Proposed Rule Changes

IndyBison

1st Team
Dec 22, 2013
386
106
62
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
 

gman4tide

All-SEC
Nov 21, 2005
1,906
442
107
55
Flint Creek
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.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
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.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,284
30,895
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
What I've always had trouble understanding was why the over regulation on kickoffs? I do not recall seeing a ton of injuries on these plays, which do not occur very often, relative to the other kinds of plays, unless it is a Big 12 game. I do realize some very bad injuries have occurred, where players have been paralyzed. But I can think of only one of those with certainty, and I have a vague memory of another.

Slowly but surely they are erasing what I've always thought was one of the more exciting plays of the game. Certainly one with the potential of flipping the game. We had 2 critically important plays on a kickoff in our NC win over Clemson a few years ago.

I get the danger of the play. But as crimsonaudio said, the game is inherently dangerous.
 

day-day

Hall of Fame
Jan 2, 2005
9,937
1,659
187
Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
There are already some rules regarding the blind-side block; launching, head and neck area, defenseless player.

I think the block that Wilson took in the Oklahoma game would be illegal under the proposed rule. At first I though it would not be but the OU player drove his shoulder into Wilson and his feet left the ground before or right at impact. The player could have made a decent block by getting in front of Wilson, maintaining his feet on the ground, and blocking head up and chest to chest with his arms slightly extended.

 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
There are already some rules regarding the blind-side block; launching, head and neck area, defenseless player.

I think the block that Wilson took in the Oklahoma game would be illegal under the proposed rule. At first I though it would not be but the OU player drove his shoulder into Wilson and his feet left the ground before or right at impact. The player could have made a decent block by getting in front of Wilson, maintaining his feet on the ground, and blocking head up and chest to chest with his arms slightly extended.
His feet left the ground after absorbing the energy from a player that weighs 50# more than he does - he didn't launch into him.

That would almost certainly be illegal under the proposed rule, and it should be a perfectly legal hit.
 

edwd58

All-American
Aug 2, 2006
4,710
1,390
187
I think the AAF has proven that the kickoff needs to be dumped entirely.
I think the AAF has shown that you can play a football game without kickoffs, but that's far from proving kickoffs should be eliminated. Plays like Kenyan Drake's return against Clemson should always be a possibility. I've only watched a few AAF games, but haven't they also eliminated the extra point try and require two point conversion attempts after a TD. That is something I could get onboard with.
 

IndyBison

1st Team
Dec 22, 2013
386
106
62
His feet left the ground after absorbing the energy from a player that weighs 50# more than he does - he didn't launch into him.
That would almost certainly be illegal under the proposed rule, and it should be a perfectly legal hit.
That is an example of what will now be a foul, but it's not as obvious as others. One thing he does differently is break down and let the defender come into him more than just driving through him. We'll see what further direction we get from the rules committee, but the similar NFHS rule that's been in place states this is legal if he just sets a pick (like in basketball) so it's not forceful or he leads with his hands. Again it wouldn't take much contact to take this defender to the ground and out of the play. These hits have the potential to do much more damage whether you hit him in the body or the head. Not just sore-for-a-few-plays damage but serious internal organ or head injury damage.
 

IndyBison

1st Team
Dec 22, 2013
386
106
62
What I've always had trouble understanding was why the over regulation on kickoffs? I do not recall seeing a ton of injuries on these plays, which do not occur very often, relative to the other kinds of plays, unless it is a Big 12 game. I do realize some very bad injuries have occurred, where players have been paralyzed. But I can think of only one of those with certainty, and I have a vague memory of another.
Slowly but surely they are erasing what I've always thought was one of the more exciting plays of the game. Certainly one with the potential of flipping the game. We had 2 critically important plays on a kickoff in our NC win over Clemson a few years ago.
I get the danger of the play. But as crimsonaudio said, the game is inherently dangerous.
I completely agree. It seems like they are more dangerous because you have bodies flying all over the field. I hear there is data that kicking plays result in more injures, but I've never seen any data. They are much more difficult to officiate because the 22 players are spread out much more around the field and so are we. They aren't impossible though because of how we split up coverage. So many weird things can happen on kick plays though so you really have to be alert and stay focused on your area of responsibility. Definitely don't ball watch!
 

