PDA

View Full Version : Hines Ward rule???



Starlifter
01-17-2010, 09:41 AM
so I'm watching the cards yesterday and warner throws a pick. unbelievably he attempts to try to tackle a 300 lb lineman and as he's moving in he totally gets decleated and almost killed by a comeback block. I thought that was the whole purpose of the Hines Ward rule, to protect a player who doesn't see it coming. of course the hypocrisy of the rule is that it only applies to an offensive guy taking out keith rivers (ooops) not a defensive guy dang near ending warners career.....

NorthCoast
01-17-2010, 10:06 AM
Did anyone else catch the penalty on R. Lewis' head-to-head against the receiver in the endzone? It was clearly a penalty, and as the refs mike came on you could hear Lewis in the background screaming "come on man, it's football!!" Hate Lewis, but I think he's right...the game has really changed from the Tatum and Lambert...and who was the guy that pile-drived TB into the turf?.. days.

plainnasty
01-17-2010, 10:33 AM
so I'm watching the cards yesterday and warner throws a pick. unbelievably he attempts to try to tackle a 300 lb lineman and as he's moving in he totally gets decleated and almost killed by a comeback block. I thought that was the whole purpose of the Hines Ward rule, to protect a player who doesn't see it coming. of course the hypocrisy of the rule is that it only applies to an offensive guy taking out keith rivers (ooops) not a defensive guy dang near ending warners career.....

The purpose of the rule is to prevent helmet to helmet contact on a blind side hit.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
01-17-2010, 10:46 AM
Wouldn't it be nice if the NFL rule book were easily referenced on line? I know I've had a hard time finding it in the past, and I read recently that it's not really available.

I kind of thought the Hines Ward rule was that if the guy is far from the play and "defenseless" you can't whack him. Warner wasn't far from the play, he was going for the tackle, so I figured maybe that's why the guy who hit him wasn't penalized.

But who knows for sure?

Iron Shiek
01-17-2010, 10:54 AM
Rivers was in position,albeit trailing the play, to make a tackle when hines flattened him. So Im confused.

Starlifter
01-17-2010, 11:10 AM
ok, i'll ask it this way. if hines ward was suddenly playing for the saints on defense and makes that block - does he get a penalty?..... :stirpot :stirpot

SanAntonioSteelerFan
01-17-2010, 12:16 PM
http://www.alien-earth.org/images/bat_signal.jpg

Calling Steelrzd, Ruth, or other knowledgable fans -

what exactly is the Hines Ward rule, and why didn't the guy who pancaked Warner yesterday get hit with a penalty under that rule?

stlrz d
01-17-2010, 12:17 PM
so I'm watching the cards yesterday and warner throws a pick. unbelievably he attempts to try to tackle a 300 lb lineman and as he's moving in he totally gets decleated and almost killed by a comeback block. I thought that was the whole purpose of the Hines Ward rule, to protect a player who doesn't see it coming. of course the hypocrisy of the rule is that it only applies to an offensive guy taking out keith rivers (ooops) not a defensive guy dang near ending warners career.....

The purpose of the rule is to prevent helmet to helmet contact on a blind side hit.

Or shoulder to helmet...or forearm to helmet.

But you are correct.

Warner was attempting to get in on the play and was hit with a shoulder in the chest.

RuthlessBurgher
01-17-2010, 12:28 PM
so I'm watching the cards yesterday and warner throws a pick. unbelievably he attempts to try to tackle a 300 lb lineman and as he's moving in he totally gets decleated and almost killed by a comeback block. I thought that was the whole purpose of the Hines Ward rule, to protect a player who doesn't see it coming. of course the hypocrisy of the rule is that it only applies to an offensive guy taking out keith rivers (ooops) not a defensive guy dang near ending warners career.....

The purpose of the rule is to prevent helmet to helmet contact on a blind side hit.

Or shoulder to helmet...or forearm to helmet.

But you are correct.

Warner was attempting to get in on the play and was hit with a shoulder in the chest.

Yup...blindside blocks are illegal if they come from the blocker's helmet, forearm or shoulder and lands to the head or neck area of the defender.

skyhawk
01-17-2010, 06:43 PM
I was amazed at the announcers saying it was a "perfectly" legal hit.

It IS a legal hit. Unless HINES does it.

As far as the rule goes, it doesn't matter what hits what. It's the "blindside" hit and defenseless player that matter. I still don't like the rule.

And I get so tired of the frickin OVERUSE of the term "helmet to helmet". If helmets hit, fine. That's what they are for. Unless they are used offensively and/or crowned. Helmets hit on every play. :wft

Shawn
01-17-2010, 10:13 PM
I have really come full circle on my thoughts about these issues. I used to be a "let them play football" type of guy. The more I see of this players in their 50's and 60's drooling on themselves the more I believe we need to make football a safer game.

These guys are humans and shouldn't have to sacrifice 20 years of their ability to wipe their own asc for a game. We shouldn't be so blood thirsty that we insist on that.

Therefore...if you implement rules like these all I want to see is them enforce them fairly and equally.

eniparadoxgma
01-18-2010, 03:44 PM
I have really come full circle on my thoughts about these issues. I used to be a "let them play football" type of guy. The more I see of this players in their 50's and 60's drooling on themselves the more I believe we need to make football a safer game.

