Competition Committee - Ryan Clark rule

[Box_O_Rocks]

NFL rule changes put safety first - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Four of the seven changes put forth by the competition committee involve player safety, including one that aims to provide added protection for wide receivers.

If it passes, it would prohibit defenders from launching themselves at receivers that have not established position on the ground and are deemed defenseless by officials. Under current NFL rules, only helmet-to-helmet contact with defenseless receivers is not permitted.

Two hits by Steelers free safety Ryan Clark that did not draw penalties last season — one against Patriots wide receiver Wes Welker and another on Ravens running back Willis McGahee in the AFC Championship Game — would likely become illegal if the proposed change to the rules is made.

 

[BradyFixesEverything]

This is a good thing, but not if the hit on Willis is a flag. Welker wasn't near the ball, and didn't see Clark coming. Should've been a flag and a fine. Willis had the ball and started to brace himself for the hit. He was almost paralyzed, but I think it was legal.

 

[Tyler.Durden]

come on, this is a mans game, take a spoon of cement and harden the F up. ;-)

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

Yeah, Harrison could have been the name of the rule a few years ago.

Football is supposed to be a tough guy sport.

Too many BS rules now (mostly for the celebrations).

Let it be.

 

[blackglass3]

come on, this is a mans game, take a spoon of cement and harden the F up. ;-)

Any chance you could find a picture of Bill Belichick NOT from Super Bowl 42? Sorry, it just brought back some rough memories.

 

[capetide]

come on, this is a mans game, take a spoon of cement and harden the F up. ;-)

Yes, its a mans game. And I dont like some of the rules in todays game. But launching on a defenseless WR (especially one who has no chance of catching a ball) isnt about being a man. I played safety and some lb in college many years ago (back in the 70's - the "good old days" when men were men ) and even then, you didnt do that and you didnt get any "props' if you tried. Doesnt take a man to do that crap.

 

[dtbrks]

Yes, its a mans game. And I dont like some of the rules in todays game. But launching on a defenseless WR (especially one who has no chance of catching a ball) isnt about being a man. I played safety and some lb in college many years ago (back in the 70's - the "good old days" when men were men ) and even then, you didnt do that and you didnt get any "props' if you tried. Doesnt take a man to do that crap.

This.
Taking cheap shots doesn't make you man.

 

[Willie55]

Yes, its a mans game. And I dont like some of the rules in todays game. But launching on a defenseless WR (especially one who has no chance of catching a ball) isnt about being a man. I played safety and some lb in college many years ago (back in the 70's - the "good old days" when men were men ) and even then, you didnt do that and you didnt get any "props' if you tried. Doesnt take a man to do that crap.

Agree completely. There's nothing tough about a cheap shot.

The 70's - didn't you wear leather helmets back then?

 

[upstater1]

They used to call this penalty all the time. They used to call it launching. They called it against Eugene Wilson in the Super Bowl.

I'm not sure why they went away from it the last couple of years.

I heard McNally, one of the officials, define launching as illegal several years ago and then last year, Periera said there is no rule against launching.

 

[WhoaDirty]

I know Harrison has been guilty of it a bunch, but there is way to much of guys trying to "knock out" other players rather than tackling them. They should focus on the tackling anyway - how often you see a guy try and lay a big hit, only to have the receiver bounce ofa dn gain another 10 yards?

 

[spacecrime]

This is a good thing, but not if the hit on Willis is a flag. Welker wasn't near the ball, and didn't see Clark coming. Should've been a flag and a fine. Willis had the ball and started to brace himself for the hit. He was almost paralyzed, but I think it was legal.

It was legal. The Welker hit was also legal. The rule change would make both illegal. It isn't about what you think is right or fair, it is about the rule.

It has nothing to do with seeing the guy coming or whether you are near the ball. The ball was thrown in Welker's direction and therefore he can be legally tackled. The defender does not have to ascertain if Welker caught the ball or not. He is allowed to tackle or bring the man down. The rule changes how he is allowed to do that.

Here, like with Sapp's hit on Clifton (?) a few years ago, you have to know the difference between legal and dirty. Sapp's hit and Clark's hits were legal, but dirty.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I agree that pasting a WR that never had a shot at the ball is nothing more than a dispicable cheap shot that should result in a flag and a fine.

Real men play by the rules and the spirit of the rules. Play to win, not to end someone's career on a meaningless play.

 

[Mike the Brit]

This is a good thing, but not if the hit on Willis is a flag. Welker wasn't near the ball, and didn't see Clark coming. Should've been a flag and a fine. Willis had the ball and started to brace himself for the hit. He was almost paralyzed, but I think it was legal.

It was a helmet-to-helmet hit. Do you think that that was legal? That it should be?

 

[capetide]

Agree completely. There's nothing tough about a cheap shot.

The 70's - didn't you wear leather helmets back then?

LOL Yes. And the pigskin was still on a live pig. (Wisea$$)

 

[Leave No Doubt]

They used to call this penalty all the time. They used to call it launching. They called it against Eugene Wilson in the Super Bowl.

I'm not sure why they went away from it the last couple of years.

I heard McNally, one of the officials, define launching as illegal several years ago and then last year, Periera said there is no rule against launching.

