Understanding Hard-Hitting Rules

[MTK]

If he would have kept his head up and just hit him with his shoulder, perhaps there's a still a penalty, but I would bet there wouldn't have been a fine.

It's simple, see what you hit. Lowering your head is a guaranteed flag and fine. Just the way things are now.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

If he would have kept his head up and just hit him with his shoulder, perhaps there's a still a penalty, but I would bet there wouldn't have been a fine.

It's simple, see what you hit. Lowering your head is a guaranteed flag and fine. Just the way things are now.

Agreed. Keep your head up, see what you hit, and don't lead with your helmet and you won't be fined.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

If he would have kept his head up and just hit him with his shoulder, perhaps there's a still a penalty, but I would bet there wouldn't have been a fine.

It's simple, see what you hit. Lowering your head is a guaranteed flag and fine. Just the way things are now.

What FRPLG is saying is that if he had his head up he would have made a helmet to helmet hit, which is illegal. I completely agree with FRPLG and also think that a helmet to helmet hit would be considered "worse" in the sense it would draw a larger fine. Honestly i dont think there was anything he could of done that would have stopped the receiver at or in the immediate area of the point of contact without being fined.

Does anyone know the rule around "leading with your head"? Is that actually anywhere in the rule book? I always thought leading with your head applied to helmet to helmet stuff.

While Robinson's helmet did grace Maclin's facemask the hit came from Robinson's shoulder to Maclin's arm/shoulder. And the rule he was fined under is the defenseless receiver rule, nothing around leading with his head. So even if he had his head up and somehow managed to not hit Maclin's helmet he would have been flagged and fined under the defenseless receiver rule.

I think he is guilty of the defenseless receiver rule, but as I stated above that rule is completely bs. If you dont want defenseless receivers to get hit hard make zone coverage’s illegal or have a offsetting penalty on QB's for leading the receiver into an unavoidable hit. If its a penalty on the QB then DB's will know they can completely let up and it wont matter because the pass is going to be called back, and if the DB goes through with the hit then fine him. Its not just the safety of the receiver, the defender often gets seriously hurt too.

[44ever]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

What FRPLG is saying is that if he had his head up he would have made a helmet to helmet hit, which is illegal. I completely agree with FRPLG and also think that a helmet to helmet hit would be considered "worse" in the sense it would draw a larger fine. Honestly i dont think there was anything he could of done that would have stopped the receiver at or in the immediate area of the point of contact without being fined.

Does anyone know the rule around "leading with your head"? Is that actually anywhere in the rule book? I always thought leading with your head applied to helmet to helmet stuff.

While Robinson's helmet did grace Maclin's facemask the hit came from Robinson's shoulder to Maclin's arm/shoulder. And the rule he was fined under is the defenseless receiver rule, nothing around leading with his head. So even if he had his head up and somehow managed to not hit Maclin's helmet he would have been flagged and fined under the defenseless receiver rule.

I think he is guilty of the defenseless receiver rule, but as I stated above that rule is completely bs. If you dont want defenseless receivers to get hit hard make zone coverage’s illegal or have a offsetting penalty on QB's for leading the receiver into an unavoidable hit. If its a penalty on the QB then DB's will know they can completely let up and it wont matter because the pass is going to be called back, and if the DB goes through with the hit then fine him. Its not just the safety of the receiver, the defender often gets seriously hurt too.

I guess next is the defenseless returner rule. We've all seen guys get layed out at the point of reception or just after because they failed to call fair catch by defenders running full speed leading with the helmet. No fines given.

Notice Collinsworth seems to have no problem with it. Only when a receiver gets hit does he whine.

Kyle Nelson's BIG hit on Denarius Moore ---- NFL...

No Fines, No FLags

Adrian Maddbacker Ross big hit on Dennis...

Flag but no Fines given. And it was not because of leading with his head. It was because he didnt give the returner a chance to catch the ball.

Why no Fines? What's the difference?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 44ever

I guess next is the defenseless returner rule. We've all seen guys get layed out at the point of reception or just after because they failed to call fair catch by defenders running full speed leading with the helmet. No fines given.

