2009 NFL Rules changes: "Safety" first?

[SirFozzie]

Wow, this is the biggest safety changes I can remember in some time:

A) Outlawing the wedge on Kickoff Returns. The wedge is simply three players lined up in a blocking triangle that a returner follows as it plows up the field against kickoff coverage. Starting this fall, no more than two receiver team players may intentionally form a wedge to help the returner. The penalty is 15 yards and will be enforced from the spot of the wedge. It will be called if three or more players line up shoulder to shoulder within two yards of each other to lead the blocking.

B) Hitting a defenseles receiver penalty will be updated: In the past, officials gave an unnecessary roughness penalty to a defender if he delivered a helmet hit to a receiver going across the middle of the field or any spot on the field in which he appeared to be defenseless. Starting this fall, the penalty will also apply if the defender hits the defenseless receiver in the head or neck with his forearm or shoulder.

C) Onside Kick Changes: Under the new rule, players on the kickoff team will be spaced accordingly. First, at least four players of the kicking team must be on each side of the kicker. Second, at least three players must be lined up outside each inbounds line, including one who must be outside the yard-line number.

D) A 15-yard penalty will be enforced if a player delivers a blindside block to the head of a defender using his helmet, forearm or shoulder. The penalty will be enforced if a helmet, shoulder or forearm strikes the head or neck of the defender. (the Hines Ward Special)

e)The "Tom Brady" rule (and no, I'm not referring to the Tuck Rule). Players on the ground will be penalized if they lunge into a QB while a play is going on.

[mauchow]

e)The "Tom Brady" rule (and no, I'm not referring to the Tuck Rule). Players on the ground will be penalized if they lunge into a QB while a play is going on.

Wait, what... lol

[spleen1015]

Why don't they just break out the flags and get it over with.

[bhlloy]

I actually don't have a big problem with any of them. A) and C) will make exciting special teams plays less likely, but I could easily see somebody dying in one of these situations one day so it's probably a tradeoff.

I like the "Hines Ward" rule a lot - about time somebody looked out for defensive players. If Hines did what he did to Keith Rivers to a QB or WR he would be looking at a minimum week suspension.

[SirFozzie]

Full story: Four safety proposals passed at NFL owners meetings - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4012307)

[molson]

The NFL is definitely afraid someone's going to get killed on the field. They're basically preparing their defense to that lawsuit right now.

I wonder if (C) though, basically eliminates Onside Kicks as a strategy. That would be a problem. The realistic possibility of an onside kicks keeps games interesting for longer.

[SirFozzie]

The interesting thing, Molson, you notice that the KICKING team is restricted to a mininum of four players on each side.. the receiving team isn't. so either you put two kickers on the field or you have a big advantage in the way that you're going to kick the ball

[molson]

The interesting thing, Molson, you notice that the KICKING team is restricted to a mininum of four players on each side.. the receiving team isn't. so either you put two kickers on the field or you have a big advantage in the way that you're going to kick the ball

Oh ya - I should think these things through for more than 5 seconds.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Why don't they just break out the flags and get it over with.

Almost word for word what I said when hearing about the Brady rule. That's just fucking ridiculous.

[mckerney]

e)The "Tom Brady" rule (and no, I'm not referring to the Tuck Rule). Players on the ground will be penalized if they lunge into a QB while a play is going on.

Jared Allen rule?

[jeff061]

I wouldn't have a problem with any of these rules to protect the QB, including this new one.

The problem is it seems like every roughing the passer call ever made is either phantom or ticky tac. It's a joke. If they actually made the right call more often it wouldn't be an issue.

Similar to a lesser extent as defensive pass interference, but that's a tougher one. You have to have that doozy penalty in there. Refs are just god fucking awful at calling it.

[gstelmack]

They were pointing out that the Brady rule is just a clarification. It was illegal to dive and hit a QB below the knees. Now they are simply saying you may never hit a QB below the knees. When he's planted and throwing, he's in the same danger a lineman is when he's engaged with someone up high.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Now they are simply saying you may never hit a QB below the knees.

Fine, then make it illegal to block defensive players to the ground.

Or better yet, just put the QB's in a nice skirt & sew a little loop to hold their flag.

[miami_fan]

Fine, then make it illegal to block defensive players to the ground.


This is what I was thinking. Shouldn't it also be called unecessary roughness if an offensive lineman hits a defender who is already on the ground. Isn't that player in a "defenseless" position?

