|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
LINK Posted on: May 24, 2011 11:14 am
by Will Brinson
All the NFL news today isn't necessarily bad. The league addressed, as expected at the owners meetings in Indianapolis, several rule changes. Three rules aimed at protecting defenseless players were approved 32-0,
The biggest change appears to be the definition of a defenseless player. Now included in that definition, per Albert Breer of the NFL Network, are players who are "not clearly a runner yet" (wide receivers), kickers and punters during a return and quarterbacks following a change of possession.
There was a change made to the "launching" rule too. A player will be considered to have launched himself if he leaves his feet prior to contact in order to spring forward into another player and using "any part" of the helmet.
Finally, there's a change with respect to the "blow to the head" rule on quarterbacks. It's now a judgment call when a defender grazes the quarterback's head, as opposed to an automatic penalty with any touching.
Rich McKay, head of the NFL Competition Committee, is expected to speak at more length about the new rules later in the day. And yes, it is refreshing to deal with real football news even if the lockout is still looming large enough to make any rule changes irrelevant. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The part in bold is KEY!
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Yeah, I agree Punch. The blow to the head calls were pretty bogus most of the time, IMO.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,812 |
Sound like reasonable adjustments.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
No rule left me more furious than the fingertip to the head 15 yard penalty.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Agreed. I'm not against giving the QB SOME extra protection via the rules, but the "blows" to the head got ridiculous. Good change.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543 |
Seem like sensible changes to me.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,212 |
So, under this new launching rule- would it have now been a penalty in the steeler game when Cribbs got knocked out with a concussion??? If the answer is no, then this rule change was useless.
I'm glad that 15 yard blow to the QB head was fixed.... it rarely had the outcome that the rule was intended.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,543 |
If he was "not clearly a runner", then it would have been a penalty.
I can't remember the Cribbs penalty ...... but the Massaquoi hit would have been a penalty under this definition.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
Cribbs was running the ball out of the wildcat if i remember correctly so he would not have been considered defenseless.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
But it's still spearing! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,076
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,076 |
Those changes seem reasonable...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
I'm concerned about the following though Quote:
Defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder. The definition of such players now includes those throwing a pass; attempting or completing a catch without having time to ward off or avoid contact; a runner whose forward progress has been stopped by a tackler; kickoff or punt returners while the ball is in the air; kickers or punters during a kick or a return; a quarterback during a change of possession; a player who receives a blindside block from a blocker moving toward his own end zone.
[Source]
So now a QB in the act of throwing is defenseless. It's about time that the NFL just puts flags on QBs now. Any bets on how many qbs will start to throw the ball just as a defensive player is about to hit them? Or just to a pump fake to pause the rushed?
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
I'm concerned about the following though
Quote:
Defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder. The definition of such players now includes those throwing a pass; attempting or completing a catch without having time to ward off or avoid contact; a runner whose forward progress has been stopped by a tackler; kickoff or punt returners while the ball is in the air; kickers or punters during a kick or a return; a quarterback during a change of possession; a player who receives a blindside block from a blocker moving toward his own end zone.
[Source]
So now a QB in the act of throwing is defenseless. It's about time that the NFL just puts flags on QBs now. Any bets on how many qbs will start to throw the ball just as a defensive player is about to hit them? Or just to a pump fake to pause the rushed?
that part was already part of the rule. notice it says you cannot hit him in the head. the part that changed with QBs is that refs don't have to automatically throw the flag if they are just grazed on the helmet now.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
Harrison is a dirty player, no one is going to argue that. He intentionally lowered his head to deliver a helmet to ear hole shot but by rule it was a legal hit. Those are the kind of hits that teammates used to take care of with the chop block.
The Browns (especially on offense) allowed themselves to be punked last year on far to many occasions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,517
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,517 |
Quote:
I'm concerned about the following though
Quote:
Defenseless players cannot be hit in the head or neck area with the helmet, facemask, forearm or shoulder. The definition of such players now includes those throwing a pass; attempting or completing a catch without having time to ward off or avoid contact; a runner whose forward progress has been stopped by a tackler; kickoff or punt returners while the ball is in the air; kickers or punters during a kick or a return; a quarterback during a change of possession; a player who receives a blindside block from a blocker moving toward his own end zone.
