Is There Really Such Thing As a "Defenseless Receiver"..? (2 Viewers)

[Stinkin Ref]

now... I know the easy answer is to say "yes" since it is language that is used in NFL...but I guess my point is that if you knowingly choose to put yourself in that position, should you really be protected and does it make you defenseless? It is your choice to go over the middle, to leave your feet to try and make a catch, etc.

My thought is that this is language that needs to be removed. I am all for player safety....and if a player violates a rule for unnecessary roughness or an illegal hit or a personal foul or leading with the helmet, etc....fine....penalize them......but don't penalize a guy for blowing up a guy who is trying to make a play and intentionally puts himself in a vulnerable position.....that is his choice to try and make the play and leave himself susceptible to a big hit....

run a different pattern....call a different play......throw a better pass.....run the ball....if you don't want to get hit....

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Any time that they have called the "defenseless player" penalty, I've seen that it always accompanies a helmet to helmet type hit that will later be a fine. So yes, I think that not only by rule there is a "defenseless player", but that the rule is put in place to protect players from hits having nothing to do with the regular football contact and everything to do with punitive payback type hits that unnessarily impose risk to the players careers and future health.

The game used to played a different way back in the day, and it made for a lot of "jacked up" type hits that excite the fans. But the reality is that these guys have a short average life-cycle career wise, and the NFLPA needed to step up the safety for the players. Not everyone is going to retire with riches, and even the ones who do are deserving of a relatively healthy and/or functional retirement from the game.

 

[FavreCo]

Darryl Stingley (if he were alive) would disagree.

 

[GreenNGold]

Some of the helmet to helmet defenseless calls I think are bad. I can't remember which game it was in yesterday, but it happened on a play where the receiver leaped/stretched for a ball and was running with his head in a much lower spot than normal after the catch, when the defender hit him split second in a spot that would normally be the body but ended up being helmet to helmet because the receiver just happened to be in a weird position after making the catch. I think you are asking defenders too much to avoid contact on plays like that.

If the receiver is standing upright, then yeah helmet to helmet would be much easier to avoid and should be punished.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

if a player is just standing there and gets blown up......like a player just standing around a pileup or something....not expecting any contact, etc....then I consider that defenseless.....

but purposely putting yourself in a position where you know you are susceptible to a big hit should not be rewarded if you do in fact take a big hit......

there have been calls where it it is not an "illegal" hit in any way (helmet to helmet, leading with the helmet, etc) but a player gets called for "unnecessary roughness---a hit on a defenseless receiver" and I think it's crap....

 

[belljr]

if a player is just standing there and gets blown up......like a player just standing around a pileup or something....not expecting any contact, etc....then I consider that defenseless.....but purposely putting yourself in a position where you know you are susceptible to a big hit should not be rewarded if you do in fact take a big hit......there have been calls where it it is not an "illegal" hit in any way (helmet to helmet, leading with the helmet, etc) but a player gets called for "unnecessary roughness---a hit on a defenseless receiver" and I think it's crap....

What about the old school Receiver goes across the middle. Ball is thrown no where near the wr where it is catchable, he never touches the ball, but gets lit up a few seconds later.

 

[GregR]

Lets apply the same thinking to clothesline tackles. If we say they are legal, then any ball carrier knows that he is in a position where he knows he is susceptible to having his throat crushed. So it should be on him for making that decision to be a ball carrier, right?

No. The goal is about trying to limit major injuries. To do that you need to make a rule so that the impetus is on the only person who has control over whether it is a big hit or a dangerous hit.

There's plenty of details wrong with how the NFL implemented their rule. For example, teams should be fined for every such play, and more than players are, so they aren't coaching players to use dangerous techniques. It's not fair to the players to be put in a situation of a coach saying something is good technique when it's a fine to use it.

But there is nothing at all wrong with identifying the players who are not able to move to defend themselves from a hit and making them the players who are most protected from dangerous techniques.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

Lets apply the same thinking to clothesline tackles. If we say they are legal, then any ball carrier knows that he is in a position where he knows he is susceptible to having his throat crushed. So it should be on him for making that decision to be a ball carrier, right?

No. The goal is about trying to limit major injuries. To do that you need to make a rule so that the impetus is on the only person who has control over whether it is a big hit or a dangerous hit.

