This new NFL blocking rule (1 Viewer)

[Dragon1952]

Can someone please explain to me this new NFL blocking rule? We saw a penalty called on Riley Cooper in the Philly/Saint game and then it happened again last night against the Jags on a Cecil Shorts catch and run that would have put them in the red zone. A would be tackler is heading towards the runner and gets clobbered from the side and knocked on his ###. I mean these are hits Jack Lambert and Mike Ditka dreamed about. Evidently, in the name of safety, you can't blindside a would be tackler because he doesn't necessarily see you coming? I guess because he can't brace for the hit and could get injured? So, we know you can't block in the back....but now you can't block from the side either? Oh wait....only if the would be tackler sees you coming, which should be really easy to tell I guess So the blocker is supposed to let the runner get blindsided instead?.....because it doesn't matter if he gets blindsided and injured.....that's the risk he takes by trying to run with the ball. Now I may be wrong as to the reason this rule exists...I'm just assuming here. But if it is a safety issue then you would think that they should use it to protect anyone, not just would be tacklers. Why not say you can't hit a runner like that either? Why not just say 'no tackling or hitting at all from either the side or the back'. All tackles/hits must be from an angle where the runner/would be tackler can see you coming'. Do they actually expect a blocker to just give up on a block like that or try to make a judgment call as to whether or not a guy can see him coming? A would be tackler obviously should realize he could be blocked at any moment from any angle.....after all, there's 10 guys out there trying to do just that on every play.

 

[DesmondBishop]

Here is what I found

One of the NFL definitions for a defenseless player is one who "receivers a blindside block when the blocker is moving toward or parallel to his own end line and approaches the opponent from behind or from the side.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2012%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf

It is Rule 12 Section 2 Article 7 if you want to see it.

Also here is an article on it:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/breaking/nfl-approves-hines-ward-rule-335030/

 

[GregR]

At it's simplest, a blindside block where you're heading back towards your goal line or parallel to it, the other player is considered a defenseless player and gets the same protection as a player in the act of making a catch, a QB in the act of throwing a pass, a player laying on the ground, a returner catching a punt/kick, etc.

Which really just means you can't lead with your helmet, and you can't hit him in the head or neck.

There are other rules about blocking, like you can't go low at certain times, but those have been around for a long time.

IIRC the one in the Saints game was a bad call as he went shoulder to shoulder (though I don't remember the play clearly anymore). I don't see any problem with the rule. There's no reason you should ever need to head hunt a guy who doesn't see it coming, especially with what we know about effects of blows to the head. Unfortunately like any other rule, the refs sometimes get the call wrong.

 

[Dragon1952]

At it's simplest, a blindside block where you're heading back towards your goal line or parallel to it, the other player is considered a defenseless player and gets the same protection as a player in the act of making a catch, a QB in the act of throwing a pass, a player laying on the ground, a returner catching a punt/kick, etc.Which really just means you can't lead with your helmet, and you can't hit him in the head or neck. There are other rules about blocking, like you can't go low at certain times, but those have been around for a long time.IIRC the one in the Saints game was a bad call as he went shoulder to shoulder (though I don't remember the play clearly anymore). I don't see any problem with the rule. There's no reason you should ever need to head hunt a guy who doesn't see it coming, especially with what we know about effects of blows to the head. Unfortunately like any other rule, the refs sometimes get the call wrong.

IIRC, both blocks looked shoulder to shoulder. The announcers mentioned something like "that's a new rule this year". I could be mistaken but I took it to mean it's a "defenseless player" issue regardless of if there is a lead with the helmet or helmet-to-helmet contact. Meaning, you can't blindside anyone regardless. Again, I may be wrong but I know about the 'leading with/helmet to helmet' rule. This seemed different.

