2009 NFL Rules changes: "Safety" first?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

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]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

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]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

[gstelmack]

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by wade moore

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

In order to insure that never happens again, 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]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

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]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

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]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

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]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

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]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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.