It's September. Every team can double cover Gronk with impunity (and apparently keep doing it 10 yards down the field), and no one else can beat 1v1 coverage, but in two weeks we'll have Julian Edelman and Josh Gordon (and Trey Flowers) playing. I'm just going to keep repeating that until next Sunday's game. (And I wouldn't be shocked if Patricia did understand a couple tendencies that helped his D.)

Seriously, I don't want to worry much about the offense yet, but that run blocking is brutal. Maybe Marcus Cannon can get healthy & that solidifies things, but I actually thought Michel did a good job avoiding guys, and every time we ran a stretch play (outside one 11 yard run early Q3) the Lions had multiple free tacklers in position before he even hit the line of scrimmage.

Defensively, Trey Flowers coming back is clearly a key because he's the guy who can get pressure when we drop into zones (and Chung playing over Harmon will help both the run defense & possibly the communication on that TD Gilmore was looking for safety help), but man Hightower looks sloooow out there, and when you combine that with our insistence on only drafting 260+ pound linebackers (or their 5'8 equivalents in Elandon Roberts) who can "set the edge" we're in a lot of trouble. Jacksonville's death by a thousand crossing routes game plan put a template out there, and if our only available response is playing a nickel & let every team run for 5 yards a carry while simultaneously getting no pressure if they drop back to pass I don't know if we can reach the level necessary by January. Otherwise we're going to need a very, very high offensive efficiency vs any team who can get a lead vs us & uses that time of possession game plan. I also thought JC Johnson could be a top 3 CB, so it was nice to see him on the field Q1. Unfortunately in the first quarter he got caught flat-footed on the flea flicker and committed (a borderline) defensive holding foul, so maybe we'll see him again in November.

The penalty should be for unnecessary roughness. That's why I'm cool with penalizing for pile driving and such. Unnecessary to making the tackle. Sacking the QB by tackling him to the ground, when you are hitting him in the chest and turning your head to avoid helmet-to-helmet, and getting flagged for landing on the QB, is not unnecessary. It can be unnecessary, where the guy is going to the ground and you just decide to sit on him to make sure he felt it. That's not the same as landing on a guy as part of a legal tackle.

They HAVE to fix this, and now. There's been like 3 times as many roughness penalties through 3 weeks this year as compared to last year. People want to see the players determine the outcome of games, not refs.

I'm with Kevin Clark from the Ringer: Until the Patriots are mathematically eliminated, they are the favorites to win the AFC. Belichick has earned that much respect.

Looking forward to tonights game. Can Fitz keep it going? I think so.

So this is a penalty:

This is a foul for roughing the passer - the defender lands “with all or most of the defender’s weight” on the passer. Rule 12, Section 2, Article 9(b): https://t.co/s9YKN8NLuT #GBvsWAS pic.twitter.com/ei2QZkvvzx

— NFL Football Operations (@NFLFootballOps) September 23, 2018

But this is not?

Is this a foul then? Landing on the QB? @AaronNagler pic.twitter.com/PVH872Zpnw

— Joel Donskey (@JoelDonskey) September 23, 2018

These two plays happened literally minutes apart - yet only the Matthews one was called. I still contend that neither are a penalty - but there is nor reasonable explanation to why the Matthews one is a penalty, but the one on Rodgers isn't. This is becoming worse than the old catch rule. I'm not even sure the league can explain what is or isn't flagged now.

This is "get everyone in a room and fix it ASAP" type stuff. The more they try to justify carrying out this as a penalty after the fact, the bigger of a clusterfuck it becomes over time which is exactly what happened to the catch rule.

The end of the rule says, "Instead, the defensive player must strive to wrap up the passer with the defensive player’s arms and not land on the passer with all or most of his body weight".

So, I think that's what refs are trying to look for movement with the arms. Maybe you'll get more leeway as a defender if you swing your arms (and the QB) a little. Looking at the plays below, Matthews just drives Smith straight back and to the ground, landing on him, and the Redskins player is using his arms more and swings Rogers around. That's probably just a product of Matthews coming more from straight on and the Redskins player coming more from the side, but the two plays are different in that way.

Like a lot of football calls, I don't think it's possible to get any of this perfectly consistent in real time, watching it once, but I think that's what refs are trying to do and what they're looking for.

But they also have to address the hits by the defense on receivers. You can't get all the bang/bang plays out. Not talking about head hunters, but where a guy is falling and happens to get hit in the head and another 15 is added on. They need to address the way defense is allowed to cover downfield and get rid of this PI prayer that always seems to change a few games during the year.

William Hayes of Miami Dolphins tears ACL trying to avoid sack flag

Going to see more of these type injuries.

But "swinging your arms" to bring down the QB was a penalty previously because it resulted in the (generally) much stronger DL throwing the weaker QB to the ground.

Not to mention, to your first point, that when Matthews brought down Cousins he clearly stuck his own arm out to brace himself and not put all of his weight on him.

The NFL could have looked at that play and said something like "it was a difficult call upon review and could be interpreted differently by both refs and the league, but we support the call by the ref in live action."

