Can the "catch rule" be fixed?

[Half Empty]

Just heard about a new rule, any hit by a defender on a receiver, on ANY body part, by a helmet, results in a 15 yard penalty, and/or ejection. Two hand touch, just around the corner.

Yah, but at least the receiver will be able to still use his hands for touch.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Just heard about a new rule, any hit by a defender on a receiver, on ANY body part, by a helmet, results in a 15 yard penalty, and/or ejection. Two hand touch, just around the corner.

The way I read it is that contact with the crown of the helmet outside the tackle box gets a flag. It's not just receivers; it would be runners at second level.

I appears this measure is intended to reduce defender concussions as much as offensive player injuries.

Concussioun injuries keep going up, though that may be a function of more conservative monitoring.

 

[RRyder]

The way I read it is that contact with the crown of the helmet outside the tackle box gets a flag. It's not just receivers; it would be runners at second level.

I appears this measure is intended to reduce defender concussions as much as offensive player injuries.

Concussioun injuries keep going up, though that may be a function of more conservative monitoring.

I'm pretty sure the they specifically removed the crown of the helmet part of the rule and now it's just lowering your head to make contact

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm pretty sure the they specifically removed the crown of the helmet part of the rule and now it's just lowering your head to make contact

I just saw the final wording, which is quite surprising:

“It is a foul if a player lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent."

That's it, in it's entirety.

Nothing about "outside the tackle box", which is what I read earlier. Omitting that aspect of the rule is a major, major change. If that is in fact the way they are going to rule, there's potential for a flag on every run down. It could be a defender drawing the flag, but it could also be a lead fullback/H-back or the runner himself getting low and initiating such contact. It could be linemen knocking heads when both go low. In fact, on a run between the tackles, as the game has always been played, somebody making contact with somebody else with his helmet is probably the rule rather than the exception.

So now everybody has to play high/heads up in what was the highest impact part of the game? Run blocking becomes like pass blocking patty cake? Expect more leg injuries.

Upright runners with a good jump cut and stiff arm might be happy.

What will McCarthy do about pad level?

 

[swhitset]

I'm pretty sure the they specifically removed the crown of the helmet part of the rule and now it's just lowering your head to make contact

Maybe this will actually improve tackling in general..... how many tackles are missed every year simply because of poor technique when the defender lowers his head and completely misses the ball carrier....

 

[Half Empty]

If the defender doesn't hit the player with his helmet, no foul, right?

 

[Cornelius Weems]

I just saw the final wording, which is quite surprising:

“It is a foul if a player lowers his head to initiate and make contact with his helmet against an opponent."

That's it, in it's entirety.

Nothing about "outside the tackle box", which is what I read earlier. Omitting that aspect of the rule is a major, major change. If that is in fact the way they are going to rule, there's potential for a flag on every run down. It could be a defender drawing the flag, but it could also be a lead fullback/H-back or the runner himself getting low and initiating such contact. It could be linemen knocking heads when both go low. In fact, on a run between the tackles, as the game has always been played, somebody making contact with somebody else with his helmet is probably the rule rather than the exception.

So now everybody has to play high/heads up in what was the highest impact part of the game? Run blocking becomes like pass blocking patty cake? Expect more leg injuries.

Upright runners with a good jump cut and stiff arm might be happy.

What will McCarthy do about pad level?

There are going to be A LOT of penalties at the start of the season. I honestly expect some games to approach the 6hr mark as they adjust. You will have to tackle arms first, no exceptions. Goaline plays are going to be very... interesting. I also think that the Pack will adjust how they draft. I expect them to be more offensive player oriented then they were initially.

 

[gbgary]

sounds like it's fixed.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Maybe I missed something with this new rule on head contact, but it sounds like to me that they are basically adopting the same rules as the college game now uses. How enforcement and ejections will take place appears to be a discussion for their May meeting. For people who are wondering how current players in the NFL are going to adapt to this change, remember, almost every player in the NFL played at the college level with this rule. I'm all for the change, this is about protecting players and if some people are worried about the NFL becoming "flag football", than I guess those people will eventually tune out the NFL when they feel it has become too soft for them.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If the defender doesn't hit the player with his helmet, no foul, right?

I would assume so. Othwise you couldn't tackle below the chest. The problem is the speed of the game. You can go for that perfect form tackle, head to the side, shoulder to the lower body, and accidently bang heads when the runner goes low. It happens all the time in the box. We'll see if they tweek it at the spring meetings to exempt the tackle box.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The college rule is linked below. Note the "targetting" definition. This NFL rule is not the college rule. The NFL rule is an imcompletely formed, single-sentence, blunt instrument which means it was probably written by one of the owners.

The problem is not necessarily what they are trying to accomplish (I guess). It's the utter inability to articulate it.

https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/9/7/12829482/targeting-penalty-rulebook-ncaa-football

 

[Poppa San]

Would any of these rule changes helped out when Davante got his head drilled twice last season?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Would any of these rule changes helped out when Davante got his head drilled twice last season?

It's a penalty, not a miracle cure.

Seriously, no. The hits on Adams were already illegal and that didn't stop the defenders from doing what they did.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The rule change I hear they are talking about is eliminating kickoffs.

