PDA

View Full Version : NFL: You can no longer hit the QB while he is in the act of.



Dee Dub
03-16-2011, 07:52 PM
...THROWING A FOOTBALL!! Are you kidding me??

Rules defining a defenseless player will be expanded and now will include eight categories:

• A quarterback in the act of throwing;

• A receiver trying to catch a pass;

• A runner already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped;

• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

• A kicker or punter during the kick;

• A quarterback at any time after change of possession;

• A receiver who receives a blind-side block;

• A player already on the ground.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6223700

:HeadBanger

SteelTorch
03-16-2011, 07:54 PM
I really hope yinz like Arena football, cause that's exactly where this league is headed. :HeadBanger



WORST. COMMISSIONER. EVER.

Dee Dub
03-16-2011, 07:57 PM
I really hope yinz like Arena football, cause that's exactly where this league is headed. :HeadBanger



WORST. COMMISSIONER. EVER.

So let me get this straight...if a QB throws an interception and the defense is now on offense with the ball you can't block/hit the QB? He just gets a free run at making the tackle?

No way. :roll:

jj28west
03-16-2011, 07:59 PM
So if a quarterback goes back and pump fakes a million times you cant touch him until he releases? This is defined as an act of throwing. What is with this power junkie.

RuthlessBurgher
03-16-2011, 08:03 PM
Hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player are forbidden.

You cannot hit any of the above categories of players in the head or neck area.

SteelTorch
03-16-2011, 08:04 PM
Guys like James Harrison are being hunted to extinction. It seems like defenders can't do anything even remotely hard-hitting anymore. Get ready for more teams to score 50+ points in a given game.

Dee Dub
03-16-2011, 08:05 PM
Hits to the head and neck area of a defenseless player are forbidden.

You cannot hit any of the above categories of players in the head or neck area.

That is with any type of situation on the field. What is now different is the defining of the defenseless player. And that is any type of hit. Not just to the helmet or neck area.

hawaiiansteel
03-16-2011, 10:26 PM
maybe Roger can start by stopping these types of hits to the QB's head instead of just fining the player $25,000.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3FFmuuuSqLw/TOpDWpB6JHI/AAAAAAAAGtM/DewXGmTVduk/s1600/BS2.JPG

Chadman
03-16-2011, 10:28 PM
Oh dear... :HeadBanger

Discipline of Steel
03-16-2011, 11:02 PM
Head of the Competition Commitee:

"We confirmed a rule that has been there for more than 70 years which basically says there are three elements to a catch," McKay said.

So they wont make the Calvin Johnson rule because of the long tradition of the current rule but all the other rules are out the window. All of this over-scrutinizing is due to a 'stepped up commitment to safety.' The stepped up commitment to safety is due to the players resisting the 18 game rule because of increased injury concerns. Everything is focused toward the 18 games and making more money. They will spoil our game in the greedy pursuit of money. I like my football as its been for 70+ years...reactionary and violent. This entire year, with Goodell's personal vendetta against the defence, has really bothered me. Like someone else on this board said recently, 'I used to love baseball, too.' That may have to become my new mantra...

BradshawsHairdresser
03-16-2011, 11:20 PM
Looks to me like it would be a good time for someone to start up a professional football league.

feltdizz
03-16-2011, 11:46 PM
Is this all Goodell or is he acting in the interest of the owners who made this league what it is today? :wink:

Eich
03-17-2011, 08:19 AM
While they're at it, they might as well legalize holding. What's the point anyway? You can't touch QB's and everyone holds anyway. The penalty for holding is the most inconsistent call in the league. So fix a few birds with one stone and just legalize holding and protect those golden girl QB's.

Is there any other sport that changes rules as often as the NFL ?

flippy
03-17-2011, 08:34 AM
Breaking News : League to adopt Pro Bowl rules for all games :roll:

snarky
03-17-2011, 08:54 AM
Today's rule involves the ban on hitting defenseless players. In recent years the NFL has done more and more to prevent these hits first prohibiting hits on defenseless WRs, then certain blocks on defenders and now they're just banning hits on defenseless players altogether. An illegal hit on a defenseless player is when the initial force of contact by a players head, shoulder, or forearm is to the head or neck area.