This is the biggest problem imo- the league makes rules but isn't always consistent about following them or enforcing them I remember Geno's penalty too, it was enforced at that time. It does seem as if the officials/league sort of overlook some rules in lieu of others, almost like a Rule Of The Month situation.

Whatever happens let's hope rules get enforced consistently and across the board, year in and year out. Flattening a defenseless player is unnecessary and downright dangerous.Tho understanding that sometimes statements have to be made out there, reel that agression in a little bit

 

[Synovia]

This is the biggest problem imo- the league makes rules but isn't always consistent about following them or enforcing them I remember Geno's penalty too, it was enforced at that time. It does seem as if the officials/league sort of overlook some rules in lieu of others, almost like a Rule Of The Month situation.

Theres been a rule on the books forever, that basically says you can't assist a player with the ball. IE, you can't pull him forward or push him forward? How many times a game do we see a RB with the ball, and an OL is on his back pushing him forward?

 

[Leave No Doubt]

Maybe there are too many rules. Not saying they're not valid and obviously they're in place for good reason in many cases, but it must be mind-boggling to try and enforce every rule every time, week in and week out, down by down, season by season.

Last year our Omissioner had remarked that maybe they needed to simplify these rules-might be the one thing I agree with him about Make rules that are understandable, that are across-the-board enforceable, and just play the game by those rules Sounds easy enough to me

 

[Jared]

The penalty called on Wilson had most of us incredulous specifically for that reason: It wasn't actually against the rules at the time!


That being said, there is a difference between nailing a receiver mid-air while he is trying to catch a ball and nailing a receiver who just had the ball fly five or ten feet out of his reach, in my opinion.

 

[DW Toys]

Yes, its a mans game. And I dont like some of the rules in todays game. But launching on a defenseless WR (especially one who has no chance of catching a ball) isnt about being a man. I played safety and some lb in college many years ago (back in the 70's - the "good old days" when men were men ) and even then, you didnt do that and you didnt get any "props' if you tried. Doesnt take a man to do that crap.

I played as well and took some shots that today would be penalties but the thing that scares me is a Darryl Stingley type hit result and that could have happened on both those plays. O.K. break him up if he touches the ball but not after the fact. I believe the horse collar rule is b.s. and touching the QB and hand slapping on O-Lineman is baloney. Put a dress on some of these guys, Roger! Physical play on the wide receiver throughout his route should be o.k. as long as you do not impede his progress. Again "no touching" is bogus.

Picture Y.A. Tittle in the Bears game in the 60s. In the 80s Mr. Jack Lambert would have paid Goodells salary in fines for wicked and very "threatening" hits. Dobbler would have had to pay rent in the NFL offices. He ruined many a players sex life the day or two afterward with extracurricular folly in the pile. Deacon Jones would have been on wanted posters. Singletary would have been "substance" tested every week because of that crazy look in his eyes that would make grown men "void" on themselves. Jim Brown would be penalized today and fined for running "roughshod" over a defenseless defensive back. That was how the game was meant to be played.

There is a difference between altering an opposing players "will" to go over the middle than trying to permanently disable him or worse. It's just like the old westerns on TV. It was o.k. to "wing" a guy, but you never saw anyone killed.
DW Toys

 

[capetide]

I played as well and took some shots that today would be penalties but the thing that scares me is a Darryl Stingley type hit result and that could have happened on both those plays. O.K. break him up if he touches the ball but not after the fact. I believe the horse collar rule is b.s. and touching the QB and hand slapping on O-Lineman is baloney. Put a dress on some of these guys, Roger! Physical play on the wide receiver throughout his route should be o.k. as long as you do not impede his progress. Again "no touching" is bogus.

Picture Y.A. Tittle in the Bears game in the 60s. In the 80s Mr. Jack Lambert would have paid Goodells salary in fines for wicked and very "threatening" hits. Dobbler would have had to pay rent in the NFL offices. He ruined many a players sex life the day or two afterward with extracurricular folly in the pile. Deacon Jones would have been on wanted posters. Singletary would have been "substance" tested every week because of that crazy look in his eyes that would make grown men "void" on themselves. Jim Brown would be penalized today and fined for running "roughshod" over a defenseless defensive back. That was how the game was meant to be played.

There is a difference between altering an opposing players "will" to go over the middle than trying to permanently disable him or worse. It's just like the old westerns on TV. It was o.k. to "wing" a guy, but you never saw anyone killed.
DW Toys

Pretty much agree. Some rules today have "emasculated" the game in some areas (And the fact that the rules arent enforced consistently has always been an issue but seems worse today).

The game is supposed to be about hard hitting and as long as its a clean hit, there is no complaint. Head hunters/"dirty"players were tolerated less back then (Maybe because now players share agents, etc.).

But I do know that, if someone took a cheap shot, it was EXPECTED that at some opportune time in the game, someone from the opposing team was going to try to even up the score (I remember in a game against Yale, a LB on our team took a shot at their tight end after the whistle. A while later he was under a pile. One of their players player was biting his leg and another was punching him in the family jewels. No one did or said anything since we all knew what it was about.)