Possible ban on the leaping FG/XP block...

[Wheelman]

Maybe I'm wrong but the Pats were the first ones to do it successfully in 2015, right? Against, Indy.

I could be wrong.

You're right Kam kept getting flagged for different reasons so he never did do it successfully but this has been done a few times in the past. But for some reason seeing Kam do it in the playoffs seemed to have opened the floodgates on the play.

It was an exciting play and I have a feeling it got into the kickers heads a little bit too.

Ratbirds fans were saying Tucker looked off after that blocked kick.

 

[RayRay]

What a fkn joke.
Has anyone even been injured by this play yet??
And where the fk were the ban talks when Seattle was doing it????

 

[DarrylS]

IMO it is a terrifically exciting play that adds excitement to a fairly predictable part of the game, it also causes ST players to be sharp..

So instead of the other HC's in the NFL having to figure out how to defend it, get rid of it.. what a f...ing joke.

 

[RelocatedPatFan]

I expect Roger will be making an announcement soon, "We are expanding the competition committee to include members from 31 of the league's teams."

 

[bresna]

The Seahawks first did this in 2012 (Bruce Irvin) and have done it more than any other team - by far. This isn't a "Patriots rule". It's a "Seahawks rule".

 

[varjao]

That's ridiculous, it's an exciting play.

Lets get rid of all kicks instead and make it more close to handball or volleyball.

 

[primetime]

Not sure why teams don't just try the leap every time on the PAT. If you screw it up, it's, what, 5 yards? You'd need to be penalized 4 times to get to the 2 point conversion line.

 

[DaBruinz]

I don't know about making the play completely illegal, but maybe a harsher penalty for touching the lineman. Like a 15 yard unsportsmanlike (isn't it 5 now ?)... It would basically mean a first down for the offense in every situation, or would make an end of game attempt turn into a chip shot.

And, yes, all celebrations should be allowed (excluding taunting, or foreign props/injury risks).

The problem with the rule currently is that it allows a lineman to raise his shoulder to clip the jumping player and it's still a penalty on the jumping player, though it is supposed to be limited to just the Long snapper..

on the play in the SB, when McClellin came over the hole, it was the player to the left of the Long Snapper who lifted his right shoulder and caught McClellin's right foot. It shouldn't have been a penalty because he wasn't the long snapper..

 

[DaBruinz]

Difference here though is that it's coming from the Union. Sounds like a legit concern.

How can it be a legit concern if no one has been injured on such a play?

 

[DaBruinz]

Not sure why teams don't just try the leap every time on the PAT. If you screw it up, it's, what, 5 yards? You'd need to be penalized 4 times to get to the 2 point conversion line.

Only 3 times, actually. The 3rd time brings you to the 2.5 yard line because it's half the distance to the goal. the 4th time would be the 1.25 yard line.. Which is actually closer since 2pt conversions are taken from the 2 yard line.

 

[slam]

I'm not sure if anyone has worked out the effect that penalties might have on Extra Points/2 Point conversions. Consider this scenario:

Falcons attempt XP. Patriots commit a penalty in blocking the XP. Falcons get 5 yards and get to retry.
If the Falcons now opt to go for 2, is the ball now placed on the 1? If the Falcons then score the conversion but also commit a penalty, can they then opt to go back to the 1 point kick? If so, where should the ball be placed? Should it be back at the original spot of an XP attempt since the defense committed one penalty then the offense committed one? Or should it be four yards in back of the original spot since the offense gained 1 yard from the d's penalty then lost 5 yards? (assuming every foul is a five yarder).

Basically, do referees have to keep track of the placements of both options in case the changes brought upon by penalties affect team's decisions? If this isn't explicitly in the rulebook, I imagine that some point in the future some game will be delayed by 15 minutes while the refs work out the math of the situation.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Not sure why teams don't just try the leap every time on the PAT. If you screw it up, it's, what, 5 yards? You'd need to be penalized 4 times to get to the 2 point conversion line.

That's not how it works. A team can change its mind on PAT vs. 2PC and take the penalty from the 2PC line.

So if there's a penalty on the PAT a team can take "half the distance to the goal" from the 2PC line and have the option to attempt a 2PC from the 1.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

As for @slam it appears your question is answered by Rule 11-3-3.

