The Marion Barber Rule

[vince]

Glad to see this will be a point of emphasis this season. Barber playing dumb here isn't very convincing...

http://www.star-telegram.com/nflinsider/index.html

NFL Insider: Barber still has a lot to learn about rule named for him

It is being called the Marion Barber Rule, but its namesake doesn't know anything about it.

"What's that? What happened?" Barber asked.

Offensive players using stiff arms to the face of defenders always was against the rules, but officials rarely called it. After watching Barber turn the stiff arm into "a weapon" as one member of the NFL's competition committee put it, the rule has become a point of emphasis for this season.

Officials have been told to throw a flag when an offensive player grabs onto or twists the facemask of a defender -- a 15-yard facemask penalty -- or when he violently shoves a defender aside with a stiff arm to the face -- a 15-yard hands-to-the-face penalty.

"Then, I'm going to use the elbow," Barber said, jokingly, before adding, "I didn't even know. I'm going to have to read up on it. So you can't stiff arm at all? What about the throat?"

Barber will get his chance to ask officials about the rule during training camp. Every NFL team meets with officials before the season to go over any new rules and points of emphasis.

[RashanGary]

BS rule. Nobody ever gets hurt from that. EVER. The RB has the toughest job in football. That's the last position I would take an advantage away from.

[Brandon494]

BS rule. Nobody ever gets hurt from that. EVER. The RB has the toughest job in football. That's the last position I would take an advantage away from.

I agree, BS rule.

[texaspackerbacker]

I can see having the rule prohibit grabbing the facemask, as that is using a piece of equipment as a weapon, but beyond that, yes, bullshit.

[vince]

Stiff arming to the face has always been illegal, as it should be, IMO.

Maybe its because I was a strong safety in my college playing days, so I relate more to defenders. It aint easy bringing these guys down in the open field, particularly when you have fingers coming at your eyeballs. And often, the stiff arm becomes a weapon with a swing behind it...

Stiff arming is fine, just not to the face.

[Tarlam!]

I saw Favre grab facemasks when he was fending off a potential sack quite often. When he did it, it was called "making a play".

Just adding a little parity to the discussion.

[vince]

Doesn't seem like there's much parity here Tar...

Blockers can't block to the face. Pass rushers can't attack blockers' faces. Tacklers can't tackle at the face. Stiff armers' can't attack the face either. Enforce the rule.

[Patler]

Stiff arming to the face has always been illegal, as it should be, IMO.

Maybe its because I was a strong safety in my college playing days, so I relate more to defenders. It aint easy bringing these guys down in the open field, particularly when you have fingers coming at your eyeballs. And often, the stiff arm becomes a weapon with a swing behind it...

Stiff arming is fine, just not to the face.

I agree. If defenders get called, why shouldn't offensive players?

It was called on occasion, but not often. I remember several years ago, I think it was Ahman Green who was called for a face mask penalty. The replay showed that he grabbed a DB's mask, and just pulled down on it, almost to his waist. The DB fell, and Green kept running.

The players will adapt. Sometimes these things help the D sometimes the O. The last year or so we have seen a lot more holding calls on defensive lineman, who hold the O-linemen to prevent them from getting through to the linebackers. The D-linemen complained a lot, too.

[RashanGary]

I think blatant twisting is bad. I never like to see a guy swung around by a perfect handle that happens to be attached to hsi head and could easily rip the hell out of his neck. That said, I rarely see RB's do to players what the defenders do to them. It's a very different thing to hold a person at bay with a hand to the face as it is to get ripped to the ground by a handle that is attached to your head. One risks severe neck injury or death and the other is just really annoying. Really annoying = OK for football. Death or paralasis = Not OK for football. When it gets to the point where DB's are getting ripped down by the neck, great, enforce it. When they're held at bay by a stiff arm, no need.

[Patler]

I think blatant twisting is bad. I never like to see a guy swung around by a perfect handle that happens to be attached to hsi head and could easily rip the hell out of his neck. That said, I rarely see RB's do to players what the defenders do to them. It's a very different thing to hold a person at bay with a hand to the face as it is to get ripped to the ground by a handle that is attached to your head. One risks severe neck injury or death and the other is just really annoying. Really annoying = OK for football. Death or paralasis = Not OK for football. When it gets to the point where DB's are getting ripped down by the neck, great, enforce it. When they're held at bay by a stiff arm, no need.

