PDA

View Full Version : So, we are one step closer to Flag Football


v2micca
03-17-2011, 06:38 AM
My apologies if this has already been posted:

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

You can read through it, but this is the money shot of the article:

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.


I wonder if that last rule will be regularly enforced as the players who tend to get hit the most while on the ground are members of the defensive front 7 who have been blocked to the ground and thanks to the Brady Rule must now regain their feet before they are allowed to hit the Quarterback.

bowtown
03-17-2011, 06:47 AM
Does that mean you can only hit the QB if he's not attempting to throw the ball? How is that even possible?

Killericon
03-17-2011, 06:50 AM
• A player fielding a punt or a kickoff;

Honestly, that one irks me the most. That's why we have the fair-catch rule.

jmz313
03-17-2011, 07:13 AM
Is it April 1st already? Gotta be a joke, right?

Beantown Bronco
03-17-2011, 07:14 AM
From the article, it says they may move the kickoff back to the 35 yd line. If we have any semblance of an offense this year, Matt Prater will set a record for freaking touchbacks.

Beantown Bronco
03-17-2011, 07:15 AM
Does that mean you can only hit the QB if he's not attempting to throw the ball? How is that even possible?

Any QB who's good at pump fakes (Big Ben for sure) could take serious advantage of this one.

maher_tyler
03-17-2011, 07:15 AM
Why even wear pads anymore if this is true? Just give them the same skirts the cheerleaders wear and get it over with..what a joke!!

uk bronco
03-17-2011, 07:19 AM
Now a quarterback in the act of throwing cant be hit WTF. How are you going to stop someone taking down a QB cos they are in the act of throwing. Does the D player just have to stop and stand there while the QB throws. What if he pump fakes then runs. Bull**** rule



A WR trying to catch a pass, wow its like they are trying to take anything from the D they can use against passing. First they bring in the 5 yard bump rule now this. Whats next a defensive player can only tackle a WR using one arm.



A runner who's forward progress has been stopped. So now a defensive player must stand there and go wow his forward progression has been stopped i cant hit him. Oh no he's broken free and scored a touchdown while i was writing an entry in my Diary about my feelings. Thats what the refs have a whistle for if he's stopped blow the whistle play stops anyone who hits the runner after that its a late hit. Cant wait to see the arguements coming from the first time this one's broken.



I have no issue with not hitting players trying to field a kick or punting/kicking or while they are on the ground this is actually sensible. Except if a player is down but has not been downed by contact so you cant touch him down and kill the play until he has stood up again



A QB after a change in posession. Can the QB still make a tackle? Yes. is this rule bull****? Yes. How can a player be allowed to make a tackle but you're not allowed to block him. Absolute bull****



This on top of the holdout is why the NFL sucks. It is as Warren said the "No fun league" I hope USFL really takes off and the pussification of the NFL can stop.

Jesterhole
03-17-2011, 07:27 AM
If they want to say they are going to protect defenseless players, like people catching a ball, kicking a punt, or throwing a ball, fine.

The whole special set of rules for a QB is disgusting. Especially when a QB takes off running. They are allowed to slide? WTF for? They are no longer a QB at that point, they chose to become a running back. It must be hard for a linebacker or a safety in the NFL to run full speed at a guy like Vick or even Tebow. Is there a moment of doubt about hitting the guy?

v2micca
03-17-2011, 07:34 AM
I just wonder at times if these rules begin to become counter productive in ensuring player safety. I mean at some point, does a defender's thought process change from "I have to make a play on this guy" to "If I'm going to end up missing a couple of games for this play anyway, I'm damn well going to make certain he misses the next couple of games too"

oubronco
03-17-2011, 07:36 AM
What happens if a runner lands on top of a player is the rest of the defense supposed to stand there and watch as he regains momentum and runs past them

What about defenders getting blindsided with blocks out of nowhere ala McCaffery block in the superbowl

Drunk Monkey
03-17-2011, 07:47 AM
This is really getting out of hand. For anyone who played football "the big hit" was something that we always looked forward to. We had a snot bubble game award in HS that was probably more coveted then the game MVP. The NFL is not going to be recognizable in a few years. We were always coached to be physical, get in all the legal shots you could and make them think twice before coming at you again. Nothing dirty but make your presence known. I am not sure how I would coach that anymore in the NFL. Between this and the lockout I am having a very hard time getting excited about pro football.

bowtown
03-17-2011, 07:53 AM
Any QB who's good at pump fakes (Big Ben for sure) could take serious advantage of this one.

