PDA

View Full Version : The New "Hines Ward" rule


Mr. Stiller
03-19-2009, 10:17 PM
Ward's hit may bring change
Blindside blocks could draw flag

Thursday, March 19, 2009
By Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The NFL changed a rule more than 30 years ago that became known as the Mel Blount Rule, and now Hines Ward might have one to call his own as well.

A rule to eliminate a blindside block to the head of a defender will be proposed at the league meetings, which begin Sunday in Dana Point, Calif.

Those proposing the rule acknowledged yesterday that Ward's block in October, which broke the jaw of rookie Cincinnati linebacker Keith Rivers, was among the plays reviewed when they drew it up.

"It's one of several plays we looked at, that's correct," said Ray Anderson, the NFL's executive vice president of football operations. "Under this year's rules, that was a legal hit but we're trying to advance our player safety ... and that would be a flag play."

By that, Anderson meant that the hit raised a flag as to the new rules proposal, and even after viewing it on film they were not sure if Ward's would be a legal hit or not if the new rule passes.

The proposal, according to Anderson and competition committee co-chair Rich McKay, is to try to eliminate or penalize any helmet-to-helmet contact that occurs on a blindside block.

"We have people downfield -- tight ends, receivers or even linemen -- who head back to the line of scrimmage [to throw a block]," McKay said. "We're trying to protect that defender and so that you cannot block that defender in the head. We'd rather have the blocker attempt the block in the chest area, anywhere but the head."

It's not clear even by watching the video, the two NFL officials said, whether Ward's block was with his helmet or shoulder.

"I think there was some debate there," Anderson said. "Some of our eyes may have seen helmet to helmet, some may have seen shoulder to helmet."

Ward was neither penalized nor fined for the hit on Rivers.

"Certainly Hines' was one that was perfectly legal last year," Anderson said, "but as Rich said, the result of those types of hits led to the conclusion that for safety's sake, we want to eliminate those types of blindside hits if you will."

The NFL passed new rules in 1978 that benefited the passing game. Perhaps the major change was the one that become known as the "Mel Blount Rule" because defenders no longer could bump a receiver 5 yards beyond the line of scrimmage. Previously, they could bump a receiver anywhere until the ball was in the air. Blount, a Steelers Hall of Fame cornerback, used his 6-foot-3, 205-pound size to overwhelm receivers before a pass was thrown.

McKay acknowledged that the competition committee focused on player safety when they came up with four of their seven rules proposals for the owners to consider next week. Another Steelers player might have helped inspire one of them.

Ryan Clark had celebrated hits on New England wide receiver Wes Welker and Baltimore running back Willis McGahee last season, which were decried by many but declared legal and never drew fines. Those might fall in a gray area if Rule Proposal No. 4 passes next week.

"In 1995, we passed a rule that allowed there to be protection for a defenseless receiver in the air, helmet to helmet," McKay said.

The new rule would expand that to include a hit with a forearm or shoulder to the head until the receiver has two feet on the ground.

"There were an awful lot of hits in the last couple of years that have been legal but very tough on the players," McKay said. "We're trying to expand that protection."

While Clark's hits came with his shoulder to the head, both receivers had their feet on the ground at the time, so that type of hit still might be legal if the new rule passes.

Other safety rules proposals involve the elimination of the "bunching" of players on onside kicks and limiting the number of players who can be used in a "wedge" on kickoff returns to two.

Some other minor rules adjustments will be considered, including a small expansion of plays that can be reviewed by replay. The owners also will continue to discuss expanding the regular season to 17 or 18 games but no decision can be made on that. The NFL Players Association would have to agree to such an expansion and that likely will be among the debates when the sides begin labor negotiations.

There is a proposal to change the draft order of teams involved in the playoffs, but there is little sentiment by players or club officials to change the NFL's overtime rules, the two league officials said yesterday.
Ed Bouchette can be reached at ebouchette@post-gazette.com.




Anyone else ready to break out the flags?

Bucs_Rule
03-19-2009, 10:29 PM
I love ward and those kind of hits. Sure players get injured by them, thats why it is a contact sport. If you don't want to get tough contact play Golf.

The Legend
03-19-2009, 10:29 PM
Sounds like a good move. It's not really need in the game. And people get hurt by it.

Strongside
03-19-2009, 10:38 PM
FML. 10 characters

Michigan
03-19-2009, 10:40 PM
No way. A rule change helping defensive players?!?