These guys are humans and shouldn't have to sacrifice 20 years of their ability to wipe their own asc for a game. We shouldn't be so blood thirsty that we insist on that.

Therefore...if you implement rules like these all I want to see is them enforce them fairly and equally.

I dunno man. Certain jobs carry certain risks and IMO if someone chooses to get into a line of work in which there are certain occupational hazards then that is their choice. Football is the modern day version of gladiator combat, where opponents get in a ring and bash their heads into each other for our amusement. If the violence isn't there then it isn't football.

These people are well compensated and they know (or should know) the risks inherent in the sport.

I don't wish brain damage or any type of debilitating injuries on anyone. However, it is a risk in football as well as boxing. I don't know of any way to take the risks out of the sports and have them remain what they are.

There are also chances of injuries in any sport. It's a fine line and I think we're already crossing it in terms of the over-pussification of football.

feltdizz
01-18-2010, 03:55 PM
I agree... We are at a point where a hit on a player that separates him from the ball is wrong or unsportsman like conduct. Hitting a QB is 50-50 when he is in a throwing motion. Touch his head with your finger and it's 15... Hit him too low or land on him and it's 15.

It's to a point now where everytime a great play happens I look up to see if the flag has been thrown. My other disgust is the flag without a replay of the illegal activity.

Shawn
01-18-2010, 05:56 PM
I have really come full circle on my thoughts about these issues. I used to be a "let them play football" type of guy. The more I see of this players in their 50's and 60's drooling on themselves the more I believe we need to make football a safer game.

These guys are humans and shouldn't have to sacrifice 20 years of their ability to wipe their own asc for a game. We shouldn't be so blood thirsty that we insist on that.

Therefore...if you implement rules like these all I want to see is them enforce them fairly and equally.

I dunno man. Certain jobs carry certain risks and IMO if someone chooses to get into a line of work in which there are certain occupational hazards then that is their choice. Football is the modern day version of gladiator combat, where opponents get in a ring and bash their heads into each other for our amusement. If the violence isn't there then it isn't football.

These people are well compensated and they know (or should know) the risks inherent in the sport.

I don't wish brain damage or any type of debilitating injuries on anyone. However, it is a risk in football as well as boxing. I don't know of any way to take the risks out of the sports and have them remain what they are.

There are also chances of injuries in any sport. It's a fine line and I think we're already crossing it in terms of the over-pussification of football.

Para...believe me I see your points...I used to be on board. I agree football is a gladiator sport. I agree there are inherent risks. But, if you can change the game a bit to make it safer...why not do that? I just find it sad to see these players not know their own name by age 50. No amount of money is worth that.

Maybe, I'm gettin' old and soft...I don't know but I think most of the contact rules are good ones. I just wish they were enforced equally.

Iron Shiek
01-18-2010, 06:02 PM
Shawn ---> :cry: :cry:

Ha :lol: just teasin ye :stirpot

Shawn
01-18-2010, 06:04 PM
Shawn ---> :cry: :cry:

Ha :lol: just teasin ye :stirpot

:lol:

I know...I embarass my own self sometimes. Losing testosterone with age sucks. :D

plainnasty
01-18-2010, 09:17 PM
I was amazed at the announcers saying it was a "perfectly" legal hit.

It IS a legal hit. Unless HINES does it.

As far as the rule goes, it doesn't matter what hits what. It's the "blindside" hit and defenseless player that matter. I still don't like the rule.

And I get so tired of the frickin OVERUSE of the term "helmet to helmet". If helmets hit, fine. That's what they are for. Unless they are used offensively and/or crowned. Helmets hit on every play. :wft

"The NFL today approved four new rules that focus on player safety, including the so-called Hines Ward Rule that affects blocking tactics.

The blocking rule makes illegal a blindside block if it comes from the blocker's helmet, forearm or shoulder and lands to the head or neck area of the defender. One of the highlights the NFL competition committee used to portray such a block was the one Ward threw last season that broke the jaw of Cincinnati rookie linebacker Keith Rivers."


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09083/957938-100.stm

SanAntonioSteelerFan
01-18-2010, 09:28 PM
I was amazed at the announcers saying it was a "perfectly" legal hit.

It IS a legal hit. Unless HINES does it.

As far as the rule goes, it doesn't matter what hits what. It's the "blindside" hit and defenseless player that matter. I still don't like the rule.

And I get so tired of the frickin OVERUSE of the term "helmet to helmet". If helmets hit, fine. That's what they are for. Unless they are used offensively and/or crowned. Helmets hit on every play. :wft

"The NFL today approved four new rules that focus on player safety, including the so-called Hines Ward Rule that affects blocking tactics.

The blocking rule makes illegal a blindside block if it comes from the blocker's helmet, forearm or shoulder and lands to the head or neck area of the defender. One of the highlights the NFL competition committee used to portray such a block was the one Ward threw last season that broke the jaw of Cincinnati rookie linebacker Keith Rivers."


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09083/957938-100.stm

:wft Where else is a block going to come from, the knee? But thanks for posting, at least we know. Presumably the key phrase is " ... and lands to the head or neck area of the defender".

I also notice it says nothing about the guy getting blocked being "defenseless" ... he could in turn be getting ready to ring someone else's bell.