2010 NFL Rule Changes - Hitting Defenseless Players
by JasonB on Aug 10, 2010 11:52 AM EDT
in Philadelphia Eagles News
Email
PrintThis week we'll be detailing the rule changes for the 2010 NFL season. The first in the series, which dealt with moving the umpire, can be found here.
Today's rule involves the ban on hitting defenseless players. In recent years the NFL has done more and more to prevent these hits first prohibiting hits on defenseless WRs, then certain blocks on defenders and now they're just banning hits on defenseless players altogether. An illegal hit on a defenseless player is when the initial force of contact by a players head, shoulder, or forearm is to the head or neck area.
A "defenseless player" will be defined as a QB in the act of passing, A WR in the act of making a catch, a kick or punt returner in the act of making a catch, a runner who is in the grass or whose forward progress has been stopped, a player on the ground at the end of the play, a QB after a change of possession, and a kicker or punter after the ball is kicked. Violations will result in a 15 yard unnecessary roughness penalty.
If a WR has made a catch, but has not had time to defend himself a defender can not launch himself into the WR with his his helmet, shoulder, or forearm in a way that strikes the WR's head or neck area. "Launching" means leaving the ground to make the hit. If the defender doesn't "launch" himself or the WR had time to defend himself then it is not a penalty. Walt Coleman talks about the new regulations, but after the jump there's one more rule to protect defenseless players.
The last defenseless player that is protected is the snapper on FG or extra point attempts. Because he has his head down, he is vulnerable when snapping the ball. Last season a defender had to line up with his shoulder pads on the outside of the snappers body, but there were instances where the snapper was still hit in a vulnerable position. This year, the defender must line up with his entire body on the outside of the snapper's body. If not, they'll be flagged for a 5 yard illegal formation penalty.
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Honestly
though this will help the offense a whole lot and limit the number of big hits we love here, this sort of thing is pretty long overdue. The intent isn’t to help offense, but to protect players, and I for one will accept the inevitable increase in passing which will come along with it.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
Good rule changes, but...
Referees already get an itchy trigger finger sometimes with that flag when an opponent’s hand barely grazes a QB’s helmet. I hope that doesn’t start to happen in other situations as well.
Formerly Bye, Dawk :(
No, because you can’t a hit a QB at all when the ball is out of his hands. This applies to hits to head area, which were already illegal on a QB so I doubt this new rule change much as far as QBs are concerned.
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
Well to be fair, they were working on the field that day.
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
Feh
I cannot understand why the NFL falls all over itself to penalize defenders for playing defense, but it won’t implement simple stuff like mandating mouthpieces and and anti-concussion helmets. That’s not true. I can understand it, I just don’t like it.
I thought they’ve been doing mods to the helmet to make it safer almost every year?
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
They do
But there’s nothing requiring a player to actually use the lighter, stronger helmets. I’m sure there are others, but the only Eagle I can think of who wears a Revolution helmet is Weaver.
by Tracer Bullet on Aug 10, 2010 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Up next, change in uniform regulations...
…players will only be allowed to wear skirts in their team colors while on the field of play
by BirdBrane on Aug 10, 2010 12:54 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
I don’t really see how anyone could have a problem with the league banning hitting a defenseless player in the head. You can still hit a guy hard, just do it in a way that doesn’t give the guy a freaking concussion that will end his career or give him brain damage.
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
this does give a lot of bad possibilities.
If you cant hit a runner in the grasp, then that runner needs to lay down or a quick whistle needs to blow when the grasp is done. Just because one defender has a hold on a guy doesnt mean the play is dead. The first time I see a runner break loose while a defender stands there doing nothing I will lose my mind.
Not hitting a quarterback in the act of throwing… so is this for blindsides? Trent Cole can only sack lefties now? Instead of a forced fumble as a ball flies out from a QBs cocked arm, now you get 15 yards. I dont know if that is a good change.
Also for QBs, no hitting them after a change of possession? They better not try to get involved in blocking or tackling. Jason Campbell can tell you if that is a good idea or not.
the kicker / punter rule also looks vague. Should a kicking side just throw an extra guy out there , and as soon as the ball is booted the kicker just hauls for the sidelines? No need for kids to go get the tee I guess.
Worst of all… this gives Asante another reason not to hit someone :).
You missed a huge point of the rule.
…hits to the head or neck area.
QB’s passing can still get clocked, runners can gets still pummeled. You just can’t get anywhere near their head when you do it. It’s pretty simple and is very acceptable as far as I’m concerned.
Btw, the rule is runner in the grass, not grasp, so you’re concern there is invalid. Forward progress is in fact indicated by a whistle, so I don’t see how a RB can get away and score in that situation either.