Beans
03-19-2009, 10:41 PM
No way. A rule change helping defensive players?!?

yeah this doesnt make any sense at all

someone447
03-19-2009, 10:42 PM
Sounds like a good move. It's not really need in the game. And people get hurt by it.

Really? Blindside blocks aren't needed in the game? People watch football for the big hits. Hell, I am speaking as a defender. Get hit like that once and you will get your head on a swivel from there on out.

I have absolutely no problem with those blocks. The defenseless receiver is a different story, because he has to be looking for the ball in the air. A defender is supposed to keep his head on a swivel at all times.

steelersfan43
03-19-2009, 10:57 PM
Really? Blindside blocks aren't needed in the game? People watch football for the big hits. Hell, I am speaking as a defender. Get hit like that once and you will get your head on a swivel from there on out.

I have absolutely no problem with those blocks. The defenseless receiver is a different story, because he has to be looking for the ball in the air. A defender is supposed to keep his head on a swivel at all times.


It is only legal to touch the reciever once the ball has been touched, so in most situations he isnt looking for the ball anymore.... Why shouldnt recievers have to keep their heads on a swivel? Defenders have to watch the ball carrier and avoid blocks, recievers should have to watch the ball and avoid hits....

BeerBaron
03-19-2009, 10:59 PM
I hate it. The NFL is becoming a pussies only league.

This is football, not soccer folks. Anything other than blatant attempts to hurt someone (ex diving at knees unnecessarily, leading helmet first, etc) should be just fine.

But, this is the age we live in.....I guess it was inevitable.

steelersfan43
03-19-2009, 11:02 PM
I hate it. The NFL is becoming a pussies only league.

This is football, not soccer folks. Anything other than blatant attempts to hurt someone (ex diving at knees unnecessarily, leading helmet first, etc) should be just fine.

But, this is the age we live in.....I guess it was inevitable.

Down with Goodell!!!

BadHabitz
03-19-2009, 11:28 PM
Just to clarify the article discusses the banning of blindside blocks to the head. I think in today's game this is completely warranted and doesn't diminish the "toughness" of the game in any way.

I am a firm believer in the supposition that the NFL is becoming softer and softer, but this rule change would prevent a lot of unnecessary injuries. A devestating blindside block can still be performed without aiming at the player's head, the same way that we are able to have intimidating hits without the dangerous necktie tackles.

M.O.T.H.
03-19-2009, 11:32 PM
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/17933/Hurd-on-Arch-3_medium.gif

Clean.

someone447
03-19-2009, 11:34 PM
It is only legal to touch the reciever once the ball has been touched, so in most situations he isnt looking for the ball anymore.... Why shouldnt recievers have to keep their heads on a swivel? Defenders have to watch the ball carrier and avoid blocks, recievers should have to watch the ball and avoid hits....

It also used to be legal to hit them after the ball had passed. But it didn't have to be past by much, just slightly over his head.

Have you ever tried to catch a ball while looking at a defensive back? A thrown ball moves much, much, much faster than a running back. Those are completely different situations.

I find it hard to believe I am arguing against for something that will help the defense, considering I was a defensive player during most of my playing years, and I think a well fought defensive battle is as entertaining, if not more so than a high scoring shootout.

kalbears13
03-19-2009, 11:39 PM
http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/17933/Hurd-on-Arch-3_medium.gif

Clean.

Yeah he used his shoulder so I don't think that would get banned.

Menardo75
03-20-2009, 12:58 AM
The hit by Hines was totally legal injuries are part of the game.

someone447
03-20-2009, 01:14 AM
Yeah he used his shoulder so I don't think that would get banned.

It has been illegal to lead with the helmet for a very long time. The rule change is aiming at the head, not using yours.

CC.SD
03-20-2009, 01:29 AM
Pussification of the nfl continues.

kalbears13
03-20-2009, 01:30 AM
It has been illegal to lead with the helmet for a very long time. The rule change is aiming at the head, not using yours.

From the GIF it still looks as though he hits his upper chest. But I don't remember the hit or can find it anywhere else so I can't be sure.

Geo
03-20-2009, 01:36 AM
I hate it. The NFL is becoming a pussies only league.

This is football, not soccer folks. Anything other than blatant attempts to hurt someone (ex diving at knees unnecessarily, leading helmet first, etc) should be just fine.