[larrymcg421]

Does this rule also apply to Ronnie Brown in the Wildcat? Oh, I hope so.

[Cringer]

I actually don't have a big problem with any of them. A) and C) will make exciting special teams plays less likely, but I could easily see somebody dying in one of these situations one day so it's probably a tradeoff.

I like the "Hines Ward" rule a lot - about time somebody looked out for defensive players. If Hines did what he did to Keith Rivers to a QB or WR he would be looking at a minimum week suspension.

How is someone going to die because of a wedge of 3 players on a kickoff? I think outlawing the wedge is plain dumb. If someone wants to explain how this is a dangerous thing please do, I don't see it.

[bhlloy]

Ever heard of the term "breaking up the wedge"? Basically somebody goes head first into the wedge with no regard for their own safety to take it out, thus allowing the rest of their teammates to make the tackle. I'm willing to bet a large number of serious neck injuries result from this... it will make long kickoff returns much more rare, but in terms of things they can take out of the game and decrease the likelyhood that somebody will die, I think it's a pretty safe bet.

[Dr. Sak]

If you don't think it is dangerous, you should watch some footage on wedge busters.

[miami_fan]

Ever heard of the term "breaking up the wedge"? Basically somebody goes head first into the wedge with no regard for their own safety to take it out, thus allowing the rest of their teammates to make the tackle. I'm willing to bet a large number of serious neck injuries result from this... it will make long kickoff returns much more rare, but in terms of things they can take out of the game and decrease the likelyhood that somebody will die, I think it's a pretty safe bet.

Then flag the wedge buster? Or tell coaches not to be impressed by the rookie who will "bust the wedge"

[bhlloy]

Yeah, because letting 3 guys run unimpeded down the field so you can't get close to the returner is a really solid strategy. If there is a wedge it needs to be busted, otherwise there is going to be a TD on every third kick return.

[Poli]

I'm really happy that my league doesn't do that kickoff formation junk!

Onside kicks for the win.

[cthomer5000]

NFL loses me 5 % more each year.

[RainMaker]

My only gripes are with D and E.

D is just football, part of the game. So are they just not allowed to block players who are not looking at them? Just sort of defeats the purpose of football I guess.

E is just ridiculous. What happened to Brady was really rare. If you don't want QBs hurt, just put flags on them and stop this pretending that they are allowed to be hit.

[Marc Vaughan]

(begin - traditional rant, those who have read this before are welcome to hit fast forward and enjoy the commercials ;))

I've never quite understood why sports today are becoming so 'non-contact' personally - this seems to be even more so in America than Europe, especially in amateur games.

To me competitive team sports are fun and risk is part of that fun. I love the adrenalin rush of playing soccer - competing against other players and pushing yourself to the limit.

Half of the fun is lunging in for that 50-50 ball and not knowing for sure if you'll get it or whether you'll get clattered, yeah there are days when I come away with lots of bruises (especially so as I prefer not to wear shinpads when the refs allow me not to - I find they restrict my movement) but thats part of the trade off ... life is full of risks, decide which ones are worthwhile for you to take and go for it imho (and don't cry to mommy if you end up hurt - twas your choice to do it).

(end - rant)

PS - While I'm not into the sport at all, I very much admire Rugby (both league and union) for having retained its physical contact over the years regardless of what is happening elsewhere.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The interesting thing, Molson, you notice that the KICKING team is restricted to a mininum of four players on each side.. the receiving team isn't. so either you put two kickers on the field or you have a big advantage in the way that you're going to kick the ball

Not true. Kickers practice a fake run up during practices for that reason. They run up like they're going to kick one way, swing across the ball instead, and kick it the opposite direction. Return teams keep their weighting pretty even for that specific reason. An NFL kicker can take advantage of any receiving team weighting to one side relatively easily.

[wade moore]

A) Outlawing the wedge on Kickoff Returns. The wedge is simply three players lined up in a blocking triangle that a returner follows as it plows up the field against kickoff coverage. Starting this fall, no more than two receiver team players may intentionally form a wedge to help the returner. The penalty is 15 yards and will be enforced from the spot of the wedge. It will be called if three or more players line up shoulder to shoulder within two yards of each other to lead the blocking.

I've said in multiple threads over the last year or two that I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 10-15 years the NFL eliminates the kickoff. A LARGE majority of spinal injuries over the last 5 years have been on kickoffs. This seems to be the first step in addressing that issue.