There's plenty of details wrong with how the NFL implemented their rule. For example, teams should be fined for every such play, and more than players are, so they aren't coaching players to use dangerous techniques. It's not fair to the players to be put in a situation of a coach saying something is good technique when it's a fine to use it.

But there is nothing at all wrong with identifying the players who are not able to move to defend themselves from a hit and making them the players who are most protected from dangerous techniques.

an intentional clothesline tackle should always be a penalty.....if the intent was to tackle around the throat area.....that is a play where the intent is to hurt the other player...however if a defender is preparing to tackle a player around the chest/midsection and the ball carrier ducks at the last second causing the contact to then be around the the neck....then the cause/impetus is also on the ball carrier....the bolded part is really the nuts and bolts of the question.....I contend that the defender is not the only person that is in control of whether it is a big hit.....in order for it to a be a big hit the offensive player usually has to put themselves in a position to receive the big hit....if you don't want to receive a big hit, my point is, don't put yourself in that position....

I asked this question knowing the intent is player safety, and the league would be pretty boring without spectactular catches (which often put you in a position to get crushed) and the big hits that we often see......but your comment is actually what I have a problem with....the defender's job is to prevent a catch and dislodge a ball.....just like a WR job it is to catch it......go ahead and catch it, but I say do it with the boxing mantra of "protect yourself at all times" in mind....if you chose not to protect yourself, and decide to try and make a spectactular play or your QB leaves you "hanging" you should know that the defender is still going to do his job and you may in turn suffer the consequences....

it has just gone a little to far and it seems that any time there is a big hit or something that looks violent, we are seeing flags.....the hit on Plax last night is a good example.....it "looked" bad....but it really wasn't.....in fact the defender that delivered the blow, really did everything right.....actually leaned/turned to lead with the shoulder and actually delivered more of a blow to his own teamate then to Plax.....

 

[Stinkin Ref]

I guess a good question to ask then is.....

when is a receiver no longer considered "defenseless".....?

do you have to wait until they make the catch....come down with two feet.....start to make a "football move"....and show that they can then now "protect" themselves and absorb a big hit...?

so defenders.....please go ahead and break the play up....just please do it nicely and please wait until he has removed himself from the defenseless position he put himself in....

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

IMHO, anytime the receiver is in the process of establishing possession of the ball (or has already established it) then there should be no defenseless receiver penalty.

if the receiver is not in the process of establishing possession, then a hit on him should be considered a penalty for unnecessary roughness.

this means that reaching for the ball, he cannot be hit. once he makes any contact with the ball, fair game.

 

[GregR]

Lets apply the same thinking to clothesline tackles. If we say they are legal, then any ball carrier knows that he is in a position where he knows he is susceptible to having his throat crushed. So it should be on him for making that decision to be a ball carrier, right?

No. The goal is about trying to limit major injuries. To do that you need to make a rule so that the impetus is on the only person who has control over whether it is a big hit or a dangerous hit.

There's plenty of details wrong with how the NFL implemented their rule. For example, teams should be fined for every such play, and more than players are, so they aren't coaching players to use dangerous techniques. It's not fair to the players to be put in a situation of a coach saying something is good technique when it's a fine to use it.

But there is nothing at all wrong with identifying the players who are not able to move to defend themselves from a hit and making them the players who are most protected from dangerous techniques.

an intentional clothesline tackle should always be a penalty.....if the intent was to tackle around the throat area.....that is a play where the intent is to hurt the other player...however if a defender is preparing to tackle a player around the chest/midsection and the ball carrier ducks at the last second causing the contact to then be around the the neck....then the cause/impetus is also on the ball carrier....the bolded part is really the nuts and bolts of the question.....I contend that the defender is not the only person that is in control of whether it is a big hit.....in order for it to a be a big hit the offensive player usually has to put themselves in a position to receive the big hit....if you don't want to receive a big hit, my point is, don't put yourself in that position....

I asked this question knowing the intent is player safety, and the league would be pretty boring without spectactular catches (which often put you in a position to get crushed) and the big hits that we often see......but your comment is actually what I have a problem with....the defender's job is to prevent a catch and dislodge a ball.....just like a WR job it is to catch it......go ahead and catch it, but I say do it with the boxing mantra of "protect yourself at all times" in mind....if you chose not to protect yourself, and decide to try and make a spectactular play or your QB leaves you "hanging" you should know that the defender is still going to do his job and you may in turn suffer the consequences....

it has just gone a little to far and it seems that any time there is a big hit or something that looks violent, we are seeing flags.....the hit on Plax last night is a good example.....it "looked" bad....but it really wasn't.....in fact the defender that delivered the blow, really did everything right.....actually leaned/turned to lead with the shoulder and actually delivered more of a blow to his own teamate then to Plax.....