But, this is the age we live in.....I guess it was inevitable.
Hey Dick Butkus, how the hell is a blindside blow to the head not a blatant attempt to hurt someone?

cunit2k9
03-20-2009, 01:46 AM
Really? Blindside blocks aren't needed in the game? People watch football for the big hits. Hell, I am speaking as a defender. Get hit like that once and you will get your head on a swivel from there on out.

I have absolutely no problem with those blocks. The defenseless receiver is a different story, because he has to be looking for the ball in the air. A defender is supposed to keep his head on a swivel at all times.

It's blindside blocks to the head. Not in general.

Paranoidmoonduck
03-20-2009, 01:50 AM
I approve of this. Blindside blocks to the head are unnecessary. Just lead with your shoulder. There's no reason that offensive players shouldn't be held to the same standards that their counterparts on the defense are held to.

someone447
03-20-2009, 02:01 AM
I approve of this. Blindside blocks to the head are unnecessary. Just lead with your shoulder. There's no reason that offensive players shouldn't be held to the same standards that their counterparts on the defense are held to.

Leading with the helmet or shoulder is not the issue here. Leading with the helmet has been banned for a while, on either side of the ball. It is where the block is targeted. I don't think offensive or defensive players should have to avoid hitting someone on the helmet with their shoulder.

Mr. Stiller
03-20-2009, 02:15 AM
My issue with this?

It's a judgement call. Refs are going to have to make this call split decision ON THE FIELD.

They even said they still believe that Hines was a clean shot but it's hard to tell.. and they've had 6-8 Months and video replay and they're still unsure.

I want the rules more cut and dry... less of a way to have refs use their judgement when they might have been screened.

captainjack27
03-20-2009, 02:32 AM
Sounds like a good move. It's not really need in the game. And people get hurt by it.

What are you talking about? Not needed? Yea that makes sense. So on a crucial block to spring an RB, lets have players wait till the others are looking... please.

This is football, if its not helmet to helmet, it's legal and should stay that way.

captainjack27
03-20-2009, 02:33 AM
I approve of this. Blindside blocks to the head are unnecessary. Just lead with your shoulder. There's no reason that offensive players shouldn't be held to the same standards that their counterparts on the defense are held to.


I think they are talking about blindsided blocks all together. Leadaing with your head is still a penalty.

Strongside
03-20-2009, 02:34 AM
My problem is that it's really hard to think about all this **** as a player. Someone who totally did not attend to do something dirty could be called easily. It's hard to control exactly where you're going to hit someone when you're going 1000mph. What if the other player is shorter than you? That makes it even harder.

TitanHope
03-20-2009, 03:55 AM
Does anyone actually read the articles around here?

The proposal, according to Anderson and competition committee co-chair Rich McKay, is to try to eliminate or penalize any helmet-to-helmet contact that occurs on a blindside block.

They later say in the article that Hines Ward's block might not have been a penalty even if this rule was implemented.

A player suffered a season ending injury as a result of being blocked high as he was hit from his blindside. Obviously, it's something to take into issue as the rules comittee is reviewing this season.

The biggest impact a rule like this would likely have is on punt and kickoff returns when the returner reverses the field.

The Legend
03-20-2009, 03:56 AM
Really? Blindside blocks aren't needed in the game? People watch football for the big hits. Hell, I am speaking as a defender. Get hit like that once and you will get your head on a swivel from there on out.

I have absolutely no problem with those blocks. The defenseless receiver is a different story, because he has to be looking for the ball in the air. A defender is supposed to keep his head on a swivel at all times.

What are you talking about? Not needed? Yea that makes sense. So on a crucial block to spring an RB, lets have players wait till the others are looking... please.

This is football, if its not helmet to helmet, it's legal and should stay that way.



Maybe you read it wrong "blindside block to the head of a defender"

So like I said there's no need for that. No reason to go after someone's head.

RAVENS/WIZARDS/ORIOLES
03-20-2009, 07:37 AM
It doesn't bother me much but I can say I enjoy a good hit by a WR. Hines Ward you bastard why did you have to break someones jaw.

brat316
03-20-2009, 08:06 AM
I guess no one is worried about the other rules being passed like to many men on one side, for onside kicks. Or using less wedge guys.

They are just trying to deal away with helmet to helmet block, shoulder to helmet blind side block is A-okay.

