What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The NFL needs this rule (1 Viewer)

Mark Football

Footballguy
I was thinking about this when the Patriots knocked out Allen a couple weeks ago virtually ending the game. I don't like the idea that a defensive player can knock out a quarterback with an illegal hit and the only penalty (that impacts that game) is a personal foul. Meanwhile the game is probably over cause the other team doesn't have their quarterback anymore. What if this happens in the superbowl? What would be fair is the team losing their quarterback would get to pick a player from the opposing team to be eliminated from that game. Does anyone else think this is a good idea?

 
I'm sure that would backfire catastrophicly. 

Every single time helmets collide, the offensive player pretends to lose consciousness, hoping to eliminate the QB on the other side if the refs throw a flag. 

 
I was thinking about this when the Patriots knocked out Allen a couple weeks ago virtually ending the game. I don't like the idea that a defensive player can knock out a quarterback with an illegal hit and the only penalty (that impacts that game) is a personal foul. Meanwhile the game is probably over cause the other team doesn't have their quarterback anymore. What if this happens in the superbowl? What would be fair is the team losing their quarterback would get to pick a player from the opposing team to be eliminated from that game. Does anyone else think this is a good idea?
Back when the NFL played real football, that was the gameplan.

KO'ed

 
Back when the NFL played real football, that was the gameplan.

KO'ed
Call me crazy, but I feel like we're starting to see the pendulum start to swing the other way in regard to everything being so focused on the amazing passing QB.  Look at what the Colts did at KC; the Panthers surviving with Kyle Allen via Christian McCaffrey.

I think the rules changes to favor passing offense have blinded teams that there's more than one way to win (and that generally, winning on offense starts with the offensive line).

Some team soon is going to be the first to draft a rookie QB, let them play for five years, and then say goodbye before the money gets absurd, and draft a rookie all over again.

 
Call me crazy, but I feel like we're starting to see the pendulum start to swing the other way in regard to everything being so focused on the amazing passing QB.  Look at what the Colts did at KC; the Panthers surviving with Kyle Allen via Christian McCaffrey.

I think the rules changes to favor passing offense have blinded teams that there's more than one way to win (and that generally, winning on offense starts with the offensive line).

Some team soon is going to be the first to draft a rookie QB, let them play for five years, and then say goodbye before the money gets absurd, and draft a rookie all over again.
Certainly possible as long as they call all these penalties that keep drives alive.

 
I was thinking about this when the Patriots knocked out Allen a couple weeks ago virtually ending the game. I don't like the idea that a defensive player can knock out a quarterback with an illegal hit and the only penalty (that impacts that game) is a personal foul. Meanwhile the game is probably over cause the other team doesn't have their quarterback anymore. What if this happens in the superbowl? What would be fair is the team losing their quarterback would get to pick a player from the opposing team to be eliminated from that game. Does anyone else think this is a good idea?
I knew it would be hilarious when I saw the title but you destroyed expectations.

 
I just know this is going to happen to Kyler in super bowl LVI and I'm trying to manufacture a preemptive strike! You guys aren't helping!

 
This year, it's all about figuring out what roughing the passer is.
While you're not wrong, I feel like that has always been the case with roughing the passer. There is more scrutiny on every call but I grew up never knowing what would be which side of the line of roughing the passer and while it may take less to throw a flag.... it's really the same blurry line that it's always been. More often than not, WHO is getting hit still matters just as much as HOW he's getting hit. Same as it's always been. Joe Montana would tip toe up the sidelines for an extra 5-15 yards because he knew if anybody dared to SHOVE HIM(not HIT HIM) out of bounds it would be roughing the passer. All the QB's on the animal farm are protected equally, some QB's are just protected more equally than others.

 
Oh roughing the passer is definitely inexplicable, no doubt.  It's just not new this year.

The cluster$%&* they introduced this year is the replay review of DPI/OPI.
I'd definitely argue that the level and standards of what they are applying and calling out for roughing the passer this year is absolutely new, and completely inane.

You did not see the plays I linked to called out as roughing the passer anywhere near the same frequency or degree last year as compared to this year.

Can we agree that in general, the NFL's failure of getting a handle on sensible and clear rules, and consistent enforcement of these rules, is way out of hand, regardless of the penalty or rule?

 
I'd definitely argue that the level and standards of what they are applying and calling out for roughing the passer this year is absolutely new, and completely inane.

You did not see the plays I linked to called out as roughing the passer anywhere near the same frequency or degree last year as compared to this year.

Can we agree that in general, the NFL's failure of getting a handle on sensible and clear rules, and consistent enforcement of these rules, is way out of hand, regardless of the penalty or rule?
We can certainly agree on the last part.

The roughing the passer stuff feels more like a continuation of what has been ridiculous since they decided simply landing on the QB is now a penalty.  It's gotten even worse this year, but it seems like more of an evolution than a revolution.

The head-scratching OPI/DPI reviews we're seeing this year is all new territory.

 
So Rex Grossman gets roughed, pretends he is concussed, and the Bears choose Peyton Manning to no longer play?
How about every player has a value rating so you can only choose a player or a combination of players who add up to the guy you lost. It would be fun when all the player values are released every year. Like Madden.