Instead, they quintupled down and said it would be used to teach the rule but it's lasting legacy will be all of us referring to the play again when they finally wind this back 3 years too late.

And the NFL won’t care because it’s not the QB that was injured. This is even more ridiculous than the ‘is it a catch’ debacle.

Everybody remember tackling those weeble things when you were a kid? Or get more enjoyment out of tackling a kid's weeble when you were more grown up or an adult? It's very hard to tackle those things with any force and not generally end up with your weight on top of it.

You know why? Because like many QBs that are stationary in the pocket, they have very little if any momentum carrying them in a different direction. So maybe that's the fix here: stop QBs from being set in the pocket. If they were even modestly on the run as they throw, it's much harder for a defender to end up with all of his body weight on top.

I don't remember the Redskins sack-type play ever being a penalty in the past. When sackers lifted a QB and threw him, sure, that's just a traditional unnecessary roughness, but not in the type of play depicted above.

Otherwise, I'm just trying to use the words of the rule and put myself in the refs shoes trying to interpret it in real time. I think they're going to be looking at arms and "wrapping up." Moving the QB somewhat (though not enough for a penalty), will decrease the chance for a flag.

I don't personally think protecting the QB should be an NFL priority right now, but if is, the players and coaches will have to adapt like they do with every rule change, and the ones who are able to do that better will be more successful.

And if the NFL really wants to build this rule around something as judgemental as "Moving the QB somewhat (though not enough for a penalty)"...well then, best of luck.

There was a roughing penalty in the Dallas game where Dak got pushed late and he basically pulled a soccer move and pretended like he got shoved hard to the ground (or maybe it was Wilson who got pushed, I don't recall). Flag. I don't know if the late touching was already going to draw a flag (admittedly, the guy shouldn't have even touched him), or his reaction got it, but that's basically what the NFL is encouraging - QBs should act like soccer divas to draw penalties now because this rule is all about public perception that they are taking action to stop unnecessary injuries. Results of the games be damned.

Jimmy G did tear his ACL, season over. :(

I assume Clay Matthews will be fined for this.

They're holding as a 7 point favorite over the Dolphins this week so Vegas and bettors are supporting the theory, but if they do lose to the Dolphins that's 3 games back in the division w/a H2H loss.

Dolphins do just have 3 one-score wins, and actually looked pretty bad vs the Raiders where they needed some gimmick plays to win, so chances are the Patriots restore some order, but at the same time those gimmick plays and a guy like Jakeem Grant could tear us up on those jet sweep shovel passes. I hope Flowers & Chung are healthy for it.

I laughed.

Honestly? Long term this might be a great thing for the 49ers, the more that I think about it. The team isn't ready yet, and as much as he is overhyped and most likely overrated at this point, the team goes from 7-10 wins with him to probably 4-7 wins without him. That's a much higher draft pick to bolster a team that still has several holes on the O-Line, in the Defense, and at the Skill Positions. Assuming he can recover well, he should be ready to roll early next year with a team that has plugged even more holes.

not sure you could ever call losing your starting QB a great thing :) especially to as severe an injury as his. But better to try to take a positive note on it, instead of drowning your sorrows I guess. :)

Heh, he'll be fined every time a QB is hurt now I'm sure :)

Another night, another terrible roughing the passer penalty. At least this one on McCoy was just tacked on to a play that resulted in a first down, and didn't give the Steelers one on a drive that would've ended otherwise.

This field is a disgrace

So throwing this out there. Instead of penalizing the hits themselves, what about penalizing any hit on a quarterback that causes a serious injury?

Something like,

"Any player who, being the primary aggressor and while the quarterback is behind the line of scrimmage, tackles the quarterback in a manner that leads to an injury such that the quarterback is listed as "Out" on the following week's injury report, shall be suspended for each week that said quarterback is "Out", to a maximum of four weeks."

Thoughts? Is this something that can be built off of? Ultimately, the point of this Aaron Rodgers rule is protecting the quarterbacks and the NFL wants to avoid those plays where defenders can make a clean hit but still drive the quarterback into the ground and injure him. I think the potential for a player being suspended (without pay) for up to four weeks would be enough incentive for a player to not attempt to injure the quarterback on their way to the ground.

These roughing penalties are horrendous.

I saw an outfielder go through the fence at a Jackson Generals games years ago. The outfielder jumped to catch the ball and hit the wall, breaking the plywood and falling through. I remember it being a very long delay until they could patch the wall and continue playing.

And the real Fitzpatrick is back

Wow this is dumb football. The Steelers have 115 penalty yards before the half. I hope they hit 200.

What happens when you tackle the QB in a manner that leads to an injury because he puts his own arm down to brace his fall, leading to a broken wrist or dislocated shoulder?

Good thing they kicked that FG.

Wtf they can't show a key penalty before breaking for commercial?

You mean exactly what happened to cause this rule in the first place? That’s on Anthony Barr. Four game suspension.

No. A currently "legal" hit where the defender's weight isn't entirely on the QB but the way he falls from the tackle leads to the injury.

What about an impending sack where the QB jukes to avoid the defender and tears his ACL? Flag and suspension.