Again this is another one of those dumbass gray rules, like forcing a WR out, if he didn't get pushed would he be able to get his feet in bounds? Then they finally make it clear that the WR has to be carried out, in order for the rule to apply.

vikes_28
03-20-2009, 09:01 AM
Tell the little ****** to suck it up. The NFL is phyisical. Hines Ward is a beast.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
03-20-2009, 09:11 AM
Give me a break guys. This doesn't eliminate backside blocks, and even under the new rules Ward wouldn't have been fined. You guys are acting like they are eliminating these things all together, instead of just trying to avoid the to the head crap that is completely unneccessary. A big, clean, backside block would still be legal, don't overreact....

The Unseen
03-20-2009, 09:18 AM
Isn't it ironic that this is like the Carson Palmer rule, in that it was based off of his play yet there would have not been a penalty on that play under the new rule?

anyways

I think if it's enforced fairly, a rule limiting helmet-to-helmet is good. Of course, watch the refs make BS calls because of it. That's the problem.

brat316
03-20-2009, 09:19 AM
Give me a break guys. This doesn't eliminate backside blocks, and even under the new rules Ward wouldn't have been fined. You guys are acting like they are eliminating these things all together, instead of just trying to avoid the to the head crap that is completely unneccessary. A big, clean, backside block would still be legal, don't overreact....

isn't that clipping?

Or are your referring taking a shot at the guys ribs while turned sideways and knocking him out, cause i'm for that.

FlyingElvis
03-20-2009, 09:25 AM
Helmet to helmet contact is already a penalty and a fine. How is this rule proposal any different?

brat316
03-20-2009, 09:31 AM
Helmet to helmet contact is already a penalty and a fine. How is this rule proposal any different?

usually no one cares about it on blocking plays, only hits. This is a blind side block not tackle.

Brent
03-20-2009, 09:42 AM
Does anyone actually read the articles around here?
Are you new here? Haha, seemingly no one does that.

AntoinCD
03-20-2009, 09:56 AM
I don't get this. Yea safety is important but think about it, without those kinda blocks defensive TDs and Punt returns etc wouldn't happen. So your Devin Hesters, Reggie Bushs etc wouldn't have the same sort of chances to produce highlights which would generate less interest in fans which in turn would generate less revenue. There has to be a line drawn between when there is a good chance of someone being hurt and detracting from the game. Just because a fairly high profile rookie gets hurt should not be enough for a rule change.

By the way the block at 26 secs in this return was beautiful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aRh2WUz18

FlyingElvis
03-20-2009, 10:04 AM
usually no one cares about it on blocking plays, only hits. This is a blind side block not tackle.

I understand that, but I didn't think the rule specified helmet to helmet tackle vs. helmet to helmet hit.

Blocking or tackling - helmet to helmet is a penalty. There is no need for a new rule. Simply make a point to say the current rule will be more strictly enforced on blocks.

brat316
03-20-2009, 10:51 AM
I don't get this. Yea safety is important but think about it, without those kinda blocks defensive TDs and Punt returns etc wouldn't happen. So your Devin Hesters, Reggie Bushs etc wouldn't have the same sort of chances to produce highlights which would generate less interest in fans which in turn would generate less revenue. There has to be a line drawn between when there is a good chance of someone being hurt and detracting from the game. Just because a fairly high profile rookie gets hurt should not be enough for a rule change.

By the way the block at 26 secs in this return was beautiful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aRh2WUz18



Look there would be MORE returns for TD, at least KR. Since they are thinking of adding a rule for less wedge buster guys.

bored of education
03-20-2009, 11:09 AM
The new "HinesWardJr" Rule would be what then?

The Great Jonathan Vilma
03-20-2009, 11:33 AM
I don't get this. Yea safety is important but think about it, without those kinda blocks defensive TDs and Punt returns etc wouldn't happen. So your Devin Hesters, Reggie Bushs etc wouldn't have the same sort of chances to produce highlights which would generate less interest in fans which in turn would generate less revenue. There has to be a line drawn between when there is a good chance of someone being hurt and detracting from the game. Just because a fairly high profile rookie gets hurt should not be enough for a rule change.

By the way the block at 26 secs in this return was beautiful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8aRh2WUz18

It was beautiful, and from my understanding, wouldn't be a penalty with this new rule. Correct me if i'm wrong, but people aren't really reading what the proposed rule is, as it doesn't remove those blocks all together......which people seem to be assuming it does....