[Source]
So now a QB in the act of throwing is defenseless. It's about time that the NFL just puts flags on QBs now. Any bets on how many qbs will start to throw the ball just as a defensive player is about to hit them? Or just to a pump fake to pause the rushed?
its always been illegal to hit a qb in the head. this just means that a wr cant be hit if he is throwing the ball.
and thats hit in the head or neck , btw. dont know if u missed that or not
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I agree here,...that that hit was allowed to stand on "legally" stated rules is what was assinine. I think the referees should be allowed to make judgement calls in such questionable instances,...bu they aren't and that is why we have to have it spelled out specifically in a "rule change." Pfft. And I still don't get why it's OK to chop tackle, but it ain't OK to chop block (blindsided crackbacks, I get.) It's apparently also still OK for a running back to lower his head, but not a defender. There are occasions where a defender might need to lower his head to protect himself too,....just sayin that the logic doesn't flow right, in my opinion. The game is way too overofficiated in my opinion,...and in converse, instant replay and booth officials are allowed to "make" an obvious field call that should be made and was either "overlooked" or just plain missed by a ref. There is also the obvious offensive line holding that occurs ON EVERY PLAY. I actually really don't care as long as injuries are indeed being prevented. Just play football. The whole world cheats and gets away with it. My two cents. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
He intentionally lowered his head to deliver a helmet to ear hole shot but by rule it was a legal hit.
No, it's not.
Quote:
Summary of Penalties
...
15 Yards
A tackler using his helmet to butt, spear, or ram an opponent.
Any player who uses the top of his helmet unnecessarily.
NFL Digest of Rules
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
 they won't be happy until they have 18 pre-season games. Just a note, a high percentage of Browns injuries have occured in pre-season or training camp compared to the entire June - January time frame. The Biggest mistake they are making with these rules involves catches. C'mon, there will never be a catch again without a bleeping legal team and the pope's review and alot of catches, will be called not and alot of non catches will be called catches.  This started several years ago, when they somehow allowed the first "TRAP" to be a catch. look if any part of a body is between the ground and the ball, its a catch right? well no, it should only be a torso or a thigh or a helmut, anything else should be a trap, ...if the player making the catch is in a "down" position like perhaps on his back or on his knees, or with his elbows on the ground. another thing. All these stupid fumbles, all these stupid potential fumbles where the player comes up from a pile starts running toward an end zone, nobody follows him and he looks back at the ref's and the pile and they just wave him back, that kinda thing. You could get rid of alot of that by bringing back the forward motion rule like it should be WHICH WAS WRONGLY CHANGED IN THE TITANS PLAYOFF TUCK RULE GAME. Anytime a qb brings his arm in motion, whether forward or back it should be the act of a pass and NOT a fumble. The ONLY time a TUCK RULE should contradict or counteract this is if the qb is in the act of running forward or sideways. If he's in the pocket, if he's on his heels, if he's stationary, if he's scanning the field, and his pass is knocked out while in the back motion. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A FUMBLE. its an incomplete pass. They've been doing that rule wrong for years. All the rule enforcements were better in 1991 than they have been since 1999. This may be the end of the NFL.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,986 |
Quote:
they won't be happy until they have 18 pre-season games.
Just a note, a high percentage of Browns injuries have occured in pre-season or training camp compared to the entire June - January time frame.
The Biggest mistake they are making with these rules involves catches.
C'mon, there will never be a catch again without a bleeping legal team and the pope's review
and alot of catches, will be called not
and alot of non catches will be called catches.
This started several years ago, when they somehow allowed the first "TRAP" to be a catch.
look if any part of a body is between the ground and the ball, its a catch right?
well no, it should only be a torso or a thigh or a helmut, anything else should be a trap, ...if the player making the catch is in a "down" position like perhaps on his back or on his knees, or with his elbows on the ground.
another thing.