 

[kenzen]

Can someone please explain to me this new NFL blocking rule? We saw a penalty called on Riley Cooper in the Philly/Saint game and then it happened again last night against the Jags on a Cecil Shorts catch and run that would have put them in the red zone. A would be tackler is heading towards the runner and gets clobbered from the side and knocked on his ###. I mean these are hits Jack Lambert and Mike Ditka dreamed about. Evidently, in the name of safety, you can't blindside a would be tackler because he doesn't necessarily see you coming? I guess because he can't brace for the hit and could get injured? So, we know you can't block in the back....but now you can't block from the side either? Oh wait....only if the would be tackler sees you coming, which should be really easy to tell I guess So the blocker is supposed to let the runner get blindsided instead?.....because it doesn't matter if he gets blindsided and injured.....that's the risk he takes by trying to run with the ball. Now I may be wrong as to the reason this rule exists...I'm just assuming here. But if it is a safety issue then you would think that they should use it to protect anyone, not just would be tacklers. Why not say you can't hit a runner like that either? Why not just say 'no tackling or hitting at all from either the side or the back'. All tackles/hits must be from an angle where the runner/would be tackler can see you coming'. Do they actually expect a blocker to just give up on a block like that or try to make a judgment call as to whether or not a guy can see him coming? A would be tackler obviously should realize he could be blocked at any moment from any angle.....after all, there's 10 guys out there trying to do just that on every play.

Good post and excellent summary...I totally agree. You see a defender barreling down for a tackle and because you (the blocker) come from the side that he happens not to be looking at to block him (the tackler)...it's now a penalty. Bad rule Jeez.....how many times does the QB get hit from the blind side in which he is not looking (see Vick Monday night).........happens all the time. And those are 280 pound defensive linemen aiming to TACKLE the QB...not block an opposing tackler. What is the game coming to..."Excuse me , please look my way because I have a legal angle with my shoulder to stop you but only if you know about it ahead of time"....What I am trying to say is the QB and RB and WR get's hit all the time when they are not looking...why stop side shoulder to shoulder blocks when they are not looking.

 

[apalmer]

All because Hines Ward gave a few linebackers a taste of their own medicine.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Golden Tate on Sean Lee was legal?

 

[treat88]

Golden Tate on Sean Lee was legal?

His fine says no.So I guess the refs missed it based on the rule.Personally, I don't think a player should ever allow themselves to be defenseless, so obviously I disagree with the rule.

 

[Das Boot]

 

[Pantherz]

I could be mistaken but I took it to mean it's a "defenseless player" issue regardless of if there is a lead with the helmet or helmet-to-helmet contact. Meaning, you can't blindside anyone regardless. Again, I may be wrong but I know about the 'leading with/helmet to helmet' rule. This seemed different.