I don't buy that defensive players are unable to hit receivers and dislodge balls without going helmet to helmet. We see it every week in both the NFL and college, and many, many, many times more than flags are thrown for what we're talking about. The Plaxico call was a bad call. Bad calls happen with any rule. That has little to do with whether the NFL should have a rule or not. There are also blatant kill shots that have gone uncalled. Just because the refs aren't perfect doesn't mean the rule shouldn't be there.

I think there is plenty that could be done to improve the existing rules, but I don't buy the central tenet here, that "you knew you might be hit" is enough to deal with the situation.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

IMHO, anytime the receiver is in the process of establishing possession of the ball (or has already established it) then there should be no defenseless receiver penalty.if the receiver is not in the process of establishing possession, then a hit on him should be considered a penalty for unnecessary roughness.this means that reaching for the ball, he cannot be hit. once he makes any contact with the ball, fair game.

What you describe sounds more like a call of interference, not unnecessary roughness. I think the point that is being argued is what is the criteria behind helmet to helmet hits. When you slow down these hit, most of them look obvious. But at game speed, those calls are not so cut and dried. If the defender has already committed to his launch at the would be receiver, and the receiver breaks back ackwardly or flinches his head downward, it could precipitate a helmet to helmet call.So much is subjective, and it's a lot of pressure to put on the official for such a "bang-bang" play. And since it is a subjective call (with no way to use instant replay to either make the call or undo the call), it is an imperfect rule. But in general the benefits of most of the helmet to helmet calls outweigh the few flubs that they miss. I think the "defenseless receiver" rule has merit.

 

[Anonymous Internet User]

IMHO, anytime the receiver is in the process of establishing possession of the ball (or has already established it) then there should be no defenseless receiver penalty.if the receiver is not in the process of establishing possession, then a hit on him should be considered a penalty for unnecessary roughness.this means that reaching for the ball, he cannot be hit. once he makes any contact with the ball, fair game.

What you describe sounds more like a call of interference, not unnecessary roughness. I think the point that is being argued is what is the criteria behind helmet to helmet hits. When you slow down these hit, most of them look obvious. But at game speed, those calls are not so cut and dried. If the defender has already committed to his launch at the would be receiver, and the receiver breaks back ackwardly or flinches his head downward, it could precipitate a helmet to helmet call.So much is subjective, and it's a lot of pressure to put on the official for such a "bang-bang" play. And since it is a subjective call (with no way to use instant replay to either make the call or undo the call), it is an imperfect rule. But in general the benefits of most of the helmet to helmet calls outweigh the few flubs that they miss. I think the "defenseless receiver" rule has merit.

helmet to helmet is always illegal.interference is when the hit is premature, but only on a catchable ball. when the ball is thrown high or behind and a hit is still made, that's unnecessary roughness in my book. you shouldn't be allowed to commit to a hit unless the receiver has attempted possession of the ball. the shady area to this is when the ball goes through the players hands without contacting it on a clearly catchable ball - do you allow the defender to make the hit in this case? i suppose a better criteria than contacting the ball is needed to define when a receiver is attempting to take possession.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

as an official....I also feel pretty comfortable in saying that I would be willing to bet that many, if not most times, the official doesn't really know 100% if the initial contact is helmet to helmet or not.....heck we often can't even tell in super slo mo....let alone at live speed.....that is why I think we are seeing flags any time it looks remotely violent and even if it is not illegal.....

I want to make sure I am clear.....I believe helmet to hemet should be penalized in all cases....I will put the responsibility on the defender not to lead with his helmet to prevent this type of hit.....no matter whether the defender is defenseless or not....even though it may be difficult when the offensive player adjusts his head position at the last second.....don't lead with the head...

I just think the "defenseless" language needs to be removed......WR's should protect themselves at all times or don't try to make the catch or run a different pattern/play...

 

[Stinkin Ref]

IMHO, anytime the receiver is in the process of establishing possession of the ball (or has already established it) then there should be no defenseless receiver penalty.if the receiver is not in the process of establishing possession, then a hit on him should be considered a penalty for unnecessary roughness.this means that reaching for the ball, he cannot be hit. once he makes any contact with the ball, fair game.