All these stupid fumbles, all these stupid potential fumbles where the player comes up from a pile starts running toward an end zone, nobody follows him and he looks back at the ref's and the pile and they just wave him back,
that kinda thing.
You could get rid of alot of that by bringing back the forward motion rule like it should be WHICH WAS WRONGLY CHANGED IN THE TITANS PLAYOFF TUCK RULE GAME.
Anytime a qb brings his arm in motion, whether forward or back it should be the act of a pass and NOT a fumble.
The ONLY time a TUCK RULE should contradict or counteract this is if the qb is in the act of running forward or sideways.
If he's in the pocket, if he's on his heels, if he's stationary, if he's scanning the field, and his pass is knocked out while in the back motion.
IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A FUMBLE. its an incomplete pass.
They've been doing that rule wrong for years.
All the rule enforcements were better in 1991 than they have been since 1999.
This may be the end of the NFL.
Really? If a player's arms are under the ball and the ball never touches the ground, that should be a trap? Apparently you don't understand the definition of trap.
Also, QBs bringing the ball back should be a fumble. It isn't a pass until the ball moves forward. If the QB lets the ball slip out of his hand as his arm going back, should that be a incomplete pass as well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
Guess I was wrong, just took it as legal since I have never seen a hit against a runner flagged well not in the last 25 or 30 years anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 15,979 |
That depends if the ball goes forward or backward, it could be a backward pass and thus a live ball.
This was all much clearer back when Montanna and Marino were still playing . You would see it several times a week.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Quote:
just took it as legal since I have never seen a hit against a runner flagged well not in the last 25 or 30 years anyway.
Yeah, that's what makes me mad about it. The NFL even "ruled" that the hit on Cribbs was legal, even though on the books it's clearly not. I can't remember spearing being called a penalty since Chuck Cecil was wearing a Cardinals uniform.
If the NFL is serious about head injuries, then why in the world is this not being called? People are angry about rule changes and fines... just call what you have on the books!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150 |
Wow. Rule changes that make sense! 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Just a note, a high percentage of Browns injuries have occured in pre-season or training camp compared to the entire June - January time frame.
Ummmmmm......pre-season and training camp is in the June-January timeframe?????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,113
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,113 |
These make sense for the most part. Not saying there will be no bad calls, but the third one listed was potentially a raw deal, especially in a tight situation late in a game. Don't like refs as a rule, but I respect how tough the job is that they do. I especially believe that the dirty ones and cheap shots who chose that kind of play will always play that way regardless of any rule or change to the rule. Protect players, but punish the sinners severely.
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
Plan to fine teams targets Steelers for good reason By Clark Judge CBSSports.com Senior Writer May 24, 2011Tell Clark your opinion! INDIANAPOLIS -- Six months ago, the NFL insisted it wasn't targeting the Pittsburgh Steelers and/or linebacker James Harrison with stiff fines and warnings about flagrant hits. Now, the league doesn't say anything about the Steelers and fines -- nor should it -- because we're not stupid. We all know what's going on with a new proposal that would fine teams as well as players, and what's going on is that the Steelers have been identified as Public Enemy Numero Uno. The success of the Steelers' D, dependent on its hard hitting, may be in danger under a plan proposed by the NFL. (US Presswire) The success of the Steelers' D, dependent on its hard hitting, may be in danger under a plan proposed by the NFL. (US Presswire) Of course, they're not alone in the penalty box. Adolpho Birch, the NFL's senior vice president of labor policy and player development, said there are "three to four teams" the league had in mind when it produced a plan to fine teams -- not just individuals -- whose players are fined repeatedly. Birch declined to be specific, but it doesn't take a genius to name the first suspect. Will the Steelers please step forward? "You think they had you in mind?" team president Art Rooney was asked. "Well, I don't know," Rooney said at this week's owners meetings. "I can't say that for sure, but from what I understand I think we may have qualified last year. I think