Paranoidmoonduck
03-20-2009, 11:34 AM
Leading with the helmet or shoulder is not the issue here. Leading with the helmet has been banned for a while, on either side of the ball. It is where the block is targeted. I don't think offensive or defensive players should have to avoid hitting someone on the helmet with their shoulder.

Well, considering that unless the height difference is great, someone really has to try to knock someone in the head with their shoulder.

Halsey
03-20-2009, 12:10 PM
There's always fans who think they're tough when they disagree with rule changes that protect players from unnecessary injury. Everytime a rule like this is brought up they start in with "Grrr it's a contract sport! Injuries happen! I'm so tough sitting in my seat typing my disagreement to this rule! Who cares that I'm not the one out there taking the hits! I'm so tough!". The fact is when these rule changes get are put in to place it usually doesn't hurt the game. If it does, they can just change it back. A couple of years ago these tough fans were whining about the horse collar rule. Now that it's in place the only thing that's changed is players aren't getting their legs broken when some jackass defender decides to drag a player down by pulling back on the back of his jersey while falling onto the back of his legs. That rule didn't hurt the game at all that I can tell.

captainjack27
03-20-2009, 12:13 PM
Maybe you read it wrong "blindside block to the head of a defender"

So like I said there's no need for that. No reason to go after someone's head.

**** my bad.

captainjack27
03-20-2009, 12:17 PM
Helmet to helmet contact is already a penalty and a fine. How is this rule proposal any different?


I think its now any hit leading to the head. Like even a shoulder to the head? Iono that was the impression I got too. Which confused me because helmet to helmet is already a penalty

someone447
03-20-2009, 12:39 PM
Well, considering that unless the height difference is great, someone really has to try to knock someone in the head with their shoulder.

Except defenders are often times low in order to make a cut when they get blindsided.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
03-20-2009, 12:47 PM
There's always fans who think they're tough when they disagree with rule changes that protect players from unnecessary injury. Everytime a rule like this is brought up they start in with "Grrr it's a contract sport! Injuries happen! I'm so tough sitting in my seat typing my disagreement to this rule! Who cares that I'm not the one out there taking the hits! I'm so tough!". The fact is when these rule changes get are put in to place it usually doesn't hurt the game. If it does, they can just change it back. A couple of years ago these tough fans were whining about the horse collar rule. Now that it's in place the only thing that's changed is players aren't getting their legs broken when some jackass defender decides to drag a player down by pulling back on the back of his jersey while falling onto the back of his legs. That rule didn't hurt the game at all that I can tell.

Agreed. Everyone is tough until the laws of physics work against them and you end up with a career/season ending or brain injury. But hey, 'it's a contact sport'. Read the rule that they are suggesting, all it does is mitigate the possibility of needless injury. Good call IMO. I don't want one of my favorite players (or any player for that matter) taking an unnecessary (and illegal) hit if he doesn't have to. Clean shot injuries will still happen, but at least you can enforce that the ones they do take will occasionally be deemed to have crossed the line.

someone447
03-20-2009, 01:12 PM
There's always fans who think they're tough when they disagree with rule changes that protect players from unnecessary injury. Everytime a rule like this is brought up they start in with "Grrr it's a contract sport! Injuries happen! I'm so tough sitting in my seat typing my disagreement to this rule! Who cares that I'm not the one out there taking the hits! I'm so tough!". The fact is when these rule changes get are put in to place it usually doesn't hurt the game. If it does, they can just change it back. A couple of years ago these tough fans were whining about the horse collar rule. Now that it's in place the only thing that's changed is players aren't getting their legs broken when some jackass defender decides to drag a player down by pulling back on the back of his jersey while falling onto the back of his legs. That rule didn't hurt the game at all that I can tell.

If this rule was just outlawing helmet to helmet hits I would be all for it. I would rather they just get stricter on that aspect. But to outlaw shoulder pad to helmet hits is what I don't agree with.

The fact of the matter is, these people choose to play football, not to mention they are well compensated for it. I have had a couple concussions, and my back is ****** from playing football. But I knew what I was getting into when I did it. So do NFL players.

