allow you to fulfill your dreams."

If banning the hip-drop tackle leads to fewer significant injuries, great. And while it would be difficult to officiate in real time, the same could be said for the horse-collar tackle, which was banned in 2005.

It took time for defenders to adjust, but rules regarding the horse-collar tackle are now widely accepted and, generally, cleanly officiated.

Con: It Will Take Time for Players, Officials to Adjust

The potential problem with banning the hip-drop tackle is that officiating it will be extremely difficult, especially at first. Game officials already have a hard time making judgment calls on penalties like pass interference, leading with the crown of the helmet and roughing the passer.

Deciding in the moment whether a tackle is truly a hip-drop takedown or an unintentional instance of players falling awkwardly won't be easy.

It also won't be easy for defenders who have been playing a certain way their entire careers to adjust—and there has already been substantial pushback from current and former players.

"I want them to act it out at full speed and create a video for the players," former NFL cornerback Richard Sherman posted on X. "At some point during the creation of that video they will realize how insane this is."

Like the horse-collar tackle—or more recently, hits on defenseless receivers—penalties for hip-drop tackles could be very tough to avoid and call in the early going.

New Kickoff Rules

With full-speed collisions making the traditional kickoff a dangerous play, the league has moved to make returns less frequent. Last year, the NFL added the option for returners to fair-catch the ball on kickoffs, resulting in a position on the 25-yard line.

However, fewer returns have made the kickoff an all-but-meaningless play while devaluing players who specialize in returns. The proposed 2024 change would implement a kickoff style similar to what fans may have seen in the XFL last season.

Under the proposed format, kickers would still kick off from the 35-yard line, but the other 10 players from the kicking team would line up at the opposing 40-yard line. The receiving team would line up with at least seven players in the "set-up zone," a five-yard area between the 30- and 35-yard line.

Until the ball hits the ground, is fielded or lands in the end zone, the kicker cannot cross the 50-yard line, and the rest of the kicking team, along with those in the "set-up zone" cannot move.

Kickoffs would include a "landing zone" that stretches from the goal line to the 20-yard line. Balls landing in that zone must be returned or downed. A downed ball would give the offense the ball at the 20-yard line. A kick that does not reach the landing zone would be treated as out of bounds, meaning the offense would start at the 40-yard line. Touchbacks would give the offense the ball at the 30—it was originally the 35-yard line under the inital proposal but was tweaked on Sunday, according to Seifert.

A look at the XFL kickoff can be found here (h/t Alex Barth of 98.5 The Sports Hub).

Pro: Kickoffs Would Matter Again While Still Being Safe

The proposed rule change would increase the number of returns. Specialists, like 2024 Hall of Famer Devin Hester, would become valuable again, and the kickoff would become more than just a bathroom break or added commercial opportunity.

And with players not regularly colliding at a full sprint, the proposed kickoff would, theoretically, result in fewer impact injuries than the traditional one.

Con: No Surprise Onside Kicks and Questionable Scoring Penalties

The competitive downside to the proposed change is that it wouldn't allow for surprise onside-kick attempts. From Michael Baca of NFL.com:

"The trailing team has the opportunity to declare an onside kick to the officials from the fourth quarter on. Current onside kick rules apply, and if the ball goes beyond the set up zone untouched, the kicking team would be penalized and the returning team's drive would start at the 20-yard line."

We don't see surprise onside-kick attempts often, but they do occur—the New Orleans Saints famously did it after halftime in Super Bowl XLIV. Effectively, they would not function under the proposed kickoff change.

The Philadelphia Eagles, it should be noted, have proposed a rule that would allow a team to substitute a 4th-and-20 play for an onside kick. Even in that scenario, though, the surprise element would be lacking.

Another potential issue relates to penalties on scoring plays. Those would now be enforced on the point-after try instead of giving teams the option to enforce on the try or the ensuing kickoff. That could make it much easier for a defender to justify committing a penalty in certain situations since it would create, at worst, a one-point swing instead of impacting valuable field position.

Play-Clock Review

If you've ever been watching the NFL, seen the ball snapped with double zeros on the play clock, not seen a delay-of-game penalty called and wondered what the heck is going on, you're not alone.

Oftentimes, it does feel like the offense "got away with one," and sometimes it happens in huge moments.

In 2021, for example, officials may have missed a delay-of-game call against the Ravens right before Justin Tucker drilled a 66-yard, game-winning field goal.

