Originally posted by pbmax
View Post
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=1840261
What was determined was the illegal contact rule was poorly worded. In 1994, the Competition Committee grew tired of cornerbacks mugging receivers and put in new wording to open up the receiver's ability to get away from physical cornerbacks. But the problem was that some of the language that was inserted was contradictory.
In one part you had the new language reading: "If the receiver attempts to evade the defender, the defender cannot chuck him or extend an arm(s) to cut off or hook him, causing contact that impedes and restricts the receiver as the play develops."
But there was also a passage that was inserted for fairness to the cornerback or safety in coverage who banged into a receiver and it read: "Beyond the five-yard zone, if the player who receives the snap remains in the pocket with the ball, a defender may use his hands or arms only to defend or protect himself against the impending contact caused by a receiver."
The first passage above is saying that defenders cannot impede a receiver after five yards if the receiver is trying to evade them, however, the second passage actually gives defenders some leeway to impede receivers.
The idea of the rule was to allow unimpeded running by a receiver after five yards. In sentence No. 1, the defender can use his hands or arms "only" to defend or protect himself against impending contact caused by a receiver. The second sentence gives the defender a license to use contact.
The extra contact has had a significant impact on passing offenses. Last season was the worst passing numbers in 11 years. The average team passed for 200.45 yards per game, lowest since 1992. The average completion dropped to 11.3, down from 12.1 in 1998.
The intent of the 1994 "chuck" revision was violated. Out goes the word only and into the rule book goes language that tells defenders not to restrict or impede a receiver "in any way." Defenders can get away with incidental contact but not get away with any intentional contact.




Comment