This is coming from someone who has taken those types of hits at a relatively high level. Does it suck when you get your bell rung? Of course it does, but it is also part of the game. What are the most memorable hits of all time? The ones when the helmet goes flying off, right? This has nothing to do with trying to act tough, at least for me. It has to do with them outlawing some of my fondest memories of watching football as a kid.

someone447
03-20-2009, 01:13 PM
Agreed. Everyone is tough until the laws of physics work against them and you end up with a career/season ending or brain injury. But hey, 'it's a contact sport'. Read the rule that they are suggesting, all it does is mitigate the possibility of needless injury. Good call IMO. I don't want one of my favorite players (or any player for that matter) taking an unnecessary (and illegal) hit if he doesn't have to. Clean shot injuries will still happen, but at least you can enforce that the ones they do take will occasionally be deemed to have crossed the line.

Why does a shoulder pad to the helmet cross the line? If a defender is crouched down trying to change direction, avoiding the head is a very hard thing to do.

B S D
03-20-2009, 01:16 PM
If this rule was just outlawing helmet to helmet hits I would be all for it. I would rather they just get stricter on that aspect. But to outlaw shoulder pad to helmet hits is what I don't agree with.

The fact of the matter is, these people choose to play football, not to mention they are well compensated for it. I have had a couple concussions, and my back is ****** from playing football. But I knew what I was getting into when I did it. So do NFL players.

This is coming from someone who has taken those types of hits at a relatively high level. Does it suck when you get your bell rung? Of course it does, but it is also part of the game. What are the most memorable hits of all time? The ones when the helmet goes flying off, right? This has nothing to do with trying to act tough, at least for me. It has to do with them outlawing some of my fondest memories of watching football as a kid.

How many times did those hits leave you seriously injured, paralyzed, or worse? There are risks anytime you compete in football but why not do everything we can to minimize those risks so we don't have as many Terrence Murphy stories.

someone447
03-20-2009, 01:26 PM
How many times did those hits leave you seriously injured, paralyzed, or worse? There are risks anytime you compete in football but why not do everything we can to minimize those risks so we don't have as many Terrence Murphy stories.

Personally, I don't think there is anything worse than being paralyzed. But luckily, never. I was lucky to escape relatively unscathed.

How many times have you seen someone get blown up(by a hit that is being outlawed) and get up, shake their head and laugh about it? They knew it was a good, clean hit, and that it wouldn't have happened had they had their head on a swivel. This rule is outlawing a clean hit. Why not make a rule that you can't go for a running backs legs, since there are so many serious knee injuries from that. This is a slippery slope.

I didn't mind the horse collar rule, once I realized they weren't outlawing jumping on the back to bring someone down, just grabbing the inside of their shoulder pad to do it.

BlindSite
03-21-2009, 06:43 PM
Hitting the head of an unprotected player should be illegal someone could be killed, shoulder to shoulder, or going low is going to take them out of the play. If it can be done just as easily in a safer manner it should be enforced.

brat316
03-24-2009, 04:11 PM
now that most of the rules have passed. How does a offesive player like a WR block a 250 lb Lb, take a shot to the knees, use arms and get owned,....

MetSox17
03-24-2009, 05:46 PM
now that most of the rules have passed. How does a offesive player like a WR block a 250 lb Lb, take a shot to the knees, use arms and get owned,....

You squat down and put your eyes in his numbers. That's how you're taught since pop warner.

BlindSite
03-24-2009, 07:16 PM
You squat down and put your eyes in his numbers. That's how you're taught since pop warner.

Exactly, I'm not the biggest guy 5"10 200 pounds and I used to take down guys twice my size. You get low and you drive with your legs.

If you hit someone round the head with your shoulder it's a dangerous move and sure, it's easy to say "football isn't ballet or golf" but it's not you being strapped to a stretcher, going for MRI's and having your family surrounding you worried about your health because some guy can't be bothered aiming a few inches lower when he hits you.

Mr. Stiller
03-25-2009, 12:44 AM
Again, my concern isn't necessarily the rule in place. It's the enforcement of the rule.

Are they going to call on the side of caution? Because like they even said in the article, months later they're still trying to determine if Hines hit him at all in the head.

It may be just me, but I wanted the rules more streamlined and yet now again they're giving more and more gray area for the refs to try to determine in a split second if this or that happened.


I wouldn't care as much if they had full-time refs, but, even so, it's still yet another thing that has to be determined too quickly and often at too hard of an angle or viewpoint to see clearly.

