New Rule Change Purposed to Protect WR's

[packerbacker1234]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=5005206

From what I am gathering from this, the rule is that a WR that goes over the middle is to make a catch cannot be laid out unless he has two hands on the ball with two feet on the ground. In short, your not allowed to hit the WR until he makes the catch completely. No contact to the head is allowed.


First off, I thought contact to the head already wasn't allowed, and it was only let go if it was completely insidental. Ray Lewis in the playoffs last year had a penalty called when he layed a guy out without this purposed rule change.

In short, they are making the passing game more potent to prevent "concussions" by bassically giving WR's free catches over the middle. Now I am trying to look at this objectively but I don't even know how to. What is the point of playing defense anymore? They are taking every possible way to make a big hit out of the game. I get defending the WR but have they really been getting that many concussions? Donald Driver has been making the catch over the middle and getting layed out for years and I only recall one time he ever had to leave the game... and it wasn't even on a slant. To me it sounds like an rule change that is overstepping the line to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

The idea of the big hit is to break up the pass, and now your saying that defenders are just suppose to allow WR's to make the catch first because hey, were not allowed to touch them? They already made sacking the QB a questionable ideal for defenders, and now they are going to make it even HARDER to cover WR's? To break up passes?

Man, is this even football anymore? Why don't we take off the pads and make it flag football folks? Injuries are a part of the game, and it seems that lately they are making defense a joke.

[Scott Campbell]

The idea of the big hit is to break up the pass.................


I don't think so. There's more effective ways to break up passes. The idea of the big hit is to intimidate, and impact the receiver on future plays.

[packerbacker1234]

The idea of the big hit is to break up the pass.................


I don't think so. There's more effective ways to break up passes. The idea of the big hit is to intimidate, and impact the receiver on future plays.

Say you take away the big hit over the middle. How do you break up the pass if your a LB in Zone? He catches it... and what you step aside to let him catch then try to make an arm tackle? In today's NFL, if your a LB in zone and the wr tries to catch the ball in front of you, where you are UNABLE to break it up, you lay him out and hope he drops it.

They want to get rid of that, allow the catch, and have you try to tackle him after he establishes possession with a couple steps. They used that ray lewis hit on Ochocinco as an exmaple of taking off his head, but when you slow down that replay it wasn't Lewis who hit him in the head. Lewis layed him out through the chest, it was the CB who hit his shoulder on his helmet that knocked it off.

[Scott Campbell]

"The difference would be that currently the protection provided for the defenseless receiver ends when the receiver has completed the catch, meaning possession of the ball with two feet on the ground," competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay said. "We would propose language that would say that if a receiver has completed the catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching into him in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet, face mask, shoulder or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver's head."



It looks to me like big hits are still allowed. But you can't launch into him and hit a guys head. I don't see how body shots are affected.

[packerbacker1234]

"The difference would be that currently the protection provided for the defenseless receiver ends when the receiver has completed the catch, meaning possession of the ball with two feet on the ground," competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay said. "We would propose language that would say that if a receiver has completed the catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching into him in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet, face mask, shoulder or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver's head."



It looks to me like big hits are still allowed. But you can't launch into him and hit a guys head. I don't see how body shots are affected.

And as I pointed out, it's already a rule you can't take off people's heads. Ray Lewis got called for it last year in the playoffs. The rule is already in place, they are just adding a special rule for WR's... if the rule already exists that you can't take off there heads, the only other change you can make is to make it "easier" to defend themselves, which is what the purposed change is doing. Allow the WR time to brace for the hit, as it were.

See what I am saying now? It's not likely taking off there heads is allowed as it is.

[Scott Campbell]

"The difference would be that currently the protection provided for the defenseless receiver ends when the receiver has completed the catch, meaning possession of the ball with two feet on the ground," competition committee co-chairman Rich McKay said. "We would propose language that would say that if a receiver has completed the catch and has not had time to protect himself, a defensive player is prohibited from launching into him in a way that causes the defensive player's helmet, face mask, shoulder or forearm to forcibly strike the receiver's head."



It looks to me like big hits are still allowed. But you can't launch into him and hit a guys head. I don't see how body shots are affected.

And as I pointed out, it's already a rule you can't take off people's heads. Ray Lewis got called for it last year in the playoffs. The rule is already in place, they are just adding a special rule for WR's... if the rule already exists that you can't take off there heads, the only other change you can make is to make it "easier" to defend themselves, which is what the purposed change is doing. Allow the WR time to brace for the hit, as it were.

See what I am saying now? It's not likely taking off there heads is allowed as it is.


I guess I'm not seeing it. You're not giving the receiver any additional time to brace for the big body hit.

[Brandon494]

The pussification of america continues....its football god damnit!