It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 9:30 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: New QB Rules coming?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:50 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4526
Location: Vancouver, WA
Quote:
The play that led to Carson Palmer's knee injury could yield a rule change for the 2006 NFL season. A rule is in place that allows defensive linemen coming off a block to hit quarterbacks below the knees. But that could change pending the review. "It's too early to tell," said Falcons general manager Rich McKay, the co-chairman of the league's competition committee.


Good for Michael Vick bad for defenses. I'm starting to wonder if sacks will even be legal in the next few seasons. If they are I'm sure half of them will be assessed a 15-yard roughing penality.

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:38 pm 
Offline
Superstar
Superstar

Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:31 pm
Posts: 3183
Christ, football is a contact sport. Injuries happen, let 'em play.


***Angry's disclaimer***

I don't like to see anyone injured, a Falcon or otherwise. But, pampering the qb's the way they do is becoming really, really..... (insert word for wussy league here)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:53 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Posts: 869
That was about as dirty a hit as I have seen, and why is it legal for defensive players to clip offensive players' legs but it's dirty & illegal when a defender does it? It was a garbage move by Von Oelhoffen and a rule does need to be in place that doesn't allow that sort of hit. It would have been different if he had been coming from the front where he could be seen.

_________________
Image
Props to Scar for my sig.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 11:02 pm 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26040
Location: North Carolina
Well, how do you gauge what is dirty? Chris Gamble's hit on Culpepper this year was clearly dirty.

But how do you make a rule about tackling below the waist that effectively can tell the dirty hits to the accidental/clean ones? There are certain players in the NFL that if you try hitting them above the waist, there is a minimal chance you're going to tackle them, so you really have to hit them below the waist (at or near the knees) if don't want them to score a touchdown every time they touch the ball.

It's a shame, but is there going to be a pseudo-strike zone for QBs now? Can only hit them above the knees and below the numbers? That neutralizes the pass rush if D-linemen aren't allow to intimidate passers.

We all know that the vast majority of DL are out there with one purpose: hurt the QB. IF you take away that aspect of the game, then it's going to be a one-sided sport, basically in that if your team's offense isn't capable of outscoring other offenses, then you're going to lose games. That significantly helps teams like Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Arizona, etc. that have focused more on outscoring opponents (especially by throwing the football) than stopping them.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:23 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4526
Location: Vancouver, WA
Don't forget Atlanta Pudge. Putting a strike zone on Vick makes him that much harder to tackle. Most defenses have to go after Vick's leg's to take him down. If you go after Vick's chest he'll break your ankles and go another direction.

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:07 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4526
Location: Vancouver, WA
Yulin wrote:
I have to admit I agree with Angry - it's a contact sport. Folks are going to get hurt. Accidents and jerks happen. If you can't accept that, why are you playing the game? I don't like seeing folks get hurt, but at the rate we're going, we might as well just take the defence off the field, since they're not much they can do.

"You can tackle, but you can't hit them below the knees, above the waist, from the side, with just your hands, or by their clothing."

Exaguration, obviously, but still.


" Aggressively breathing on the quarterback will be assessed a penalty of 5 yards and automatic first down. We have created this rule as we found through extensive studies that bad breath of defensive lineman cause the quarterback to become disoriented."

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 8:27 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Posts: 869
Well here is the issue at hand. If they did add a rule what would it be? I mean it is already kinda out of hand what the defense can't do, but then again Vick would probably be dead if those rules weren't in place. I mean I have never seen someone take so many cheap shots in 30 years of watching & playing football. I played on the line and know that when you are on the ground behind the QB, it is easy to shoot through their legs. Is it clean & fair play though? Definitely not. I also think they need to chill with the helmet to helmet rules at the same time, but the fact is that a QB cannot defend himself in the pocket against someone coming low on his blindside. They won't change it and I don't expect them to, but I do think it would benefit the league to revise all the QB rules. Hitting a QB in the head is not going to hurt him unless it is helmet to helmet, but hitting one in the knee from the blindside could finish his career.

_________________
Image
Props to Scar for my sig.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:52 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4526
Location: Vancouver, WA
I think you can make a case for low hits on a QB's blind side. Although that's the only case that could be made.

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 2:03 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26040
Location: North Carolina
But what if a guy is blocked into the QB? Is the 15-yard penalty assessed. Is it reviewable on instant replay if a coach disagrees with the ref's call?

