Face Mask - auto 15 yards now (1 Viewer)

[DoubleG]

I realize the reason for the change - it makes it easier on the referrees as there is no longer a need for interpretation and thus, theoretically eliminates discretionary error in the call between the 5 yard "unintentional variety" and 15 yard personal foul variety that used to be the case before this season.

However, it seems to me, in watching several games where the touching of the face mask was completely inadvertant, it was released almost instantly and had no bearing on the play whatsoever (and was, realistically, no cause for concern over possible injury) - and the team is penalized 15 yards and an automatic first down. It seems ludicrous to me that such a call is the same, in terms of penalty yards, as other personal fouls which are far more severe and play-altering.

I think the NFL really needs to bring back the two variations of the call, as there are clearly cases where the 15 yards and auto first down are far to severe given the infraction.

 

[MIMN]

I realize the reason for the change - it makes it easier on the referrees as there is no longer a need for interpretation and thus, theoretically eliminates discretionary error in the call between the 5 yard "unintentional variety" and 15 yard personal foul variety that used to be the case before this season.However, it seems to me, in watching several games where the touching of the face mask was completely inadvertant, it was released almost instantly and had no bearing on the play whatsoever (and was, realistically, no cause for concern over possible injury) - and the team is penalized 15 yards and an automatic first down. It seems ludicrous to me that such a call is the same, in terms of penalty yards, as other personal fouls which are far more severe and play-altering.I think the NFL really needs to bring back the two variations of the call, as there are clearly cases where the 15 yards and auto first down are far to severe given the infraction.

I think the penalty isn't because of how it impacted the play but the potential it has for impacting the rest of a player's life. The NFL is going for safety first here.

 

[DoubleG]

I realize the reason for the change - it makes it easier on the referrees as there is no longer a need for interpretation and thus, theoretically eliminates discretionary error in the call between the 5 yard "unintentional variety" and 15 yard personal foul variety that used to be the case before this season.However, it seems to me, in watching several games where the touching of the face mask was completely inadvertant, it was released almost instantly and had no bearing on the play whatsoever (and was, realistically, no cause for concern over possible injury) - and the team is penalized 15 yards and an automatic first down. It seems ludicrous to me that such a call is the same, in terms of penalty yards, as other personal fouls which are far more severe and play-altering.I think the NFL really needs to bring back the two variations of the call, as there are clearly cases where the 15 yards and auto first down are far to severe given the infraction.

I think the penalty isn't because of how it impacted the play but the potential it has for impacting the rest of a player's life. The NFL is going for safety first here.

I realize that aspect too - but how many players have been seriously injured by grasping the face mask? Honestly. I am not trying to be glib here.The horse collar tackle was made illegal due to the number of injuries that were resulting from that type of infraction. Did I miss a rash of neck injuries last year? Again, I am not trying to be uncaring about players' health - but I don't recall many - if any injuries resulting from face mask grabbing in recent history.

 

[Doug B]

They're moving abruptly away from having the helmet be a target at any time. The recent crackdown on inadvertant helmet-to-helmet shots is in line with the stricter facemask penalties.

Before long, open-field tackling techniques will revert back into emphasizing ballcarrier "capture" and wrapping up with the arms while moving away from the "launch like a slingshot" human-bullet style of "tackling".

 

[treat88]

I realize the reason for the change - it makes it easier on the referrees as there is no longer a need for interpretation and thus, theoretically eliminates discretionary error in the call between the 5 yard "unintentional variety" and 15 yard personal foul variety that used to be the case before this season.However, it seems to me, in watching several games where the touching of the face mask was completely inadvertant, it was released almost instantly and had no bearing on the play whatsoever (and was, realistically, no cause for concern over possible injury) - and the team is penalized 15 yards and an automatic first down. It seems ludicrous to me that such a call is the same, in terms of penalty yards, as other personal fouls which are far more severe and play-altering.I think the NFL really needs to bring back the two variations of the call, as there are clearly cases where the 15 yards and auto first down are far to severe given the infraction.

