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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

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.

No, it kinda is the point.

If the integrity of the game was truly being ruined, people would tune out.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

No, it kinda is the point.

If the integrity of the game was truly being ruined, people would tune out.

So you like watching all these ticky tack personal foul calls? Wow.