 
How about every player has a value rating so you can only choose a player or a combination of players who add up to the guy you lost. It would be fun when all the player values are released every year. Like Madden.
It still wouldn't be fair.

If a major injury happens, they should pause the game, move it to a big tent, like a circus atmosphere and play checkers.

Without double jumps, because those aren't fair either

 
I was thinking about this when the Patriots knocked out Allen a couple weeks ago virtually ending the game. I don't like the idea that a defensive player can knock out a quarterback with an illegal hit and the only penalty (that impacts that game) is a personal foul. Meanwhile the game is probably over cause the other team doesn't have their quarterback anymore. What if this happens in the superbowl? What would be fair is the team losing their quarterback would get to pick a player from the opposing team to be eliminated from that game. Does anyone else think this is a good idea?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha

 
I was thinking about this when the Patriots knocked out Allen a couple weeks ago virtually ending the game. I don't like the idea that a defensive player can knock out a quarterback with an illegal hit and the only penalty (that impacts that game) is a personal foul. Meanwhile the game is probably over cause the other team doesn't have their quarterback anymore. What if this happens in the superbowl? What would be fair is the team losing their quarterback would get to pick a player from the opposing team to be eliminated from that game. Does anyone else think this is a good idea?
The mistake on that play was throwing a flag.  Hit was fine.  No launch.  Didn't lead with his helmet but used his shoulder.  Allen should have slid and was just as much at fault (lowered his head) for the outcome as the defender.

What I took out of that play was a flag based on the outcome not the technical aspects of the play.

 
The mistake on that play was throwing a flag.  Hit was fine.  No launch.  Didn't lead with his helmet but used his shoulder.  Allen should have slid and was just as much at fault (lowered his head) for the outcome as the defender.

What I took out of that play was a flag based on the outcome not the technical aspects of the play.
Maybe true but the onus is on the defenders to not hit the offensive player in the head.  That is the way the rule is written.  The flag was not based on the result of the play it was based on the letter of the law (technical aspects of the play).

 
Maybe true but the onus is on the defenders to not hit the offensive player in the head.  That is the way the rule is written.  The flag was not based on the result of the play it was based on the letter of the law (technical aspects of the play).
Allen led with and dipped his head. He was a runner and not in the pocket. He had the ability to use his get out of jail free card for not getting hit by sliding, but he chose to go head first into a defender instead. Had he been a RB, he could easily have been flagged for leading with his helmet and initiating helmet-to-helmet contact. Of all the calls that NE seemingly gets, I'm not sure this is the one people should be pointing to as an example of the Patriots getting special treatment by the refs.

Folks saying if the same thing happened with Brady running instead (suggesting that the defender would have been ejected and suspended), Brady would never dive head first into a waiting tackler. He would have either thrown the ball away while in the pocket or slid when he got close to a defender if scrambling. The current crop of young QB's seem a little reckless in terms of trying to do too much, not taking care of the football, and taking a lot of hits that could have been avoided.

 
Allen led with and dipped his head. He was a runner and not in the pocket. He had the ability to use his get out of jail free card for not getting hit by sliding, but he chose to go head first into a defender instead. Had he been a RB, he could easily have been flagged for leading with his helmet and initiating helmet-to-helmet contact. Of all the calls that NE seemingly gets, I'm not sure this is the one people should be pointing to as an example of the Patriots getting special treatment by the refs.

Folks saying if the same thing happened with Brady running instead (suggesting that the defender would have been ejected and suspended), Brady would never dive head first into a waiting tackler. He would have either thrown the ball away while in the pocket or slid when he got close to a defender if scrambling. The current crop of young QB's seem a little reckless in terms of trying to do too much, not taking care of the football, and taking a lot of hits that could have been avoided.
I was not saying anything different than this.  My point was that the defender hit a player with helmet to helmet contact.  That is a 15 yd penalty the way the rule is written.  It was called according to the rules as is.  I am not sure why you brought calls for NE or Brady based on my comment.  I was just saying by rule this was called correctly. 

 
I was not saying anything different than this.  My point was that the defender hit a player with helmet to helmet contact.  That is a 15 yd penalty the way the rule is written.  It was called according to the rules as is.  I am not sure why you brought calls for NE or Brady based on my comment.  I was just saying by rule this was called correctly. 
I have also seen commentary in various places that the rule as written is the ball carrier lead with the crown of his helmet and struck the defender and it could/should have been called that way. I lot of time rules contradict each other or could be called either way.

Either way the play was called, as far as this thread goes, allowing Buffalo to hand pick a player to take out of the game over this play would seem excessive.

 
I have also seen commentary in various places that the rule as written is the ball carrier lead with the crown of his helmet and struck the defender and it could/should have been called that way. I lot of time rules contradict each other or could be called either way.

Either way the play was called, as far as this thread goes, allowing Buffalo to hand pick a player to take out of the game over this play would seem excessive.
I completely agree.  There is no way you should take a player out of the game as suggested here.  These interpretations are way to subjective as you have alluded to that it would be terrible to add this in. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top