Proposed Rule Changes - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 27 to 37 of 37
  1. #27
    BamaNation Hall of Fame TideEngineer08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beautiful Cullman, AL
    Posts
    17,503

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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.

  2. #28
    BamaNation Hall of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
    Posts
    7,788

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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.


  3. #29

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by day-day View Post
    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.
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  4. #30
    BamaNation All-American edwd58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,600

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by bamaslammer View Post
    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.
    Watch your thoughts; they become words.
    Watch your words; they become actions.
    Watch your actions; they become habits.
    Watch your habits; they become character.
    Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

  5. #31
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    271
    Thread Starter

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    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.

  6. #32
    BamaNation First Team
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    271
    Thread Starter

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by TideEngineer08 View Post
    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!

  7. #33
    Publisher, TideFans.com &
    Benevolent Dictator
    BamaNation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    11,290

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    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.

  8. #34
    BamaNation Hall of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Bartlett, TN (Memphis area)
    Posts
    7,788

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by crimsonaudio View Post
    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.

  9. #35

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyBison View Post
    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.
    Oderint dum metuant - Lucius Accius

  10. #36
    BamaNation Hall of Fame 81usaf92's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sylacauga,AL
    Posts
    10,800

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by edwd58 View Post
    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.
    "Aut viam inveniam aut faciam."

    Hannibal

  11. #37
    BamaNation Hall of Fame BamaMoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Posts
    11,624

    Re: Proposed Rule Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by edwd58 View Post
    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.

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