This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That'll shake things up
I understand player safety and all, but really?I guess I underestimated the amount of players hurt busting a wedge and recovering an onside kick.
And don't forget that we should also expand to 18 games. I'm sure these sorts of measures are related to that. 
Yup, pretty soon no Blitzing either. It will be like the Pro Bowl EVERY GAME.And don't forget that we should also expand to 18 games. I'm sure these sorts of measures are related to that.
two? that´s it? wouldn´t you want to make it more to increase the likelyhood of a KOR-TD? big play? excitement?
Maybe you missed the "to the head" part. Penalizing a hit to the head on an unsuspecting player is a good thing. If you think otherwise maybe UFC is your sport.What's with the 2-man wedge? That's not even possible, like saying you'll put 2 players in a circle.That blindside blocking thing is a joke. Hines Ward cleans one guy's clock, so they make a rule?I can just see coaches now this summer: "OK wideouts, we don't want a penalty, so if you are making a block on a linebacker, and coming from the blindside, just dive at their knees...."
No, I didn't miss it. I am saying that the way players will react to this rule, is by diving at players knees instead. And I can tell you now, that knee injuries are much more likely than a player getting a concussion on a blindside block.I don't think defensive players were getting hurt on this type of play a lot, I think it's a knee jerk reaction to ONE play from last year. I am imagining a 6'5" TE peeling back and blocking a 5'10" cornerback, and trying to figure out how to block him without coming near his helmet.Maybe you missed the "to the head" part. Penalizing a hit to the head on an unsuspecting player is a good thing. If you think otherwise maybe UFC is your sport.That blindside blocking thing is a joke. Hines Ward cleans one guy's clock, so they make a rule?I can just see coaches now this summer: "OK wideouts, we don't want a penalty, so if you are making a block on a linebacker, and coming from the blindside, just dive at their knees...."
You forgot the 5th rule which is equipment related. Team issued cups and panties will be mandatory for all players who suit up for a game...massraider said:
Thought that was a strange one too. How do you create a wedge with only two players? Wouldn't it require at least three? Why not go with five to mirror an offensive line?brednbuddah said:
Because the players at the line of scrimmage don't get a 40 yard head start before plowing into each other.The thinking was that by eliminating the wedge, they cut down on players busting the wedge, which apparently is a dangerous occupation.
Not trying to be personal here, but I sense a lot of bravado out of those that have never been through life in the NFL. Not that I have but I'm not pretending to.
I get what you're saying, and it would be unfortunate if an increase in knee injuries is the result. From the limited amount of NFL I've seen it appears to be pretty easy to just knock a guy over that is considered "unsuspecting" and does not know or expect a hit from your direction. The broken jaw hit on Rivers by Ward, while legal, was completely unnecessary. He could have accomplished the same thing (preventing the defender from making a play) by a simply standing in front of him. He lead with his head and I'm glad to see this is now not a legal hit.massraider said:No, I didn't miss it. I am saying that the way players will react to this rule, is by diving at players knees instead. And I can tell you now, that knee injuries are much more likely than a player getting a concussion on a blindside block.I don't think defensive players were getting hurt on this type of play a lot, I think it's a knee jerk reaction to ONE play from last year. I am imagining a 6'5" TE peeling back and blocking a 5'10" cornerback, and trying to figure out how to block him without coming near his helmet.puckalicious said:Maybe you missed the "to the head" part. Penalizing a hit to the head on an unsuspecting player is a good thing. If you think otherwise maybe UFC is your sport.massraider said:That blindside blocking thing is a joke. Hines Ward cleans one guy's clock, so they make a rule?I can just see coaches now this summer: "OK wideouts, we don't want a penalty, so if you are making a block on a linebacker, and coming from the blindside, just dive at their knees...."
No, they will just put the QB in a shark cage. He gets to pop up out the top to make a throw.Bankerguy said:Yup, pretty soon no Blitzing either. It will be like the Pro Bowl EVERY GAME.T Bell said:WampusCat43 said:And don't forget that we should also expand to 18 games. I'm sure these sorts of measures are related to that.
Isn't that the Lion's logo?Where's the sissy smiley?Payne said:massraider said:
I'd attribute it more to the fact that just as many QB's get hurt now with all the rules than before. It's a violent sport and it's been popular regardless who is under the helmet. Some might be playing the "bravado" card, but I'm going to take a guess that others find it laughable that such an agressive sport is trying to play nice, but still be mean...if you know what I saying.
I get the protecting against hits to the head which is why I did not include those in my quote. But what is the problem with overloading the side for an onside kick? And I just don't get the more than 2 players in a wedge deal at all. Have we had too many wedge related career ending injuries? Has there been an unfair advantage for those teams that utilize the wedge? Is it boring TV when teams utilize a 5 man wedge sorta like the neutral zone trap in hockey?
