HawkShack.com

This new rule has much of the league in an uproar. Personally I think the new interpretation of roughing the passer is complete lunacy. I can understand the emphasis on blows to the head and neck region as those have the most potential for serious, life altering/threatening injuries, but the addition of not using the weight of their body is completely unworkable in that there's just too many situations where a defender cannot avoid tackling an upright QB by applying the force of their body weight.

Here's a pretty good discussion on the subject:

https://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2018/9/25/ ... ws-packers

Mixed feelings, although overall I'm firmly on the "this rule is BS" side.

The call against Matthews against the Vikes was egregiously bad, but against the Redskins, it looks pretty clear that he was trying to mash Smith into the turf with his bodyweight.

I guess I'm just not sure what else they expected him to do. When you make a textbook tackle like that, your bodyweight has to land on the 'tacklee' until mankind develops the ability to levitate.

I wonder if he'd have avoided that flag if he'd have raised his head a bit or put an arm out?

burrrton wrote:Mixed feelings, although overall I'm firmly on the "this rule is BS" side.

The call against Matthews against the Vikes was egregiously bad, but against the Redskins, it looks pretty clear that he was trying to mash Smith into the turf with his bodyweight.

I guess I'm just not sure what else they expected him to do. When you make a textbook tackle like that, your bodyweight has to land on the 'tacklee' until mankind develops the ability to levitate.

I wonder if he'd have avoided that flag if he'd have raised his head a bit or put an arm out?

I haven't yet followed the link but I think that the intention is good considering the investment in the QB, but it's gone too far.
When even the QBs are saying it's bad then it probably is.
The whole problem with the rule is like you said, it makes otherwise textbook tackles illegal - and that's not football.
What we will also begin to see is QB's when touched start falling down like soccer players, and that'll turn off more fans than anything.

They need to start putting QBs in plastic bubbles that the defenders spin around to tackle them or provide hover belts for the defenders so they float in the air after they tackle someone. That's what I think of the rule change.

burrrton wrote:Mixed feelings, although overall I'm firmly on the "this rule is BS" side.

The call against Matthews against the Vikes was egregiously bad, but against the Redskins, it looks pretty clear that he was trying to mash Smith into the turf with his bodyweight.

I guess I'm just not sure what else they expected him to do. When you make a textbook tackle like that, your bodyweight has to land on the 'tacklee' until mankind develops the ability to levitate.

I wonder if he'd have avoided that flag if he'd have raised his head a bit or put an arm out?

I disaagree. I'm more inclined to call a roughing the passer penalty (note to self regarding correct spelling of "roughing") when a player uses his arm to leverage a body slam on a QB than was the case with Mathews when he planted his face inbetween the numbers and wrapped him up just like all of us that ever played the game were taught. When a tackler is dead center in the middle of the QB, I don't know how they can change their momentum to avoid using most of their body weight in the tackle.

IMO this rule enhancement has more to do with money than it does with safety, as the league is concerned with losing viewers/ratings due to the game's most recognizable players being sidelined due to injury like Rodgers was last season.

The NFL is an entertainment business, so well, yah it's about the money.
They invest collectively hundreds of millions on QB's so protecting them should be a priority.
However, it can kill the entertainment value if they go too far like I and many others think they have.

The NFL burned the 'proper way to sack a QB' textbook this offseason... so a statement that "it was a textbook tackle" is now irrelevant. I watched Red Zone for the weeks and it looks like some teams are teaching the pass rushers to drop to their knees just as they are tackling QB's. I saw this on many of the sacks and didn't see a flag on any of them. By dropping it takes the body weight off the tackle.

This is no different then when the NFL passed the anti-Seahawks DBs rules a few years ago that made Browner irrelevant and the #1 penalty getter the next 2 years. You have to be able to adapt. It doesn't matter if the rule is right or wrong, but I'll agree that the 'hit' on Russell was and should be 100% legal. It's the new football, like it or not (at least for the time being)

NorthHawk wrote:The NFL is an entertainment business, so well, yah it's about the money.
They invest collectively hundreds of millions on QB's so protecting them should be a priority.
However, it can kill the entertainment value if they go too far like I and many others think they have.

As long as they don't fundamentally alter the game, such as TV timeouts, scheduling, or even the zany color rush uniform schemes, although I might complain, I can nevertheless accept their making incidental changes in the name of the Almighty Dollar. And I can accept fundamental changes if it helps reduce the risk of a long term or life altering injury such as a concussion. But I cannot accept their motivation for this fundamental change in which they have significantly altered the way the game is played. It is the worst thought out rule change that I have witnessed in my 50+ years of watching NFL football.

I see where Clay Mathews is dropping hints that he's so fed up with the roughing the passer calls that he is considering retirement. I'd love to see him take off his helmet and shoulder pads, leave them on the field, and walk out of the stadium in protest.

Yes, RD and 11/15/18 would be a great day for him to start his 'protest'..

Part of the issue here in my mind is that two much emphasis is placed on the quarterback. If the other position players were valued just as much then they should all have special rules to protect them. It should be a team sport. This new rule along with some others emphasizing player safety is killing the game we love so much precisely because it is violent. The officials are taking over the game.

The officials are taking over the game

No, the owners and the Commish's office, who hire the refs are taking over the game. Employees do what they are told, or they are no longer employees.

trents wrote:Part of the issue here in my mind is that two much emphasis is placed on the quarterback. If the other position players were valued just as much then they should all have special rules to protect them. It should be a team sport. This new rule along with some others emphasizing player safety is killing the game we love so much precisely because it is violent. The officials are taking over the game.