[Mustang]

I'm willing to bet a large number of serious neck injuries result from this

I don't recall any neck injuries from this.

Edit : Went an just did some poking around, does appear there is a number of neck injuries on kickoffs. In 2007, looks like there were 4 in 3 weeks at the beginning of the season.

[lungs]

Honestly, I know these rule changes are for the good. There is no need for people to get seriously injured playing a game. You look at the old and crippled ex-players and you see this is a hazardous game to the long term health of the players.

On the other hand, football has almost become unwatchable for me. I'm probably in the minority and even moreso in the minority in that I think baseball has become much much better. Too many damn penalties. Too many damn TV timeouts. It's just not the same game I grew up watching.

But I definitely understand the NFL's perspective. These are good business moves as the majority of the people out there will still watch and still be rabid fans of their teams. Heck, I'll still watch because there is nothing better on TV on Sundays until PBA starts up.

[gstelmack]

E is just ridiculous. What happened to Brady was really rare. If you don't want QBs hurt, just put flags on them and stop this pretending that they are allowed to be hit.

Wasn't the Brady injury pretty much the same as the Carson Palmer injury in the playoff game against the Steelers a couple of years ago?

[Logan]

I don't recall any neck injuries from this.

Edit : Went an just did some poking around, does appear there is a number of neck injuries on kickoffs. In 2007, looks like there were 4 in 3 weeks at the beginning of the season.

Didn't Kevin Everett's injury take place on a kickoff, either attempting to break the wedge or being one of the guys in the wedge?

[wade moore]

I don't recall any neck injuries from this.

Edit : Went an just did some poking around, does appear there is a number of neck injuries on kickoffs. In 2007, looks like there were 4 in 3 weeks at the beginning of the season.

As I posted just before you, a large majority of serious neck injuries in the last 5, if not 10, years have been on kickoffs.

[DanGarion]

You all realize the owners are looking out for their best interests right? Which is to protect the players. It's easy for us to say the players are soft and that these safety rules are pointless, but none of us have invested interest in the league, a team, or a career in the NFL...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

You all realize the owners are looking out for their best interests right? Which is to protect the players. It's easy for us to say the players are soft and that these safety rules are pointless, but none of us have invested interest in the league, a team, or a career in the NFL...

If anyone had ever seen a computer simulation of what happens to a person's brain when they impact with that wedge, they'd never question these rules. It'll make you sick to your stomach.

[Passacaglia]

What's an inbounds line?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What's an inbounds line?

Isn't that the hash marks? That was my first thought.

[DaddyTorgo]

I've said in multiple threads over the last year or two that I wouldn't be surprised if within the next 10-15 years the NFL eliminates the kickoff. A LARGE majority of spinal injuries over the last 5 years have been on kickoffs. This seems to be the first step in addressing that issue.

and just what...have each team start at the 20? or the 15?

[molson]

You all realize the owners are looking out for their best interests right? Which is to protect the players. It's easy for us to say the players are soft and that these safety rules are pointless, but none of us have invested interest in the league, a team, or a career in the NFL...

I seems like people thing football loses something if you cut back on the injuries (particularly spinal injuries)

The comments are predictable: "might as well make it flag football", "might as well put a skirt on the QB".

Similar kinds of people probably hated when the forward pass was legalized. (That was, after all, a safety rule, implemented after dozens of in-game deaths).

And the Brady thing isn't even a rule change, so people need to settle down about that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Almost word for word what I said when hearing about the Brady rule. That's just fucking ridiculous.

As a fan of a team that had their season adversely affected to a large degree (SB favorite to missing the playoffs) by this, and even moreso with an understanding of the financial hit that the Kraft's took as a result of this happening, I disagree.

[cthomer5000]

and just what...have each team start at the 20? or the 15?

The 1 would be my suggestion.

[cthomer5000]

As a fan of a team that had their season adversely affected to a large degree (SB favorite to missing the playoffs) by this, and even moreso with an understanding of the financial hit that the Kraft's took as a result of this happening, I disagree.

So? Do we legislate anything that MIGHT cause an injury? How about no tackling a guy if you can't make direct eye contact with him, since he might get hurt if he doesn't see you coming from his side or behind him?

[molson]

So? Do we legislate anything that MIGHT cause an injury? How about no tackling a guy if you can't make direct eye contact with him, since he might get hurt if he doesn't see you coming from his side or behind him?

