PDA

View Full Version : Rule changes involve defenseless players, launching, grazing



RuthlessBurgher
05-24-2011, 11:12 AM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/24/league-approves-changes-to-protect-defenseless-players-expand-launching-rules/


League approves changes to protect defenseless players, expand launching rules

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on May 24, 2011, 10:57 AM EDT

If only progress in the labor dispute were this easy.

NFL owners quickly approved three rule changes Tuesday morning at the spring owner’s meetings, according to Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal. The moves are designed to protect defenseless players.

The first change expanded the definition of a defenseless receiver and player.

Now protected in the defenseless player rule include players not “clearly a runner yet” (wide receivers), kickers and punters during returns, and quarterbacks after change of possession.

Albert Breer of NFL Network writes that the league also expanded rules against launching (as expected) and they clarified a rule about “grazing” a quarterback. (We assume this is in relation to helmet contact, but we’ll find out more.)

The expansion of the launching rules prohibits any use of the helmet, in addition to a player leaving feet prior to contact to spring forward into an opponent.

All three measures passed by a 32-0 margin.

Jooser
05-24-2011, 12:26 PM
Sounds like they all caved in to political correctness. Perhaps it's not all God-ell after all?

Djfan
05-24-2011, 12:28 PM
This wussy stuff ticks me off.

hawaiiansteel
05-24-2011, 12:31 PM
This wussy stuff ticks me off.


me too, why don't we just go ahead and put skirts on all of the offensive skill position players?

http://clarenceworly.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/jack-lambert.jpg

papillon
05-24-2011, 12:39 PM
So, Troy's tackle of Kerry Collins and Joe Flacco by leaping over the linemen and tackling the quarterback is now illegal? :wft Sounds like all a team has to do now is have the ball carrier leap into the air at the goal line and you can't tackle him at his apex, so he'll fall into the EZ uncontested.

This is just plain odd...

Pappy

RuthlessBurgher
05-24-2011, 12:46 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-owners-approve-new-rules-changes-defensive-players-might-not-like-052411


Owners approve new rules changes

Alex Marvez is a Senior NFL Writer for FOXSports.com. He has covered the NFL for the past 16 seasons as a beat writer and is the former president of the Pro Football Writers of America.

Updated May 24, 2011 12:04 PM ET
INDIANAPOLIS

One of the rules changes unanimously approved Tuesday at an NFL owners meeting could have a chilling effect on defensive players.

The most significant rule deals with “launching” to level a defenseless player (i.e. leaving both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into an opponent or using any part of the helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of the opponent’s body). Not only will there be a 15-yard unnecessary roughness penalty, but the launching defender can be ejected from the game if the action is judged flagrant by the officiating crew.

The league also further defined what constitutes a “defenseless position” for players with an eight-point list:

* A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass.

* A receiver attempting to catch a pass or one who has not completed a catch and hasn’t had time to protect himself or hasn’t clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player.

* A runner whose forward progress has been stopped and is already in the grasp of a tackler.

* A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air.

* A player on the ground at the end of a play.

* A kicker/punter during the kick or return.

* A quarterback any time after a change of possession (i.e. turnover).

* A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own end-line and approaches the opponent from behind or the side.

Prohibited contact against a player in a defenseless position was further defined as “forcibly hitting the neck or head area with the helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him.” It is also illegal to lower the head and make forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

The latter provision does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle.

The third approved change clarified the rule regarding protection of the quarterback. Hits to the head of a passer by an opponent’s hands, arms or other parts of the body will not be fouls unless they are forcible blows.

These rule changes were tabled at a March owners meeting because some teams were unhappy with the wording that was presented by the NFL’s competition committee.

It's good that we have Jason Worilds and Chris Carter at our disposal, because Jimmy Hate may not be finishing every game he starts this year.

At least the part in blue makes sense (for once).

flippy
05-24-2011, 01:58 PM
I'm ok with protecting a QB on change of possession. Guys seek out and take cheap shots on QBs all the time after an INT which is completely unnecessary.

All the other points are fuzzy.

You can't hit anyone ever. How do you break up a pass?

Since Ben keeps plays alive forever, would he always be considered to be passing the ball and illegal to hit at all times?

3rd and short running plays will be comical. We'll have to sit back and let guys have 3rd downs.