They're saying that Hines hit was clean. My guess if that rule was in place, it would be still a "Clean" hit but it would be flagged just so the refs play the "better safe than sorry" route.

I remember a bunch of threads devoted to the ridiculous roughing the passer calls. What happens when the refs start botching these and costing teams valuable yardage.

BlindSite
03-25-2009, 04:05 AM
You deal with it and move on, at the end of the day player safety is more important than a penalty.

Mr. Stiller
03-25-2009, 07:37 AM
You deal with it and move on, at the end of the day player safety is more important than a penalty.

So you were not at all offended with the over-protection of the QB's last season which even resulted in the Bronco's stealing a win from San Diego.

When your season can hinge on 1 extra win that season, just "Deal with it and move on" isn't exactly a great strategy.

The Great Jonathan Vilma
03-25-2009, 12:03 PM
So you were not at all offended with the over-protection of the QB's last season which even resulted in the Bronco's stealing a win from San Diego.

When your season can hinge on 1 extra win that season, just "Deal with it and move on" isn't exactly a great strategy.

Slightly different things to compare if you ask me, but use it if you like.

My understanding is that the Broncos stole the game on a bad call that wasn't necessarily due to over-protection of the QB.

If this play causes a team to lose a game then the player who commited the penalty made a boneheaded play....plain and simple.

Boy do people sure whine a lot...

brat316
03-25-2009, 12:06 PM
How about less KR for TD.

You not allowed to wedge players together, well not 3 players, only 2 players per wedge.

someone447
03-25-2009, 12:25 PM
Slightly different things to compare if you ask me, but use it if you like.

My understanding is that the Broncos stole the game on a bad call that wasn't necessarily due to over-protection of the QB.

If this play causes a team to lose a game then the player who commited the penalty made a boneheaded play....plain and simple.

Boy do people sure whine a lot...

You are supposed to lower your pad level to change direction, it isn't a boneheaded play to blindside someone who is crouched down.

I don't mind the other three rules, because they don't take away a big part of the game(although I'm not completely sure what the 2 man wedge is supposed to accomplish.)

Mr. Stiller
03-26-2009, 02:33 AM
Slightly different things to compare if you ask me, but use it if you like.

My understanding is that the Broncos stole the game on a bad call that wasn't necessarily due to over-protection of the QB.

If this play causes a team to lose a game then the player who commited the penalty made a boneheaded play....plain and simple.

Boy do people sure whine a lot...

It's not even whining.

I'm just pointing out a couple facts.

Refs were told to be more cautious with QB's after Brady's knee injury. Then Ed Hochuli blows a whistle pre-emptively because Cutler looked like he was about to be hit, ergo blowing a turnover. Thats on Hochuli and the league.

The only thing I'm getting at is these part time refs have enough to focus for on their plate, but now they have to make even more judgment calls. Which means more bad calls.

Like I said, Hines was a clean hit, but I would be anyone here if that exact play happened this season, Hines would be getting a flag, because of the impact and the fact that they can't review it.. have to waver towards caution.


And I find the most interesting part about Rivers injury? it was caused by his head hitting the ground, not Ward's hit.

So yeah, with so many subjective calls, they should either hire refs fulltime or start making the rules more black and white.

BlindSite
03-26-2009, 03:01 AM
So you were not at all offended with the over-protection of the QB's last season which even resulted in the Bronco's stealing a win from San Diego.

When your season can hinge on 1 extra win that season, just "Deal with it and move on" isn't exactly a great strategy.

The chargers still made the playoffs and Hochuli's call was a blatant mistake, it's not likely to happen with the new rules. You're saying it means there's going to be more bad calls. Hochuli stuffing up was an anomaly, not the norm.

brat316
03-26-2009, 09:19 AM
You know what i'm surprised hasn't happen yet the "Tom Brady Rule" the new "Palmer rule" no diving at a defenseless qb legs, when your on the ground. Now that would be stupid, your telling the defensive player pretty much to quit, if you on ground and diving distance away. Instead they have to get up pretty much all the way waste time and think about where they are going to hit the qb. Also the qb is never defenseless, unless he doesn't have the ball is standing there. Also if this had happened to Dan Orlovsky no one would even care.

someone447
03-26-2009, 09:32 AM
You know what i'm surprised hasn't happen yet the "Tom Brady Rule" the new "Palmer rule" no diving at a defenseless qb legs, when your on the ground. Now that would be stupid, your telling the defensive player pretty much to quit, if you on ground and diving distance away. Instead they have to get up pretty much all the way waste time and think about where they are going to hit the qb. Also the qb is never defenseless, unless he doesn't have the ball is standing there. Also if this had happened to Dan Orlovsky no one would even care.