they're trying to get at a particular issue, and we'll see how it works." He's right about the league getting at a "particular issue," and it's head injuries. And when you think of head injuries you think of ... uh-huh, James Harrison and the Pittsburgh Steelers. It was Harrison who was fined so often and for so much last season that the Steelers complained they were targeted. Harrison was fined four times for $100,000, including a $50,000 penalty for a hit that originally was set at $75,000. Everywhere you look, the NFL is trying to reduce head injuries, and let's be honest, people -- that's a good thing. We saw it with the league's rule change at the March meetings, where kickoffs were moved five yards forward to reduce the number of returns and, ultimately, the injuries that result during them. We saw it in rules changes announced Tuesday, with the league expanding its protection for defenseless players as well as outlawing illegal "launching" by defenders. And now we see it in the league's interest in penalizing teams -- not just players -- for not grasping its message. OK, I get that. In fact, I'm in favor of it. But I know a lot of people in the 412 area code who aren't. They were outspoken last season in their support of Harrison and the Steelers, firm in their belief that the league would change the personality of their star player and its defense, and, ultimately, compromise the Steelers' chances for success. But it didn't, as the Steelers ended up ranked second in defense, first in run defense, first in points allowed and in their third Super Bowl in six years. What the NFL is trying to gain here, Birch said, is "accountability" from clubs that, basically, have little or none when it comes to flagrant hits -- and, yeah, I'd say that conversation starts with the Steelers. The New England Patriots are probably in there too, and I'd add Tennessee to the discussion. Essentially, what the NFL is saying is that it doesn't trust clubs to police themselves, so the league will do it for them -- with warnings of "significant and reasonable" fines for those teams that don't knuckle under. Only it's more than a warning; it's a threat, with Pittsburgh the provocateur. Nevertheless, Rooney rolled with the punch, saying, "I'm not going to say I'm opposed" to the idea and that he would "see how it goes." Good for him. Because, guaranteed, he showed more restraint than some of his players and legions of Pittsburgh fans will when they hear about this. "Initially, I'm not in favor of it, either," said Indianapolis owner Jim Irsay. "It's something where you teach the right techniques and just do the right thing. I know that in our organization our coaches are expected to teach the standards that are legal. I've listened to the discussion about it, but my initial thought is that I'm not in favor of it." Too bad. The NFL is. Which means the Steelers just got put on double-secret probation. web page
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Quote:
He intentionally lowered his head to deliver a helmet to ear hole shot but by rule it was a legal hit.
No, it's not.
That was driving me nuts ... the whole week after that hit, you'd hear "Heads of the Referee review committee", Steelers fans and other people defend that hit by constantly saying, "Well he wasn't in a defenseless position, so it wasn't illegal!" ... Uh, yeah, if you completely disregard the helmet to helmet and spearing rules, then yeah, I suppose it was okay.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
On a side note, can the NFL fine a player during a lockout???
James Harrison tweeted:
"I'm absolutely sure now after this last rule change that the people making the rules at the NFL are idiots."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
James Harrison tweeted:
"I'm absolutely sure now after this last rule change that the people making the rules at the NFL are idiots."
jc..
I agree with Harrison's comment above...but I put the blame on the head idiot, Roger Goodell.
If Roger Goodell was really concerned about the players "safety", he would mandate the use of Pro Cap helmet or at least fund a study to develop a safer helmet based on evidence the NFL has in it's possession...that helmets with padding added to the outside of helmets, greatly reduces the likelihood of concussion/head injuries.
IMO, the rule changes that Goodell began making last season, are about shifting "the liability" for head injuries away from the NFL, which establishes the safety standards for the equipment the players wear and onto the individuals wearing the helmets.
I believe Goodell is worried about future lawsuits against the NFL by players and their families (such as Dave Dureson, for example).
When something as obvious as adding padding to the outside of football helmets, is ignored by the NFL, for years and decades...it simply defies "common sense" and imo, is a good indicator that something else is driving the issue...such as LIABILITY.