It sounds like Olinemen can block Dlinemen, but no one else is allowed to make contact.

hawaiiansteel
05-24-2011, 03:55 PM
May 24, 2011

NFL to punish teams for flagrant hits


Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS -- The NFL will punish teams next season if their players commit multiple flagrant hits that result in fines.

The punishment will be financial, although league vice president Adolpho Birch said Tuesday he didn't rule out commissioner Roger Goodell applying further sanctions such as stripping clubs of draft choices.

Citing the "notion of club accountability," Birch says details such as the amount of the fines against clubs, or how many player fines would trigger punishment, have not been determined.

"As a club's total increases to a certain threshold, we will enforce some ... payback to encourage clubs to stay below that threshold," Birch said. "We're looking at a system similar to one we instituted a couple years ago with off-field conduct."

The NFL began a crackdown on illegal hits, particularly those to defenseless players, last October. It threatened suspensions, but no players were suspended. However, Ray Anderson, the league's chief disciplinarian, has said suspensions will be considered for egregious hits this season.

Now, the clubs are being put on notice as well as the players that illegal hits will result in substantial discipline.

Birch would not identify which teams from 2010 would have been subject to fines had the policy been in place, but did say at least three teams might have been punished.

One player, Pittsburgh All-Pro linebacker James Harrison, was fined $100,000 for flagrant hits last season.

"We'll check the number of fines and the level of fines going out for infractions that relate to various player safety violations," Birch said. "Particularly head and helmet issues."

The 32 owners voted unanimously Tuesday to approve rules amendments for player safety, including a measure aimed at keeping a player from launching himself into a defenseless opponent. A 15-yard penalty will result for anyone who leaves both feet before contact to spring forward and upward into an opponent and delivers a blow to the helmet with any part of his helmet.


Rulewise, I think the competition committee is clear that we are not trying to change rules, but change the emphasis, and that message has been delivered loud and clear to the players.

-- Rich McKay, co-chair of competition committee

Such tackles will also be subject to fines.

The definition of a defenseless receiver already has been extended. Now, a receiver who has not had time to protect himself or has not clearly become a runner even if both feet are on the ground is considered defenseless.

Defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder. The definition of such players now includes those throwing a pass; attempting or completing a catch without having time to ward off or avoid contact; a runner whose forward progress has been stopped by a tackler; kickoff or punt returners while the ball is in the air; kickers or punters during a kick or a return; a quarterback during a change of possession; a player who receives a blindside block from a blocker moving toward his own end zone.

Penalized players are subject to being ejected for flagrant fouls.

"This should permanently change the mentality of a defensive player trying to loosen the ball to change your target point," said competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay, president of the Atlanta Falcons. "There were too many hits in the last three years that were legal but we not ones we were comfortable that the player who got hit had any chance to protect himself."

Also, hits to the head of a passer that are not considered "forcible" blows will not be penalized.

"We are not saying to take the physicality out of the game in any way, shape or form," McKay said. "There are still lots of hits that are legal."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6583638

RuthlessBurgher
05-24-2011, 04:04 PM
“Rulewise, I think the competition committee is clear that we are not trying to change rules, but change the emphasis, and that message has been delivered loud and clear to the players.”

-- Rich McKay, co-chair of competition committee

Loud and clear my @$$. Last year, during the "weekend in which fining mayhem begun" the only hit that was a dirty, malicious, egregious hit was the the Brandon Meriwether one. He should have been fined, and possibly even suspended. The Harrison hit on Massoquoi and the Dunta Robinson hit on Desean Jackson were unfortunate (since Massoquoi and Jackson were injured) but they were not a result of head-hunting behavior like the Meriwether hit was. Injuries happen. It's football. You can't just fine players because other players happen to get hurt out there.

Players are much more confused today about what hits are legal and what hits are illegal than ever before. And I can't wait until it gets in the hands of officials, some of which will let anything fly (like punching a QB in the face after the play, for instance) while others will penalize and potentially eject players for what should be routine football plays.

plainnasty
05-24-2011, 08:30 PM
So, Troy's tackle of Kerry Collins and Joe Flacco by leaping over the linemen and tackling the quarterback is now illegal? :wft Sounds like all a team has to do now is have the ball carrier leap into the air at the goal line and you can't tackle him at his apex, so he'll fall into the EZ uncontested.

This is just plain odd...