I totally agree with a rule that says " dont hit people in the head or neck". If that is all that is intended with this, then I dont get why there is all the extra wording.
Because, if I'm not mistaken, before this rule you could make contact around the neck/head with body parts other than the helmet in these situations.
The only one where the rule seems to be redundant is the QB, you could never go near his head before. But if a shoulder or forearm connecting with a WR’s head as he catches the ball, that wasn’t illegal I don’t think. Now it would be. It does seem like a lot of wording, but the key portion is here:
An illegal hit on a defenseless player is when the initial force of contact by a players head, shoulder, or forearm is to the head or neck area.
That to me says you can still hit defenseless players, but that hit simply cannot come anywhere near the neck/head (or as the ref put it “above the shoulders”).
I guess they are the professionals, and they should know what is best for the game. I don’t really have a problem with them trying to protect their players at all.
I just wonder when they will go too far. Seems like these rules would have made it awfully hard for Brian Dawkins to become a fan favorite like he did. Can’t hit a defenseless WR? I don’t really get it. He’s trying to catch a pass, and you stop him by smashing him in the process. That rule seems too soft to me. Protecting the QB on change of possession is a great idea.
He can still lay people out.
He just can’t go anywhere nearing their head or neck with his body when doing it. He can even “launch” if he wants to, as long as that launching doesn’t cause him to hit the WR about the neck or head.
Read this:
“If a WR has made a catch, but has not had time to defend himself a defender can not launch himself into the WR with his his helmet, shoulder, or forearm in a way that strikes the WR’s head or neck area.”
I don’t have a problem with that rule. I doubt Dawk does, either.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Bear Bryant
What I see there is another rule that they can mess up a call on
added the the mountain of rules already in place, I don’t really understand how they are going to enforce this rule with consistency.
If I were say, Desean I would jump to make every catch, because every DB would have to wait until they gave me enough time to “defend myself”.
Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5ApFRBpdf8
He had almost zero time to “defend himself”. Jesus Christ, I know I aint channging shit what yall think because you guys loving drinking that Kool Aid they continually feed you, but I don’t see how these plays can be consistently called. Crumpler didn’t have any time, as he looked up Dawk killed him with his shoulder as he launched.
That gay rule seems like Dawk would have been penalized 15 for that shit. Which is gay. Did I mention the gayness the rule brings to the game. I couldn’t imagine the buzz kill I would have felt if Dawk would have been given a unnecessary roughness penalty.
It's already been posted/answered five times,
DB’s cannot hit a defenseless WR in the HEAD or NECK (area).
That Dawkins’ hit is completely legal as he hits him in the chest.
by KornontheKobb on Aug 10, 2010 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions
why not just start playing two handed touch? or flag football?
in 2 years, i’ll be surprised if the tackle is legal at all. " oh, wait….hold on, i better wait until this guy lowers his head before i tackle him." “wow, this guys running straight across the middle like it’s no big deal….i better go tackle his legs.” this is pussy shit. this is why NFL players get paid the big money. every safety in the league has to be shaking their heads right now. it’s going to be a good year for tight ends and slot receivers, since they have so much less to worry about.
"it's like i tell my ex-wife, i never drive faster than i can see, and besides it's all in the reflexes." -Jack Burton, Big trouble in little China
"a QB after a change of possession"
So, if a QB throws a pick, and hes the only one left to try to stop the interceptor, he cant be blocked? Even if hes trying to tackle/push the interceptor out of bounds. Am I reading that right? That doesnt sound fair.
He can’t be hit in the head or neck. Blocking him normally is fine.
Follow Bleeding Green Nation on Twitter & Facebook
But blocking him in those places would have already resulted in an illegal hands to the face penalty, right?
by philiafan14364 on Aug 11, 2010 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
Holy hell people. Reading comprehension, give it a try.
The crux of the rule is that a defenseless player cannot be hit in anyway at the NECK or the HEAD. They can still be clobbered, the defender/blocker/etc just has to make initial contact below the shoulders. That’s it. This isn’t a huge change or some pussification. Read what is actually written. This is actually a completely reasonable rule and one that probably should have already existed.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bleeding Green Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- The Shutdown Corner Podcast: Greg Cosell on the NFC South Draft
- BREAKING: Tim Tebow did not become a great quarterback today
- Jerry Jones says Cowboys championship window is closing; Tony Romo disagrees
- Lawrence Taylor was told his Super Bowl ring was bought by Charlie Sheen
- Chad Ochocinco gets robbed, mourns loss of Starbucks gold card
