NFL RULES: 2-hand touch against Pats

[ArmyFin7]

"The NFL passed a new rule at the Owners' Meetings that will prohibit defenders from laying initial contact on a defenseless receiver's forearm, shoulder, head, or neck.

Steelers free safety Ryan Clark's hit on Wes Welker in Week 13 last year presumably was the driving force behind this change. The rule previously only protected defenseless receivers from taking helmet-to-helmet blows." per rotoworld. Another report I was reading was saying they are debating changing the rules on how you are allowed to hit the QB due to the Tom Brady injury....so to solve all the issues i say we just make it a 2-hand touch game when playing the Pats. Then the NFL won't have to change any more rules and the Pats won't have to worry about playing real football.

 

[Iroquois Joe]

I would hate to be Krafts box attendant, having to clean the pee up every time one of his boys finds himself in harms way.

Funny how 1/2 a dozen players go down any given year to hits worse than these yet now we get new rules.
Maybe they should have been talking about this when Wilfork was maiming the opposition by doing just what happened to Brady.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyNy-TkDGB0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuClWeD9ouI&NR=1

 

[Phin19]

The new QB rule is ridiculous. I've seen defenders tackle like that a ton of times and nobody complains until a patsie gets injured. :rolleyes2:

When will the patsie *** kissing stop? Screw them

 

[TomBradyWoot]

You've seen it happen "a ton of times". Please point out just five of them, not including Tom Brady or Carson Palmer.

Also I guess we'll ignore the Ryan Clark hit on Willis McGahee right that garnered much more attention than Welker as a reason why you can no longer hit defenseless receivers with a shoulder in the head.

And why do you ignore the other rules put in place? Such as the blindside blocks, which can be known as the "Hines Ward rule" when he ended a rookie LBs season by breaking his jaw. Or the new instant replay rule, called the "Ed Hochuli rule" which can give defense possession on an incomplete pass if it was ruled a fumble and seen the defense did gain possession - which happened in Denver-SD.

Oh, but we'll ignore those because they don't complete our agenda of saying the NFL is in Kraft's pocket - right?

Penis suckers

 

[Tailgater]

I don't know why they bothered with the 'brady rule'. Will a defender pause to think about it while it's happening? "Oh no! I better stop or they'll throw the flag!".

I understand why they did it, but enforcing it or changing the mindset is another issue. No owner wants their season to go down the tubes when a great qb is taken out for the year. Most teams would have tanked if it happened to them. The Pats ended up having a decent season, certainly better than a losing season, but they're the exception to the rule.

 

[chibully]

The new QB rule is ridiculous. I've seen defenders tackle like that a ton of times and nobody complains until a patsie gets injured. :rolleyes2:

When will the patsie *** kissing stop? Screw them

I have a strong inclination that if bernard had injured any other qb, the rule would stay the same.

 

[houtz]

Ryan Clark > Wes Welker.

 

[shula_guy]

I think the bigger issue is that most of these rule changes favor the offense and mostly passing plays. I have no issue with protecting players but instead of constently restricting defenses they need to put restrictions on the offense. The rules are too heavily favored toward the QB and his targets.

 

[The New Guy]

I don't know why they bothered with the 'brady rule'. Will a defender pause to think about it while it's happening? "Oh no! I better stop or they'll throw the flag!".

I understand why they did it, but enforcing it or changing the mindset is another issue. No owner wants their season to go down the tubes when a great qb is taken out for the year. Most teams would have tanked if it happened to them. The Pats ended up having a decent season, certainly better than a losing season, but they're the exception to the rule.

Good point! I don't think it is a good rule at all. How many other QBs got injured because a defender lunged into him after he was knocked to the ground?

I would say that more Qbs get injured from defenders who are blocked into the QB than those who lunge at them after being knocked to the ground. My concern is how are the refs going to interpret this new rule? I am all for protecting players, but injuries are part of the game. That is why you have a depth chart.

Most teams would have tanked if it happened to them. The Pats ended up having a decent season, certainly better than a losing season, but they're the exception to the rule

I think you would have to say that the Dolphins are the #1 exception to the rule. They actually had a real undefeated season with the majority of the wins being lead with their backup QB. :D

 

[HBCF4Ever]

I think you would have to say that the Dolphins are the #1 exception to the rule. They actually had a real undefeated season with the majority of the wins being lead with their backup QB.

True, it was their backup QB, but looking at Earl Morrall's career he was a starter in the NFL at one point. It's not exactly like a Matt Cassel coming from being a lifelong backup to winning 11 games in a season.

 

[The New Guy]

True, it was their backup QB, but looking at Earl Morrall's career he was a starter in the NFL at one point. It's not exactly like a Matt Cassel coming from being a lifelong backup to winning 11 games in a season.

Not only was he a starter, he was a Super Bowl winning QB. I was just comparing a starting QB going down and a team still having success.

If you want to go by inexperience, how about Kurt Warner in 99? Maybe the Rams should be the #1 exception to the rule.


My point is, you need to have depth. You need to have a good back up because you never know when your QB might go down. Trying to change all the rules so your star QB won't get injured is not going to work.

 

[shula_guy]

True, it was their backup QB, but looking at Earl Morrall's career he was a starter in the NFL at one point. It's not exactly like a Matt Cassel coming from being a lifelong backup to winning 11 games in a season.

Matt cassel is aboput to become a starter and he is not a scott mitchell. He is closer to a steve young. Cassel is going to lighyt the leauge up. He has talent. Pioli is no fool he grabbed him for a reason.