Pappy
I don't think those plays would be considered lauching. At least I hope not.

fordfixer
05-24-2011, 08:56 PM
So, Troy's tackle of Kerry Collins and Joe Flacco by leaping over the linemen and tackling the quarterback is now illegal? :wft Sounds like all a team has to do now is have the ball carrier leap into the air at the goal line and you can't tackle him at his apex, so he'll fall into the EZ uncontested.

This is just plain odd...

Pappy
I don't think those plays would be considered lauching. At least I hope not.



in addition to a player leaving feet prior to contact to spring forward into an opponent.

What would you call it?

papillon
05-24-2011, 10:25 PM
So, Troy's tackle of Kerry Collins and Joe Flacco by leaping over the linemen and tackling the quarterback is now illegal? :wft Sounds like all a team has to do now is have the ball carrier leap into the air at the goal line and you can't tackle him at his apex, so he'll fall into the EZ uncontested.

This is just plain odd...

Pappy
I don't think those plays would be considered lauching. At least I hope not.

Well, he launched himself with intent to tackle the quarterback, by definition they have to be finable and then Troy should be ejected based on the rule.

Pappy

Discipline of Steel
05-24-2011, 10:29 PM
Just look at the length of the new rule. How are you supposed to crunch that down and compact it into an instantaneous moment?

Chadman
05-24-2011, 11:12 PM
"The most significant rule deals with “launching” to level a defenseless player (i.e. leaving both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into an opponent or using any part of the helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of the opponent’s body). Not only will there be a 15-yard unnecessary roughness penalty, but the launching defender can be ejected from the game if the action is judged flagrant by the officiating crew."

Launching tackles are, in themselves, not dangerous. Stupid rule. The 'dangerous' part comes from the helmet. Any defender should be able to 'launch' as it is, so long as they don't make contact with that hard thing on their head. The emphasis on the rule shouldn't be on the 'launching', but more on the 'defenseless'- don't penalise tackling techniques that are fine, penalise foul play- ie, hitting players that are no longer the focal point of the play.

"The league also further defined what constitutes a “defenseless position” for players with an eight-point list:"

"* A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass."
The idea is fine, but the definition is too grey. You can tackle a player passing/just passed, but can't 'launch'. Why not just have a rule- don't hit people with your helmet, don't hit people that are no longer a part of the play? Surely that's easier to define.
"* A receiver attempting to catch a pass or one who has not completed a catch and hasn’t had time to protect himself or hasn’t clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player."
FAR TOO GREY. At what point is a player 'protecting himself'?? Or 'avoiding or warding off contact'? This is all going to be a judgement call for referee's- complicating what is already complicated enough. Just have a rule like this- "you can't tackle a player without the ball or 'launch' into a player not already in possession of the ball." That would be far easier to referee. This rule should have been tabled BEFORE the draft- it impacts the CB's ability to play 'physical' before a WR has the ball in his hands- favouring the pure coverage CB's far more than the bigger CB's. Might have changed the value boards on a number of teams.
"* A runner whose forward progress has been stopped and is already in the grasp of a tackler."
Conversely, I hope all runners of the ball obligingly fall to the ground & don't try to achieve any more 'hard yards' after contact- that would be the only fair solution to this rule. How about going back to my original, simple rule- don't hit players with your helmet? Wouldn't that be easier to police than this?
"* A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air."
Isn't this a 'Fair Catch'? Again- don't tackle a player with your helmet or not already in possession of the ball- easier to police.
"* A player on the ground at the end of a play."
Would have thought this was obvious.
"* A kicker/punter during the kick or return."
Fair enough- but doesn't this rule already apply?
"* A quarterback any time after a change of possession (i.e. turnover)."

Again, fair enough. But again- don't tackle a player with your helmet or who isn't already in possession of the ball- far easier to police & dictate.
"* A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own end-line and approaches the opponent from behind or the side."

Terminology is confusing me here.
"Prohibited contact against a player in a defenseless position was further defined as “forcibly hitting the neck or head area with the helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him.” It is also illegal to lower the head and make forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body."

So....don't hit people in the head? & Don't hit people with your helmet? The definition here- don't hit players with your facemask...but don't lower your head in a tackle..is counter-productive.
The latter provision does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle.

"The third approved change clarified the rule regarding protection of the quarterback. Hits to the head of a passer by an opponent’s hands, arms or other parts of the body will not be fouls unless they are forcible blows."