It eliminates probably half the sacks in the league, and so much for forced fumbles. It will be really interesting to see how they regulate this one. It's going to be such a judgement call.

WolfpackGuy
03-17-2011, 07:58 AM
Not being allowed to hit a QB in the act of throwing is beyond ridiculous.

Good news for Tebow and his extra long motion though.

Kaylore
03-17-2011, 08:00 AM
Did anyone actually read the article? He isn't saying they are making all those instances defenseless. They are saying they are going to clarify or expand the rules around those circumstances. Let's wait and read something official on this after the committee finalizes things before we freak out.

Meck77
03-17-2011, 08:00 AM
Did soccer just over take the NFL as "Real football"?

listopencil
03-17-2011, 08:54 AM
I just heard on ESPN that Fairley has been preemptively suspended for his first four games.

UberBroncoMan
03-17-2011, 10:03 AM
I can't even see how this could be real (even if it is). Not being able to hit the QB while they throw is insane...we're going to see pump fake's non stop to draw penalties. On top of this, if a QB if feeling pressure now they can throw the ball and all the defenders in persuite have to stop. WTF? This is bull****. ****ing p***y ass league.

gyldenlove
03-17-2011, 10:19 AM
Did soccer just over take the NFL as "Real football"?

I would rather meet Ray Lewis and his bigger more sinister brother with the cannibalistic tendencies in a dark alley than this girl, she would jack up our entire offensive front like a boss.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eQEb1L3N8EI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

sisterhellfyre
03-17-2011, 11:19 AM
Did anyone actually read the article? He isn't saying they are making all those instances defenseless. They are saying they are going to clarify or expand the rules around those circumstances. Let's wait and read something official on this after the committee finalizes things before we freak out.

Wow. A reasonable perspective on the 'Mane.

Kaylore, you know that's not allowed, right? You're supposed to be setting your hair on fire while jumping up and down screaming and beating your chest and grabbing your "junk" (but only in a manly way). Get it right, wouldja?

Mogulseeker
03-17-2011, 11:27 AM
Dude we should just have kept McDaniels... the way it's going, defense is going to be irrelevant.

Tombstone RJ
03-17-2011, 12:15 PM
I would rather meet Ray Lewis and his bigger more sinister brother with the cannibalistic tendencies in a dark alley than this girl, she would jack up our entire offensive front like a boss.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eQEb1L3N8EI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That's just some good clean fun right there... :thanku:

Broncos need her at MLB...

Boomhauer
03-17-2011, 02:57 PM
Did anyone actually read the article? He isn't saying they are making all those instances defenseless. They are saying they are going to clarify or expand the rules around those circumstances. Let's wait and read something official on this after the committee finalizes things before we freak out.

Poppycock! There'll be none of your 'reasoning' here smarty pants. I'm switching to UFL and LFL because of this thread and hope Bowlen and the Broncos follow once the 2011 NFL season is canceled.

Mogulseeker
03-17-2011, 04:47 PM
That's just some good clean fun right there... :thanku:

Broncos need her at MLB...

Hahah @ :45

The Broncos could have used her against Polamalu in 2009.

MagicHef
03-17-2011, 08:54 PM
These only apply to hits to the head and neck. In fact, these definitions change almost nothing, they just properly define a defenseless player. A defender wasn't able to hit a QB in the head before, this doesn't change that.

footstepsfrom#27
03-17-2011, 09:44 PM
Hockey is looking better and better to me.

myMind
03-17-2011, 10:54 PM
Bureaucracy is tearing this sport apart.

True.

Meck77
03-17-2011, 11:00 PM
Hockey is looking better and better to me.

I wonder if Rugby http://www.usarugby.org/#cc%3D[Application]\\Structure\\Content\\Brand%20Resource%20Center\\C ontent\\Home{{Tab%3AView}}
might gain some popularity going forward.

MagicHef
03-17-2011, 11:15 PM
All this does is define a "defenseless player."

Hitting a defenseless player is not illegal. Hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck is illegal.

This changes almost nothing.

serious hops
03-17-2011, 11:22 PM
Did anyone actually read the article? He isn't saying they are making all those instances defenseless. They are saying they are going to clarify or expand the rules around those circumstances. Let's wait and read something official on this after the committee finalizes things before we freak out.

Screw that, riot!



Seriously though, I frequently wonder where a guy like Atwater would fit in today's game.