I think the penalty isn't because of how it impacted the play but the potential it has for impacting the rest of a player's life. The NFL is going for safety first here.

I agree that safety is the underlying rationale.But, if the facemask is inadvertent, how does the increased penalty deter it from happening again?To me, whether it is facemasking, PI, helmet to helmet against a defenseless player, roughing the QB....whatever.... there should be an element of intention figured into the major penalties.If a player knowingly and intentionally grabs the mask, or takes down an opposing receiver that has him beat, or launches a late kill shot on the QB, etc. that should merit an increased and more impactful penalty.When a guy accidentally and unavoidably commits one of these types of penalties it should be a lesser result.I wouldn't take it to an extreme and expect intent to be figured into every flag, but there are those penalties that should be directly related to intention.I know the element of intention can be very subjective, but I'd rather have that subjective variable in the equation rather than treat every penalty as equivalent, because the fact is they aren't.

 

[culdeus]

What gets me is that offensive linemen routinely get away with facemasking DL.

 

[Tau837]

IMO the happy medium would be a 5 yard penalty and automatic first down. I agree with the OP that the vast majority of the time 15 yards seems too harsh.

I also think the horse collar tackle issue has gotten ridiculous. I have seen numerous cases where it was called and should not have been called at all... much less for a 15 yard personal foul. I think they either need to more clearly define that rule so it will only be called when it really happens (if that is possible) or lessen the penalty... like 5 yards and automatic first down.

These guys are football players. Let them play.

 

[pantagrapher]

Facemask calls should be like offensive holding calls—unless it's obvious, they should hang onto the flag. I'd have no problem with that.

 

[Doug B]

But, if the facemask is inadvertent, how does the increased penalty deter it from happening again?

I think the long-term idea is to change the techniques employed on the field. Inadvertant facemasking isn't going anywhere, but maybe with the helmet becoming way more of a "no touch!" zone, overall safety of the players increases operationally.

To me, whether it is facemasking, PI, helmet to helmet against a defenseless player, roughing the QB....whatever.... there should be an element of intention figured into the major penalties.

I think this was and is going to continue to be rejected as just too difficult to discern. You've always got personal fouls and ejections to dish out for the truly over-the-top actions (head-stomping, helmet-ripping, et al)

 

[Doug B]

These guys are football players. Let them play.

Post-career medical care for these guys is too expensive now ... you want retired players to come out of the game in better shape than they traditionally have.

 

[MIMN]

But, if the facemask is inadvertent, how does the increased penalty deter it from happening again?

I think the long-term idea is to change the techniques employed on the field. Inadvertant facemasking isn't going anywhere, but maybe with the helmet becoming way more of a "no touch!" zone, overall safety of the players increases operationally.

That is my understanding of the intent of the rule.It is funny that the horse collar tackle rule came up with a thought that it was used too much. I've only seen error around missed calls.

 

[Sabertooth]

What gets me is that offensive linemen routinely get away with facemasking DL.

Wide receivers as well.

 

[JuniorNB]

This is getting ridiculous. Before you know it, these sissies will be covered in pads from head to toe.

 

[DoubleG]

But, if the facemask is inadvertent, how does the increased penalty deter it from happening again?

I think the long-term idea is to change the techniques employed on the field. Inadvertant facemasking isn't going anywhere, but maybe with the helmet becoming way more of a "no touch!" zone, overall safety of the players increases operationally.

To me, whether it is facemasking, PI, helmet to helmet against a defenseless player, roughing the QB....whatever.... there should be an element of intention figured into the major penalties.

I think this was and is going to continue to be rejected as just too difficult to discern. You've always got personal fouls and ejections to dish out for the truly over-the-top actions (head-stomping, helmet-ripping, et al)

But that's my point: apart from the ejection, face masking is (from a penalty yardage standpoint) - the same as those things.