What you describe sounds more like a call of interference, not unnecessary roughness. I think the point that is being argued is what is the criteria behind helmet to helmet hits. When you slow down these hit, most of them look obvious. But at game speed, those calls are not so cut and dried. If the defender has already committed to his launch at the would be receiver, and the receiver breaks back ackwardly or flinches his head downward, it could precipitate a helmet to helmet call.So much is subjective, and it's a lot of pressure to put on the official for such a "bang-bang" play. And since it is a subjective call (with no way to use instant replay to either make the call or undo the call), it is an imperfect rule. But in general the benefits of most of the helmet to helmet calls outweigh the few flubs that they miss. I think the "defenseless receiver" rule has merit.

helmet to helmet is always illegal.interference is when the hit is premature, but only on a catchable ball. when the ball is thrown high or behind and a hit is still made, that's unnecessary roughness in my book. you shouldn't be allowed to commit to a hit unless the receiver has attempted possession of the ball. the shady area to this is when the ball goes through the players hands without contacting it on a clearly catchable ball - do you allow the defender to make the hit in this case? i suppose a better criteria than contacting the ball is needed to define when a receiver is attempting to take possession.

I would contend that why does a defender have to hold up and wait because the receiver is trying to adjust to a ####ty pass.....if the receiver is "attempting" to make a catch (high/behind)....as a defender I am assuming he is going to catch it.....my job is to try and prevent that....

 

[GregR]

as an official....I also feel pretty comfortable in saying that I would be willing to bet that many, if not most times, the official doesn't really know 100% if the initial contact is helmet to helmet or not.....heck we often can't even tell in super slo mo....let alone at live speed.....that is why I think we are seeing flags any time it looks remotely violent and even if it is not illegal.....I want to make sure I am clear.....I believe helmet to hemet should be penalized in all cases....I will put the responsibility on the defender not to lead with his helmet to prevent this type of hit.....no matter whether the defender is defenseless or not....even though it may be difficult when the offensive player adjusts his head position at the last second.....don't lead with the head...I just think the "defenseless" language needs to be removed......WR's should protect themselves at all times or don't try to make the catch or run a different pattern/play...

You're calling for a more stringent rule that would be called more often than the NFL does.The NFL rule says you can't lead with the helmet or hit the head of a defenseless player. There are plenty of other times when leading with the helmet or hitting the head is fine. Goal lines, third downs. Any time the guy being hit isn't unable to move his body to defend himself from the hit.I don't know, you're posts sound like someone who thinks any hit on a defenseless receiver is a penalty. It isn't. Hits to the head, or leading with the head, against a defenseless player is what is the penalty. Not just a hit.So if you want to outlaw all leading with the head, then you're restricting everything the NFL already does plus more. Removing the word "defenseless" and putting in your rule wouldn't change anything on the plays that have been called.If Plaxico's play is the one that caused you to post this, your problem is with bad calls that by the rules shouldn't have been made. Not a problem with the rules.

 

[GregR]

IMHO, anytime the receiver is in the process of establishing possession of the ball (or has already established it) then there should be no defenseless receiver penalty.

if the receiver is not in the process of establishing possession, then a hit on him should be considered a penalty for unnecessary roughness.

this means that reaching for the ball, he cannot be hit. once he makes any contact with the ball, fair game.

What you describe sounds more like a call of interference, not unnecessary roughness. I think the point that is being argued is what is the criteria behind helmet to helmet hits. When you slow down these hit, most of them look obvious. But at game speed, those calls are not so cut and dried. If the defender has already committed to his launch at the would be receiver, and the receiver breaks back ackwardly or flinches his head downward, it could precipitate a helmet to helmet call.

So much is subjective, and it's a lot of pressure to put on the official for such a "bang-bang" play. And since it is a subjective call (with no way to use instant replay to either make the call or undo the call), it is an imperfect rule. But in general the benefits of most of the helmet to helmet calls outweigh the few flubs that they miss. I think the "defenseless receiver" rule has merit.

helmet to helmet is always illegal.interference is when the hit is premature, but only on a catchable ball. when the ball is thrown high or behind and a hit is still made, that's unnecessary roughness in my book. you shouldn't be allowed to commit to a hit unless the receiver has attempted possession of the ball. the shady area to this is when the ball goes through the players hands without contacting it on a clearly catchable ball - do you allow the defender to make the hit in this case? i suppose a better criteria than contacting the ball is needed to define when a receiver is attempting to take possession.