It doesn't prove your point to argue that something that the NFL didn't do (and hasn't been proposed by anyone) would be silly.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So? Do we legislate anything that MIGHT cause an injury? How about no tackling a guy if you can't make direct eye contact with him, since he might get hurt if he doesn't see you coming from his side or behind him?

Give 'em a couple of years, they'll get around to that.

As a fan of a team that had their season adversely affected to a large degree (SB favorite to missing the playoffs) by this, and even moreso with an understanding of the financial hit that the Kraft's took as a result of this happening, I disagree.

Football, played perfectly legitimately, is a game that carries a risk of injury. Why does this warrant a rule change whereas other equal or greater risks do not? Oh wait, I know, one of the poster boys happened to be the unfortunate victim of the injury. I'm usually among the first to point out the marketing aspect of these things & that motivation isn't lost on me here either. The difference is, similar to a number of the NASCAR marketing ploys, this one simply diminishes my interest and drives me further away. The NFL hasn't yet reached NBA levels of disinterest for me but it's definitely getting there.

[DaddyTorgo]

well if you're going to okay hitting QB's below the knees (especially when they're planted and vulnerable) why not allow chop-blocks on linemen? why is one okay and the other isn't? or what about clipping?

[JonInMiddleGA]

well if you're going to okay hitting QB's below the knees (especially when they're planted and vulnerable) why not allow chop-blocks on linemen? why is one okay and the other isn't? or what about clipping?

With the possible exception of discussing enforcement of existing rules (i.e. a call blown versus what the rule book states), you've never heard me say boo about chop blocks, I don't particularly like the way that's been legislated either frankly.

[cthomer5000]

It doesn't prove your point to argue that something that the NFL didn't do (and hasn't been proposed by anyone) would be silly.

Fair enough, but I think this real-world rule we're talking about is very silly. Either treat the QB like a normal player, or dispense with the illusion and put a red jersey on him and make it impossible to touch him. The in-between just legislates the game to a point of absurdity. Almost every roughing the passer penalty is a total joke - one where the defensive player had no reasonable way to stop their momentum.

I would honestly favor either less legislation, or far more radical legislation.

[DaddyTorgo]

Give 'em a couple of years, they'll get around to that.



Football, played perfectly legitimately, is a game that carries a risk of injury. Why does this warrant a rule change whereas other equal or greater risks do not? Oh wait, I know, one of the poster boys happened to be the unfortunate victim of the injury. I'm usually among the first to point out the marketing aspect of these things & that motivation isn't lost on me here either. The difference is, similar to a number of the NASCAR marketing ploys, this one simply diminishes my interest and drives me further away. The NFL hasn't yet reached NBA levels of disinterest for me but it's definitely getting there.

but that's exactly it - your $$, and the $$ of everyone who is upset about these potential rule changes, is a drop in the bucket compared to the lost revenue from advertising and ticket-fees, and parking fees, and etc that are lost by an injury to a franchise QB. They'd probably rather have you and all those upset like you never watch another game or buy another ticket or piece of merchandise than risk the potential losses of millions of dollars from a single injury like that.

they're not after your $$. You're part of a very small minority. Vocal sure, but small.

[cthomer5000]

I guess some of us don't want to have our illusion that the sport is something more than a money-making exercise shattered. This change is a step closer to that.

Slightly related note: cheapest seat for the Jets in the new stadium next year is $95.

[molson]

Fair enough, but I think this real-world rule we're talking about is very silly. Either treat the QB like a normal player, or dispense with the illusion and put a red jersey on him and make it impossible to touch him. The in-between just legislates the game to a point of absurdity. Almost every roughing the passer penalty is a total joke - one where the defensive player had no reasonable way to stop their momentum.

I would honestly favor either less legislation, or far more radical legislation.

QBs have never been treated like every other player. Would you really be OK with all the changes if he just wore a different jersey? Can't we tell which player on the team the QB is?

I agree that the roughing the passer/late hit penalties aren't called very well, but that seems like a referee issue. Fixing that area might be a good compromise for PR - toughen up the rules on kickoffs and needless below the knees hits, and give defenders more leeway in actually tackling the QB on passing plays.

[DaddyTorgo]

That being said, I understand your frustration and I can sympathize in a lot of ways. I'm just saying it's a business and you have to look at it as a business decision.

[cthomer5000]

QBs have never been treated like every other player. Would you really be OK with all the changes if he just wore a different jersey? Can't we tell which player on the team the QB is?