Again- isn't it easier to just say don't hit a player that isn't already in possession of the ball?
These rule changes were tabled at a March owners meeting because some teams were unhappy with the wording that was presented by the NFL’s competition committee.


No wonder we get annoyed by the referee's- how nit-picky are the rules?

Simplify the rules, make them BLACK & WHITE, and allow the Referee's to adjudicate the 'GREY AREA' part of 'intent'. Don't 'define' the grey area & leave the black & white out.

If the NFL doesn't want hits to the head, or contact with helmets- why not remove the helmet?

plainnasty
05-24-2011, 11:14 PM
So, Troy's tackle of Kerry Collins and Joe Flacco by leaping over the linemen and tackling the quarterback is now illegal? :wft Sounds like all a team has to do now is have the ball carrier leap into the air at the goal line and you can't tackle him at his apex, so he'll fall into the EZ uncontested.

This is just plain odd...

Pappy
I don't think those plays would be considered lauching. At least I hope not.



in addition to a player leaving feet prior to contact to spring forward into an opponent.

What would you call it?
The new rule makes it illegal when anyone leaves both feet before contact to spring forward and upward into an opponent and delivers a blow to the helmet with any part of his helmet.

In both plays when Polamalu jumped over the line of scrimmage to tackle Flacco and Collins he made contact on the way down and he didn't deliver a blow to or with the helmet.

So what would I call it? A legal play then and a legal play now.

papillon
05-24-2011, 11:35 PM
So, Troy's tackle of Kerry Collins and Joe Flacco by leaping over the linemen and tackling the quarterback is now illegal? :wft Sounds like all a team has to do now is have the ball carrier leap into the air at the goal line and you can't tackle him at his apex, so he'll fall into the EZ uncontested.

This is just plain odd...

Pappy
I don't think those plays would be considered lauching. At least I hope not.



in addition to a player leaving feet prior to contact to spring forward into an opponent.

What would you call it?
The new rule makes it illegal when anyone leaves both feet before contact to spring forward and upward into an opponent and delivers a blow to the helmet with any part of his helmet.

In both plays when Polamalu jumped over the line of scrimmage to tackle Flacco and Collins he made contact on the way down and he didn't deliver a blow to or with the helmet.

So what would I call it? A legal play then and a legal play now.

You give the NFL too much credit for having common sense. :P

Pappy

flippy
05-25-2011, 01:02 AM
There's a simple solution. Get rid of the helmets. It works pretty well for Rugby.

fordfixer
05-25-2011, 02:29 AM
Fine system on hits unlikely to deter Steelers


By Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=j ... ers_052411 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cole_nfl_fine_system_unlikely_to_deter_steelers_05 2411)


INDIANAPOLIS – Give the NFL a lot of credit for devising a new Rooney Rule.

It’s just not the type of legislation in which Pittsburgh Steelers co-owner Dan Rooney would want to be associated.

The NFL took a significant step toward corralling vicious hits penalties by announcing during its spring meeting here that it will create a fine system for teams that are docked multiple times for devastating blows. NFL senior vice president for Law and Labor Policy Adolpho Birch said Tuesday that he wouldn’t rule out commissioner Roger Goodell applying further sanctions such as stripping clubs of NFL draft choices.
AdChoices

Still, expect the Steelers and their hard-hitting defense, led by finetastic linebacker James Harrison(notes), to get docked some serious coin if things don’t change this year. Clearly, Pittsburgh is the team the NFL is trying to deter most at the moment. The Steelers became the collective poster child for brutal hits during the 2010 season as Harrison was fined a total of four times for a combined $100,000.

“The Steelers change? …” an AFC head coach asked rhetorically, laughing after getting word of the new system. “It’s a nice try, but Mr. Rooney might as well just write out the check right now. Whatever they charge, the Steelers are going to pay.”

You can also be sure Pittsburgh coach Mike Tomlin will use the new rules as fodder for his players, feeding their perception that the NFL is after them and the only way to prove their greatness is to hammer everyone in their path.

In other words, the NFL just fired up the league’s defending runners-up. Everyone enjoy.

Birch declined to name any teams that would have been fined last year under the system the league is implementing. However, he said “three or four teams” would have qualified for such fines, which focus on hits to the head and neck area. Steelers co-owner Art Rooney said, “yes, we would’ve qualified.”