Its not that simple. Penalties are not designed just for injury potential. They are also in place to control advantages gained by certain conduct. A hand on the facemask pushing up even a little can make it almost impossible for the defender.

Defenders get called even when they do not grab and hold the facemask, or use it to make a tackle. I've seen defensive players called when they are stretching around a blocker, waist high, and the runner lowers his shoulder or stumbles and falls so that his facemask runs into the defenders hand more than a blatant attempt by the defender.

I see no reason for any player on offense or defense, to use an opponents face mask to gain an advantage.

[RashanGary]

Hey, disagreements happen all of the time. I like a physical brand of football, but there is a limit. HOlding someone at bay with a stiff arm doesn't cross that line for me. It's football. Ripping someones neck by a handle on thier face to the point where neck injury is a serious risk crosses that line. I think the enforcing of the face mask tackle really helps prevetn something very bad from happening.

I think the change to enforce the bump coverage tighter was bad too. Nobody was at risk and I liked watching the battle at the line. Enforcing the horse collar was a good move though. I've seen bad things happen with horse collar tackles and you know it's going ot happen again if they don't enforce it. I guess I'm all about keeping the sport physical unless it's a situaiton where really bad things are bound to happen and a simple rule that doesn't grossly change the game can be a big help. I've watched a lot of footblal and I've never seen a stiff arm lead to anything bad. I'm not ready to change the way the game is called because defenders take exception to be touched - same way I ddind't like the bump change jsut because recievers wanted to be able to run cleaner from the line. Get tougher and beat your guy is my opinion on that. As far as horse collars go, I think people complaining about having their knees shredded is a valid complaint worthy of action, esspecially when action is so minor and doesn't change the game.

[vince]

I saw Favre grab facemasks when he was fending off a potential sack quite often. When he did it, it was called "making a play".

Yeah, and he broke a guy's leg doing it too!

[Patler]

Hey, disagreements happen all of the time. I like a physical brand of football, but there is a limit. HOlding someone at bay with a stiff arm doesn't cross that line for me. It's football. Ripping someones neck by a handle on thier face to the point where neck injury is a serious risk crosses that line. I think the enforcing of the face mask tackle really helps prevetn something very bad from happening.

I think the change to enforce the bump coverage tighter was bad too. Nobody was at risk. Enforcing the horse collar was a good move though. I've seen bad things happen with horse collar tackles and you know it's going ot happen again if they don't enforce it. I guess I'm all about keeping the sport physical unless it's a situaiton where really bad things are bound to happen. I've watched a lot of footblal and I've never seen a stiff arm lead to anything bad. I'm not ready to change the way the game is called because defenders take exception to be touched.

Again, your emphasis on the rightness or wrongness of a rule appears to be related to injury potential.

How many bad things happen from intentional grounding, too many men in the huddle, a player not quite reaching the sideline before the ball is snapped, not enough men on the line of scrimmage, encroachment, etc.?

Many rules are there to maintain competitive balance.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I have no problem with this rule. Stiff-arming the face mask is BS. It had gotten to the point where guys were doing it more and doing it violently (twisting the facemask or punching at the defenders facemask). I put this down as a rule similar to the horse collar rule, and I'm good with it.

[RashanGary]

Yes and the game should stay as it has been called as much as possible unless minor action can prevent many serious injuries. This changes the way the game is called and changes the game with very few injury risks. It's just not a good enough reason to change the game in my opinion. I like sports staying pure to what they always were. There is a certain enjoyment I get from watching the same game being played by different people for many years. Comparisons, analysis, etc. . . . I just enjoy it and I think changes for the sake of changing the competitive balance bother me. I'm selfish that way. Now if people are breaking thier necks, dropping dead, shredding their knees or getting eyes poked out it's a different story. I've never seen anything bad happen from this so I don't think it's a good rule. Plus, I like the game more physical so it changes it in a way I don't like. If you like it, that's fine. There is plenty of evidence to support the change. I don't like it. I guess that's why they call them opinions.