"In this case the back judge will be looking at the play clock and taking his eyes from the play clock back down to the ball. When he sees zero on the play clock, he will move his head directly down to the football. That snap needs to occur right at that time," former NFL official Gene Steratore said on the CBS postgame show following that game, per Tim Schwartz of the Baltimore Sun.

More recently, San Francisco 49ers running back Christian McCaffrey scored a touchdown in the 2023 postseason on a play that was awfully close to being a delay of game—though certainly not an obvious miss.

The proposed change would allow for a replay review when there is "clear and obvious evidence" that a clock violation occurred.

Pro: It's Important to Get Things Right

Missed calls stink for teams, fans and players. When the league can ensure that it doesn't miss obvious calls, it should take the opportunity to do so.

That's more important than ever in an era of legalized sports betting. The NFL has partnered with several sports-betting companies, and it's imperative that the league eliminates any hint that outcomes are influenced or fixed.

Do you remember the ludicrous Super Bowl logo conspiracy from just a few months ago?

Making play-clock violations reviewable would help provide more transparency to officiating while ensuring that no offenses are "getting away with one."

Con: More Stoppages

The downside to making another play reviewable is that it could lead to more stoppages at a time when some NFL games already seem to drag along slowly.

ESPN analyst Troy Aikman even criticized officials for taking too long with a review during a Week 14 game between the Green Bay Packers and New York Giants.

Fans don't want more delays or slower-paced games, and this proposed change would provide more opportunities for game stoppages.

Expanded Crackback-Block Rules

Most recent rule changes have favored the offense, with defensive players getting little in return. One proposed rule change, though, would specifically make the game safer for defenders.

Crackback blocks—where an offensive player moves from the outer edge of the field toward the middle of the field, blindsiding a defender—are already illegal. The proposed change would expand the rule to include "players who go in motion and move beyond the center to block a defender at or below the knee."

Under the current rule, for example, a receiver in motion could sprint across the backfield and hit a defender on the edge at the knees legally because he isn't working toward the middle of the field.

Under the proposed rule expansion, such a dangerous maneuver would be deemed illegal and would result in a 15-yard penalty.

Pro: Player Safety

The rule regarding crackback blocks is one of the few that specifically focus on player safety for defenders—ball-carriers can also be flagged for leading with the crown of the helmet, though we rarely see that enforced.

Expanding the rule would be a big step in the right direction regarding defensive player safety.

When defenders are hit below the waist at full speed, there is a substantial injury risk. Under the current rules, though, the maneuver is only illegal if involved in a crackback block or a chop block—a hit below the waist on a defender who is already engaged with another blocker.

Blocks below the waist would still be legal if executed by, say, a running back who was not in motion before the snap—backs commonly use cut blocks against bigger defenders in pass protection. However, the proposed expansion would help protect defenders from being blindsided by players they didn't see coming across the formation pre-snap.

Con: More Opportunities for Penalties and Missed Calls

Really, the only downside to this proposal is that it would create more opportunities for officials to throw flags.

This could A.) slow down games further and B.) give officials one more thing to monitor when trying to track all 22 players at a time is already difficult. It's a relatively minor drawback, but should the proposal pass, fans should be prepared for a few more Monday morning discussions about the state of NFL officiating.

A Later Trade Deadline

According to CBS Sports' Jonathan Jones, six different franchises proposed pushing the NFL trade deadline back by two weeks. Under the proposal, the deadline would come after Week 10 instead of following Week 8.

The argument for making a change is that the trade deadline comes too early in the season. Cleveland Browns general manager Andrew Berry said the following, per Jones:

"When you look at the other major four sports leagues … I think baseball and basketball, their trade deadline is after about 65% of their games have been played. Hockey's after 78%. We're currently at 45%. Our proposal would move it to about 55% of games played, while also maintaining the integrity of the season."

Per Jones, a change that would move the trade deadline to after Week 9 is also being considered.

Pro: A Later Deadline Just Makes Sense

If we're being logical, a later deadline makes nothing but sense for the NFL. The league expanded to an 18-week season in 2021 without adjusting the timing of the trade deadline. Even in a 17-week season, the deadline came with more than half of the campaign to go.

It's relevant because football injuries don't adhere to a timeline. Injuries can, have and will impact playoff runs late in the season, and a later trade deadline would better allow playoff-caliber teams to adjust.