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2010 ... es-hitting (http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2010/8/10/1615365/2010-nfl-rule-changes-hitting)

RuthlessBurgher
03-17-2011, 09:19 AM
Today's rule involves the ban on hitting defenseless players. In recent years the NFL has done more and more to prevent these hits first prohibiting hits on defenseless WRs, then certain blocks on defenders and now they're just banning hits on defenseless players altogether. An illegal hit on a defenseless player is when the initial force of contact by a players head, shoulder, or forearm is to the head or neck area.

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2010 ... es-hitting (http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2010/8/10/1615365/2010-nfl-rule-changes-hitting)

That's what I said earlier in this thread (more or less).

SteelTorch
03-17-2011, 09:37 AM
Today's rule involves the ban on hitting defenseless players. In recent years the NFL has done more and more to prevent these hits first prohibiting hits on defenseless WRs, then certain blocks on defenders and now they're just banning hits on defenseless players altogether. An illegal hit on a defenseless player is when the initial force of contact by a players head, shoulder, or forearm is to the head or neck area.

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2010 ... es-hitting (http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2010/8/10/1615365/2010-nfl-rule-changes-hitting)

That's what I said earlier in this thread (more or less).
Did you not read the initial post?? They've expanded the definition entirely - now a QB "in the act of throwing" is considered defenseless REGARDLESS of where or how he is it.

Dee Dub
03-17-2011, 11:37 AM
Today's rule involves the ban on hitting defenseless players. In recent years the NFL has done more and more to prevent these hits first prohibiting hits on defenseless WRs, then certain blocks on defenders and now they're just banning hits on defenseless players altogether. An illegal hit on a defenseless player is when the initial force of contact by a players head, shoulder, or forearm is to the head or neck area.

http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2010 ... es-hitting (http://www.bleedinggreennation.com/2010/8/10/1615365/2010-nfl-rule-changes-hitting)

That's what I said earlier in this thread (more or less).

But this isn’t correct. Already on the books, prior to this new ruling, is the rule that if a receiver is defenseless you cannot hit him at all. No kind of way. You can't even use your open hands as if to push him. And now this is going to be extended to these other 8 new definitions of a defenseless player. It doesn’t matter where you hit them, how you hit them, or with what part of your body you use.

Explain to me the current defenseless receiver rule. It has nothing to do with hitting them with the helmet, the shoulder or forearm to the head or neck area of the receiver. A penalty is thrown for any type of hit on a defenseless player not just those. This is now going to be extended to the new 8 definitions of a defenseless player.

Mister Pittsburgh
03-17-2011, 11:51 AM
I agree that someone should just create a new league. Adopt the rules from the NFL rulebook 10 years ago and start it up. The NFL blows now. Roger Goodell has ruined the NFL.

snarky
03-17-2011, 12:23 PM
Everywhere I can find a definition of the defenseless player rule (ESPN, blogs etc.) it specifically mentions the hits above the shoulders as being what makes the hit illegal.

So if you have a link to a different definition, please post it.

snarky
03-17-2011, 12:27 PM
from the link in the OP

"We want to be much more clear on what can be a suspendable incident," Anderson said. "The emphasis is on head and neck hits and what a defenseless player is. And we will work hard that people understand what is a repeat offender and what is a flagrant foul."

Dee Dub
03-17-2011, 01:15 PM
Everywhere I can find a definition of the defenseless player rule (ESPN, blogs etc.) it specifically mentions the hits above the shoulders as being what makes the hit illegal.

So if you have a link to a different definition, please post it.

Let me ask you this snarky…if a receiver goes up high off the ground to attempt a reception and the ball is over thrown off the tips of the receivers hands is the defender allowed to go up and hit the receiver mid-section with his shoulder?

Nope! He is deemed a defenseless receiver and a penalty is usually thrown.

flippy
03-17-2011, 01:16 PM
Breaking News - Heinz Field to Be Renamed Earl Grey Stadium and vendors will exclusively serve tea and crumpets.

I can hear it now "Getcha tea heeeeeea!!!!!"

I'm sure the new fans will go nuts if they don't quickly add Reunite and Cheeze Whiz to their menus.

RuthlessBurgher
03-17-2011, 01:20 PM
Everywhere I can find a definition of the defenseless player rule (ESPN, blogs etc.) it specifically mentions the hits above the shoulders as being what makes the hit illegal.

