The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2013952

Disallowing blind-side hits?

What is this world coming to?

I just came to post that...

But i agree, the NFL is just trying to protect the offense again.

I mean come on this is football, a contanct sport. Sure that Sapp hit was cheap, but if you are out on that field, you are SUPPOSSED to get hit.

besides...what goes around comes around

players that play dirty more times than not end up getting repaid in the end....one way or another

Why don't they just start wearing mini-skirts and tank-tops on the field then? These guys are paid to play football....they know that football is a contact sport....so let them play!

...This would disallow that cheap shot that got Shawn Springs from that filthy Eagle backup FB.

that rule is definitely a load of crap and the nfl would lose ratings, they cant afford to do that

...How it will it make people stop watching?

"Oh, no more Warren Sapp killin' people and Bronco lineman ending season! Man, this is boring. I am watching somthing else."

defenders would have to wait for the ballcarrier to turn around and that would give the ballcarrier an extra step, which isnt fair






but what do i know, im only in 10th grade

The rule would be nonsense. I know that injuries have happened because of it, but Football is a contact sport, injuries will always happen.

andyjens89 wrote:defenders would have to wait for the ballcarrier to turn around and that would give the ballcarrier an extra step, which isnt fair

Now that would lose ratings

But what they are saying is you can't tee off on a sitting duck...

an "unsuspecting player" because the play was beyond him.

andyjens89 wrote:defenders would have to wait for the ballcarrier to turn around and that would give the ballcarrier an extra step, which isnt fair

That is what it means... It means "unsuspecting" players such as those away from the play and have no ability to get into the play such as lineman such as 15+ yards away. People with the ball are free game.

ah i see

Smithian and 1niksdeR have it right! IMO this rule is not trying to take anything from the game but it is trying to avoid "unnecessary roughness"! Hitting legally is not being penalised.

Lol, pansy kickers are sighing in relief.

I think they're trying to prevent more incidents like the clobbering of the Giant's punter by the Eagle's linebacker. Was it Feagles/Trotter? That was a pretty nasty blind-siding and the punter wasn't all that close to the play.

...or any play involving John Lynch.

This is bullcrap. Football is a contact sport. Your gonna get hit in this sport. I mean, what are you supposed to do when the ball is intercepted? Wait until the DB is cutting it across the middle before you can hit somebody?

Do you all remember when shawn springs interecepted a pass and cut it back across the middle for an extra 30 yards last season? He probably would have gotten five had they're been a 'no hit' rule added in. Since the refs hate us I can see them throwing the flag against us when he does that next season. Calling a 15 yarder at the spot of the foul or something like it.

Another judgement call being added into the rule book. This is such bullcrud!!!

Well...lump it right in with the new rules that heavily favor the WR, and the old new rule that protects the QB from just about anything short of a dirty look.
They'll call it "evolution", and Vince McMahon will be tempted to restart his stupid league.

TC, I just noted that there are a number of things that are being considered.

One aspect is that the players and teams are concerned about the injuries. It does not seem to me that they are trying to "soften" the game but they are trying to "protect" the players from some of the hits away from the play and with intent to hurt players. Intimidation is one thing but taking a guy out is not good for anyone.

As far as the D backs are concerned it seems that they want to enforce this even more than they did. This would seem to make the D backs jobs even more difficult than last year.

It also seems they are going to look at the college penalty for pass interference (15yds) rather than a spot penalty except when it is flagrant.

"Unsuspecting player"? I couldn't disagree more with this nonsense. It's a contact sport. Hits are going to come from all sides.
If Feagles wants to run downfield and get in a play, he can get leveled by Trotter.
He is going to try to get involved in a potential tackle.
He should be able to be taken out.
Now the refs will have a judgement call to make on HOW unsuspecting a player is? This is a HUGE mistake.

Take a look at the other "violent tackling" that they're looking at

SkinsJock wrote:TC, I just noted that there are a number of things that are being considered.

One aspect is that the players and teams are concerned about the injuries. It does not seem to me that they are trying to "soften" the game but they are trying to "protect" the players from some of the hits away from the play and with intent to hurt players. Intimidation is one thing but taking a guy out is not good for anyone.

As far as the D backs are concerned it seems that they want to enforce this even more than they did. This would seem to make these backs even more difficult than last year.

It also seems they are going to look at the college penalty for pass interference (15yds) rather than a spot penalty except when it is flagrant.

Normally, I wouldn't argue it with you...but we just drafted Sean Taylor.
Oh, man...is this rule gonna cost us. Between he and Mattie, we're gonna rack up some serious penalties.