Notice Collinsworth seems to have no problem with it. Only when a receiver gets hit does he whine. Kyle Nelson's BIG hit on Denarius Moore ---- NFL Pre-Season - YouTubeNo Fines, No FLags

Adrian Maddbacker Ross big hit on Dennis Northcutt - YouTubeFlag but no Fines given. And it was not because of leading with his head. It was because he didnt give the returner a chance to catch the ball.

Why no Fines? What's the difference?

Just watched both those vids.... Wow perfect hits. But yeah they were both defenseless.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

If he would have kept his head up and just hit him with his shoulder, perhaps there's a still a penalty, but I would bet there wouldn't have been a fine.

It's simple, see what you hit. Lowering your head is a guaranteed flag and fine. Just the way things are now.

And it is all statistics. When your head is lowered you are more likely to injure someone. I side with the NFL on all this. The game is too fast and players are too strong. We see what some of the NFL vets have had to go through and its a shame. Any rule that benefits the NFL Players' health, I support, even if it fundamentally changes the game I love.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by hooskins

And it is all statistics. When your head is lowered you are more likely to injure someone. I side with the NFL on all this. The game is too fast and players are too strong. We see what some of the NFL vets have had to go through and its a shame. Any rule that benefits the NFL Players' health, I support, even if it fundamentally changes the game I love.

You got anything to back that up, or quotes from people who have said that? Im not trying to be a dick, and i get that keeping your head up can prevent injury to yourself but im not so sure about a opposing player.


For this Robinson hit i think the rule is complete bs, thats what i dont like about it. I would support making it a penalty for a QB to lead a receiver into a hit, but I don’t think id support making zone coverage illegal. Would you support either?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

You got anything to back that up, or quotes from high ranking people who have said that? Im not trying to be a dick, but i get that keeping your head up can prevent injury to yourself but im not so sure about a opposing player.

For this Robinson hit i think the rule is complete bs, thats what i dont like about it. I would support making it a penalty for a QB to lead a receiver into a hit, but I don’t think id support making zone coverage illegal. Would you support either?

Not sure that's the way to go either. Then you are discouraging QBs from making certain throws, and that will open them up to taking more hits and sacks.

I don't think there's an easy answer to all this, otherwise the NFL would already be doing something different. They want to make the game safer and also keep it entertaining. For all the gripes about this sort of stuff, it sure isn't hurting the ratings. Until it does, I don't think much is going to change.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Not sure that's the way to go either. Then you are discouraging QBs from making certain throws, and that will open them up to taking more hits and sacks.

I don't think there's an easy answer to all this, otherwise the NFL would already be doing something different. They want to make the game safer and also keep it entertaining. For all the gripes about this sort of stuff, it sure isn't hurting the ratings. Until it does, I don't think much is going to change.

it has nothing to do with ratings. of course we're going to watch. that's not the point. the integrity of the game is being ruined by the league office. roger goodell should go be the commish of tennis or something cause he's not a football person.

[Daseal]

What I want to see is offensive players fined/flagged when they lead with their helmet. You see a running back constantly drop their helmet into the defenders helmet and create that helmet to helmet contact. Why should a RB be able to lead with his head into a pile?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by Daseal

What I want to see is offensive players fined/flagged when they lead with their helmet. You see a running back constantly drop their helmet into the defenders helmet and create that helmet to helmet contact. Why should a RB be able to lead with his head into a pile?

im pretty sure you can hit a running back or any established runner helmet to helmet.

the helmet to helmet rules apply to defenseless players only i think (players with ball who havent established themselves as runners)

as to qbs you cant hit them at the knees or below if you have an unobstructed path (seems real vague to me), you cant touch their head/helmet with any part of your body and im still trying to figure out if you cant lead with your helmet anywhere on a qb.

ps - the rules for defenders is almost impossible for them to comply with all the time, the game is just too fast, players move/lower their head at the last second before impact changing where the defender's intended point of impact . . . its just become impossible really.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

im pretty sure you can hit a running back or any established runner helmet to helmet.

the helmet to helmet rules apply to defenseless players only i think (players with ball who havent established themselves as runners)

as to qbs you cant hit them at the knees or below if you have an unobstructed path (seems real vague to me), you cant touch their head/helmet with any part of your body and im still trying to figure out if you cant lead with your helmet anywhere on a qb.

ps - the rules for defenders is almost impossible for them to comply with all the time, the game is just too fast, players move/lower their head at the last second before impact changing where the defender's intended point of impact . . . its just become impossible really.