We're all fans of a contact sport that has gotten watered down continually over the years to the point where you seemingly need a law degree and not a little luck to figure out what's going on when the flags are thrown on just about every play. If I wanted to watch refs and rules committees decide games I'd watch the NBA.
From the ESPN article:
From the same article:
That may not be as specific as you are asking for. BUt I think it comes down to the nature of the contact and how likely it is to cause injury, and I think despite the complaints that the NFL has been pretty consistent in this. It isn't like by not allowing clothesline tackles that they took all violence out of football. It isn't like these rules take the violence out either, but they make it less likely to hurt someone.You don't see rules restricting tackling ball carriers in normal situations because they aren't as big of an injury risk in comparison. You have a ball carrier who normally is trying to elude the tackler, so limits the impact of a hit. You have a defender who seldom has a chance to reach full sprint and deliver a hit... instead having to break down the ball carrier to avoid getting juked and whiffing. If the defender is at full speed then he's more likely to be running at an angle, like a LB chasing down a RB trying to get the corner where they are both going the same way.
Why bother blitzing when it's a 15 yard penalty to tackle the quarterback anyway?And seriously, wtf is up with the onside kick rule? I honestly cannot remember seeing a single person ever get injured on an onside kick.
Kellen Winslow Jr?
Just a note
enalties per team per game were lower in 2008 than in any season since 1974.
And at the Big Football Dime Store Porch, all the real men guffawed from their rocking chairs at how the game would be made up of ####### if the rules were changed to protect the players.ETA:
This is wrong to me. Actually, this is absurd to me.Unnecessary? That doesn't enter into it. Players get hit on every single play, and not all of them are necessary. Unnecessary but legal is a D-lineman taking a shot at an offensive lineman during an INT, when it is clear the guy ain't making the tackle.
always try to watch the wedge-busters colliding with the wedge. so many guys get crumpled. brutal.massraider said:
After reading some of the points in this thread, I understand that one now. Honestly, I can see what the NFL is doing here but I think that a lot of these safety measures will be for naught if/when they do expand the regular season.always try to watch the wedge-busters colliding with the wedge. so many guys get crumpled. brutal.massraider said:
The real question is how does this impact the returns and teh value of return guys?massraider said:
I guess he will have to go low and take his knees out.massraider said:No, I didn't miss it. I am saying that the way players will react to this rule, is by diving at players knees instead. And I can tell you now, that knee injuries are much more likely than a player getting a concussion on a blindside block.puckalicious said:Maybe you missed the "to the head" part. Penalizing a hit to the head on an unsuspecting player is a good thing. If you think otherwise maybe UFC is your sport.massraider said:That blindside blocking thing is a joke. Hines Ward cleans one guy's clock, so they make a rule?
I can just see coaches now this summer: "OK wideouts, we don't want a penalty, so if you are making a block on a linebacker, and coming from the blindside, just dive at their knees...."
I don't think defensive players were getting hurt on this type of play a lot, I think it's a knee jerk reaction to ONE play from last year.
I am imagining a 6'5" TE peeling back and blocking a 5'10" cornerback, and trying to figure out how to block him without coming near his helmet.
Doug, isn't it true that some changes have been made to shorten games? If so, that would likely drive down penalties, wouldn't it? Perhaps penalties per play would be a better metric for comparison.Just a note
I specifically watched the replay of the hit multiple times before posting. The ball carrier (Holmes?) was already in the process of passing by Rivers, and by the looks of it Rivers never would have gotten a hand on him no matter what. Ward 100% lead with his head - he put his head down right before contact. Sure his arm/shoulder made contact too but he lead with his head. I am by no means calling it a dirty hit (and I don't agree with the fine he got), it is just not legal anymore under the new rule and I agree with this 100%.I'm not buying the "more knee injury" argument, to me it's a straw man. This rule will improve player safety and is a good thing.
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."I am not misrepresenting your position.
Isnt this the same type of play that hurt Carson Palmer? Why does it become a rule only after it hurts tom brady? Honestly, its like the people wanting to change OT because the Chargers beat Indy and change the playoff format since NE didnt get in.Besides, Brady has a rule already, its called the TUCK RULE
[..checking..]Same result: lowest since 1974.
We can agree to disagree, but this is one of those things that can't be "proven" since you can't prove the correlation of a non-event. I didn't word that too well but I hope you get what I mean. The "straw-man" deal was not directed at you but apparently I used the term too loosely.
No, IIRC the defender was going down as he hit Palmer in the leg. In the Brady play, the defender was on the ground and lunged into his leg.
ugh