Nope, the injury must be a result of the force of the tackle. Generally you can tell when the guys knee goes. So if it's a tackle that leads to the knee being blown out, then yes. However, if the QB is trying to avoid a hit and plants and blows his knee out prior to contact, then no. Keep in mind that the rule is behind the line of scrimmage. If we wanted to, another caveat could be added along the lines of "while not a runner."

It's not really clear what is and isn't legal, so this is difficult to answer. But I'm assuming then that we currently consider hits like the Barr one on Rodgers last year as well as the Clay Matthews hits "illegal" within the current context.

So what you are asking essentially equates to asking whether a tackle that does not involve driving someone into the ground, does not involve landing on them with your body weight, does not involve a hit below the knee and does not involve any other sort of other unnecessary roughness would entail a suspension? I suppose the answer is yes, although I think hits that fall outside of those parameters which lead to serious injuries would be few and far between.

Keep in mind that landing on the quarterback and driving them into the ground would now be "legal" hits again (I'd go so far as to remove the below the knee rule as well).

There is only an issue when the hit causes an injury. So the general idea of the rule is to provide a disincentive to overly forceful tackles and attempts to injure while also forcing the players to the best of their ability to protect the quarterbacks when going to the ground. Having said that, it's not necessarily a penalty to not protect them but there is the outside risk of a serious injury.

It's just a starting point, but I think personally I would prefer something like this as opposed to the current rule.

At some point you aren’t going to be able to keep playing Clay Matthews late in games if he can’t figure this out.

At some point teams are going to start calculating the odds against even attempting blitzes, factoring in the pretty good chance that the resulting hit/sack (if successful) is going to draw a flag.

I’d love to see a guy with a clear shot on the QB breakdown into a basketball defensive stance and just wait for the QB to make a move.

Judging by the number of guys with pretty clear shots who I watch fly by a sidestepping QB who then takes off running or ends up completing a pass, maybe more ought to consider it.

I want to see a guy run up and pull some flags out and claim he should be down.

This is unofficially how the NHL hands out discipline and it's a complete fucking disaster that only a relatively small group of sports fans notice. If it was applied to a league even as popular as the NBA people would flip their shit. You can't have two of the exact same hits result in zero discipline for one guy and a suspension equivalent to 25% of the season for another because one guy's collarbone is a bit stronger than another.

I think you can respond to the Rodgers injury without outlawing all QB sacks where gravity causes the rusher to land on the QB with his back on the ground. The Barr hit was made after the throw and Barr twists his body to drive Rodgers into the turf on his shoulder:



Compare that with the hits Matthews has made the past two games:





I don't feel like it should take a rocket scientist to see why the Barr hit is a penalty because he shifts his body weight to drive the player to the turf on his throwing shoulder. The act of hitting the QB (especially while still holding the ball) is going to cause some of the rushers weight to land on the QB. As long as he isn't driving the QB into the turf on his head/shoulder/arm, it shouldn't be a penalty. You could even add wording to where if the QB ends up on his back (when he's less likely to get injured), you have more leniency. The "injury" part of the Rodgers hit was because he was driven to the ground on his shoulder. Had Barr hit him from the front and Aaron landed on his back, it's doubtful any injury would have occurred.

*PSA: These comments are based on the idea that the NFL actually wants to try and prevent QB injury - not just neuter the position of pass rusher.

I don't see it at all like that. I'm not disagreeing that the NHL is incredibly inconsistent in how they apply suspensions for illegal activities, I just don't find that it actually is tied to the outcome (ie. injury result). Often times suspension length (and whether or not someone is even suspended) seems completely random and the resulting outcome has little to do with the suspension length, with past behaviour being the only consistent factor considered.

In fact, I think most people would prefer a method where at least something could be pointed to that addresses the current inconsistencies.

Edit: I should add, I'm not disputing that the NHL policies relating to suspensions include whether there was injury because this is officially one of the criteria in the CBA relating to supplementary discipline. So it's not even "unofficial." I'm simply arguing that it is not applied that way consistently. If it was, I don't think there would be any uproar.

Yeah, this whole thing is a mess. Maybe get better offensive lineman? It wouldn't surprise me if the NFL decides the offense can field an extra player as a designated blocker.

I still think the only real problem with the Barr tackle was the lateness. Even in that instance he rolled off Rodgers at the point of impact.

NFL issues clarification on roughing the passer rule to 'ensure consistency'

God forbid the NFL actually admits those Matthews penalties shouldn't have been called, but looks like they've sent a video clarifying what should be called & the Matthews hits aren't on it. :Rolleyes:

It's also a little amusing/scary that only 4 fouls have been called for helmet to helmet in 3 regular season weeks. Defenders can adjust to that more easily, but there's definitely still leading with the crown of the helmet going on out there (often from offensive players).

TBH I thought the Matthews/Cousins hit was a joke call (he didn’t lift him, he didn’t fall on him), but the Matthews/Smith hit was against the current rule: he landed on him. Don’t like the rule at all, but think Smith hit was a textbook example of what will draw a flag