 

[Doug B]

But that's my point: apart from the ejection, face masking is (from a penalty yardage standpoint) - the same as those things.

Understood ... the intent is to make the helmet a "no touch!" zone. They're not just trying to dispense on-field justice, they're trying to change behavior. One way to do that is with a disproportionate penalty (arguably).

 

[MIMN]

This is getting ridiculous. Before you know it, these sissies will be covered in pads from head to toe.

If we removed the helmets there would be no face masks to grab.

 

[sho nuff]

IMO the 5 vs. 15 thing being eliminated was to quit making refs make the decision.

Its clear cut either a penalty or not and not up to them anymore to determine if it was a 5 or a 15.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

I guess it shouldn't bother me but it does: Everyone that gets a facemask penalty is fined $5,000 - that is just ridiculous.

 

[Nemesis]

But that's my point: apart from the ejection, face masking is (from a penalty yardage standpoint) - the same as those things.

Understood ... the intent is to make the helmet a "no touch!" zone. They're not just trying to dispense on-field justice, they're trying to change behavior. One way to do that is with a disproportionate penalty (arguably).

If that's the case, the offensive stiff-arm to the facemask of a defender should be an automatic 15 yd penalty too.FYI: I agree with the OP. Go back to the 5 and 15 yd'er. It's not that hard to call.

 

[Doug B]

If that's the case, the offensive stiff-arm to the facemask of a defender should be an automatic 15 yd penalty too.

Might be coming.

 

[baldgriff]

If that's the case, the offensive stiff-arm to the facemask of a defender should be an automatic 15 yd penalty too.

I was thinking the same thing. ADP actually had this called on him recently. What was interesting is both the he and the defender were all over the facemask (only ADP got called).

 

[SSOG]

I realize that aspect too - but how many players have been seriously injured by grasping the face mask? Honestly. I am not trying to be glib here.The horse collar tackle was made illegal due to the number of injuries that were resulting from that type of infraction. Did I miss a rash of neck injuries last year? Again, I am not trying to be uncaring about players' health - but I don't recall many - if any injuries resulting from face mask grabbing in recent history.

Is the lack of injuries resulting from facemask grabs an indicator that the rule is unnecessary, or is it an indicator that the rule is working?

 

[DoubleG]

I realize that aspect too - but how many players have been seriously injured by grasping the face mask? Honestly. I am not trying to be glib here.The horse collar tackle was made illegal due to the number of injuries that were resulting from that type of infraction. Did I miss a rash of neck injuries last year? Again, I am not trying to be uncaring about players' health - but I don't recall many - if any injuries resulting from face mask grabbing in recent history.

Is the lack of injuries resulting from facemask grabs an indicator that the rule is unnecessary, or is it an indicator that the rule is working?

But the automatic 15 yarder wasn't in place until this year. There have been facemasks on helmets much longer than that. If there were a myriad of neck injuries until this season and now they had suddenly stopped, I'd agree with you. But that simply doesn't seem to be the case (unless someone can point me to all the neck injury reports from say 2005-2008).

 

[SSOG]

I realize that aspect too - but how many players have been seriously injured by grasping the face mask? Honestly. I am not trying to be glib here.The horse collar tackle was made illegal due to the number of injuries that were resulting from that type of infraction. Did I miss a rash of neck injuries last year? Again, I am not trying to be uncaring about players' health - but I don't recall many - if any injuries resulting from face mask grabbing in recent history.

Is the lack of injuries resulting from facemask grabs an indicator that the rule is unnecessary, or is it an indicator that the rule is working?

But the automatic 15 yarder wasn't in place until this year. There have been facemasks on helmets much longer than that. If there were a myriad of neck injuries until this season and now they had suddenly stopped, I'd agree with you. But that simply doesn't seem to be the case (unless someone can point me to all the neck injury reports from say 2005-2008).