At the root of what the NFL did Tuesday was to make the game safer. From that perspective, the move was a positive and was met with approval from team owners and executives.

“With the greater emphasis on concussions and the damage that comes with the big hits, the league is trying to do everything it can to get these hits out of the game,” Green Bay Packers president and former NFL safety Mark Murphy said. “There’s just a greater recognition of what’s going on and that’s important.”

Birch said the exact system for fines had yet to be worked out, but would be adopted for this season.

Of course, whether there will be football played in which to fine teams or players is another question, but that will be decided later. For now, the league took an impressive step toward trying to control illegal hits by making it more expensive for teams with repeat behavior and not just hitting players in the pocketbook.

“I think it’s a positive step, something that all teams will pay attention to,” Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said. “If you’re taking money out of the team’s pocket, that will make everybody think.”

But it may not be enough to make teams and players change their approach.

In the 1980s, when former coach Joe Gibbs(notes) was leading the Washington Redskins and doing questionable things like “stashing” players on injured reserve that were fined by the league, owner Jack Kent Cooke asked Gibbs how much the fine would cost. When Gibbs answered and Cooke found the number acceptably low, he simply told Gibbs to keep doing whatever he was doing, fines be damned.

The reaction by teams such as the Steelers will likely be the same. Do whatever it takes to win and deal with the consequences later. While Steelers fans felt their team was persecuted last season by the league – from the Harrison fines to the suspension of quarterback Ben Roethlisberger(notes) – the fact is that the Steelers still made the Super Bowl for the third time in the past decade.

“The Steelers play a certain type of football and they’ve done it for a long time. They’re not going to change,” the opposing AFC coach said. “I don’t think it’s dirty. Yeah, they get penalized, but it’s about playing hard, not about taking out somebody’s knees.”

Maybe, but this is further emphasis on the fines the league imposed last season to deal with vicious, illegal hits. After a trio of hits featuring Harrison, Brandon Meriweather(notes) of the New England Patriots and Atlanta Falcons cornerback Dunta Robinson(notes) in Week 6 games last season, Goodell fined all three and issued a strong warning to all players to play under more control.

In addition to the plan laid out by Birch, the league upgraded the rule on hits on defenseless players, making it so that receivers would have a chance to gather themselves and make a move before the defender could hit them, Atlanta president and NFL Competition Committee Chairman Rich McKay explained.

Finally, the league refined its rule on hits to the helmet of a quarterback, adding that such hits had to include “force” in order to receive a 15-yard penalty. McKay said refining the rule would eliminate roughly seven or eight questionable calls.

BradshawsHairdresser
05-25-2011, 08:53 AM
"The most significant rule deals with “launching” to level a defenseless player (i.e. leaving both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into an opponent or using any part of the helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of the opponent’s body). Not only will there be a 15-yard unnecessary roughness penalty, but the launching defender can be ejected from the game if the action is judged flagrant by the officiating crew."

Launching tackles are, in themselves, not dangerous. Stupid rule. The 'dangerous' part comes from the helmet. Any defender should be able to 'launch' as it is, so long as they don't make contact with that hard thing on their head. The emphasis on the rule shouldn't be on the 'launching', but more on the 'defenseless'- don't penalise tackling techniques that are fine, penalise foul play- ie, hitting players that are no longer the focal point of the play.

"The league also further defined what constitutes a “defenseless position” for players with an eight-point list:"

"* A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass."
The idea is fine, but the definition is too grey. You can tackle a player passing/just passed, but can't 'launch'. Why not just have a rule- don't hit people with your helmet, don't hit people that are no longer a part of the play? Surely that's easier to define.
"* A receiver attempting to catch a pass or one who has not completed a catch and hasn’t had time to protect himself or hasn’t clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player."
FAR TOO GREY. At what point is a player 'protecting himself'?? Or 'avoiding or warding off contact'? This is all going to be a judgement call for referee's- complicating what is already complicated enough. Just have a rule like this- "you can't tackle a player without the ball or 'launch' into a player not already in possession of the ball." That would be far easier to referee. This rule should have been tabled BEFORE the draft- it impacts the CB's ability to play 'physical' before a WR has the ball in his hands- favouring the pure coverage CB's far more than the bigger CB's. Might have changed the value boards on a number of teams.
"* A runner whose forward progress has been stopped and is already in the grasp of a tackler."
Conversely, I hope all runners of the ball obligingly fall to the ground & don't try to achieve any more 'hard yards' after contact- that would be the only fair solution to this rule. How about going back to my original, simple rule- don't hit players with your helmet? Wouldn't that be easier to police than this?
"* A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air."
Isn't this a 'Fair Catch'? Again- don't tackle a player with your helmet or not already in possession of the ball- easier to police.
"* A player on the ground at the end of a play."
Would have thought this was obvious.
"* A kicker/punter during the kick or return."
Fair enough- but doesn't this rule already apply?
"* A quarterback any time after a change of possession (i.e. turnover)."