I don't want to speak for Russell, but I think he's making the distinction between the letter and legalistic interpretation of the rule and how it will actually be applied in a game setting. Something to consider is the refs in the NFL don't call 75 percent of the things they could call if they followed the pure letter of the rule book and guidelines. Generally speaking, the player safety issue was a negotiating point for the players union in the last labor war, but the fallout is still forthcoming. Now everyone involved in the NFL is looking to CYA in all instances. It's not quite set in stone, but we will probably see a trend in pro sports where anyone with a concussion will pretty much be forced to mandatory absence the next game. Team doctors want none of this mess. They don't want the liability. The league will send out film and instructions to the refs,to create loopholes to pass the blame and liability onto the refs if possible. The refs want nothing to do with it, they don't want to get into a fight between millionaires and billionaires. Back to "pacing", the valuation of TV and corporate ad time during games for commercials, banners, radio spots, etc, are all predicated on the belief that the average NFL game will be 3 to 3 and 1/2 hours. If the games consistently run long or short, that has an impact on concessions, work crews at the stadium, teams needing to fly to the next location, grounds crews, local businesses in the area, mass transit, off duty police working overtime, hotels, traffic expectations, etc. That all has a valuation in dollars. If it looks bad on camera consistently and can get someone in the league sued, they will call it. If it doesn't and it won't, then they won't. IMHO, it doesn't matter what the rule book says, it matters how it looks to the camera. Despite being a pro passing and pro offense league, it looks like a guy is jacking another guy for no reason. You can blindside someone, as long as it doesn't look bad. Danny Woodhead jacking up someone with an illegal hit is fine. It excite the crowd to see the little guy , the underdog, draw blood. A guy like the size of Terrell Owens, they don't want him crushing a slight dimeback with his helmet. I think the NFL gets too much of a moniker of a "No Fun League" with it's strict behavior at times. I think sometimes this is unfair. The league is looking out for it's best long term legal interests here. It's a devaluation of their brand and their advertising time to have too many calls and have too many penalties. With so many built in game stoppages already, adding more only lengthens games to the league's detriment. What should be of more concern to the hardcore NFL fan, IMHO, is the gradual "David Stern Impact" on officiating in prime time games. How David Stern works is this way. He will send refs and officials tapes of things to "notice" and to "be concerned about" but will never directly say to call games like this or like that. Refs are either retained or dumped or getting promotions, raises and better assignments based on their individual rankings and efficiency scores. The ones who make the most money, have the most tenure, get the best assignments and stay in the league are the ones who keep games close, extend playoff series ( to increase local revenue for the home team), give home teams preferential calls, and will refuse to call fouls on elite players whom are the key draws for the league. Be the guy who fouls out LeBron James playing defense in the early 4th quarter in the playoffs - Lose your job. Be the guy who calls a clean game but doesn't extend that playoff series to the 7th game to increase league revenue - Lose your job. Be the guy who won't call phantom fouls, ignore flopping and clear violations in order to keep games close in the 4th quarter - Lose your job. You'll start to notice recently in NFL prime time games, certain teams will get a key holding call that keeps the game close. Or a big hit might be ignored so one team has a better chance to come back and create a "nail biter" at the end. More tension and close games in prime time games equal better ratings. You'll notice in MNF games this season, there are close games and there are games where the refs tried to make it close but one team couldn't even take that gift and make something of it. This doesn't apply to Thursday night games because the teams are too exhausted to make use of the cheating. The league has massive incentive to make the MNF games as exciting as possible, as unlike many of the other packages to the networks, it's situation is fairly unique. I never thought I'd live long enough to see the NFL get David Stern-ed. But it has. Start watching penalties that do and don't get called on Monday Nights and how they tend to keep games close. It's not a coincidence.

You honestly believe this is happening? Yet you still watch the games?

 

[Biabreakable]

Good thing they were not calling this when Chris Walsh was doing it all the time.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

Good thing they were not calling this when Chris Walsh was doing it all the time.

Walsh was one of my favorites!!

 

[GregR]

At it's simplest, a blindside block where you're heading back towards your goal line or parallel to it, the other player is considered a defenseless player and gets the same protection as a player in the act of making a catch, a QB in the act of throwing a pass, a player laying on the ground, a returner catching a punt/kick, etc.Which really just means you can't lead with your helmet, and you can't hit him in the head or neck. There are other rules about blocking, like you can't go low at certain times, but those have been around for a long time.IIRC the one in the Saints game was a bad call as he went shoulder to shoulder (though I don't remember the play clearly anymore). I don't see any problem with the rule. There's no reason you should ever need to head hunt a guy who doesn't see it coming, especially with what we know about effects of blows to the head. Unfortunately like any other rule, the refs sometimes get the call wrong.

IIRC, both blocks looked shoulder to shoulder. The announcers mentioned something like "that's a new rule this year". I could be mistaken but I took it to mean it's a "defenseless player" issue regardless of if there is a lead with the helmet or helmet-to-helmet contact. Meaning, you can't blindside anyone regardless. Again, I may be wrong but I know about the 'leading with/helmet to helmet' rule. This seemed different.

Didn't get good look at one Thursday. But it was a defenseless player rule. Only thing defenseless players get protected from are blows to the head (not just with a helmet) and leading with the helmet.Tough thing is it can be hard to tell at full speed and from one angle just hoe the hit happened. So we get bad calls.

 

[GregR]

On this topic... play early in the Panthers game where Steve Smith had a blindside block on another player. A ref threw a flag but then they huddled and picked it up as Smith went shoulder to shoulder and didn't hit the head.

That's really what the refs need to do on these types of calls in my opinion... they need to work together to confirm whether it was a blow to the head or not. You just can't tell from some angles at full speed.