In my world, yes, he would have to wear a different jersey. Direct snaps to other players would not grant them QB rights. There would be 1 protected player, noted by his special jersey. Direct snaps to an RB/WR/whatever would make them fair game for anything a usual guy is, even if they hang out in the pocket and pass.

[cthomer5000]

That being said, I understand your frustration and I can sympathize in a lot of ways. I'm just saying it's a business and you have to look at it as a business decision.

We all understand this on some level - the league is in the business of making money. It's why they exist. No one debates this.

My point is that when you can see the strings on the puppets so clearly, you lose any illusion that these games matter. That it's about competition, that your local team actually represents your local area, that the league cares about integrity of the sort of mythology of 'football' or sport.

I think a lot of the most passionate fans are the ones who lose heart and eventually disappear when it feels like the game is continuously gutted in the name of a few more dollars to add to their already massive incomes.

[molson]

In my world, yes, he would have to wear a different jersey. Direct snaps to other players would not grant them QB rights. There would be 1 protected player, noted by his special jersey. Direct snaps to an RB/WR/whatever would make them fair game for anything a usual guy is, even if they hang out in the pocket and pass.

I can see it happening, if only becaue of the merchandise possibilities

[DaddyTorgo]

We all understand this on some level - the league is in the business of making money. It's why they exist. No one debates this.

My point is that when you can see the strings on the puppets so clearly, you lose any illusion that these games matter. That it's about competition, that your local team actually represents your local area, that the league cares about integrity of the sort of mythology of 'football' or sport.

I think a lot of the most passionate fans are the ones who lose heart and eventually disappear when it feels like the game is continuously gutted in the name of a few more dollars to add to their already massive incomes.

and yet the league keeps doing alright. it's a shame for the passionate fans though, i agree.

[larrymcg421]

In my world, yes, he would have to wear a different jersey. Direct snaps to other players would not grant them QB rights. There would be 1 protected player, noted by his special jersey. Direct snaps to an RB/WR/whatever would make them fair game for anything a usual guy is, even if they hang out in the pocket and pass.

So what prevents a team from listing all of their backs as QB's? Then they could take direct snaps and have that advantage.

[DaddyTorgo]

So what prevents a team from listing all of their backs as QB's? Then they could take direct snaps and have that advantage.

1 on the field at a time and must have 1 in on every play.

only applies when the player is "in the pocket" and with the ball un-tucked?

there are ways you cam make rules to prevent that kind of abuse

[Passacaglia]

So what prevents a team from listing all of their backs as QB's? Then they could take direct snaps and have that advantage.

I think you would have to say the QB can't cross the line of scrimmage with the ball, if he's going to be untouchable.

[Poli]

New rule proposal: The defense can no longer cross the line of scrimmage. Upon snapping the ball, the offense has 5 seconds to run or throw the ball past the line of scrimmage or lose a down.

Nobody gets hurt that way...at least not on a pass. ;)

[DaddyTorgo]

I think you would have to say the QB can't cross the line of scrimmage with the ball, if he's going to be untouchable.

which removes your whole "running qb" thing, so that wouldn't fly. and you don't want "until he crosses the line of scrimmage" as a rule, so that's why i sort of said "if he's in the pocket without the ball tucked"

i dunno. but i'm sure there's a way to word it

[BrianD]

I think the Brady rules makes for a less interesting game of football. If Brady injuries have become common, there are two options to reduce them. 1) make the QB less touchable, or 2) make the QB more mobile. To launch a 50-yard bomb, you have to have a QB be pretty exposed and vulnerable to a hit. If you don't give them special protection, you encourage more movement and quick action. Sadly the NFL is more interested in big-play excitement than in a fluid game.

[wade moore]

and just what...have each team start at the 20? or the 15?

I would imagine start at the 20.

I'm not necessarily advocating this change, but I can easily see it happening. And, quite honestly, I can see why they want to do something about devastating spinal injuries.

[gstelmack]

Draft order changing for the 2010 draft as well. Now the wildcard teams that make a deep run will be drafting later than they have been: NFL owners pass change on playoff teams draft order - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4015265)

[gstelmack]

They are also apparently getting rid of the re-kick when an onside kick goes out of bounds according to that article.

[DaddyTorgo]

I would imagine start at the 20.