Rule 11-3-3:
If a foul results in a retry, Team A will have the option to enforce the penalty from the spot where it attempted the try (previous spot) or from the yard line for the other try option. Exception: defensive pass interference is a spot foul.

So if a team decides to change what kind of try they are doing because of a penalty (on either team) the penalty is enforced from the "standard" try spot for that type of try.

So in his scenario:

• Pats committing 5 yard penalty on XP gives Atlanta the choice of XP from the 10 or 2PC from the 1.
• Atlanta then committing 5 yard penalty on subsequent 2PC attempt gives Atlanta the choice of 2PC from the 6 (penalty enforced from the spot where it attempted the try) or XP from the 10 (penalty enforced from the yard line for the other try option).

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Interestingly, the rule has a surprising loophole since it doesn't refer to which team actually commits the foul resulting in a retry. So by the letter of the rule you could have the following...

Scenario: Team A scores a TD to close the gap to 2 with no time left on the clock. Needs a 2PC to tie.

Team A attempts the 2PC, succeeds, but it called for OPI. The naive thing to do is attempt the 2PC from the 12 (the 2yd line and then the 10yd penalty).

However, this rule provides a better option -- elect to attempt the XP from the 25 (the 15yd line and then the 10yd penalty) and then intentionally false start. That gives the offense the option to try an XP from the 30 (previous spot of 25 and 5yd penalty) or a 2PC from the 7 (other try yard line of 2 and 5yd penalty) which is five yards better than where the naive approach would put you.

An an even more ballsy thing to do instead of intentionally false starting from XP formation on the 25 would be doing some kind of hard count from that formation to draw the defense off. If you succeeded in doing that you'd get to try the 2PC from the 1! And if you failed you'd just take the delay of game and do the whole thing all over again (or just elect to try the 2PC from the 7).

 

[Silver Blue&Red]

The NFL hasn't figured that one out yet...

Oh yes they have : Camera spot gate, Ideal gas law gate, Ineligible receiver gate,. Etc, etc.... Now this? Give me a break. Pu55y league

 

[bbobbo]

the patriots need to get a really short guy who can go under the snapper's legs for the block. like nate robinson did to edy tavares:

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

What's next, Goodell imposing a mandatory retirement age for all non- kickers or anyone not named Joey Porter...for the good of the game and to prevent CTE, of course...
I shouldn't give him any ideas...

 

[XLIX]

I would love to see some coaching against this line jump strategy. Things like:

- keep an upback to block the leaper

- snappers known to keep their heads down lift their heads every now and then, drawing a penalty upon contact. Even just once in a while will keep the defense honest

This occurred to me too as a possible counter to the play, and I think this is what the NFL and NFLPA are afraid of.

You cannot line up opposite the center for safety reasons, so I think a center deliberately lifting his head up to draw contact with a guy running full speed is a very dangerous play. It's a concussion recipe, not to mention could dangerously jam the spinal column.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

This occurred to me too as a possible counter to the play, and I think this is what the NFL and NFLPA are afraid of.

You cannot line up opposite the center for safety reasons, so I think a center deliberately lifting his head up to draw contact with a guy running full speed is a very dangerous play. It's a concussion recipe, not to mention could dangerously jam the spinal column.

There are already long snappers that raise their heads since it's part of their technique. They don't face these line leap attempts because defenses know they will hit him and get penalized. There was an article on this a while back, I think when Bobby Wagner pulled off one of these blocks.

Regards,
Chris

 

[XLIX]

There are already long snappers that raise their heads since it's part of their technique. They don't face these line leap attempts because defenses know they will hit him and get penalized. There was an article on this a while back, I think when Bobby Wagner pulled off one of these blocks.

Regards,
Chris

Last time I checked, there was no official list of "snappers who raise their heads so don't leap over them". You never know if some coach is going to tell some snapper who normally doesn't lift up "well today we are playing Seattle so if Chancellor is on the FG defense, you lift up the instant you snap the ball."

Like I said, it's a recipe for a concussion - or worse. I don't really care if they illegalize it or not since I have no dog in the race, I'm just saying I can't blame the NFL or NFLPA for this one.