I would contend that why does a defender have to hold up and wait because the receiver is trying to adjust to a ####ty pass.....if the receiver is "attempting" to make a catch (high/behind)....as a defender I am assuming he is going to catch it.....my job is to try and prevent that....

Ok, this confirms it. You misunderstand the rule if you think a defender has to do any such thing.

 

[GregR]

Article 9 It is a foul if a player initiates unnecessary contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture.

(a) Players in a defenseless posture are:

(1) A player in the act of or just after throwing a pass;

(2) A receiver attempting to catch a pass; or who has completed a catch and has not had time to

protect himself or has not clearly become a runner. If the receiver/runner is capable of avoiding or

warding off the impending contact of an opponent, he is no longer a defenseless player;

(3) A runner already in the grasp of a tackler and whose forward progress has been stopped;

(4) A kickoff or punt returner attempting to field a kick in the air;

(5) A player on the ground at the end of a play;

(6) A kicker/punter during the kick or during the return;

(7) A quarterback at any time after a change of possession, and

(8) A player who receives a “blindside” block when the blocker is moving toward his own endline and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side.

(b) Prohibited contact against a player who is in a defenseless posture is:
(1) Forcibly hitting the defenseless player’s head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm, or shoulder, regardless of whether the defensive player also uses his arms to tackle the defenseless player by encircling or grasping him; and

(2) Lowering the head and making forcible contact with the top/crown or forehead/”hairline” parts of the helmet against any part of the defenseless player’s body.

Note: The provisions of (2) do not prohibit incidental contact by the mask or helmet in the course of a conventional tackle on an opponent.There is the actual text of the NFL rules. The first section lists who is considered "defenseless". The second section details what contact is prohibited against such a player.

The only things you cannot do to a defenseless player that you could do to anyone else, are forcibly hit his head or neck area, or lower your head and forcibly hit any part of his body with your helmet.

You do NOT have to stand back and wait for a receiver to make a catch. You can lower your shoulder and hit his shoulder, chest, back, or anywhere else. You can tomahawk the ball out of hands. You can throw a full body block into him. You can deliver a hit using your forearm or your arms to add extra momentum to the hit. You can wrap him up and tackle him hard so long as you don't spear him with your helmet.

You can do any of those things so long as you don't do it to his head or neck. The biggest problem with the current rules is that the refs are sometimes having problems when seeing a play at live speed if a hit was delivered to the head, or if it was delivered by lowering the head to the player's body.

So removing the word "defenseless" wouldn't accomplish anything you're saying you'd like to see from the rule. What you should be asking for is that the NFL have the refs do a better job of making the calls. Like letting other officials who had a better view come in and say, "He didn't hit his head even if it looked that way from your angle". They seem to talk to each other on things like whether a play is a catch, but if one ref thought he saw a blow to the head it stands even if the others had a better view.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

IMHO, anytime the receiver is in the process of establishing possession of the ball (or has already established it) then there should be no defenseless receiver penalty.

if the receiver is not in the process of establishing possession, then a hit on him should be considered a penalty for unnecessary roughness.

this means that reaching for the ball, he cannot be hit. once he makes any contact with the ball, fair game.

What you describe sounds more like a call of interference, not unnecessary roughness. I think the point that is being argued is what is the criteria behind helmet to helmet hits. When you slow down these hit, most of them look obvious. But at game speed, those calls are not so cut and dried. If the defender has already committed to his launch at the would be receiver, and the receiver breaks back ackwardly or flinches his head downward, it could precipitate a helmet to helmet call.

So much is subjective, and it's a lot of pressure to put on the official for such a "bang-bang" play. And since it is a subjective call (with no way to use instant replay to either make the call or undo the call), it is an imperfect rule. But in general the benefits of most of the helmet to helmet calls outweigh the few flubs that they miss. I think the "defenseless receiver" rule has merit.

helmet to helmet is always illegal.interference is when the hit is premature, but only on a catchable ball. when the ball is thrown high or behind and a hit is still made, that's unnecessary roughness in my book. you shouldn't be allowed to commit to a hit unless the receiver has attempted possession of the ball. the shady area to this is when the ball goes through the players hands without contacting it on a clearly catchable ball - do you allow the defender to make the hit in this case? i suppose a better criteria than contacting the ball is needed to define when a receiver is attempting to take possession.