Again, fair enough. But again- don't tackle a player with your helmet or who isn't already in possession of the ball- far easier to police & dictate.
"* A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own end-line and approaches the opponent from behind or the side."

Terminology is confusing me here.
"Prohibited contact against a player in a defenseless position was further defined as “forcibly hitting the neck or head area with the helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him.” It is also illegal to lower the head and make forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body."

So....don't hit people in the head? & Don't hit people with your helmet? The definition here- don't hit players with your facemask...but don't lower your head in a tackle..is counter-productive.
The latter provision does not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle.

"The third approved change clarified the rule regarding protection of the quarterback. Hits to the head of a passer by an opponent’s hands, arms or other parts of the body will not be fouls unless they are forcible blows."

Again- isn't it easier to just say don't hit a player that isn't already in possession of the ball?
These rule changes were tabled at a March owners meeting because some teams were unhappy with the wording that was presented by the NFL’s competition committee.


No wonder we get annoyed by the referee's- how nit-picky are the rules?

Simplify the rules, make them BLACK & WHITE, and allow the Referee's to adjudicate the 'GREY AREA' part of 'intent'. Don't 'define' the grey area & leave the black & white out.

If the NFL doesn't want hits to the head, or contact with helmets- why not remove the helmet?

:Clap :Clap :Clap :Clap :Clap :Clap :Clap :Clap

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
05-25-2011, 11:18 AM
[quote]“The Steelers play a certain type of football and they’ve done it for a long time. They’re not going to change,” the opposing AFC coach said. “I don’t think it’s dirty. Yeah, they get penalized, but it’s about playing hard, not about taking out somebody’s knees.”

Here is what I find kind of interesting here. This "AFC coach" did not say anything inflamatory. He certainly did not say anything for which he would have had to request anonymity. But, for some reason, IMO only to make this seem more controversial, he is only identified as an AFC coach.


Maybe, but this is further emphasis on the fines the league imposed last season to deal with vicious, illegal hits. After a trio of hits featuring Harrison, Brandon Meriweather(notes) of the New England Patriots and Atlanta Falcons cornerback Dunta Robinson(notes) in Week 6 games last season, Goodell fined all three and issued a strong warning to all players to play under more control.

Why is it that he would mention that these hits were all fined without adding that all fines were later reduced? Does that reduction of those absurd fines not tell us that even the czars in their ivory towers realized that they had gone too far?

[/quote:2zvssjjk]

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
05-25-2011, 11:38 AM
The most significant rule deals with “launching” to level a defenseless player (i.e. leaving both feet prior to contact to spring forward and upward into an opponent or using any part of the helmet to initiate forcible contact against any part of the opponent’s body). Not only will there be a 15-yard unnecessary roughness penalty, but the launching defender can be ejected from the game if the action is judged flagrant by the officiating crew.

Let us go back again to week 6 when all of this hysteria began.

When Harrison hits MM, his feet are on the ground at impact and lift off the ground as he follows through. If he did not leave both feet prior to contact then it is not launching.

Robinson never leaves his feet when making the hit on Jackson. Again, by definition, not launching.

Now Meriweather. He leaves his feet and launches himself upwards towards Heap's head. He launched after the ball was past Heap and changed direction to target the head. I still have no idea how this hit is not the poster for illegal head hunting. It was far and away the worst of the bunch and it just gets lumped in and swept under the rug as "just another bad hit".

Mister Pittsburgh
05-25-2011, 12:39 PM
This type of douchebaggery regarding the rules and 'defenseless players' is why I may give up on the NFL. Not the lockout. Every single rule change favors the offense, and the Steelers focus on their defense. They would be better off having a crappier defense with no real stars and make the offense incredible and air it out. The rules totally favor the QB and now the WR's, not the RB's and running game. OT's are allowed to hold LB's. Steelers need to change their 'style' of football if they keep making more and more stupid rules.

