2009 NFL Rules changes: "Safety" first?

SirFozzie · 03-24-2009, 07:16 PM

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 · 03-24-2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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 · 03-24-2009, 07:21 PM

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

bhlloy · 03-24-2009, 07:22 PM

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 · 03-24-2009, 07:22 PM

Full story: Four safety proposals passed at NFL owners meetings - ESPN

molson · 03-24-2009, 07:26 PM

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 · 03-24-2009, 07:31 PM

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 · 03-24-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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

JonInMiddleGA · 03-24-2009, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spleen1015

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 · 03-24-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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 · 03-24-2009, 07:50 PM

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 · 03-24-2009, 07:55 PM

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 · 03-24-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

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 · 03-24-2009, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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 · 03-24-2009, 08:39 PM

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

Cringer · 03-24-2009, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 03-24-2009, 08:57 PM

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 · 03-24-2009, 09:00 PM

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

miami_fan · 03-24-2009, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

bhlloy · 03-24-2009, 09:48 PM

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 · 03-24-2009, 09:58 PM

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

Onside kicks for the win.

cthomer5000 · 03-25-2009, 12:56 AM

NFL loses me 5 % more each year.

RainMaker · 03-25-2009, 02:42 AM

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 · 03-25-2009, 07:48 AM

(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 · 03-25-2009, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 03-25-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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 · 03-25-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhlloy

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 · 03-25-2009, 09:03 AM

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 · 03-25-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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 · 03-25-2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustang

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 · 03-25-2009, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustang

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 · 03-25-2009, 10:07 AM

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 · 03-25-2009, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

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 · 03-25-2009, 10:44 AM

What's an inbounds line?

Mizzou B-ball fan · 03-25-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

What's an inbounds line?

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

DaddyTorgo · 03-25-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wade moore

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 · 03-25-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

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 · 03-25-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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 · 03-25-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

The 1 would be my suggestion.

cthomer5000 · 03-25-2009, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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 · 03-25-2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

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 · 03-25-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

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.

Quote:

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 · 03-25-2009, 11:02 AM

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 · 03-25-2009, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 03-25-2009, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

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 · 03-25-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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 · 03-25-2009, 11:06 AM

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 · 03-25-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

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 · 03-25-2009, 11:09 AM

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 · 03-25-2009, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

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.

03-24-2009, 07:22 PM	#5
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	Full story: Four safety proposals passed at NFL owners meetings - ESPN __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

03-24-2009, 07:26 PM	#6
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	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. Last edited by molson : 03-24-2009 at 07:29 PM.

03-24-2009, 07:31 PM	#7
SirFozzie Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: The State of Insanity	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 __________________ Check out Foz's New Video Game Site, An 8-bit Mind in an 8GB world! http://an8bitmind.com

03-24-2009, 07:50 PM	#11
jeff061 Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: MA	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. __________________

03-24-2009, 07:55 PM	#12
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	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. __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

03-24-2009, 07:21 PM	#3
spleen1015 Coordinator Join Date: Sep 2003	Why don't they just break out the flags and get it over with.

03-24-2009, 07:22 PM	#4
bhlloy Coordinator Join Date: Nov 2003	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.

03-24-2009, 08:39 PM	#15
larrymcg421 Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Georgia	Does this rule also apply to Ronnie Brown in the Wildcat? Oh, I hope so. __________________ Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner

03-24-2009, 08:57 PM	#17
bhlloy Coordinator Join Date: Nov 2003	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.

03-24-2009, 09:00 PM	#18
Dr. Sak Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Stuck in Yinzerville, PA	If you don't think it is dangerous, you should watch some footage on wedge busters.

03-24-2009, 09:48 PM	#20
bhlloy Coordinator Join Date: Nov 2003	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.

03-24-2009, 09:58 PM	#21
Poli FOFC Survivor Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Wentzville, MO	I'm really happy that my league doesn't do that kickoff formation junk! Onside kicks for the win. __________________ Cheer for a walk on quarterback! Ardent leads the Vols in the dynasty forum.

03-25-2009, 02:42 AM	#23
RainMaker Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chicago, IL	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.

03-25-2009, 07:48 AM	#24
Marc Vaughan SI Games Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Melbourne, FL	(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. Last edited by Marc Vaughan : 03-25-2009 at 07:49 AM.

03-25-2009, 09:03 AM	#28
lungs Pro Rookie Join Date: May 2002 Location: Prairie du Sac, WI	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.

03-25-2009, 10:07 AM	#32
DanGarion Coordinator Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Great Northwest	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... __________________ Los Angeles Dodgers Check out the FOFC Groups on Facebook! and Reddit! DON'T REPORT ME BRO!

03-25-2009, 10:44 AM	#34
Passacaglia Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Big Ten Country	What's an inbounds line?

03-25-2009, 11:02 AM	#43
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	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?

03-25-2009, 11:09 AM	#49
DaddyTorgo Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Massachusetts	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. __________________ Get bent whoever hacked my pw and changed my signature.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)