So if you have a link to a different definition, please post it.

Let me ask you this snarky…if a receiver goes up high off the ground to attempt a reception and the ball is over thrown off the tips of the receivers hands is the defender allowed to go up and hit the receiver mid-section with his shoulder?

Nope! He is deemed a defenseless receiver and a penalty is usually thrown.

You can't lead with your helmet or forearm into their head/neck area, and can't piledrive them into the ground with your full weight, but you can hit him.

Dee Dub
03-17-2011, 01:25 PM
Everywhere I can find a definition of the defenseless player rule (ESPN, blogs etc.) it specifically mentions the hits above the shoulders as being what makes the hit illegal.

So if you have a link to a different definition, please post it.

Let me ask you this snarky…if a receiver goes up high off the ground to attempt a reception and the ball is over thrown off the tips of the receivers hands is the defender allowed to go up and hit the receiver mid-section with his shoulder?

Nope! He is deemed a defenseless receiver and a penalty is usually thrown.

You can't lead with your helmet or forearm into their head/neck area, and can't piledrive them into the ground with your full weight, but you can hit him.

Nope...not if the receiver is outstretched (defenseless). They are calling that a penalty regardless of how you hit him and where. The key word here with the NFL is now "DEFENSELESS". That will define just about everything now.

flippy
03-17-2011, 01:28 PM
can't piledrive them into the ground with your full weight, but you can hit him.

That's why Paul Orndorf never made it as a football player.

I remember getting in trouble in school for trying to pile drive a friend. We didn't know you could actually snap someone's neck. We were just dumb kids.

So we practiced the figure four leg lock instead. That actually hurts if someone reverses it on you. To this day, that's the most classic move of all time in my book. Reversing the figure four leg lock.

Although a close second has to be the camel clutch. How'd they come up with that name? What the heck was the iran shiek doing to the poor camel? Actually now it sounds like a move that would be reserved for women's wrestling. They WWE needs a middle eastern women to put other women in the camel clutch. It would be a thing of beauty.

Steelgal
03-17-2011, 01:38 PM
...THROWING A FOOTBALL!!

Well, unless that quarterback is Ben Roethlisberger. Then feel free to punch him in the face, break his nose, and still NOT get a penalty for it :HeadBanger

snarky
03-17-2011, 01:48 PM
[quote=snarky]Everywhere I can find a definition of the defenseless player rule (ESPN, blogs etc.) it specifically mentions the hits above the shoulders as being what makes the hit illegal.

So if you have a link to a different definition, please post it.

Let me ask you this snarky…if a receiver goes up high off the ground to attempt a reception and the ball is over thrown off the tips of the receivers hands is the defender allowed to go up and hit the receiver mid-section with his shoulder?

Nope! He is deemed a defenseless receiver and a penalty is usually thrown.

You can't lead with your helmet or forearm into their head/neck area, and can't piledrive them into the ground with your full weight, but you can hit him.

Nope...not if the receiver is outstretched (defenseless). They are calling that a penalty regardless of how you hit him and where. The key word here with the NFL is now "DEFENSELESS". That will define just about everything now.[/quote:72ltegwa]

What exactly are you basing this on other than your opinion. Got a link to anything that can substantiate what you are saying?

Dee Dub
03-17-2011, 01:52 PM
[quote=snarky]Everywhere I can find a definition of the defenseless player rule (ESPN, blogs etc.) it specifically mentions the hits above the shoulders as being what makes the hit illegal.

So if you have a link to a different definition, please post it.

Let me ask you this snarky…if a receiver goes up high off the ground to attempt a reception and the ball is over thrown off the tips of the receivers hands is the defender allowed to go up and hit the receiver mid-section with his shoulder?

Nope! He is deemed a defenseless receiver and a penalty is usually thrown.

You can't lead with your helmet or forearm into their head/neck area, and can't piledrive them into the ground with your full weight, but you can hit him.

Nope...not if the receiver is outstretched (defenseless). They are calling that a penalty regardless of how you hit him and where. The key word here with the NFL is now "DEFENSELESS". That will define just about everything now.

