ESPN: 15 rule changes pass, 2 get voted down (defensive radio, WR movement)

[flutie2phelan]

....
Of course, the rule is a reaction to Carson Palmer receiving Kimo-therapy early in the Steelers-Bengals game, and you always hate to see something like that. But how many flying-at-the-legs sacks will we miss seeing that don't mangle a star QB?
....
PFnV

Probably many others recall ... early in the 31-0 waxing of the Bills to avenge their 0-31 job on us ...
that Lawyer Milloy, "good friend of Tom Brady"!, smashed into Tom's knees on a blitz.
He gamely got to his feet, shook it off, and continued leading the victory parade.

But until he did, cold fear seized my chest ... and maybe yours.
I could do without seeing that again.

 

[jeffro]

Then you aren't understanding the down by contact issues. The issues are what happens PRIOR to the player being ruled "down." Not after. There were several plays last year where a player fumbled the ball yet was ruled "down by contact" even though the ball actually came loose PRIOR to the player being down. This would have resulted in a turnover and change of possession.

It has NOTHING to do with what happens after the whistle blows.

You are the one who does not understand my point. The new rule will be welcome in that fumbles incorrectly ruled "down by contact" can be overturned. But in such a case, the whistle WILL blow, so the players will have to play after the whistle to recover the ball. This might cause some problems.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Flutie2, true. But then again, Drew got his Aorta sheared (or something) by a completely non-leg-related hit by Mo Lewis. I was sure that was the end of the world until Brady's emergence. (Then, naif that I was, I was sure that they couldn't really let go of Drew that offseason - the first of many "now they've gone too far!"s, for me. Now I just shrug and say stuff like, thanks for the memories, Adam.)

 

[OldEnglandPatriot]

OEP, I noticed that difference, but it does still seem like little much, to make it illegal to basically fly into the legs of a QB, if that's the shot you have as a would-be tackler. .

Of course, the rule is a reaction to Carson Palmer receiving Kimo-therapy early in the Steelers-Bengals game, ...

PFnV

The committee actually mentioned that the tackle on Carson Palmer would not have been a foul under the new rule. They say it's not a reaction to that or any other QB hit that caused an injury this season, but from viewing lots of tape.

I have mixed feelings about the rule myself, but their point is that a QB planting his foot to throw is particularly vulnerable to a nasty injury from a knee to ankle hit and I can see that.

It was quite fascinating to see some of the debate and voting on NFL Network. Jeff Lurie brought up the commercial side of protecting QBs, citing a big difference in viewing figures with McNabb playing versus McNabb out injured.

Cowher and Coughlin were two to speak out against the horse-collar I believe, which the Patriots also voted against.