I would contend that why does a defender have to hold up and wait because the receiver is trying to adjust to a ####ty pass.....if the receiver is "attempting" to make a catch (high/behind)....as a defender I am assuming he is going to catch it.....my job is to try and prevent that....

Ok, this confirms it. You misunderstand the rule if you think a defender has to do any such thing.

I don't think the defender has to do any such things.....thats what I am saying....if you read his post he is saying that the defender has to wait to commit to the hit until the receiver has "attempted possession of the ball".....whatever that is...and be able to tell whether the ball is thrown too high or behind the receiver.....all things that are virtually impossible at full speed.....a defender won't be in the league long doing that....take helmet to helmet out of it......that is not a part of my stance......hits that are not even helmet to helmet are being called unnecessary roughness because the receiver is considered "defenseless".....

basically they are asking defenders to determine when a receiver is considered defenseless.....and then wait until he is no longer defenseless before making the hit....

 

[GregR]

IMHO, anytime the receiver is in the process of establishing possession of the ball (or has already established it) then there should be no defenseless receiver penalty.

if the receiver is not in the process of establishing possession, then a hit on him should be considered a penalty for unnecessary roughness.

this means that reaching for the ball, he cannot be hit. once he makes any contact with the ball, fair game.

What you describe sounds more like a call of interference, not unnecessary roughness. I think the point that is being argued is what is the criteria behind helmet to helmet hits. When you slow down these hit, most of them look obvious. But at game speed, those calls are not so cut and dried. If the defender has already committed to his launch at the would be receiver, and the receiver breaks back ackwardly or flinches his head downward, it could precipitate a helmet to helmet call.

So much is subjective, and it's a lot of pressure to put on the official for such a "bang-bang" play. And since it is a subjective call (with no way to use instant replay to either make the call or undo the call), it is an imperfect rule. But in general the benefits of most of the helmet to helmet calls outweigh the few flubs that they miss. I think the "defenseless receiver" rule has merit.

helmet to helmet is always illegal.interference is when the hit is premature, but only on a catchable ball. when the ball is thrown high or behind and a hit is still made, that's unnecessary roughness in my book. you shouldn't be allowed to commit to a hit unless the receiver has attempted possession of the ball. the shady area to this is when the ball goes through the players hands without contacting it on a clearly catchable ball - do you allow the defender to make the hit in this case? i suppose a better criteria than contacting the ball is needed to define when a receiver is attempting to take possession.

I would contend that why does a defender have to hold up and wait because the receiver is trying to adjust to a ####ty pass.....if the receiver is "attempting" to make a catch (high/behind)....as a defender I am assuming he is going to catch it.....my job is to try and prevent that....

Ok, this confirms it. You misunderstand the rule if you think a defender has to do any such thing.

I don't think the defender has to do any such things.....thats what I am saying....if you read his post he is saying that the defender has to wait to commit to the hit until the receiver has "attempted possession of the ball".....whatever that is...and be able to tell whether the ball is thrown too high or behind the receiver.....all things that are virtually impossible at full speed.....a defender won't be in the league long doing that....take helmet to helmet out of it......that is not a part of my stance......hits that are not even helmet to helmet are being called unnecessary roughness because the receiver is considered "defenseless".....

basically they are asking defenders to determine when a receiver is considered defenseless.....and then wait until he is no longer defenseless before making the hit....

If by "before making the hit" you mean "before hitting his head/neck, or spearing with their helmet", then yes, the NFL expects them to wait.

If by "hit" you mean every other normal football meaning of "hit", then no, they don't.

 

[Stinkin Ref]

#2 above is the problem....

hits that are legal and not "unnecessary" are being penalized even when delivered within the rules because they look violent and the rule protects a receiver as soon as he starts attempting to make a catch and continues until he is able to protect himself.....which basically takes delivering a hit to dislodge/prevent the catch out of the equation...if the receiver gets time enough to regroup/gather themselves in order to protect themselves then catch will most certainly be made.....almost a damned if you do damned if you don't situation for defenders.....let them make the catch....or risk delivering a blow that you hope won't get called and probably get them 15 yards anyway....

while I agree it may be more of an enforcement issue on behalf of the officials....I believe the rule has lead them to overreact and call almost anything that looks bad....