15 yard facemask penalties have been around for a long time. In fact, facemask rules are actually MORE LAX this year than they have been in the past. The only thing that changed this last offseason was that the 5-yard "incidental facemask" penalty was abolished. Both this year and prior to this year, any time a defender wrapped fingers around a facemask and "grasped", it was an automatic 15 yard penalty- nothing has changed there. Prior to this year, merely contacting the facemask, or getting a finger inside unintentionally and letting go immediately, was a 5-yarder. Now it's nothing.

 

[RUSF18]

What year did Jerry Rice blow out his knee? 1997? He was running a reverse and Warren Sapp I believe grabbed his facemask and pulled him backwards and he tore his ACL.

I do agree with the horse-collar being called too liberally. From what I remember, when the rule was put into place because of Roy Williams, it wasn't for the injury potential from yanking a player down by the pads but because Williams would throw his weight on the legs of the player he was horse-collaring. Could be wrong though.

 

[SSOG]

What year did Jerry Rice blow out his knee? 1997? He was running a reverse and Warren Sapp I believe grabbed his facemask and pulled him backwards and he tore his ACL. I do agree with the horse-collar being called too liberally. From what I remember, when the rule was put into place because of Roy Williams, it wasn't for the injury potential from yanking a player down by the pads but because Williams would throw his weight on the legs of the player he was horse-collaring. Could be wrong though.

There's nothing wrong with yanking a player down by his pads, you just aren't allowed to yank a player down over his legs by the pads. If you grab someone's pads, you can twist them to the side to take them down, but you can't pull them straight back because thanks to the cleats in the shoes (which keep the feet planted), that'll put an incredible stress on the knees and ankles.

 

[Tau837]

What year did Jerry Rice blow out his knee? 1997? He was running a reverse and Warren Sapp I believe grabbed his facemask and pulled him backwards and he tore his ACL. I do agree with the horse-collar being called too liberally. From what I remember, when the rule was put into place because of Roy Williams, it wasn't for the injury potential from yanking a player down by the pads but because Williams would throw his weight on the legs of the player he was horse-collaring. Could be wrong though.

There's nothing wrong with yanking a player down by his pads, you just aren't allowed to yank a player down over his legs by the pads. If you grab someone's pads, you can twist them to the side to take them down, but you can't pull them straight back because thanks to the cleats in the shoes (which keep the feet planted), that'll put an incredible stress on the knees and ankles.

I have seen many horse collars called this year when the player was either not grabbed by his pads or collar at all or where the player was taken down to the side, not straight back, or both.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I realize the reason for the change - it makes it easier on the referrees as there is no longer a need for interpretation and thus, theoretically eliminates discretionary error in the call between the 5 yard "unintentional variety" and 15 yard personal foul variety that used to be the case before this season.However, it seems to me, in watching several games where the touching of the face mask was completely inadvertant, it was released almost instantly and had no bearing on the play whatsoever (and was, realistically, no cause for concern over possible injury) - and the team is penalized 15 yards and an automatic first down. It seems ludicrous to me that such a call is the same, in terms of penalty yards, as other personal fouls which are far more severe and play-altering.I think the NFL really needs to bring back the two variations of the call, as there are clearly cases where the 15 yards and auto first down are far to severe given the infraction.

I think the penalty isn't because of how it impacted the play but the potential it has for impacting the rest of a player's life. The NFL is going for safety first here.

If you use a blanket statement in that the NFL is going for safety first, then maybe they shouldn't play then because isn't that the safest thing of them all?I don't like the automatic 15. Some face masks are worse than others, just like running into and roughing the kicker (isn't the NFL going for safety first there too or do they just say forget kickers). 15 yards is a big penalty.