That was one of the 4 rules that got changed.

I don't have a problem with that, because it only says you cannot lunge at the QB below his knees from the ground.

brat316
03-26-2009, 09:43 AM
That was one of the 4 rules that got changed.

I don't have a problem with that, because it only says you cannot lunge at the QB below his knees from the ground.

That rule would never have gotten changed if it was not the poster boy of the NFL Tom Brady, or any other high profile qb.

captainjack27
03-26-2009, 12:57 PM
That was one of the 4 rules that got changed.

I don't have a problem with that, because it only says you cannot lunge at the QB below his knees from the ground.

That's a garbage rule. I understand lunging at the knees is a problem, but as (Can't believe I'm saying this) as Mike Golic said, wtf is the Dlineman supposed to do? Stand up and make the tackle? Pollard was trying to make a play, I do not fault him at all. And this is only because it's Tom ******* Brady. Remember when Kimo Von Oelhoffen did the same thing to Carson Palmer in the playoffs?

brat316
03-26-2009, 01:02 PM
That's a garbage rule. I understand lunging at the knees is a problem, but as (Can't believe I'm saying this) as Mike Golic said, wtf is the Dlineman supposed to do? Stand up and make the tackle? Pollard was trying to make a play, I do not fault him at all. And this is only because it's Tom ******* Brady. Remember when Kimo Von Oelhoffen did the same thing to Carson Palmer in the playoffs?

Google Carson Palmer rule.

captainjack27
03-26-2009, 01:06 PM
Google Carson Palmer rule.

Ok, so Bernie Pollard basically just killed that rule. He had no way else of making that play but diving to hit brady since he was already on the ground.

someone447
03-26-2009, 01:30 PM
Ok, so Bernie Pollard basically just killed that rule. He had no way else of making that play but diving to hit brady since he was already on the ground.

Swiping at his legs, grabbing his legs, all the stuff Dlinemen do most of the time anyway. This rule is a lot like the Horsecollar rule, it takes away one of the more dangerous ways to tackle someone, leaving only the ways that are as effective or more effective to begin with.

brat316
03-26-2009, 03:15 PM
When your on the ground, and trying to make a tackle explain what the effective way to do it is?

someone447
03-26-2009, 04:12 PM
When your on the ground, and trying to make a tackle explain what the effective way to do it is?

I did in the last post, and if you would watch a game, you would see that dlinemen rarely lunge at a qbs legs, instead they swipe or grab them. Huge difference.

brat316
03-26-2009, 04:20 PM
I did in the last post, and if you would watch a game, you would see that dlinemen rarely lunge at a qbs legs, instead they swipe or grab them. Huge difference.

swiping and grabing and then rolling is good when your closer than arm distance on the ground. But what about when your on the ground not close enough to swipe?

someone447
03-26-2009, 04:28 PM
swiping and grabing and then rolling is good when your closer than arm distance on the ground. But what about when your on the ground not close enough to swipe?

Crawl or lunge above the knees... The rule only outlaws lunging at a QB below his knees.

Mr. Stiller
03-26-2009, 11:33 PM
The chargers still made the playoffs and Hochuli's call was a blatant mistake, it's not likely to happen with the new rules. You're saying it means there's going to be more bad calls. Hochuli stuffing up was an anomaly, not the norm.

adding more rules that have such a huge gray area and have to be determined in a mere second or less?

Yeah I'm sure mistakes won't happen.

CC.SD
03-27-2009, 12:46 AM
The chargers still made the playoffs and Hochuli's call was a blatant mistake, it's not likely to happen with the new rules. You're saying it means there's going to be more bad calls. Hochuli stuffing up was an anomaly, not the norm.

Yeah but the rule was changed to prevent future anomalies. The thing about the Hochuli call that nobody mentions is that he knew he blew it immediately...you can tell because they moved the ball backwards from the previous line of scrimmage: it was treated as a fumble. However, because of the whistle they couldn't allow a change of possession. That kind of crap needs to be erased from the rulebook, or be reviewable. Uch.