The NFL shouldn't make it a penalty, because in the heat of the game you can't tell a defensive player to stop doing what he is doing.

I dont' have any problem with the "cheap shots" made on Vick. It's defenders being defenders. I wouldn't call them cheap shots. It's nothing more than a defender locking on target, and that's like asking a missile to miss after a fighter pilot has already squeezed the trigger.

Chad Lavalais cost the Eagles their season if not for his "dirty hit" on McNabb, leading with his helmet. Fact is, Lavalais only happened to miss McNabb's chin. If McNabb doesn't bust his sternum on that play, then the Eagles could be the team playing the Super Bowl this week.

What the NFL needs to do is up their fines. Their fines are pennies to these guys. The salary of the lowest paid guys in the NFL are about $13,500 a week. So when the league fines guys that are making 10, 20, and 50 times that $15,000 or $25,000 it's pennies.

The league needs to fine guys based off their salaries rather than a flat fee. They look at the tape and determine a hit is dirty, and they really want to get rid of it, then they fine him a month's salary. For Leigh Torrence it's about $50,000. For Keith Brooking it's $1 million. That way they'll actually feel it in their wallets and then actaully feel like there are some consequences for their actions.

Chad Lavalais was fined $7,500 for his dirty hit on McNabb this past year. To the average person that is 8 days worth of pay for the entire year. You'r e telling me that fining a guy that makes over $300,000 a year is going to really fret about a fine of 8 days worth of pay. That's like the equivalent of 2 speeding tickets for a minimum wage earner.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:25 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Posts: 869
dirtybirdnw wrote:
I think you can make a case for low hits on a QB's blind side. Although that's the only case that could be made.


Yeah, and as for the being blocked into him problem you can tell when a guy is blocked into the QB quite easily. What you saw with Kimo is he hit the ground on his hands & knees & then shot through Palmer's leg from a crawling position. Lavalais' hit was not dirty as Mcnabb side-stepped into Lavalais, which is why they didn't call leading with the crown. I do agree that heavier fines may be the only real way to enforce these rules.

_________________
Image
Props to Scar for my sig.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:48 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4526
Location: Vancouver, WA
Ditto on the fines. Adding extra in-game rules not only takes away from the defensive game but increases the amount of questionable calls. That would be bad considering we just came off a season of arguably the most questionable referee performance in recent years.

I was listening to Dan Patrick and he floated the idea of hiring full time refs that live, eat, and breath the rule book. Right now the part-time refs that do this almost as a hobby just don't work IMO.

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:00 am 
Offline
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 pm
Posts: 26040
Location: North Carolina
Dirty, I'm willing to give the refs another chance. I think the officiating this past year was absolutely terrible, but I think part of that may be there were a number of new faces heading crews this year. I may be wrong, but a lot of the old crowd, the usual faces, were missing this year or last year: Ed Hockeley, Johnny Greer, etc. We basically had a bunch of rookies besides Mike Carey out there.

I'll give them another chance in 2006 to redeem themselves, because it's worked well in the past with the part-timers. I'm hoping 2005 was on account to a misalignment of the stars or something.

_________________
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:44 am 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Posts: 869
I don't understand why they wouldn't have full-time refs. I mean these guys make 6 figures if I'm not mistaken, so asking them to spend their offseason reviewing film & calls is not much to ask at all.

_________________
Image
Props to Scar for my sig.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 2:41 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4526
Location: Vancouver, WA
Here is the payscale for NFL Referees (this was before they got a new deal so the numbers are likely higher now).

1st Year: $24,825
5th Year: $30,465
10th Year: $40,479
15th Year: $53,565
20th Year: $69,990

Hell, I could have a better job being a ref in the NFL for more than 10 years. Of course most of these referees are already working as doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, etc... so that is play money in addition to their likely already lucrative regular incomes.

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:26 pm 
Offline
All-Pro
All-Pro
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:51 pm
Posts: 869
Yeah and that is what I really don't like about the situation. I mean the NFL brings in 6billion a year, so why not pay refs 6 figures to become full timers?

_________________
Image
Props to Scar for my sig.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:46 pm 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 3:11 pm
Posts: 4526
Location: Vancouver, WA
I'm all for ref's moving to full time and getting a bump in compensation. I believe the MLB Umpires are full time and after their strike make decent cash.

_________________
Fear the BEARD!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 17 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: