Proposed Rule Changes - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 37
  1. #14
    BamaNation Hall of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
    Posts
    7,788

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    I believe the targeting rules are in play to protect the defensive players as well.

  2. #15
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    271
    Thread Starter

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by day-day View Post
    I believe the targeting rules are in play to protect the defensive players as well.
    Definitely, especially the one using the crown. That's more dangerous for the hotter than the hittee. Same with the blocker on offense that uses his crown. I think there is a valid argument for runners using the crown to punish not getting called enough.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  3. #16
    BamaNation All-SEC BamaInMo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cumming, GA
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    No offense intended Indy, but if you're gonna say you haven't seen running backs/receivers duck their heads in attempts to draw penalties then you just haven't watched enough football. Running backs and receivers lower their heads all the time. It's as bad as running backs and receivers stiff arming defensive backs and grabbing then by the face mask and never getting a penalty called. If you're gonna call it on the defense you gotta call it on the offense, too.
    Formerly known as BamaInCummingGa

  4. #17
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    271
    Thread Starter

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by BamaInMo1 View Post
    No offense intended Indy, but if you're gonna say you haven't seen running backs/receivers duck their heads in attempts to draw penalties then you just haven't watched enough football. Running backs and receivers lower their heads all the time. It's as bad as running backs and receivers stiff arming defensive backs and grabbing then by the face mask and never getting a penalty called. If you're gonna call it on the defense you gotta call it on the offense, too.
    No offense taken. You have a valid opinion/observation. I see a runner lower his head to initiate contact into a defender (sometimes initiated with the shoulder) to gain additional yardage. If it's a punishing hit it should be a foul for targeting but probably isn't called enough. He's not doing it to draw a targeting foul from a defender. I don't remember ever seeing a targeting foul where the runner lowers his helmet so his face mask makes contact with the crown of the defender's helmet who is attempting a wrap up tackle and it results in a targeting foul. I can't say that's never happened though.

  5. #18
    BamaNation Hall of Fame B1GTide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    21,428

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyBison View Post
    No offense taken. You have a valid opinion/observation. I see a runner lower his head to initiate contact into a defender (sometimes initiated with the shoulder) to gain additional yardage. If it's a punishing hit it should be a foul for targeting but probably isn't called enough. He's not doing it to draw a targeting foul from a defender. I don't remember ever seeing a targeting foul where the runner lowers his helmet so his face mask makes contact with the crown of the defender's helmet who is attempting a wrap up tackle and it results in a targeting foul. I can't say that's never happened though.
    Agreed - RBs do this to create an offensive advantage - they are trying to run over defenders. If it is illegal for defenders to use their helmet as a weapon, the same should be applied to offensive players.

    As for receivers ducking their heads - this is a defensive mechanism that is hard wired into our brains. It is a "duck and cover" instinct that is designed to protect our brains when we face a collision. Defenders have to learn that the receiver is going to do this and plan accordingly, and refs need to give the defender a break if the receivers attempt to "duck" is responsible for helmet to helmet contact in an otherwise legitimate attempt to tackle a player (see here - player extends arms in an attempt to wrap up the player and does not lower his helmet).

    However, if a defender lowers his head before contact and launches in an obvious attempt to "punish" the offensive player, he should be penalized every time, even if the hit misses the offensive player. It is dangerous (to both players) and that kind of play needs to be removed from the game.

  6. #19
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    271
    Thread Starter

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by B1GTide View Post
    Agreed - RBs do this to create an offensive advantage - they are trying to run over defenders. If it is illegal for defenders to use their helmet as a weapon, the same should be applied to offensive players.

    As for receivers ducking their heads - this is a defensive mechanism that is hard wired into our brains. It is a "duck and cover" instinct that is designed to protect our brains when we face a collision. Defenders have to learn that the receiver is going to do this and plan accordingly, and refs need to give the defender a break if the receivers attempt to "duck" is responsible for helmet to helmet contact in an otherwise legitimate attempt to tackle a player (see here - player extends arms in an attempt to wrap up the player and does not lower his helmet).

    However, if a defender lowers his head before contact and launches in an obvious attempt to "punish" the offensive player, he should be penalized every time, even if the hit misses the offensive player. It is dangerous (to both players) and that kind of play needs to be removed from the game.
    Agree 100%. The argument I hear from coaches though is they need to do that to try to separate the ball from the receiver. I argue you either need to play better defense before the ball arrives or hit them hard by wrapping up. I've seen the latter result in incomplete passes too.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  7. #20

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by BamaNation View Post
    1) Targeting - progressive penalty for those who receive 2nd targeting foul in same season: player disqualified for the game and suspended for next game, as well.
    Okay.

    2) Targeting - instant replay review: replay officials must confirm foul when all elements of targeting are present; must overturn if any element of targeting cannot be confirmed; no longer an option for letting call on field stand.
    Okay.

    3) Kickoffs - eliminate 2-man wedge formation on all kickoffs; monitor all aspects of kickoff and consider further adjustments in future seasons
    Silly-ish, but okay.

    5) OT - if game reaches 5OT, teams run alternating 2-point plays; 2-minute rest after 2nd & 4th OT; only 7 games reached 5OT last year
    Literally couldn't care less, but okay.

    6) Blind-side blocks - Players won't be allowed to deliver blind-side block with forcible contact; could also be considered targeting if warranted.
    Weak.

    I'm not one of the whiners who claim that anything done in order to prevent injuries is killing the game, or that we're *this* close to flag football, but at some point we have to acknowledge that this is a dangerous sport, and eliminating 'blind side blocks' and 'two man wedges' is just stupid, imo. If you play football, you're gonna get hit - keep your head on a swivel and watch what you're doing.

    I've long been a proponent for player safety, but if that becomes the singular driving force behind rule changes (which has seemingly been the case now for some time) it will ruin the game. No, we don't need the vicious shots to the head, etc - but cleaning a LBs clock who is in pursuit without looking at where he's going (insert other crack-back block scenarios at will) has long been part of the sport. It's going to be pathetic and infuriating watching a blocker have to side-step someone in pursuit since they were focused on the ball-carrier and not where they were running.

    SMH
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  8. #21
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    271
    Thread Starter

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    Okay.


    Okay.


    Silly-ish, but okay.


    Literally couldn't care less, but okay.


    Weak.

    I'm not one of the whiners who claim that anything done in order to prevent injuries is killing the game, or that we're *this* close to flag football, but at some point we have to acknowledge that this is a dangerous sport, and eliminating 'blind side blocks' and 'two man wedges' is just stupid, imo. If you play football, you're gonna get hit - keep your head on a swivel and watch what you're doing.

    I've long been a proponent for player safety, but if that becomes the singular driving force behind rule changes (which has seemingly been the case now for some time) it will ruin the game. No, we don't need the vicious shots to the head, etc - but cleaning a LBs clock who is in pursuit without looking at where he's going (insert other crack-back block scenarios at will) has long been part of the sport. It's going to be pathetic and infuriating watching a blocker have to side-step someone in pursuit since they were focused on the ball-carrier and not where they were running.

    SMH
    You can still block him. You just can't blow him up. Many players get concussions from these hits because their heads slam into the turf. I also had a player sever his spleen on a blind side hit. If they hadn't recognized an issue on the sideline he could have died. It doesn't take much of a hit to get this player on the ground and the blocker still has an opportunity to block someone. He's usually on the ground too.

    The NFL eliminated double team blocks on kickoffs last year. I've never seen the data but apparently they found there are more injuries when return teams double team. I've never noticed anything different.

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

  9. #22
    BamaNation All-SEC gman4tide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Flint Creek
    Posts
    1,422

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    Okay.


    Okay.


    Silly-ish, but okay.


    Literally couldn't care less, but okay.


    Weak.

    I'm not one of the whiners who claim that anything done in order to prevent injuries is killing the game, or that we're *this* close to flag football, but at some point we have to acknowledge that this is a dangerous sport, and eliminating 'blind side blocks' and 'two man wedges' is just stupid, imo. If you play football, you're gonna get hit - keep your head on a swivel and watch what you're doing.

    I've long been a proponent for player safety, but if that becomes the singular driving force behind rule changes (which has seemingly been the case now for some time) it will ruin the game. No, we don't need the vicious shots to the head, etc - but cleaning a LBs clock who is in pursuit without looking at where he's going (insert other crack-back block scenarios at will) has long been part of the sport. It's going to be pathetic and infuriating watching a blocker have to side-step someone in pursuit since they were focused on the ball-carrier and not where they were running.

    SMH
    I agree CA...insert Josh Jacobs no hands, very little contact double block video here.

  10. #23
    BamaNation All-American Tide&True's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Posts
    2,687

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    The 1960ís called...they want their Man Card back.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    "They've got a name for the winners in the world....they call Alabama the Crimson Tide"
    -Steely Dan

  11. #24
    BamaNation First Team Tider n LA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Lower Alabama
    Posts
    705

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Seems like flag football is around the corner.

  12. #25

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyBison View Post
    You can still block him. You just can't blow him up.
    Great, so it's another 'he hit him too hard, that's a penalty' issue for refs to impact the game.

    We were coached to keep our head on a swivel when pursuing plays to make sure this didn't happen - and it rarely did to those who actually played with discipline.

    It's football - if you wish to regulate every possible way a player can get hurt, we might as well stop playing.

    The NFL eliminated double team blocks on kickoffs last year. I've never seen the data but apparently they found there are more injuries when return teams double team. I've never noticed anything different.
    It's football - if you wish to regulate every possible way a player can get hurt, we might as well stop playing.
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  13. #26
    BamaNation All-American bamaslammer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Argo, AL, St Clair
    Posts
    3,776

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    I think the AAF has proven that the kickoff needs to be dumped entirely.
    BS 1989

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

TideFansStore.com Bama Gear

2019 NFL Draft Gear