Djfan
05-25-2011, 12:42 PM
This type of douchebaggery regarding the rules and 'defenseless players' is why I may give up on the NFL. Not the lockout. Every single rule change favors the offense, and the Steelers focus on their defense. They would be better off having a crappier defense with no real stars and make the offense incredible and air it out. The rules totally favor the QB and now the WR's, not the RB's and running game. OT's are allowed to hold LB's. Steelers need to change their 'style' of football if they keep making more and more stupid rules.


At this point it's "Adios NFL" for me.

Discipline of Steel
05-25-2011, 06:45 PM
Strong words DJ...

The silly thing is that I beleive the most nervous system damage is done on the regular 'play to play' impacts absobed by linemen. You dont see a lot of QBs and WRs that have mental issues years down the road. Its linemen. The tough new rule changes are off focus and some certainly degrade the game.

"In addition to the plan laid out by Birch, the league upgraded the rule on hits on defenseless players, making it so that receivers would have a chance to gather themselves and make a move before the defender could hit them, Atlanta president and NFL Competition Committee Chairman Rich McKay explained."

Allow the WR to gather himself after a catch???

Djfan
05-25-2011, 09:38 PM
Strong words DJ...

[/color]


Agreed. It just pisses me off no end. I honestly don't know if I will make it through the next season. If it's anything like I think it will be, I'm gone.

The UFL was fun for me last season, and I bet this season it will be too.

Discipline of Steel
05-26-2011, 12:30 AM
All these years of idolizing the game and its players. Its destroyed now.

Im afraid Ill end up agreeing with you DJ. With all the penalty flags, ejections, and referee subjectivity. The Weekly Fine Report is already an institution. Lets face it, football is going to suck. I keep wishing for Jack Lambert to show up and save the day.

Mister Pittsburgh
05-26-2011, 07:42 AM
all the new rule changes make it easier for the refs & nfl to control who wins and manipulate the spread.

grotonsteel
05-26-2011, 02:12 PM
all the new rule changes make it easier for the refs & nfl to control who wins and manipulate the spread.


:Agree

grotonsteel
05-26-2011, 02:16 PM
Strong words DJ...

[/color]


Agreed. It just pisses me off no end. I honestly don't know if I will make it through the next season. If it's anything like I think it will be, I'm gone.

The UFL was fun for me last season, and I bet this season it will be too.

NFL rules are made to favor NFL love child Manning and Brady. Its nowadays fantasy football league. I think NFL will lose its charm if there are no big hits or great Defense.

I am planning to follow LINGERIE FOOTBALL LEAGUE more closely next season...i think it will be more physical than NFL ... :wink:

Chadman
05-26-2011, 05:29 PM
Strong words DJ...

[/color]


Agreed. It just pisses me off no end. I honestly don't know if I will make it through the next season. If it's anything like I think it will be, I'm gone.

The UFL was fun for me last season, and I bet this season it will be too.

NFL rules are made to favor NFL love child Manning and Brady. Its nowadays fantasy football league. I think NFL will lose its charm if there are no big hits or great Defense.

I am planning to follow LINGERIE FOOTBALL LEAGUE more closely next season...i think it will be more physical than NFL ... :wink:

And there's always the chance of random boobiness.

hawaiiansteel
05-26-2011, 05:46 PM
Strong words DJ...

[/color]


Agreed. It just pisses me off no end. I honestly don't know if I will make it through the next season. If it's anything like I think it will be, I'm gone.

The UFL was fun for me last season, and I bet this season it will be too.

NFL rules are made to favor NFL love child Manning and Brady. Its nowadays fantasy football league. I think NFL will lose its charm if there are no big hits or great Defense.

I am planning to follow LINGERIE FOOTBALL LEAGUE more closely next season...i think it will be more physical than NFL ... :wink:

And there's always the chance of random boobiness.

and random bootyness... :moon

http://goombo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/lingerie_football_miami_090509.jpg

Djfan
05-26-2011, 06:39 PM
Strong words DJ...

[/color]


Agreed. It just pisses me off no end. I honestly don't know if I will make it through the next season. If it's anything like I think it will be, I'm gone.

The UFL was fun for me last season, and I bet this season it will be too.

NFL rules are made to favor NFL love child Manning and Brady. Its nowadays fantasy football league. I think NFL will lose its charm if there are no big hits or great Defense.