You're exactly right.

This all came about due to Aaron Rodgers breaking his collar bone last year. A broken collar bone, although a serious injury, is not going to result in a significant life long effects compared to concussions or spinal injuries.

Ever since Peyton Manning retired, the league has not had a marketable face. Tom Brady is not a likeable character and doesn't do commercials. Rodgers is the closest thing the league has that the casual fan can identify as being an NFL player, and with TV ratings down, the league desperately needs their starting quarterbacks to remain in the limelight. That is the reason why they came up with this absurd expansion of the roughing the passer penalty.

By the officials "taking over the game" I was referring to the sheer amount of times the game comes to a screeching halt for significant amounts of time to assess and review the penalty calls. We spend more time watching the officials deliberate and explain their reasoning than we do watching the players play football.

trents wrote:By the officials "taking over the game" I was referring to the sheer amount of times the game comes to a screeching halt for significant amounts of time to assess and review the penalty calls. We spend more time watching the officials deliberate and explain their reasoning than we do watching the players play football.

It's worse this season as it was last year, but it isn't nearly as bad as their first venture into instant replay as every call was subject to a booth review. Every close call would precipitate a 20-30 second or so delay after which 95% of the time the ref would ultimately announce "after further review, the play stands as calls." It's why they chit canned instant replay until the Vinnie Testaverde helmet touchdown brought it back.

But beyond the game delays, the bigger concern is the absurdity in the way they are now interpeting roughing the passer and their unstated reasoning for doing so.

but it isn't nearly as bad as their first venture into instant replay

I disagree. This is the worst it's ever been, without qualification.

The only injustice you describe in your post is an injustice to the fans regarding the timeliness of the games, but at least they were still doing their best to get the calls right within the intended spirit of the game. What's going on now is a total injustice to the players and travesty in the face of the way the game was intended to be played.

The Competition Committee seems to understand it's not working like they wanted so they have added a subtlety to the rule that adds the concept of intent.
Something like the Defensive player can't intentionally land fully on the QB.
That's going to be a bit of a mess because we know that nobody can really know what's going on in someone else's head.
The Refs will be put on the spot for this, too so we might expect a similar result to the defining a catch - meaning extended discussions and complaints of what is intent
and examples of how each Referee differed in their evaluation before throwing a flag or not.

c_hawkbob wrote:but it isn't nearly as bad as their first venture into instant replay

I disagree. This is the worst it's ever been, without qualification.

The only injustice you describe in your post is an injustice to the fans regarding the timeliness of the games, but at least they were still doing their best to get the calls right within the intended spirit of the game. What's going on now is a total injustice to the players and travesty in the face of the way the game was intended to be played.

I was referring to trent's comments about the game being slowed down, which IMO is a secondary concern at best. My other comments prior to that post, including the OP, speaks to the injustices you are referring to. And I don't necessarily agree that the fans are/were the sole 'victims' of the game being slowed down. I'm sure that many of the players and coaches get or got just as frustrated with the constant interruptions that accompanied the original replay reviews back in the '80's.

I agree 100% with your last sentence. It is a travesty, the worst rule application I can recall having witnessed in my 55+ years of watching professional football.

RiverDog wrote:I was referring to trent's comments about the game being slowed down

I see, in that case I apologize, the slowdown was worse then. You were correct Sir.

c_hawkbob wrote:I see, in that case I apologize, the slowdown was worse then. You were correct Sir.

Apologies not necessary, but nevertheless appreciated.

I noticed last night the fearsome Aaron Donald sack Cousins and upon contact he sort of bear hugged him and rolled over on his side to avoid landing on him. That's how you sack the QB now. It could backfire with some of the bigger stronger QBs in the league escaping that type of a tackle but it is what it is.

As for Mathews he's been a roid rage cheap shotting punk his entire career so he's always going to get the quick whistle. I've had no respect for him since he attempted to literally decapitate Russ in the NFC title game.

Hawktawk wrote:I noticed last night the fearsome Aaron Donald sack Cousins and upon contact he sort of bear hugged him and rolled over on his side to avoid landing on him. That's how you sack the QB now. It could backfire with some of the bigger stronger QBs in the league escaping that type of a tackle but it is what it is.

As for Mathews he's been a roid rage cheap shotting punk his entire career so he's always going to get the quick whistle. I've had no respect for him since he attempted to literally decapitate Russ in the NFC title game.

That's fine if the tackler still has his balance. But they don't always have that ability to roll in one direction or another in mid tackle. The emphasis should be on intent, ie if he leaves his feet and body slams them. Simply landing on them with their body weight is not a sufficient way of determining intent.

Based on what i've seen with the flags the league is just concerned that the mere physics of a 300 pound plus guy landing with his full weight on a 200 pound guy is so unsafe they expect the tackler to avoid it as was the case with Russ last week. I said it's just football and not a fair call but i'll also take it since i've seen him get hit sliding with no call a few times as well.

Hawktawk wrote:Based on what i've seen with the flags the league is just concerned that the mere physics of a 300 pound plus guy landing with his full weight on a 200 pound guy is so unsafe they expect the tackler to avoid it as was the case with Russ last week. I said it's just football and not a fair call but i'll also take it since i've seen him get hit sliding with no call a few times as well.

Let's not make any bones about it. No matter what they say, the league's concern of injury is secondary, otherwise they'd have a similar such rule for all defenseless players, like punt returners and receivers. Their overriding concern is keeping their most valuable marketing assets, the quarterbacks, in the game.