I do not buy Goodell's claim, that he and the NFL are making these rule changes to make the game safer....jmho
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,076
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,076 |
Quote:
On a side note, can the NFL fine a player during a lockout???
James Harrison tweeted:
"I'm absolutely sure now after this last rule change that the people making the rules at the NFL are idiots."
Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it. Harrison may not agree with the rule changes, but there is sound thinking behind making them.
The intent is really good. Not sure if it will work out right, but I applaud the effort by the league to try and cut back on serious head trauma..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,620 |
Quote:
On a side note, can the NFL fine a player during a lockout???
James Harrison tweeted:
"I'm absolutely sure now after this last rule change that the people making the rules at the NFL are idiots."
We will soon find out
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,556 |
Harrison is a dirty player that goes out to injure people. There were a lot of plays like the hit on Cribbs in which he deliberately lowered his head and used his helmet as a battering ram.
Warren Sapp just ripped him and woodley to pieces last night on NFL network. Players around the league are tired of this guy. Football will be just fine without Harrison.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
I agree with Harrison's comment above...but I put the blame on the head idiot, Roger Goodell.
How about the "blame" for Harrison's boss, Art Rooney, who was one of the 32 "idiots" that unanimously passed the new rules??? Once again the basics fly right over your head.
Quote:
If Roger Goodell was really concerned about the players "safety", he would mandate the use of Pro Cap helmet or at least fund a study to develop a safer helmet based on evidence the NFL has in it's possession...that helmets with padding added to the outside of helmets, greatly reduces the likelihood of concussion/head injuries.
Blah blah blah we've heard it before. I'll put my money on the pros with all of the info making the right decisions as opposed to you the master of the conspiracy blogs with an agenda at all times.
Quote:
IMO, the rule changes that Goodell began making last season, are about shifting "the liability" for head injuries away from the NFL, which establishes the safety standards for the equipment the players wear and onto the individuals wearing the helmets.
I believe Goodell is worried about future lawsuits against the NFL by players and their families (such as Dave Dureson, for example).
Again, Roger Goodell does not make the rules. Get a grip and get a clue.
Quote:
When something as obvious as adding padding to the outside of football helmets, is ignored by the NFL, for years and decades...it simply defies "common sense" and imo, is a good indicator that something else is driving the issue...such as LIABILITY.
Or their studies show more than your studies.
Quote:
I do not buy Goodell's claim, that he and the NFL are making these rule changes to make the game safer....jmho
And I don't buy yours. No surprise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,812
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,812 |
I know....sometimes you just have to feed the troll.
I almost did this morning when I read his post.
Since you said most of what I was going to say, I'll simply ask the question I was going to ask.
Mac.....if you don't buy these rules changes were made to improve player safety, why were the changes made??
Since you imply the changes were for some other reason, tell us what are.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,029
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,029 |
Maybe you didnt read Macs post to well. ( I dont blame you  ) I think he was implying they are making the rule changes to get out of future law suits.
Joe Thomas #73
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
My take on this is.. IF this hampers the squealers, I'm all for it. If the refs target the squealers, I'm all for it. If the squealers face a higher level of scrutiny, I'm all for it.
They are a division rival. I want things to be difficult for them.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 327
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 327 |
i dont' like the "clearly a runner" crap. if a DB hits a WR, or a special teamer hits a returner before he touches the ball those are already penalties.
to me it could be translated into defenders/gunners can't hit somone as the ball gets there to break up the play.
Ruining QB's since 1999.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 814 |
Quote:
My take on this is.. IF this hampers the squealers, I'm all for it. If the refs target the squealers, I'm all for it. If the squealers face a higher level of scrutiny, I'm all for it.
They are a division rival. I want things to be difficult for them.
Nothing hampers the Squeelers if the refs swallow their whistles. neither the viscous hit on Cribbs(who Harrison said was the key in "taking him OUT of the game") or the absolutely blatant foul on Momass were penalized. In fact the Browns center was penalized for delay of game for kicking the ball in disgust. I think officials need to be fined as well for not calling blatant fouls.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum League approves 3 rule changes at
meetings
|
|