Crushaholic
03-17-2011, 11:51 PM
ALL RIGHT!!! We don't NEED a defense! Nobody will able to tackle, without a penalty. That levels THAT crappy playing field...:thumbsup:

v2micca
03-18-2011, 05:15 AM
All this does is define a "defenseless player."

Hitting a defenseless player is not illegal. Hitting a defenseless player in the head or neck is illegal.

This changes almost nothing.



I wish I could believe this. But I've already seen too many tackles get flagged that would have been clean back in 2004.

Plus, I'm not certain I agree with your interpretation of the proposed rules change. Hitting a defenseless player currently draws a flag. It is called very inconsistently, but is is still a foul.

"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."

Anderson isn't saying that you have to hit the player around the head and neck to get a foul. He is saying that they want to crack down on those types of hits as well as redefining what a defenseless player is.

And I know that these are just proposed rules changes. But it is much easier to try to make our voice heard now before they are set in stone.

waz06
03-18-2011, 07:58 AM
Did soccer just over take the NFL as "Real football"?


It is real football outside the US ;D

MagicHef
03-18-2011, 10:04 AM
I wish I could believe this. But I've already seen too many tackles get flagged that would have been clean back in 2004.

Plus, I'm not certain I agree with your interpretation of the proposed rules change. Hitting a defenseless player currently draws a flag. It is called very inconsistently, but is is still a foul.

"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."

Anderson isn't saying that you have to hit the player around the head and neck to get a foul. He is saying that they want to crack down on those types of hits as well as redefining what a defenseless player is.

And I know that these are just proposed rules changes. But it is much easier to try to make our voice heard now before they are set in stone.

Can you cite a specific example where a player was flagged for a clean hit on a defenseless player? I can think of several huge hits that were not flagged (because they were not hits to the head or neck). DJ Williams vs. Roy Williams, for example, or one of Philadelphia's safeties vs. Reggie Bush in the playoffs. Both were enormous hits on textbook examples of defenseless players, but neither were flagged because neither were shots to the head or neck.

oubronco
03-18-2011, 10:32 AM
If you play football you should be expecting to get hit and get hit good, it's the way the game was intended to be played that's why they wear pads

Karenin
03-18-2011, 11:18 AM
Why even wear pads anymore if this is true? Just give them the same skirts the cheerleaders wear and get it over with..what a joke!!

It's hilarious when people say idiotic stuff like this... you do realize that concussions, neck and back and other extremely serious injuries are occurring at all-time rates, right? And that it's just a matter of time before someone dies on the field right? ****ing retard, stick to being fat and watching TV.

razorwire77
03-18-2011, 11:26 AM
The moving the kickoff distance is idiotic, as the number of touchbacks at a stadium like Investco, or a Dome will be ridiculous.

But people are making a bigger deal about this than they should.The defining of a defenseless player, is just that defining it to allow the league leeway to fine vicious and for the most part unnecessary hits. The key concept is interpretation of the definitions

A QB in the act of throwing means that you can tee off to the head (same as last year).

A runner in the grasp of tackles will be interpreted that you can't take a 15 yard running start and nail a RB whose forward progress is impeded.

I'll admit the fielding a punt/kickoff is problematic. If the KR/PR fails to signal a fair catch, how is a 240 pound guy that runs a 4.5 supposed to avoid contact? I imagine this will be interpreted that if you tee off on a guy that signals a fair catch, that player can expect to be suspended.

QB after a change of possession is also open to interpretation. If immediately after an interception a player like James Harrison looks across the field for a Peyton Manning and blindside blocks him, 15 yards from the play, he should be suspended. I seriously doubt if QB throws a pick and is actively chasing down the defender, that the rule would be enforced. Really it's much ado about nothing. How often does a QB chase down the defender from behind on an INT? Once a year per team?

The blindside block is directed at the snipers (Hines Ward etc.) Guys who specifically look for a player whose line of vision is directed the other way and viciously level them, when it doesn't affect the play either way. I played the game in HS, I know, "head on a swivel," but the majority of blindside blocks are cheap shots that don't impact the play significantly. I see maybe one or two blindside blocks a year in the NFL, where you could say legitimately say, "Yep he would have made that play, had he not been dropped."

Beantown Bronco
03-18-2011, 11:27 AM
you do realize that concussions, neck and back and other extremely serious injuries are occurring at all-time rates, right?

You actually cannot say this with any degree of certainty. Concussions weren't even reported back in the day. Players just played through them and were never diagnosed. So, while it seems like the number of them are going up, it's only because they are actually keeping really close tabs on it now that it seems that way.