NFL's new "putting your weight on the QB while sacking him is a personal foul" rule

[Mr. Scot]

51 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

Because if you watch the play, you can see the tackler drive his shoulder into the QB on the way down. Basically the same as the "defenseless receiver" rule.

And you trust that the referees will apply this rule just as consistently as they've applied that one? 

[Chaos]

One day Darian Stewart will be walking down a street, peacefully, minding his own business, maybe with an ice cream cone, then out of nowhere....

 

 

*bang*

[Snake]

4 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

How exactly do they expect these big DL guys to not "put their weight" on a guy when they tackle him.

The league at least seems to realize that the helmet rule is a Mongolian cluster $%#@, but they're still trying to salvage it.  Wonder how it'll go with this dumbass rule.

This year has been a woot for terrible rules. Sometimes you have enough rules you just need to fine tune them. Ultimately if you want to prevent injuries to a QB just let the DL wrap him up and blow the play dead. Same with RBs, if a guy stands the RB up dead play. It's stupid but at least it wouldn't effect games like did he really mean to hit him in the head and 15 yards for laying on a guy. 

[cookinbrak]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

And you trust that the referees will apply this rule just as consistently as they've applied that one? 

That wasn't the question. You asked " But how do you determine a guy simply falling down as he makes a tackle vs a guy "driving his opponent into the ground"? 

If you look at the video, you can see that he turned his shoulder into the tackle, therefore "driving his opponent into the ground". Not that hard to see.

 

[rodeo]

4 hours ago, JARROD said:

Just put a flag on the quarterback,..

done

ikr just put a dang flag on em

[Mr. Scot]

47 minutes ago, cookinbrak said:

That wasn't the question. You asked " But how do you determine a guy simply falling down as he makes a tackle vs a guy "driving his opponent into the ground"? 

If you look at the video, you can see that he turned his shoulder into the tackle, therefore "driving his opponent into the ground". Not that hard to see.

So I can expect every instance where this is called to look just like the video?

Cool. That'll make it easy.

And here I was worried that poor judgement calls by referees might affect a game and hamstring a defense. I mean, that certainly never happens to us, right?

It's also encouraging that there's no controversy over how the new helmet rules are being called. If those were inconsistent, then maybe we'd have reason to worry right?

[ichigo1057]

I swear so many of these stupid rules that Rodger Goodell has been a major part in adding are just killing any sense of being able to play defense. I mean, damn, I know people say high scoring games are more entertaining but do they don't have to keep making playing defense and getting tackles/sacks so difficult in order to achieve those type of games. Personally I even find low scoring games entertaining because it shows off just how dominate the defenses of the two teams have been. I really can't say I've been a fan of how the game has changed with him in charge and the sad part is that it wasn't that long ago that he signed a new contract so unless something extreme happens we are stuck with him in charge until at least 2023. That guy is paid WAY too much money to ruin the defensive side of the ball and to keep allowing the refs to make such garbage "split second" spur of the moment decisions on terribly defined rules.

[tiger7_88]

9 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The blatantly illegal but uncalled hits Cam took in that game will never ceases to piss me off. You'll never convince me that the Broncos weren't intentionally targeting him Saints bountygate style. The above hit is a perfect example. That was an intentional spearing to the head.

And the referee staring directly at it happening from 5 yards away.

[TheCasillas]

6 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

So I can expect every instance where this is called to look just like the video?

Cool. That'll make it easy.

And here I was worried that poor judgement calls by referees might affect a game and hamstring a defense. I mean, that certainly never happens to us, right?

It's also encouraging that there's no controversy over how the new helmet rules are being called. If those were inconsistent, then maybe we'd have reason to worry right?

Why are you still griping about this? You made your point, move on.

It’s a new rule, it’s in place. We have to wait and see how it is enforced.

btw the ref comittee encouraged the refs to make sensitive calls on the new penalties so they can review before the season begins. It’s their preseason too.

[Mr. Scot]

51 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

Why are you still griping about this? You made your point, move on.

Irony is such a hilarious thing 

[TheCasillas]

39 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Irony is such a hilarious thing 

"Nah." - @Mr. Scot

Also, not sure if you know the definition of irony.

[stratopanther]

11 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The blatantly illegal but uncalled hits Cam took in that game will never ceases to piss me off. You'll never convince me that the Broncos weren't intentionally targeting him Saints bountygate style. The above hit is a perfect example. That was an intentional spearing to the head.

Agreed. Equally pissed at mr clutch for missing the game winning field goal.

[Manther]

15 hours ago, tiger7_88 said:

How about you throw flags on the fugging HEAD HUNTERS, National Football League, before you worry about "putting your weight on the QB" to throw a goddam flag?

smgdh

The thing that kills me about this is the REF IS STANDING RIGHT THERE WATCHING IT.  fugER.

[Mr. Scot]

30 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

"Nah." - @Mr. Scot

Also, not sure if you know the definition of irony.

A guy who follows me around trying to yip at my heels for attention because he got beaten in a debate a long time back telling me to let something go (within the context of a single thread) is pretty ironic.

And let's be real:  you don't have the standing to "nah" anybody.