Would NFL Ban All Low Blocks?

[Joemailman]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...-tech/1746437/

According to a recent report by Sports Illustrated, however, the NFL competition committee will consider banning all blocks below the waist in 2013. There's no guarantee it will pass. But if it does, there could be significant pressure on college football to take a similar step — even if there's no clear consensus that it would reduce injury risks

If this were to happen, would zone blocking in the running game be finished? Don't you need to go low on backside pursuit for zone blocking to be effective?

[red]

the downfall of american football has already begun

[ThunderDan]

No you don't need to go low on the backside. Denver perfected that technique. They used a lot of pulling and traps so they needed more mobile OL that tended to be smaller and lighter than average. The backside of Denver's OL was never going to be able to physically win so they chopped the DL to keep them from persuing and open cutback lanes.

[swede]

You can hit the other guy in the front but not in the head and not in the facemask and you can't let your helmet slide up into the facemask and you can't hit him south of the Suh zone anywhere in the front, the side or the back. Other than that you can hit him pretty much anywhere as long as he isn't defenseless.

[MadScientist]

If running backs aren't allowed to chip pass rushers, QB's would be killed (if they actually the QB to be touched).

[Lurker64]

They won't. There are enough teams that are primarily zone running teams in the league that they would (*ahem*) block this effort. I mean, ban low blocks and you've effectively legislated Houston's offense out of existence. What benefit is there to upsetting competitive balance this way? The NFL almost never changes rules to hurt offense.

They could further restrict low blocks (making them illegal in more situations), but the major safety issue facing the NFL is concussions not knee injuries. I don't believe anybody has ever gotten a concussion because an OL blocked him low.

[Cheesehead Craig]

What a gigantically stupid idea.

[mraynrand]

They could further restrict low blocks (making them illegal in more situations)

Damn straight!! frickin' cowboys!

[Joemailman]

Or maybe they'll just eliminate kickoffs. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...g-nfl-kickoffs

[Lurker64]

Or maybe they'll just eliminate kickoffs. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...g-nfl-kickoffs

That's not actually a terrible idea. Odds on a 4th and 15 conversion are probably better than the odds of a telegraphed onside kick. This would enable more dramatic comebacks.

[swede]

Or maybe they'll just eliminate kickoffs. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100...g-nfl-kickoffs

One kickoff to start each of the halves and overtime periods would work for me. Otherwise, put it on the twenty and lets go. Maybe in the 4th quarter the trailing team could request a chance to receive and return kickoffs. I know that kickoffs do not produce injuries at a rate much different than other plays, but they are usually not that entertaining anyway.

[Cheesehead Craig]

My issue with the whole optional kickoff thing is that say a team is down 17 pts and kicks a FG with 5 min left. They then automatically get the ball back? How exactly is that fair to the team that built the big lead and played well all game? Don't like it.

[swede]

My issue with the whole optional kickoff thing is that say a team is down 17 pts and kicks a FG with 5 min left. They then automatically get the ball back? How exactly is that fair to the team that built the big lead and played well all game? Don't like it.

If that question is aimed at me, I only meant that the trailing team could opt to return a kickoff after having been scored upon in the hope of better field position than the twenty, not that they would keep getting the ball back. Didn't they use to do that in some college bowl games?

[Lurker64]

My issue with the whole optional kickoff thing is that say a team is down 17 pts and kicks a FG with 5 min left. They then automatically get the ball back? How exactly is that fair to the team that built the big lead and played well all game? Don't like it.

The proposal for eliminating the playoff is to follow up scores with that team getting 4th and 15 from their own 30 yard line. In most cases you would elect to punt, but if you needed to keep the ball you could attempt to gain 15 yards on an offensive play (the odds of conversion of which are not great.)

[swede]

The proposal for eliminating the playoff is to follow up scores with that team getting 4th and 15 from their own 30 yard line. In most cases you would elect to punt, but if you needed to keep the ball you could attempt to gain 15 yards on an offensive play (the odds of conversion of which are not great.)

Okay, duh, I actually read the article now. I see that an off-the-wall idea for possession following a score was kicked around.

Kind of off-topic, reading about Goodell made me realize how much my opinion of him has changed over the last two years. I used to have an uninformed feeling that the guy was quietly competent and I supported him for being a good mensch. Lately, I get the feeling that there is a shitload of hidden agendas, ulterior motives, Machiavellian tactics, and Kremlin-style politics in the Goodell regime. I don't know that my more recent impression is any more accurate than the first, but the dude kind of scares me.