Quote:
Originally Posted by Logan
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.
|
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.