I am planning to follow LINGERIE FOOTBALL LEAGUE more closely next season...i think it will be more physical than NFL ... :wink:

And there's always the chance of random boobiness.

and random bootyness... :moon

http://goombo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/lingerie_football_miami_090509.jpg


So, for the half time of their Super Bowl, they will have Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson?

hawaiiansteel
05-31-2011, 01:52 AM
Removing facemasks better alternative than new rules made by NFL

5/29/2011


Do NFL offensive linemen and wide receivers have Twitter accounts?

I'm guessing that they do, but maybe they use theirs to express their opinions on more important stuff. Topics like whether Israel should agree to pull back to the pre-1967 borders or whether the Federal Reserve should be abolished.

You'll have to excuse me for refusing to follow any football player's tweets. I'm happy to react to the reactions of the people who do.

James Harrison of the Steelers got everybody going last week by calling the people in charge of NFL rules - including his boss Art Rooney II - idiots.

I'll have to admit that I agree with Harrison.

The rules are idiotic because I don't think it's humanly possible for anyone to consistently enforce them. Not in real time, anyway.

A referee might be able to look at a slow-motion replay to determine whether a receiver had both feet on the ground and was able to defend himself before he was hit. It's absurd to think he can consistently determine that in the fractions of a second it takes on the field.

Harrison's teammate LaMarr Woodley also tweeted about the rules changes and sarcastically apologized for the fact the Steelers' defense "hits 2 hard."

Where are the offensive linemen and wide receivers?

I don't have any of their Twitter accounts handy, but why do I get the feeling that they haven't been tweeting as much about the NFL becoming a league for sissies?

Once again, it's guys like Harrison and Woodley who don't understand who the tough guys in football are.

They want you to believe quarterbacks are sissies who need to be protected by rules that make it impossible for the tough guys to show how tough they are.

The guy who takes the blind-side hit in the small of his back from a 265-pound monster coming at him at full speed and then gets up to call the next play is probably the toughest guy on the field.

If he's not, then it's the 190-pound wide receiver who gets blasted in the head when he's in mid-air, holds on to the ball, gets up and runs another crossing route on the next play.

Harrison thinks of himself as the toughest guy out there.

He's not.

When was the last time he was on the receiving end of the kind of hits he likes to dish out?

If the NFL were really interested in protecting players from injury, it would get serious about eliminating performance-enhancing drugs and changing the equipment.

Every time I ask one of my friends in the local media what percentage of Steelers players they believe achieved their size naturally, the answer is somewhere between 20 and 30 percent.

I think it's safe to say that just about everybody who covers the NFL assumes that most of the guys they see in the locker rooms are juiced.

Linebackers used to weigh 230. Now, they weigh 260.

Safeties used to weigh 185. Now, they weigh 205.

Evolution doesn't happen that quickly.

I've been told my suggestion to eliminate the birdcage face masks is way too radical. I don't think it's nearly as radical as the NFL expecting a human to consistently enforce the new rules.

What would Harrison's response be if you offered him this proposition: You can launch yourself on every play and lead with your helmet all you want, but you can't wear a face mask.

Do you think if he took that offer he would still be interested in leading with his face? A broken nose or two, and he'd have better tackling technique than Jack Ham.

So, nice try, NFL.

If you want to be taken seriously when it comes to player safety, try addressing the issues that might actually make a difference.

n How do you feel about being forced to pay for a federally funded study to determine why certain teams fare well in the NCAA men's basketball tournament?

Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma checked out the National Science Foundation and found about $3 billion in fraud and waste. Included in the waste was the $80,000 basketball study.

Aside from wondering why the federal government would find that information necessary, do you wonder why it would cost $80,000 to get it?

I could have rounded up 20 sportswriters who would have freelanced the job for two hundred bucks. It might make you feel better to know that the $80,000 spent on March Madness was a drop in the bucket compared to the money spent on other things, including the $1 million spent to find out how quickly parents respond to trendy baby names.

Maybe they could find a million or two to spend on finding out why the government wastes so much of our money.

n Speaking of wasting money, I've heard rumors that Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is thinking about officially celebrating Hines Ward's stirring Dancing With the Stars championship.

That's just an ugly rumor, right?

http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/loc ... teigerwald (http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/localsports/05-29-2011-Steigerwald)