I agree...and if you have a rule that is impossible to comply with in any situation then your rule is crap. To me it simply is not fair to ask the defense to allow for something to happen that they are specifically on the field to prevent. Allowing a "defenseless" WR to catch a ball and establish himself is telling the defense "don't do your job" of defending the field. And it is also rife with other concerns that others have pointed out. Quite frankly I see the benefits of said rule being somewhat bogus too.

The rule should be no direct and primary contact to the helmet of any kind, for any player on the field at any time. ie: you directly hit a guy in the helmet with your shoulder (or any body part)...penalty. you hit a guy in the shoulder with your shoulder (or any body part) and your helmets bump...clean. And the caveat is that the offensive player can make no motion to put their helmet in harms way. ie: if they duct their head into direct h2h contact then it's clean.

Honestly if they don't want to get hurt being in "defenseless" position...they just shouldn't get into defenseless position. Why is that notion not ever discussed? Everyone talks constantly about how it is the defenders responsibility to be less reckless...but shouldn't the offensive player be at least as responsible?

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

And the caveat is that the offensive player can make no motion to put their helmet in harms way. ie: if they duct their head into direct h2h contact then it's clean.

i could see that being a consideration by the league as to any fine or what amount. its real tough when a receiver drops his head at the last second but at game speed, if its H2H on a defenseless receiver, its going to be called.

like it has been said, its just the way the game is going and we have to accept it.

now the one penalty i do have a problem with is when they call the 15 yard personal foul on ever so slight contact to a qbs helmet. the qb releases the ball as a defender puts his hands up to try and deflect the ball, his hands ever so slightly graces the qbs helment . .flag, 15 yards . .the refs should have discretion to only call that when there is solid contact imo.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

i could see that being a consideration by the league as to any fine or what amount. its real tough when a receiver drops his head at the last second but at game speed, if its H2H on a defenseless receiver, its going to be called.

like it has been said, its just the way the game is going and we have to accept it.

now the one penalty i do have a problem with is when they call the 15 yard personal foul on ever so slight contact to a qbs helmet. the qb releases the ball as a defender puts his hands up to try and deflect the ball, his hands ever so slightly graces the qbs helment . .flag, 15 yards . .the refs should have discretion to only call that when there is solid contact imo.

Pretty sure they did change that this year. No more automatic 15 yard penalties for contact to the head. Incidental contact is ok.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I agree...and if you have a rule that is impossible to comply with in any situation then your rule is crap. To me it simply is not fair to ask the defense to allow for something to happen that they are specifically on the field to prevent. Allowing a "defenseless" WR to catch a ball and establish himself is telling the defense "don't do your job" of defending the field. And it is also rife with other concerns that others have pointed out. Quite frankly I see the benefits of said rule being somewhat bogus too.

The rule should be no direct and primary contact to the helmet of any kind, for any player on the field at any time. ie: you directly hit a guy in the helmet with your shoulder (or any body part)...penalty. you hit a guy in the shoulder with your shoulder (or any body part) and your helmets bump...clean. And the caveat is that the offensive player can make no motion to put their helmet in harms way. ie: if they duct their head into direct h2h contact then it's clean.

Honestly if they don't want to get hurt being in "defenseless" position...they just shouldn't get into defenseless position. Why is that notion not ever discussed? Everyone talks constantly about how it is the defenders responsibility to be less reckless...but shouldn't the offensive player be at least as responsible?

I totally hear you, but the league wants offense & scoring. They rarely make any rule changes to benefit the defense.