BamaNation

Publisher and Benevolent Dictator
Staff member
Apr 9, 1999
20,434
16,622
432
Silicon Slopes
TideFans.com
somewhat controversially, I'm a proponent of actually having to make a "tackle" rather than just blowing somebody up. Tackle would be defined as in the grasps (form tackle or grabbing and NOT shoulder bumping, running through someone etc. Specifics could be ironed out but watching how big some of these guys are getting combined with speed (DT at the combine 6'5" ran ~ 4.6 40, Quinnen Williams' speed/size combo, etc) makes non-tackling tackles much more dangerous.
 

day-day

Hall of Fame
Jan 2, 2005
9,937
1,659
187
Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
His feet left the ground after absorbing the energy from a player that weighs 50# more than he does - he didn't launch into him.

That would almost certainly be illegal under the proposed rule, and it should be a perfectly legal hit.
Yeah, I kept watching it and finally decided that one foot left the ground before impact; so a partial launch. After impact, his feet went off due to Wilson's inertia. Definitely didn't launch though.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
That is an example of what will now be a foul, but it's not as obvious as others. One thing he does differently is break down and let the defender come into him more than just driving through him. We'll see what further direction we get from the rules committee, but the similar NFHS rule that's been in place states this is legal if he just sets a pick (like in basketball) so it's not forceful or he leads with his hands.
So the blocker has to allow a guy that may outweigh him by 100 (or more) pounds come to him and truck the blocker (Newton at work here) or stick his arms out, rather than moving in to at least deliver some the energy back to the larger player?

Just ridiculous.

Again it wouldn't take much contact to take this defender to the ground and out of the play.
Not sure if you played ball or what position you played, but we're getting into really fine judgement calls by the refs at this point - something I'd rather avoid, as while you'll go to your grave promising there's no untoward behavior from refs towards some teams, I'll never agree with you.

You have a 310# DL moving at top speed and expect a WR to block him with his arms? Or stand his ground and let the guy run over him?

These hits have the potential to do much more damage whether you hit him in the body or the head. Not just sore-for-a-few-plays damage but serious internal organ or head injury damage.
This is linda of my earlier point - this is a dangerous sport, but I cannot recall the last time a D1 player suffered internal organ damage from one of these blocks, and they happen at least once in just about every game.

At some point we have to accept that football is a violent sport. This ain't ballet or baseball.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
I think the AAF has shown that you can play a football game without kickoffs, but that's far from proving kickoffs should be eliminated. Plays like Kenyan Drake's return against Clemson should always be a possibility. I've only watched a few AAF games, but haven't they also eliminated the extra point try and require two point conversion attempts after a TD. That is something I could get onboard with.
Yes. Basically the AAF has made the average football game to move faster, and prevents it from being a choir to sit through long games. Personally I think the best rule they have is their overtime rules. It basically makes triple, quadruple, and etc overtimes very rare. Start on the 10 yard line, both teams get an opputunity, no fgs, and the two point try. You wouldnt see the never ending games like LSU-aTm, but also wouldnt feel cheated by a flip of a coin like in the NFL.
 

BamaMoon

Hall of Fame
Apr 1, 2004
20,932
15,934
282
Boone, NC
I think the AAF has shown that you can play a football game without kickoffs, but that's far from proving kickoffs should be eliminated. Plays like Kenyan Drake's return against Clemson should always be a possibility. I've only watched a few AAF games, but haven't they also eliminated the extra point try and require two point conversion attempts after a TD. That is something I could get onboard with.
Agree...maybe because I'm "traditional" but it's just a weird start to the game.

And concerning the time, it's just one play but networks love to have a kickoff and then commercial more and more as the game progresses.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.