Rules Clarification - Whitlock Crying

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Can anyone provide a rule clarification?

McNabb homer, Whitlock is whining and wondering if the league will come up with a "McNabb Rule" after his injury Sunday akin the the "Brady Rule". Here's what seems confusing:

McNabb scored and was on the ground. NFL rules are already in the books concerning late hits. He got hit with an apparent "late hit". Why the officials didn't call I don't know. Maybe they thought it wasn't "late".

Does this infer a "late hit" on the QB will be more severe or just McNabb.

He's whining that the hit on Brady was legit. What exactly happened to the Carson Palmer rule? At one point, the rule specified hitting the QB. Did that rule get actually removed?

Was big Vince tagged for the "Brady Rule" or the "Palmer Rule"?

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Rules Clarification- Whitlock Crying

Whitlock is just upset that when McNabb went down that they didn't consider his best friend, Jeff George, to replace him.

 

[ALP]

Re: Rules Clarification- Whitlock Crying

mcNabb got hit late, there is no real question...

he was on the ground, with the ball, and had a TD, for a WHILE, before he got hit....it should have been flagged

HOWEVER, philly was up quite handily, and he went for the TD, and yea he really should have, but carolina got pissed, and hit him....he should have been watching out for himself as well....

and no, no new rule needs to be applied, b/c more often than not, it will prob be misinterpreted by the damn refs, kinda like our last game and its two bogus calls

 

[BradyManny]

Re: Rules Clarification- Whitlock Crying

IMO, the ESPN broadcast was completely incorrectly citing the Brady Rule the other nite:

Brady rule: Steps taken to protect QBs' knees - The Boston Globe

In part because of the season-ending left knee injury that Brady suffered in the Patriots' 2008 season opener against the Chiefs, the league's Competition Committee adopted a clarification of the current rule on hits to a quarterback in the knee area or below. The clarification specifically prohibits a defender on the ground who hasn't been blocked or fouled directly into the quarterback from lunging or diving at the quarterback's lower legs.

The Brady Rule is specific to the Pollard instance. If you're on the ground in front of the QB, you can't lunge at him. That's all it is.

That had nothing to do with the Wilfork hit, yet Jaws & Gruden claimed that it did.

The Wilfork hit was simply called for being a low-hit, which was illegal before Brady got hit. Why the hit on Brady wasn't called RTP or a personal foul for going low, who knows? If #75 for the Pats had delivered that hit, you can be damn sure he would've gotten a hefty fine.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Rules Clarification- Whitlock Crying

IMO, the ESPN broadcast was completely incorrectly citing the Brady Rule the other nite:

Brady rule: Steps taken to protect QBs' knees - The Boston Globe



The Brady Rule is specific to the Pollard instance. If you're on the ground in front of the QB, you can't lunge at him. That's all it is.

That had nothing to do with the Wilfork hit, yet Jaws & Gruden claimed that it did.

The Wilfork hit was simply called for being a low-hit, which was illegal before Brady got hit. Why the hit on Brady wasn't called RTP or a personal foul for going low, who knows? If #75 for the Pats had delivered that hit, you can be damn sure he would've gotten a hefty fine.

Yeah, I said it at the time that I thought that you had to be on the ground and lunged at the QB to be the Brady rule.

 

[signbabybrady]

kind of off topic but I think thi thread makes a good segway.


Am I the only one who thinks late hits are called much quicker when your out of bounds than in the middle of the field????

I think the out of bounds late hits a really annoying. Unless it is blatant you should be OK to many times you see players fake out of bounds and go up field for more so as a defender as long as you aren't being cheap you should be OK. I think the play should have to be clearly over and not just a step out of bounds.

to get back on topic I also think the QB protection rules are getting a little out of hand if you add them all up it is pretty crazy. You can't hit him high even a tap on the head can be called, you can't hit him low, you can't hit him if your on the ground, you can't bear all your weight on them so that limits how you can drive thru them even in the legal areas, and you can't fling them down a la AD. Did I miss anything? It is ridiculous I know the QBs are important to the league and teams but this is supposed to be TACKLE football now it seems you are better off wrapping the guy up and waiting for the whistle rather than tackling him. And the worst part is it doesn't really seem to liimit injuries to the QB that much or at least it doesn't seem like we lose QBs any more or less than in the past.

 

[mgteich]

The hit on McNabb was much more flagrant than Wilfork's hit. No new rules are needed, just clarifications of the exisiting rules. I have no question that this will happen in the weekly evaluations of the calls and non-calls of the week. Of course, that won't prevent us from believing that the refs are out to get us. There is no real solution for conspiracy theorists.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

kind of off topic but I think thi thread makes a good segway.


Am I the only one who thinks late hits are called much quicker when your out of bounds than in the middle of the field????

I think the out of bounds late hits a really annoying. Unless it is blatant you should be OK to many times you see players fake out of bounds and go up field for more so as a defender as long as you aren't being cheap you should be OK. I think the play should have to be clearly over and not just a step out of bounds.

to get back on topic I also think the QB protection rules are getting a little out of hand if you add them all up it is pretty crazy. You can't hit him high even a tap on the head can be called, you can't hit him low, you can't hit him if your on the ground, you can't bear all your weight on them so that limits how you can drive thru them even in the legal areas, and you can't fling them down a la AD. Did I miss anything? It is ridiculous I know the QBs are important to the league and teams but this is supposed to be TACKLE football now it seems you are better off wrapping the guy up and waiting for the whistle rather than tackling him. And the worst part is it doesn't really seem to liimit injuries to the QB that much or at least it doesn't seem like we lose QBs any more or less than in the past.

Watching NFL Replay last night, AD referred to that, and a certain play in Arizona.

Both "roughing" calls were important and materially affected the game.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The hit on McNabb was much more flagrant than Wilfork's hit. No new rules are needed, just clarifications of the exisiting rules. I have no question that this will happen in the weekly evaluations of the calls and non-calls of the week. Of course, that won't prevent us from believing that the refs are out to get us. There is no real solution for conspiracy theorists.

Yet one was called and the other not. And in fact Vince's has universally been pronounced as a phantom call and McNabb's a blown call given. Not the only ones of the opening weekend either. Still no one here said anything about consipiracy theories. Until you did...

 

[mgteich]

I give up. I will only refer to comments that appear on the last two pages so not to tax your memory. If you don't believe that there have been hundreds of threads about the NFL and its refs making calls purposely against the patriots, then you can choose to believe that.

I will agree that no one has posted such a post in the last couple of pages.

Yet one was called and the other not. And in fact Vince's has universally been pronounced as a phantom call and McNabb's a blown call given. Not the only ones of the opening weekend either. Still no one here said anything about consipiracy theories. Until you did...

 

[Wolfpack]

I didn't see the McNabb play, but I believe in McNabb's situation he loses the special rules protecting quarterbacks. Now don't get me wrong... he can still slide (where he isn't supposed to be hit) and a late hit is still a late hit. But I am not really sure what Whitlock is suggesting. Maybe he feels QB's out of pocket should still have extra protection?

 

[Two Eight]

I think McNabb's hit definitely should have been a late hit flag regardless if it was a QB or not.

Wilfork's penalty was 75% reputation....Vince needs to stop poking other players in the eye though, that's not helping him.

 

[italia44]

beneath his criticism,Whitlock has this black/white phobia in his writings.....not overt,but it's there.