Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Box_O_Rocks, Mar 20, 2009.
NFL rule changes put safety first - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
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.
come on, this is a mans game, take a spoon of cement and harden the F up. ;-)
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.
Any chance you could find a picture of Bill Belichick NOT from Super Bowl 42? Sorry, it just brought back some rough memories.
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.
Taking cheap shots doesn't make you man.
Agree completely. There's nothing tough about a cheap shot.
The 70's - didn't you wear leather helmets back then?
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.
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?
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.
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.
It was a helmet-to-helmet hit. Do you think that that was legal? That it should be?
LOL Yes. And the pigskin was still on a live pig. (Wisea$$)
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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.)
The horse collar rule was instituted because Roy Williams was hurting a receiver like every game. Torn hamstrings, etc. The body is just not supposed to be loaded like that.
THe problem is it is called poorly. Grabbing a man's collar and falling on his legs while he is running full speed forward most certainly is dangerous.
I'm in favor of rules that could save careers and improve the quality of life for players after their careers are over. These guys almost all are still young men when they hang up their helmets for the last time - but some of them have taken a ton of punishment and experience some major drawbacks later in life because of that.
Well said. Those are people out there, most with families. Having guys gratuitously injured so that a highlights reel can show big hits puts a lower quality product on the field.
Yes. + 2. It's about courage and athleticism.
Enough with the rules.
As much as I love Wes, I can deal with that hit just so we don't have more ******* ref-based stuff.
Correct me if I am misremembering (ala Roger Clemens) but I could have swore that a flag was tossed for Clark's hit against Wes Welker. I'm pretty sure that was a third down play, but the personal foul penalty gave the Pats a first down (only to lose the ball one or two plays later on a sack/fumble)
call me cruel, but I don't think those should be penalties. As someone mentioned earlier, anytime you add more judgement calls to the ref's disposal, it's a bad thing (ESPECIALLY 15 yard, automatic first down penalties)
I didn't think there was a flag, but my memory isn't perfect, either. I know do that there was no fine.
The play resulted in a 15 yd unnecessary roughness penalty.
Whether one likes it or not, there are judgement calls when players make contact. The question is: where should the line that the referees have to judge around be drawn? The Clark hit on McGahee was clearly helmet-to-helmet and that is both extremely dangerous (impact on the head, leverage on the neck) and reasonably easy to tell.
Separate names with a comma.