 

[RUSF18]

What year did Jerry Rice blow out his knee? 1997? He was running a reverse and Warren Sapp I believe grabbed his facemask and pulled him backwards and he tore his ACL. I do agree with the horse-collar being called too liberally. From what I remember, when the rule was put into place because of Roy Williams, it wasn't for the injury potential from yanking a player down by the pads but because Williams would throw his weight on the legs of the player he was horse-collaring. Could be wrong though.

There's nothing wrong with yanking a player down by his pads, you just aren't allowed to yank a player down over his legs by the pads. If you grab someone's pads, you can twist them to the side to take them down, but you can't pull them straight back because thanks to the cleats in the shoes (which keep the feet planted), that'll put an incredible stress on the knees and ankles.

I have seen many horse collars called this year when the player was either not grabbed by his pads or collar at all or where the player was taken down to the side, not straight back, or both.

Yep, this is what I meant. Thanks.

 

[Dragon1952]

I realize that aspect too - but how many players have been seriously injured by grasping the face mask? Honestly. I am not trying to be glib here.

The horse collar tackle was made illegal due to the number of injuries that were resulting from that type of infraction. Did I miss a rash of neck injuries last year? Again, I am not trying to be uncaring about players' health - but I don't recall many - if any injuries resulting from face mask grabbing in recent history.

Is the lack of injuries resulting from facemask grabs an indicator that the rule is unnecessary, or is it an indicator that the rule is working?

But the automatic 15 yarder wasn't in place until this year. There have been facemasks on helmets much longer than that. If there were a myriad of neck injuries until this season and now they had suddenly stopped, I'd agree with you. But that simply doesn't seem to be the case (unless someone can point me to all the neck injury reports from say 2005-2008).

15 yard facemask penalties have been around for a long time. In fact, facemask rules are actually MORE LAX this year than they have been in the past. The only thing that changed this last offseason was that the 5-yard "incidental facemask" penalty was abolished. Both this year and prior to this year, any time a defender wrapped fingers around a facemask and "grasped", it was an automatic 15 yard penalty- nothing has changed there. Prior to this year, merely contacting the facemask, or getting a finger inside unintentionally and letting go immediately, was a 5-yarder. Now it's nothing.

That's not what I've been seeing.

 

[NeverEnough]

No Fun League

 

[SSOG]

That's not what I've been seeing.

Then your problem isn't with the rule, it's with how it's being called.

 

[two_dollars]

If they really want to crack down they need a new rule:

If you touch another player's helmet with any part of your body, you get a 250k fine and 6 months in jail.

 

[DoubleG]

I realize that aspect too - but how many players have been seriously injured by grasping the face mask? Honestly. I am not trying to be glib here.

The horse collar tackle was made illegal due to the number of injuries that were resulting from that type of infraction. Did I miss a rash of neck injuries last year? Again, I am not trying to be uncaring about players' health - but I don't recall many - if any injuries resulting from face mask grabbing in recent history.

Is the lack of injuries resulting from facemask grabs an indicator that the rule is unnecessary, or is it an indicator that the rule is working?

But the automatic 15 yarder wasn't in place until this year. There have been facemasks on helmets much longer than that. If there were a myriad of neck injuries until this season and now they had suddenly stopped, I'd agree with you. But that simply doesn't seem to be the case (unless someone can point me to all the neck injury reports from say 2005-2008).

15 yard facemask penalties have been around for a long time. In fact, facemask rules are actually MORE LAX this year than they have been in the past. The only thing that changed this last offseason was that the 5-yard "incidental facemask" penalty was abolished. Both this year and prior to this year, any time a defender wrapped fingers around a facemask and "grasped", it was an automatic 15 yard penalty- nothing has changed there. Prior to this year, merely contacting the facemask, or getting a finger inside unintentionally and letting go immediately, was a 5-yarder. Now it's nothing.

That's not what I've been seeing.

I've seen more of the "incidental" variety (or the touch and let go) being called 15 yarders. Now, I don't watch every game, but in the ones of seen it's been over the top. Which is the reason for the thread in the first place.