This past season, for example, Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson suffered a season-ending shoulder injury in Week 10. Cleveland still made the playoffs after signing street free agent Joe Flacco, and it's not as if there would have been a glut of starting-caliber quarterbacks available.

Under the proposed deadline shift, however, the Browns would at least have had the option of trading for, say, Jacoby Brissett in the wake of a season-altering injury.

As Berry noted, the current deadline isn't exactly proportional to the length of the season.

Con: The Risk of More Tanking

The downside of a later deadline is that franchises that are effectively out of the playoff race may be even more inclined to part with talent in an effort to "tank."

"Waiting later in the season to determine whether a team is a buyer or a seller could create teams being encouraged to trade away key players and be less competitive as the months turn colder," Jones wrote.

We already see this phenomenon to a degree with the current deadline. The Washington Commanders, for example, traded pass-rushers Montez Sweat and Chase Young at the 2023 deadline.

Both players were on expiring contracts, and it was easy for Washington to sell the idea that it simply wanted to maximize assets and gain draft capital. However, the moves did significantly weaken the Commanders roster, which went winless after Week 9 and "earned" the No. 2 pick in the draft.

Franchises can't simply convince coaches and players to lose on purpose to better draft positioning. However, organizational tanking does happen in the NFL. A later trade deadline could encourage more of it.

Other Rule Proposals

While these five are the most potentially impactful changes proposed for the annual league meeting, other changes have been proposed. According to NFL.com, they are:

• A proposal by the Detroit Lions "to protect a club's ability to challenge a third ruling following one successful challenge."
• A proposal by the Philadelphia Eagles "to eliminate the first touch spot after the receiving team possesses the ball."
• A proposal by the Eagles "to permit a team to maintain possession of the ball after a score by substituting one offensive play (4th-and-20 from the kicking team's 20-yard line) for an onside kickoff attempt."
• A proposal by the Indianapolis Colts "to permit a coach or replay official (inside of two minutes) to challenge any foul that has been called."
• A proposal by the competition committee "to allow for an enforcement of a major foul by the offense prior to a change of possession in a situation where there are fouls by both teams."
• A proposal by the competition committee "to include a ruling of a passer down by contact or out of bounds before throwing a pass as a reviewable play."

As a reminder, all rules proposals must receive an affirmative vote from 24 of 32 franchises to pass.

Rules That Could Be Further Monitored in 2024

While there will be plenty to discuss at the league meetings, it's worth noting that other rule changes were considered but not proposed. For example, the league won't consider banning the quarterback-push play popularized by the Eagles.

"It was best to leave it alone," Vincent said, per Olivia Reiner of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

The NFL also won't address the controversial fumble-through-the-end-zone play that currently results in the defense gaining possession with a touchback.

"It's a play that has happened 12 times since 2018," Jonathan Jones posted on X. "Said another way, it has happened 12 times in roughly the last quarter-million plays. .0048% of plays the last 6 years."

Yet, this doesn't mean that these rules won't be addressed in the near future, and they are worth monitoring during the coming season. If, for example, Philadelphia's dominance with the "Tush Push" continues in the wake of Jason Kelce's retirement, the NFL may start to consider it an unfair advantage.

Similarly, if the end-zone fumble costs a team significantly in a marquee game, a rules change could gain traction. We saw it in the divisional round when Kansas City Chiefs receiver Mecole Hardman fumbled through the end zone, giving the Buffalo Bills possession. However, the Chiefs went on to win the game—and the Super Bowl—so there hasn't been a sustained uproar.

Had the Chiefs lost—as the Bills did without possessing the ball in overtime in the 2021 divisional game against Kansas City—we could be looking at an entirely different landscape. Overtime rules were changed the following offseason to ensure that both teams would possess the ball in a postseason overtime scenario.

Another potential future tweak to track involves roughing-the-passer penalties. Officials currently lean toward throwing the flag on a questionable late hit or illegal-contact play. The penalty is not reviewable, though, which can lead to mistakes.

As New York Jets head coach Robert Saleh noted in September, making roughing-the-passer reviewable would make things more fair for defensive players.

"If the mindset is to throw the flag when in doubt, then you should be able to review that," Saleh told reporters.

If we see a barrage of questionable roughing-the-passer penalties in 2024, expect this rule to become a topic of conversation.

None of these rules will be addressed this week, though, and many of the rules that have already been proposed could be tabled until the meetings in May. Still, there's a good chance that NFL games look and feel quite a bit different when the regular season kicks off in September.