What exactly are you basing this on other than your opinion. Got a link to anything that can substantiate what you are saying?[/quote:34c77qpl]

It's what they have been calling the past two years in the NFL. Ryan Clark had one of these this past year. No helmet to helmet. No shoulder to helmet. It was shoulder to mid-section. Also the Steelers actually got a call on I think Joe Flacco in the playoffs for hitting him as he released the ball. The call on the field was not roughing the passer but hitting a defenseless player.

eniparadoxgma
03-17-2011, 02:06 PM
Although a close second has to be the camel clutch. How'd they come up with that name? What the heck was the iran shiek doing to the poor camel? Actually now it sounds like a move that would be reserved for women's wrestling. They WWE needs a middle eastern women to put other women in the camel clutch. It would be a thing of beauty.

I nominate this for Post of the Year. :tt2 :tt2 :tt2

Oviedo
03-17-2011, 02:30 PM
...THROWING A FOOTBALL!!

Well, unless that quarterback is Ben Roethlisberger. Then feel free to punch him in the face, break his nose, and still NOT get a penalty for it :HeadBanger

Exactly what I was going to say. Complain to the ref and he will tell you the defensive player "was just trying to tackle you!"

snarky
03-17-2011, 02:37 PM
It's what they have been calling the past two years in the NFL. Ryan Clark had one of these this past year. No helmet to helmet. No shoulder to helmet. It was shoulder to mid-section. Also the Steelers actually got a call on I think Joe Flacco in the playoffs for hitting him as he released the ball. The call on the field was not roughing the passer but hitting a defenseless player.

But there are bad calls in every game. And there is a difference between a bad call and a rule, no?

SteelTorch
03-17-2011, 02:45 PM
from the link in the OP

"We want to be much more clear on what can be a suspendable incident," Anderson said. "The emphasis is on head and neck hits and what a defenseless player is. And we will work hard that people understand what is a repeat offender and what is a flagrant foul."
The very quote you posted explains why everyone's riled (I even highlighted it for you). It's not just extra emphasis on neck and head hits - they're expanding what defines one as "defenseless". Which means that regardless of where they're hit, it's still a penalty.

snarky
03-17-2011, 03:01 PM
from the link in the OP

"We want to be much more clear on what can be a suspendable incident," Anderson said. "The emphasis is on head and neck hits and what a defenseless player is. And we will work hard that people understand what is a repeat offender and what is a flagrant foul."
The very quote you posted explains why everyone's riled (I even highlighted it for you). It's not just extra emphasis on neck and head hits - they're expanding what defines one as "defenseless". Which means that regardless of where they're hit, it's still a penalty.

Well, I give up. According to the article they are expanding when a player is considered defenseless. I don't see anything saying that they are expanding the protected 'zones' on a player that is defenseless.

RuthlessBurgher
03-17-2011, 03:17 PM
from the link in the OP

"We want to be much more clear on what can be a suspendable incident," Anderson said. "The emphasis is on head and neck hits and what a defenseless player is. And we will work hard that people understand what is a repeat offender and what is a flagrant foul."
The very quote you posted explains why everyone's riled (I even highlighted it for you). It's not just extra emphasis on neck and head hits - they're expanding what defines one as "defenseless". Which means that regardless of where they're hit, it's still a penalty.

Well, I give up. According to the article they are expanding when a player is considered defenseless. I don't see anything saying that they are expanding the protected 'zones' on a player that is defenseless.

I'm with snarky on this. You can't hit a defenseless player with your helmet or forearm to their head and neck area. Now there are more classifications of defenseless players that you cannot hit with your helmet or forearm to their head and neck area.

For example, last year, hitting running backs in the head area was within the rules when they were carrying the ball...if they are trying to catch the ball, it's different, like when Willis McGahee was trying to catch a pass and got knocked the #&@% out by Ryan Clark. RB's carrying the ball tend to lower their heads on contact, so helmet contact is virtually inevitable in many cases. Now you cannot hit running in the head area if he is already in the grasp of tacklers and having his forward progress stopped.

The only players on that list that you cannot hit at all would be the kickers and punters in the act of kicking the ball.

hawaiiansteel
03-17-2011, 03:22 PM
Well, unless that quarterback is Ben Roethlisberger. Then feel free to punch him in the face, break his nose, and still NOT get a penalty for it :HeadBanger


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XFWmNyyPSTQ/TOv0KT8EJTI/AAAAAAAAB8w/qF5diVTCa80/s1600/ben+roethlisberger+punched+in+face.jpg