I'm not necessarily advocating this change, but I can easily see it happening. And, quite honestly, I can see why they want to do something about devastating spinal injuries.

oh i agree. i just wanted to open the can of worms of "what would an appropriate starting position be?"

[JonInMiddleGA]

which removes your whole "running qb" thing, so that wouldn't fly.

Maybe not. Let's see here, poster child QB's are what matter, screw the competition or the very nature of the game.
-- Brady, not known for his running. Okay so far.
-- Manning, not known for his running. Still okay.

Not sure there's anybody else at QB that really gets close to the same echelon but just in case, Brees & Rivers aren't really runners so no real harm there either.

Plus it makes Michael Vick worthless to any team, so it has that going for it too.

I'm not seeing a big problem here. Just establish a rule that says they can't run past the line of scrimmage if they drop back more than a couple of yards or something to cover the wildcat formation guys and I think we're on to something here. Or at least on to something that I think makes as much sense as what they've come up with.

[JonInMiddleGA]

oh i agree. i just wanted to open the can of worms of "what would an appropriate starting position be?"

Wouldn't it likely be based in some way on the current average starting position (or median starting position)?

[ISiddiqui]

Love how Deadspin puts the "Brady rule":

Nfl: NFL Can't Stop Tinkering With The Game (http://deadspin.com/5184212/nfl-cant-stop-tinkering-with-the-game)

In order to insure that never happens again (http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2009/03/24/brady_rule_steps_taken_to_protect_qbs_knees/), evil defensive lineman who have been chopped block to the ground will no longer be allowed to lunge at a quarterback's legs, a technique sometimes referred to as "tackling."

[fantom1979]

Slightly related note: cheapest seat for the Jets in the new stadium next year is $95.

At least they don't have a $1000 PSL for the cheapest seat, like the Giants.

[fantom1979]

They are also apparently getting rid of the re-kick when an onside kick goes out of bounds according to that article.

I thought this rule was changed years ago... I can't believe it was still alive.

[fantom1979]

I think you would have to say the QB can't cross the line of scrimmage with the ball, if he's going to be untouchable.

How would that effect the Wildcat? How do you determine who the quarterback is? Do they wear special jerseys? Do you go by jersey number? Is it who the ball was snapped to?

[miami_fan]

How would that effect the Wildcat? How do you determine who the quarterback is? Do they wear special jerseys? Do you go by jersey number? Is it who the ball was snapped to?

Not sure why they would have to change the definition of the quarterback. The QB would be the player that took the snap from center. If a RB takes a snap from center and drops back or rolls out (but stays within the tackle box), he should get the same protections as a QB would. He would be just as vulnerable/defenseless. In the same way, a QB is treated like a RB or receiver once they go beyond the line of scrimmage.

[fantom1979]

Not sure why they would have to change the definition of the quarterback. The QB would be the player that took the snap from center. If a RB takes a snap from center and drops back or rolls out (but stays within the tackle box), he should get the same protections as a QB would. He would be just as vulnerable/defenseless. In the same way, a QB is treated like a RB or receiver once they go beyond the line of scrimmage.

I was responding to the message I quoted about the quarterback not being allowed to run past the line of scrimmage.

[Raiders Army]

It is recommended that all players wear hip pads, thigh pads, and knee pads which reasonably avoid the risk of injury. Unless otherwise provided by individual team policy, it is the players’ responsibility and decision whether to follow this recommendation and use such pads. If worn, all three forms of pads listed above must be covered by the outer uniform. Basketball-type knee pads are permitted but must also be covered by the outer uniform.
Interesting rule here. If safety is such a concern, why not make the players wear all pads?

[wade moore]

oh i agree. i just wanted to open the can of worms of "what would an appropriate starting position be?"

Wouldn't it likely be based in some way on the current average starting position (or median starting position)?

i see the 20 or what Jon mentions here both as viable options. I wasn't really worried about the details of it to be honest.

[Raiders Army]

Not sure why they would have to change the definition of the quarterback. The QB would be the player that took the snap from center. If a RB takes a snap from center and drops back or rolls out (but stays within the tackle box), he should get the same protections as a QB would. He would be just as vulnerable/defenseless. In the same way, a QB is treated like a RB or receiver once they go beyond the line of scrimmage.

I was searching the internets to see if there was a rule that only the QB could receive the playcalls via the radio (and green stickered helmet), but I couldn't find that out. I would assume the rule states that only one player can receive the call and not specifically call out the QB.