THAT would be stupid! WTF does a team do in the evet they need an onside kick to try and win the game?

Sure, most kickoffs are touchbacks and yes, there are some hard punishing hits, but come on man! Kickoff returns can be one of the most electrifying plays of a game.

 

[rmontro]

The rule change I hear they are talking about is eliminating kickoffs.

THAT would be stupid! WTF does a team do in the even they need an onside kick to try and win the game?

Too bad they didn't get rid of the kickoffs before that stupid playoff game in Seattle.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Too bad they didn't get rid of the kickoffs before that stupid playoff game in Seattle.

or fake FG's or DB's able to go to the ground after an interception or.....

 

[Deleted member 6794]

A lot of people have talked about how the catches in the Super Bowl might have been called incomplete if they had occurred in the regular season.
I wouldn't necessarily like to have seen the Patriots win another Super Bowl, but it doesn't seem right to change the way the game is officiated once the big games come around.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ew-catch-rule-in-super-bowl-replay-decisions/

I don't think the league changed the way the Super Bowl was officiated compared to any other game last season.

The rule change I hear they are talking about is eliminating kickoffs.

THAT would be stupid! WTF does a team do in the even they need an onside kick to try and win the game?

Sure, most kickoffs are touchbacks and yes, there are some hard punishing hits, but come on man! Kickoff returns can be one of the most electrifying plays of a game.

I don't like the idea of kickoffs being eliminated either but the league is trying to prevent head injuries as much as possible. According to numbers released yesterday the chances of suffering a concussion is five times higher on a kickoff return than on any other play.

 

[PackerDNA]

A $14Billion dollar a year industry struggles to figure out what a catch is.
How sad.

 

[Mondio]

The rule change I hear they are talking about is eliminating kickoffs.

THAT would be stupid! WTF does a team do in the even they need an onside kick to try and win the game?

Sure, most kickoffs are touchbacks and yes, there are some hard punishing hits, but come on man! Kickoff returns can be one of the most electrifying plays of a game.

IF they got rid of kickoffs, that would radically change the game and make many endings very anti climactic and mundane. I would not be in favor of it at all.

 

[AmishMafia]

It's a penalty, not a miracle cure.

Seriously, no. The hits on Adams were already illegal and that didn't stop the defenders from doing what they did.

All they can do, and should have done, is increase the penalty. I'm thinking ejection on first offense, 3 game suspension on 2nd, and 16 games any subsequent penalty. That would get their attention.

 

[Mondio]

It's a penalty, not a miracle cure.

Seriously, no. The hits on Adams were already illegal and that didn't stop the defenders from doing what they did.

it wouldn't have helped Davante at all, and the penalties would be the same, but them losing one of their highest rated defenders for the remainder of the game could have certainly helped the Packers and possibly kept the season alive. I don't care what our chances were at that point, I'll take any chance just to watch them play again. I don't think you could find an example of a more egregious hit than that one last year. It's the very definition of what they're trying to get rid of. I remember Davis Sr. making a pretty important play not long after that one. Might have gone differently if he wasn't on the field. Rather than the next team benefiting for it, I think it's good the team that takes the brunt of it, now will get to benefit from the player not being on the field.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't think the league changed the way the Super Bowl was officiated compared to any other game last season.



I don't like the idea of kickoffs being eliminated either but the league is trying to prevent head injuries as much as possible. According to numbers released yesterday the chances of suffering a concussion is five times higher on a kickoff return than on any other play.

Honestly, I think the league is in "cover thy as*" mode with the whole head injury thing. I understand and support trying to eliminate players using their helmets as weapons, but the players should understand that this is what they sign up for. It's a dangerous sport and today's NFL player is taking a chance by playing it, but also getting paid way more than the average Joe in the process. Should they eliminate punt returns? No more crossing routes?

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Half Empty]

The rule change I hear they are talking about is eliminating kickoffs.

THAT would be stupid! WTF does a team do in the evet they need an onside kick to try and win the game?

Sure, most kickoffs are touchbacks and yes, there are some hard punishing hits, but come on man! Kickoff returns can be one of the most electrifying plays of a game.

Apparently, take the ball at their own 35 in a 4th and 10 situation - they make a first down, they keep the ball, fail to convert, they turn it over.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

it wouldn't have helped Davante at all, and the penalties would be the same, but them losing one of their highest rated defenders for the remainder of the game could have certainly helped the Packers and possibly kept the season alive. I don't care what our chances were at that point, I'll take any chance just to watch them play again. I don't think you could find an example of a more egregious hit than that one last year. It's the very definition of what they're trying to get rid of. I remember Davis Sr. making a pretty important play not long after that one. Might have gone differently if he wasn't on the field. Rather than the next team benefiting for it, I think it's good the team that takes the brunt of it, now will get to benefit from the player not being on the field.

So you're telling me that you are in favor of video review in this situation?

*slides so more kool aid over to Mondio*

 

[Mondio]

So you're telling me that you are in favor of video review in this situation?

*slides so more kool aid over to Mondio*

The obvious ones are obvious, call them on the field and move on